2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Morning Sitting
Volume 37, Number 6
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Notice of Motions |
11783 |
Changes to legislative sitting hours and Committee of Supply to sit in three sections |
|
Hon. R. Coleman |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Committee of the Whole House |
11783 |
Bill 41 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012 (continued) |
|
R. Fleming |
|
Hon. R. Coleman |
|
J. Horgan |
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
Committee of Supply |
11794 |
Estimates: Ministry of Health |
|
Hon. M. de Jong |
|
M. Farnworth |
|
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2012
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Notice of Motions
CHANGES TO LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS
AND COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY TO SIT IN
THREE SECTIONS
Hon. R. Coleman: I give notice that on Tuesday, May 15, 2012, I shall move the following motion:
[1. Notwithstanding the Sessional Order passed by the House on October 3, 2011, amending Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3:
The House will sit until 9:00 p.m. on the following dates:
Wednesday, May 16, 2012;
Monday, May 28, 2012; and,
Wednesday, May 30, 2012.
If at the hour of 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Monday, May 28, 2012 and Wednesday, May 30, 2012 any business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:
On Monday, May 28, 2012, until 10 a.m. Tuesday; and,
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, and Wednesday, May 30, 2012, until 10 a.m. on Thursday.]
The second notice of motion is that I give notice that on Tuesday, May 15, I shall move the following motion:
[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in three sections designated Section A, Section B, and Section C; and that the provisions of the motion adopted February 28, 2012 related to Section A apply to Section C. The Members of Committee of Supply, Section C shall be identical to the composition of Committee of Supply, Section A.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Coleman: In this section we will continue committee stage of Bill 41, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012, followed by…. I don't think it will be followed by anything, but if it happened, it would be followed by Bill 36, intituled the School Amendment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Minister of Health.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2012
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 41; D. Black in the chair.
The committee met at 10:09 a.m.
On section 15.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister to explain some of the intent of the amendments here, around changing the definitions of class of fuel, the addition of diesel, and how this will change the existing legislation.
I realize that the sum total of these amendments is really about changing the compliance period, but there are some definitions that are being changed here as well. I wonder if the minister could explain why the way the definition is now worded, which differentiates diesel-class fuel and gasoline fuel, how that will change the compliance regime that will come into effect in 2013.
Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe, to begin with, I'll try and give a clarification on the total package for the member opposite. It doesn't change the compliance period, when it comes into effect. What it was, was as we were moving towards the first initial implementation of this, we became aware of an anomaly that took place. That is, that service stations in British Columbia that do not own refineries buy their fuel from refineries who are trying to comply with our carbon content in our fuels.
By having the two classes blended together, there were a number of companies that were actually going to not be able to buy fuel because, for the refinery, it wouldn't be able to comply with their own supply chain and their supply chain, with the two fuels combined. As a result, there was a danger of having about 2,000 people affected in small gas stations — independents across B.C. being affected.
That took us to a consultation process that we did. We sent out the minister of state for energy and mines, at that time, to go out and meet with industry, meet with all the affected parties and come back with some recommendations. The recommendation that they came back with was to separate the fuels for the measurement of carbon content, which then allowed for this other issue to be solved at the same time.
Basically, what this does is it adds a definition of "class," as it applies in relation to the fuel; "credit" and "debit," which are the new measures for determining compliance with part 3 of the act; "petroleum-based gasoline" is to clarify that it's not included in the term. Then what we do clarify with this are the definitions of "diesel class fuel" and "gasoline class fuel" to make a distinction in terms, in relations to parts 2 and 3. So we are basically separating the fuels for the measurement of carbon content.
R. Fleming: I appreciate the explanation. Maybe I could ask the minister for further sort of on-the-ground details that the minister of state discovered from the gasoline retail sector. Is it the case that there are some retail-
[ Page 11784 ]
ers that primarily sell diesel and some that are primarily gasoline-based? Then there's obviously a group of companies that sell significant amounts of both fuels.
When the compliance reporting is being done, is it the situation now and post-amendment that in order to achieve compliance, you measure the fuel separately and you have to get to an average fuel content? Is that part of why we're changing this regulation?
Hon. R. Coleman: The member is correct. There are some operators that sell more gasoline than they do diesel or vice versa — some more diesel than gasoline. By separating it into fuel type, all we're doing is saying that the carbon content will still be reported and is still to be measured, but it is by fuel type.
When you had both fuel types merged into one, you got cross-contamination in the calculation, and as a result, one would have lower carbon content. If you were selling more of that, it would be easier to meet your carbon-content blend, whereas if you had the other — carbon content was higher in one fuel versus the other — then that affected your supply chain.
Basically, what it is, is that we're still doing the same measurement. We're still doing the same carbon content. We're just separating the fuels so that they are measured independently without that contamination between product.
R. Fleming: This section 15 is a fairly long section, so the questions may jump around a little bit. Looking at the definition changes, there is a distinction now being made of what is petroleum-based diesel fuel and what is not petroleum-based diesel. I just want to understand from the minister if this is to recognize and give additional credit to, I suppose, pure biodiesel fuels that are not at all petroleum-based, and if you could explain how that's responding to the marketplace.
Hon. R. Coleman: The member is correct. Basically, we have hydrogenated-derived renewable diesel which comes into the marketplace. That's basically the canola-type diesel that comes into the marketplace and is mixed with diesel. It's not made from a petroleum product, and therefore, it is allowed to be blended. You get credit because it doesn't get caught in the carbon piece because it's not from petroleum products.
R. Fleming: If the minister could just confirm, then, that that distinction was not made previously. For those types of fuels, non-petroleum-based diesels — were they essentially being punished or not given the full credits, and the amendments today are to change that situation so that when it comes to weighting carbon intensity, for example, that fuel will be given additional weighting and earned credits?
Hon. R. Coleman: It was always there, but by separating the fuel, we had to clarify that it still got the credit for not having the carbon intensity. When we separated the two pools, we had to clarify that the HDRD-type fuel was actually going to still be in the definitions so that people would understand that we're giving that the same as we did before. But because we're separating the fuels, we needed to clarify it.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister just again on this section…. I appreciate that much of the language here is to reduce what's called the redundancy consequential to the previous bill. I'm just wondering if he can tell us, because of the sum total of these changes, whether there is a change to how the prescribed carbon-intensity limits are going to work with regards to this law.
Hon. R. Coleman: The prescribed carbon-intensity limits aren't changing, and the 10 percent by 2020 is still there.
R. Fleming: I realize that the effective date of the law was 2010, and we're now in 2012, and this amendment will bring the compliance period forward to 2013. But in this pre-compliance period, there is a reporting regime that's in place. There is, presumably, an inspection regime in place, and I might ask about that a little later.
The minister started at the outset of discussions on these amendments by saying that, overall, nothing has changed in terms of 2020 when the regulation is fully in place. I accept his explanation. That's my understanding as well. In exchange for a shorter, more compressed time period for full compliance with the law, what does that mean — essentially, the loss of three years — in terms of what additional fuel content steps the suppliers and sellers of gasoline in British Columbia are going to have to take?
J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
J. Brar: I'm very pleased to welcome two good friends of mine. They are here in the gallery watching the debate. They are Mohinder Gidda and Jaswant Sanghera. They are very hard-working steelworkers. They are here to lobby both sides of the House to keep B.C. logs for B.C. jobs. I would ask the members from both sides to please make them welcome in the House.
Debate Continued
Hon. R. Coleman: So 2010 and 2011 were reporting
[ Page 11785 ]
years, and 2012 will now be a reporting year as we do this, because we are getting all the data and reporting in. As we do that, they are already at 5 percent reduced — 5 percent in gas and 4 percent in diesel. When we go to implementation, we will actually credit them for that work, because they are doing it now, in advance, and so they will get a credit as we move into the compliance in 2013.
The reason for the year delay is basically to do the work to separate the fuels and get it to where — while they are still doing their carbon-intensity piece — the fuels can be separated and the business piece can take place.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister…. When the Legislature was discussing the original bill a few years ago, there was a sense that the federal government was shifting towards a renewable fuel requirement as well. I think it was a 5 percent ethanol requirement by 2010 at that time. I'm wondering if the minister can describe the amendments here today in relation to developments in national low-carbon fuel standards or ethanol fuel standards.
Hon. R. Coleman: The national standards that have been put in place are 5 percent for gasoline and 2 percent for diesel. We're already ahead of the…. The 2 percent for diesel nationally is for 2012.
The excess that our producers and suppliers in British Columbia have, particularly in the diesel category — because we're already at the same level of the national with this bill put in — actually generates some federal credits back to the feds. The feds are doing theirs on the national average. In B.C. it's 5 percent for gasoline and 4 percent for diesel. So we're ahead of what their national low-carbon standards would be.
R. Fleming: I know there have been a number of presentations to the minister and calls for public comments in relation to the introduction of the low-carbon fuel standard act. Some of the responses or comments that were given to government were very technical in nature.
In terms of the overall experience, a couple of years now, I'm wondering whether the minister could maybe address some of the concerns that are contained in intention papers and discussions that, admittedly, are a couple years old — just to see if those original concerns have proved to be problematic.
One of them is around confirmation about the point of compliance being at terminal facilities. Therefore, everybody who does pickups at those terminals…. That's basically where they form their calculation and register their product, although I know we don't have an ID-number system like the U.S. does.
Has this proved to be…? Is this still the case, and is this the most efficient way to essentially confirm and have a compliance regime for the content of fuels?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it is, and yes, it is, are the answers initially that were given to me, but I'll give a bit further explanation.
