Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 4, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 213

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2019

Hon. C. James

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Howe Lee

A. Kang

International Snow Science Workshop

T. Shypitka

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Business Excellence Awards

B. D’Eith

Vaping by youth

T. Stone

Engineers and geoscientists

B. Ma

Firefighters memorial

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Softwood lumber negotiations and trade with U.S.

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Tegart

Work B.C. employment services and procurement process

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Simpson

Government policies on forest industry and aquaculture

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Petitions

L. Larson

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Health

N. Letnick

Hon. A. Dix

L. Larson

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

P. Milobar

S. Bond

E. Ross

M. Morris

D. Barnett

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

M. de Jong

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture

Hon. L. Beare

D. Clovechok

M. Stilwell

J. Sturdy

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I’d like to introduce in the gallery today a resident of Prince George

— some 80 years in Prince George. John Warner is here today. He’s given up,

for at least a short time, his responsibilities for the senior curling

league to come down to a warmer clime here in Victoria. He participated in

the PR campaign and wanted to come down here to see just how things got done

here and whether or not we are on the right track.

John, I hope we’ll do our best. “Hurry, hurry, hard” is all I’ve got

to say to that.

Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

R. Chouhan: I have the pleasure of introducing 15 Washington State Legislative

interns who are visiting from Olympia today. They are here as part of an

annual exchange between our two internship programs in Washington state and

British Columbia. As part of the Washington state internship program, their

interns work for members of the House of Representatives or Senate while

earning academic credits from colleges and universities around the state,

whereas B.C.’s legislative interns have already graduated from

university.

This morning they met with several members of the Legislative Assembly

and B.C. public service staff to learn about our system of government and

current issues of importance. They are accompanied by two staff: Paula

Rehwaldt, civic education director, and Colleen Rust, Senate intern

coordinator. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: I am so excited to rise in the House today and introduce an amazing

group of people who are filling that whole corner of the gallery. They are

the New West Youth Ambassador Society. This is really a mentorship program

for young people in New Westminster. It’s all about building a team. It’s

about professional instruction in things like public speaking, the

importance of community and volunteering. I can tell you that everywhere in

the community there’s an important event happening, the New West Youth

Ambassador volunteers are there volunteering.

I’d like to introduce them here today. I know it’s the highlight of

their year to come to the Legislature. The New West Youth Ambassadors

themselves are Nicolas Candelaria, Tiba Khudhur, Macklen Linke, Miller

Linke, Sarah Meltzer and Velveth Calderon. Their chaperones and drivers are

Patrick Johnstone, who’s also a city councillor in New Westminster; Barbara

Moncrief; John Ragone; Margaret Leith; Terry Leith; Mary Meltzer; Nancy Tan;

Jordan Kolberg; and Lynn Radbourne, the founder of the youth ambassadors

program, with a B.C. service dog, Willie. I think he’s only the second dog

to have ever been a guest, recognized in Hansard , in the B.C.

Legislature.

I think it’s especially significant that they were able to be here

today, which is also the day that we do a tribute to fallen firefighters.

One of the founders, Lynn Radbourne’s husband, Bill Radbourne, was for many

years a firefighter in the city of New Westminster and retired as deputy

fire chief.

I’d ask everyone in this House to please give a really warm welcome to

the New West Youth Ambassadors.

T. Redies: I’m very happy to recognize an individual who’s very well known to

this House — the incorrigible, one of a kind, snappy dresser, MP for South

Surrey–White Rock and my friend, Gordie Hogg. I’d also like to acknowledge

another very hard-working MP, MP Randeep Sarai from Surrey Centre. Would the

House make them welcome, please.

Hon. H. Bains: I’d also like to join the member from White Rock to introduce my

relative, Randeep Sarai. He went to a different party just to prove that our

family isn’t as perfect as I would like to see. He’s here along with a

delegation: Gordie Hogg, who was a member of this House for many, many years

— I understand he was a minister here as well, and he’s an MP there; along

with our Minister of Defence. They were here to meet with our Public Safety

Minister and Solicitor General to make our streets and our province safer.

Please help me give them a great welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

A. Olsen: It’s an honour today to be able to stand in front of my seat here and

introduce my little family. My amazing partner and wife, Emily, and our two

children, Silas and Ella, are, for the first time in the number of months

that I’ve been here, joining us in the legislative precinct. Today we had a

delicious lunch, and now they get to witness question period for the first

time.

I do have to apologize to my daughter, Ella. Apparently Fluffy the

unicorn was not allowed into the viewing gallery today. We’ll be working on

that, Ella, to make sure that next time Fluffy can join you.

Could the members of this House please make my family feel very

welcome.

N. Simons: I noticed in the gallery today we have Paul Lacerte, a good friend of

all of ours, the co-chair of the Moose Hide Campaign, which had a broad

reach — $1.5 million, I believe, this year. He’s been a strong and

passionate advocate to raise awareness about violence — domestic violence

and violence against women and children. I think he’s a good role model as

well. It’s nice to see him in the gallery today. Would the House please help

me welcome him.

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to make an introduction of the amazing

Cowichan Valley constituency office team who are up in the gallery today:

Tricia Datené; B McKenzie; Mariana Padolsky; Aaron Padolsky; Ellen Hearsey;

Gregg, who’s up there as well — sorry, Gregg, I’ve forgotten your last name

at this moment; and Maeve Maguire.

Without this team, the extraordinary work that’s happening in Cowichan

couldn’t be happening. I am immensely grateful for everything that they do.

I’m so delighted you’re here today. Would the House please make them feel

very welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: Many members of the House will have the honour today of meeting

representatives of the UBC Medi­cal Undergraduate Society. They have

some significant issues for me. I know I’ll be meeting with them a little

bit later. I wish everyone in the House to make them welcome here in

question period.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2019.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, be introduced and

read a first time now.

Bill 12 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations for approximately the first three months of the 2019-20

fiscal year. Bill 12 also provides interim supply for a portion of

government’s financing requirements for the ’19-20 fiscal year,

including one-third of the year’s capital expenditures, loans,

investments and other financing requirements and the full amount of the

year’s disbursements for revenue collected on behalf of and transferred

to specific programs and entities.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

R. Sultan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: In the galleries this afternoon is a very distinguished chartered

accountant, Gordon Adair, FCA. Gordon was previously president of my riding

association, but he has an illustrious career in politics going back to the

days when he was chief financial officer of ICBC and then latterly takes

credit personally for having defeated no-fault car insurance. So I’ve

recommended that the Attorney General get to know him a lot

better.

J. Brar: I would also like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Brar: A long time ago a young man, when he was going to college, got two

invitations. One was from Bollywood, and the other one was from

Canada.

[1:45 p.m.]

This young man chose to come to Canada. When he came here, he became

an activist for human rights, and he became an activist to fight for

farmers. He has been a member of this House now for, I think, 14 years. He

has also been the Deputy Speaker of this House. Today is his birthday. I’d

ask every member to wish a happy birthday to the member from

Burnaby….

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOWE LEE

A. Kang: Today I rise in the B.C. Legislature to recognize the contribution

of Col. Howe Lee, who will be honoured in this year’s Chinese Canadian

Historical Society of B.C. 2019 celebratory dinner.

Retired Col. Howe Lee is a third generation Chinese

Cana­dian born in Armstrong, B.C. He is well known for his very

distinguished military career of 35 years, which included commanding

positions as a commanding officer of 156 company, Royal Canadian Army

Service Corps; the second in command of the Royal Westminster Regiment;

the commanding officer of the 12 Service Battalion; and numerous staff

positions with brigade. He concluded his military service with an

appointment as honorary colonel of the 39 Service Battalion.

At a community level, Colonel Howe has excelled in his leadership

with numerous national, provincial and municipal organizations, both

military and civilian. Colonel Howe is the founder and the first

president of the Chinese Canadian Military Museum, which tells the story

of Chinese-Canadian veterans in both the First and Second World Wars. He

is also a founding board of director for the Chinese Canadian Historical

Society of B.C.

In addition, Colonel Howe helps with the coordination of cadet

programs, promotes Veterans Week and Remembrance Day in public schools

and plans and participates in local Remembrance Day ceremonies. In May

of 2016, Colonel Howe was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal of the

civil division in recognition for his outstanding accomplishments that

set an example for others to follow and bring benefit to our

country.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Col. Howe Lee for his

passionate contributions to the Chinese-Canadian history and for his

dedication and services to Canada.

INTERNATIONAL SNOW SCIENCE WORKSHOP

T. Shypitka: Every two years, professionals from all over the world come

together for a very special workshop. It’s all about snow safety.

Avalanche forecasting and dynamic snow management, guiding, rescue and

risk strategies, among other topics, will be discussed and

practised.

This special workshop is held every two years and is alternated

between Europe, the United States and Canada. In 2018, it was held in

Innsbruck, Austria. In October of 2020, the International Snow Science

Workshop will be hosted by a Canadian city. Next year’s fortunate host

will be the legendary, historic mountain town of Fernie, B.C., which is

in the heart of the Kootenay East riding, and I couldn’t be

prouder.

Fernie was selected as the next Canadian city to host the

International Snow Science Workshop largely due to five individuals that

had the opportunity to showcase Fernie at the 2018 Innsbruck workshop.

Those individuals were Steve Kuijt, chairman; Andre Labine, sponsorship

chair; Rick Shroeder, the sessions chair; Christine Grimble, marketing;

and Jen Coulter from Avalanche Canada, who gave a presentation on safety

for snowmobilers.

Two videos on Fernie were presented on the last night of the

conference, and the last night of the conference was declared as Fernie

Night. One can only wonder if the famous Fernie beer was

present.

Approximately 1,200 delegates from 25 countries will come to

Fernie. This will generate between $1.5 million and $2 million into the

Fernie and surrounding areas’ economy.

Congratulations to Steve, Andre, Rick and Jen for their fine

presentations in securing the bid to host this incredible

event.

Congratulations, as well, to the city of Fernie and surrounding

areas, such as Sparwood, Elkford, Hosmer, Elko, Baynes Lake, Grasmere,

Jaffray and Cranbrook, who undoubtedly will supply volunteers and show

the world the great Kootenay East hospitality.

MAPLE RIDGE–PITT MEADOWS

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE

AWARDS

B. D’Eith: On February 23, the member for Maple Ridge–​Pitt Meadows and

I were pleased to attend the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Chamber of

Commerce 2018 Business Excellence Awards Gala celebrating innovators of

today and tomorrow.

[1:50 p.m.]

It was particularly special because this year, instead of hosting

the event in a hotel or a golf course, the event was held at Thomas

Haney Secondary School. Executive director Flori Chaykowski and her team

did an amazing job transforming the school rotunda into a

full-production, award-show venue. It was a wonderful touch to have

Korleen Carreras, chair of the school board, act as the master of

ceremonies. The space was created during the event to celebrate the

accomplishments of school district 42 and to speak to the innovative

learning happening in our district.

