Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 6, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 283

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 12 — Intimate Images Protection Act

Hon. N. Sharma

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Film industry in Langley

M. Dykeman

Purim celebrations

M. Lee

Seedy Saturday event in Comox Valley

R. Leonard

Kitimat Firefighters Association and firefighters

memorial

E. Ross

Support for community festivals and events

B. D’Eith

Bomb disposal incident on Highway 97

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and role of

businesses in drug supply

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

E. Sturko

Budget priorities and transit services

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Fleming

Access to harm reduction services and opioid

replacement drugs

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. J. Whiteside

Drug decriminalization program and role of

businesses in drug supply

T. Halford

Hon. J. Whiteside

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

Tabling Documents

Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, special report, From Hate to

Hope: Report of the Inquiry into Hate in the COVID-19

Pandemic , March 2023

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 28 — Membership change to Finance

Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

T. Shypitka

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

and Infrastructure (continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. R. Fleming

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Municipal

Affairs

Hon. A. Kang

D. Ashton

P. Milobar

MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2023

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have a few friends who are the committee

members of the Canada bubble tea festival. They’re a very exciting group of

people.

We were having lunch today talking about bubble tea and how exciting

it is. It’s not just about the bubbles but it’s about grass jelly, different

flavours and fruits. They’re here visiting. They want to know more about the

people’s House and how we deliberate here today.

Last year was the inaugural bubble tea festival, where we saw

approximately 20,000 people who were excited about bubble tea. This year

there’s a three-day event from July 7 to 9, from Friday to

Sunday.

[1:35 p.m.]

Their names are Alen Yang, Teresa Chiang, Grace Chan and the chair of

the bubble tea festival, Eric Yang.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

E. Ross: I’ve got some guests here today from Kitimat. It’s very exciting to

have people from Kitimat here, finally. We have Justin Medeiros, who’s the

fire captain and paramedic for Kitimat Fire and Ambulance. He is also

president of Kitimat Firefighters Association.

Justin Bogaert is a firefighter paramedic for Kitimat fire and

ambulance, and vice-president of Kitimat Firefighters Association. Chad Webb

is a firefighter paramedic for Kitimat Fire and Ambulance, a trustee in the

Kitimat Firefighters Association.

Probably the most interesting guest that I’ve had here today is

Marissa Morrison, firefighter paramedic for Kitimat Fire and Ambulance and

treasurer of Kitimat Firefighters Charities. But more importantly, she just

got through completing the Wounded Warriors run on a team of eight from Port

Hardy to Victoria, B.C., in eight consecutive days. That was 700 kilometres.

My knees and ankles are aching just thinking about running 700

kilometres.

Would the House please make these residents from Kitimat feel

welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I have a bit of a bigger group than I normally have, and it’s so

exciting. We’re joined today by the Dogwood Monarchist Society. DMS is a

group that has been celebrating LGBTQ2IAS+ individuals in Vancouver for 50

years and then some. It’s their 50th year this year. It was founded by ted

northe, the late Canadian drag queen civil rights icon.

I want to ask you all to help me welcome his most imperial sovereign,

majesty, Emperor 50, Victor the Victorious; His Majesty’s lady in waiting,

Lady Tamara, mother of Sir George; her imperial sovereign, majesty, Empress

35 of Vancouver B.C., the mother court of Canada, heir apparent to Queen

Mother 1 of the Americas, Empress Nicole the Great.

The chairperson of the International Court Council, Jalen Time; their

Royal Highness, Princess Royal 50, Sister Bear It’all, with the Vancouver

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Their Royal Highness Princess 50 Royale

Diversity Reigns, with the Vancouver Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

Candidate Alter is a member of the current Reign 50 board of directors,

Reign Princess Royale and one of this year’s aspirants for the position of

Empress 51. Sean Richard is a member of the executive and proud ambassador

for the DMS and our community.

It’s great to see them here. They do so much fundraising, so much

friend-raising, so much volunteering to build better communities, let people

be their full selves, dream beyond what they could ever imagine and really

make a better world.

Would the House please welcome the DMS. Go see them at coronation next

Saturday at the Commodore Ballroom. It’s a fun ball. Trust me. Please make

them very welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a very important person who’s done incredible

work on behalf of all British Columbians, and indeed, all Canadians. That is

Carol Todd, who is here to witness the introduction of some

legislation.

Carol is a constituent of mine, and she took the tragedy of her

daughter’s death by suicide from cyberbullying to become a force for good

and a force for change in terms of dealing with that issue. She’s done

amazing work that has now been recognized globally.

Would the House please make Carol most very welcome.

Hon. B. Bailey: Today in the House, there are Jedis.

I would like the House to welcome 17 members of the Ministry of Jobs,

Economic Development and Innovation. Just three years ago, the world was

turned upside down by COVID-19. Thanks to the fast actions of these

individuals and their teams, we were able to get half a billion dollars out

to support small businesses.

The force is strong with these ones. Allow me to quickly introduce —

and I apologize; I’ll just use first names because of time, but no offence

meant — Nicole, Vicki, Dawn, Jonathan, Ryan, Hanna, Olayinka, Pop, Ashley,

Anousheh, Saige, Taddea, Martin, Ismenia, Mercedes, Keith,

Alexandra.

You are most welcome.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have two sets of introductions. First, I have the pleasure of

introducing 33 Washington state legislative interns, who are visiting from

Olympia today. They are here as part of an annual exchange between our two

internship programs in Washington state and British Columbia.

We’re happy that this tradition has returned after three years of

hiatus due to the pandemic. As part of the Washington state internship

program, their interns work for their members of the House of

Representatives or Senate while earning academic credit from colleges,

universities around the state,

whereas the B.C. legislative interns have

already graduated from university.

This morning they met with several members of the Legislative Assembly

to learn about our parliamentary system and discuss issues of importance for

both jurisdictions. They were accompanied by two staff, Louis Lindstrom,

deputy director of civic education for Washington State Senate; and Cynthia

Huynh, who is the assistant civic education coordinator for the Washington

State House of Representatives.

Would the House please make them welcome today.

In moments, there will be 24 grade 8-to-12 students from Seaquam

Secondary from my community. They’re here with their teacher and Michelle

Chan. Again, they’re going to be coming in to watch question

period.

Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Beare: Today we are celebrating a birthday in this House. If you would all

please join me in wishing our wonderful Minister of Post-Secondary Education

and Future Skills a very happy birthday.

K. Paddon: I can’t see her right now, but my daughter is here with us. Her name

is Aurora Paddon, but we call her Rory. She has joined us for the whole

week. She’s going to get to learn from all of the amazing people I get to

work with, so please be amazing. I’m just really looking forward to her

having a taste of what it’s like being here working for British Columbians.

Would the House please join me in making Rory feel very welcome.

J. Sturdy: Today touring the precinct is a grade 10 class from Coast Mountain

Academy in Squamish, which is a university prep school for students in

grades 7 to 12, founded with the goal of creating a culture of wonder and

curiosity — which is, I suppose, why they’re coming here — and supported by

a founding belief that education is not limited to the classroom.

Fortunately, they are in Squamish, so they have an opportunity to very much

enjoy the natural environment. It’s great to see them coming to see us here

in Victoria.

Would the House join me in please making them feel

welcome.

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s with great pleasure that I would like to welcome Carol Todd with

us here today, who has really become a fierce advocate for protecting young

people through the tragic loss of her daughter.

Would the House please make

her feel welcome.

H. Sandhu: My son, Avishaan, celebrated his birthday yesterday. He turned seven.

Avishaan is such a thoughtful, caring and loving boy, and he’s also my

little French teacher. When I tried to do his homework with him, it turned

out that I need to learn more.

Avishaan’s conversations, and his hugs after an exhausting day, make

me forget all my worries. I’m so blessed to be Avishaan’s mother.

Would the

House please join me to wish my son, Avishaan, a very happy

birthday.

A. Olsen: I have two sets of introductions to make today. First of all, I’d like

to welcome Stefan Jonsson and Ellie Blackmore into the Legislative Assembly

today. They’re visiting and were with the Leader of the Third Party for

lunch. Both Stefan and Ellie work in the B.C. Green Party in communications,

and we raise our hands in gratitude for the incredible work that they do on

behalf of the B.C. Green Party.

Could members please make them feel welcome,

no matter what side of the House they’re on.

[1:45 p.m.]

The second introduction that I’d like to make is Denise Jones and Don

Peterson, who I had the opportunity of joining for lunch today. They are the

vice-president and president of the Saanich Teachers Association. Each year,

about this time, we get together to discuss education in school district

I’m very grateful and thankful for the representation that they have

on behalf of teachers in my riding.

Could the House please also make them

feel very welcome.

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you for allowing a second introduction.

Very quickly, I just wanted to ask the House to join me in welcoming

my cousin Christopher Bailey. He’s a firefighter with the Oak Bay fire

department, and I’m very proud of his service.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — INTIMATE IMAGES

PROTECTION

ACT

Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Intimate Images Protection

Act.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Intimate Images Protection Act. This

bill will provide new forms of redress for people who’ve experienced the

harm of having their intimate images distributed without consent. It

will also assist people who have received threats that their intimate

images will be distributed.

Creating and sharing nude, nearly nude or sexualized intimate

images can be a normal form of communication and intimacy between

consenting partners. But when these images are shared without consent,

it is a devastating form of sexualized violence that disproportionately

impacts young people, women, girls and gender-diverse people. The

consequences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images can be

severe. A person who has their intimate images distributed without

consent doesn’t just lose their privacy and autonomy; it is taken from

them. The resulting impacts can be far-reaching and

long-lasting.

This legislation will create new legal rights and remedies that

people can use to stop the distribution of their intimate images and to

seek compensation for the harms it can cause. If approved by members of

this chamber, this legislation will be retrospective back to this moment

when, as a bill, it received first reading.

That means that people who distribute or threaten to distribute

intimate images without consent are on notice that they will face new

legal consequences even if the wrongful conduct happens before the

legislation comes into force.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Intimate Images Protection Act, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FILM INDUSTRY IN LANGLEY

M. Dykeman: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about an

important economic driver in my riding of Langley East, the film

industry.

The township of Langley is one of the most film-friendly

municipalities in the Lower Mainland. They work in all seven township

communities, producing feature films, TV series, made-for-TV movies and

commercials, as well as documentaries. In 2019, there were over 1,600

film days in the township, representing over 185 separate

productions.

Each year the industry invests millions of dollars in direct

spending in the township’s local economy through the acquisition of

services and the purchase of goods. According to the provincial agency

Creative B.C., in 2019, over 2,500 township residents worked in film, an

industry which provides excellent, high-paying jobs.

[1:50 p.m.]

The township of Langley boasts fantastic filming locations, with a

mix of urban and rural locations, stunning mountain backdrops and

top-notch studio space, like Martini Studios. There really is a wide

range of locations to choose from, including our very own New

York.

Martini Town is a self-contained New York–themed backlot. The

buildings and street offer a New York brownstone theme with houses, a

small movie theatre, a coffee shop and an urban alleyway. You sure feel

like you’re enjoying the Big Apple.