Yes, we are being able to deal with this. Basically, the importer and manufacturer have the obligation. They can transfer that by agreement to the distributor, but we're staying at the wholesale market level, so it won't go to the retail market level.
In our discussions with the wholesalers and distributors and importers and manufacturers, this separation actually makes compliance possible, because they can measure the two types of fuels and the carbon content. Then we have an easier measurement system, because that's where we know the fuel's coming from.
R. Fleming: The renewable fuel standards are part of the government's climate action strategy to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. I think it's a 10 percent goal by 2020. But it was always a split between what cleaner fuels would accomplish as well as new vehicle regulations.
I wonder if the minister could inform the House this morning about the internal targets — what the efficiency of vehicles will accomplish versus what the blending of cleaner fuels in B.C. is expected to achieve in terms of the overall target.
Hon. R. Coleman: We are on target for the emissions, actually. We reduced 418,000 tonnes of carbon in our fuels in B.C. in 2010, which is ahead of schedule. We've done that with the renewable fuel content.
On the vehicle piece, which is a part of this particular bill, I will try and answer the question for the member. I don't have the right staff here, but that's okay.
The clean energy requirements at the federal level meet or exceed what our targets are. The regulations they're putting in place for vehicles federally meet or exceed what we're doing. We're now, basically, not having to do as much work on that as much as piggyback on their regulations, because they're doing a national standard.
R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for that answer, because I think it leads to…. The province had committed a few years ago to adopting California tailpipe emission standards. I think there was some dispute about whether B.C. as a jurisdiction could do that alone.
Judging by the comments of the minister…. If you could just confirm, then, that B.C.'s position now is to wait for the federal government to introduce a national standard that is based on the California tailpipe emissions standard or some type of higher-efficiency standard that is required of vehicle manufacturers.
Hon. R. Coleman: That question is actually a Minister of Environment question. There's a bit of accommoda-
[ Page 11786 ]
tion between ministries, but it's not in this bill, and I don't have the staff here. What I'll do is take the Hansard and get the member the answer to his question.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister…. With the original bill changing here to reflect experience and the marketplace in B.C. for selling gasoline, I'm wondering if there is, in his view, flexibility in the future for the mass adoption and introduction of E85 ethanol. He mentioned the federal government's standards, when they become available, meeting or exceeding B.C.'s. But in terms of pushing towards an E85 fuel standard in B.C., does he see that as part of the horizon for fuels that are put in our vehicles in B.C.?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it does affect the introduction of these types of fuels into the marketplace, and it has room for it.
R. Fleming: The carbon-intensity measurements that British Columbia uses are, as it has been noted elsewhere, significantly different than in California. The government has, of course, taken the opportunity here to amend the original fuel requirements act.
I'm wondering, in terms of the two main criticisms around the so-called fuel-for-food debate — where agricultural land is potentially taken out of production to produce fuel additives, thereby reducing the food security of our province and Canada — whether he has had a chance to review some of those arguments that have been put forth and, in the analysis of the life cycle or carbon content of fuel additives, whether that is going to be part of the compliance regime in British Columbia.
I don't see it here in the amendments. But I'm certain that it would have been considered by the minister and brought to his attention. I'm just wondering where the issue sits with him on the food-for-fuel issue.
Hon. R. Coleman: At the risk of entering into a lengthy debate about the food-for-fuel argument, which is not really contained in the bill, we are not adding, in this bill, land use change as one of the things that we measure in the carbon content. We just don't have the numbers. Canada does not have the numbers. The science seems to be all over the map with regards to that, so we're not comfortable adding it in at this time. That's why it's not being added in, in this legislation.
R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's comments. I'll try not to get too far into it. But I would think that over the last two or three years the verification regime of the additives has improved a lot. There was strong criticism of pollution impacts of land use that were supplying the fuel additive industry in many parts of the world several years ago, and whether the overall thrust of legislation like this in fuel standards was actually helping address the impact of carbon emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere.
I think that since that time a lot has changed. I would ask the minister if maybe in B.C. the job isn't a little bit easier. If he could maybe give an indication if his staff have numbers…. I would suspect that the vast majority of fuel additives are canola- or corn-based in British Columbia.
I'm wondering if he could provide a percentage, what percent that is in British Columbia. Those would be, I think, Canadian-sourced fuel ethanol additives.
Hon. R. Coleman: On the ethanol it's about 50 percent Canada and about 50 percent U.S.
R. Fleming: Does the minister have numbers about which types of ethanol derivatives there are in terms of corn and wheat and canola product? I don't believe that British Columbia's canola production is contributing towards biofuels.
One of the benefits of moving towards cleaner fuels and cleaner technologies is that capital investment and jobs come with it. I know that there are new facilities in places like Lloydminster in Alberta but, to my knowledge, nothing in British Columbia.
I'm wondering whether the minister has any idea of whether B.C. might become a major supplier for provincially grown ethanol and whether there might be jobs and investment of the type that we're seeing in the other western provinces.
Hon. R. Coleman: We grow all of it here. When I said 50 percent Canada and 50 percent U.S., 50 percent of it goes to the U.S. for manufacturing, and 50 percent stays here.
Out of all our biofuels, one-third of it comes in from overseas as HDRD product. Two-thirds are the biofuels like corn, wheat, canola. In British Columbia it's estimated that we have about 22 million litres of biofuel through canola available for fuel in the Peace.
R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for the answer on this section. I appreciate the wide latitude he's given on questions here.
I wanted to ask him about trading of credits, but that comes up in the next section. Let me go back to asking him about the references to natural gas and propane. This is section 15(c)(b)(ii) on the bottom of page 9 of Bill 41. It references "natural gas, propane, electricity, hydrogen or a prescribed energy source."
I'm wondering if the minister can outline what the implications of this language in the legislation will be or whether it's similar to the language in the original bill,
[ Page 11787 ]
just expressed in a different part of the legislation.
Hon. R. Coleman: It's very similar to the previous language except that because we are separating the fuel, we've included the comment in both the gasoline and the diesel gas fuel pieces.
Basically, if natural gas replaces gas or diesel, there's a different credit because of the carbon content of the fuel that it's replacing. Basically, the definition allows for natural gas to be mentioned in the definition because of the separation of fuels. Before, it wouldn't have needed to be because the fuels weren't separate.
R. Fleming: The minister described a couple of minutes ago the breakdown of the supply chain of fuel additives in B.C. There are a number of small and irregular suppliers of fuel additives that have the lowest carbon content and promote, I suppose, the most efficiency in clean-burning aspects of the blended gasoline. These are sources from animal fats and recycled cooking oils and those sorts of things.
They're available for sale in different parts of British Columbia. I'm wondering how the fuel standards maybe make those more economical by giving them superior credits for the carbon-reduction properties, the low-carbon intensity rating of those types of fuel additives.
Hon. R. Coleman: The fuel additives are caught. The lower carbon intensity is better, and we do credit it. We actually do capture this in our piece. Actually, it is called yellow grease, and we catch it in our measurements.
R. Fleming: One of the criticisms that B.C.'s low-carbon fuel standard received when it was introduced was that unlike California's, it doesn't treat oil from the Athabasca Oil Sands any differently than oil that is supplied from other regions, even though the carbon content of Alberta crude is estimated to be about 15 to 40 percent more carbon-intensive than those other sources. That's not part of the credit and debit system that the government has created here.
I would ask the minister: is there any way that we're actually measuring or accounting for that now — it was missing in the original law — in terms of when the compliance activity comes on stream, whether B.C. is going to have something that is more in alignment with California's evaluations of their fuel standard?
Hon. R. Coleman: It's all built into the average, including the carbon intensity of the oil sands, which is a portion of the supply in British Columbia. It's all built into the average on the carbon at the base.
Sections 15 and 16 approved.
On section 17.
R. Fleming: To the minister, and hopefully he'll indulge me a little further, in this section where there are some changes around part 2 fuel suppliers, to ask more generally about the verification and inspection regime in B.C. for this act and for the regulations.
I'm wondering whether in British Columbia the B.C. Energy Ministry works with, say, those that enforce regulations on farm gas and other types of specialized regulated fuels to ensure that the content is correct in terms of its percentage and everything is on the up-and-up in terms of reporting. I know that the petroleum sector, let's say, wasn't the biggest fan of these regulations coming into effect a couple of years ago, in some cases argued that it couldn't be done.
Of course, in British Columbia — in many regions, anyway — we do have fuel that now has a 10 percent ethanol additive. If the minister could describe, whether it's particular to this section or not, how the verification and inspection regime in B.C. works and whether there have been any lessons learned from when the law was originally passed that are being changed in the amendments we're discussing here today.
Hon. R. Coleman: I should say at the onset here that the petroleum sector has actually become a pretty good partner on this now. I think the consultation that we went through and the work we did with them as we were transitioning through to coming to this change and just discussing with them the impacts of how we could make this work…. Now they talk about carbon content in a very regular language–type situation. Change is tough, as you know, so they tend to get….
The verification system we use today — right now an officer of the company must sign off on the content. But we are in the process of setting up an inspection regime, which is working with the people in the Ministry of Finance to do other types of audits and inspections to set up that regime.
R. Fleming: I have the compliance report form. I see that it's sort of a sworn statement, legalese, that's self-reported to the government. I guess the question I was really asking is whether there are random audits that are done in terms of the follow-up on compliance activity. He mentioned that the Ministry of Finance is involved in some way. But what does this look like on the ground? How is the government gathering information as to the veracity of the reporting that's being done by the industry?
