British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — Thursday, March 2, 2023 p.m. — Number 281 (HTML) (42nd Parliament, 4th Session)

20230302pm-CommitteeA-Blues

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 2, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 281

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety

and Solicitor General (continued)

E. Sturko

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. de Jong

M. Morris

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of

Health

Hon. A. Dix

M. Bernier

S. Bond

R. Merrifield

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

and Infrastructure

Hon. R. Fleming

P. Milobar

A. Olsen

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the main chamber, I call continued debate for the supplementary

estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

In Committee A, I call continued supplementary estimates for the Ministry

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, to be followed by the supplementary

estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call the Committee of Supply,

Section B, to order.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the

estimates of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

On Vote 41(S): ministry operations, $150,000,000

(continued) .

E. Sturko: Has the one-time expenditure that the government is seeking

approval for been reviewed by the Treasury Board?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it has.

E. Sturko: When did the Treasury Board approve the release of these funds?

Can I just have the date so that I can take this into account,

please?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer I gave previously on this was…. The Minister of Finance

is the one who can answer that question. That is Minister of Finance

jurisdiction.

E. Sturko: Can the minister confirm that the Ministry of Finance approached

the ministry to identify candidates for the use of this

surplus?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Ministry of Finance and the Premier asked us to identify

priorities that would be available for supplementary estimates and that

would fit in with the work that we’re doing within our

ministries.

E. Sturko: When did that happen?

Hon. M. Farnworth: About a couple of months ago.

E. Sturko: Did the review at the Treasury Board happen after that?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

Again, that’s an area that the Minister of Finance has

responsibility for, in terms of when and how they decide to

answer.

E. Sturko: Presumably the ministry, though, would have made a presentation to

the Treasury Board about this matter. Was that done, and when was that

done?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is the Minister of Finance’s responsibility for when Treasury

Board meets, when they discuss things, but also to answer for decisions

around Treasury Board, including when, how, why, who and what before

Treasury Board. Those questions are best directed to the Minister of

Finance.

E. Sturko: The question was: did the ministry that was seeking funding for

this project make a presentation, and when was that done?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll give the same answer as I gave before: those are questions

that the Minister of Finance would answer. They really do, when it comes

to Treasury Board, come under cabinet confidentiality. But the Minister

of Finance is in a position to be able to give answers if they feel that

that would not be an issue.

M. de Jong: It is actually pure happenstance that I happen to be listening to

this very engaging and informative exchange.

Look, the minister obviously is the most experienced member on

that side of the House. I think the opposition’s interest is as follows.

It extends, obviously, to this ministry, but it extends beyond this

ministry.

Something relatively unusual…. A supplementary estimate in and of

itself isn’t unusual. The magnitude of these supplementary estimates is

fairly unprecedented: approaching, I think, $3 billion, if I’m not

mistaken.

My colleague from Surrey is, early on in this exercise with this

ministry, trying to establish, which I think is entirely appropriate,

the process that not just the ministry but the government has followed

in advancing these supplementary estimates and seeking permission and

the support of this chamber to spend this money. It’s a lot of

money.

There are, within the government, these procedures that have been

established over the years and not by any single government. They have

involved…. But they are safeguards that protect the government, protect

the minister and ultimately are designed to protect the taxpayer, to

ensure that funds are being expended appropriately and receiving

agencies are the appropriate agencies to receive these funds.

Now the minister and my colleague have had an exchange about the

particular project and some of the technical requirements. But this is

important not just for this ministry but for the government.

[1:15 p.m.]

When my colleague from Surrey asks about the process that was

followed, I am going to suggest, respectfully, that those are entirely

appropriate questions for the minister and the ministry, who are seeking

the spending authority under a particular vote, to answer.

No one is asking the minister to disclose the nature of

discussions that might have taken place at Treasury Board. I think

everyone understands that those take place under a veil of

confidentiality. It is appropriate, in my view, for the minister to

inform the committee as to whether or not his ministry made a submission

to the Treasury Board that was reviewed and that this supplementary

estimate and request for spending authority comes in the aftermath of

approval by that agency that is there to safeguard the

taxpayers.

Quite frankly, it’s not, in my respectful opinion, an answer to

say: “Well the Finance Minister will answer that.” I don’t think the

Finance Minister has a supplementary estimate. So if the minister — and

I don’t think he wants to say this, upon reflection — is saying that in

order to satisfy this committee around the process that has been

followed within the government to bring $3 billion in additional

spending, “You should ask the minister,” who isn’t actually part of this

process, then that’s a little too clever.

I think the opposition understands the limitations of what can be

asked and the limitations that exist for the minister on the kinds of

information that can be disclosed. But he has already indicated to the

committee that this is a matter that came up in the last two months. I

take it that means January or February — the idea of spending this money

came up in the last two months.

I think the minister may have disclosed this, and I might not have

been listening closely enough about whether or not it was at the

initiative of the Premier’s office or the…. I think he gave some

information about receiving a request via the Premier’s office. But if I

have misstated that, he’ll correct me.

My colleague is asking, in the immediate aftermath of that

request: is that when the ministry prepared its submission for review by

Treasury Board, or had that taken place previously? It may have. But

that is an appropriate question, in my view, to have asked and an

entirely appropriate question for the minister to answer. Deflecting it

to a colleague who is not even part of this supplementary estimates

process actually causes great concern.

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. I appreciate the way in which

he has phrased it, in which he has asked it. I would make the following

comments in regard to it.

Yes, the process has been followed. Yes, the request came a couple

of months ago in terms of: do we have projects that would be available

for year-end funding?

I’ll make this particular observation about it. This was one of

the key priorities, within our ministry, that we have identified. It has

been in the works since 2017. There has been a significant amount of

work done at the local level. E-Comm and the municipalities that are

responsible for 911 have been working on this. We’ve been aware of

that.

They came forward, just over a year ago, and said that they had a

plan on how to do it. There was going to be a considerable cost to them.

We had identified that. We were aware that they were looking for

help.

We, in the ministry, understood the importance and the need to

meet that timeline of March 4, 2025. So when the request for submissions

came forward, we understood the importance of this particular request.

We had done work on it in terms of its importance and where it fits in

with overall government priorities and the issues that we’re trying to

address. A Treasury Board submission was prepared, a Treasury Board

submission was submitted, and Treasury Board dealt with it.

The member will also know that there is a long-standing practice,

a tradition…. Timing, in regards to Treasury Board, when and what time,

is confidential. It’s not about trying to be saying, “Hey,” for the

Minister of Finance, in terms of them either being here or not being

here. That’s just how the process has worked.

A submission was made. The work, in order to do a submission, was

made, and the Treasury Board did their analysis.

M. de Jong: I can’t remember. Is the Public Safety Minister a member of

Treasury Board?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don’t know whether to say “happily yes” or “happily no.” But no,

I’m not.

M. de Jong: I’m glad he didn’t have to seek the advice of staff in answering

that question.

That’s partially helpful. The minister will understand…. The

opposition’s interest relates, as I’ve said before, not just to this

particular supplementary estimate but to the whole broad gambit and the

procedures that were followed.

[1:25 p.m.]

My understanding is that the request went out from the Premier’s

office to ministries around initiatives and spending that might be

accommodated with supplementary estimates. It sounds like that happened

early in the new year. If that’s incorrect, the minister can correct me.

It sounds like the ministry quickly looked at an existing priority,

which was the transfer of funds or the project with E-Comm.

I’m going to parenthetically say this, drawing on some experience,

happy and not so happy. Procurements and projects that involve

technology, over the last few decades, I have found, can be a pretty

good way to clear the room of terrified politicians because they have a

habit of going sideways. I say this non-judgmentally, for anyone. They

involve, frequently, technology that the laypeople who occupy these

posts are challenged to try and understand. All to say that the process

of oversight, and technical oversight, is all the more

important.

It sounds like…. This is where I’m a bit unclear. There was a

submission prepared by the ministry as it relates to the E-Comm project.

What I’m unclear on is whether that was merely reviewed by Treasury

Board staff or by the Treasury Board. There are two separate agencies.

There’s the secretariat, which is the professional people that conduct

this work, and then there is the body, comprised of ministers. I’m not

sure if there are some private members on the government side that sit

on the Treasury Board or not. There were, under a previous

regime.

When that happened, did that…? When I say “when,” did it happen

prior to the beginning of this year, which, I guess, would have been

last year, or at some point previous to that? Or did the review take

place after the request came in from the Premier’s office?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify. It would have been in December that the

request for projects came.

I totally agree with the member on…. I, too, have been around here

long enough to know that whenever technology is discussed, it can be

like…. That is why when people have issues with technology, I sometimes

look over the other way, and we both smile, knowing: “Hey, we don’t use

it.” There are days I go: “I really like that habit.”

That being said, I want to make these observations. First, the

technology is not something that has been developed for British

Columbia. It’s the technology that’s being used by all the provinces

right across the country. We’re all on the same page.

In terms of the work that has been done and in terms of the

determination of the funds required…. That planning work had been done

by E-Comm. It had been done in discussions with UBCM in terms of the

amount of money.

They had let us know, a year ago, that they had this plan. This is

what their expectations of the costs were. That was something that was

in my ministry. We knew that it was a key priority and that the 2025

date was coming. When the request was out, this was, if you want to use

a term that is often used around here, shovel-ready and in line with the

priorities of the government.

This is at the top of our list of things that we wanted to move

forward, whether it be a Treasury Board submission…. There’s now an

issue for supplementary estimates or going into a budget for this year.

The analysis would have been done, and was done, by both the Treasury

Board secretariat and the full Treasury Board.

M. de Jong: Was this dealt with and approved by Treasury Board as a “minor

item”?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

M. de Jong: Thank you. That, too, is helpful. It tells me that unless things

have changed appreciably, the ministry would have submitted its request,

its proposal, which would have been analyzed by the Treasury Board

secretariat staff. It then would have been followed up with

consideration by what I will term the political level Treasury Board,

which then would have given rise to a decision to approve or not

approve. Presumably, in this case, the decision was to

approve.

Have I described fairly accurately the process that would have

been followed?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, you have.

