2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 20
[ Page 15805 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
T. Nebbeling: With us in the gallery today is Mrs. Phillips, a teacher at the Valleycliffe Elementary School in Squamish. She is with 28 students and a team of friends taking care of the whole group. I hope not only that they have a great day here in Victoria but that the House makes them welcome.
Introduction of Bills
THE B.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
REFERENDUM ACT, 2000
G. Clark presented a bill intituled The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Referendum Act, 2000.
G. Clark: This legislation will ensure that no government, present or future, can privatize B.C. Hydro without the approval of the people of British Columbia in a referendum. B.C. Hydro is not just another Crown corporation. It has played a central role in the economic and political life of British Columbia. B.C. Hydro has helped bring electricity to remote regions and low-cost, reliable power to most British Columbians. Hydro has represented the province in international treaties and is vital to our credit rating and future growth.
The development of B.C. Hydro's electricity resources has been achieved at significant financial and environmental cost. The people of British Columbia built B.C. Hydro with their financial contribution and labour. The people of British Columbia must have a say in the corporation's future.
It is clear that the Liberal opposition, if they had a chance, would privatize B.C. Hydro. It is also clear that they have absolutely no intention of letting the public know of their plans. This is unacceptable to a majority of British Columbians, and I therefore ask that all members of this House support this bill.
Bill M204 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.
[1010]
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, we will continue debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education. In this chamber, Committee B, we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 36: ministry operations, $8,125,203,000 (continued).
G. Clark: First of all, I want to thank the official opposition for giving me five minutes of time. I understand that the other day, when I talked for a couple of minutes, it was interrupting the flow of debate. So I appreciate coming up first. I won't be too long; obviously, much like the other day, I think it's a very brief discussion.
As the minister knows, I've not participated in the caucus discussions of the budget, nor have I really been privy to any of the internal discussions, so I apologize to him if I'm canvassing ground which has already been done. This is really just for my information. What I'm interested in is the funding of health care in a global sense. I'll try not to be too provocative; apparently I was the other day. I'm going to try to be just factual in my questions.
I would like to ask some general questions about the funding -- the building of the budget -- for the Ministry of Health. For example, it strikes me that there are three or four important variables in the funding of health care. First would be population growth. Second would be demographic change, I guess. The third would be inflation, wage increases, etc. What I'd like to ask the minister, just briefly, are some questions around that area. I wonder if the minister could inform the House what population growth is forecast for British Columbia next fiscal year and whether the budget fully funds population growth.
[1015]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The population growth in British Columbia over the next five years, while we don't have it on a particular annual basis, is expected to grow about 9 percent between 1999 and the year 2004.
G. Clark: I wonder if the minister could inform the House what inflation rate the ministry is using for wages and other things and whether or not that's funded by the government in this year's budget.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the inflation targets or inflation rates that are in the budget process, that's probably a question best directed to the Minister of Finance.
G. Clark: I wonder if the member could advise the House about demographic change and whether demographic changes account for
Hon. M. Farnworth: The population of British Columbia is indeed aging. As each year goes by, they get a year older. The median age is expected to increase one and a half years, from 36.9 in 1999 to 38.4 in 2003. That is a trend that will continue.
G. Clark: Back to my original question, if the hon. Chair would permit. When you're building a health care budget, you have to assume, as the minister has acknowledged, an
[ Page 15806 ]
aging population and some factor that could be used to quantify that. You have to assume wage increases and inflation in the system, and you have to assume population growth in the system.
When you add those three up, if you fully fund population growth, demographic change and inflation, then you get what might be called a status quo budget -- in other words, no improvements in service but just maintaining the current system; no additions of hospitals, no ambulance paramedics, no improvements in service; just the basic system itself. Maybe I should ask whether the minister agrees with me that, really, those are the three components. Again, there may be other factors, but the three basic components in building the budget would be inflation, demographic change and population growth.