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it works similarly to the inspections that are done under the Motor Vehicle Act through the Ministry of Finance. Right now we're in, ob-
[ Page 11788 ]
viously, the reporting areas. When we get into the years where they're going to be reporting the credit, which is 2013, we intend to have in force a meaningful inspection regime along the lines similar to the motor fuel tax inspections.
R. Fleming: I know that in the United States those jurisdictions that have a blended-fuel standard have had some compliance difficulties. There have been, I think, some charges laid, some fraud that has been detected and prosecuted. I'm wondering if across the border there has been any….
I know they have a different ID system and an inspection point. But I'm wondering if there has been any study of that by the province to be proactive and ensure that there aren't any gaps or loopholes that could be exploited in terms of how the percentage is being met.
I say that with the understanding that there are some good flexibilities in B.C. that are built in around people who sell gas provincewide as to how they want to achieve the percentage target, whether they want to sell gasoline of a certain blend in the north that is different than the south. But that, to me, requires that there be some verification.
I'm wondering, given that there have been problems found south of the border, whether the province is looking at changing its inspection and verification regime.
Hon. R. Coleman: We do not expect the same compliance issues that the U.S. has had because we're staying at the wholesale and the supply chain in this, so our inspections are not as…. By being at that portion of the supply chain, we have less things to inspect and to monitor versus some of the systems that they tried to make work. So we're pretty comfortable with the inspection regime we're going to put in place for this.
R. Fleming: One of the things that one of the industry associations, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, has asked of government is to consider complementary regulations in the future that will incent adoption of other alternate fuels and platforms like the high-blend biofuels and E85. We talked about that previously.
How has the minister responded to those kinds of requests? It's not in the amendment package we have today, but is it something that is anticipated by his ministry further down the road so that we can actually go past even what the 2020 regulations are in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Coleman: I've met with a number of organizations. We've agreed to work with them on their issues to try and find solutions to them. At the same time we do provide for the director to allow for another 25 percent extra credits if there are additional blends put into fuel that could be credited, which does give them some flexibility that they're looking for. But there is some work still to be done with the various groups that have come to see me, with everything from propane to other fuels, with regards to different things.
That's an ongoing thing. At this point in time we felt we needed to get this piece done with regards to the low-carbon fuel requirements and get it so that we would actually have a workable regime that we can work within for credits and expansion and changes in the future.
Our biggest challenge was getting to the end-game of actually having the two separated after consultation to know that we can actually have something that we can now manage within the measurement of the carbon content of the two fuels without having a negative impact on the market and now can add in for other credits for different blends and that sort of thing.
Section 17 approved.
On section 18.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister some questions about the credit or debit system that's outlined in this section. There are, obviously, a number of factors that enter into the calculus here.
He just concluded talking about carbon intensity measurements and that, in his words, I think the government has found a way to not affect supply but also be sensitive to the differences in sources of oil.
Under the CI class description here, the carbon intensity class, I'm wondering if the minister could outline how oil sands sourced from Alberta would be treated differently in the credit and debit system, in the calculation of credits and debits earned, than another source of oil, say, from the southern United States. If he could describe how that works its way to the vendor and to the consumer in B.C.
Hon. R. Coleman: The carbon intensity is based on a mix of all fuels, and where the particular product comes from comes into a calculation. We set the value or the level of carbon intensity in regulation. Earlier, when I said we set the carbon intensity, like we have 60 percent of oil sands product and 40 percent…. We actually have all that information. We set it in the regulation at the beginning of the measurement.
R. Fleming: I'm wondering if the minister can describe the position of the director, who under various subsections of this section has to be satisfied around verification of carbon intensity and the weighting of credits and debits — if he can describe how that person performs their duties.
Is it on the basis of the compliance reports we were talking about earlier, that they review those and then the
[ Page 11789 ]
credits or debits that are payable to government are reviewed and then issued, or is it done differently in terms of where there are bulk shipments?
[L. Reid in the chair.]
I'm wondering if he can add any life to how the director performs their duties, because they are the point person that has to be satisfied that the carbon intensity proposed or claimed by the producer is in fact accurate.
Hon. R. Coleman: The director would do a number of things, basically, in their duties to do this. First they would look for the reports and read them and go over them, review the audits, would look at other jurisdictions. Then they would look at the info the company has supplied to calculate the carbon intensity using the software, which is our software, which is called GHGenius. That life cycle, basically…. It's a life-cycle measurement program that has been developed by Natural Resources Canada.
R. Fleming: Just getting a little further into the weighting in the formula here. The CI class, the carbon intensity, is the multiplier for the overall calculations of credits and debits. I'm just wondering what the range is. The minister described that there is, within regulation, the maximum, I suppose, of 60 percent oil sands–sourced content for the fuel, if I heard him correctly.
Interjection.
R. Fleming: Okay, so that's provincial use. So 60 percent of what we use in B.C. is from that region, from that area.
I'm wondering, within the calculation of the carbon intensity limits, what the range is there, because it gets multiplied by other factors, and then there are the deductions. I just want to get a sense of how sensitive or how much range there is within the measurement of carbon intensity. That, of course, determines the amount and value of the credits.
Hon. R. Coleman: I'll take a run at this. Basically, on the petroleum products the measurement is about 90 grams per megajoule. Bioenergy and electricity are between ten and up to 60 grams per megajoule. It's a range of fuels in between, for the carbon intensity for each. We actually do have a carbon intensity measurement for the electric car–type thing as well.
Basically, that's the range. On the biofuels it's ten to 60 grams per megajoule, and for petroleum it's 90 grams per megajoule.
R. Fleming: I thank the minister for that. I'm wondering if maybe staff could advise him, then, how those measurements of carbon intensity might compare to the weighting system that California uses.
Hon. R. Coleman: California has a similar model that produces similar results, except that they have one calculation they put in theirs that we don't, and that's the indirect land use change piece.
R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister about trade credits, but I think that comes up under a future section. I'll leave that for a second.
He mentioned that the distinction is around land use changes, but my understanding is that California does have a distinction around the approach to overall biofuel sustainability metrics that also measures things other than greenhouse gases.
I'm wondering if he can describe that distinction between the California standard and B.C., because my understanding is that they are different on how they deal with high-intensity crude oils. I'm not sure that I understood that from his answer that he just gave.
Hon. R. Coleman: California's high-intensity crude has changed substantially in the last few years from what they originally did. Within California they have some high-intensity crude that they were treating completely different than the intensity crude coming from outside the state of California. They had, for lack of a better description, a trade protection for their own high-intensity crude and wanted to treat ours differently. They have moved closer to where we are.
J. Horgan: I'm pleased to enter into the debate on Bill 41, particularly section 18. I know we've been going about and around the formula prescribed in the act. I'm wondering if we could go to the top and start with…. I know my colleague from Swan Lake has been talking about the carbon-intensity class. I'm wondering if we could have an explanation of the energy effectiveness ratio and how that's arrived at.
Hon. R. Coleman: The EER is measuring the effectiveness of turning energy into transportation. For instance, a unit of fuel like gasoline would be at one level, and it would be about three times more effective if it was electric because of the distance you'd get for the amount of fuel you'd use. That's what the EER is. Basically, what it measures is the ratio by the class of fuel for a unit of energy used to go the distance. That would be the measurement of the effectiveness.
J. Horgan: I have heard the minister refer to electric cars a couple times this morning and just recently in that answer. Electricity is being characterized as a renewable
[ Page 11790 ]
and low-carbon fuel. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it is being characterized as a low-carbon fuel.
J. Horgan: Can the minister advise the House how we're determining the amount of carbon used to generate that electricity?
Hon. R. Coleman: We answered this question a little earlier in the debate. We have allowed the debate to move around a bit. We're not just necessarily in sections.
Basically, as I described earlier, Natural Resources Canada has developed a system called GHGenius, which is inputs that are put in to measure the carbon effectiveness of all of the fuels. That's where the measurement comes from.
J. Horgan: Well, the minister will know that in British Columbia 93 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources. But those renewable sources — also in the production of electricity with meter readers, if you're using analog meters and others — generate an emission.
How are these Canadian standards determining what happens in B.C. when it's quite distinct from other jurisdictions where we may be purchasing electricity, like Washington State and Alberta?
Hon. R. Coleman: When I was talking about the range earlier, ten megajoules was the low. That would be electricity. The high would be 90 megajoules, which is the petroleum products.
GHGenius actually uses…. B.C. Hydro can input their specific number themselves, but all the data with regards to how we're measuring the carbon intensity of fuel is coming from data supplied by B.C. Hydro.
J. Horgan: B.C. Hydro generates that data based on Canadian standards.
Hon. R. Coleman: It's based on the amount of electricity that B.C. Hydro supplies in a given year, and it includes the mix of energy, including imports and exports.
J. Horgan: I mean, when we prescribe a formula in legislation, one assumes that all the component parts of that formula have a certain standard. If someone is purchasing electricity from Fortis, for example, does Fortis have the same requirements as B.C. Hydro? If someone is purchasing power from Nelson electric, do they have the same standards as B.C. Hydro?
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, yes. Basically, that is the default for all of B.C. Any fuel supplier, whether it be electric, gasoline, petroleum, diesel, those sort of things…. They can do separate inputs — they're subject to, obviously, review and audit — on theirs to create a standard for themselves.
Basically, the standard has been established by the B.C. Hydro data as the default position of B.C. If someone like Fortis or Nelson power wanted to go in, they could supply the data on where their energy is coming from and the mix and all that sort of stuff, and they could get a position on the measurement of how they would measure that.