The industry is growing in Langley. Last week, along with my

colleagues the Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film and the

Minister of State for Workforce Development, I attended the graduation

of a very large cohort of students at one of Martini Studios’ locations.

North Island College, Island North Film Commission and Martini Film

Studios partner to provide micro-credential motion picture skills

training in the township of Langley in set construction, lighting, grip,

set dresser and production assistance.

Thank you to Gemma Martini and everyone who has played a role in

this important training opportunity.

I would like to congratulate all the graduates of the program.

You’re entering an exciting industry with much opportunity. I look

forward to seeing you at one of the many productions in the township of

Langley in the future.

PURIM CELEBRATIONS

M. Lee: I rise to acknowledge and join the many British Columbians who are

celebrating the Jewish holiday of Purim, including in the

Vancouver-Langara constituency that I represent here in this House —

celebrations like the one yesterday at the Jewish Community Centre in

Vancouver, with costumes, traditional games and food for, literally, a

rocking Purim for families and children.

I have many fond memories of learning about Purim as a young boy,

the many fun activities I was welcome to participate in, from my time

growing up at the Jewish Community Centre.

Today at sundown, Jewish communities here in B.C. and all around

the world will mark the start of Purim, commemorating how the Jewish

people were saved from the persecution of the Persian Empire.

Purim is an opportunity to celebrate that victory over oppression,

with families and friends traditionally gathering to enjoy food and the

company of loved ones. It is often celebrated with plenty of gift

exchanges, charitable giving, the baking of hamantaschen and, of course,

seudah feast with plenty of good food and drink.

The story behind this holiday marking the salvation of the Jewish

people from a plan to kill and destroy their communities in the early

centuries, which is described in the Book of Esther, still has great

relevance today as an important reminder of the history of genocide and

oppression that the Jewish people have faced from time immemorial and

the persistent hate and anti-Semitism that is unacceptably present in

our society today.

On behalf of the entire B.C. Liberal opposition, I want to wish

all those celebrating tonight a happy and joyous Purim.

Chag Purim sameach .

SEEDY SATURDAY EVENT

IN COMOX

VALLEY

R. Leonard: The Comox Valley Growers and Seed Savers hosted another successful

Seedy Saturday this weekend. Choices of locally adapted, organic,

healthy and productive seeds abound from dozens of Island-based vendors

and the local seed swap.

This event would not be possible without the leadership of

president Sylvain Alie, vice-president Colin Sutton and over 60

volunteers who help thousands of gardeners benefit from seeds to grow

low-cost and healthy food. Growing food security is another delicious

benefit, as you’re sure to put food on the table.

Having problems in the garden? Comox Valley Horticultural Society

and the Vancouver Island Master Gardeners Association are on hand. Seed

Savers also host workshops throughout the year.

This year I picked up an umbrella, a fundraiser for the

horticulturalist. It’s bright with an award-winning photo taken at

Victoria’s Royal Roads University by Courtenay artist David

Ballantyne.

A big thank-you to a number of vendors who took the time to chat

with me. Simon Toole of Good Earth Farms in Black Creek sells smaller

and bigger packets of non-hybrid seed directly to gardeners and farmers,

as well as to Sudbury-based seed company Northern Wildflowers. He is

also part of the B.C. Eco Seed Co-op, along with about 20 other

producers, supplying the volumes needed by B.C. farmers.

[1:55 p.m.]

Rachel Halliwell of Home Grown Bee in Merville sells everything

from beehives to honey. Mervilleite Joyce McMenamon offers her Speedibin

rat-busting composters that she has produced in Coquitlam. Vancouver

Island Wool Pellets provide slow-release fertilizer and moisture

control. There was even room made for a Comox Valley group growing funds

to sponsor a refugee family from Afghanistan.

The diversity of Seedy Saturday shows how buying local, buying

B.C., really does mean success for all of us.

KITIMAT FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

AND FIREFIGHTERS

MEMORIAL

E. Ross: The B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association is a non-profit

organization that represents professional firefighters across British

Columbia. Founded in 1919, the association advocates for their rights

and working conditions as well as promoting public safety and

awareness.

Firefighters play a crucial role in protecting communities and

ensuring public safety, responding to emergencies such as fires, floods

and earthquakes and providing critical support and assistance to those

in need. In B.C., firefighters face a particularly challenging task due

to B.C.’s geography and the unpredictable nature of wildfires, which can

have devastating effects on our communities, people and the environment.

These fires can cause extensive damage to forests, homes and

infrastructure.

The Kitimat Firefighters Association, which is here with us today,

is a non-profit organization that represents professional firefighters

in the town of Kitimat, located in northern B.C. The association works

to ensure firefighters have the necessary resources and support to

respond to emergencies and protect our communities.

As a small town and remote location, Kitimat faces unique

challenges when it comes to emergency response. The Kitimat firefighters

play a critical role in addressing these challenges, providing

specialized training and support to its members and advocating for the

needs in the community, not just their community but my community, as

Kitimat does as well,

whereas previous years, they came to our aid,

which I am totally grateful for.

The association’s work in community outreach and education helps

promote fire safety and prevention, highlighting the critical role that

firefighters play in protecting communities and the

environment.

I was at the ceremony today in the backyard here, at the memorial,

and I think it’s important to remind citizens of the incredible

sacrifice that our front-line workers incur in their efforts to keep us

safe. In the past four years, 48 firefighters didn’t make it home. In

their introductory speech today, it was referred to as the “empty

spaces” that these women and men left behind, empty spaces in our

communities and our families.

On behalf of Skeena and my family, I extend my deepest condolences

to those families whose members made the ultimate sacrifice in the line

of duty in trying to keep the rest of us safe.

SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FESTIVALS

AND

EVENTS

B. D’Eith: Municipalities across British Columbia host and produce fairs,

festivals and events. These are important for the community, for the

local economy and for tourism, and they allow people to connect and

celebrate arts and culture.

Now at home, the city of Mission hosts a variety of festivals and

events, including Fraser Valley Pride, Mission Folk Festival, Shine

Bright, Mission Fest, summer night markets and also many events at the

Mission Raceway, which has been around since 1965.

Maple Ridge hosts a diversity of festivals including GETI Fest,

Country Fest, Caribbean Fest, Earth Day, GLOW, Pride and more. As MLA

for Maple Ridge–Mission, I love to attend these local events, and I know

we all do.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film, I’ve had the

opportunity to attend events like the Vancouver International Film

Festival, Whistler Film Festival, Bard on the Beach, the Fort Langley

Jazz Festival. I hope to be able to go to many more as live events start

opening up.

Fairs, fests and events have struggled over the past three years.

Live events were the first to be shut down and the last to reopen during

the pandemic. As a government, we did our very best — the ministry, B.C.

Arts Council and Creative B.C. — to try to keep these organizations

alive, to survive.

Recovery is not easy or quick. Slow audience return, supply chain

challenges, challenges to sponsors, increased production costs and

access to skilled labour are all creating significant challenges across

events around B.C. That’s why I was so thrilled that the ministry

announced the $30 million fairs, festivals and events fund from year-end

funding. We heard that events were struggling, and we acted.

I know events are integral to the spirit of all of our communities

and the economy and everyone in this House. I encourage all members to

take the time to visit their local festivals and events and, just as

importantly, to thank the organizers for fighting so hard during

challenging times to bring arts and culture to our lives.

[2:00 p.m.]

BOMB DISPOSAL INCIDENT

ON HIGHWAY

N. Letnick: It’s Monday, February 27. Castanet.net: at 12:30 p.m., Kelowna

RCMP is responding to a developing incident which has forced the closure

of westbound Highway 97. At 12:46, RCMP has now blocked off Highway 97

in both directions. At 1:05, Kelowna RCMP has called in the bomb squad

from Vancouver.

The RCMP bomb disposal unit will have to make its way from the

coast in order for the investigation to be complete. One officer at the

scene indicated that it would take five to six hours for that to

happen.

At 2:50, Justin says he found the device just after noon. It was

about eight inches long and about two inches wide — just a regular pipe

bomb, he said. At 6:15, the RCMP explosives disposal unit has now

arrived at the scene after travelling from the Lower Mainland. At 7:20,

the RCMP explosives disposal unit has successfully defused an explosive

device.

Police have confirmed the device was indeed a bomb and are in the

process of leaving the scene and are working to reopen the

highway.

On behalf of our Kelowna MLAs, I would like to thank Justin for

reporting the bomb, the RCMP for defusing it and all our citizens for

their patience. I understand that incidents involving real bombs are

relatively rare in B.C. but, nevertheless, this experience was very

unsettling for the citizens of Kelowna.

Kelowna is the fastest-growing metropolitan area over the past

five years, with its population increasing by 14 percent to more than

220,000 people in 2021. There’s only one major arterial road running

through it.

For many years, our community has been calling on governments to

assist with the creation of a true alternative to Highway 97 through

Kelowna. The latest episode with the economic and personal impact to

residents, visitors and businesses serves to reinforce those

calls.

Soon, I understand, the province will release the long delayed

central Okanagan corridor study. It is the hope of my constituents that

this study will address all the priority, safety and capacity needs

along Highway 97 from Crystal Waters to Peachland and that we can get on

with funding a better and safer Okanagan.

Hon. N. Cullen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Cullen: I noticed, as we were going through statements, we were joined by a

number of eminent people who deserve, I hope, some recognition from the

House.

From the Pacific Salmon Foundation, we have Michael Meneer, Allison

Colina, ErinRose Handy.

From the First Nations Fisheries Council of B.C., who joined us this

morning for a watershed security announcement, we have Jordan Point, Astrid

Niemann-Zajac and Jacquie Fitchell.

Would the House please join me in thanking them for their excellent

work, and join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM AND

ROLE OF BUSINESSES

IN DRUG SUPPLY

S. Bond: Last week British Columbians were shocked to learn that multiple

publicly traded companies are positioning themselves in our province to

profit off of the addiction crisis by manufacturing and distributing

hard drugs. Adastra Holdings, a cannabis company, now has permission to

produce and distribute cocaine in our province. Sunshine Earth Labs has

a licence for cocaine, heroin, morphine and Ecstasy.

Despite the fact that British Columbia is the only province in

Canada where this is happening, the Premier admitted he was shocked and

bewildered last week, and he promised answers.

To the Premier, can he tell British Columbians today how many

other companies have received or are awaiting Health Canada’s approval

to produce and distribute drugs like cocaine, heroin and ecstasy in

British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. We are not aware of

any.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

S. Bond: Well we should be very clear that we have companies in British

Columbia who, in their own words, are positioning themselves to take

advantage of the fact that our province is the only one in Canada that

is moving ahead with decriminalization without, in fact, having met the

checklist that the federal government laid out and without proper

safeguards in place.

We should also be clear that last week this government didn’t know

that currently there are two companies. So I can assure the minister

that we’re going to continue to raise this issue until this government

gets the answers that British Columbians deserve.

Again to the Premier, how many companies have received approval,

have applied and are awaiting approval to possess, produce, sell and

distribute drugs like cocaine, heroin and ecstasy in our province and

nowhere else in Canada?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for her question. As I said a moment

ago, we’re not aware of any.