[1020]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is not as simplistic as that. In fact, it is far more complex, and there are all kinds of factors that go into
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I won't comment on that.
I think what's important is that we recognize that in determining what makes the cost drivers in health, what the key pressures are on the health care system
Plus, there are programs which, implemented at different stages, have their effects at any particular point in time. For example, primary health care has a significant impact -- the fact that as we are aging. We are aging at a much more healthy rate than we have in the past. What we're finding is that, for example, in term of seniors populations, they are healthier than they have been at any time in past history in British Columbia. Those things all factor into the equation in terms of the costs around the health care system -- as does utilization, as does the availability of services around the province.
G. Clark: I think the minister's made a convincing case that it is complex and not as simple as I outlined. I wonder if the minister would, then, try to simplify and tell us how the Ministry of Health builds its budget. What kind of formula do they use to drive their status quo forecasts for maintaining this current system?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't do it by formula. We do it by examining all the different components that make up the health care system, looking at each of them individually and looking at all of the different cost drivers that are associated with health care. It's not done on a formula basis.
C. Clark: If that's the case, then is the status quo forecast
Hon. M. Farnworth: Rarely in health care do you have a status quo situation, for a number of reasons. Technology is changing; utilization is changing too. The tools that are available to you to treat particular illnesses are always changing. So it's not a question of status quo. Things do change from year to year.
G. Clark: Yes, that's a very obvious comment. Things change from year to year. I'm just curious as to how the forecasts are prepared, however. I won't dwell on that. Maybe I'll write the minister a letter.
Let me ask a different but related question: does the Ministry of Health get a request from the regional health authorities? In other words, do they receive the request from a regional health authority for what the regional health authority believes is required for the annual operating budget to be maintained?
[1025]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely -- they submit requests to us. They submit requests in the budget cycle and outside of the budget cycle. That happens every year.
G. Clark: I assumed that was the case. How does the Ministry of Health determine whether or not the request from the regional authority is a valid one? In other words, how does the Ministry of Health decide whether to agree to the funding request from the regional authority or whether in fact the regional authority is padding it or trying to gild the lily or wants to expand service beyond what is deemed to be acceptable? I assume that the regional health authority asks for a certain amount, and then the ministry decides, probably on a highly technical basis, whether it's a legitimate request.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We work with the health authorities, and we review the data.
G. Clark: Can the minister advise the House whether outside agencies were retained to do the analysis to see whether or not the regional health authorities' budgets were sufficient or legitimate?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We do most of our work in-house.
G. Clark: Can the minister advise the House what the difference is between the request from the regional health authorities for their operations budget and the actual operations budget contained in the estimates which we're debating?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Health care is not a one-year program; it is a multi-year program. Quite often requests are submitted on a basis that takes multi-year initiatives into account.
G. Clark: Thank you; I very much appreciate that. I was just asking what I thought was a pretty simple question: how much was asked for by the regional health authorities, and how much did we give them? And if it's less than they asked for, why?
[ Page 15807 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We're in that process right now -- the determination of a number of things.
C. Hansen: I want to change my line of questioning, in view of the questions that were just raised by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I had initially indicated that we'd be talking about some planning issues, but I did want to follow up on some of the points raised by the former Premier.
In this year's budget there is an increase in the ministry's budget of $333 million over the restated value for last year. Can the Minister of Health tell the House how much of the increase in costs for the Ministry of Health this fiscal year is as a result of the compensation issues that were directed out of the Premier's Office over the last several years?
[1030]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's $200 million.
C. Hansen: So we've got an increase in the health care budget of $333 million, and in excess of $200 million of that is to address the compensation issues that, really, the Ministry of Health had nothing to do with. These were in fact driven by the former Premier and his staff in terms of collective agreement negotiations in terms of health accords, in terms of some of the secret deals with the health unions around this province, and have really cut into the available dollars that might be on the table to deal with patient care. Can the minister confirm that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The actual increase is $550 million, not the $300 million that the member stated. But it is also important to recognize that the people who work in the health care system deserve to be fairly compensated for the work they do. It is important work, and the negotiations reflect that.