J. Horgan: Well, further down from sub (4) in (5)(d) it says: "the carbon intensity that results from summing the carbon intensities of the components in respect of the fuel, calculated (A) in accordance with the regulations, or (B) by using an alternative method of determining the carbon intensity of a component, which method is proposed in accordance with the regulations by a Part 3 fuel supplier and accepted by the director…."
With respect to the electricity element that we've just been talking about, what role would the director play in supporting or rejecting alternative measurements?
Hon. R. Coleman: I've also answered this question already, on record, but I'll do it again. The director looks for the reports from the company, and he reviews the audits of the information. He looks at other jurisdictions. He looks at the info the company has supplied into the calculation of carbon intensity using GHGenius, which is our software through Natural Resources Canada. It is a life-cycle measurement program which was actually created by Natural Resources Canada.
J. Horgan: And that life-cycle program includes electricity?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it does.
J. Horgan: And does that life-cycle component look at the impacts of coal, the impacts of natural gas, the impacts of renewables, wind, solar? Does it break it down by various generation means, or does it lump together in one calculation?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it does. They have to supply the information of their mix of power, and that goes into the calculation.
J. Horgan: So B.C. Hydro purchases a tranche of electricity from Bonneville Power Administration, and then Bonneville Power Administration not only provides the electricity but gives a life-cycle cost of what the carbon intensity is of that electricity when it's delivered to British Columbia?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it's included in the informa-
[ Page 11791 ]
tion that's put into GHGenius and is collected by Natural Resources Canada.
J. Horgan: If I understood the answer correctly, Bonneville Power Administration, as one provider, when it agrees to provide electricity to the grid in British Columbia, not only provides that electricity but also sends data to Natural Resources Canada?
Hon. R. Coleman: Natural Resources Canada would access the information from Bonneville Power.
J. Horgan: Does the minister, with the assistance of his staff, have any links or any direction for citizens or members of the opposition so they could access that information from Bonneville Power, or does it go directly to Natural Resources Canada? Is it publicly available, or is it provided on some need-to-know basis? Is it provided as commercial confidential? What are the terms of that exchange of information?
Hon. R. Coleman: The information that's in GHGenius and the calculations on all the information is available for download to anybody from the public.
J. Horgan: So I can access information about Bonneville Power Administration's carbon intensity by using this tool?
Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, it's aggregated information that brings us to the measurement. There are privacy issues that are handled by NRCan which could include some privacy issues with the company and its commercial, etc. But the aggregated information that comes in is available in GHGenius.
J. Horgan: So this tool is able to determine…? The minister will know and I know his staff will know and many members in this House will know that there's been a debate — I wouldn't say raging, necessarily — going on in British Columbia about whether we are net importers or net exporters of electricity. Our ability to arbitrage makes us different and distinct from other places. My good friend from Whistler is having a smile on this one, and I'm delighted. We have exchanged political blows on this in the past.
There is uncertainty, I think, in the public mind. I would expect that meeting the requirements of this section of the act would mean that people would have to have a pretty acute understanding of the northwest electricity market.
How we determine whether we are bringing in coal from Alberta or gas or wind from Washington State is a difficult thing to do as an expert. How are providers that are required to follow this regulation going to be assured that the NRCan data can disaggregate where our electricity comes from? I know B.C. Hydro on a good day can't do that.
Hon. R. Coleman: As far as the supplier is concerned, they accept the output of GHGenius. That information is what they accept to deal with how they measure their carbon intensity. The input is done by NRCanada, and they're the ones that would deal with Bonneville and other entities on power that would be coming into the system — i.e., coal from Alberta into B.C., or whatever the case may be, into B.C. Hydro.
The company gets to accept the output of what's gone into GHGenius as their measurement, which they can do their business from. There's always a lag of information. Information isn't totally current because it's coming in, obviously, month to month or whatever the case may be.
J. Horgan: Within this section there is a formula, and I recall seeing a similar formula when we were debating this bill a couple of years ago. I don't have the statute in front of me. I was looking at it last night, and there do seem to be some changes in the formula. Can the minister outline if there have been any changes in this formula as a result of this amendment?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we used to do it by weighted average. But by separating the pools now, we don't need to do that. Now we'll measure it by pool.
J. Horgan: What was the motivation for that change?
Hon. R. Coleman: I've already covered that as well, and I'll do it again. At the beginning the member for Victoria–Swan Lake asked the same question. When we were moving down the road towards doing the carbon intensity of fuel, one of the things…. When I became the minister, I asked the parliamentary secretary to go out and do a consultation with industry.
We consulted with everybody from retailers to wholesalers to suppliers — the people that would be affected — because there was a concern there that by having what I just described in the calculated weighted average, there were going to be people who would be retailing petroleum products in British Columbia who wouldn't be able to get supply. Mixing the two fuels together was causing some difficulty in reaching the blended average of the carbon intensity of the fuels.
For instance, particularly small service stations were not going to be able to get supply, because the bigger supplier was going to have to make sure they met their carbon intensity in the blended fuels first before they could supply to the rest of the marketplace — so much so that there was a 90-day situation facing some retailers where basically they effectively would be out of business if they couldn't meet the carbon intensity in the combined fuels.
[ Page 11792 ]
By separating the fuels and leaving the carbon intensity calculations the same — by separating them and not having them into the blended fuel — that allowed us to now secure the supply and settle that issue down with regards to the carbon intensity of fuels.
J. Horgan: I thank the minister for repeating that. I didn't hear the initial answer.
When we look at the new formula, it does look a lot simpler, I have to say, than the last one. The member for Peace River South and I had a delightful time having me ask him if he could give me a practical example of how this formula could be implemented. As much as I would love to offer the minister the similar opportunity, I think instead I'll just ask a few more questions on the formula and not ask for a practical examination of how that would be done.
Instead, we've touched upon the energy-effectiveness ratio. The carbon intensity was covered by my colleague. We've got EC fuel down here as one of the…. For those who don't have the bill in front of them, the formula goes as follows: "Credit or Debit = (CI class × EER fuel — CI fuel) × EC fuel/1 000 000."
Again, as enjoyable as it would be to have the minister explain that in detail, I think we'll take it as given, but I would like a clarification about the EC fuel. What is the energy content of the fuel calculated in accordance with the regulations?
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, a litre of gasoline or a litre of diesel has a certain amount of energy in it, and we want to get down to that measurement of that energy being in megajoules. Fuel will equal the amount that they sell; therefore, the megajoule measurement will equal the amount of energy they sell.
J. Horgan: With respect to electricity, what unit of measurement are we using there?
Hon. R. Coleman: In the case of electricity we use the calculation of calculating a kilowatt hour into megajoules.
J. Horgan: I know you have the best person in the place to give me an answer to that just to your immediate right, so I'm going to ask if you could explain to me how we go from a kilowatt to a megajoule.
Hon. R. Coleman: It's a factor of 3.6 kilowatt hours equals one megajoule.
J. Horgan: I knew you had the best guy to your immediate right. Apologies to that on the immediate left, but I know the guy on the right.
With respect to the calculations, we've understood that…. I know my colleague has gone over the various forms of fuel. My interest was the electricity, and I think we've covered that off fairly well.
I mean, who am I to quibble with the GHGenius software program? I do think that, knowing the electricity sector as I do and knowing the debate that goes on around how we generate electricity — whether we use natural gas here or whether we are going to be building wind and using wind, solar impacts and so on — there is carbon intensity in the generation of electricity, and it varies from type to type.
When we export — because we want to hold water, not because we're short of electricity or energy — we're going to be taking from different sources. I just want to put on the record that I'm not convinced that the formula as it's been outlined in this section adequately answers that.
I appreciate that the minister has given me the best answers that he has available to him, and I have every confidence that his staff will be monitoring what NRCan does with this information.
I'd like to, then, move on to a better understanding…. Again, I apologize if my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake has touched upon this. There's reference to the director throughout the document. I'm wondering if the minister could give me an indication of where that position fits within his ministry or the Ministry of Environment — what their role and function would be.
Hon. R. Coleman: It falls within the executive director of alternative energy.
J. Horgan: Well, the incumbent fills me with confidence, but of course, as you know, legislation can't provide job security for all time. People retire, I'm advised, so at some point the current director….
Interjection.
J. Horgan: Yeah. Well, if I get an opportunity to have a watch, I hope they're there as well.
I'm wondering if the minister could describe what interventions are, and I raised this in a question at the beginning of my remarks, with respect to subsection (5)(d) and the role that the director would play, if you go to page 13 on my bill. I don't know what page you're on, but it's the end of page 12 and the top of page 13.
It goes as follows: "…Part 3 fuel supplier and accepted by the director as a more accurate method of determining the carbon intensity of that component." Going back to the formula that we've just been talking about, what other measurement opportunities does the minister contemplate, or are any contemplated at all?
Hon. R. Coleman: This was actually in the original legislation as well. GHGenius is the system that we use today with regards to….
[ Page 11793 ]
Basically, what this section does is allow for an equivalency argument to be made to the director. For instance, if somebody came in and wanted to make a case to the director that their measurement of their carbon intensity of fuel should be looked at because they have a practice that's unique, that isn't in GHGenius, you can make the discussion to him. For instance, it could be something relative to their farming practices versus other farming practices for biofuel.
No one, to date, has actually made that, but it's in the act in case somebody does want to come and make the argument about an equivalency to the director.
J. Horgan: Subsection (7) says as follows: "A decision of the director refusing to (a) approve a carbon intensity that is proposed by a producer for the purposes of subsection (5) (c), or (b) accept an alternative method of determining carbon intensity…must be served on the producer or Part 3 fuel supplier, as applicable." Can the minister explain to me what the purpose of that section is?