What we are aware of is an opposition that decided to take a press

release and make it appear to the public of British Columbia that this

government was in favour of the legalization of cocaine and other hard

drugs, which is simply not true. Instead of checking on the information,

they went out to alarm the public.

What became clear was that the company in question was completely

wrong in what they have said. They do not have a licence to distribute

and sell and retail illegal drugs. They were given a licence by Health

Canada for research into drugs.

What’s clear is that cocaine and heroin and all the things the

member wants to talk about are illegal in this country, illegal in this

province and will continue to be illegal. We do not support….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, wait for your turn, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

What has clearly changed…. Or what has not changed is that

opposition’s inability to get the facts straight when it comes to the

use of drugs….

Interjections.

E. Sturko: Since we’re going to be factual, I have a copy of the original

Adastra labs press release. I do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

E. Sturko: I’m going to quote here: “We proactively pursued the amendment to

our dealer’s licence to include cocaine back in December 2022. We will

evaluate how the commercialization of this substance fits in with our

business model at Adastra in an effort to position ourselves to support

the demand for a safe supply of cocaine.” Then it goes on to talk about

how, in British Columbia, there’s a three-year exemption, so clearly

talking about our decriminalization.

There wouldn’t be a rush to secure licences like this if the

Premier had not recklessly pursued policies like decriminalization

without the guardrails.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question. Members.

E. Sturko: The medical model of publicly supplied addictive drugs involves

prescribing opiates, yes, as part of a step towards treatment. This

medical model is what was endorsed by the Health Committee.

Drugs like cocaine are not prescribed today, but the B.C. Centre

on Substance Use has been leading efforts to expand the access to

cocaine, including through expanded safe supply, so-called compassion

clubs, opioid co-ops and a buyers club model.

A question to the Premier. Does he support these efforts to expand

access and the markets for cocaine that companies like Adastra and

Sunshine Labs are attempting to exploit?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. After this misleading

approach that was taken last week, it’s unfortunate that again they want

to choose the same approach today in question period. I know that they

know the facts on this particular case.

In case their members don’t know what the facts are, I’m more than

happy to read them the statement from Health Canada, which went out

immediately after Health Canada saw a copy of their press

release.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

“Adastra lab’s licence does not” — I repeat, “does not” — “allow

it to sell cocaine to the general public. It also does not allow the

company….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: “It also does not allow the company to conduct activities with

psilocybin. Notwithstanding the tight limitations imposed on your

company on activities related to the licence, your news release of

February 22 makes sweeping statements, including related to safe supply

decriminalization in British Columbia, that could lead a reasonable

reader to infer that your company intends to sell cocaine to the general

public.”

Health Canada says they don’t have the ability to do that and

would not approve it. This side of the House says they do not have the

ability to do that and would not support that. It would be illegal to do

what they want to do, and it will continue to remain that

way.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: I want to be clear that this side of the House is not misleading

the public. In fact, to quote the news release…. I’ll tell you that

Adastra says: “Adastra is poised to be a drug formulation and

development leader in these emerging sectors.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear it.

E. Sturko: Let’s be clear. What these companies care about is making money

and exploiting the addictions crisis for profit. This is what their

intention was. Those are what their words were.

This is not, in any way, an attempt to mislead. This is asking

questions that need to be asked of a government that doesn’t know what’s

going on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

E. Sturko: Companies plan to possess, produce, sell and distribute hard drugs

like cocaine in B.C. because they see a developing market here. This is

why it’s happening in British Columbia and nowhere else in

Canada.

On Friday, Sunshine Earth Labs released a statement

saying….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

E. Sturko: On Friday, Sunshine Earth Labs released a statement to the media

saying: “While this notion may be difficult for some to accept, it

represents the rational next step.” Over the weekend, we heard of a

private venture called the Drugs Store that plans to sell cocaine,

heroin and meth from a retail store in Vancouver within two

weeks.

Can the Premier give a clear answer on the government’s position

towards the so-called safe supply of cocaine?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What we’re witnessing here today in this House is an opposition

that was shot down on their questions last week and that is desperately

trying to make an issue out of…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, no need to….

Reply back, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …something that this government does not support and has made it

clear it does not support and, as Health Canada made it clear, it does

not support.

I know the member likes to quote the first press release from the

company. I’ve read to her the response from Health Canada.

Now, perhaps, I will read to you what Adastra has also

said.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The licence issued to Adastra does not….

I will repeat. I know it’s hard for them to understand, and I get

that. I get that.

We saw….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, wait for your turn, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will tell you what, hon. Member. Mansplaining isn’t saying we

support expanded 911 service and then voting against it. That’s what you

did.

The licence issued to Adastra does not permit Adastra labs to sell

coca leaves, psilocybin or cocaine to the general public. It

is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order.

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I didn’t know pointing out a fact…. When this side of the House

brought forward a specific issue to fund a $150 million cost that would

not be borne by local government and instead will be picked up by the

province to ensure that we have better 911…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

It’s okay.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …in this province and that helps first responders and helps the

public — that saying that and explaining that is patronizing. That says

everything that’s wrong with that opposition.

Anyway, I will finish with this, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Let’s hear it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Adastra labs is only permitted to sell to other licensed dealers —

pharmacists, practitioners, hospitals; and it’s for research purposes

only.

I will repeat for them once again. We do not support the

legalization of cocaine and its distribution. It is illegal at the

federal level. It’s illegal at the provincial level. It will continue to

be that way. It’s too bad they don’t get that.

BUDGET PRIORITIES AND

TRANSIT

SERVICES

S. Furstenau: Budget 2023 saw very little in the way of expanding B.C. Transit.

People outside of the Lower Mainland and greater Victoria would like to

have reliable public transit.

Let’s just compare the CRD, where there are 30 buses a day between

Sooke and Victoria that cost $2.50, versus the Cowichan Valley regional

district, with a population of 83,000 people. There are six buses in the

morning, between 5:30 and 6:45 a.m., and six buses in the evening.

That’s it. They cost $10 each way.

We have a deep inequality when it comes to public transportation

in this province. If you live in Quesnel, you can’t get a bus to Prince

George. If you live in Merritt, good luck getting to Hope. Penticton to

Vancouver? Faster to ride a bicycle than to catch a bus.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Does he believe

that all British Columbians should have access to reliable public

transportation in and between their communities?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. It gives me an

opportunity to talk about Budget 2023 and the record levels of

investment in public transit in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Fleming: The service plan before government quadruples capital investments

in public transit in every community around British Columbia that is

served by B.C. Transit. It builds upon record levels of investment in

expanding operations of public transit services throughout communities

in B C.

Make no mistake. We are blessed in this province to have a system

like B.C. Transit, which other provinces do not have, where every

community with over 5,000 residents has a service provider in the B.C.

Transit system. We are expanding intercommunity routes and services

across this province, including in that member’s

constituency.

The context of this budget is in marked contrast to other

provinces right now, where the debate is about how many service hours

they are cutting and how many employees they are laying off. They are

moving backwards on transit. This province is moving forwards, in

gigantic leaps and bounds, by making record investments in the expansion

of public transit in our province.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’m keen to hear more about these record investments. From what I

saw looking through the budget, it was a $6 million increase to

operations for B.C. Transit. Maybe the minister can explain that part.

I’m also hearing that the plan for my riding is actually to reduce the

number of commuter buses, not increase.

We currently are in a situation in British Columbia where people

outside of the Lower Mainland and the CRD have limited to no access to

public transportation within their communities or between their

communities. Honestly, having buses that are running that aren’t part of

a network, that don’t meet the needs of people and that aren’t reliable

or regular enough doesn’t create the network of public transit that we

need.

I’m going to go back to my original question. Again to the

Minister of Transportation, does he believe that all British Columbians

should have access to reliable public transportation in and between

their communities?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of the

improvements that are happening.

First of all, between communities, as she mentions, there have

been service gaps. Those have been filled by this government since

Greyhound pulled out of here in 2018. We have worked very hard to create

a new company called B.C. Bus North, which we are funding through the

Northern Development Initiative Trust.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve also expanded the number of communities connected by B.C.

Transit. Pemberton-Whistler has a commuter. Nelson-Castlegar,

Trail-Castlegar. Osoyoos-Prince­ton-Kelowna is now connected to

Penticton. There is service from Vernon to Kelowna operated by B.C.

Transit. As the member knows, there is service from Victoria to Cowichan

Valley that didn’t exist a couple of short years ago, as well as between

Victoria and Shawnigan Lake and the new Nanaimo-Cowichan express which

we introduced in Budget 2022.

I know the member will probably vote against this budget, even

though it represents the largest expansion of B.C. Transit funding in

decades. For the record, the member should know…. Perhaps I would direct

your attention to B.C. Transit’s service plan. The service plan calls

for $1.35 billion in operating funding for B.C. Transit. That is the

largest sum of money for operations of transit, allowing an expansion of

service that this province has ever seen, as well as a record investment

of $1.2 billion dollars in capital.

On top of that, this budget introduced by our Finance Minister for

the first time introduces money to align affordable housing with public

transit expansion through the introduction of a transit-oriented

development fund. That’s what progress looks like, and that’s what this

budget does.

ACCESS TO HARM REDUCTION SERVICES

AND OPIOID

REPLACEMENT DRUGS

K. Kirkpatrick: We know that harm reduction is a very important component in

preventing drug-related deaths and in helping people start on and stay

on the recovery journey.

Immediate access to life-saving medications is critical for those

who are wanting to stop hard drugs, but under this government, the

logistical and financial barriers are often preventing access to drugs

like naloxone and Suboxone. It’s too difficult to get. It takes too long

to get.

Will the Premier eliminate user fees for non-government methadone

and Suboxone clinics?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I can say that with respect to the work that our health

authorities are doing and that our front-line providers are doing with

respect to…. And many community partners, I must say…. I had a chance,

in fact, to be visiting with some of our community partners in Victoria

this morning. Those programs are working very hard to provide access to

harm reduction supports and services. There are many, many of those

services that in fact are provided at no cost to the individuals who

need them.

We’re working hard to work with providers to make sure that we’re

scaling up prescribed safer supply models so that we can reach more

people. That’s work we’ll continue to do with our partners so that we

can support that initial step on the treatment and recovery journey for

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I did not hear what the minister said in answer to the question.

We continue to hear over and over from people that they are lacking

access to these important drugs or that the fees are impairing their

ability to receive them. Eliminating fees is a practical step. The

Premier could commit to taking this today.

Another positive step would be adopting our Better Is Possible

plan to create a virtual opioid dependency program to ensure immediate

access for those who don’t have a doctor. As we know, one in five

British Columbians don’t have a doctor and can’t get into a walk-in

clinic. Under the NDP, these wait times are making it worst in the

country, and this is just adding to the inability for people to get

life-saving drugs that they need to break their cycle.

Will the Premier create a virtual opioid dependency program like

the one in Alberta?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for her question and for her interest in

ensuring that indeed we can work to provide services and supports to

people to keep them alive while we try to connect them with the care and

support that we need. That is a very fundamental point. I think that was

discussed during the all-party Select Standing Committee on

Health.