As for the awards themselves, a number of great local businesses

were acknowledged. Maple Washing Inc. won for small business of the

year. GM Restaurant — they’ve been serving Indian cuisine for 25 years —

won for medium business. Kingfisher Waterfront Bar and Grill — that’s

located on the shore of the mighty Fraser — won large busi­ness of

the year. Alouette Addictions, offering out-patient treatment for adults

and youth affected with addictions and substance abuse, won non-profit

of the year. Cheryl Zandbergen won for community spirit for her Moms

Gone Wild initiative. In agri-business, Amsterdam Greenhouses and Garden

Centre won. Finally, Ineke Boekhorst won for business leader of the

year.

Congratulations to the nominees and winners. It was a wonderful

event. It’s wonderful seeing so many businesses in our

community.

Now that we’re talking about awards, I was also very pleased to

announce here that the city of Maple Ridge won the Open for Business

Award at the 2019 Small Business B.C. Awards. So between our amazing

established businesses, in a city that is clearly open for business, I

look forward to seeing a lot more businesses set up shop in Maple Ridge

and, of course, Pitt Meadows and Mission as well.

VAPING BY YOUTH

T. Stone: E-cigarette use, or vaping, is rapidly becoming a new addiction

and urgent public health concern for our youth. Vaping involves using

small, rechargeable devices to aerosolize liquid solutions, often

containing high dosages of nicotine and flavouring with names like fruit

medley, gummy bear and cotton candy, with no noticeable

odour.

The smallest of the devices, known as pod mods, closely resemble

computer USB drives, so they are easy to conceal. They come in sleek,

modern designs with customizable skins. For all of these reasons, vaping

is uniquely attractive to our youth, and related use is increasing

rapidly.

Yet surveys show that society is generally unaware of the health

risks associated with vaping and the addictive nature of the habit. Vape

juice often includes metals, VOCs and additives, which may be harmful

when inhaled, particularly for adolescents. Moreover, nicotine is proven

to be a highly addictive substance that adversely effects the developing

brain.

Parents, educators, administrators and elected officials must

become informed about the risks of vaping to our children so that, with

confidence, we can act. This starts by getting behind evidence-based

prevention programming to best ensure our children understand the risks

and make healthier choices. There need to be parent and teacher

education programs to inform adults about vaping, how to know if their

children or students are doing it and what to do about it if they

are.

We need to support information sessions for youth, by youth.

Tougher regulations and enforcement of e-cigarette sales to minors in

bricks-and-mortar stores and on line are required. Youth-friendly

e-cigarette flavours should be banned. A zero-tolerance policy for

possession of any vaping-related product on school grounds must be

strictly enforced.

Vaping is a very real danger for our youth. Therefore, we must

work together to develop effective strategies to keep our kids

safe.

ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS

B. Ma: The work of engineers and geoscientists is everywhere. They

perform vital work every day for the people of British Columbia,

creating world-class innovations and technologies that support the B.C.

economy and create a safer world for everyone.

Their work also exists in the most mundane aspects of our lives:

when you drive your car, walk into a building, browse the interwebs on

your smartphone. Actually, even if all that you’re doing is picking up a

chocolate bar from the display rack by the checkout stand at the grocery

store, the work of engineers and geoscientists is everywhere. In fact,

it’s pretty difficult to come across a person-made object these days

that doesn’t involve an engineer or geoscientist sometime along its life

cycle or along the life cycle of the tools or materials that were used

to create it.

Yes, we are everywhere. We’re even in your Legislature. The

Minister of State for Trade, also the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview, is

an engineer. The MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano is an engineer. I, the

member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, am an engineer.

[1:55 p.m.]

The MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam also graduated with an

engineering degree, though he never sought out his professional

designation, so I will conveniently leave him out for reasons that will

soon become clear. You see, in B.C., women are still severely

underrepresented in the engineering and geoscience professions, which is

why Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia has committed to the

30-by-30 goal of increasing the number of women working in these

professions to 30 percent by 2030.

Well, it’s only 2019, and in this House, we’ve already raised that

number to one in three, at 33 percent. So I’m pretty proud of our

collective leadership in that regard and proud, of course, that our

government is investing in 2,900 additional engineering spaces

throughout the province.

March 2019 has been declared National Engineering and Geoscience

Month, so if you see someone with an iron ring worn on the pinky finger

of their working hand — it’s actually made of stainless steel, by the

way — you’ll know the likelihood of them being a Canadian engineer is

very high, and this might be the month to thank them for their

work.

FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL

J. Thornthwaite: Today at noon the Fallen Firefighter Memorial parade and ceremony

was held here at the Legislature. The ceremony is held to pay tribute to

the firefighters who lost their lives protecting the people of this

province and in support of their surviving family members.

Without question, these brave individuals served their respective

communities with honour. It is my privilege to stand in the House today

and recognize the great sacrifice made by these courageous souls and to

acknowledge the tireless work that continues today by professional and

volunteer firefighters in British Columbia.

Their hard work goes beyond fighting fires. They’re often the

first to arrive at the scene of an accident, rescue or medical

emergency. We have heard from firefighters that their resources have

been pushed to the limit during the ongoing opioid crisis. When

responding to these calls, they are often risking their own lives to

save the life of a stranger, and for that, we cannot thank them

enough.

In the spring of 2011, a memorial site was erected to serve as a

public reminder to everyone of just how valuable the work done by

firefighters is. The danger of their job may be unknown to many. Society

is beginning to confront the physical and mental toll that firefighters

face at their job daily and the consequences that come from it, as

mental health challenges like PTSD become more prevalent.

While many of us run away from danger, they run towards it. There

has been tremendous progress in obtaining presumptive coverage and

improved occupational health and safety practices to ensure that the

mental and physical health of the professional firefighters is

protected. No matter how much progress is made, it is important that we

continue to support these brave men and women.

Oral Questions

SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

AND TRADE WITH

U.S.

A. Wilkinson: Well, we’re glad to welcome the Washington state interns here

today, but we must advise that we’ve got a bone to pick with their

federal government. That’s because the United States government has

imposed duties and tariffs on our softwood lumber exports in a very

unfair way, for the third time at least. This calls for urgent action,

and of course, British Columbia — being the largest softwood producer in

Canada — should be at the forefront of Canadian efforts. Forestry

families are hurting, and they want to know what this NDP government is

doing to help them out.

Obviously, it’s the Premier’s job to fight for our forestry

workers. So has the Premier done anything to serve the interests of

forest workers since his ineffective visit to Washington, D.C. two years

ago?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m grateful that the Leader of the Opposition has had a

jurisdictional update, and he’s blaming the right government — the U.S.

federal government, not the governor of Washington state but the U.S.

federal government — for the softwood lumber duties.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: That has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and you know it

full well. You know it full well.

Now, I know the Leader of the Opposition and his

sidekick…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Premier has the floor.

Hon. J. Horgan: …Shakespeare over there want to make this about television drama.

It’s about peoples’ lives.

[2:00 p.m.]

The member for Fraser-Nicola, last time we gathered here today,

complained about the challenges that they’re facing in the Interior. I

don’t recall a word from the B.C. Liberals when the Tolko mill, in

December of 2016, shut down, putting 225 people out of work. Now, I’m

very grateful that the official opposition has now decided that forestry

is an issue that they want to spend some time on. I’m grateful for

that.

What we have been doing is we’ve been working on the coastal

revitalization plan, which we announced in January. We brought in a new

deputy minister to reorganize, to ensure that we’re delivering for the

communities that depend on our forest industry. We work very hard to

keep pulp mills operating in Powell River, in Port Alberni and in

Crofton.

We did that by engaging with the federal government on issues that

are relevant to the federal jurisdiction. We’ve worked cooperatively

with the federal government. We’ll continue do that, because forestry is

not just foundational to our past. It’s foundational to our

future.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, our forest-dependent communities are under attack, and

when the elected women in our caucus raise the concern of workers, they

are dismissed by the Premier as whiners.

We’re asking on behalf of those forest-dependent families whose

jobs are at risk, who are seeing thousands of job losses in the

Interior. They’re not whiners, and they deserve a concerted effort from

this Premier and this government to support and supplement their jobs so

that they can get on with their lives in an orderly way.

Why is this Premier not putting in that real concerted effort, and

why is he calling the women who raise this issue whiners?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll wait until the Premier feels there’s an opportunity for

quiet.

Hon. J. Horgan: I think there’s an opportunity, hon. Speaker, and I thank you for

allowing me to take my place.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition is in a deep hole, and

he’s trying to get out from it, but I don’t think he should try and drag

me down into it.

What we’ve been trying to do is to engage with commun­ities

to ensure that we’re protecting the jobs that matter to them right now.

We went on a trade mission. One of the first things out of the gate was

we went on a trade mission to Asia to talk about forestry. Just recently

the Minister of Forests was in Korea and in Japan to try and diversify

our markets, because we can no longer depend on our favoured trading

partner, the United States.

That’s a reasonable and prudent course of action, one that I would

have thought, were it not for the deep hole the Lea­der of the

Opposition is in, that we would have unanimity on in this

House.

We should all be supporting forest-dependent communities. I don’t

know why the Liberals just woke up now after 100 mills closed on their

watch and 30,000 people lost their jobs. Now all of a sudden, it’s an

important issue.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I think anyone who’s served in this assembly knows that the

softwood lumber dispute is British Columbia’s single most important

trade issue, by a country mile. The forest sector workers have been left

vulnerable and neglected by this government’s inaction on the softwood

lumber file, and the Premier has the gall to call them

whiners.

Let’s sort this out. Let’s see this government do the work that

needs to be done. Where are the visits to Washington, D.C.? Where are

the attempts to corner American senators? Where are the talks about

continental free trade? Where is this Premier when it comes to

protecting the interests of B.C. forest workers rather than

grandstanding here in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: To hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about grandstanding is

rich. It’s really rich.

We had a 55 percent increase in raw log exports, not on the watch

of this government but on the watch of that government — B.C. jobs

leaving British Columbia on the backs of boats because that government

didn’t have the desire or the inclination to interfere with their

corporate buddies.

We’ve been working with Indigenous communities. We’ve been working

with local mayors and councils. We’ve been working with regular working

people in the forest to try and come up with solutions to diversify our

markets. We’ve been supporting companies like Structurlam that are

bringing whole new types….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m delighted to have an opportunity to send the Opposition House

Leader to talk to the Minister of Forests about our plan in court. We

are in court, and again, a former Attorney General doesn’t get that. I

don’t know what I can do. They want to make an issue where it doesn’t

exist.

We’re working hard. Why don’t you get on board? Why don’t you

stand with us instead of trying to drag us into the hole you dug for

yourself?

J. Tegart: I’ll speak slow and steady today. The forest workers and families

I represent are hard-working British Columbians. They’re not whiners, as

the Premier proclaimed last week, just because they have questions and

concerns.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Fraser-Nicola has the floor.

J. Tegart: The Premier owes these families an apology for his condescending

comments.

Is it the Premier’s belief that anyone who challenges him and his

government with hard questions is a whiner?

Hon. J. Horgan: No, that’s not my position. What my position last week was, was

that it was the height of temerity for a group of people that did not

lift a finger when thousands and thousands of jobs were lost, when 225

were lost in that member’s constituency, to all of a sudden try and

fabricate an issue.

I went to Washington state at the introduction of the governor of

that state, and they tried to make that about softwood lumber. It wasn’t

about softwood lumber; it was about a range of other issues.

Today we learn that the Leader of the Opposition now understands

the jurisdictional differences, at least in one country. I wish he

understood them here as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: Workers are losing their jobs while this Premier does nothing. He

sits here in Victoria, pats us on the head and says we don’t quite

understand things — no respect for workers, families or communities in

the forestry communities. When is the Premier going to stop making

excuses and show us a strategy on softwood?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I understand that the B.C. Liberals are trying to find

relevance, and this is an important opportunity for them to do that. We

have been talking about softwood lumber since the day we were sworn in

as a new government.

I went to Washington. The former Premier never went to Washington.

I met with senators. I met with the Secretary of Commerce. The former

government never met with the Secretary of Commerce. I met with the

trade ambassador. The former Premier never met with the trade

ambassador.

We continue to work as hard as we can with our federal partners to

ensure that they are carrying the flag as they should. Minister Freeland

has been accessible, talks to myself, talks to the Minister of Trade on

a regular basis. For the Liberals to try and find an issue, to create an

issue, because they’re in trouble is obscene.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: When you’re finished, Member for Abbotsford West, we can begin

question period again.

WORK B.C. EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

AND PROCUREMENT

PROCESS

A. Weaver: It sure sounds like there are some fun and wacky times happening

down there at the end of the opposition bench. I suspect this must be

some kind of rite of passage for MLAs to their second term.

Work B.C. awards contracts for a number of services across B.C.

and has a long relationship with non-profit organizations that help

British Columbians find work. However, Work B.C.’s procurement process

lacks rigour and transparency.

Last year major regions were amalgamated to larger catchment areas

for services. The change came with little warning to the service

providers and resulted in many local organizations no longer being able

to compete. The RFPs that went out were heavily biased towards bigger

organizations, often for-profit companies based outside of B.C. with no

connection to the local communities, and no points awarded for community

connection or knowledge.

[2:10 p.m.]

Consolidating major services like this means that local

non-profits cannot compete, more multinational companies are hired to do

the same work, and public dollars don’t stay in B.C.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction. Why was such a substantial change sprung on B.C. non-profit

service providers, with no public consultation, when nothing in previous

evaluations indicated that the change was necessary?

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member for the question. In fact, the changes that

we’ve made around Work B.C. are changes that will put more money than

ever into this system. We’ve had, over the last number of years, about

$230 million annually that’s been invested in Work B.C. Under this

model, $249 million will go into Work B.C. centres. We will increase the

number of centres from 84 to 103 across the province. In addition to

that, there are two new provincial programs around assistive technology

and apprenticeship services that are now supporting initiatives across

the province.

In terms of how those contracts were let, you’ll know the

procurement process is one that, as a minister, I don’t get involved

directly in. I would say to the member, though, that in terms of how the

resources got allocated…. Under the previous program, the one we’re

under now, 49 percent of the money went to the profit-making companies

and 49 percent went to non-profits. Under the new system, 57 percent of

the dollars will go to non-profits, 39 percent to the profit sector and

4 percent to a public institution. We’ll be watching this moving

forward, but we think we’ve found the balance.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: In fact, I’m interested to hear that the minister suggests the

balance has been found. You know, it’s ironic that this government is

actually increasing unemployment through its Work B.C. contracts as

communities across B.C. lose their non-profits. So to think that the

balance has been found…. If the balance that has been found is

increasing unemployment and money going to multinationals, I would

suggest that the minister may want to have a look at this file a little

closer.

This year’s bidding rounds for Work B.C. contracts no longer

require bidders to demonstrate a flow-through to community

organizations. Previously, at least 25 percent of the public money was

required to flow out to other local organizations. The removal of that

requirement has shattered the collaborative networks that provided

multiple social care services, some of which have been in place for 30

years or more. The statistics we heard from the minister are simply not

accurate, because they do not reflect the 25 percent of money that is no

longer required to flow through.

Local non-profits have community connections and must reinvest any

profit they achieve. Major for-profit multinationals lack community

connections and do not have to locally reinvest profits. Government is

now using public dollars to connect international companies that have no

on-the-ground service to the local communities in our province to

provide those services.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction. What was the justification for a process that has no

requirement anymore for bidders to demonstrate any flow-through to local

community organizations?

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member again for the question. In fact, this was a

two-step process. It was required under the request for qualifications,

where bidders qualified to go forward to the proposal stage…. There was,

in fact, a request for information regarding their connection to

community. From that qualification process, up to four bidders were able

to go forward in the RFP process for each of the catchment areas. So in

fact, what the member has talked about did occur there.

The reality is that what we got told in this process…. I spoke to

service providers who said: “We are seeing less people, but the people

we’re seeing need more of our time.” So we’ve structured a program here

that very much allows those service providers now to deliver extended

services so that the people who really need the support, the people who

aren’t seeing employment now, have a greater opportunity for

that.

It fits in as a critical piece of the poverty reduction strategy

that we’ll be moving forward. We’re looking for the opportunity to give

persons with disabilities, to support women escaping violence, to

support recent immigrants, so that they get opportunities at employment

they’re not seeing today.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m confident this program will give us those opportunities. I’m

looking forward to its success.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

FOREST INDUSTRY AND

AQUACULTURE

T. Stone: To recap, the Premier has told 140 forest communities across the

province to stop whining. The Premier failed to highlight concerns

relating to softwood when he last visited his buddy the Governor of

Washington, though he did leave behind a $600,000 cheque for high-speed

rail from Seattle to Surrey. And one cannot forget that he achieved

absolutely nothing on his trip to Washington D.C., aside from coming

back to British Columbia with about a quarter-million-dollar cheque for

the B.C. NDP.

That all being said, it turns out that he did find time…. The

Premier did find time to outline a strategy of sorts last Friday in

Nanaimo to those same United Steelworkers. At this meeting, the Premier

revealed that his government will do the same to the forest sector as

they did to the aquaculture sector.

My question to the Premier is this. Can the Premier explain what

on earth he was talking about and what it means for forest

workers?

Hon. J. Horgan: I was talking to forest workers. That’s what I was doing. That’s a

foreign concept to those on that side.

I was talking about reducing raw log exports and providing more

fibre for advanced manufacturing here in British Columbia to create more

jobs here. I was talking about less waste in the woods and more of that

waste getting to market in some way, taking the tenure holders to task

on just leaving it at the side of the road or burning it but rather

putting it into some productive economic activity. That’s what I was

talking to Steelworkers about.

What I was also talking about was the breakthrough we had in the

Broughton Archipelago when it comes to salmon aquaculture in British

Columbia. We sat down and spoke nation to nation with the Indigenous

communities in the Broughton and came up with a way forward for that

sector.

That’s exactly what we’re going to do when it comes to forestry:

industry, Indigenous communities, workers, communities coming together

to come up with solutions. I would have thought that would have been

something that you guys would have supported. Quite genuinely, I am

perplexed at this line of questioning.

I realize you want to make something out of something that’s not

there. We have a big problem on softwood. We all acknowledge that, but

it’s in the courts. It’s in the….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: I did, too, Mary. Come on. It’s in the courts.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: I apologize for calling the House Leader by her name, hon.

Speaker. I withdraw.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Premier, if you….

Hon. J. Horgan: I withdraw.

The issues here, the issues at play, should matter to all British

Columbians. We are trying to have a civil dialogue about how we go

forward after losing two million hectares of forest through fires over

the past two seasons. This is important. So we’ve accelerated cutting

permits in the area of the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin to try and get

more people working in the woods.

We’re doing our level best to try and make something out of a very

difficult situation — expanding our opportunities in other

jurisdictions, working with allies in the United States.

The Premier of New Brunswick is the head of the Council of the

Federation. He speaks for all Premiers. They are also a softwood

province, and if the people on the other side don’t understand the

importance of building relationships, maybe they should spend some more

time over there figuring it out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: We all know that this government’s agenda when it comes to fish

farms is to shut them down. That is their clearly stated intention with

respect to the aquaculture sector.

Now the Premier, last Friday, with this group of Steelworkers,

confirmed in that meeting that he’s going to apply the same strategy

that he applied to the aquaculture sector to the forest sector. I

know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: The members opposite are unlikely to take my word for it. Fair

enough.

Here’s what the recently elected new member for Nanaimo had to

say, as she summarized the Premier’s comments at the Steelworkers

convention on Friday: “The Premier is laying down the truth. What we

learned on getting fish farms out, the B.C. NDP will apply to

forestry.”

[2:20 p.m.]

Those are not my words. Those are not the words of any member of

the opposition. Those are the words of the member for

Nanaimo.

Forestry workers are not whiners. Forestry workers deserve better

than this.

Can the Premier confirm what the government’s intentions are when

it comes to the forest sector? Are they going to apply the same tactics

that they’ve applied to the aquaculture sector or not? Tell us, Mr.

Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m trying to think back. When was the last time a Liberal would

have gone and talked to working people in convention…? When would that

have happened? I’m trying to think. When would that have been? It’s

#never, Member.

Now, I make no apology for trying to find a way forward through

difficult circumstances. Members on that side might remember, although

they paid little or no attention to salmon aquaculture when they were

sitting on this side of the House, that it’s a controversial issue.

Indigenous communities are particularly concerned about the potential

impact on wild salmon stocks, and the Cohen Commission, put in place

by…. I think it was Liberals; I’m not sure. I know that they are grey on

that, on that side of the House — liberal one day, conservative the

next.

It was the Cohen Commission that said migratory routes for wild

salmon are critically important. So we sat down, nation to nation —

Indigenous people talking to government. We invited industry in. We

talked to workers, and we found a way forward to protect wild salmon, to

keep people working on the central coast of Vancouver Island. There’s a

win-win-win all around on that.

Again, I appreciate that those on that side of the House that were

only focused on themselves, rather than the important issues that affect

people’s lives, would dismiss that. The member for Kamloops is more than

entitled to do that.

I would have thought that there would be members on that side of

the House that would recognize that if we’re going to find a way forward

to two million hectares of lost forest because of fires, a recalcitrant

U.S. government and an administration that does not want to listen to

us, the best way forward is to lock our arms together and find common

purpose to improve the lives of British Columbians. I would have thought

they would have wanted to do that. I know the people at the end of the

aisle do. Why don’t you?

S. Bond: Perhaps before the Premier decides to point his finger at

who….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We shall hear the question.

S. Bond: Before the Premier decides to stand in this House and make

accusations about members on this side of the House standing up for

workers…. The next time an MLA comes and brings her significant concerns

about the workers in her riding and he calls them whiners, perhaps it’s

time for him to take a look in the mirror.

The only thing this Premier has done when it comes to talking

about softwood in this House is dodge, deflect and demean a discussion

that is essential in British Columbia. But I guess that in Nanaimo, he

took a few minutes to talk about forest policy.

Here’s how the B.C. Business Council president, Greg D’Avignon,

described the fish farm eviction notices from the NDP: “Effectively,

it’s a death-knell for the industry.”

Forest workers in communities are feeling vulnerable and neglected

by this government over their lack of effort on the softwood lumber

file. The Premier can get mad. He can stomp his feet. People are tired

of him being missing in action on this file. Now, what does the Premier

do? He marches into Nanaimo and causes more uncertainty.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the rest of the

question.

S. Bond: Perhaps the Forests Minister can stand up and explain to forest

workers in British Columbia exactly what the Premier was talking about

when he said that the forest industry would be treated similarly to the

way this government treated fish farms.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, had the member been in Prince George at the natural

resources summit, she would have heard me say the very same thing there

to a room full of people — 1,100 people. I recall her and her friend

from Nechako Lakes on the back of a pickup truck with a megaphone,

talking to 14 people. I was on the inside of the room, talking to a

thousand people about how we work together for a better British

Columbia.

[2:25 p.m.]

Whether it’s LNG, whether it’s forestry, whether it’s mining,

whether its agriculture, whether it’s aquaculture, what we need to do as

a province is put down the partisanship and start to find solutions for

people. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing.

The template that we used in the Broughton was supported by Marine

Harvest, supported by Cermaq. I don’t know what Greg D’Avignon is doing

these days. I spoke to him the other day and said the very same

thing.

We need to go sector by sector — Indigenous people, communities,

workers, investors — and find a way forward. If we’re going to continue

to prosper and thrive in British Columbia, the hottest economy in the

country with the lowest unemployment rate, we have to lock arms when we

run into recalcitrant governments, like we have with the United States

government federally, on softwood lumber.

Again, we are doing everything we can to ensure that we get

success, as previous governments have done — Social Credit, NDP and,

yes, even B.C. Liberal. I don’t know why you’ve decided today or last

week to make an issue out of me visiting our neighbour in the United

States to talk about orcas, to talk about salmon, to talk about

collective interests. Softwood lumber is not his responsibility. The guy

that sits two down from you just said so. He just said so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Just for the record, for the Premier’s interest, my colleague and

I were outside standing up with resource workers from across northern

British Columbia who’ve had enough of this Premier doing nothing. Let’s

be clear. It shouldn’t matter who this Premier is talking to in the

United States of America. Softwood lumber matters to the people of

British Columbia. At every single opportunity, that issue should be

raised, whether it’s on his agenda or in his photo-ops or

not.

Let’s be clear. The member for Nanaimo has confirmed…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: …that the Premier intends to target all resource tenures with his

hostile approach, the same one he took to fish farms.

Can the minister stand up? Let’s ask the Forests Minister if he

has one idea about what the Premier announced, what kind of forest

policy he was talking about that’s adding more uncertainty in British

Columbia.

Hon. J. Horgan: At the beginning of January, I talked to the Truck Loggers

Association about our coastal revitalization plan, about making sure

we’re getting more fibre into mills to create more jobs. We also talked

about the Paper Excellence purchase of Catalyst, which will create and

protect jobs in Port Alberni, in Powell River and in Crofton. We talked

at the Natural Resources Forum, and I talked at the B.C. mineral

exploration forum, about a $100 million increase in exploration of

British Columbia between 2017 and 2018. That’s a net increase in

economic activity.

People are coming to invest in British Columbia because they see a

government that wants to work with them — work with people, workers,

investors, communities, Indigenous people — to find a way forward.

Again, had the people on that side spent even a fraction of the time

that we have on this side trying to bring people together, they might

have had an opportunity to stay on this side.

Instead, it’s always divide and conquer, divide and conquer. It’s

someone else’s problem. British Columbians understand that the way

forward is one of cooperation and consensus. That’s what we’ve been

doing for the past 18 months, and it has borne fruit, whether it be on

salmon aquaculture or on mining. It will bear fruit on forestry as

well.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Larson: I have a petition from 1,200 residents and businesses in Grand Forks

who are opposed to the 2nd Street housing development for

presentation.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of

Health, to be followed by the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call the supplementary estimates

for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Nat­ural Resource Operations and Rural

Development, to be followed by the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture

supplementary estimates.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 30(S): ministry operations, $89,000,000.

N. Letnick: Perhaps the minister would like to have some opening comments

about why he needs this money.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to members of the House. I think that everybody in the

Legislature recognizes the value of health research in British Columbia

— the value of health research, first of all, to patients. This past

week the Michael Smith Foundation visited the Legislature — six

outstanding researchers in various areas of health, from mental health

and addictions to type 2 diabetes care to fall prevention and so on, who

are involved very much in the Michael Smith Foundation’s effort to

improve the quality of care in British Columbia.

[2:35 p.m.]

So that’s a great place to start — of our developing a community

of researchers that can help do this work, of us developing, obviously,

a life sciences sector that creates jobs and builds innovation in our

society. At its core, the work particularly of the Michael Smith

Foundation and of Genome B.C. I think is at the centre of our efforts to

promote health research. This has been, I think…. It’s one area, amongst

many, that is genuinely bipartisan.

I know that members of the House will know, for example, that the

Michael Smith Foundation was founded under an NDP government but

strongly supported — I think it was 15 to 17 years — by a Liberal

government after that, consistently supported in a similar way. Founded

under the NDP, supported under the Liberal government and then again

supported as the New Democratic Party government came back into office

last year, with a $17 million grant at year-end. Traditionally, these

expenditures have been supported at year-end.

Equally, Genome B.C. plays a critical role in developing

partnerships for health and life sciences innovation. I think we all

know that all of the dollars invested by the province in Genome B.C.

over the years have been matched and grown by the private sector, by the

federal government and others as we’ve built out that network, that

partnership, for B.C. The result has been that over a couple of decades

of these programs, B.C. has developed, I think, an outstanding centre

for health policy innovation and health research innovation that goes

beyond one government or any other.

What we’re proposing here today is to build the future, not for

this year, obviously, but for the coming years — for the coming three

years with respect to the Michael Smith Foundation and the coming two

years with respect to Genome B.C. as they finish their current five-year

plan. That is what this $89 million investment in the coming years for

our province will do — one-time funding, yes, but to be used over a

period of years to continue the effort that dates back two decades to

improve health research.

I would say, if you consider the legacy of Michael Smith and his

legacy to the people of B.C., the foundation is an important part of

that — a generation of researchers, and more to come, who make life

better, who make innovation happen in the community. I’m very proud to

support this supplementary estimate.

Before sitting down, I’d like to introduce, to my right, the

Deputy Minister of Health, Stephen Brown. To my left…. If people know

the Ministry of Health, they know that the assistant deputy minister of

finance and corporate services was long held by someone named Manjit

Sidhu. Well, we now have a new person in that position, after some

decades of outstanding service. That’s Peter Pokorny, who’s to my left.

Assistant deputy minister of finance and corporate services is the

title. Immediately behind me is Heather Davidson, the assistant deputy

minister, partnerships and innovation.

I look forward to answering any questions that the opposition or

anyone else would have on this subject.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his opening comments. Yes, he is

surrounded by some very capable people, and I welcome them as well.

Also, to his rear is the Minister of Agriculture, another very capable

person. So he’s got it made in the shade, and I’m alone here with my

wall.

Back to business, $89 million. This is supplementary for the

current fiscal year. I thought I just heard the minister say that this

is for the upcoming years. Could the minister please correct my

misunderstanding — that the $89 million is for 2018-2019 and not for

future years?

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, at different times in the past…. I

recall, in fact, a debate about supplementary estimates — it might have

been in 2009 — where I think I asked nine questions about the

supplementary estimates, all of which were declared out of order. That

was the time. That was then; this is now.

The member is absolutely correct. These are supplementary

estimates, as noted when I introduced it for the 2018-19 fiscal year.

They provide financing going forward. Obviously, the Michael Smith

Foundation and Genome B.C. will not be spending that money in this

fiscal year. They’ll be spending it into the future.

[2:40 p.m.]

The plan is that by spending this money, using the supplementary

estimates, it secures the future, from the point of the view of

government funding, for the next three years for the Michael Smith

Foundation, which is $60 million over three years, and for Genome B.C.,

which is $29 million over two years to finish off the amount that has

been left unfunded or not funded in the Genome B.C. five-year

plan.

If you want specifically about the money, it’s $89 million. It is

expensed this year. It will be provided to the Michael Smith Foundation

and Genome B.C. this year, with the intent that they use this money to

support both current initiatives and future initiatives in the coming

years — three years in the case of Michael Smith and our expectation of

two years in the case of Genome B.C.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that for me.

Has it been the practice in the past for year-end funding —

because that seems to be what this is now — to be allocated on a

go-forward basis of three years, in the case of the Michael Smith

Foundation, of $60 million, and two years, $29 million, for Genome

B.C.?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, if you look at past funding for both the Michael Smith

Foundation and Genome B.C., generally speaking — and the majority of

that time was obviously under the previous government — their funding

has been year-end funding — not, to be fair, to supplementary estimate,

which has a difference in terms of the financing models. It was used by

the previous government but not for this funding.

Year-end funding has generally been the pattern for the Michael

Smith Foundation, Genome B.C. and other agencies. I’ll just give you an

example of an agency that receives year-end funding, not supplementary

estimates. It would be the First Link program of the Alzheimer Society.

I know we’ll be seeing them this week. It has traditionally been funded

by year-end funding, sometimes multiple years of year-end funding

granted at the end of a fiscal year to allow them to proceed with such a

program into the future.

That’s been the pattern for some funding agencies. It’s certainly

been the pattern for Michael Smith and for Genome B.C. in the past. In

fact, both agencies received year-end funding at the end of the

2017-2018 fiscal year.

N. Letnick: Could the minister please outline a little more in detail what the

Michael Smith Foundation will be using $60 million for over the next

three years and what Genome B.C. will be using $29 million for over the

next two years? In particular, what outcomes does he anticipate them

achieving that would benefit patient care in British

Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the organizations are slightly different but have, shall we

say, overlapping objectives.

The Michael Smith Foundation has five main objectives for its $60

million. The attracting and retention of high-quality researchers to

B.C. Attracting additional non-government funding to B.C. That could

include other levels of government, as well, so matching

funding.

Funding research that aligns with B.C. health sector priorities.

For example, some of the work we saw just last week — with respect to

wound care, with respect to mental health and addictions, with respect

to primary care — is all part of that. The member may have some

questions for that later.

Funding research and translation activities that lead to

commercialization opportunities. In other words, providing some basic

research which will help build the life sciences sector in general, and

the health sector in B.C. in particular.

[2:45 p.m.]

The fifth goal is important in their case and in Genome’s case. It

allows them a period to diversify their funding sources so they have

less reliance in the future on the provincial government — although I

suspect, into the future, the Michael Smith Foundation will continue to

have such a reliance.

With respect to Genome B.C., it’s working with the Ministry of

Health to support the implementation of genomics into clinical practice

for the benefit of B.C., particularly highlighting best practices from

around the room and supporting strategic initiatives and pilot projects

around a vision for precision health in B.C., which the member and I

have been briefed about at a number of sessions over the last year;

ensuring that Genome B.C.’s suite of programs, such as GeneSolve, sector

innovation program and sector development activities, position B.C. to

compete well in their large-scale research competitions outside of

British Columbia; and supporting a balanced portfolio of discovery

research, applied research and user-driven co-investment.

The two organizations have different models, I would say. The

Michael Smith Foundation is much more oriented towards the health care

system and the needs of patients but, as well, of broader research. But

these are the goals under both funding regimes. They’re consistent, I

think, with the pattern over time, and they build out over

time.

For example, Genome B.C. is currently engaged in the last two

years of a five-year plan, which has been out there and presented for

some time. These are the last two years of provincial contributions into

that plan. Between now and two years from now, it would be our

expectation they would come back with their future vision or their next

five-year plan. With respect to Michael Smith, similarly, providing

three years of funding gives them the opportunity in some cases, with

some researchers, to make commitments over a period of time which, if

they didn’t have three years of funding, they wouldn’t be able to

make.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Any budget item is always a choice

between competing priorities, competing uses. When we go out to the

public and explain to them that we are investing $89 million of their

tax dollars, a lot of them will ask, I assume: is that going to make my

hip surgery come faster or access to a primary care physician a little

better, or am I going to get ambulance service or something else in my

rural community? So let me ask it again a different way.

The $89 million that is being invested in research and supporting

these two organizations. What concrete benefits to patients will the

taxpayers of British Columbia realize? I’m happy if he takes a long time

to do the work and then come back and report out. That’s

fine.

Hon. A. Dix: Just to say that I think we in the Legislature…. I realize that

people don’t sometimes have these opportunities to see, although Genome

B.C., for example, is hugely integrated into B.C. schools. It may be in

communities that the member represents, but it’s certainly in

communities I represent. Promoting the value of research and sciences is

an important thing that most people recognize.

I can tell him that the work of the Michael Smith Foundation for

people with type 2 diabetes is of central importance, I think, to the

lives of the 400,000 British Columbians who have type 2 diabetes. That

work of essentially reducing people’s dependence on medication and

increasing our knowledge about the value of exercise programs that are a

possibility for people reduces costs. It doesn’t increase costs in the

health care system.

Similarly, I saw — and I’ll come back to the member with the name

of the researcher lead on this issue — the work in wound care that the

Michael Smith Foundation has supported in recent years that dramatically

saves costs and medical interventions — in one case, by millions of

dollars. The work in wound care that’s been done and supported by the

Michael Smith Foundation is an extraordinary thing.

If we’re going to build and reduce costs in the future — that’s a

real orientation of the Michael Smith Foundation — so that we can ensure

that we have the money to invest in other things, we have to have

progress and response and learn. Both the Michael Smith Foundation and

Genome B.C. do this.

Just to give you a sense in terms of hereditary cancer, because I

spoke about Michael Smith…. Genome B.C., in terms of hereditary cancer,

is doing work on earlier testing and regular screening for cancers

directly being linked to health outcomes. So a made-in-B.C. genomic

solution reduced test result wait times from over one year to three

weeks.

[2:50 p.m.]

More than 3,600 B.C. patients have benefited from this more

efficient and effective genetic test — one test in place of numerous

tests accelerating diagnosis, treatment and quality of life. This new

test is able to screen for 17 genes simultaneously, up from the previous

four genes. This increases diagnostic accuracy and eases the

administrative burden.

These are the practical things that make a difference for people.

Yes, there’s the economic development that Genome B.C. does — the

research work it brings into the province, the opportunity for B.C.

researchers that builds the economy — but also a more effective, more

efficient health care system that improves things like mental health and

addictions care by improving and understanding best practices, improving

type 2 diabetes care, improving wound care and numerous other areas of

more technical research but also of broad public application.

That’s been the work of the Michael Smith Foundation, and that was

the vision of Michael Smith, I’d argue, at the beginning. He wasn’t in

any way an elitist in his view. He felt that such contributions should

have practical applications, and they have throughout the history of the

Michael Smith Foundation. I know the member knows this — that making

these investments makes life better into the future and provides hope

for a lot of people now who face enormous medical intervention to

address issues that we hope they’ll be able to get back sooner with if

we proceed with the research.

Research has value. I know that, and I know he knows that the

research that’s been done in Canada for a very long time, often with the

support of government, has made a real difference in people’s lives — in

my life and the lives of many of the people I know and, I know, the

lives of people he knows.

These are always choices. I agree. We could decide not to spend

the money on research. We could decide not to continue with, really, the

20 years of investment of government. But also, let’s be clear, the

taxpayers of B.C. who have made those investments with their hard-earned

tax dollars have had enormous benefits through the system in savings and

in advances, and we have to continue to do that if we’re going to have a

health care system that meets the needs of people in 2030 and 2040 and

There are going to be, for example, many more people — maybe twice

as many people — who have, because of an aging population, to deal with

cancer in 20 years. We have to improve our responses to these things to

have a public health care system that meets those needs into the future.

That’s where research comes in. Genome B.C. and the Michael Smith

Foundation are an important part of that.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. I agree with the minister. Research is

extremely important. Actually, the first time I met his deputy minister

was when I was working on a particular project on divisions of family

practice. He wasn’t the deputy minister at the time, so look how far

he’s come.

Hon. A. Dix: That was a long time ago.

N. Letnick: That’s a while, yes. I had hair back then. So did he,

actually.

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand: the bid process. Was

there one? The government is paying out $89 million — over three years,

in the case of the Michael Smith Foundation, and two years, in the case

of Genome B.C. Did they have to compete for this money against other

research houses or organizations? Or something else?

Hon. A. Dix: I think both the Michael Smith Foundation and Genome B.C., which

is part of the broader Genome Canada…. I mean, there is enormous

competition, in fact. They’re the central places, and then others, from

universities and other institutions, are competing for their funding.

They are our main provincial competition.

Obviously, it’s not the provincial government that chooses the

researcher or chooses the project. It’s the people and the experts at

the foundation who do that work. So it’s the centre of enormous

competition for research dollars, of course. What they talk to us about

is what the priorities of the health care system we’d like to view are,

in the case of Michael Smith. But there’s lots of competition. The

competition occurs from Michael Smith dollars and from Genome B.C.

dollars in the community and the community of researchers.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Once again I find that I’m not

communicating very well.

[2:55 p.m.]

Are there any other organizations like the Michael Smith

Foundation or Genome B.C. that would also have liked to have $60 million

over three years or $29 million over two years that got nothing — that

the minister chose to provide the $89 million to these two organizations

alone? For example, would the UBC School of Population and Public Health

have liked to have been funded directly with some research dollars, or

UVic or SFU or some other national organization that would also be able

to do the work that the Michael Smith Foundation and Genome B.C. are

going to be doing for us?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think it’s possible that, say, the Minister of Health

would do a better job distributing research grants than the Michael

Smith Foundation in its 20 years of expertise and credibility supported

by multiple governments. I understand the debate, but the idea is that

we’ve set up these outstanding foundations — one in terms of health

research and, in Genome B.C., as part of a national effort in genomics —

in order to ensure that we have independent, research-driven

decisions.

Some of the priorities are guided by government, in our requests,

but independent processes to set up funding, not have the Minister of

Health or the Deputy Minister of Health or anyone else make those

decisions. We’ve set up these two agencies to do exactly what the member

is talking about, which is allow researchers to bid into those funds in

an independent way and to support independent research in the

province.

I think it’s the right way to go. Certainly, it’s consistent with

the decision taken 20 or so years ago by a previous government and

supported, since then, successively by governments with this kind of

funding.

We think that the Michael Smith Foundation does an outstanding

job. I don’t think replacing it with another organization would be

better. In fact, I think we need to build on the success of the past in

the case of both organizations. That success has been considerable,

particularly in recent years. So I think this is the right way to go —

not trying to carve up that funding or that support among different

agencies and have, say, the Ministry of Health make the research funding

decisions that the Michael Smith Foundation makes.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Again, I’m lacking clarity. Are there

any other organizations in Canada that would have been happy to receive

some provincial tax dollars which they could then distribute for

research similarly to what the Michael Smith Foundation and Genome B.C.

do?

Hon. A. Dix: Interesting. Most provincial jurisdictions have an organization

like Michael Smith that provides research funding across the health

spectrum, including to all universities. The majority of health research

funding, it should be said, comes from the federal government, so this

allows us, in British Columbia, both to leverage that funding and to

support our own sector here in British Columbia. This makes sense for

us, especially with the significant goals of this government.

The only jurisdiction that doesn’t have this, that sees this

research funding directed from the ministry, is the government of

Ontario. I don’t have sufficient expertise to comment on whether that’s

a better model — in other words, to have the Ministry of Health dividing

up the funding rather than setting up this foundation. But I think what

we’ve invested in this model — its success, its performance over time,

the quality of the research — indicates that we’re on the right track

and we’ve been on the right track for the last 20 years.

N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the minister. To summarize for me, what I’m

hearing is that for 20 years or so, we’ve been supporting the Michael

Smith Foundation for doing research. We also support some dollars going

to Genome B.C. There are no other organizations out there that, right

now, are thinking: “How come we didn’t get any money that we could have

redistributed for health research purposes?” That’s the answer I’m

feeling I’m getting. Again, I might have misconstrued the

answer.

[3:00 p.m.]

If that’s the case, how is the government going to hold these two

organizations accountable for delivering on outcomes? What outcomes has

the government set out for these two organizations to achieve? And what

evaluation process will be used to measure whether or not these two

organizations, since they seem to have a lock on the marketplace for

money in this area…? How will those two organizations be evaluated so

that in three years, Michael Smith gets to get more, less or no money;

and in two years, Genome B.C. also gets to get more, less or no

money?

Hon. A. Dix: We do support, as the member will know, some other organizations.

For example, we provided…. By we, I mean the government of British

Columbia has provided support in the past to UBC and TRIUMF, to the Rick

Hansen Institute, to the Centre for Drug Research and Development, the

Canadian Institute of Health Research and other such organizations of

the B.C. health sciences and networks. Some smaller grants have been

done, but the main funding arms are for the Michael Smith Foundation and

Genome B.C.

Just to give the member a sense, because I think it is important

to do as he says — to take a check every once in a while to make sure

that we’re achieving the goals that we want to achieve…. I’d be happy,

by the way, to share this with the member afterwards as well.

Against the performance objectives for 2017-18 to attract and

retain high-quality research talent in B.C., the Michael Smith

Foundation — 13 percent higher than the national average, in terms of

what’s called the citations impact measure.

For Genome B.C., a five-year rolling success rate of 32 percent in

Genome Canada competitions, obviously considerably above our percentage

of the population, our percentage of the economy. That’s five years, so

that dates back to 2013 — that period.

Attracting non-provincial-government research dollars to B.C. The

average Michael Smith scholar receives an average of $90,000 from the

Michael Smith Foundation and $375,000 from other sources. In the case of

Genome B.C., they attracted $60 million of co-investments. So that’s the

second priority.

The third priority: research aligns with government’s strategic

priorities. In the case of Michael Smith, $8.3 million is targeted to

inform health sector planning decision-making. In the case of Genome

B.C. — and this is established in our contractual relationship — 78

percent of awards are directly applicable to sector

priorities.

In the case of research translation activities leading to

commercialization opportunities…. In the case of Michael Smith, ten

recipients received $800,000 in value of Innovation to Commercialization

Awards. So that’s a significant thing against what they received. In the

case of Genome B.C. — $19.5 million invested in B.C.

companies.

Finally, in diversifying funding sources to reduce the reliance on

provincial public funding: $3 million in co-investment — that’s

co-investment from partners, in the case of Michael Smith — and $2.5

million in loans provided to busi­ness venture companies through

the industry innovation program.

Just to say that the other way in which we maintain governance is

that the Ministry of Health has ADMs on boards, either as an observer,

in the case of Genome B.C., or as a board member, in the case of Michael

Smith. So we have constant oversight of the membership and the board and

its activities. We’re not the majority partner, but we’re on those

boards to have oversight on a regular basis.

We set out these performance objectives, and then, in each year,

we would expect both the foundation and Genome B.C. to act and achieve

success against those objectives. To date, that’s why, continuously,

period after period….

Sometimes both organizations received multi-year funding under the

previous government at year-end, though it was effectively multi-year

funding into the future — for example, I think $50 million over three

years in 2015-16, which was roughly the $17 million we expended in the

past, in our first year in office. They’ve consistently met the test of

bringing value both to the health care system and patients across B.C.

and to the economy.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Making reference to the previous

administration I find interesting, especially…. Sometimes it works in

government’s favour, and sometimes it doesn’t. But that’s

okay.

[3:05 p.m.]

The issue for me is to make sure that the valuable work that they

are doing is recognized over the long period, right? In the past, there

were awards at the year-end, and now it would appear that we’re into the

same construct, the same paradigm, which is that we’re going to ask for

supplementary dollars for these two organizations, as opposed to

bringing them into the main estimates process, the main budget

process.

Did either of these two organizations receive or get assurances of

getting funds, in 2018-2019, out of the main budget — not supplementary

but the main budget itself?

Hon. A. Dix: The answer to the member’s question is no. As I say, in the case

of these two organizations, though, they’ve consistently received

year-end money.

We could go back even further than 2015-16. But that’s an example

where the year-end before that, which would have been the end of ’14-15,

I think, they received the $50 million with the intention of that being

used and rationed out over the following three years, allowing them to

plan. We extended that level of funding at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal

year, essentially, for 2018-19, and that’s been the pattern.

I think what’s a fair question…. It is a fair question to ask in

these things, because this is true of year-end funding that has been

traditionally provided to organizations, which is sometimes challenging

for organizations to deal with because you don’t know until

year-end.

Last year, just as an example — that is, as usual, only mildly on

topic — the previous government had provided funding for First Link

through the end of 2018-19. But at the end of 2018, we decided to

provide the same amount of money, effectively, for 2019-20 — to take

away this being a year of pressure, where you’re entering in at the end

of the year, to a question of whether they’d get funding or not for a

program that’s become essential for people living with Alzheimer’s

disease and their families.

In a general sense, I think year-end funding can be difficult for

organizations, although I’m sure they’re always happy to get it. There

has been, I would say, in general, over the last ten or 15 years, an

increase in that kind of funding. I think most organizations would

prefer that that be transferred into the base, in a general sense. I

think that’s probably true, and that’s something we can look

at.

In the case of these two organizations, we’re continuing to do it,

using the tool of the supplementary estimates this year for the coming

years. It does allow them, on the other hand, to plan into the future,

to receive the money and then plan into the future and make some of

their own decisions.

You lose a little bit, I think, as the member is suggesting, in

terms of government accountability when that happens. You do, because

the money has been transferred out. So there’s an expectation, a

contractive expectation of certain activities that should take place. I

think there are some advantages to organizations, such as these, that

engage in long-term planning. Most organizations — I think it would be

fair to say — would prefer to have money in the base.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. If I understood correctly, that means

that for the next three years for Michael Smith, and the next two years

for Genome, there won’t be any money in the base budget for them because

they’re getting a lump sum in this fiscal year — thanks to the

supplementary estimates. Therefore, even though they don’t show up in

the base budget, they will have been funded for that time

period.

Hon. A. Dix: The short answer is yes, I think. Yes, it’s yes. Just to say that

it might be that the government would target funding for specific

research to these organizations. It might be.

[3:10 p.m.]

I don’t envision that has happened. We haven’t decided to do that.

That’s possible that they would receive other funding, but this is

really intended to support their continuing operations under their

strategic plans for the next three and two years,

respectively.

N. Letnick: Given that, in the past, these organizations have been funded with

year-end dollars, and given that the health budget is approximately $20

billion a year and we’re talking $89 million, which is small in

comparison to the full budget, even though I know the minister needs to

fight for every dollar, and that’s important…. I’ll put in a good word

with the Finance Minister on his behalf, if he wishes.

Is there anything that can happen…? Because we’ve seen it now

between two successive governments and maybe even three. I’m not too

sure what happened in the ’90s. I try to forget the ’90s, quite frankly.

Is there anything that can happen so that we can move these two

organizations into the base budget along with the other organizations

that the minister has talked about?

I think he mentioned five other organizations that get money for

research out of the base budget. He also didn’t mention the therapeutics

initiative, which I assume gets money out of the base budget — I know

the minister is very proud of their work — and which might have wanted

some of this $89 million themselves. So is there a way that we can see

Genome B.C. and Michael Smith Foundation’s work accepted to the point

where they don’t have to rely on the good wishes of whatever minister

happens to be in the chair at the time?

Hon. A. Dix: I think, certainly, that’s something that, I would say, when we’re

looking into the future, we could consider and would consider three and

two years from now. Clearly, we will be hearing from Genome B.C. and

other organizations and their requests into the future.

I think this is the challenge. One organization that the member

will be familiar with is the Better at Home program that United Way is

running. It’s traditionally been out of year-end. Those are some of

those things that we’re thinking and hoping to try and bring into the

base so that it doesn’t become such a stressful question at

year-end.

I think it is sometimes a useful and efficient mechanism for a

government to provide long-term funding to an organization like the

Michael Smith Foundation. As long as government is aware of this, it may

not be the worst way to go. It is, after all, what we’ve been doing,

roughly, for two decades in the case of both Genome B.C. and Michael

Smith. It started in 2001.

I think that’s something to be considered. But obviously, given

that we’re looking at three years out for Michael Smith and two years

out for Genome B.C., it would be considered then, in that budget round.

It’s something to look at seriously.

Obviously, the Ministry of Health itself does other research work

to improve the efficiency of the health care system. In many respects,

because a lot of the work that traditionally was done in the Ministry of

Health — MSP and other things — has been contracted out for some time,

the Ministry of Health itself is a powerful policy arm of the health

system and has been for some time. That’s been the focus for some time,

and the means of delivery of health care services have been primarily

the health authorities in that time.

I think that what’s probably true is that this mechanism, in that

it will provide multi-year funding and have these organizations plan it,

is a pretty efficient way for them to operate.

I’d remind the member as well that while going into the base is

useful and is a good thing, obviously, governments can change and change

direction, and being in the base isn’t a guarantee of funding into the

future either. So for an organization like Michael Smith, which is

preparing multi-year fellowships and everything else, this might be, for

them anyway, and for Genome, the most efficient way to go.

N. Letnick: Could the minister comment on whether or not either of these two

organizations are going to be looking at research and technology, things

like wearables?

[3:15 p.m.]

We see a lot of new equipment that’s out there trying to bend the

cost curve down, trying to provide patients when they’re home with the

ability of knowing whether or not they’re having atrial fibrillation,

whether or not their blood sugar levels are off, what their BP is. Those

technologies are communicating directly with their patient primary care

home or their physician or somewhere else.

It’d be nice to know if these two organizations, or any other

organizations that the ministry is funding, are looking at the state of

the art when it comes to technology and health care.

Hon. A. Dix: I think the member is right. I think there’s enormous opportunity

in this and in supporting improvements in technology that give people

power over their own health, whether it’s their own health records or

providing them with information at home and allowing them to link in

with their specialists or their family physician.

The government, for some years, as the member will know, has been

doing some of this work on home health monitoring with Telus — I believe

on Vancouver Island, for example, with cardiac patients. The value of

those programs is assessed and is of significant value to patients.

Telus has its own commercialization ambitions for all those

technologies, as you’d expect, but for the health care system, they

provide a real utility in terms of both saving time of patients but also

providing better ongoing monitoring.

There’s a lot of this work going on in very practical ways now

and, I think, very useful ways at the system delivery level. I would

expect to see more of that in the future. I think that new generations

of health care patients, especially younger patients, are more inclined

to those kinds of responses — system responses, information on line,

information they can directly access, ways to connect to doctors that

are not traditional visits to doctors’ offices.

I’ll just say, in terms of the Michael Smith Foundation…. I’ve

been forwarded this, so I’m reading it on the fly here. We’ll see how

that goes. You’ll be glad to know that it’s been directly circled, so I

can’t read the thing above it.

“The Michael Smith Foundation, for example, has invested in research

on seniors’ aging and frailty across 154 projects and awards, including

Dr. Kendall Ho, 2017 health professional investigator, and also as part

of the 2006 research unit. Ho and his team are using home monitoring

technologies to help patients and care providers monitor and manage

chronic illness from home.” Very interesting. “This gives patients peace

of mind and helps spot potential problems early, reducing unnecessary

trips to the emergency room.”

Obviously, the possibility of that is significant for

patients.

The use of technology, of course, sometimes reduces costs and

sometimes, at least initially, dramatically expands costs as new

technologies are commercialized. You see that in areas where home health

monitoring and health monitoring is used, such as diabetes care and

others, where you’re systematically keeping up with information,

monitoring it both yourself and in conjunction with your family doctor,

nurse practitioner or endocrinologist, in that case. I would expect that

work to continue and become better.

The member will know that glucose monitors, when I was first

diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, were kind of new and interesting and

expensive in their own right: $1 per test strip. There has been a

transformation, both in insulin delivery and in glucose monitoring, to

more sophisticated and subtle machines. Now there’s new technology

around continuous glucose monitoring, which has to be assessed for its

value but is obviously of great value to some patients, as well as

insulin pumps.

[3:20 p.m.]

Now they’re on the delivery side, which moves us from syringe to

insulin pens to insulin pumps, which allow a great more control on the

part of not just the individual but a lot more information for health

care practitioners who are supporting those individuals. When you talk

about just that disease, it’s 30,000 people with type 1 diabetes,

400,000 people with type 2 diabetes.

N. Letnick: Thanks to the minister for sharing his personal story as well. I

always find that these proceedings touch home much more when we can

bring in our constituent stories or our own stories.

I’m very familiar with Dr. Kendall Ho. He and I and a few others

were talking about this kind of research for the past couple of years.

I’m very supportive of his work. He’s doing good work.

It brings me to the overlying question: why do we need

supplementary estimates at all? The minister mentioned 2008-2009, I

believe. We had just gone through a sub-prime mortgage crisis. We went

quickly from budget surpluses to budget deficits in the province — all

over the world, for that matter. We needed supplementary estimates at

that point because the ground upon which the budget was made quickly

evaporated.

Here we continue a balanced budget. We continue with strong

economic growth. Many people argue as to what precipitated that economic

growth. Of course, I would argue that a lot of that had to do with

policies coming out of the former Finance Minister and government — I

would argue probably correctly on that — which have been continued by

the current government in some ways.

I won’t get into the whole piece of taxation, because I don’t want

to spend a whole bunch of time on that. We’ll leave our Finance critics

to fight on that account. But why supplementary estimates of $89 million

for a budget of 40 percent of the provincial budget?

It just seems to me that it’s basically March Madness all over

again. I don’t want to see this happen on a yearly basis, because then

what will end up happening is we’ll have all of these organizations come

to the minister’s door — hopefully, he meets with these organizations —

as they lobby for dollars. If they don’t get them in the base budget,

they’ll lobby him for dollars for the March period, before the budget

supplementary estimates period ends.

I don’t think that’s the best way to run government. I would

suspect the best way to run health care…. I wouldn’t presume, because

I’m not in the minister’s chair, and I don’t have his experience to do

that. But I would assume, based on my business experience, it’s always

better to get all the asks in at once and be able to show how each of

them meets or doesn’t meet the best interests of the whole, as opposed

to cherry-picking one versus the other versus the other.

Could the minister comment on why he really needed $89 million? Or

maybe he didn’t need $89 million. Maybe the Finance Minister said: “I

have all this money. I have to spend it, so you will spend $89 million.

Where do you want the money to go to?” I’m not too sure how that worked.

I wasn’t in the room at the time.

Perhaps the minister can tell us how $89 million out of a $20

billion budget is on the table today and he’s asking for permission, as

opposed for it being in his base budget?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, the member referred to March Madness, which for many

people out there involves basketball. But not for the member for

Kelowna–Lake Country. I don’t want to presume. Everybody can play

basketball. It’s a great sport. His colleague from Kelowna is more the

basketball player, I suspect.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: No? Not a basketball player? He thinks basketball is too soft a

game, I think.

In any event, that process which occurs and has occurred under

this government, and really occurred for some years under previous

governments…. Often March Madness occurred during years when money

became available at the end of fiscal year. We’ve seen that occur in

budget years into the past — for example, the $50 million that was

provided to the Michael Smith Foundation in 2015-16. Well, that $50

million that was transferred to the Michael Smith Foundation hadn’t been

in the base budget, but there was no important public debate like this

one.

One of the important things that supplementary estimates do is

they increase transparency. We’re proposing to spend this money in this

way. It’s consistent with 20 years of government practice. I think it’s

good public spending, and we’re having a public debate about the

expenditure of that $89 million. So that’s the first set of

things.

[3:25 p.m.]

Secondly, it allows us to make excellent use of the projected

surplus for 2018-19. It frees up, essentially, space in the budget in

future years, both in 2019-20 and 2020-21, to support the delivery of

other health care services. This is a good way to allocate these dollars

into the future. It builds on our work and is an important technique to

do that. That’s why the Minister of Finance, I think, rightly proposed

the use of this technique.

The member will know, because he made reference to it, that the

operating debt of the province is gone, which is a difference,

obviously, between now and the last time supplementary estimates were

used, in 2008 and 2009. When there was a discussion of those estimates,

as I recall at the time, I don’t believe I objected to the use of the

supplementary estimates, although I naturally wanted to talk about

things beyond the scope of the estimates. I was clearly an inexperienced

opposition member at the time, right?

Those are the reasons we’re using supplementary estimates. It’s

more transparent. It’s straightforward. We’ve retired our operating

debt, which is a good thing for the province. We can have a debate about

that in the future. It allows us to make excellent use of the projected

deficit for this year. For all of those reasons — and the fact that the

Michael Smith Foundation and Genome B.C. are important investments for

the future of the province, for the future of all the people living in

the province today and people in the future — I think this is a

supplementary estimate that’s worthy of support by the House.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that. I agree that the relief from

the operating debt is extremely important. I always believe that

government, as we do in our own households, should live within their

means. Yes, we had something that went beyond our control back in ’08-09

with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. We were able to make some tough

decisions over the years after that.

I remember being on that side with limited funds, trying to get

back to a balanced budget, which we did rather well, and then, of

course, continue to pay down the operating debt so our children wouldn’t

have to pay interest on our credit card, but they basically would

continue with the debt that’s incurred on capital, which is totally

legit. It’s an intergenerational investment. Therefore, there should be

an intergenerational payment.

I’m really pleased that — and we can argue this point — the

majority of the work to pay off the operating debt was done prior to

this current government, but the current government continued with that.

I’m pleased to be in the House with all 87 of us that are able to see

that done.

Having said that, there still is a competition for resources,

whether it’s through the main budget process or whether it’s through the

supplementary budget process that the minister so capably outlined as to

how we got to where we are today and where we’re probably going to go in

future years as the current government continues to be in

power.

You never know. At some point in the future, if government

changes, the next government might continue to do it the same way as

well. We’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.

Given that there are competing interests, even for the supp, could

the minister describe what efforts…? I don’t want to get into the

dollars, per se, because this is a very limited forum that we have here.

Preventative health care is so important. I guess it should be

preventative illness. How do we prevent illness? How do we manage

chronic illnesses the best way possible?

A lot of people, when they come to me as the critic, want

investments today for things that they say will save money down the

road. I’m sure the minister gets that all the time. “Just give me,” I

don’t know, “$89 million today, and I could save you $1 billion five

years from now.” But the challenge, of course, is: how do you prove it?

How do you prove that $89 million today is going to save $1 billion five

years from now?

Some players out there are trying different ways of doing that —

pharmaceuticals, for example, which we’ll talk about in the full

estimates process. But pharmaceuticals are saying: “We’ll guarantee you.

Use this drug, and if it doesn’t work the way we said and save money

down the road, you won’t have to pay for it.” Right?

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

That’s one thing. That’s one tool that they’re bringing up. We’ll

talk about that at a different time so I can get the minister’s

perspective as to: is that a good thing?

[3:30 p.m.]

Is there anything else that the ministry uses, any other tool that

the ministry uses, when it looks at spending $89 million in supps for

these two research organizations, to compare that to other research or

preventative health measures they can invest in today that there’s some

reasonable expectation will save money to taxpayers down the road — and,

if not save money, at least bend the cost curve so that we can address

the growth in use of health care more effectively?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome. It’s the first time that

you’ve been in the chair — when I’ve been here, anyway. I’m sure you’ve

been here a few times when I wasn’t speaking.

I’d say, first of all, that one of the interesting parts of the

health debate is the degree to which the things that we need to do as a

society to improve health outcomes, quality of life and quality of

health are not in the Ministry of Health at all. This is the debate that

I think every government has, between both health inflation and the

growth of spending in the Ministry of Health, against other priorities

of government.

I talked about type 2 diabetes earlier. The main indicator, the

main determinant of getting type 2 diabetes or not, is poverty. Is it a

more efficient way to spend, to spend money on pharmaceuticals to treat

the disease or to spend money to reduce inequality, to raise people up

or give people access to the social circumstances that might allow them

to avoid type 2 diabetes? These are the debates.

As we provide the best HIV/AIDS care in the world — we’ve done so

over a matter of decades at St. Paul’s — is it important also to invest

in housing? If someone gets the best care in the world and they go home

with inadequate housing, what will that mean for their long-term health?

These are complicated questions which we can get into, but the social

determinants of health are important.

I think every investment we make should consider outcomes against

cost. Let’s give the member examples of that. When we make decisions

about funding insulin pumps…. This decision was originally made by

Premier Campbell’s government — I believe Mr. Abbott was Minister of

Health — and then subsequently expanded, in terms of service, when Terry

Lake was Minister of Health and Christy Clark was Premier, and then

subsequently extended now that the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca is

Premier and I’m Minister of Health.

On each of those occasions, there was a judgment made about the

value of that against the potential outcome, as there is routinely,

especially in the approvals of prescription drugs — the work of the

common drug review and other agencies. We do that with respect to

investments all the time, especially long-term investments. In this

case, I think this is a useful way to go forward: to provide multi-year

funding of either three or two years to an important area of health

research which we know, from our past experience, is worth the

investment on our part.

By taking that action now through the supplementary estimates, we

free up investment in other health priorities that people would have

while maintaining this long-standing investment in these two important

agencies. It allows us, effectively, in 2019-20 and ’20-21, to support

the very types of programs that the member is suggesting we might

consider.

What I think in general, in a time when there are always pressures

on spending — there always are; one could always spend it on more — and

when we have individual prescription drugs that cost $250,000, $500,000,

$750,000 per patient per year, these are always considerations. The more

that we can reduce spending in some areas, spend more efficiently in

some areas and find more efficient ways to spend in some areas, it will

allow us to expand services and spend on the other priorities, not just

of government but of society, that are important in terms of the

enjoyment of life, the extension of life and the quality of life of

people across the province.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Member.

N. Letnick: Well, thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair. It’s great

to see you there.

Thank you to the minister for his answer.

I recognize — and I would assume that every member of the House

recognizes — that social determinants of health play an extremely

important role in the health of British Columbians. I attended a poverty

forum on Saturday night, actually, with my granddaughter. I found it

invigorating, the conversation that we had. People shared their stories

about poverty, and we had table discussions. My granddaughter, on the

other hand, decided it was time for a nap, so she didn’t quite stay

awake for the whole thing, but it was, and it continues to be, an

important piece of the health care puzzle.

Having said that, my angle and my question is more to do with what

systems are in place, if any, which help to support the minister when

the minister is looking at these competing interests. Again, you have

$89 million for these two organizations in this supplementary estimates

process. They’re not going to get any money over the next two or three

years as their base budget, because they’re getting lump sums now. We’re

going to watch to make sure that they do good work, by putting our own

people on their boards to make sure they achieve those outcomes that we

agreed to. That’s great.

When you have a new ask — I just used a drug company as an

example; I don’t want to focus on the drug companies — from a non-profit

organization or some other advocacy group that says, “If only you’d

spend money on this, we can save you all of that,” how does the ministry

advise the minister on how effective or not effective that ask will be

in achieving those goals, so that the minister, on behalf of taxpayers,

can make an intelligent decision? I’m sure all of his decisions are

quite intelligent. He’s shaking his head: “Maybe.” Okay, I’ll give him

that. How can we make sure that the decisions are in the best interests

of taxpayers, not only those today but those of the future?

Hon. A. Dix: One of the things that I always say — and I strongly believe — in

this role, even more so now than I did when I started as Minister of

Health, is that every affirmative decision, by definition, is also a

negative decision. In other words, if we decide to spend X millions of

dollars on this, it means we’re not doing something on something

else.

The Chair and my colleague from Coquitlam, the Minister of

Housing, will know that we recently supported an emergency room

expansion to Eagle Ridge Hospital. Well, by definition, the decision to

do that, which I think is the right decision and is based on all of the

rigorous work that happens on capital projects by the ministry, by the

health authority and by Treasury Board, is still a decision made that

potentially means that that money is not available for other priorities.

You are making choices. To govern, to a degree, is to choose. One has to

be conscious of those all the time, rigorously compare and make

choices.

We made some choices this year, which we’ll debate in the main

estimates, around the importance of primary care. We’ve, I think, in a

significant way, set aside money in that area, which has always been

under pressure. If someone breaks their leg in here — we hope that

doesn’t happen — they’re going to go to the emergency room and they’re

going to get care, and it doesn’t matter what the Minister of Health

says. That money is accounted for. Often, primary care, when there’s a

squeeze, gets squeezed, because they’re often trying to keep people

healthy into the future but not immediately.

Acute care has long had a pressure, within the broader health care

program, on primary care. We know that the number of seniors is going to

grow into the future. Regardless of what our expectation is now — and

there’s pressure now — we know that that’s going to get greater in the

future. We have to build capacity to that. In British Columbia, unlike

other jurisdictions, where, after the baby boom generation leaves, there

might be a lessening of that…. Here in B.C., because this is a wonderful

place to live, people are going to keep going. So we’re going to have to

prepare our health care system for those circumstances.

We have to make those choices — I agree — every single time.

Sometimes the longer-term choices, in government, lose out to the

shorter-term crises, or the urgency of the moment. That’s why I think we

do have to — and why it’s important to — invest in research, as we are

now, as we are today, as this sees fit to do.

[3:40 p.m.]

If you were competing today urgently, people would say: “Well, why

worry about the changes that the Michael Smith Foundation and the work

of all its researchers will make ten years from now? We need something

now.” We have to, I think, do some of both; otherwise, we’ll constantly

miss out on the longer-term decisions we need to do to make the health

system better.

These are challenges every day. I think that every member of the

House, when we propose things, should always reflect on the path not

taken and understand that when you make a decision such as this one,

there would be consequences of not taking it. There would be no money

going forward for these organizations that have contributed a lot.

Nonetheless, there’s an alternate that we could have funded, which may

well have served as well. Those are always the judgments, I think, that

ministers should make.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

In my schooling, I learned about net present value. It’s one of

the things I remember. I try to forget it sometimes, but there it is,

always coming back. And comparing of alternatives — one alternative has

a certain net present value versus another alternative. The minister is

right. When you do one thing, you’re not doing something

else.

What I’m looking for — and I think maybe we’ll canvass this a

little more under the full estimates — is: what analysis, if any, does

the ministry provide to the minister in terms of competing interests? Do

they use a net present value calculation somehow? Do they estimate with

a weighted average cost of capital and come up with, you know, the

financial implication, or is it all political? Is it somewhere in

between? What construct?

I know we celebrated engineers today in the House prior to

question period. Well, engineers, when they decide to build a road, for

example, use, definitely, a comparison in numbers, as to what something

will cost versus how long it’s going to last versus the operation of it.

There’s a lot of number crunching, and I would hope that there’s no

politics involved.

In the case of health care, there’s a lot of judgment, I believe.

That’s why it’s important to have good people in the ministry and

surrounding the minister to make these judgment calls. I’d like to

canvass that a little more.

Take, for example, the ICU announcement in Nanaimo. I’m hearing

now that that announcement was about new dollars for an ICU, but people

are telling me that’s not the case, that Island Health has to come up

with dollars and repurpose dollars from what they were planning on doing

before now to pay for that ICU. That’s the challenge, right? We can

canvass that in full estimates as well, so maybe the minister can get

some briefing on that prior to full estimates.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Well, if the minister wants to answer it now, that’s fine

too.

These are the kinds of questions that the critic now, formerly the

minister, gets, and it’s always difficult to be able to point to

something and say: “Well, that’s not the way it works.” The way it works

is there’s a structure. There’s a format. There’s a process by which the

minister gets to make these decisions on which urgent care centre is

going to go first, which is going to go last, which ones are going to go

in which communities, whether or not we are going to fund B.C.

Ambulance.

All of these questions that come up are competing

inte­rests. If you put money in one pot, as the minister says,

you’re not funding something else. It would be nice to understand a

little better as to what that process is so that the public has a good

comfort in decisions being made in, I would argue, one of the most

important ministries in the government — obviously, the most important

in terms of financial impact on the budget, being 40 percent of the

budget. That’s just on the ministry itself. That’s not including other

health delivery mechanisms through other ministries, which provide even

more money out of the budget.

If the minister…. I think he wishes to address my questions now.

No? Then I’ll move on to a different piece. I don’t see him jumping up.

Oh, he is. Okay. So the question is: can the minister enlighten us a

little more on the process? If not today, that’s fair enough. We can

wait for the full estimates to talk about it.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Of course, historically, if you think…. Let’s just give an example

of a decision that was made in the 2012 to 2014 period about the

disposition of assets by the government. Members will remember this. The

government decided that it had to balance the budget, and it decided to,

in 2012 and 2013-2014, sell a lot of government assets. And they did.

They sold a lot of government assets in that period. I think it’s fair

to say that the sale of assets in that period helped the government to

the extent that in the electoral period of 2013, it allowed them to show

on the record a balanced budget. They sold a lot of assets.

I think given what happened to, especially, the land assets that

were sold, objectively, you would call that a terrible decision for the

taxpayers, because, of course, the value of those assets has grown

enormously over the last number of years. Sometimes government needs

land assets. You can only sell them once, and they did. That’s a

decision that was taken that wasn’t the right decision.

In other cases…. I think one of the problems, though — and the

member outlines this — is the experience I had going to Dawson Creek,

when we announced the hospital project there. So I go to Dawson Creek.

Some will recall that the member for Peace River South won by a small

margin in the 2017 election. I think the margin might have been 55

percent. I don’t follow these things closely.

Members will know that project was on the go in ’05 and ’09 and

then ’13 and ’17 and had never gone forward. When I got to Dawson Creek,

arrived in town, I was, oddly for me, in a…. I guess you’d call it a bar

restaurant. Someone comes up to me and says: “So what are you doing

here?” I said: “Well, you know, we’re making an announcement at the

hospital tomorrow.” They couldn’t believe, given the electoral result,

that we were funding the hospital. A lot of cynicism about the impact of

politics on decisions of all kinds.

I said: “Absolutely we’re doing it, because it’s absolutely

needed.” The hospital was built in 1960. It had been recommended for a

long time, and we were proceeding.

I think what’s really important, I would say to the member, is

that we consistently, in a rigorous, thoughtful way, show why we’re

spending money — why the supplementary estimates process, I think, is

useful in that sense — because there’s cynicism out there about the way

decisions get made. Some of the debate at the federal level that’s going

on right now — maybe even right here in this chamber, about the way

money gets spent — contributes to that cynicism.

My experience is that I get absolutely outstanding advice. Not

easy advice — not “this is the only possible answer,” because there is

often more than one possible answer and possible direction to go in —

but excellent advice. Then the government gets excellent advice from

central agencies such as Treasury Board. We try to do the best job at

making the right decision for people. That’s my experience.

I suspect, certainly at that level, that that was the case when

the member opposite was Minister of Agriculture, making those choices

within the realm of the Ministry of Agriculture. Because even though the

budget is big for the Ministry of Health in a relative term, a lot of

that is accounted for. We run hospitals. We run emergency rooms. We have

an MSP program. We’re going forward. A lot of that program and a lot of

the money you spend is accounted for already.

What I try and do, and what I’ve tried to do — and I think the

member, in his approach, is trying to do as well — is take away some of

that cynicism by simply saying, “Here are the decisions we’re making,”

and by showing, I think, especially in the case of health capital, that

issues like how a particular constituency voted are not

relevant.

In the case of my work, I can tell you that the first hospital

announced was Williams Lake. The second was Terrace, right? And the list

went on. Until we announced St. Paul’s, I don’t think we got to a

government riding. In that case, it was moving from one government

riding to another government riding. I think that experience…. I would

say, as well, that one of those main projects that the government is

spending on right now is Royal Columbian Hospital, which, obviously, was

decided by the previous government in an opposition riding, if we think

back to that.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think part of what’s important for all people in politics and in

government is to continually show why you’re making decisions, that

they’re not easy decisions and you’re not always right, but that you’re

trying to make the decisions in the public interest. Because that helps

all of us, I think, build public support for our joint goals and

aspirations.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that. As I said, I will canvass this

issue when we get to full estimates. Hopefully, at that point, there

might be other material available. On the issue of land sales, I can

tell you those land sales were appropriate and they had a process by

which they were decided. So I look forward to seeing what the current

government’s process is for appropriate decision-making.

Speaking of making choices, one of the choices that we could have

made for the $89 million in supp was to look at some of the

recommendations from the Auditor General when it comes to access to

emergency health services. Now I will give the minister some leeway, as

I like to do, because this report actually came out after the last

year’s estimates process. It came out just last month.

Since the firefighters are in town for the next couple of days, I

thought we might take just a few minutes — I think we have another ten

or so minutes left on our

schedule before the House Leaders tell us

we’ve been having too much fun — to talk a little bit about the

summary

of recommendations that the Auditor General is making to the Ministry of

Health. The reason why is we have a colleague here that has a specific

story that she wishes to share and ask the minister and her staff a

question on.

In the

summary of recommendations, the Auditor General recommends

that the Ministry of Health work with local governments and the health

service to ensure that BCEHS can implement a coordinated approach to

pre-hospital care that results in:

(1) medical oversight, to the extent appropriate, across agencies

to ensure that patient care meets acceptable medical

standards;

(2) data sharing between agencies to better understand whether

patients are getting the right medical interventions at the right

time;

(3) signed agreements outlining the roles and responsibilities of

fire departments, including the level of care provided, which is where

I’d like to focus the questions on; and

(4) confirmation that first responders are being notified of

events where they can best contribute to patient care, which is another

place that we could look at.

The reason why I’m bringing this up is the rules have changed now

for call-outs between B.C. Ambulance and firefighters. In the past…. I

don’t know how long the past was, whether a year ago or two. I’m sure

the minister and his staff can help educate me on that. But in the past,

when you called 911 when you had an emergency, both firefighters and

paramedics were called out, in a lot of cases, to go to events. The

minister, again, can educate me on that.

It seems that today there’s a new system in place, based on what

the information is and hierarchy — that in a lot of cases, firefighters

are not called out to go and attend calls. That has seemed to be having

some growing pains, if I can say that. And you know, this is a big

province with a lot of moving parts, so I don’t think that it’s unusual

to have those pains. But this is a good place for us to discuss them,

especially in light of the firefighters being in town. I’m sure one of

their asks will be about this whole issue itself.

With that, the minister can address it, or it can wait for a

moment. We have a specific example, which my colleague from

Boundary-Similkameen could bring up — whatever the minister’s pleasure

is.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m always delighted to answer questions in the Legislature and

also to hear from my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen. We’re working

together on a number of issues, including primary care, in her

community, so I’m always respectful of that.

Just to put it in context, because the member mentions the Auditor

General’s report. I just want to note that since July 2017 — I’m trying

to remember what happened July 2017, but I think we all know I became

Minister of Health then — we’ve added a total of 119 full-time and

part-time paramedic positions, partly in response to those issues that

have developed over time.

[3:55 p.m.]

Some