Hon. R. Coleman: The director can agree or disagree, obviously. He has to serve that basic…. Let's take disagree, for lack of a better description, because if they agreed, they wouldn't go through any process. If the director disagrees with the information, he serves his decision to the proponent who's asked for, basically, the equivalency to be done.
If they wish, at that point they can appeal to the director to discuss. They can come and sit down and spend the time to go through an appeal process with the director. After that the director can make a final decision that he could then serve back to the person that has put it forward. Then they have an appeal process that they can go through outside the director, which would be to the Environmental Appeal Board.
J. Horgan: I would like if the minister could direct me to where the Environmental Appeal Board is referred to in these sections.
Before we get to that, in subsection (9): "If a producer whose proposed carbon intensity for a fuel has been approved by the director becomes aware that that carbon intensity will change or has changed, the producer must immediately give written notice to the director." Are there any other time frames?
That's an immediate notice if there's going to be a change. Is there any discretion on the part of the director, and how do we determine "immediate"?
Hon. R. Coleman: As soon as a supplier becomes aware of a change in the carbon content or carbon intensity changes, they must inform the director. This can relate to, like, new feedstocks or whatever the case may be with regards to it. They must notify, because they have an approved credit system based on what their carbon intensity is, and that changes. It changes the credit system.
J. Horgan: And the reference to the Environmental Appeal Board that was referred to in the previous answer?
Hon. R. Coleman: That was originally in part 5 of the act.
J. Horgan: Written notice includes e-mail?
Hon. R. Coleman: It must be by post.
J. Horgan: Now, the supplier is required to give immediate notice to the director. Is the director required to give immediate notice if he becomes aware, for example, of a change in…? Let's use the electricity example, because that's one that I'm most familiar with. If there's a change in carbon intensity from NRCan, does the director have the similar obligation to advise suppliers immediately?
Hon. R. Coleman: All of it is on an annual basis.
J. Horgan: If it's on an annual basis, does that mean if the carbon intensity changes for a supplier on September 1, they have until August 31 to correct their classification?
Hon. R. Coleman: If somebody has a lower carbon intensity and they come to the director, he can lower their carbon intensity within the year. If somebody, under the example of the member opposite, was to have a change upward in carbon intensity in September, they wouldn't have till August. They'd have to report it within that calendar year, and then the government would make some changes in the next calendar year.
J. Horgan: Perhaps I missed the section when we talked about calendar year versus fiscal year. I'm led to conclude by the response from the minister to that question that all of these calculations are done on an annual basis starting January 1. If there is a change in intensity throughout that year, using the September 1 example, where carbon intensity goes up, that must be reported immediately to the director? Or do they have until December 31?
Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and do a quick answer to this one, and then we'll rise and report progress.
Basically, on an annual basis, the use of fuels by anybody that's a supplier can go up and down. That's allowed to happen within the 12-month period from January to December. That piece is calculated on an annual basis
[ Page 11794 ]
through NRCan, through the program I described earlier.
If the director has approved a specific carbon content on a fuel and that has changed, they have to inform the director, because their credits change. An example would be a company whose director provides approval that the biofuels were coming from Alberta, and it turns out the majority of the fuels end up coming from Washington State. That changes the calculation. They have to inform the director immediately because that's something he's approved. The global piece is approved as a body, but individual things that the director has approved are subject to this.
Madam Chair, we'll rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Pimm in the chair.
The committee met at 10:11 a.m.
On Vote 29: ministry operations, $16,032,867,000.
The Chair: Good morning, everybody. We're beginning consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
Minister, do you have an opening statement?
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm looking forward to a good exchange.
M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for the exchange. I would like to acknowledge that we've met with the deputy and laid out a brief sort of workplan, as it were.
We'll start this morning with some of the big-picture items around the minister's office — those basic kinds of questions — then the health accord and then probably spend the rest of the day on seniors care. The very non-senior member for Kootenay West will lead us through those questions. Then on Monday and Tuesday there is a whole series of topics around capital, public health, emergency wards and a host of other issues that we can go through.
Anyway, I want to start off with some general budgetary questions around the minister's office and the Health estimates in general. Can the minister tell us if there have been any reductions in spending in any of the program areas within the ministry, and if so, which ones are they?
Hon. M. de Jong: It will take us a moment to go through the inventory. While that is taking place, though, I might introduce to the members of the committee the deputy minister, Graham Whitmarsh, who is to my left; Elaine McKnight, chief administrative officer; Manjit Sidhu, ADM, financial and corporate services; and Nick Grant, executive director of planning.
In general terms, within the ministry there wouldn't be any program areas that have experienced a reduction in funding. During the course of our deliberations I am certain we will touch on areas where program delivery may have changed somewhat, but no outright budgetary reductions.
I do distinguish that from individual health authorities, which have different programming areas. But I think the question related to the ministry operations itself.
M. Farnworth: Have any responsibilities of the ministry been moved to other areas outside the ministry?
Hon. M. de Jong: The only thing we can think of at the moment that might be relevant to the member's question is the B.C. Ambulance Service, which, as the member knows, is in the process of shifting to PHSA, although the budget still is fully captured within the ministry. That administrative change, as the member knows, is presently underway.
M. Farnworth: Has there been an increase or decrease in the number of FTEs in the ministry, and if so, what are the numbers?
Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that no significant changes in terms of the number of FTEs or people.
[ Page 11795 ]
M. Farnworth: In terms of the service plan for the ministry, have any new performance measures been added or dropped?
Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies to the member. The best information at this point is that the answer is no, although on performance measure 1, the indication is that within the measure of public health and communities that have completed healthy living strategic plans, one of the indicators was adjusted. We're just trying to locate specifically what that was.
M. Farnworth: In regards to the minister's office, has there been any change in the number of appointees employed in the minister's office? Has it increased or decreased over the past year?
Hon. M. de Jong: A two-part answer. We'll check. It's in the blue book. I think the amount went up, I'm advised, by $5,000 to accommodate the parliamentary secretary. The number of bodies in the office has not. In fact, at the moment we are down one, but we do intend at some point to fill that position.
M. Farnworth: I know the minister meets with lots of people. Having been Health Minister in a previous era, it's a big part of the job.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: Actually, yes — a previous millennium, I think, not just a previous century. That tells you how long I've been around.
Can the minister tell us how many FTEs and staff hours have been dedicated to meeting with lobbyists? In particular, can the minister provide us some details on the number of lobbyists that he has met with?
Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is no. We don't track that. Of course, I think the member has access to the calendars of who we meet with and can cross-reference with the lobbyists. But we don't track it on that basis.
M. Farnworth: In the area of contracts and advertising within the ministry, can the minister inform us what the value of contracts awarded by the ministry in the past year is?
Hon. M. de Jong: Advertising costs in the range of $7 million to $8 million. We're endeavouring to get a finalized amount for the member. The bulk of that related to the campaign that the member may have seen, Sodium City, the reduce sodium-salt intake, which was a fairly prominent campaign on television and in print ad.
M. Farnworth: So there's the Sodium City campaign. Yes, I have seen it, and I understand the rationale behind it.
Were there contracts awarded for public consultation at all?
Hon. M. de Jong: The only one that comes immediately to mind is the contract with Fraser Basin for the oil and gas health impact phase 1 report which, I'm reminded, was in the neighbourhood of $100,000. That's the only contract I can think of off the top of my head for a direct consultation initiative.
M. Farnworth: The sodium campaign I get. We need to eat less sodium in our diet, so that's fine.
This one sounds kind of interesting. What was the purpose of it — the Fraser Basin oil and gas health?
Hon. M. de Jong: I think when I say a little more, the member will remember. This relates to the directional drilling and the concerns in the northeast of the province around fracking. That was phase 1, and we'll be moving to phase 2 to examine air quality and water quality. It's a Health Ministry–directed affair.
M. Farnworth: For my own information, is there a timeline on the expected completion of the work?
Hon. M. de Jong: To give the member a bit of a chronology, the phase 1 report is done. The member may recall that one of the members in the House asked about it a couple of days ago. I anticipate it being released in the next couple of weeks.
What will happen now is we'll need to engage, and want to engage, the services of a third party to begin the process of compiling and assessing the scientific data on the basis of a set of terms of reference that are the result of the consultation that took place in phase 1.
There may be some primary data collection, some air quality monitoring. I don't want to suggest that there are going to be field laboratories set up across the northeast of the province. This will be relying largely on the body of scientific data that is out there to assess what and where the risk exists. That's probably going to be an 18-month exercise.
M. Farnworth: Were there any contracts awarded for public relations work at all?
Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer is no, but my notion of public relations may be different than the member's. We've done work around the seniors guide to bring it up to date. I don't really think of that as public relations per se. So I think the answer is no. But if the member has a very specific type of activity, I'm happy to turn
[ Page 11796 ]
my mind to it.
M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer. Perhaps a different way of phrasing the question would be: were all the contracts that the ministry did engage in, in the past year tendered? Were any of them direct-awarded? If so, which ones? Were any untendered contracts not posted on B.C. Bid?
Hon. M. de Jong: I think I've got this in a form that might be helpful to the member, because I think I know, generally speaking, what his interests would be.
Of course, there is the policy around public tendering — the initial cutoff at $20,000. We are relatively certain that there have been some contracts awarded directly under the $20,000 threshold. Anything above that would have been either publicly tendered or, if directly awarded, pursuant to one of the two or three exceptions.
The question I've asked is if any large contracts would fit into that category. At this point no one can think of anything that would fall under that category.