We know from our public health officials and we know from evidence

that that’s an important step. In fact, many of our health authorities

do provide access to virtual services, and we’re certainly looking at

ways that we can support expanding those services. I thank the member

very much for her interest in this topic.

[2:25 p.m.]

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM AND

ROLE OF BUSINESSES

IN DRUG SUPPLY

T. Halford: Rather than taking practical measures to improve access to

life-saving medications to facilitate recovery, this NDP government is

allowing taxpayer-supplied opioids to be sold to drug dealers. In

Nanaimo, prescription labels and discarded pill bottles are littering

the streets. Members of this House will know that.

Resident Collen Middleton says taxpayer-supplied drugs are being

used as a commodity to trade to the street dealers for fentanyl. This

NDP government has failed to provide oversight of drugs that are ending

up in the hands of high school kids and increasing drug use and drug

addictions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

T. Halford: You can moan all you want, but this is what’s happening on the

streets, and members of this House know it.

My question is to the Premier. Can families trust this Premier

when oversight and protections are missing and now we see publicly

traded companies lining up to profit from so-called safe

supply?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Well, if we’re going to go back on the conversation about the

unfortunate initial press release, seriously overreaching press release,

from Adastra last week, what I will note — again, as my colleague has

already done last week and again today — is there is no option for

Adastra or any other company to commercialize illicit drugs for which

they do not hold a licence for that purpose.

That was actually clear in the first press release. Had the

members in fact read the entirety of the press release, they would have

seen the qualification that expressed the theoretical possibility that

the company was putting forward in their initial statement.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South.

The minister will continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Of course we are very concerned about the health and well-being

and safety of all members in the community. When it comes to providing

access to harm reduction supports and services, we work very closely

with health authorities, with public health, with our partners in a very

regulated and tight way to provide access to the care, support and

medications that individuals need and to direct those supports and

services to that population. That’s work that we will continue to

do.

Should the member have a particular concern about a particular

case, I would be pleased to work with him and hear about it and follow

up on that.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: For this government, for this minister, for this Premier, for this

Solicitor General to get up in this House and pretend that these public

companies are positioning themselves for research only is completely and

utterly a failure of the responsibility of all MLAs in this

House.

I’ll say this. What we are seeing in Nanaimo is exactly what we

are seeing with drug-vending machines in Vancouver, where drugs are

being diverted to high school students. This NDP government has failed

time and time again to provide the oversight to ensure that highly

addictive drugs don’t get diverted to teenagers, amplifying the

addiction crisis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question.

T. Halford: The members on the other side can laugh all they want, but I think

the public is actually expecting some serious answers on

this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Members, the Chair knows nobody was laughing. It’s

okay.

Let him finish the question. Please, let’s hear the

question.

T. Halford: The question is this. How can anyone in this province trust this

Premier to protect the youth while decriminalizing drugs like cocaine,

fentanyl and crystal meth, given this NDP government’s lax approach to

diversion of drugs being resold to teenagers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The desperation of this opposition knows no bounds.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We asked British Columbians how they feel in 2020. I’m looking at

the numbers. They seem to like us a lot better than that side of the

House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What we have seen from this opposition over the last week, and now

here, today, to Monday, is to twist and to falsify information that went

out in a press release — a press release that Health Canada and the

federal government said was not true, and they know it.

This side of the House has made it clear that we do not support

the legalization of heroin and cocaine, like they want to suggest on the

other side. This side of the House has made it clear that that press

release was wrong and that what they’re wanting to do is wrong. The

approach that we have taken when it comes to harm reduction is to go

with health experts, those with lived experience, the police and the

chiefs of police, who support the approach that we have taken. We have

been evidence-based.

That’s exactly how we are going to deal with the opioid crisis and

the addictions crisis in the province, and we are not going to deal with

it by the fearmongering and the falsehoods coming from that side of the

House.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will caution the minister and all the members. Please be

careful about your wording.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The word “falsehood” was too strong. I

should have used “misinformation.”

T. Stone: Well, as we’ve been saying for months, this Premier and his

government simply did not do the work. They didn’t prepare, and they

neglected to implement the federal letter of requirements that, if they

had been put in place, would have ensured that there would have been

necessary guardrails due to the consequences of decriminalization and

publicly supplied addictive drugs.

They didn’t do their work, and the situation is a complete and

total mess. The Solicitor General can stand up and flail his arms in the

air. At the end of the day, this government has responsibility for

public safety, and they’re not doing their job.

The lack of preparation was confirmed when the Premier confessed

last week that he had no idea what’s going on and saying: “I was

astonished. I share your shock. I didn’t even believe it. I don’t

understand. I’m absolutely astonished.” This is the response of the

Premier of British Columbia.

What is shocking is the apparent disconnect between the federal

government and the provincial government about what’s actually going on.

That’s not reassuring for British Columbians at all. At the end of the

day, ironically, the Premier even said: “We can’t afford missteps.”

That’s exactly what’s happening.

We’ve profiled this last week. We’ve said it again today. Publicly

traded companies positioning themselves to commercialize and exploit

this crisis. Opioid co-ops and private companies working to increase

access to hard addictive drugs. Lax oversight that is enabling the

diversion of hard drugs to teenagers in Nanaimo and

Vancouver.

Guess what. This isn’t happening in any other part of the country.

It’s happening here in British Columbia because this Premier and this

NDP government rushed headlong into decriminalization and publicly

supplied addictive drugs without the necessary guardrails in

place.

So surely to God, the Premier would be willing to stand up here

today, stand up on behalf of his government, and take responsibility for

his government’s complete and total lack of preparedness, this mess, for

these multiple missteps and his own ignorance and shock at what is

actually going on.

Hon. D. Eby: You know, all I can say is what a disappointment. What a

disappointment. Not a surprise.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: Not a surprise, but what a disappointment.

[2:35 p.m.]

The issue of people dying in the toxic drug crisis…. We were

making traction before the pandemic, and then during the pandemic, drugs

got far more toxic. The chiefs of police joined with us, joined with the

opposition, joined with this side of the House, joined with the Third

Party and said: “Decriminalization is a way to get between predatory

drug dealers and people struggling with addiction. Let’s give it a shot.

Let’s try what we can to keep people alive.”

That side of the House had so many chances to vote on it —

motions, parliamentary committees — and we were united in that because

we’re trying to save lives. We’re trying to keep people alive to get

them into treatment. To see this approach at a time when we need unity

around an incredibly challenging public health crisis is so

disappointing. The reason I was astonished is because the press release

was false. It wasn’t true. You have a bad actor….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, there’s no need for extra commentary,

please.

Hon. D. Eby: Let’s join together and say “unacceptable,” just as we’ve been

joined together on this public health issue from the

beginning.

Now, I’ll say that we’ve made some important investments in the

budget to address a shared concern, making sure that treatment is

available for people when they need it. That’s why we’re trying to keep

people alive so they get into treatment — $1 billion to open beds across

the province.

People who want to commercialize hard drugs, people who want to

sell hard drugs and profit from that in our province…. If that company

wants to do that, we’re going to take their lab, we’re going to take

their business, and we’re going to take their homes, just like we did

with the Hell’s Angels’ clubhouses, right?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, please.

Members will come to

order.

The Premier will conclude, please.

Hon. D. Eby: Who got the job done? Just like we shut down money laundering in

our casinos. The process….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Premier will conclude.

Please, conclude.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, let’s finish it.

Member for Vancouver-Langara.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Why are you prolonging it, Members? Please. Let the Premier

conclude it.

Hon. D. Eby: We told landlords who host businesses like this that we’re going

to take their properties. When we finish the job with unexplained wealth

order legislation that we’re going introduce this session, I hope the

other side of the House will vote for it.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

I will ask the Solicitor General to withdraw his comments, please,

about falsehood.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thought I did that a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker: Just do it properly.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, I withdraw the comment “falsehoods.”

Mr. Speaker: That’s it. Thank you. That’s good enough.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the British Columbia Office of the Human

Rights Commissioner’s report From Hate to Hope: Report of the Inquiry

into Hate in the COVID-19 Pandemic .

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 28 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 28 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 28 with respect to the membership of the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services standing in my

name on the order paper.

[That Brittny Anderson replace Mable Elmore as a

member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main House, I call continued debate on supplementary

estimates for the Ministry of Health.

In Committee A, I call continued debate on the supplementary

estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure,

followed by the supplementary esti­mates for the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On Vote 32(S): ministry operations, $150,000,000

(continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee to

order.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to continue on with

some discussion about the supplementary estimates.

I want to begin with just a bit of a

summary here as to why we’re

having this discussion and why this debate matters. I want to…. I’m

going to say it over and over again, because we witnessed again today

the reaction of the government members to what happens in a budgetary

process on a regular basis. So let’s just walk through this for a

moment.

We are here today debating supplementary estimates that total

almost $3 billion. In fact, the Ministry of Health’s portion of that,

and I noted this earlier when we began our debate, is relatively small

when you consider the budget of the Ministry of Health. It’s certainly

not small to British Columbians, and it’s certainly not small to

taxpayers. We’re talking about $150 million.

The Minister of Health, as one of the most experienced legislators

in this place, recognizes that rarely do we see opposition members vote

in favour of a government budget when they are concerned about the focus

in a particular budget. Yet the minute that the members rush out of this

place, the first thing they’re going to say is that we don’t actually

care about cancer research. So I’m going to say for the record, over and

over again, that that is not accurate. I will look forward to the tweets

that will subsequently come as a result of this discussion.

[2:45 p.m.]

Let’s be clear. This money was not contemplated in the original

budget of the Ministry of Health. It is additional to the ministry’s

budget. The minster corrected me on that, and I would agree that that is

the best way to describe this money. But let’s be clear. I’m not sure

we’re finished with supplementary estimates yet, from what I

understand.

This is a government that the minister confirmed…. He can confirm

that for me. The call went out. It went out to ministries. The call was:

“We have money to spend. Let’s figure out how to spend it.” So to be

clear, that spending was not contemplated in the original budgets of

ministries. We are talking about $3 billion, almost, of taxpayer money

that, in essence, the decision was: “Let’s just spend it.”

So you can bet we’re going to ask a lot of questions about the

money, including this, and the minister knows it relates directly to the

ten-year cancer plan. He has repeatedly reminded us that we’ll have that

discussion. Yes, we will, because this is one of the planks in the

ten-year cancer plan.

The supplementary estimates are noted in the ten-year cancer plan.

Let me read for the House: “Providing a $170 million grant.” All right.

The Ministry of Health added an additional $20 million to the B.C.

Cancer Foundation to support cancer research and a whole list of other

things. And where would that be found? Why, it’s in the B.C. ten-year

cancer plan. So we do have some questions to ask about the ten-year

cancer plan because this is a critical funding piece.

Perhaps let me start with some math. When the cancer plan was

announced, there was a commitment to deliver $440 million. When the plan

was actually delivered, just recently…. As I understand it — maybe the

minister can confirm — the amount of money that would be operational is

$270 million over a three-year period. The $170 million that’s announced

in supplementary estimates was added to that amount to actually total

the promised $440 million. Can the minister confirm that math for

me?