C. Hansen: I think it's only fair that we compare what was spent last year, which was $7.935 billion. The estimates for this year are $8,269 billion, which is an increase of $333 million. I notice in here that they talk about the $183 million for compensation increases for health care workers in the regional programs alone. I wonder if the minister could tell us, in that $183 million, what percentage of health care workers are in fact covered under regional programs.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Pretty well all of them.
C. Hansen: I was interested in the question from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway when he talked about the three factors in the increase in health care costs for the year. He talked about inflation, population growth and demographics. But I notice he conveniently ignored the most expensive aspect that's driving health care costs, and that's the increase in salaries that we have.
I accept the minister's point that there are many individuals in health care in British Columbia who are deserving of the wages they get, and I think there's actually some sectors of health care that are actually underpaid for the work they do today. But I think what's critical to understand is that those increased costs are not driven by the Ministry of Health; they're driven by -- in the past, at least -- the Premier's Office and the chief negotiator in the Premier's Office.
With that, I will move on to some of the areas that we had originally planned to deal with this morning. In closing, I should also point out maybe just a little bit of advice for the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. What I've found is that the ministry's staff have been very helpful in terms of briefings. A lot of the issues in terms of how budgets come together are covered off in those kinds of briefings. I would certainly recommend to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway that he take advantage of some of those briefings, as we in the official opposition have done.
What we will do is pick up from where we left off last night in terms of some of the planning issues. There are still some outstanding issues involving Pharmacare, but I am going to deal with them in the context of the legislation and professions -- when we get to that stage. In terms of scope of practice, there are some issues involving the ability of pharmacists to dispense Preven and those issues, which we'll deal with in the emergency contraceptive program. So if it's appropriate, we'll deal with that when we get to the legislation and professions section rather than in the context of Pharmacare, which is probably more appropriate, at any rate.
If we can move on to the planning issues -- in particular, the strategic directions document. This is a document that I canvassed quite thoroughly in estimates last year when it was still in draft form, so I'm not going to revisit the entire document. But what I found interesting was to look at some of the areas where the strategic directions document has changed from what was put forward in a draft form. I often find that it's more revealing in terms of the intentions of the ministry and where they see it going. It's more revealing in terms of how things get changed, rather than how things get set out on paper in the first place.
[1035]
In goal No. 4 there is a section that was deleted. The goal is: "British Columbia will have an adequate supply of health care services." A section which appears to be deleted states: "Standards which identify appropriate practitioner-population ratios will be developed." I wonder if the minister could advise us why that particular provision was deleted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That particular section was redundant, because the concerns in that particular area were covered off in other areas of the plan.
C. Hansen: I didn't find it in other areas of the plan. I'm just wondering: does the ministry anticipate publishing practitioner-to-population ratios? Or is that an idea that has now been dispensed with?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have a health resources planning committee that is in fact dealing with that particular issue along with a number of others. It includes not just physicians but also health care workers and quite a cross-range, so it's being addressed in that context.
In terms of the areas of the plan where it is covered off, you'd be looking at sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.
C. Hansen: My point is that I understand that the whole issue of labour force supply is addressed. But what I'm wondering about is the specific objective to actually come out with formalized standards of ratios. Is that still an intention of the ministry, or has that particular notion been dispelled?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand why we may want to say: "Look, let's have a fixed set of standards about what the
[ Page 15808 ]
ratio between human resources and population should be." But in fact, it's quite a fluid
C. Hansen: I know there are many people in the province who would like to see those kinds of ratios, because it gives them an actual benchmark that they can measure themselves against. I would question whether or not it's more convenient for the minister to not have those kinds of benchmarks out there, where a community can say that they have got a population-to-family physician ratio of 2,000 patients to one doctor, when they measure that against a standard which probably should say that there should be less than 1,000 population to a family practitioner. I'm just wondering what benchmark a community then has to measure whether or not it is adequately serviced.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it'd be fair to say that what you'll see is a development of ranges. There are a number of things that you can take into account. One is the changes in technology that are taking place, and two issues around such things as expanded scope of practice, for example, allow for a differentiation of duties being conducted by people in the health care field. While there's not going to be a reluctance to move to an absolute standard of, let's say, 80 to every 1,000 people, I think you will see that we should have a range that might be from, for the sake of argument, 70 to 85 per 100,000. That would be a benchmark, but it would take into account the differences that occur because of changes taking place -- whether it's technology or expanded scope of practice -- and also allows for variations in different parts of the province depending on the types of services provided.