We do directly provide contracts or transfers to agencies within the government reporting entity, like universities. UVic and UBC would have, in some cases, millions of dollars in research — Therapeutics Initiative. As for a genuine third party being directly awarded a significant-sized contract that did not go to public tender, we can't think of one at this point.
M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's response.
In terms of the contracts awarded under $20,000 then, are there examples or have there been any awarded on a multiple basis — one contractor receiving several contracts under $20,000?
Hon. M. de Jong: To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. I am advised that special attention has been paid to that, to ensure that that mechanism by which these rules are sometimes avoided…. The ministry has been paying particularly close attention. The senior officials that are here believe the answer is no and indicate to me that they have made a special effort over the past year to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent that from occurring.
In fairness, in a ministry as large as this one, can I absolutely, positively guarantee that a $19,000 contract wasn't renewed once? I probably can't, in fairness. But I can say that particularly close attention has been paid to ensure that isn't done. It is, I am reminded, contrary to the policy to do that.
M. Farnworth: On the ThinkHealthBC website there is a video discussing the way that B.C. is changing and how the health care is getting better. Can the minister tell us how much funding was provided to make this video?
Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that for all of the work associated with the ThinkHealthBC website — there are apparently, as I recall, multiple videos, so not just one; there are a number of them — the preparatory work, the development of the website, $1.158 million.
M. Farnworth: Can the minister give us the name of the firm that did the work?
Hon. M. de Jong: The corporate name is DDB, which, I'm told, is an agency of record with government communications.
M. Farnworth: It would have been a tendered contract. It wasn't direct-awarded, then, I take it. It would have been tendered.
Hon. M. de Jong: That's why I mentioned they're an agency of record, so there was a procurement exercise to establish them.
I'm not an expert on the government communications process, but there is a procurement exercise for establishing an agency of record, and they are then authorized to do this work. I don't know how many agencies of record there are, but there are, I think, a few of them.
M. Farnworth: I think at this point I'd like to change the topic slightly and move to the Canada health accord and the issues associated with sort of federal-provincial relations around health care. I'll probably make a few remarks.
This is where I would be interested in getting the government's perspective. Given the role the federal government plays as funder in this country, particularly in areas that are primarily provincial jurisdiction, I think it's important that we get a sense of what the government's thinking is vis-à-vis the relations between other provinces, but also with the federal government in terms of health policy and the role that the federal government can or cannot play and priorities that the province may have in terms of its desires of the role of the federal government to play or not to play.
As an example, I can think back to — the colleague across the way says the previous century or the previous millennium — the '90s when the federal government made decisions around transfer payments which resulted in the health transfer disappearing from the provinces' fiscal planning — a significant cut. That put tremendous strain on provincial health care budgets. Provinces either had to cut to make it up, or they had to backfill somehow, just to stay even with the money that they were getting.
As a result, that caused all kinds of problems. We had the health accord that was brought in, which brought
[ Page 11797 ]
some stability in terms of the federal-provincial relationship with regard to the transfer of moneys for health care. The agreement was ten years — I think it was ten years — at a transfer increase of 6 percent per year. That agreement is up in 2014.
In December of the past year, 2011, the federal government announced a set of changes to the Canada Health Transfer accord. In that announcement they committed to legislation to provide protection so that no province or territory will receive less than the 2013-2014 Canada Health Transfer cash allocation for the move to per-capita funding.
Now, any change is going to have potentially significant impact on the provinces and especially British Columbia. So I have a number of questions in this area.
First, what was the province's position at the time of the announcements? Had we done work on the impact of the federal government's decision or its announcement in terms of capping the transfer at 6 percent for two years and then moving to tying it, basically, to GDP plus a little bit? Had there been work done on that and its impact on British Columbia's health care budget?
I'll also throw in that shortly after that announcement the Premier stated that she supported the Prime Minister's changes but only if equal population shares were replaced with equal age-adjustment population shares. There's a significant difference between the money you get in one and the money you get in the other.
So if the minister can share his and the ministry's thoughts and work that they've done in this area, I would appreciate that.
Hon. M. de Jong: We're joined by Mariana Diacu. Good to have her with us.
It was an interesting and slightly different process that took place in the spring. My sense is that the expectation on the parts of the provinces' Health ministers, to be sure, but certainly Finance ministers and Premiers…. The health accord is one of those instruments of our federalism that in the past, historically, has ultimately engaged the first ministers. It is a financial document, to be sure. It touches on a programming area that Canadians hold very dear, but it is also very much a political instrument at the end of the day.
I think that what was interesting about what took place in December…. I think it was December, January. It was just before Christmas, in fact. The provinces, the territories were getting geared up for the kind of discussion that characterized the last health accord. I'll talk in a moment about the debate between per-capita funding and age-adjusted formulas.
A lot of that was truncated by the federal Finance Minister arriving here in Victoria and saying: "This is going to be the amount." It's interesting, because in the past the discussion around the amount has occurred against the backdrop of a larger discussion about the delivery of health care, priority areas, objectives, patient satisfaction — a whole host of areas, quite frankly, that under our constitution the federal government doesn't have any responsibility for or any authority for.
They have, in a sense, acquired or purchased an involvement in that discussion, particularly during times of those negotiations, because everyone's interested in having them at the table. They need to be at the table.
It's interesting to mention now, where the federal government has unilaterally said: "This is going to be the amount." There is, I think, a sense among many provinces that we're not entirely happy either with the amount or, in British Columbia's case, the population-based formula that doesn't take account of the additional costs associated with our heavily skewed seniors population.
If that is so — if that is the approach of the federal government — then a lot of these other areas fall exclusively to the provinces. It's interesting to know on what basis the federal government seeks to involve themselves in discussions relating to service delivery and operations.
Now, how that has manifested itself in the short term revealed itself at the Council of the Federation that also took place here in Victoria, where the first ministers commissioned a subcommittee chaired by the Premiers of P.E.I. and Saskatchewan around questions of health care innovation. To be sure, that's going to be a big part of arresting the cost curve and finding ways to maximize the benefits of the dollars we spend on health care.
There is, for the member's benefit, a meeting scheduled of the Health ministers as part of that subcommittee. It's May 30, I think — the last day of our session, in fact, which is great timing for us.
In any event, that work is now ongoing. I suspect at some point we're going to talk about areas for national cooperation on drug purchasing, procurement and those sorts of things.
I'll wrap up at this point by saying we are still concerned about the population-based formula that the federal government is, at this point, committed to, and we continue to advocate for adjustments based on age and demographics. That work is ongoing. It is certainly a different process this time around by virtue of how the federal government has announced at the front end what they usually wait to announce at the back end.
M. Farnworth: The minister is right. Health care is a provincial jurisdiction, but there is federal involvement. They have money, and provinces want money, so there's a role for them to play in that regard.
The minister has touched on a couple of issues, and this is why I'd be interested in the minister's perspective. Actually, I'll get to that in a little bit. I think I'll just stick on the actual dollar transfer that we're looking at right now.
[ Page 11798 ]
There has been a formula proposed, basically a per-capita-based formula. We're concerned about the need for a population demographic–based formula that takes into account the different demographics that we have in this province as compared to, let's say, Ontario or Alberta or any other province for that matter.
Has the ministry come up with some concrete figures on the differences to British Columbia, financially, under the various formulas? Can the minister tell me what those are?
Hon. M. de Jong: Here's the information I can share. I point out that, as is generally the case, most of this work is led by the Finance Ministry, in terms of the calculation. We have the advantage of having someone who has looked at life from both sides now, the deputy minister, and is able to have some insight on some of that work. The order of magnitude, roughly speaking, is probably a couple hundred million dollars. A formula that took account of population demographics would — we believe, again, in rough terms — alleviate probably a little more than half of that pressure.
The amounts are significant in terms of what's at stake, as between the formula being proposed and that which we would prefer as a province and are advocating for.
M. Farnworth: How is the advocating going in terms of vis-à-vis other provinces? As in most formulas, where one province…. If you change the formula, you have winners and losers.
My question to the minister is: from British Columbia's perspective, are other provinces…? The province is arguing for a demographic-based formula. Are we finding support for that? My sense is that if there is agreement on these kinds of formulas, the federal government may be more willing to play along and make a change — if there is a consensus amongst the provinces as opposed to if there is not.
My question really is: how much support is there amongst the other provinces for what British Columbia's position is? Ultimately, I think that will play a significant role in determining how successful B.C. will be in getting a change made.
Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. First of all, I am reminded to emphasize that the discussion in the area that we're engaged in now takes place in the context of a larger conversation around equalization payments and federal transfers. For the Finance ministers who are having these discussions and leading these discussions, there is this whole bundle of transfers that tend to get tied together.
The specific question, though, is an interesting one — around how provinces are lining up. Probably the most revealing and helpful answer — and the accurate one — I can give is to alert the committee to the fact that the strongest proponent of the model that the federal government has indicated they favour, and the province which stands to gain hundreds of millions of dollars, is Alberta.
M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister for that answer. That's what concerns me. That's one of the things that does concern me from a British Columbia perspective.
We do have a province that is very tied-in with the federal government, though perhaps not so much after the recent provincial election there, where it seems most of the MPs from the federal government backed the wrong horse. So Alberta — there may be some challenges there. I don't think Alison Redford owes the federal Conservatives anything right now, or a number of other people.
Having said that, it is still interesting that Alberta is the one that benefits the most under the formula change. That does cause some concern in terms of British Columbia. So the question I would have for the minister is: are we taking an active role, the leadership role that's required, with the other provinces, or are other provinces taking that leadership role? What's the role that the minister is playing in trying to advance the British Columbia position?