M. de Jong: I think the final piece in that puzzle, having now clarified,

thank you, the initiating step for this project…. That was already

considered a priority within the ministry. The thing that elevated it

from its status as a “wish to have” to “let’s proceed” being that

request from the Premier’s office in December, the remaining question is

simply, then, to confirm that that process involving the review and the

decision from the political body, Treasury Board, occurred sometime

between that date in December 2022 and the date on which the

supplementary estimate was issued. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your question is yes.

M. de Jong: I think this might be the last question, or process-related

question, that I would have.

Did the…? Was the review of this project…? I’ll back up and say,

just for the record, that the importance the opposition attaches to this

is out of recognition that….

Ministries come along with their projects, and there are

stakeholders who are very anxious to see these projects advanced. And

the objectives are sound. People want…. I don’t expect you’ll hear any

quarrel from my colleagues on the opposition benches about the overall

objective.

But there is this group of people in the Treasury Board staff

whose job it is to poke and prod and make sure that everything is

properly addressed, that whatever contracts are signed are properly

constituted, and to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the risk to

the taxpayers. So we derive some comfort when we discover that that

process would have been followed in this case.

Was the E-Comm project and the $150 million that were part of that

approval process dealt with separately by the Treasury Board, or was it

part of a much larger submission that went to Treasury Board, including

other ministries and other projects?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I know the member has got the…. Having

chaired Treasury Board, he understands fully the process.

I can tell you that the presentation I made was not part of a

larger package. It was there with this item — myself.

M. de Jong: Then I think the remaining piece of the puzzle, if you will, is my

sense that that presentation took place sometime between the ministry

receiving the invitation from the Premier, in December of 2022, and the

date upon which the supplementary estimate was tabled in the

House.

I’m not asking for a more specific date than that, but I am asking

for confirmation that the presentation to Treasury Board took place

sometime in that 2½-month period.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s yes.

E. Sturko: In terms of selecting this particular project…. It is a worthy

project, but we have a lot of other projects, I think the minister would

probably agree, that are also priorities for our province: improving

response times for 911 or Alert Ready being fully operational or even

ensuring that we have provincial 911 in every community.

[1:40 p.m.]

Can you please provide more clarification on what other

alternatives to this project were considered and what the criteria

were?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and she’s right. There

are all kinds of worthy projects and initiatives that government can

undertake. There are those that are in terms of the mandate. There are

those that are asked for by communities. There are those asked for by

outside agencies. There are those asked for by the opposition. The

challenge is, of course, that we can’t do everything.

Part of the decision around…. Ultimately, it is a decision of the

minister on what to advance forward. When I ask my staff — look, we’ve

got all kinds of issues, projects and priorities — one of the key things

is: does it fit in with my mandate letter? Does it fit in with the

priorities of the government? Are there other external

factors?

In this case, the external factor is that we are mandated. There’s

a mandate by the CRTC to get this done by March 4 of 2025. We know that

it’s a priority in terms of local government. We know that it will have

a significant impact on improving public safety. In terms of 911, it has

to be done. Local government wants it. It helps people; it helps first

responders. So there’s a broad benefit that you can readily see and

that’s available. That’s why, in my mind, this is literally right at the

top of the pile. That being said, there are lots of other worthy

projects to do.

I just want to comment briefly on the Alert Ready system. That’s

also a worthwhile project. That’s now in Emergency Management B.C.,

which is now in its own separate stand-alone ministry.

When I get a request, it’s for the areas under my particular

jurisdiction as minister, but it’s not easy. You’ve got competing

priorities, and you try and do the best you can. Part of the role, the

job, of being minister is to ultimately make that decision and go: “Hey,

this needs to go forward, and here’s why it needs to go

forward.”

E. Sturko: Next gen 911 — is that in your mandate letter?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s not specifically part of my mandate letter, but it does touch

on an awful lot of areas that do fall under my mandate, like domestic

violence, for example, the ability to be able to text and say: “Hey, I’m

in a terrible situation here.” As I said, it touches on so many

different aspects, and there’s the mandate that this project needs to go

ahead.

E. Sturko: Let me just…. This has been something that, as you mentioned, was

identified as a priority for a long time, because in 2017, CRTC has

indicated that all the country has to make this, yet it didn’t appear on

any other budget.

[1:45 p.m.]

I think back to the heat dome, when 600 people lost their lives.

We had terrible floods. We’ve had things that are not predictable happen

here in British Columbia. I would argue that having a mandate from the

federal government, from the CRTC, to change over our 911 system to a

digital system is something that is predictable, that could have been

budgeted for before.

When we’re talking about priorities for this government, the Alert

Ready, while not also in your ministry perhaps, does touch on public

safety. Our natural disasters, perhaps heat domes…. These things, may

not be predictable, which is why it would be a priority for our province

to have the Alert Ready system and 911 response times and things that

could potentially save lives and keep people in British Columbia

safe.

If this was a priority for the government, why has it taken so

long? Why is it only coming forward at this time when we have many other

worthy and potentially life-saving initiatives, also priorities for this

government, that have not been put through this process and given these

fundings?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I want to go back to the

answer I gave to…. The member has asked, in a similar frame, a number of

questions on this front.

First off, this is a local government responsibility. It’s under

their mandate. The CRTC made the mandate to move to next gen 911. That

was done in 2017, right across the country, all the provinces. They have

been working on that in terms of how it’s going to take place, how it

will be put in place.

It was just a year ago that they came to the province and said:

“Here’s our plan. Here’s how we see it being implemented. Here’s what

the costs are going to be to us, and we need some help. We would like

you…. This is a big burden for us.”

It’s at that point, not back in 2017…. Government cannot budget

money in 2017 to implement something for 2025 that they

don’t….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll explain it to you, and the Minister of Finance will do

that.

If I were to budget in this year’s budget and say $100 million to

buy X amount of widgets, and that doesn’t get spent, the money doesn’t

just carry over. It doesn’t carry over into the next year, right? That’s

money that’s not available to be spent on something else.

And, we don’t know what that cost is going to be. We didn’t know

until a year ago what kinds of costs we were looking at. That’s when the

province can choose to decide to assist, which is what we’ve done. You

can’t do it before you know what the costs are going to be.

[1:50 p.m.]

E. Sturko: I understand. You cannot say that…. You’re not going to save a big

lump sum over to be done at the last minute, because you can’t. You’d

have to pay back that money, of course.

Why, though, did it take, then, four years before the government

knew that it would need to help pay for this? You’re saying that…. From

2017 until 2022, was there no work done on this seemingly tremendous

project? So you only learned in 2022 that there would be a cost

shortfall, that the municipalities would need this type of

assistance.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to stress the work for this is done by E-Comm and local

government. They are the ones who have to deal with the system. They are

the ones who have responsibility for that system. The province is aware

that they’re doing the work. It’s when they bring the business case to

us that we’re able to assess: “Okay, here’s what they’re looking at.

Here’s what’s what they’re saying they need.” This is happening in every

province.

As I mentioned in one of my answers earlier, some provinces chose

to do a call levy. Ontario did a block grant. We’re looking, going:

“Okay. If they need assistance, what’s the best way to do it?” Is it

through a call levy or is it a block grant? As I said earlier, I think

the block grant, which is what we’ve done, was the right way to do

it.

It’s not a question of work not being done. That work is being

done in the same way it’s been done in every other province. It’s a very

complex process. This is not something…. As the member herself said when

they were making changes in Surrey and moving to new technology, it’s

very complex and intensive. It takes a lot of work, and that’s what’s

been taking place with this. That’s why I think that things will be

ready for the 4th of March, 2025.

E. Sturko: I do appreciate that. I do appreciate that it’s complex. As you

mentioned, I lived through it at the Surrey RCMP. It is very complex,

and there are often unforeseen consequences or hiccups at times. In the

process and in the business case that was brought forward from E-Comm

and from the municipalities, were there any risks identified?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. There would have been a full risk assessment done in terms of

the development of the business case, which is exactly what one would

expect.

That’s the answer to the question. Yes, there was.

E. Sturko: So if there’s a natural disaster…. Thinking of our new system,

thinking of some of the potential risks, how will the next gen 911

services be affected? Let’s say we have a natural disaster, something

caused by climate change perhaps. If the internet service or cell

services go down, how will this affect our 911 services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the big advantages of next gen 911 that’s not available

right now is if something happened, there would be a secondary centre

that would be available to take over the tasks of the main

centre.

E. Sturko: You had mentioned before domestic violence. It actually

would be awesome for someone to be able to be, perhaps, in hiding, not

have to talk, to be able to have that real-time texting. It’s great. But

can we get some more clarity or, perhaps, a timeline? A little bit more

for British Columbians about when do we anticipate every community will

be able to have this.

Right now we know that 93,500 people in British Columbia don’t

have 911 service. Knowing how important this is, knowing that this

technology could be life-saving for somebody, what does that look like?

When can we anticipate this being rolled out for the rest of the

province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. There are those areas that do not have 911

service. That’s why the connectivity initiatives underway by the

government are critical. Our goal is to get that done by 2027. Then

those communities, once they’re connected and then able to get 911, it

would be next gen 911. Those services then start to be

available.

E. Sturko: What type of work has been done in terms of quality control? Can

you take us through that a little bit?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Yes, there is quality

assurance. That’s built into the $60 million that goes to UBCM, and it’s

to deal with just what you have asked.

There are standards. The quality assurance is to ensure that those

standards are met. Those standards are not just B.C. standards. They

are, in fact, standards that are adopted and recognized as North

American–wide.

M. Morris: I appreciate the proceedings here today. I’m operating remotely.

There have been some issues with connectivity. I hope it doesn’t occur

during these estimate processes here.

I want to thank my colleague from Surrey South for pinch-hitting

for me, as I’m stuck here in Prince George, for a variety of different

reasons. I think she’s done a good job for her first time up to bat

during this process here.

I also recognize the learned and valued staff that the minister

has sitting around him. I know they provide good input and advice. It’s

good to see you folks again.

Just a comment. I’ve got a couple of questions I want to talk

about, with respect to the priorities. The member for Abbotsford West

went through some of the process questions that I was interested in as I

listened through this debate so far. I guess I have to say that I

haven’t been around as long as the minister has, but the magnitude of

this process seems a little bit unusual at this particular

time.

You know, I’m not supportive of the supplementary estimates. It

appears, by the numbers here, that perhaps this government is making

this a routine part of doing business, which I have trouble with. This

should be for the extreme, unusual cases.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Again, I’ve had this mentioned by different folks in the community

here. They lose confidence in the government’s ability to do proper

budgeting in the process when we have numbers of this magnitude coming

in as supplementary budget issues moving forward here.