Hon. A. Dix: I’d say I expect the opposition to ask questions, one of the

advantages of supplementary estimates as opposed to other parts of the

year in funding. The government that she was a member of Treasury Board

for and the government that I am a member of Treasury Board for has used

that from time to time.

The advantage of supplementary estimates as a tool is that they

allow for the very debate we’re having. We had several hours to debate

on Thursday. I answered lots of questions, and I’m looking forward to

answering more today. So that’s the normal process. It’s the advantage,

I would suspect, of supplementary estimates.

With respect to the question she had about the ten-year cancer

plan, I’d say that we detailed that specifically when we made the

announcement. We said specifically and understand that health authority

budgets rise in budget years, and they have this year. On top of that,

there’s the funding in the cancer plan. We’ll talk about that more.

We’ll be talking about that in the main estimates.

In addition to that, what we defined is $170 million. It

subsequently came from supplementary estimates that will go to grants to

support research, which is fundamental, I would argue, in the

effectiveness of dealing with cancer care in B.C. That’s why we’ve been

answering questions on that. I look forward to doing it more.

I think it is exactly the right kind of investment to make at this

time. We’ll have the opportunity to engage in this in debate. Research

supports clinical activity. Research supports the recruitment of cancer

specialists. Research gives hope to people in every part of B.C. because

we’re going to have, now, clinical trials around the province funded

here. That research is fundamental to the success of a plan over ten

years.

I’m very pleased, therefore, that when the Premier, as the member

suggests, came forward and said that we should take some action to help

British Columbia, that this was an area of action that I think is

entirely appropriate that I spoke about on Thursday, and I’ll be happy

to respond to questions on today.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s consistent with, I think, the views of British Columbians,

and it will be not just money well spent but money that will bring more

money to research, that will have a multiplier effect, well into the

future, in support of government’s dealing with cancer issues for a

decade to come.

So yes, it was $270 million for that. We announced that, and we’ll

be discussing that in the main estimates. There was $150 million dealt

with in the supplementary estimate that we’re debating now before the

House.

S. Bond: Can the minister, though, just articulate for me…? The initial

announcement around the cancer plan, as I understand it, was $440

million, and there was no differentiation in that announcement between

operational and grants. Could the minister confirm that?

Hon. A. Dix: If you look at backgrounder 2 in the press release, it says

precisely that. There’d be a $170 million grant to the B.C. Cancer

Foundation. So it exactly said that. I said that at the news conference.

The head of the B.C. Cancer Foundation said it at the news conference.

There was no confusion of that question. The member may disagree with

that as a public policy decision, but it was pretty clear that that’s

what we did.

S. Bond: My question isn’t related to the press release and the ultimate

funding that was provided. My question is related to the initial promise

made about a ten-year cancer plan.

As I understand it, the initial commitment was $440 million over

three years, with no differentiation, with part of it being a grant. The

reason that that matters — I will look forward to going through the list

of things — is operational funding. You can’t provide a one-time grant

and expect that you will build operational costs into a budget…. Then

what happens in years 2 and 3?

I can read the press release and the backgrounders that are

attached. This is where the plan ended up. My question that I am asking

the minister: what was the original commitment made by the previous

Premier related to the ten-year cancer strategy when it came to

funding?

Hon. A. Dix: Again, these matters have been canvassed in the last two main

estimates. When we canvass in the next estimates, they…. We spoke, in

the last two years, of the increased money for BC Cancer in addition to,

on top of, the base lift that health authorities received, as we have

here.

The commitment of the previous Premier was to a ten-year cancer

plan. As I understand it, it was a campaign commitment that we would

deliver in this term in government. A week ago last Friday, we came

forward with that, and it was very clear with respect to the $440

million, if that’s what the member is asking for, what was the grant and

what was the lift. It was very clear, and it was stated in so many words

by the speakers, in the press release and in the coverage of the

event.

S. Bond: I will look for the specific timing of the initial announcement

which, by the way, was in 2020. We’re now in 2023. Ironically, that

promise was that we would start to see significant improvements in five

years.

I think that there are very few British Columbians who are facing

a cancer diagnosis today who feel like things have gotten better. In

fact, the minister knows that there are enormous challenges for people

across this province when it comes to getting a cancer diagnosis. He has

received letters from specialists across this province sounding the

alarm bells.

I also would like to go back. I am also very concerned…. Again, I

do not want to be taken out of context. I’m not suggesting the minister

will do that. I understand that BC Cancer and the B.C. Cancer Foundation

are recognized and have exceptionally good reputations. But I’m also a

firm believer that when money is sent out the door, there needs to be a

framework for how that is going to be spent. I’ve seen the list. We’re

going to work our way through those items.

[2:55 p.m.]

But what I’m even more concerned about was…. When I asked the

minister…. I was reviewing the remarks just to make sure that I was

correct. I asked: how will we know how the money has been spent and how

it’s going to work?

The idea here is that the funds will be leveraged to raise more

funds. That’s always a good thing, except that the example that was

given as a potential for where the reporting out would take place was

in, for example, an annual report.

I’m wondering if the minister has given any other thought to the

fact…. Isn’t it important to know specifically the outcomes of how that

money is going to be invested? What are the expectations of the B.C.

Cancer Foundation in terms of the $150 million grant?

I want to come back at that for a few minutes and to have the

minister…. As I understand it, the B.C. Cancer Foundation came and made

a presentation to the minister about what they would do with the money.

I’m wondering if the minister can speak to whether he has given any more

thought to the fact that knowing specifically how $150 million is being

utilized is a pretty important part of sending a grant out the

door.

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that he B.C. Cancer Foundation, as she said,

is an outstanding organization. In the last five years, it has raised

more than $300 million for cancer research and to support B.C. Cancer.

If we were to take that back another 16 or 20 years, the numbers would

be even more breathtaking in terms of their contribution to the

province.

Equally, in terms of a grant such as this, there is, really, a

series of metrics. It’s producing and advancing knowledge. The B.C.

Cancer Agency — should I say the B.C. Cancer Foundation? — in terms of

its investment, regularly reports on that question.

There are economic benefits to innovation, of course, which

everyone would expect. It’s building our research capacity, which is

critical. It’s distributing that research around the province. There are

significant health and policy benefits to support all the other things

that they do at B.C. Cancer, and I know that we’ll go into those in some

detail.

One of the things that the B.C. Cancer Foundation talks about is

how the funding for the foundation is multiplied by the B.C. Cancer

Agency. So you multiply it in terms of other research grants that you

get.

I’ll just give you an example. In the 2018 year, that multiplier

effect was 336 percent, which is extraordinary. I will give other years,

because I think it’s important. In 2018, I was the Minister of Health.

She might think that I had something to do with it. I can assure her I

did not. That was the exceptional work of B.C. Cancer and the

foundation.

In the years 2007-08 and 2006-07, when the previous government

made significant one-time grants to B.C. Cancer, the B.C. Cancer

Foundation, which went to research in those years…. Those were two of

the biggest years, in that period, for funds raised because of the

contributions of the province. The multiplier effect in those years was

255 percent and 211 percent. Namely, the total research and funding

grants that came out of the grant to B.C. Cancer.

We can go down the list. There are the equipment benefits. There

are real benefits for people in different parts of the province. There

are the clinical trials. There’s the research capacity. There’s support

for the clinical chairs. All of which I described in our session on

Thursday and which we may want to get into in detail. We tried to share

some of our information, as well, with the member opposite in terms of

where we expect the grants to go.

In short, I think, I would say, what we’ve seen over time is that

this sort of investment in the B.C. Cancer Foundation has benefits for

patients. It has benefits for the B.C. Cancer Agency, of course. It has

benefits for research, and it has benefits for clinical care.

We will have occasion to talk about those in some detail as we go

forward in this debate.

[3:00 p.m.]

S. Bond: I guess I’m surprised by the reluctance to articulate exactly how

success will be measured. It’s certainly not related to the multiplier

effect of the work that the B.C. Cancer Foundation does. The minister

has provided those statistics.

Let me give the minister an example. Then he could, if he would,

just give me an answer. One of the bullets that’s related to the $170

million grant to the B.C. Cancer Foundation is: “Adding new funding to

support people living in rural and remote communities who need to travel

for cancer care.” I’m going to get to that point. We’re going to want to

talk about what that means.

Would the minister anticipate, in the reporting-out process, that

there will be specific details about how many people were helped, how

the money changed in terms of the way that it’s distributed, how it is

distributed regionally across the province?

I live in a part of British Columbia where it is…. We are

fortunate, obviously, to have a cancer centre in our community, but

there are a lot of people who travel a long way.

Will there be specific metrics related to each of the specific

itemized expectations of the grant to the B.C. Cancer

Foundation?

Hon. A. Dix: I said to the member that I would get into the details of it. So

let’s do that now. That’s our favourite part of the discussion, in any

event.

On the travel question, I would say yes to all that, except it’s

not actually part of the $150 million we’re debating in the

supplementary estimates. That’s the $20 million. We discussed that. The

member and I had a good exchange on that on Thursday. I think, just in a

broad sense, it would be our expectation that precisely those sorts of

things would be reported on.

With respect to grants in general, in terms of the reporting of

the foundation to the ministry…. That’s true of all such grants, not

just grant agreements, not just ones of this size and this significance.

It’s true of smaller grant proposals that come forward from

organizations around the province. There’s a requirement to report the

use of the funding and its success.

Of course, should the money not be used — or paying funds, should

that be required…. I absolutely don’t expect that to be the case in this

case. That would be a normal grant agreement, similar to all grant

agreements. I don’t want to go into that. People are listening to this,

so they might understand and expect that that would be the

case.

In terms of cancer research, here are some of the metrics and some

of the ways you can measure them. This is not the additional benefits,

the benefits of clinical trials to people. This is just straight-on

issues, such as producing and advancing knowledge, which is significant.

We are a knowledge-based economy. We want to be at the centre of it. We

sure want to be with cancer.

This includes the total annual grant awards from agencies, the

total annual external grant awards by agency and research entity,

identified by major funding categories, the annual grant application

success rates by agencies and research entity and, of course, the

Provincial Health Services Authority, things such as publications, which

reflect the producing and advancing knowledge side of that.

In terms of building research capacity, it’s the total number of

trainees by agency and research entity, the scholarships and fellowships

by agency and research entity, the total researchers, the infrastructure

investments and the research support fund grants.

In terms of achieving economic benefits…. That’s an important part

of it. It’s not our central wish here, but B.C. also wants to be a

leader in life sciences and a leader in health care. It’s things such as

intellectual property disclosures, patents by agencies, licences,

royalty income, spinoff companies, new research hires to agency and

research entities and policy initiatives.

On the advancing health and policy benefits. That’s things such as

clinical trials, new clinical guidelines, new drugs funded, policy

initiatives.

[3:05 p.m.]

These are provided regularly. Those research metrics, by the

foundation and by the agency, provide a means of assessing, from a

research point of view, how you’re doing with a certain investment of

money. What we see — and the cruder numbers that I talked about are the

straight-on numbers of the research grant funding that comes from that —

is evidence of that success. I think the member would agree, probably,

that the increased….