The one thing from my own experience is that there tends to be an effort amongst the western provinces to present…. Regardless of political stripe of the government in power, there tends to be sort of a sense of, "Okay, let's have a common position from the western provinces" — usually with Ontario and Quebec. But in this particular case, you know what? Our interests are not the same, I would argue, as the province directly next door to us.
One of the key things that I think is important is that this province play a very strong — and vocal, at the appropriate time — leadership role in terms of getting the right deal for B.C. What I get from the minister's comments is: the right deal for other provinces as well. I would like to know what steps we are doing to make sure that that happens.
Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. First of all, the fact is that we have some natural allies in this particular issue. I mentioned the benefits of this shift accruing — I would suggest disproportionately — to a single province at the expense of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland. So the math tells you that there are some allies there. B.C. is fully engaged.
Again, I don't want to leave the impression that the focal point for that is always the Ministry of Health. I'll speak in a moment about where the Health Ministry is, I think, taking very much a leadership role nationally. On the side of fiscal federalism, it tends to be the first minister and the Finance Minister, as I think the hon. member knows.
[ Page 11799 ]
Where we have been asserting ourselves vis-à-vis the other provinces and the federal government relates to a range of cost control measures and national strategies on the side of procurement — procurement of equipment, procurement of drugs.
At the meeting in a couple of weeks I am going to again press for consideration to be given to manners and strategies by which we can work together as provincial and territorial jurisdictions to capitalize and lever our power as a larger market. We're four million people. We can be a market of four million, or we can be a market of 35 million. I think we're better off as a market of 35 million saying to large international pharmaceutical companies: "If you want to supply product to this market, it's going to be on very much a competitive basis."
There's another feature to this whole thing that troubles me greatly, and that is the ongoing secrecy that characterizes the purchase of pharmaceutical products. It's something that exists right across the country. It's something that I am advocating strongly on with other provincial colleagues.
It's this phenomenon where the drug company comes in and says to a provincial market: "We're going to give you the best deal possible, but you mustn't tell anyone." All these contracts have non-disclosure provisions in them. The rationale is: "We'll only give you a good deal if we can be sure no one is going to find out about it." Well, no one knows. No one knows who's getting a good deal.
I think when you're spending taxpayers' money on things like pharmaceutical products, the trade-off with these pharmaceutical manufacturers is that then the public gets to know what the drug costs. The Department of Veterans Affairs in the U.S. lists what their prices are.
I think if we try to do that as a country, we have a chance to succeed. When we try to do it as provincial markets, maybe Ontario or Quebec could wield enough leverage on their own, but probably not the rest.
We need to come together and wield the influence that would exist if we move in step with one another and say that the price for doing business in this country is that taxpayers who are funding these products get to know how much they're spending and, at the same time, I think, enjoy greater success in driving the costs down. That's one area where, on the cost containment side, we're trying to be very, very assertive.
M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer from the minister. His response is actually a good segue into an area that I'd like to focus on in this discussion.
The minister is right. We'll be talking more about pharmaceuticals later in the estimates process. We can be a market of four million with regards to pharmaceuticals, or we can be part of a market of 35 million. I think that's something that Health Ministers of the province have advocated for, for quite some time.
What concerns me is that we have been talking about it for a long time, but the reality is: have we been making any concrete progress in that area? I'll ask that as a first step into further talks on this particular issue. Can the minister tell us if there has been concrete advancement? It strikes me as being a relatively simple thing to do, for the province to say: "You know what? We're better at this together than we are individually. We've got strength."
My question would be: are we making advances, and if so, what are those advances? If there are roadblocks, what are the roadblocks we're facing?
Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's an excellent question. I agree with the member — lots of talk. But at the end of the day, what one hopes to achieve are some concrete examples of where cooperation and coordination achieve some benefits. That has now begun to happen.
The pan-Canadian purchasing alliance, which probably doesn't represent the formalized structure that people had thought about in the past, is a practical arrangement where the provinces come together with respect to individual products and appoint or designate a province to take the lead on the negotiation. Two drugs come to mind, Soliris and Pradax. Soliris — we worked with Ontario. Ontario was the lead. Pradax — B.C. was the lead.
What happens is these companies endeavour to negotiate separately for coverage and purchasing agreements with individual provinces. We're able to say: "No, that's the lead for all of the provinces." Now, the caveat is that Quebec generally does not participate — I would say to their detriment and to our detriment.
Again, a sizeable population. We lose the benefit of that lever, and they lose the benefit of the leverage that comes with being a part of a larger market as well. As the benefits of this approach reveal themselves, my hope is that our friends in Quebec will realize that there are mutual benefits to be achieved by consolidating our efforts and being part of that pan-Canadian purchasing initiative.
Not to sound like a broken record, in celebrating the success of those examples my only concern at this point relates to breaking through the culture of non-disclosure that continues to permeate this industry, and the belief that somehow these large multinational corporations can operate on a different plain when public dollars are involved.
It might be one of the many foolish things I say during this discussion, but if the member were to stand up and ask me, in the two examples, what we are paying for those drugs, I suspect the advice I would get is that pursuant to the terms of the agreement, you are precluded from saying. There is something fundamentally wrong with that when public dollars are being expended. In the case of one of those drugs, the cost of treatment involved is $200,000 or $300,000 a year or more.
[ Page 11800 ]
I think we still have to break through that part of it. But there has been success, and it has come in a fairly practical way, where the provinces said: "We're going to designate province A or province B to take the lead and do the negotiating on our behalf." We have seen the benefits of that, and my hope is that it can expand.
M. Farnworth: I appreciate that response. I think it comes back to one of the central points that I'd like to try and make during this discussion, which is that the provinces themselves have roles to play in identifying these issues. I think by cooperating and focusing on them, we can achieve some significant improvements in our health care system that do result in the potential for significant cost savings but also better health care, which is what people want.
I think a part of that is also that there is a role in this discussion, and a role for these policy developments and advancements, for the federal government in that regard. I think one of the challenges or one of the real problems in this health accord — or the reaction of the provinces to it so far — is that there's an opportunity that's being missed. I will put it in this context, and I would like the minister's response as to why. I think British Columbia could have said or should have said more in this particular area.
The federal government has come to the provinces and said: "We want to change the funding formula." From B.C.'s perspective, we're not happy with the population-based formula that's being proposed. We want a demographic-based formula. There are also all these other areas which concern each and every province. You have drug costs. You have seniors care. You have a lot of sort of national issues playing themselves out differently in each and every province.
With some stronger national strategies, I believe you could address some of those issues. The provinces could have said, "Look, why don't we take this opportunity? If the federal government wants to make some changes, then we as provinces will address some of these issues that we think should be addressed and may not have been addressed" — or have not been addressed, I think, as quickly as they could have been — and said: "You know what? Why not look at making a change in the funding formula?"
They're cutting from 6 percent. Let's, for the sake of argument, go to 3 percent and say: "Why not look at making some real, significant changes in some of the key areas where we know improvements have to be made?" "That 3 percent," to the federal government, "that you want to scale down to — if those changes are made, that money can be used in a carrot-and-stick approach to help spur along some of those changes."
I think there is an opportunity there to have made some advances. I'd like the minister's perspective on why British Columbia has not taken an approach in that direction, because I think it could have had, or could still have, some benefit for B.C. I'll go into some examples of where I think that could work.
Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a very, very interesting area. It is something that is likely to continue to play out over the next number of years, given the fact that the federal government is certainly in a position where it's likely to be there for another three or four years or longer.
I think there are two forces at play here, emanating from the centre, from the federal government. One most certainly relates to the fiscal prudence, fiscal conservatism, revealed in the federal government's desire to control its costs and deficits. There is another phenomenon, though, that I see revealing itself, as someone who has participated in some of these federal-provincial discussions over the last decade.
That is almost a form of constitutional puritanicalism which says that we are bound, federal and provincial governments, contractually by the provisions of the Canada Health Act, which is now largely a fiscal arrangement. Certainly, the announcement from the federal minister was a fiscal announcement as opposed to a health accord–like announcement. "And now over to you, provinces, to exercise…."
Historically, of course, in many ways, you can look back on provincial governments in British Columbia that have chastised federal governments of the past for attaching conditions to health dollars. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case going forward.
Another example of that, which I suspect we'll touch on at some point during these deliberations, is the historic, precedent-setting aboriginal health accord, where the federal government — again, seeking to use B.C. as the lead example — is saying: "Here is all the money that is spent delivering health services to First Nations on reserve. Here you go. Here's the money."
Now, in that case they don't ultimately divest themselves of the constitutional responsibility, but they have certainly contracted it out. In this case what you seem to be seeing…. It's interesting, because there's a little bit of constitutional schizophrenia. On the one hand, it's a case of "We will make the fiscal announcement. Here is your funding. We'd still like to be a part of the discussion and still like to be part of the equation."
I would suggest this. Given the choice between establishing, via the auspices of the federal Ministry of Health, a national purchasing agency for pharmaceutical products and the provinces doing that on their own, I'd probably choose the latter, because the provinces will be far more motivated to get a better price than the federal government ever would because the provinces are dealing with line items in their budgets, which wouldn't be the case for the federal government.
[ Page 11801 ]
The innovation agenda that we are pursuing now is, I think, an example of the kind of initiative that the hon. member was talking about, where we can try to coordinate and establish a national initiative. I have advanced the idea in the past of a national innovation fund that would reward provinces for taking steps.