Having said that, I’ll focus now on some of the issues. The

minister was talking about priorities that his ministry was looking at.

He had been approached by the Premier’s office, in my understanding,

listening to the conversation earlier on, to come up with a shovel-ready

project. They’ve chosen this one. It’s a large amount of money — there’s

no question — and it’s within the area of responsibility for municipal

governments, regional district governments. So it’s outside of the scope

in a normal course of doing business.

A couple of questions. I just wondered why this one was chosen as

a priority over, perhaps, looking at increased help for forensic labs to

look at the backlog of laboratory analysis on drugs, considering the

opiate crisis that we have, or firearms-related offences. Of course, I

know that the minister has put some time into that.

The other issue that is causing a lot of police forces some

concern is the encryption of cell phones, which are so critical in the

criminal investigations they have, not only for the number of homicides

and the gang activity that we see across the province but for other

major investigations over the province here as well.

I’m just wondering: have the RCMP provided any multi-year plans

looking for increases in these areas? If they have, I’m just wondering

why the minister would not have considered those issues as a priority

over this particular one with 911.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. Those are all legitimate

issues and priorities that work has been underway on in my ministry. In

some cases, I know, the member, when he was on this side of the House,

was involved in a number of those issues, and we’ve made progress on

them.

There are two issues in particular about this decision — around

why 911. I think it comes down to two things. One, this is one-time

funding. It’s not for operational funding that goes on from year to

year. That’s crucial in determining what projects can go ahead. The

other, which is also important, is that the move to next gen 911 is

mandated by the CRTC. It has to happen.

There’s a clear date by which it must be in place. Given the

importance of 911 right across the province, questions have been asked

by the opposition, and the UBCM and local governments have identified it

as an issue of critical concern to them.

I don’t want to stray too much outside my ministry now. When I did

have EMBC, for example…. Notification and all of those things tie into

each other. They’re all part of what’s required, both legislatively and

programmatically, but also in terms of, as I said, the CRTC and the

mandate that it is putting in place.

When we have the ability to say, “Okay, we have funding that can

go out” — in this case, in the case of supplemental estimates — based on

what we’re seeing through the financial situation of the province,

through the course of the year in my ministry, we go: “What have we got?

What can we do that can achieve a whole series of objectives in public

safety and that will have a significant impact?” This is it. This

project is ready, it’s supported, and it’ll make a big

difference.

At the end of the day, my job as minister is to make that decision

on what priorities go forward. That’s why I made that decision. That

being said, it does not take away from any of the other issues or

priorities that I have on my desk. It is looking at everything and

saying: “Okay, what is going to give us the biggest value that is going

to have an impact?” This absolutely does. It meets that mandate of when

something has to be done by.

M. Morris: I appreciate the response from the minister, and I certainly

understand the list of pressures that he has on his desk at any given

time.

I’m wondering if the minister can tell me what the next priority

or the next two priorities would have been, on his list, that he could

have turned his attention to. I say this because there are a couple of

questions that I’m going to be asking a little bit later on and that

might pertain to this.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I will say this,

because these are supplementary estimates, and it really is just about

this particular expenditure of money on this particular project.

I know the member has been Solicitor General, so he understands and

knows the different pressures in the ministry, and the competing issues

that the ministry faces.

I would just say this. We’re going to be going into Solicitor

General estimates later on this year. I think, because he and I have

talked about it in the past, to me, the biggest priority, and I made the

announcement earlier, was to deal with that issue around core policing.

To me, that priority of getting that funding of the $235 million was

absolutely crucial. That has been my, you know…. But that’s for another

set of estimates.

In terms of these estimates, it’s about this. My decision was:

“Look, if we’ve got one-time funding, this project will have the biggest

impact and support across the province in terms of local governments, in

terms of first responders, in terms of improving the ability to

communicate.” As I said, it meets that mandated deadline, which we are

required to meet.

It’s not one that we can say: “Oh, we’ll do a bit this year and a

bit next year.” Sorry; local government can’t say that. They have to

meet that deadline, and this funding allows them to do it. It takes a

significant pressure, financial pressure, off them, and that’s a good

thing.

M. Morris: I appreciate the minister’s response to that. Just a little bit

YEAS — 41

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Chant

Chen

Chow

Coulter

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Dykeman

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Yao

NAYS — 19

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Kyllo

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Paton

Ross

Shypitka

Stone

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the

supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of

Health.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

The Chair: Of course, before we get started here, just that we are here

looking at supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Health. It’s

a very focused set of questions. Of course, it’s not the main Health

estimates, which will be coming up. I’d, of course, ask members to

keep their questions focused on the supplemental estimates — the

minister as well, yes.

Hon. A. Dix: I was going to say I have the answers, hon. Speaker.

On Vote 32(S): ministry operations,

$150,000,000 .

Hon. A. Dix: What I just propose to do at the beginning is sort of lay out what

the supplementary estimate is. Then, I know, the member will have, and

members will have, lots of questions about that. What we’re doing is

asking the House today to approve the $150 million to the B.C. Cancer

Foundation to support cancer research and a highly skilled cancer care

workforce.

I want to speak a little bit about the foundation. I know members

of the House will know the foundation well. It’s British Columbia’s

largest charity in terms of charitable donations last year. It’s

extraordinarily well-run and plays a central role not just in the lives

of people engaged with cancer, who are diagnosed with cancer and who

work on cancer issues, but of the whole community. The B.C. Cancer

Foundation is the fundraising partner of B.C. Cancer and supports, in

its own way, more than 80,000 patients every year.

I’ll just give you a sense of, recently, some of the things that

foundation has done here in B.C. in advancing cancer care. The first

population-based lung cancer screening program, launched in May 2022.

They played an integral role in that; we’ve spoken about that before in

this House. The first effective prevention strategy discovered and

deployed for ovarian cancer. The first cancer centre to effectively

treat a patient based on the DNA of their cancer, which is obviously

important. Their work on the evolution of cancer over time and the

development of advanced forms of radiation therapy is now used

worldwide.

The B.C. Cancer Foundation obviously plays a central role. I think

what’s also to be understood is just how successful and connected to

community they are. Last year, the B.C. Cancer Foundation raised $77.1

million. That wasn’t based on government grants such as this. In fact, I

think only $4 million of that came from various government grants.

That’s from the community.

Certainly, in response to the action that I hope the House will

approve today, the foundation is setting its sights high. I’m not going

to make their announcements in terms of their targets, and so on, but

you can imagine that their current campaign, which is called the Beyond

Belief campaign, has a number of priorities: advancing innovation,

investing in leading-edge research; accelerating access, bringing

world-class care closer to home for every British Columbian; and

activating the world’s best, expanding and empowering B.C. cancer teams

across B.C.

I want to talk about what the grant will do and then sort of the

detailed sublines of that grant, and then I know we’ll have an

opportunity to discuss each of those in detail. The $150 million grant

to the B.C. Cancer Foundation will support cancer research and attract

high-calibre talent needed to implement the overall plan and meet key

priorities related to accessing specialized and essentially new and

novel treatments, and integrating research into cancer care.

The capacity to undertake research and integrate scientific

advances in the world, as we all know, is such a positive thing and is

occurring at an extraordinary rate. Our involvement in that here in B.C.

is critical to ensuring the best cancer care to patients and, of course,

the best cancer care for generations to come.

Specifically, this money will fund delivering clinical trials

across all cancer centres in the province, allowing for greater access

for patients living outside the large centres to participate in clinical

trials. That is, I think, of fundamental importance and of fundamental

value. Increasing radiation oncology trials that study treatment

approaches, which require fewer visits and precision radiotherapy

research to enhance efficacy, while reducing toxicity from radiation

treatments. Anyone who has themselves received, or has had a

family member receive, radiation treatments will understand the value of

that.

[2:50 p.m.]

Enhancing capacity and genomic testing to deliver the optimal

treatment for every patient. This includes improvement and development

of cost-effective gene panel assays for cancers; the continued

development of novel gene assays that are performed on blood samples,

cell-free DNA rather than biopsies, reducing health care costs and

allowing longitudinal monitoring of patients. They are rapidly becoming

an emerging standard in cancer medicine.

In addition, expanding access to new diagnostic and therapeutic

approaches, treatments and technologies; establishing innovative cancer

treatment programs; supporting emerging multidisciplinary research

programs; enhancing capacity in population health and health economics

research; providing research start-up and seed grants to attract

research talent and support research trainees. The B.C. Cancer

Foundation has created a new program to attract trainees in cancer

research to B.C. Cancer. The Rising Star Awards build specific criteria

to ensure that other students — women, Indigenous and from

underrepresented communities — get equitable access to scholarship

support.

Creating four endowed leadership and research chairs within the

foundation to help recruit and retain key clinical researchers that are

vital to the long-term success of B.C. Cancer. Creating scholarships

within the foundation to support schooling for critical cancer medical

positions, such as radiation therapists and technologists and medical

physicists.

Supporting equipment for clinical trials. This includes support

for the acquisition and installation of a state-of-the art,

ultra-high-sensitivity long axial field of view PET CT scanner, which

could upgrade one of the instruments to be installed at the Vancouver

centre. This PET CT scanner is more than ten times faster than the

current state-of-the-art equipment.

To lay out the numbers of the $150 million, it’ll be invested by

the following breakdown. Clinical and multidisciplinary research: $55.7

million. Research equipment and infrastructure: $34.3 million. Start-up

and seed grants: $19 million. Recruitment and retention initiatives:

$13.5 million. Training and education: $4.5 million. And endowed

research chair positions: $23 million.

The last time we did supplementary estimates in Health, members

will remember, we were addressing similar questions of research in terms

of a long-term investment in research for Genome B.C. and the Michael

Smith Foundation. That was the last supplementary estimate we did here.

I think it’s fair to say that these research investments in Michael

Smith and Genome B.C., which started under the NDP government in the

1990s and were supported by the Liberal government subsequent to that

and then our government subsequent to that, have been used in such a

process here.

The B.C. Cancer Foundation and this funding will benefit cancer

patients, benefit research and help us to recruit high-quality people

and cutting-edge researchers. I think it will also, more broadly — and

this is beyond cancer — support the innovation economy. I think,

therefore, this opportunity, using the supplementary estimates here in

partnership with the B.C. Cancer Foundation, is something I hope all

members of the House will support.

M. Bernier: I didn’t want to interrupt the flow of the minister, but I just

wanted to bring it to the House’s attention that we do not have quorum

and should not be continuing without it.

The Chair: There are ten members. We do have quorum, including the Chair.

There’s now an 11th member. But I appreciate the support for the

Chair to ensure we have quorum. We have 11. Quorum is ten, so we did

have quorum.

S. Bond: One would hope we would be able to drum up quorum in the

Legislature. Thank you to my colleague for pointing that out.

I do appreciate the opening comments from the minister, but I want

to remind us why we’re here today. Certainly it isn’t to question the

merit of the work that is done by the B.C. Cancer Foundation. I

appreciate the minister reading into the record a number of things that

this grant will likely do or accomplish. So that is exactly the line of

questioning that I hope to undertake over the next few hours as we go

through the supplementary estimates.

I think it’s important to remember that the reason we’re here is

because the Ministry of Health overspent its budget. That’s what

supplementary estimates are about.

[2:55 p.m.]

While, certainly, the importance of the work that will be done

with the amount of money…. It may seem like a small amount of money to

the Ministry of Health, $150 million, but it’s a big amount of money to

the people of British Columbia. So we are going to talk about what it

potentially will do. Before we do that….

When you look at the definition of “supplementary estimates” that

is provided to legislators…. Supplementary estimates actually grant

approval for one-time expenditures to cover additional spending on items

that were unknown at budget time.

Now, this money is being provided to the B.C. Cancer Foundation to

support cancer research and do a number of other things. We will walk

through each of them. To be clear, I’m not sure how that could not have

been known at budget time.

Let’s just start with a basic question. Could the minister confirm

for me what the Health Ministry budget is?

Hon. A. Dix: I just take a different view of what supplementary estimates are.

This is a decision to spend $150 million more, in this fiscal year, for

this purpose. It’s not because we are over budget or over the previous

estimate that we’re doing that. It’s because, for this purpose…. We’re

seeking to be granted $150 million more to support the B.C. Cancer

Foundation.

With respect to the main estimates last year, which we debated

last May, and the estimates…. There are, obviously, different numbers,

which we will be debating soon, either later in March or in April of

this year.

The main estimates were $25,455,895,000.The supplementary

estimates would take that to $25,605,895,000.

S. Bond: I’m certainly not going to quibble about the definition of

“supplementary estimates.”

The reason we are here having this discussion is because this is

outside of a budget that we debated previously. It is outside of the

amount that the Ministry of Health was provided in terms of the work

that they needed to do. It was not anticipated, or it was not

necessarily identified as recently as the last quarterly report we

had.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I certainly want to make sure, as we proceed through this

discussion…. This is not about the B.C. Cancer Foundation and

whether or not we need to do research and a whole pile of things that

are included here.

We have a Health Ministry that has, undoubtedly, the largest

ministry and budget in government. We are here today debating $150

million that was not included in the original budget estimates or plan

of this ministry.

I would like to start there. I’m wondering if the minister could

confirm that he received, or the ministry received, a request from the

Ministry of Finance to identify items for which surplus dollars could be

utilized.

Hon. A. Dix: The Premier, I think, has been clear for some time that government

would seek to use the extraordinary revenue improvement in the

’22-23 budget year to support British Columbians. This estimate most

clearly does that.

The member will know we regularly engage with the B.C. Cancer

Foundation on opportunities. It’s clear that they are an outstanding

agency that will use this money for the stated purposes of the

supplementary estimates. That’s why we brought this forward. Obviously,

it was subsequently approved by the government and included in the

budget as a supplementary estimate. I think all of that is

straightforward.

The reason we’re debating it here today is because it is a

priority. We need to bring such a request back to the Legislature for

debate, and that’s what we’re doing.

S. Bond: The purpose of having a discussion and debate about supplementary

estimates is because it is about choice. It is about the minister,

obviously, with the advice and suggestions and partnership of his

ministry team. I know that team, and I know what an excellent job they

do.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is not about that. This is not about the Cancer Foundation.

It is about a choice that was made to spend $150 million. That’s in the

context of an environment where we have significant concerns about

cancer care in British Columbia. No one is disputing that this isn’t a

worthy organization and, heaven knows, we need research. So we’re going

to go through those items that are noted.

I would like the minister, if he could, to confirm then for me

that he as minister, or the ministry, was approached by the Ministry of

Finance and asked to identify candidates for the use of the

surplus.

Hon. A. Dix: I think the answer is yes. I think, on the research question…. I

think we’ll have the opportunity, and I know the member and I will, I

expect, be discussing this at some length during the main estimates

coming up, with respect to the cancer plan and other issues, which are

immediate and operating issues.

I think this is, from my point of view, a very appropriate way to

use the kind of funding for supplementary estimates that the Ministry of

Health has asked for in the past, for Michael Smith and for Genome B.C.,

which I think has been quite effective. It allowed us to significantly

increase investments in both those institutions to the benefit of all

people in B.C. and, again, this is the same thing.

But yes, were asked. At the same time, we’ve been engaging with

the foundation in these very priorities in the recent period and

obviously consulting with the foundation widely because of its deep

understanding of cancer issues and because of its role in cancer care in

the province.

That’s the circumstance, and I think that’s the response that the

member was looking for.

S. Bond: I appreciate the answer was yes — that ministries were asked to

come up with ideas, basically, to use the surplus.

Were there any…? I would like to follow up with the minister

about…. Was there a framework for bringing forward recommendations? Were

ministries simply told: “Here; we have a bucket of money”?

One of the things I’d like to point out to the minister is that I

have been here, as he has, for a significant period of time, and a

supplementary estimate isn’t unusual in and of itself, but I can assure

you, then, that when we’re approaching literally…. I think we’re over $2

billion in supplementary estimates. That is not a minor issue. So

understanding how the Health Ministry was given approval to spend $150

million that was not identified in their previous budget is actually

pretty important.

Could the minister outline for me: was there a framework? Was

there any suggestion of criteria that might be used to identify the

issues to bring forward for those surplus funds?

Hon. A. Dix: I think this is exactly the kind of funding that’s envisioned by

supplementary estimates, because it is one-time funding by definition.

When we present a cancer plan again, and we’ll debate that at some point

later, the issues at B.C. Cancer and issues in cancer care now and into

the future that are appropriately operating funding are initiatives that

are ongoing.

If you’re going to, I don’t know, increase services, increase the

number of surgeries, whatever the plan you would have for any area of

health care, then you would have that in the base of operating funding.

That’s what will be discussed in the main estimates.

In this case, this research provides, I think, long-term supports

and benefits to British Columbians. It’s being situated with the

foundation, and the member and I agree…. I’m not suggesting, by the way,

that she doesn’t agree with this. I’m just saying that the B.C. Cancer

Foundation, which is an excellent place to support all the work that’s

being done in cancer….

In addition, it’s consistent with previous supplementary estimates

for this kind of research effort, including with the Michael Smith

Foundation and Genome B.C. So on all of those grounds, this represents,

I think, the exact, appropriate use for a supplementary

estimate.

[3:05 p.m.]

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response. We’re certainly…. The

good thing is that there is consistency in terms of the answers from

ministers who are facing supplementary estimate debates, because it has

been made clear that a call went out. It was: “We have surplus funds,

and we’re going to spend them. What are your candidates for that amount

of money?”

As I said, it is not an insignificant amount of money. It is, I

think, in excess…. Actually, I will have that here when I look at the

homework that I did. Yes, we’re at $2.7 billion in appropriations that

are being considered in the supplementary estimates. That is not, by any

stretch of the imagination, a small amount of money.

The call went out. The minister, obviously, was asked to look for

a way to invest in something. Can the minister describe for me how the

need for this one-time expenditure was identified? I know the Cancer

Foundation does great work. How was it identified? Had the Cancer

Foundation made a request for additional funding of $150 million? How

did the minister get to the place that this was the item that he took

forward for spending of surplus dollars?

Hon. A. Dix: Of course the B.C. Cancer Foundation — the member will know this,

because we’ve talked about it before — has come forward with the

largest, most ambitious fundraising campaign in history, with high

ambitions in terms of what can be achieved with that money in terms of

building research in the long term.

Again, we’ll be discussing this at a later time, so I’m not going

to go into what we announced and make the case or anything like that.

We’ll have the opportunity to have that discussion later. But obviously,

the issue of cancer is a central focus of mine and of British

Columbians, all the time. So when we look at supplementary estimates,

what can you do at the end of the fiscal year under these

circumstances?

Just like with Michael Smith and with Genome, this seemed to me —

in my meetings with the foundation, my work with cancer — a natural

opportunity to advance that work. It’s of fundamental importance.

Sometimes what happens, I think…. One of the reasons why research

sometimes gets left to the side is because there’s so much urgency in

the present. The member and I have had some of these discussions, so we

know there is urgency in the present in the Legislature this week.

There’s always urgency in the present.

This is an opportunity to do something in the coming years in

terms of building out the highest level of research capacity. Many of

our top clinicians in cancer care value and see research when you’re

recruiting people to the province, when you’re building out your

network, when you want to be on the cutting edge of a change, which is

constantly on the cutting edge. This is such a positive thing for

patients. This was a real opportunity to do this.

Certainly I engage with the B.C. Cancer Foundation often. Last

year they fully briefed me on their campaign that they were coming

forward with and the ambitions of that campaign and the possibilities of

that campaign. Concurrently, of course, we were working on these issues,

as the member will know.

I saw this as a real opportunity that probably, I’d say, I was

thinking of before the call went out. When the call went out, this was,

obviously, with our team, the exact kind of thing you’d want to do for

such a call: boost research in cancer and to put B.C. on the cutting

edge of cancer research. This supports our whole effort in cancer, I’d

argue. That’s why we put forward this amount of money.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response. I certainly

understand and have experienced the list of requests that come to a

minister. But it is about choice.

I also understand the nature of a grant and the process of

year-end funding. So that does provide some limitations in terms of the

kinds of things that can be funded. But it is also in the context of a

health care system where the needs are overwhelming.

The minister knows that every single day, both he and I hear

stories, and my colleagues and his colleagues, about the desperation

that exists, especially in cancer care, at the moment.

[3:10 p.m.]

Just to pursue the process for a bit longer, if the minister would

indulge me. Could the minister identify the point in time or a rough

timeline for when the call went out in terms of looking for projects for

additional spending?

Hon. A. Dix: I know the member knows this, having been a minister, but the

broader community may not know that the process for year-end actually

begins the previous fall. In the absence, even in advance of a call,

when it is looking at year-end requests…. I will give the member an

example of such a request that we did for multiple years, last year, for

the Alzheimer Society for the First Link program, which has

traditionally been funded by our government and then by the previous

government at year-end.

What you’re looking at is there’s a look at year-end that begins,

probably…. I would look at, first, in the mid to early fall, I’d say. In

that period, that September, October period. We’re looking at, “Okay,

where are we at, and what are the opportunities here?” What are the

things that we’ve traditionally funded at year-end? Some of them going

back decades at year-end…. What are the opportunities for that? We start

that process. What are the possibilities.

We’ve done this a number of times in the past. For example, to

support capital expenditures by physicians, we did a year-end grant,

which is not part of a supplementary estimate process. So the Doctors of

B.C., for example, which has served them well as they’ve dealt with

issues around the province with respect to primary care. That process

probably starts September and October of every year.

As we go through, we get requests from different places in that

process, including from members of the opposition. I have some good news

for one or two of them, I’ll just say, but that’s a different process.

It’s not the supplementary estimates process, so I will not be

distracted from my laser focus on that process. That’s the process, and

then, obviously, with the new Premier and with the fiscal position of

the province, the call-outs subsequent to that here.

We were, in that sense, ready for it and looking at the

opportunities, particularly in cancer, because there are the immediate

concerns, which are appropriately what we debate in the main budget and

the main estimates. What this does is support that and invests in the

long term, which sometimes is a challenge for governments when faced

with immediate demands, particularly in health care. I think this was

exactly the kind of research support we provide.

Often, year-end requests — again, I know the member knows this,

but for the benefit of the House and the people watching — are research

requests at year-end because of this very reason. We get those every

year as well. As for the priority given, I think we’re going to go

through the details of this, but I know the member understands, as I

know all members understand, the priority that has to be given to this

area and for B.C. to be in the forefront of cancer research, which is

deeply connected to the delivery of cancer services in our province and

always has been. That’s why this was an obvious priority.

I’ve had, myself, meetings with the B.C. Cancer Foundation

on some of these very questions well in advance of that process. Of

course when the situation went out, we were able to act on that and come

forward and ultimately have this $150 million approved. I’m obviously

very pleased and grateful for that.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister walking through the fact that ministries

and ministers do keep a list of things that in many ways they are

hopeful there will be year-end funds. I can understand that the Ministry

of Health was at the ready when the call came. Obviously with a new

Premier and the opportunity to spend that request, at least for specific

asks, was likely made post the swearing in of the new Premier, so from

the November time frame.

[3:15 p.m.]

Could the minister identify for me what process was used? For

example, was a Treasury Board application or presentation made? Did this

go through the Treasury Board process?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

S. Bond: Could the minister remind me: is he a member of Treasury

Board?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, I am. It’s sitting right now.

S. Bond: I don’t know whether to congratulate him or not. Could the

minister tell me whether it was a minor item?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, it was an item. I mean, the member will know — she’s very

experienced — that the Treasury Board process is a confidential process,

but it’s obviously approved by Treasury Board. I believe very

passionately in the item.

She was a member of Treasury Board. I’ve been a member of Treasury

Board since 2017. The first Minister of Finance that I served with on

Treasury Board told me that they didn’t usually allow the Minister of

Health to be on Treasury Board. I don’t know why that was; anyway, they

let me on. So yes, I’ve been through that process.

The issue is that there was clearly an item on the Treasury Board

agenda, and I think you would characterize $150 million as

important.

S. Bond: I certainly would, when you think about the size of some

ministries in this government. In any government, that is a substantive

amount of money. Again, that’s why this discussion is important, when

we’re talking about supplementary estimates, when the total spending is

$2.7 billion of supplementary estimates — funds that were not part of

the budget process previously. It is important that we have substantive

discussion about this.

I’m interested. If the minister could just expand on the amount

for me. Did the ministry decide that $150 million was the number and

then go and make that ask? Or was it the reverse? Did the Ministry of

Finance say: “Here’s an allocation. What would fit from your wish

list?”

Hon. A. Dix: What we did I went over earlier. I will just briefly again lay out

what the funding is for. We’re going to go through, I think, each of

these lines as we go forward.

It’s $55.7 million for clinical multidisciplinary research.

Significant work was done, obviously, by the Provincial Health Services

Authority and the B.C. Cancer Agency. We had discussions with the B.C.

Cancer Foundation and our ministry to determine these numbers. Then

$34.3 million on research equipment and infrastructure, $19 million for

start-up and seed grants, $13.5 million for recruitment and retention

initiatives, $4.5 million for training and then the endowed position of

$23 million.

The endowed position and all of these items are based on: “What do

we see ourselves doing?” In discussing this with the foundation, $150

million was seen as the appropriate number. We put forward this request

based on that and not on: “Oh, Health is getting X amount of

money.”

The member has talked about $2.7 billion. This is our one item in

the supplementary estimates for $150 million. Obviously Health gets a

good share of the main estimates budget, which we will be discussing in

a little while. So $150 million, based on the work we did, was the right

amount. We didn’t start with the $150 million; we started with what we

wanted to do. The $150 million became the number, based on all these

different items that we wanted to achieve in supporting the foundation

in this contribution.

S. Bond: I appreciate that. I have another question in terms of how the

minister landed on this particular amount. There’s one thing that would

be most helpful. Obviously, I do not have the advantage of having the

breakdown of the $150 million. I can certainly wait for the

Blues to come out, but I would prefer it if the minister

could share those specific amounts, so that as I go through my questions

— and my colleague is going to be asking some questions today as well —

we have the advantage of knowing what the breakdown was.

[3:20 p.m.]

I’m wondering. The minister has described the process of trying to

figure out…. There are so many needs and so many worthy places that

money could be allocated. Were there other considerations made by the

minister? He, obviously, and his team landed on B.C. Cancer Foundation

with a number of things. We’re going to go through those. Were there

other alternatives considered when looking at where to land on

additional funding that would be available?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that in the year-end process, there are a

number of priorities. This particular priority — to my way of thinking,

because of what we’d done before on research — for a supplementary

estimates request seemed to be the appropriate investment.

Obviously, we’re concurrently doing work on the B.C. cancer plan.

I think it’s fair to say to the member: we don’t want to characterize

what $150 million is. It’s a breathtaking investment in the cancer

research future of the province that comes, I think, at the right moment

for that. As I described the year-end process earlier, there are a

number of requests that one looks at, but for this supplementary

estimates process, this was certainly one that we gave priority to in

support for the research.

Of course, because the foundation is doing that research, just as

with Michael Smith or the genome…. We make research-dependent decisions

that are independent but, really, support our overall effort in cancer.

We want to follow the answers where they are. This was, I think,

therefore, for this process, an investment that made a lot of

sense.

We also have to continue and are continuing to support — we gave a

very large contribution to Genome B.C., the Michael Smith Foundation

through supplementary estimates two years ago, I think. That’s also an

excellent way to promote research. Both our government and previous

governments have done that, including during supplementary estimates.

For all those reasons, it made sense for one time.

B.C. Cancer Foundation is an outstanding organization, able to

receive such an amount of money, to manage it and to deliver what we all

collectively want it to do. It gives momentum to a part of the cancer

plan that isn’t immediately about services or demands or the increasing

number of people with cancer. It focuses on improving cancer care and

supporting excellence in cancer care. For all those reasons, it made a

lot of sense.

S. Bond: I appreciate that response. Certainly, the minister, as I have

been, is a member of Treasury Board. I want to just have the minister

confirm for me that a regular process was followed through Treasury

Board, that this was an item that was reviewed, rigorously debated and

considered. That is the job of Treasury Board when we are expending

public dollars.

I fully understand the nature of Treasury Board, having been there

as vice-chair for a number of years. I understand the confidential

nature of it, but was the process followed in presenting a request to

Treasury Board: a rigorous review, with, ultimately, Treasury Board

staff reviewing it; political approval; and the allocation given final

approval?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes. The process, just in general, for Treasury Board. Again, I

know the member knows that; I know the former Minister of Education

knows this. Just because we’re having the debates and so that we

understand, generally speaking, what happens in government….

[3:25 p.m.]

This can happen even if money is already allocated, because you

still have to come back with the detailed submissions. It starts with….

In this case, we were doing work in the year-end — and, obviously, doing

the work that everybody knows about — in developing a ten-year cancer

plan.

The call went out. We felt this was an excellent proposal and

engaged with Treasury Board — in advance, even, I suspect, of the

proposal coming forward. The treasury support submission goes in. It’s

developed by staff. Version 12 gets signed by me. I’m kidding. It gets

developed by staff. I’m very easygoing about these things. It’s

developed by staff. Then I sign off on the Treasury Board request. It

goes to Treasury Board.

Sometimes the analysis, as the member will know, would be

concurrent. Because Treasury Board staff, especially in the budget

season, are so busy, we don’t surprise them. They don’t have to wait for

the sign-off to begin the work. They do the work together, the people

who are in Treasury Board.

I don’t want to describe it as some sort of special, secret

chamber. What happens is what happens ordinarily: you have a proposal

that goes forward. It gets analyzed by staff, and then a decision is

made, either by the Minister of Finance sometimes and then later

approved by Treasury Board, or by the Treasury Board itself. Then all of

those decisions are ultimately reported out to cabinet. That’s just the

general process.

There used to be something called an after-school special. They

had a thing in the United States: “How a Bill Becomes a Law.” Well,

that’s my after-school special for Treasury Board.

S. Bond: Thank you very much. I do want to see, I will look forward to

seeing, the breakdown of the $150 million. It will probably be helpful

to some of the questions, because we have a long list of things that are

attributed to this $150 million.

I want to just reflect on the fact that this grant has now become

one of the key components of the ten-year cancer plan. It is noted in

the press release that the minister and the Premier proudly announced. I

just want to point out that, again, supplementary estimates are about

expenditures that were not considered as part of the main budget

estimates. In fact, they require authorization of this chamber,

retroactively.

The ten-year cancer plan…. Again, I’m going to keep saying it,

because the last thing I want is to have someone tweeting out that the

MLA for Prince George–Valemount doesn’t think that money going to the

B.C. Cancer Foundation is worthwhile. Nothing could be further from the

truth. But our job is to look at it. When you have $2.7 billion of

spending, and when you line up what the spending is on, they literally

have been the foundation of the press releases that have been pouring

out of the Premier’s office.

The ten-year cancer strategy was not a surprise. In fact, the

previous Premier announced that it would be in place. He announced it in

2020. Now, the grant that we are speaking about today forms a

significant part of the background of a program that was announced in

2020: there would be a plan coming. I admit that this is a lot of money.

We will discuss the virtues of the breakdown, of how that money is going

to be spent, but this strategy is not a surprise. It was announced three

years ago.

Now, we find that one of the key components of the cancer strategy

is actually a supplementary estimate. That is a concern for me.

Obviously, British Columbians were promised a ten-year cancer strategy.

Here we are in 2023. We’re finally seeing a ten-year cancer action

plan.

Let me start with this, then. The amount that we are discussing

today in supplementary estimates is actually $150 million being granted

to the B.C. Cancer Foundation.

[3:30 p.m.]

The cancer action plan was announced, which is a grant to the B.C.

Cancer Foundation to support cancer research and all of the things that

minister outlined. We’re going to go through them, because the minister

put them on the record. The amount announced is $170 million. Can the

minister describe for me the difference between the supplementary

estimate of $150 million and the announced $170 million?

Hon. A. Dix: The difference is this. We’re seeking $150 million of that amount,

the research component, through the supplementary estimate. The other

$20 million will be covered through existing resources, and that money

is for travel and that, but that’s part of the existing resources of the

Ministry of Health.

We made a request for a supplementary estimate, and the other $20

million in this fiscal year would be to support travel, and that’s

within the existing estimate of the Ministry of Health. That’s the

difference between the two.

The $170 million…. We’re asking for the $150 million today, which

is the research component. The travel component, which is a further $20

million, is in the current main budget of the Ministry of Health, and

the money had been allocated against that budget.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister.

Can the minister just confirm for me what should be a fairly

obvious answer? Did the Ministry of Health expend its entire budget

allocation?

Hon. A. Dix: Clearly not. I don’t want to do one of those answers which is

cute.

We’re at Q3-and-a-half. We’re 11/12ths of the way through the

fiscal year. We’re spending $2 billion a month. We’re obviously not

there. It’s often a challenge managing that budget. We do a lot of work,

and that’s why we started the year-end very early, just to make sure

that we’re on track.

I think the budget of the Ministry of Health is on track, but $150

million contribution to the B.C. Cancer Foundation I think met the

criteria of what the Premier was looking for. It meets a major public

priority. It makes things better for people in the province, and it met

the standard of the supplementary estimates.

So I don’t think that’s correct to say. I expect, and it’s my

obligation, in fact, to bring the Ministry of Health budget in on

budget. I can tell you that it will be brought in on budget.

What you do…. Remember, we have that. We also have…. There are

some contingency budgets, particularly with respect to COVID-19, to

continue to do significant effort with the vaccination campaign that

continues to be provincewide, for example. So we have those multiple

budgets, but I would expect the budget to come in on budget, but we are,

as I say, not through our budget yet.

When you’re spending, as you do in the Ministry of Health, a

significant amount…. I could break it down by day and by hour, but it’s

a significant amount in that budget, obviously. We’re 11/12ths of the

way through, and managing the budget at year-end is an important matter.

That’s why governments, dating back a long time, probably, I would

guess, back to the 1970s, have used year-end in the budget in this way —

to fund the priorities.

The challenges is — and we’ve had this discussion, the member and

I and, I think, her predecessors from Kelowna–Lake Country and from

Kelowna-Mission — the important issues that happen consistently at

year-end, year unto year unto year. First Link is an example of that,

and whether it’s better or not to put those into the base of a ministry

expenditure, that’s been typically how we’ve done it.

We’ve taken advantage of opportunities where there’s room in the

budget to ensure that the Alzheimer Society has a couple of years. I’ve

tried, in the case of that funding allocation, to make sure they always

had a couple of years in advance so they weren’t coming up to a fiscal

cliff for a program that is so vital to British Columbians, for example.

So that’s the kind of work that happens at the end of fiscal

year.

I think our budget in the Ministry of Health is fine, but this is

a significant item and appropriate for a supplementary

estimate.

[3:35 p.m.]

S. Bond: I know that the minister will forgive me for reminding him that

some governments, if they didn’t bring their budget in and balance

a) their ministry and

b) the government budget, paid a fiscal price for

that. This minister will not face that should his budget not be

balanced.

I want to just pursue with the minister for a moment…. It is

devastating to hear the word “cancer.” I understand, and the minister

has provided me with a sense of his rationale for the choice he made

here, but I remain deeply concerned about the day-to-day situation in

our health care system related to cancer care and physicians and a whole

bunch of other things, which he and I will debate and discuss in the

main estimates.

Again to the minister, what was the tipping point for making a

decision to focus on research — $150 million of money that was made

available when the Premier’s office put out a call — and to not make the

choice to think about what helps us in the immediate term?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think the short answer…. Again, we’re going to have this

debate about assurances we have. But this is also an opportunity to take

some very significant action working with the foundation to improve

things now but also in the near term. Having this, I think it’s fair to

call it, breathtaking investment to the foundation and in research

supports all of our efforts. I think sometimes we have this debate, and

we hear it sometimes around the Provincial Health Services Authority.

You’ll say that there are this many people, and most of the people

earning the top dollar…. Nineteen of the top 20 people earning at the

PHSA, including B.C. Cancer, are doctors; six of them are

oncologists.

What you want to do is recruit some of the best researchers and

clinicians in the world. Often our clinicians are 70 percent clinicians

and 30 percent researchers. So this opportunity to drive and demonstrate

a long-term commitment in cancer research, to use this opportunity in

March — and you can’t do that for operating funding, really, in a

supplementary estimate of this kind — is, I think, an excellent way of

improving recruitment and retention, driving research and bringing about

the kind of change you want.

The foundation is ideally suited to house that effort and is

engaging itself in a major fundraising campaign on the same initiatives,

to which this gives even more momentum. I think this is

building support for cancer care, for research in the community that

goes well beyond even the expenditure of $150 million.

I’m not going to announce their priorities, but I can tell you

they are ambitious. They will build off this. As someone who feels, as I

know that the member opposite does, passionately about cancer, I saw

that this was a real opportunity for us to drive the research side but

also the recruitment side and the opportunity for patients in every part

of B.C. to take

part in clinical trials and to support that.

I thought this was an opportunity that really is what we should be

doing with this kind of supplementary estimate money in the Ministry of

Health. I think it’s the right initiative. Those were the frames of the

decision.

I don’t disagree that there are other major expenditures to be

made in cancer care, and we’ll be debating those, but this was an

opportunity in this process, something we were looking at with the

foundation, how we could help them achieve their exceptional goals. This

is a real opportunity that will help us today, tomorrow and well into

the future.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for walking through the process with me.

I may have a few other questions as we work our way through this related

to that.

I’d like to now start to think a little bit about the….

[3:40 p.m.]

Thank you to the minister and his staff for that.

I’d like to pursue something that is incredibly important, and

that is results and outcomes. It’s also about measurement and

accountability. So let me begin with this.

Was there a process, working with B.C. Cancer, to attach a terms

of reference, a set of guidelines in terms of how this would work, a

sense of expected outcomes?

I won’t ask the minister to do that specifically yet, because I

have a number of questions about the actual items that are being

attached to the $150 million. We may not get specifically to those

today, because I am also going to cede the floor to my colleague to ask

some of her questions this afternoon.

Was there a terms of reference, a set of expectations that are

attached to this grant?

Hon. A. Dix: I think in this case, a lot of the work was done for us in

advance. We’ve been meeting regularly with the foundation, at the staff

level, and I have as well, on their very ambitious goals.

They were laying out their goals, what they could achieve if they

raised — let’s just take a number; this is not the number — $50 million.

“So here’s what we can do with that.” You see that in their fundraising

efforts around the province as well, which often talk about the things

that they can do.

I think the reason they have focused on these, as well, in

enhancing research is that a huge amount of the workforce is made up of

research trainees. There is also, in addition to that, intense

competition to recruit mid-career clinician investigators with academic

institutions in Canada and the United States, and so on.

What the B.C. Cancer Foundation has done is already identified

some of these needs. They already had a campaign, and this, to a certain

extent, supercharges that effort.

But you have an organization that is prepared, that can house

these research teams within its ranks and that is deeply connected,

though, of course, to B.C. Cancer. It would be our expectation that they

would deliver, as they have consistently done over time, on what they

said they’d deliver, including, by the way, an expectation — and there’s

not a number on this — to continue their efforts of

fundraising.

It wouldn’t be any good if we said: “Well, here’s $150 million,

and now you can stop fundraising.” That’s not the idea. The idea is to

do more fundraising. Believe me, if you’ve met Sarah Roth, you know that

that’s what she does, in sort of an exceptional and dynamic way. I think

this will actually build out those efforts and the possibility of those

efforts.

They’re developing that effort. Obviously, they deeply connect —

as all foundations do, in every hospital around the province — with both

the health authority and the hospital that they’re connected to about

need. There’s an exchange of information, but they house expertise. They

laid out what their priorities are, and then we saw this and saw these

opportunities of what we could do together by adding to that.

In this case, the work is constantly happening by a foundation

that is deeply engaged in this and is, I think, not uniquely qualified.

There are many charities that obviously deliver a high level of service

and success both in fundraising and delivery from that fundraising. The

B.C. Cancer Foundation is definitely one of them.

S. Bond: So in essence, the B.C. Cancer Foundation had a plan, an action

plan, and things that they wanted to accomplish. The ask was to

government to help support that. I know that they will certainly

continue to keep raising funds. What I want to ensure is that when we’re

sending $150 million…. Well, in fact, we’re sending $170 million, just

out of two different pots, in essence, but $170 million of taxpayer

money — albeit, to a worthy and great organization.