The $10 million and the $15 million, which were direct funding by

the previous government in ’07 and ’08 to the cancer agency…. You can

see, in that work, the results in terms of that measure of cancer

research that came from that, which was pretty significant. I would

expect a similar measure. In addition to that, there are elements — and

we’ll get into this when we talk about it — where it’s the measurements

of….

On the infrastructure side, it’s pretty easy to do that. On the

research chair side, it’s pretty easy to determine whether you’ve met

the success and how that process is going.

That would be a reporting process every year. The foundation does

that now — it’s very significant — for its $300 million in fundraising.

That’s part of the reason that it’s so successful as a fundraiser. It

has that systematic process. We would expect that for the grant that we

provide. That’s one thing. We would expect that in general. People have

and will continue to receive that.

I suspect, as well…. Another measure, although this isn’t the

direct measure, is the extraordinary momentum that I think will develop,

and is developing, around the work by the foundation and the B.C. Cancer

Agency, working in partnership, which, on the research side, is

significant. It has some immediate benefits for people.

Obviously, we’re talking about a ten-year plan. This investment

now will make a positive effect, as investments have in the past by

previous governments.

S. Bond: I should say that one of the things I appreciate about the

minister is the fact…. We may disagree on policy directions, but he’s

always very participatory in this process.

It matters a lot that people get to ask questions. They’re asked

not because of differences in the value of research but because we need

to get to the outcome where British Columbians have confidence that

their $150 million is going to be well used and, certainly, will also

generate additional dollars.

I do want to thank the minister for his willingness. We have many

of these discussions and debates around legislation. He does that with a

pretty good sense of humour, despite the fact that I regularly call for

his resignation. He manages to set that aside and gets our work done in

this Legislature. He understands this place and the process that’s

involved. He does not take that personally. I am very deeply grateful

for that.

Because the minister corrected me, I want to just make sure. I do

have the lists in front of me. I’m appreciative of the information,

also, that was shared by the minister and his staff. But if he has the

press release with the list in front of him that talks about the $170

million — I chose the example of travel, which is under the 170; the

minister pointed out that’s actually out of the 20 — would the minister

simply just indicate that one is not out of the 150 we’re discussing?

Are there other bullets on there, before I move headlong into them? Is

there anything else that would be taken off that list in terms of the

$150 million in subestimates?

Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just go through it, just so we know what we’re collectively

talking about here. It’s a very apt question.

Clinical and multidisciplinary research — that’s $55.7 million.

You see that described in the material that I think is with the hon.

member.

[3:10 p.m.]

The research equipment and infrastructure is $34.3 million.

Start-up and C grants are $19 million. Research chair endowments are $23

million. Recruitment and retention initiatives are $13.5 million.

Training and education is $4.5 million. That adds up to $150

million.

The member is quite right. This is not in that number, but it was

announced and sort of collective with that was the $20 million for

travel support. That’s in addition. All those add up to 150, plus the 20

for travel support, which is from the ’22-23…. I’ve just got to check

which year I’m in. The ’22-23 budget estimates of the Ministry of

Health. Those are the grant parts of what was announced a week ago last

Friday.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that. That that is very helpful as

we proceed through these, because there are some very important specific

items that are going to be covered with the $150 million.

I’d like to go to the question, though, that I foreshadowed to the

minister. Two areas that I’m very interested in. One of those would

begin…. Maybe the minister could describe for me…. One of the things

this government has committed to is looking at a gender-based analysis

in terms of the planning that is done. Since this does form part of the

cancer strategy, the ten-year cancer strategy, could the minister just

describe for me how that gender-based analysis informed either the

funding that was allocated or the cancer plan overall?

Hon. A. Dix: What I’ll do on the first one is maybe talk about gender-based

analysis, and then we can move on in a second question that she may have

or other questions on the Indigenous side, but some of them are wrapped

together.

First of all, there are significant disparities between women and

men and how they experience cancer. Some of those are obvious for

people. But what you see across the board, for example, in terms of

diagnoses and new cancer diagnoses, is that amongst younger people,

there are more women, and amongst older people, there are more men.

That’s why you have to have some very specific approaches as you deal

with different cancers, which affect women and men differently — women

and men are different — but also because at times in the past, there’s

been an argument that some cancers have received more attention than

other cancers for those very reasons. That it’s about who’s affected.

That’s the first set of things.

It’s a very specific approach. We’re doing, in northern and rural

and remote communities, a bio-banking initiative that tries to represent

people living in those communities, including Indigenous communities,

but others. We’ll be looking to see the effect and to provide detailed

analysis, and we’ll get a chance, maybe, to talk about this later and in

more detail, because it’s fascinating. I think that describes

it.

From prevention to diagnosis to treatment and then to dealing with

ongoing issues, especially amongst people who are living with cancer

and, of course, people passing away with cancer, there are some distinct

elements in each element between women and men. That analysis goes

through that. You see that through all the proposals.

[3:15 p.m.]

That’s on that side. I’ll just say, on the Indigenous side and the

women’s side equally, you see, in some of the actions that we’re taking,

recruitment measures to promote the participation, the hiring of, in

some cases, women, but also Indigenous people and others, to ensure that

they’re fully part of the process.

That’s part of the Indigenous cancer strategy that started to be

developed under Minister Lake and was ultimately announced when I was

Minister of Health as part of a continuing effort to ensure that our

Indigenous cancer strategy reflects that. You see that reflected in many

of the aspects here. We can go through them in detail, but the approach

is to have that gender-based analysis to everything and that analysis

around Indigenous issues reflected in everything that we do.

What I’ll seek to do, perhaps overnight or something, is just give

the member, should she wish, some details for that — not necessarily for

this debate. Just so can she can see how that’s reflected as she

addresses these issues in the community. As she will know, it’s not just

the age-standardized mortality rates that are affected amongst people

with cancer, but also the way those affect people, the way cancer is

prevented has some distinct elements around those questions. That’s why

that gender-based analysis is so important in every part of this

fund.

It’s not just that analysis. I would say it’s also the analysis,

in addition to those, of those living in urban communities and rural

communities and ensuring that when you’re doing clinical trials across

the province…. I think you have to actually, ultimately, do better

clinical trials because the solutions you’re hoping for are going to

meet everyone across the province.

You want to see reflected, from the biobanking to those hired, in

every element of it, that gender-based analysis and the priority that

we’re giving to addressing Indigenous cancer, which is, I think, a

priority we all share.

S. Bond: I know that certainly, as we contemplate the groups of people that

are disproportionately impacted by cancer, I think that the minister’s

words are very accurate.

We need to think about that whenever we take action. I think

about, for example, not looking at cancer care…. When you think about

heart health, for example, one of the challenges with women’s heart

health is that there is far less research done and there is far less

attention paid to the differences between….

People assume that heart health is the same for men, and it isn’t.

I think that there needs to be an intentional focus. We certainly have

seen that with heart and stroke, talking about women’s heart health

during Heart Month, being aware of that and being intentional in our

actions.

As we look at the specific issues — and perhaps, as the minister

points out, we will work our way through them — I’d be very interested

in knowing if there is a particular emphasis or shift in direction when

it comes to considering the impacts on Indigenous British Columbians and

also women as we work our way through these, through the specific steps

that are going to be taken.

I think what we’ll do is…. I want to just confirm, again, before

we walk through all of the specific pieces. I understand that the B.C.

Cancer Foundation had a plan, had an ask. Is there a specific,

overarching action plan that looks at the expectations that are attached

to the $150 million? Is there an overarching action plan in terms of

sequencing, time, all of those things?

I’m going to go through the specifics in a moment. But is there an

overarching action plan that the minister has that says: “This is what

we intend to do with the $150 million. Here is how we would suggest it

will be moving out the door.”

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: We’ve gone through…. We haven’t presented it. We have, in some

detail, different elements of what the grant will support. We’ll be

working through to make sure that the money works effectively and is

used effectively. And the foundation — it’s a grant to them — is

determined to do so, and I think they’re going to do an excellent job of

that.

I just want to briefly, before we let the subject go, just give an

example, maybe, of the impact and the Indigenous lens of what we’re

doing. I think it will be important, and the member will be interested

in this in terms of the part of the province that she represents. I’m

just going to give a little bit of background, if that’s

okay.

Just in fiscal year ’21-22, which is the last year we have the

full numbers for, 63 new clinical trials were opened at B.C. Cancer

centres. There were 188 active trials and 566 patients were enrolled to

a clinical trial: 354 in Vancouver — that’s Metro Vancouver, so that’s

the majority — 89 in Kelowna, 18 in Surrey, 64 in Victoria, 13 in

Abbotsford and 28 in Prince George. That was where we were at. That has

been typical of what’s happened to clinical trials dating back. That has

kind of been the proportion.

What we feel and what the Cancer Foundation feels, and one of the

reasons why I think this grant on those issues is so important, and why

I’m genuinely out there seeking support for it because I think it’s

important, is that this grant targets key populations, including First

Nations, and that the clinical trial money, for example, will go almost

entirely to outside the Lower Mainland, except for the central

provincial office, which benefits everybody. Lots of people, of course,

work with that. I think that’s very important, to reflect that first set

of numbers I talked to the member about.

If you look at Indigenous-specific clinical research, the

BioCancer initiative, which embeds research coordinators at regional

cancer centres to enhance population participation and outcomes research

and will support blood and tissue sample collection and biobanking

support for clinical research across the province. The grant will

provide funding to maintain B.C. Cancer Foundation support of the

Northern BioBank initiative based in Prince George and its partnership,

and this is fundamental, with First Nations.

It’s extremely important to be sure that First Nations partners

can continue to co-develop this initiative to be sure that they are

undertaken in a culturally safe and appropriate way and free of racism.

I think that’s also important. It is an obligation of the B.C. Cancer

Agency and everyone involved to follow and to actively implement the

recommendations of the In Plain Sight report.

This is also important as, ultimately, finding the right ways to

ensure appropriate involvement of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people

in the biobank and will help make sure that the research results are

meaningful and relevant to them.

I think that’s just part of it. That’s just the clinical trials

part of it. You see that throughout the plan. We’ll have an opportunity

to engage on the GBA and on the Indigenous lens throughout this

discussion.

I think that describes one of the things that’s most important

about what the B.C. Cancer Foundation is trying to do. It gets support

around the province, and it’s determined to deliver and to ensure that

this research takes place around the province. That’s significantly

important.

I think, maybe, the most useful way of dealing with the member’s

main question is to go through the elements of the plan. When you’re

talking about the research chair proposals, those research chairs will

be developed, and we’ll be able to assess those as you assess those

proposals equally.

When you talk about the equipment and infrastructure, which is a

little different than those other things, it allows us to build out the

infrastructure of research in important ways, which we described on

Thursday and we’re happy to go through again. We can show

that.

Again, in terms of the number of trainees, and so on, and

different aspects of the plan, we’ll have distinct ways to

measure.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’ll share with the member, as well, some of the ways in which the

B.C. Cancer Foundation assesses its own work, which demonstrates some of

these ways of showing success. I described some of them earlier, but I

think they’re quite important. We’ll have an opportunity — maybe on each

of these issues or elements, which I shared with the member to talk

about — on how we will see success and measure success.

In addition to all of this, I believe, and I think the evidence of

past government ventures like this…. I mentioned that the previous

government did this. It was $25 million. It was those two years, which

is not $150 million, but it’s a lot of money too, by any means. The

success that that engendered, in terms of research and benefits for

patients in that time, is not something that happened all the time or

every year, but it happened in those years, and you could see the

results.

We believe this is a crucial moment when the number of people

dealing with cancer is going to increase, when the need to provide

better, in some cases, more efficient care will need to be there. It

will need to be there everywhere in the province. So those are some of

the measurements we see. But one of the key measurements for me is that

we distribute the research around the province to sites around the

province, reflecting people around the province.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister. I do appreciate that

approach. It is so important that we do talk about how cancer patients

across British Columbia have access to not only clinical trials, but to

treatment and care. I know I have a couple of members here who may want

to ask questions. They live in regions where there isn’t a cancer centre

in their backyard, so they may want to ask some questions at some

point.

In the news release describing the clinical trials, it does speak

to what the minister noted about delivering clinical trials across all

cancer centres in the province, allowing for greater access for patients

living outside of large city centres to participate in clinical trials.

I think that’s something that certainly…. As someone who lives in one of

those places, I am fortunate, obviously, to have a cancer centre in our

community.

Could the minister describe for me…. The total amount, as I

understand it, that is allocated to clinical and multidisciplinary

research, which includes clinical trials…. And $55.7 million has been

attached to clinical and multidisciplinary research. Could the minister

break down for me how much of that is specifically attached to clinical

trials?

Hon. A. Dix: Perhaps what I’ll do is just describe…. It’s $55.7 million, and

that is intended to address the areas described: the clinical research

support funding — that’s the clinical trials start; the

multidisciplinary research program; the cancer genomics and clinical

genomic assay development funding. There are the details on

that.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

There is provincial health research funding, and then there’s

research training support, which is used to add approximately 80 new

trainees. And of course, the Rising Star awards, which we’ve spoken

about last Thursday.

I would say that the amount overall will be significantly more

than this, because the B.C. Cancer Foundation is raising money and is,

believe me, on the case to raise more money based on this to build out,

and that success will build more success. I don’t have the breakdown,

and they’re going to work through…. Some clinical trials are more

expensive than others. They’re going to take those funds and use them in

those five categories in addition to other funds that they raise to

support that effort.

[3:30 p.m.]

They’re going to be able to demonstrate value in terms of both the

additional money invested and that amount. I don’t have specifically the

information, if the member will understand what I mean by that, but it’s

in those areas where that $55.7 million is being assigned.

I would expect the overall number to be considerably higher than

that, especially if you’re talking about clinical trials taking place

over the next few years. Well, this is an organization that raised $77

million last year, and it wasn’t from government. I think their capacity

to fundraise, their ambitions to fundraise are even on top of

that.

What we’re building out is a capacity for clinical trials all

around the province. It’s important. It’s in our discussions, and it’s

certainly my strong view, that the incremental money from us for

clinical trials should ensure they happen around the province. It’s also

their strong view that that needs to happen in those initiatives, and

that’s why we will be seeing our incremental money going to that part of

it. There are already clinical trials, as you can see in the current

funding and current fundraising, that are occurring in Metro Vancouver.

It’s an important part of the province, and so on. A lot of people

there. But what we would see is this building that out across the

province.

Those are the categories for that $55.7 million of the grant, and

all of them are significant. I would say that on the genomic side…. I

think it’s fair to say that’s an important part of the work too. We’ve

seen some, shall we say, lessening of support for such research from the

federal government. I’m not going to get into a federal government

discussion. I would just say we’re an important centre here both for the

work at BC Cancer and, more broadly, the work of Genome B.C. and Michael

Smith. We are committed to ensuring, because cancer is a disease of the

genome, that that research and that central role we’ve developed over

decades as a province continues.

S. Bond: The minister provided some numbers earlier in terms of the

breakdown of clinical trials: the number of people in Prince George,

those kinds of things. Could he be very specific for me in articulating

how…? Let’s use Prince George as an example then. Currently, how would

people in Prince George who are considered for a clinical trial, how

does that practically work for them? Could the minister describe that

for me?

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to introduce behind me to my left Assistant Deputy

Minister Rob Byers, Assistant Deputy Minister Kristy Anderson and,

important for this question, Dr. Maureen O’Donnell, who is an

exceptional leader at the PHSA and also associate deputy minister in the

Ministry of Health. For people who don’t know these things, it was Dr.

O’Donnell who led the effort to identify, in terms of the vaccination

program, the clinically vulnerable — some of the best work that’s been

done in that area in all of the world. I’m glad she’s on my

team.

The member will be glad that she was there to help me answer this

question as well. She has lots of understanding of what would happen in

such a case. Say a patient would present; an oncologist would say:

“There may be clinical trials that are going on that would be

appropriate or helpful to you.”

Some of the challenges in regions are that sometimes you need

multiple extra tests to find that out, and sometimes that’s not the

case. So the investment in the region, including the coordinators and

those who help with it, would allow people in the regions, in

particular, to be able to take

part in those clinical trials and invest

in that portion of what happens in the regions. I think that’s quite

important.

So you’re presenting. “Here are some clinical trials,” should

there be ones that are relevant. Often that might not be the case. Then:

“Here’s what you have to do.”

[3:35 p.m.]

Sometimes a patient may decide, “Well, I don’t want to do that”

for whatever reason. Also, there would be other tests which might be

more difficult, especially if those tests were not available locally or

easily available locally or easily done locally.

That’s the process that you would engage a clinical trial in and

not, as I described earlier…. I think it was about 600-odd people who

were involved in clinical trials for BC Cancer. New patients, I should

say — 600 new patients involved, and 24 of them were from Prince

George.

We would expect to be able to report, based on this work, that

those would be different numbers. By Prince George, we mean a much

broader area than Prince George. I know the member understands

that.

S. Bond: Well thank you very much. Ironically, I was just going to make a

comment about our gratitude to the staff for being here and for the good

work they do. So I do appreciate those introductions and the work that

is done every day on behalf of, certainly, public servants and the

Ministry of Health. Obviously we appreciate that.

I want to just be…. From an obvious perspective, then. With the

cancer centres that exist today, what will be…? I understand that we’re

going to try to increase access. Does the delivery of the clinical trial

change when we describe this in the context of having a regional

focus?

The minister spoke about the fact that in Vancouver, there are a

number of clinical trials. Are there clinical trials today that are

centred at the northern cancer centre or elsewhere, or are they only in

one location? This will then allow for those clinical trials to be led

and hosted in other regions of the province.

Hon. A. Dix: Just as an example for our discussion, because I think it’s really

a valuable one…. I think the member may know the doctor in

question.

One of the top three research achievements of B.C. Cancer in the

past year was capacity-building at satellite sites to enable remote

patient clinical trial follow-up. Dr. Robert Olson, who’s a radiation

oncologist and research lead at B.C. Cancer in Prince George — he’s our

research lead there — has spearheaded methods of supporting patients

participating in clinical trials living in rural and remote areas around

Terrace or Trail to connect with physicians closer to home for their

follow-up care. Dr. Olson received one of the three proof-of-concept

project awards from the Canadian cancer clinical trials network, which

is 3CTN, for Canadian cancer centres that are now operating on

capacity-building for satellite sites in their region.

Not only has Dr. Olson led in that question; his work is now a

standard for other people in similar communities across the

country.

S. Bond: We are very grateful for Dr. Olson and for the team that work at

the cancer centre in northern British Columbia. I remember that when we

moved ahead with a cancer centre there, one of the biggest concerns was

the ability to staff it with exceptional people. We have certainly seen

that we have exceptional people with exceptional outcomes. I’m very

grateful for the recognition that you’ve noted for him today.

I guess what I want British Columbians to be able to understand,

with $55.7 million, parts of it — obviously, some discretion on behalf

of the B.C. Cancer Foundation. As they add additional dollars, they will

decide how this money will be utilized.

But when it comes to clinical trials, how specifically will it

increase access? We want to make sure that no matter where you live in

this province, if you present in a way that a clinical trial might be

something you should consider, how specifically does this investment

increase access across the province?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Well, firstly, there’ll be more trials, so that expands benefits

by funding more trials and financing more trials. That’s

important.

Beyond that, it helps us, I think, especially for systemic

therapies, deliver the possibility of participation closer to home. It’s

particularly important in Prince George, but in other communities as

well — all those measures around recruitment and support and investment.

Many oncologists also serve as researchers, and it’s part of the

attraction in a competitive market. Having strong research allows us to

attract people to regional communities.

Thirdly, it allows us to build out, I think, the awareness of

patients around…. Build out the teams in communities who link into

centralized trials. Having people in Terrace participate in Prince

George is a reflection of that work that Dr. Olson has done. Recruiting

more people such as Dr. Olson and the teams around him, which are as

important….

Cancer is the ultimate team-based care. We often talk about

team-based care. Anyone who has gone through it understands the number

of people with different levels of training who are working together,

both on the research side and in cancer care in general. It allows us to

build that out in other communities.

The member will know that we have 41 community oncology network

sites right now, in addition to our regional cancer centres. We’re

building up more regional cancer centres. I won’t get into that debate

now, but we’ll have plenty of time to do that. I suspect, from members

from a community a little south of Prince George — south and west — that

we’ll have that later. But I think it’s the important part of

it.

What we’re seeing, if you look at cancer in general, is…. Of

course, we’re seeing people survive longer, more people living with

cancer, and there’ll be more diagnoses of cancer. So a lot of the

argument for centralization was that you can only do these things at a

few sites. The member talked about the discussion of the Prince George

site, initially.

I think the next 30 years is going to be the opposite of that, is

going to be a distribution of that — both the more regional centres but

also the smaller centres as well, and building out our clinical trial

network. Then saying that you’re investing in that, in a community such

as Prince George or even Terrace, means your ability to recruit to that

community for everything else you need in cancer is better.

Everyone I know of at the B.C. Cancer Agency is interested in the

research, wherever they’re working. This is an opportunity to

supercharge that research in communities around the province.

Our money for clinical trials is really focused, in this case, on

building out that regional component. We have significant trials going

on. I described the numbers a little earlier, in terms of new patients.

But I think that ability to do it around the province will make the

trials better, make our ability to recruit better everywhere in the

province. I think that is a very positive thing.

S. Bond: I can hardly wait until we get to talk about clinical trials for

ALS. I digress, but I will not…. I know I’ll get over there.

I’ll get back to the topic at hand. When you describe a clinical

trial, are they technically delivered only at cancer centres? When you

think about the host, the way the clinical trial is offered, are they

delivered only at cancer centres? How is that operationalized across

vast stretches of British Columbia that don’t have a cancer

centre?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: In general, the studies will be led either in Vancouver or at

regional centers, but absolutely, they can involve people in communities

as well. It might involve blood work, where the person isn’t necessarily

there. They’re dealing with cancer at their oncology center in their

community. It might involve blood work or questionnaires or other things

— the clinical trial.

It’s organized and centralized, because the numbers are important.

If you’re dealing with all of the expanse of northern B.C. or working

with the FNHA in Indigenous communities as part of the Indigenous cancer

plan, you need the numbers. You need them in a central area. It doesn’t

mean all the participants have to be in that central area, though.

Depending on the clinical trial, the participation might be quite

diffuse. In other cases, it might be quite centralized.

I would say the organization of them in regional centres, that’s

central, but the participation is broad. How we just described some of

the success we’ve had collectively in Prince George reflects that. It’s

not all of them. Everyone in Prince George isn’t taking

part in that

those efforts. They’re all over the North.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that.

Again, we had a discussion earlier about gender and about groups

that are disproportionately impacted by cancer. When we think about

clinical trials and the ability to access a clinical trial, are there

specific considerations, based on things like gender and on ethnicity?

Those kinds of things? Geography also, as the minister pointed out,

makes a difference, which is why the biobank in the North is so

critically important.

I think that work at least was initiated or worked on by Dr.

Nadine Caron, who’s exceptional. I meet her on aircrafts all the time

travelling back and forth home to Prince George.

Could the minister just speak to that, when designing or thinking

about a clinical trial — specifically, thoughts around gender, ethnicity

and geography?

Hon. A. Dix: There’s been a lot of work done by the Canadian Institute for

Health Research on this question, so there are requirements.

First of all, I’d just take a step back to the previous question.

Trials are, by definition, highly regulated, because their outcomes are

important. Ensuring that the data is the right data and outcomes are the

right outcomes and understanding is the right understanding requires a

high level of regulation, whether it’s at a government agency, such as

B.C. Cancer, or whether it’s a private trial for, say, a pharmaceutical

company or something along those lines.

I’d say that the community of researchers in Canada, because of

some of the work of the Canadian Institute for Health Research, is very

focused on ensuring that research reflects the diversity of communities.

Obviously, gender is critically important to that. Obviously, Indigenous

communities are important to that. That work that they’ve done, also, is

reflected not just in public trials but in private trials now that the

community of researchers understands the value of that.

One of the reasons why British Columbia can be, I think, a great

centre of life sciences is the very diversity of British Columbia

communities in life. That gives us an enormous advantage. That

discipline in the processes is a real change in recent decades, I would

say, in health research, because we know, notably, in the past, that

wasn’t always the case in terms of what health research focused

on.

[3:50 p.m.]

In terms of public health research, it’s very high. I think even,

you would say, in what we’d call private health research, you’re seeing

some of that same rigour and discipline around trials reflecting gender

and ethnicity of the broader population and, of course, most notably —

and in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people — with

Indigenous people as well.

S. Bond: Considering that this is a portion of the supplementary allocation

that will go to the B.C. Cancer Foundation, can the minister summarize

for me, when it comes to clinical trials…. We’ve determined that it’s

only a portion of the $55.7 million, plus the additional fundraised

dollars that the minister mentioned. Can he summarize for me what will

change and how, particularly, rural and remote communities will benefit

from the investment that’s being made related to clinical

trials?

Hon. A. Dix: A couple of things, I think, in terms of the clinical research

support funding. First of all, it’s increasing the number of trials that

can be developed and offered, increasing the number of patients who have

access to trials. Remember that this money is very focused on that

regionalizing part of the process that we’ve already discussed. I won’t

go over that again. Increased capacity to take learnings from trials and

expand into other areas of relevant research, including implementation,

when trial results are positive — that’s important, as you

know.

Enhanced clinical trials support recruitment and retention, just

broadly. Also, I would say, in the cancer world, in centres that have

stronger research capacity, there are better outcomes from the broader

clinical distribution of services. It’s just interesting, you know. You

would say that that might not necessarily be the case — that maybe

there’s research going on somewhere else in the system — but in those

centres where you see advanced research, that makes a

difference.

Further, there’s expanded capacity at regional centres. It will

allow patients more understanding — we’ll have people supporting that —

of the trial opportunities available for them. It’s the sense that

someone in Smithers, Hazelton, Valemount or Telkwa, who’s dealing with

all that and all of what comes with a cancer diagnosis, understands that

this is a possibility for them and that it might be relevant for them —

which, maybe, they don’t understand as much as we would like them to,

collectively, now. It supports, I think, recruitment and retention for

sites beyond Metro Vancouver, which has a benefit for

everybody.

I think there are, obviously, economic advantages. Some clinical

trials, first of all, and we would hope this would be the case, make the

system more efficient and provide better care for people. That’s a

benefit that isn’t immediate, but it’s one that’s real and that we

want.

[3:55 p.m.]

Of course, they have economic benefits. It’s high-valued

employment. It’s bringing in, I think, research work and research hubs

that are important to the economy of Prince George. I think research and

advanced learning, in the case of Prince George — the member will know

this better than me — are so much more a part of the economic outlook of

that region than they were 40 years ago. That’s because of some of the

investment, including around the university. Also, it’s critical

investment.

All of those are benefits of clinical trials to people. It’s

better service. It’s better access to those trials. It’s more

distributed trials. It’s better trials. It’s more trials.

S. Bond: Is there a minimum number of people that are required to make a

clinical trial valid in terms of…? Obviously, the hope is that we find a

new drug or a new breakthrough or a new therapy or something that works.

Is there a minimum number of people required?

Currently in British Columbia, when you’re building that clinical

trial, can that threshold be reached — obviously, I’m assuming the

answer is yes — by including people from across the province?

Hon. A. Dix: What happens with clinical trials is that there’s something called

a power analysis. I think they do this in politics. A power analysis is

done.

Some trials, depending on what you want to do, require more people

or less people. Having people to do the trials, in other words,

expanding access and putting in place regional coordinators, as we are,

to expand participation throughout the province doesn’t just

qualitatively help you. I think what the member is getting at is…. It

quantitatively helps you as well.

S. Bond: Thank you for that information. It’s appreciated. The minister

almost gave me the perfect segue.

I want to ask about recruitment goals. Obviously there are

recruitment goals, I would assume, attached to this portion of the

grant.

For example, could the minister tell me…? How many net new

radiation oncologists does the minister expect to be recruited to

British Columbia as a result of this grant?

Hon. A. Dix: There are two things I would say.

There are specific proposals here. The 80 new trainees are part of

the research training support. The ten to 20 people each year — women,

Indigenous or from underrepresented communities — will get access to

scholarship support. That’s an identifiable amount. You see it in the

start-up and seed grants, the research chair endowments. All of those

being filled benefits it.

What I want to convey is that all of it will, I think, be an

extraordinary benefit to making B.C. a centre that leading scientists

and clinicians want to come to. The clinical trials do that. The other

research does that, the support for younger researchers, all of the

elements of the Indigenous cancer strategy.

[4:00 p.m.]

All of it serves together — obviously, the training bursaries — to

build the team around that. It’s not one: “Oh, we’re going to do this,

and this is going to happen.” It’s the whole package that is going to, I

think, make B.C. much more attractive to attracting the researchers and

the clinicians we need to put in place, not just the goals of the

strategy but the goals we all have with respect to cancer care and

cancer research.

We can go through the specific aspects and say: “Well, a research

chair will have this group around them and will be a leader in this

area.” I think that’s true. In others, this many people are going to get

the scholarships. I think together, though, this makes B.C. much more

attractive. That’s why I think that this level of investment at this

time represents, with the support of the foundation and all their work

and their large campaign, a big bang to support the research side and

the clinical side of B.C. Cancer.

There are some specifics. We’ll go through them on each one. It

makes a difference when you’re attracting people. We’ll have a chance to

do that about the installation of the state-of-the-art, ultra high

sensitivity, long axial field-of-view PET-CT scanner. That attracts

people. You can say: does that investment bring four oncologists to

B.C.? Well, we don’t know that, but we know, in that case, that it will

make our research side better and will attract people and will make are

cancer agency more effective and make us a better place for people to

want to work.

S. Bond: Perhaps a more prickly question, then. I mean, part of the debate

about supplementary estimates is that it’s about a choice. The minister

and his team have decided that a grant to the B.C. Cancer Foundation….

Albeit, it will be leveraged to raise more funds, but we know this. The

minister and I are not going to get into a big heated debate at the

moment about who said what about cancer survival rates, but we do know

this — that in British Columbia today, it is taking longer to see an

oncologist than either the minister or I would like for their first

visit.

The answer the minister gave me is just that we’re going to create

an environment that will hopefully attract professionals, including, for

example, radiation oncologists. First of all, a cancer diagnosis is

devastating, and one would assume you’d want to get to an oncologist as

quickly as possible.

Is it enough to say that we’re creating a research environment and

we’re going to do all the things that we hope will attract oncologists

rather than have a dedicated, targeted: “We’re going to go get

oncologists for the province of British Columbia”?

Hon. A. Dix: I think that’s the debate we’re going to have a good chance to

have during the main estimates. Absolutely that’s true. I won’t get into

the whole debate now, and the discussion on that day we…. For example,

B.C. also paid its oncologists, until recently, less than other

jurisdictions. We’re changing that, and we’re going to be number one, at

least for a little while, until someone else decides to add, but I don’t

think we should be behind other places, especially since we’re a little

bit expensive to live in as a province. Let’s just say that. We’re going

to start a cost-of-living and a health debate here.

I absolutely think so. But I think one of the challenges — the

member has been a minister, and she’ll know this — is what do we have to

do now? That’s going to be in the main estimates debate, and you bet

we’re going to have a debate, because I’m passionate about this question

of cancer. I know the member is too. So we’re going to have a good

discussion of that.

There’s a whole series of things that we are doing now, and in the

past two years, and must do. Yes. You bet. We’ve got to be out. We’ve

got to recruit. We’ve got to do all this stuff, but in the long term as

well — by the long term, I mean, really, the next few years — you also

have to make changes to make things better five and ten years from now.

If we’re going to be leaders in cancer, having clinical

trials….

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. A. Dix: I just looked for the guidance of the Chair. Should I just finish

this answer quickly?

The Chair: We’ll just wait until the bells….

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Absolutely. You have to do both. We’re going to make it better

now, better five years from now and better ten years from now, and we’ve

got to be leaders in cancer research. Being leaders in cancer research

allows us to do better now because it makes us more able to have all of

the members of the cancer team — not just oncologists but other members

of the cancer team — who are critical, including technologists and

others. So I think you need to do both.

That’s the reason why you would argue it’s a ten-year cancer plan.

I don’t think the member is making this argument. I’m not saying…. The

argument to not do this, to say: “Well, we’re only going to do things

now….” Someone might make the argument that…. That would be an argument

never to invest in research, because we’ve got to just focus on this

year, this cycle, this next three months.

But we know that there are going to be 40,000 diagnoses of cancer

in ten years. There are 30,000 now. We know that, so we’ve got to take

some steps now to make things better. These steps concurrently will help

us with our current problems and our major investment. They’re a major

statement by our whole community, by our whole province, by our

Legislature and everything else that this is important, this is the

time, and this is an investment. That’s what I passionately believe. So

it’s not one or the other.

We have to do both. I absolutely