Part of the historic dilemma in any kind of a budgeting exercise is that the jurisdictions that tend to do the best at containing costs get penalized — like ministries, as the member said. So if we're going to tackle and embrace and develop strategies around innovation, how do we create an incentive as opposed to a disincentive for provinces to deploy that innovation in a way that improves the delivery of health care?
I still see a role — obviously, a significant public health role — emanating from the federal government. But the line this federal government seems to be on is to be far less intrusive in directing what happens with the money that is sent from Ottawa to the provinces. To be fair, that has generally been something that provinces across the country, irrespective of their political persuasions, have called for in the past.
M. Farnworth: I think the minister's assessment of where the federal government is and the approach they've been taking is an accurate one. I think they are taking a more…. There's got to be a better word than "puritanical." I'm sure there'd be a word for it in the United States. What do they call it? Constructionists? Or literalists — a more literalist approach to the role of provincial and federal powers than what we have seen, I think, historically over the last 30 or 40 years in the country.
Where I'm coming from is I think that that also is potentially a problem. There are a number of issues we have been working on. The provinces have, by and large, wanted to take the money with as few strings as possible. In some cases I think that has worked and has been able to deal with issues that are particularly acute or unique to a particular province. British Columbia is no exception to that.
But I think there are other issues at play, which have significant pressures now and into the future with health care, where I think that sort of literalist approach can be detrimental and where national standards would be very beneficial and helpful.
I would like to just give two examples to illustrate the point. One of them is around…. And we'll be talking more about skills and labour issues later on, particularly in highly trained, highly specialized health care professionals. Anesthesiologist is one that comes to mind, but it could just as easily be cardiovascular surgeons or any of those extremely highly trained, highly skilled, highly mobile individuals that can up and move to another province, another jurisdiction.
We have a salary standard here in British Columbia, and the pattern in this country has been provinces playing off against each other. So the rate goes up in one province, and then all of a sudden the other provinces have to match that. The result is that you have provinces…. Sometimes they have the right number of people. Other times they have shortages, and that causes all kinds of problems.
We're seeing a change in a funding formula that, if it's adopted the way that it's presented, will give the province that has the ability to really upset the balance in terms of what people are paid even more money to spend on keeping professionals in their province, and other provinces are playing catch-up.
One of the ideas — and I wonder if the minister has given any thought to this — is if we looked at trying to engage either with other provinces directly or at the national level, not for every category of health care worker but in some categories where there is a more national approach to bargaining, more of a national wage scale. Whether it's done with B.C., Alberta, Ontario, for example, we get together and say: "We'll try and pay within this range, each of us, so that we're not whipsawed."
You could either do it at that level, or you could say: "Let's try and come to some sort of agreement at a national level that in all provinces…." I understand the issues about Quebec. That would have, I think, a potential for a positive outcome in terms of training, in terms of budgeting and also in terms of some fairness in the country when in a number of key areas we are facing some very serious skill shortages. So that's one area.
The other one is around seniors care. We'll be talking a lot more about seniors care later on. We know that the seniors population in this province is growing. People do like to retire here. Again, that's not unique to this province. That's also happening in Ontario. It's also happening in the Maritimes. So in terms of ensuring some similarity in standards of care across the provinces, there's a role there that the federal government can play in terms of transferring to ensure that there are some national objectives.
What concerns me is that we're moving away from a system where there is that role that the federal government can play in cooperation with provinces, to more of a system where the federal government is stepping back and it's being left up to individual provinces. The result of that is that you are going to have those provinces that can afford and have the ability with the money to do whatever they want. They will continue to do that.
Other provinces get left behind. Poor provinces are left behind, but other provinces whose fiscal situation is good, bad, whatever, are also stuck trying to play catch-up from competing demands.
Our neighbour to the east of us, Alberta, is a classic example. Their policies, what they decide to do, particularly in those areas — like seniors care and payments to specialists, for example — have a significant impact on
[ Page 11802 ]
this province.
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, an insightful question into an important area. I regret I didn't, in response to one of the earlier questions around B.C.'s role and leadership role….
The innovation working group has, I think, three subcommittees. Ironically, the one that British Columbia is leading is on health human resources, and it is designed to address, in part, the very phenomenon that the member is describing. It's interesting because the mechanism by which one seeks to do that is multifaceted.
One is sharing of information. What is the supply situation for some of these senior health professionals, specialist groups? What is the supply? What is the demand? What are payments?
The challenge around coordinating negotiations gets a bit tricky because of the obligation for each jurisdiction to negotiate in good faith. So the application of what some would term artificial constraints can be problematic. However, the mechanism by which this can be achieved ultimately, I think, is in fact to address the supply and the demand issue.
Generally speaking, British Columbia finds itself on the positive side of the ledger. We take far more than we lose. If we were sitting in Halifax, we might be having a different discussion today because of the Maritimes being a part of the country that is constantly being challenged to hang onto the professionals that they need.
We're looking to create out of the working group a public website so that there will be an inventory of who's working where and what they're being paid, to the extent that it can be presented in a general way. Of course, at the end of the day, the best way to address some of these pressures is going to be to ensure that, nationally, we are training the right people to fill the demand that exists — and training them across the country so that we're not left recruiting out of one another's backyards.
Lastly, the phenomenon that the member describes. This is one area where B.C. suffers the frustration of living next to a province that has enjoyed the benefits, until recently, of a very, very healthy fiscal situation in the public books. That has translated into some very disproportionate amounts of money being paid. The irony, as the member has said, is that under its present proposal, that jurisdiction would stand to benefit the most from the shift in the formula and the methodology for calculating the health transfers.
That's an ongoing challenge — again, ultimately, probably best addressed by us by ensuring that we're training domestically the right amount of people to fill our needs.
M. Farnworth: I note we are…. What time are we at? Is it usually about a quarter to?
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: Okay. I'll ask a follow-up question on that, and then we can pick up a bit this afternoon. We won't have too much more on this particular area this afternoon, and then we can move on to the seniors care issues.
I guess the point that concerns me, that I want to try and emphasize is something that the province and the government…. The minister has outlined a number of areas where human resources is a key issue. British Columbia has the ability to train many of the health professionals that we need here in the province. But at the same time, we also are in competition with other provinces in terms of what we pay, the opportunities to be able to practise a particular specialty. That does lead to conflict.
I think that's where it's good to have individual provinces meeting their needs and engaging in strategies that are designed and suited for them. But at the same time, I also think there is a need for a national approach. Within our current constitutional framework, even with the federal government's very limited jurisdiction about having a significant potential funding ability, I think there's a role for them to play in helping to achieve those goals.
One of the things that we in this province can be doing and should be doing is making it clear that, yes, we're going to do things here in British Columbia and, yes, we're going to be innovative in our province when it comes to health care. Each of us has our unique goals and opportunities. But at the same time, we think there is a role to play for the federal government in health care.
One of the criticisms I have is that when this health care accord came up and the deliberations, such as they were, occurred last December…. I think we have missed an opportunity to advance that message both nationally and here publicly within the province of British Columbia.
As we have talked about some of the issues, whether it's PharmaCare, skills, seniors — there will be more on that later — I think there is a lot more that we could be doing and that a number of the issues that the minister is dealing with under his watch as minister, previous Ministers of Health have also been dealing with. On some of them, progress is made; on others, progress is not being made or we seem to be not moving as fast as we can.
Before we rise and report progress, I would just like to get some final comments from the minister on what he thinks the federal role could be. I will put the question, and if he thinks I'm wrong, I'm sure he will tell me. I think B.C. has not been as vocal as it can be — that doesn't mean in a belligerent fashion but in a constructive fashion — on a role that we need at a national level.
Hon. M. de Jong: There's no question that there are
[ Page 11803 ]
different styles associated with how one interacts with other levels of government. Our approach over the past number of years has been to endeavour to be constructive. Generally, it has not involved dramatic examples of berating federal governments of various political stripes in the headlines, although on occasion we do make it clear when we disagree.
I would say, on balance, that that has served the provincial interest well. We do seek out those opportunities to emphasize to the federal government that from a coordinating perspective, they have a role to play. The situation that developed at Sandoz, the drug manufacturer in Quebec that suffered the interruption in supply and the fire…. We were at the forefront of urging upon the federal government the steps they needed to take to facilitate the quick entry into the Canadian market of other drugs, replacement drugs, enforcing the various contractual provisions that may have existed with the manufacturer. So we led the way.
We were well-placed to lead the way, by the way, because of the way we are established here with centralized purchasing — Health Shared Services B.C. We were well-positioned to do that. But we seek to push the national agenda in a variety of ways, and if the member has got an extra 20 minutes in about 15 minutes…. I say this only partly in jest. We have very purposely said to ParticipACTION, and I have very purposely said to them: "This is a national issue — health promotion."
In a few moments British Columbia will unveil the details of the first national partnership between ParticipACTION, which most members here will remember as that…
A Voice: …60-year-old Swede.
Hon. M. de Jong: Sixty, 70, 80.
They'll remember. Now, to take our provincial initiatives and tie them to a national strategy, a national campaign — we're going to get more bang for the buck. The federal government provided some initial funding to revive ParticipACTION.
I and our government have decided that we are going to assist and coordinate our efforts with ParticipACTION, because we think it makes sense. We think it's a way to promote this from a national perspective. It's very much a case of B.C. taking the lead, and I'm told that, having initiated this, there are now a number of other provinces who are wanting to jump on board and become part of this national strategy.
One example, and the member's point is, I think, that there can be others. Most assuredly, he is correct. There can be others, and we will seek them out.
I will observe that perhaps the committee should rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada