British Columbia Hansard — 4 March 2019, p.m., Issue 213 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20190304pm-Hansard-n213

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday, March 4, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 213 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fourth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz Acting Sergeant-at-Arms......................................................................................................................................... Randall Ennis, MMM, CD

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ....................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Monday, March 4, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 7417 Introduction and First Reading of Bills................................................................................................................................ 7418 Bill 12 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2019 Hon. C.

James Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 7418 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 7418 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......................................................................................................................................................................... 7420 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 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7426 L. Larson Orders of the Day Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7426 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 .............................................................................................................................................................. 7455 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 particip- ated 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 Wash- ington 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 Legis- lative 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 coordin- ator. 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 Y outh Ambassador Society. This is really a mentorship pro- gram 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 com- munity there’s an important event happening, the New West Y outh Ambassador volunteers are there volunteering. I’ d like to introduce them here today. I know it’s the high- light of their year to come to the Legislature.

The New West Y outh 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 Rad- bourne, 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 inHansard, 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 Y outh 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 anoth- er 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 del- egation: 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 gal- lery today. Would the House please help me welcome him. S. Furstenau:I’m absolutely delighted to make an intro- 7417

duction of the amazing Cowichan Valley constituency office team who are up in the gallery today: Tricia Datené; B McK- enzie; 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 happen- ing 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 Medi- cal 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 (No. 1), 2019 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 inter- im supply for a portion of government’s financing require- ments for the ’19-20 fiscal year, including one-third of the year’s capital expenditures, loans, investments and other fin- ancing requirements and the full amount of the year’s dis- bursements for revenue collected on behalf of and trans- ferred 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 distin- guished 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 numer- ous 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 municip- al 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 His- torical Society of B.C.

In addition, Colonel Howe helps with the coordination of cadet programs, promotes Veterans Week and Remem- brance Day in public schools and plans and participates in 7418 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

local Remembrance Day ceremonies. In May of 2016, Col- onel Howe was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal of the civil division in recognition for his outstanding accom- plishments 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 his- tory 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 oth- er 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 hos- ted 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 pres- entation 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 incred- ible event. Congratulations, as well, to the city of Fernie and sur- rounding 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 AW ARDS 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 trans- forming the school rotunda into a full-production, award- show venue.

It was a wonderful touch to have Korleen Car- reras, chair of the school board, act as the master of cere- monies. 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 medi- um 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 addic- tions 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 Boek- horst 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 see- ing a lot more businesses set up shop in Maple Ridge and, of course, Pitt Meadows and Mission as well. V APING 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.

Y et 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, par- ticularly for adolescents. Moreover, nicotine is proven to be a highly addictive substance that adversely effects the developing brain. Parents, educators, administrators and elected officials Monday, March 4, 2019 British Columbia Debates 7419

must become informed about the risks of vaping to our chil- dren so that, with confidence, we can act. This starts by get- ting 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 pro- grams 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.

Y outh-friendly e-cigarette flavours should be banned. A zero-tolerance policy for possession of any vap- ing-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 every- where. 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. Y es, 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 Vancou- ver–Capilano is an engineer. I, the member for North Van- couver–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 pro- fessional designation, so I will conveniently leave him out for reasons that will soon become clear.

Y ou see, in B.C., women are still severely underrepresented in the engineer- ing 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 addi- tional 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 actu- ally 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 Legis- lature.

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 tire- less 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 med- ical 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 pre- sumptive 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 Washing- ton 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 soft- wood producer in Canada — should be at the forefront of Canadian efforts.

Forestry families are hurting, and they 7420 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

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 Wash- ington, D.C. two years ago? Hon. J. Horgan:I’m grateful that the Leader of the Oppo- sition 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 govern- ment — 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. Y ou 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 com- munities 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 con- certed effort from this Premier and this government to sup- port 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 commun- ities 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 Lea- der of the Opposition is in, that we would have unanimity on in this House. We should all be supporting forest-dependent communit- ies. 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 Brit- ish Columbia’s single most important trade issue, by a country mile. The forest sector workers have been left vul- nerable 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? Monday, March 4, 2019 British Columbia Debates 7421

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 gov- ernment — 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 bring- ing 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 pos- ition 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 gov- ernor of that state, and they tried to make that about soft- wood 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 supple- mental. 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 communit- ies. 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. Lib- erals 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 Sec- retary 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 Abbots- ford 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 oppos- ition bench. I suspect this must be some kind of rite of pas- sage 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 catch- ment areas for services. The change came with little warning to the service providers and resulted in many local organiz- ations 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 connec- tion 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 compan- 7422 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

ies 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 indic- ated 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 per- cent 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 supple- mental. A. Weaver:In fact, I’m interested to hear that the minister suggests the balance has been found.

Y ou 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 multina- tionals lack community connections and do not have to loc- ally 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 Devel- opment 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 ques- tion.

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 com- munity. 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 oppor- tunity 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 oppor- tunity 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 opportunit- ies. I’m looking forward to its success. GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON FOREST INDUSTRY AND AQUACULTURE T. Stone:To recap, the Premier has told 140 forest com- munities 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? Monday, March 4, 2019 British Columbia Debates 7423

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 provid- ing 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, com- munities 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 per- plexed 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 Brit- ish 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 oppor- tunities 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 Thomp- son 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 aquacul- ture sector.

Now the Premier, last Friday, with this group of Steel- workers, 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 mem- ber for Nanaimo. Forestry workers are not whiners. Forestry workers deserve better than this. Can the Premier confirm what the government’s inten- tions are when it comes to the forest sector? Are they going to apply the same tactics that they’ve applied to the aquacul- ture 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 sal- mon aquaculture when they were sitting on this side of the House, that it’s a controversial issue. Indigenous communit- ies 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 govern- ment. We invited industry in. We talked to workers, and we 7424 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

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 govern- ment 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 mega- phone, 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 min- ing, 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 suppor- ted 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 low- est 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 supple- mental. 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 Monday, March 4, 2019 British Columbia Debates 7425

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 revitaliza- tion 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 pro- tect 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, Indigen- ous 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 con- quer. It’s someone else’s problem. British Columbians under- stand that the way forward is one of cooperation and con- sensus. 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 busi- nesses 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 supple- mentary estimates for the Ministry of Health, to be followed by the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Municip- al Affairs and Housing.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call the supple- mentary estimates for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Nat- ural Resource Operations and Rural Development, to be fol- lowed by the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture supple- mentary 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 com- munity of researchers that can help do this work, of us devel- oping, obviously, a life sciences sector that creates jobs and builds innovation in our society.

At its core, the work par- ticularly 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 mil- lion 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 pro- grams, 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 7426 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

the coming three years with respect to the Michael Smith Foundation and the coming two years with respect to Gen- ome 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 oppos- ition or anyone else would have on this subject. N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his opening comments. Y es, 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 supplement- ary 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 sup- plementary 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 unfun- ded 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 ini- tiatives 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 alloc- ated 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., gener- ally speaking — and the majority of that time was obvi- ously 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. Y ear-end funding has generally been the pattern for the Michael Smith Foundation, Genome B.C. and other agen- cies. 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 cer- tainly 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-gov- ernment 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 pri- orities. For example, some of the work we saw just last week Monday, March 4, 2019 British Columbia Debates 7427

— 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 pro- vincial 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 Min- istry 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 sup- porting 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 develop- ment 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 fund- ing, 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 sup- porting 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 Legis- lature…. 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 communit- ies that the member represents, but it’s certainly in com- munities 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 Found- ation for people with type 2 diabetes is of central import- ance, 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 suppor- ted in recent years that dramatically saves costs and medic- al 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 test- ing 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 simultan- eously, up from the previous four genes. This increases dia- gnostic accuracy and eases the administrative burden. These are the practical things that make a difference for people.

Y es, 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 pub- lic application. That’s been the work of the Michael Smith Foundation, 7428 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

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 mak- ing 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 dif- ference 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 con- tinue 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 2050. 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 Found- ation, 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 Min- ister 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 govern- ments.

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 inde- pendent 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 gov- ernment and supported, since then, successively by govern- ments with this kind of funding. We think that the Michael Smith Foundation does an out- standing job. I don’t think replacing it with another organ- ization 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 Monday, March 4, 2019 British Columbia Debates 7429

clarity. Are there any other organizations in Canada that would have been happy to receive some provincial tax dol- lars 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 govern- ment 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 summar- ize 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 out- comes? 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 organiza- tions, 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 net- works. 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 per- cent in Genome Canada competitions, obviously consider- ably 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 stra- tegic 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 Innov- ation 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 reli- ance on provincial public funding: $3 million in co-invest- ment — 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 innova- tion program. Just to say that the other way in which we maintain gov- ernance 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 fund- ing 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 7430 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

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, espe- cially…. 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 supple- mentary 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 assur- ances 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 exten- ded 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 dif- ficult 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 trans- ferred 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. Y ou lose a little bit, I think, as the member is suggesting, in terms of government accountability when that happens.

Y ou 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 plan- ning. 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 get- ting a lump sum in this fiscal year — thanks to the supple- mentary 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. Y es, 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 fund- ing, 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 for- get 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 con- Monday, March 4, 2019 British Columbia Debates 7431

sider 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 organ- ization like the Michael Smith Foundation. As long as gov- ernment 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 star- ted 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 con- sidered 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 organ- izations 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 organ- ization like Michael Smith, which is preparing multi-year fellowships and everything else, this might be, for them any- way, 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 look- ing 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 improve- ments 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, infor- mation 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.

Y ou’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 re- search 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, redu- cing 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.

Y ou see that in areas where home health monitoring and health monitoring is used, such as diabetes care and others, where you’re sys- tematically 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 soph- isticated 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. 7432 British Columbia Debates Monday, March 4, 2019

[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 sup- porting those individuals. When you talk about just that dis- ease, 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 person- al story as well. I always find that these proceedings touch home much more when we can bring in our constituent stor- ies 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 pre- cipitated 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 supplement- ary 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 dol- lars. If they don’t get them in the base budget, they’ll lobby him for dollars for the March period, before the budget sup- plementary 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 basket- ball. 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 basket- ball player, I suspect. Interjection. Hon. A. Dix:No? Not a basketball player? He thinks bas- ketball 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 Founda- tion hadn’t been in the base budget, but there was no import- ant 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 gov- ernment practice. I think it’s good public spending, and we’re having a public debate about the expenditure of that $89 mil- lion. So that’s the first set of things. [3:25 p.m.] Secondly, it allows us to make excellent use of the projec- ted surplus for 2018-19.

It frees up, essentially, space in the budget in future years, both in 2019-20 and 2020-21, to sup- port 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 supple- mentary 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 inexperi- enced opposition member at the time, right? Those are the reasons we’re using supplementary estim- ates. 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 fu

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20190304pm-Hansard-n213
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20190304pm Hansard n213
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ddc2e03d9d3d0ff8733894c9f85cb3ed0fd11304

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).