[3:45 p.m.]

What are the measurables, in terms of reporting back to

government, and most importantly, laying out for British Columbians…?

When I go back and look at the supplementary estimates list, there’s a

staggering amount of money going out the door here. None of them…. You

know, obviously, we’re going to have questions about all of them. For

example, there’s $1 billion going out the door from the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs, and there’s $150 million here and there — half a

billion in other places.

So what is the reporting mechanism? The minister has agreed that

this is a priority. There’s an action plan being provided by the

organization. What is the reporting mechanism? How will we know that

that money has been successful?

We’ll go through, as I said, probably on Monday, the specific

items, because I’m very interested in things like clinical trials and

regional access. Those things really matter to the people of British

Columbia. What are the reporting mechanisms? How are deliverables going

to be documented so that the public knows where their money

went?

Hon. A. Dix: As with all year-end grants, there are requirements for reporting

here, and some of the reporting is easier. There are four research

chairs that we talked about that are being endowed. That’s not

straightforward. It’s obviously…. All of the things that go into that,

the member will know, but it’s pretty easy to determine that. They’ll be

reporting out on that.

Clinical trials around the province — similarly, they’ll be doing

that for some of the items. They’re committing to buy equipment, and

they’ll report on it.

So what you’re going to see is a requirement. There is a

requirement in the funding agreement for the foundation to report on

their use of public funds.

It’s my expectation — and this is the important part with this

foundation — that they’ll be spending actually vastly more, because of

their fundraising capacity, than the $150 million we’re authorizing in

the time of the agreement.

There are specific items, and we’ll go through those and how they

will report on them, on the chairs. They’ll show progress. They’re

endowed. This is the recruitment process, etc., for that.

For the clinical trials, they’ll be able show: where are the

clinical trials? Are they around the province? Are we meeting our

requirement to allow patients around the province to take

part in that?

With respect to equipment, when was it purchased? All the issues around

which the foundation will be judged on this $150 million….

But I am, to say the least, confident in the foundation’s ability

with its partners to be able to deliver on what they’re committed to do

and, in fact, deliver well beyond this $150 million.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell me whether, for example, would the

expectation…? What I am concerned about is that we are allocating $150

million of taxpayer money, and I want taxpayers to know what that money

is going to do. I want to understand when we would consider that having

been successful. So yes, I would certainly hope that the spending

exceeds the $150 million, but it’s also important to be able to measure

success and look at outcomes.

For example, will results be made public through the foundation’s

annual report, or is there another reporting mechanism that would

outline: “Here’s the grant we got, here’s what we did with it, and

here’s the progress made to date”?

Hon. A. Dix: This is, I think, the real value in having such a trusted partner

as this, who’s worked with us on huge initiatives in the past and

performed successfully. Yes, they’ll be reporting to the foundation and

to their board. They’ll have all their internal reporting, and they’ll

be reporting to the Ministry of Health and the province with respect to

the grant.

[3:50 p.m.]

We’re going to go through in detail what it supports. What they

are proposing to do — we’ll deal with the money, should it be approved,

but obviously, that’s our expectation — is significant in every part of

the province.

We’ll get into this discussion, but I think it’s particularly

focused on communities around B.C. — the involvement in clinical trials,

the embedding of research around the province of B.C. That, I think, is

something I’m very, very proud of, not on my own behalf but on their

behalf and for the work that’s being done here.

The work that’s being done in Indigenous communities and in

support of the Indigenous cancer plan and on those important areas is

here as well, including ensuring that First Nations British Columbians

are involved and are part of the research process and employed in the

research process and working in the research process. That’s a key part

of what they’re doing.

I’ll just give one example of the kind of initiative that’s being

done, which is to support B.C. Cancer’s BioCancer initiative. It embeds

regional coordinators at regional cancer centres to enhance

participation in outcomes research and will support blood and tissue

sample collection and biobanking support for clinical research across

the province. They will be able to report on the details of what they

do. Some of the outcomes of that won’t become obvious for some time

because it’s research, and it’s supporting us now and into the future.

That’s an example amongst many. We’ll get into the details of the kind

of work that’s being done.

I think what the foundation has done successfully is support

people around the province. That’s very important. You see that in the

initiatives here.

Often I think there’s a concern with organizations that are

centred in Vancouver — and the member will know this — of whether

they’re reaching or representing the whole province. Well, this is an

organization that represents the whole province. It’s as active in

Prince George as it is in Vancouver.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister and his staff. I look forward

to continuing the discussion.

I’m going to ask, and thank, my colleague from Kelowna-Mission,

who is going to work through some of the questions that she had. She

obviously has a lot of experience as the former Health critic and has

done a lot of work on the cancer file in particular.

In terms of a bit of foreshadowing, I would like the minister and

staff to come back and…. One of the things that government has really

focused on is the issue of gender analysis, for example when we look at

policies, grants and the allocation of funding.

I’d like to have some sense, although my colleague is the critic

for that area — she may well be asking that question — of how that lens

was applied. I can wait till next week to get those answers. I’ll just

give you a bit sense of that.

We also have an Indigenous cancer strategy. I don’t see, in the

specific items that are linked to this grant, a sense of what element or

consideration has been given to the whole issue of the Indigenous cancer

strategy, for example.

With that, I’m going to turn the floor over to my colleague from

Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: Nice to see you again, Minister. I’m going to just piggyback a

little bit on the questions that my colleague has already been starting

and just ask for a little bit more detail.

Once the money has been delivered to B.C. Cancer, who has signing

authority? Does that fall within the organizational structure? That

would be, as we mentioned before, Sarah Roth and her team? Or is there

another check and balance that’s actually done with any provincial

funds?

Hon. A. Dix: Broadly speaking, it’s the B.C. Cancer Foundation. Once the money

is expensed…. The B.C. Cancer Foundation is outside of the GRE, for

people enjoying this discussion at home. They would have control of the

money.

Obviously, there’s a funding agreement connected to that, but the

control of the expenditures, based on that agreement and our collective

understanding of what we’re going to do, is the responsibility of the

foundation.

You mentioned Sarah Roth, who’s outstanding. The member may know

her. Obviously, the team is outstanding as well.

[3:55 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: I fully agree with the minister; the team is absolutely

unbelievable. They’re awesome. A question that wasn’t fully canvassed

with my colleague: when did B.C. Cancer first submit their plan? We know

from the previous conversation that there was a promised plan, as in

2020. When was the minister actually delivered the first B.C. Cancer

plan?

Hon. A. Dix: As you know, this vote is connected to this grant to the B.C.

Cancer Foundation. The member will know the B.C. Cancer Foundation, in

2022, laid out a huge campaign, a new campaign which they announced. I’m

trying to remember. I can get the information for the member, but I know

I met with the foundation myself. Obviously, there are a lot more

meetings than the ones that I’m involved in, in advance of that

time.

They laid out their vision of what they saw for the future and,

obviously, they’re closely working with B.C. Cancer as well. But I think

the B.C. Cancer Foundation talked about this, and then we saw the

opportunity here to build on those efforts, to build out those efforts

and do something that is, I think, in terms of cancer research and the

work being done by the B.C. Cancer Foundation, really

breathtaking.

The great thing about this is they developed their priorities

working with clinicians and the broader community around cancer, and

then we worked with them on that. That came together in an exciting way

with this supplementary estimate. I would say the Cancer Foundation,

which does this work all the time, and we can list off, I think — I did

earlier on; I don’t need to do it again — all the things that we’ve been

working on together, from cancer screening to other things that the

foundation has been heavily involved in.

In its fundraising, they raised $77 million last year in B.C. That

wasn’t from the government of B.C. So $4 million came from us and one of

our partnerships we do with them, and $77 million they raised, which is

an exceptional achievement for a foundation. They had an even more

ambitious goal for this year. If you know the foundation, you know

that’s the way they operate. This adds to that, and I think will do

something truly significant.

Many of the priorities came from that. Of course, we have broader

priorities for cancer and cancer research that are supported here and by

Michael Smith and by Genome and others. That’s how it came together, but

I think they’ve been working on this. They do ongoing work, but their

latest campaign stems from, I’m guessing, the early fall of 2022, but it

would have been planned long before that.

Remember, the foundation works very closely with B.C. Cancer on

what those research priorities should be or what those equipment

priorities should be. That’s the work we do together. I would say I

probably met personally with Ms. Roth. It might have been in July or

August. I know it was on Joyce Street.

R. Merrifield: If it was July or August, then the Beyond Belief campaign. That

was what it was. But if it was July or August, then what was the

reference to the B.C. Cancer plan that was in 2020, and then canvassed

by myself in estimates in 2021 and then my colleague last

year?

Hon. A. Dix: This supplementary estimate…. The government announced last Friday

a ten-year cancer plan for British Columbia, pursuant to what we said we

would do. The successful campaign led by Premier Horgan, the member for

Juan de Fuca still…. There you go. I haven’t made that mistake in a

while. I apologize — led by the member for Juan de Fuca.

[4:00 p.m.]

The member will know, of course, that we made contributions in

Budget ’21 and ’22, some of which she and I discussed in the estimates

in terms of in addition to the increases to the base investments in

cancer, which allowed for the hiring of doctors, and so on. That’s all

the discussion for the main estimates, but I just didn’t put it in

context for a specific question.

There’s the B.C. Cancer plan. This is part of that, but the

decision to include the foundation in that…. We’ve had talks with them.

Obviously, this is a great opportunity, and a great opportunity through

the supplementary estimates program, to make a one-time investment

that’s truly breathtaking, to advance those efforts. I think that makes

a lot of sense.

So there are a few. One is the B.C. cancer plan, which we’ll be

discussing in the main estimates, I think, at some length. I don’t know;

I never want to anticipate the member for Prince George–Valemount. But I

believe “at some length” is a fair prediction. Then there’s this $150

million, which is the subject of the supplementary estimates.

R. Merrifield: What I’m understanding from the minister is that the B.C. cancer

plan has both. It has B.C. Cancer, as well as the health authorities and

the foundation, and they’re all working in lockstep to achieve the

priorities that are put forward. I also understand, through the course

of estimates, etc., that a significant amount of money has already been

spent towards many of these initiatives.

My understanding, though, from what the minister is saying, is

that there was a cancer plan that was created by these entities, in

lockstep, including the foundation — in terms of establishing these

priorities, establishing the amount of funds that would be

required.

Then through the iterative process, which the minister

acknowledged, with Treasury Board, this has been kind of back and forth

in different iterations. I think the minister sort of jokingly said

version 12 was the one he finally signed off on. Maybe it was 11,

though; I’ll give him credit.

My question is: when was that first plan actually

created?

Hon. A. Dix: Again, the ten-year cancer plan was tabled last Friday. It was

presented and laid out last Friday. Obviously, in successive budget

years, there have been significant investments in cancer that we’ve

seen, demonstrating the priority that we all have for cancer and the

significant demand facing that. That’s the main estimates debate; we’ll

have a significant opportunity to debate all this.

This $150 million is, I think, an opportunity, especially on the

research side. We’ll go in, with the member and with the opposition

Health critic, on the details of that. It’s an opportunity, especially,

to invest in research, which is critically important to aspects of the

plan. This is a real opportunity to do something significant.

Obviously, the foundation has a plan to raise a significant amount

of money to support that very research but also to support other

initiatives that the foundation supports, including equipment and

others. They’re pursuing that — we work together on that — and made a

presentation. Then we’re here today with the supplementary estimates for

that $150 million, which goes to the B.C. Cancer Foundation to support

all of the good initiatives that we will describe in subsequent

questions.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

R. Merrifield: I do understand, but I don’t believe for one moment that last

Friday was the first moment that the minister saw the plan and it was

tabled.

We’ve already discussed that iterative process of how those plans

actually are presented and then get all the way through the process of

the financial aspects, as well as the priorities, etc. Understanding

that this $150 million is a key component of the larger plan and a key

component to the research aspects of the larger plan, my question,

again, is: when was the minister presented the first comprehensive

plan?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Well, obviously, with respect to the significant demand for

cancer, you’ve seen the significant operating fund increases that go for

all kinds of purposes at the B.C. Cancer Agency over the last number of

years. You go through processes in government that include committees of

government. Those committees include Treasury Board. It might include

other committees of government. You present those, and then they’re

approved and presented on occasions, such as last Friday, and on

occasions such as the budget.

The ten-year cancer plan was presented last Friday. Concurrent

with that, I think, an opportunity — hopefully, one that the House will

support unanimously — to provide support to the foundation for our joint

initiatives was there, and that’s why we sought approval for that money

as well. That money, obviously, was approved, and it’s here in the

supplementary estimates.

R. Merrifield: The first time that the minister saw the plan was last Friday. Is

that correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, we don’t see or develop a plan on one day, and the

member knows that, so I’m not sure what the purpose of the question

is.

I’ll say that, with respect to this $150 million supplementary

estimate, I’ve gone through a couple of times the process by which it

was developed. I’m happy with those responses, but obviously, I

appreciate good parliamentary debate.

The member knows that we are working on these issues all the time.

We had extensive discussions when the member was the Health critic for

cancer. You’ve seen in successive budgets now significant funding in

addition to base funding increases for cancer in order to hire staff,

etc. That’s part of another process.

We do all that, and then we have this proposal that’s coming

through the supplementary estimates process that we’re debating

today.

R. Merrifield: I wasn’t meaning to insult the minister but, rather, reiterate the

answer that I’m receiving, because I don’t believe that the minister saw

the cancer plan for the very first time last Friday.

I am asking the minister: when was the first time that the B.C.

Cancer Foundation, of which this $150 million — $170 million, but $150

million of the supplemental estimates is a part…? When was the first

time that the minister actually saw that plan?

Hon. A. Dix: The supplementary estimates we’re debating today came through the

process I described. We start to look at year-end funding for this

particular proposal, which is in the supplementary estimates. Obviously,

we’re working with foundations all the time. We looked at the potential

for year-end funding, I think, on a number of occasions in these

debates.

Now, already I’ve referred to the Premier’s decision, which he

publicly called for, to seek ways to assist British Columbia, especially

with one-time funding such as this.

The Ministry of Health, in response to that, and as part of the

work that we’re doing, came forward with this proposal. It was obviously

approved by government, and it is being presented as a supplementary

estimate today.

The Chair: Of course, we are on the supplementary estimates 32(S). As

long as questions are related to that estimate, they are appropriate

here.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Chair, for the reminder. Absolutely, that is exactly

what I’m asking about, this $150 million. What plan is this a part of,

and when did the minister see that plan for the very first

time?

Hon. A. Dix: I have now answered this question on a number of occasions. I’m

happy to do so again.

This proposal, the B.C. Cancer Foundation, which we’re debating

specifically in supplementary estimates, is part of the B.C. cancer plan

which was presented to the people of B.C. — to everyone, including the

opposition — at a press conference last Friday by Premier Eby and

myself.

The Chair: No names, Minister, of course.

[4:10 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: I do find it interesting that the minister doesn’t want to answer

this particular question. It’s not meant to be any form of indirect

questioning, actually — in fact, just the opposite. I’m asking very

directly as to when the B.C. Cancer Foundation brought forward the plan

and asked for this specific money.

Hon. A. Dix: I can answer the question again, I guess, if that’s the wish of

the member. The B.C. Cancer Foundation is working on these issues, as

the member will know, all the time. They have announced an ambitious

campaign.

Concurrently with that, we’ve been doing work on a ten-year cancer

plan. We saw the opportunity to supercharge the research process and

other initiatives in B.C., especially around B.C. We worked with the

foundation on this. Obviously, the $150 million got government approval.

It was included in the budget, the supplementary estimates, and in what

was presented last Friday.

The Chair: The questions are starting to get a little repetitive, so I

would ask the member just to keep that in mind.

R. Merrifield: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Well, you know, if the minister would

answer the question directly then it wouldn’t get repetitive. But in the

interest of time, I do want to move on, because I do have quite a

lengthy list of questions here. I’m going to keep moving

forward.

The minister has mentioned that some of this money is actually for

additional oncologists and oncology capacity. In the breakdown, I would

just ask the minister which line item those oncologists are found within

and if the minister could just describe what number that relates

to.

Hon. A. Dix: I think we’ve shared with the opposition the category breakdown.

So you would see those opportunities in several of these items. As the

member wishes to ask questions, go through them, line by

line….

However, you would see in the recruitment and retention

initiatives, you’d see in the training and education, you’d see in the

endowed research positions, you’d see in the clinical and

multidisciplinary research all of those aspects when you have a broad

effort to expand research that involves across those lines efforts. We’d

be happy to go through each of those lines in detail.

R. Merrifield: Understanding that there are different positions in each of these

line items, does the minister have a breakdown of all of the different

positions that are found in each of these line items by

staff?

Hon. A. Dix: Why don’t we start at the beginning, on the list that I provided,

with clinical and multidisciplinary research and talk about what that

$55.7 million will fund. That may assist the hon. member and elicit more

questions.

The first priority under that clinical research support funding is

to improve support to conduct and manage clinical trials at regional

cancer centres, provide enhanced clinical research finance and

operations support, enhance support for research ethics and funding for

statisticians to support clinical trials’ design, such as real-world

trials and adaptive trials.

Secondly, support B.C. Cancer’s BioCancer initiative, which embeds

research coordinators at regional cancer centres to enhance population

participation in outcomes research and will support blood and tissue

sample collection and biobanking support for clinical research across

the province.

Third, support provincial clinical trials and radiation oncology,

notably to improve access to radiotherapy by studying treatment

approaches which require fewer visits, which I think all of us can

understand the value of, and precision radiotherapy research to enhance

efficacy while reducing toxicity from radiation treatments — also the

kind of real-world research that makes a difference for patients and

their families.

Support the implementation of a theranostics program at B.C.

Cancer across the province, rapidly expanding new treatments

using radioactive drugs that were recently approved by Health Canada.

Our cancer system needs to adapt to deliver the PET-CT scans required

for patient selections and form the teams that will deliver those

treatments.

[4:15 p.m.]

In terms of the multidisciplinary research funding, it will

support the sustainment of B.C. Cancer’s flagship programs in breast

cancer research, cancer genomics, gynecological cancers, among others,

which have been strong drivers of research excellence and are recognized

internationally. These programs have been highly successful in securing

research grants.

Again, this contribution plus the other contributions plus the

research grants that are won can mean that this $150 million is the

start of a much more significant level of training. They also, of

course, drive philanthropic donations, as we previously

discussed.

The enhancement of their ability to translate research into

practice. This includes programs in lymphoid cancer research, leukemia

and multiple myeloma, gastrointestinal cancers and others. B.C. Cancer

has a number of emerging new multidisciplinary research programs.

They’re reaching a critical mass of successful early- and mid-career

translational and clinical researchers. In that area of funding, you see

the significance of that.

I think I’ll stop there. There is significantly more, but what I

would suggest and will suggest to the opposition Health critic, as she’s

going to come back next week, is that some of the details of this we can

then share, and that will assist the process. But that gives the member

a sense of the kind of research that’s being done. Also, I think,

fundamentally, in each of these lines, and if we were to continue on,

we’d see the importance of that happening in Kelowna, which is obviously

important to the member because she’s an MLA from Kelowna, but also in

Prince George, also in Victoria, and so on.

I think what I find compelling and what the foundation does is

that it raises money everywhere in B.C. It also ensures that research is

done everywhere in B.C., and that’s really important for different

communities around B.C.

R. Merrifield: Just to ask more specifically and as a follow-up to the minister’s

answer, is it possible for us to just get a breakdown of all the FTEs

that are within each of the line items? That would help us, I guess, to

not spend as much time kind of going through this process in that way.

Is that possible?

Hon. A. Dix: I don’t think FTEs is the right way to describe it, but what we

can do is provide more detailed information to opposition members and be

happy to do that. In some cases, it’s the upgrading of equipment that’s

involved here, as noted and as I described at the beginning. In some

cases, it’s FTE and research dollars. Some use its money for equipment

and processes such as biobanking. I

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20230302pm-CommitteeA-Blues
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20230302pm-CommitteeA-Blues
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7fab3647b9ce72ca41180fc667b04210ba3e0ec2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — Thursday, March 2, 2023 p.m. — Number 281 (HTML) (42nd Parliament, 4th Session)

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

ISSN 1499-2175

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

Section B, to order.

Part of the decision around…. Ultimately, it is a decision of the

YEAS — 41

NAYS — 19

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

Document details