There probably will also be some areas and some specialties that are fairly unique or fairly limited, where you will be able to say that in terms of a benchmark, there will be this standard, and it's a pretty tight one. But in terms of where you have a lot of people, it will be ranges as opposed to a specific standard.
C. Hansen: If I can move on to the next area where there have been some changes which I'd like to have explained. Again, it's under goal No. 4. There is a paragraph that starts out: "By international standards then, B.C. clearly commits more than the usual resources to health care." What has been deleted is: "What is less clear is how efficient health care systems like B.C.'s can be in providing services and improving outcomes. There is clear evidence that some services are provided inappropriately." That is a section that has been deleted, and I'm just wondering if the minister can explain to us why.
[1040]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It was a decision made around the size of the document and the objective of the document. The particular issue the member refers to is in fact addressed in the annual report.
C. Hansen: As I mentioned yesterday, I think some of the accountability section of the annual report is to be applauded.
I guess what concerned me in particular was the reference to services being provided inappropriately. I'm wondering if the minister could outline what kind of inappropriate services someone in the ministry saw -- and obviously there was a concern raised about it -- which led to this being deleted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's not a specific concern, rather a general concern that arises in terms of small area samples across the province when we're looking at the rates of services that are provided. You notice that there is a variation from what may be the average across the province. The key example of that is around caesarean sections, where you'll see a fairly standard, let's say, one or ten per 100 births in most parts of the province, but in other parts of the province it could be as high as 20, for example. There's nothing wrong with the medical procedure being done. But rather, it is somewhat higher than the norm around the rest of the province, and that's what is meant by that particular statement.
C. Hansen: In goal No. 6 there is reference to two surveys that are to be done. One is a patient-client satisfaction survey for services provided by health authorities. The other is a satisfaction survey for services which are not regionalized. What has been deleted in this section is a reference to a commitment by the ministry to report on the results of both surveys in the Ministry of Health annual report. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us why that particular commitment was taken out.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's the feeling of the ministry that it shouldn't just be the ministry that's doing reporting, but it should also be the health authorities as well.
C. Hansen: I guess my concern is that there was a commitment to make this information public, and now that commitment is no longer there.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It absolutely will be made public.
C. Hansen: My question would be: in what format, how and with what kind of timeliness will we see this information be made public?
[1045]
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the type of information, how it's being presented and the way and the format, that's one of the things that we're working on. It will probably take about a year to do that, to ensure that our work is also in line with the health authorities' work. We're trying to ensure that there's a standard right across the province, so that people can compare what's happening in one region to another region, and there is uniformity of presentation and format.
Secondly, what we're also trying to do is work with other provinces to see if we can get the same type of information, so that we can compare B.C. to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and right across the country. That's also part of the work that's taking place. But it will be about a year before the first information is available and becomes public.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to another subject, but I'm also very conscious of not taking up all the time of the committee. I noticed the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was anxious to participate in this debate, and I would certainly defer to him at this time.
[ Page 15809 ]
M. Sihota: I just have some people visiting, so I want to deal with some issues as they relate to regional matters in my constituency. I appreciate the critic providing the opportunity to do that.
I want to raise two issues. First as it relates to the pediatric clinic at the Victoria General Hospital
Hon. M. Farnworth: That particular unit is fully funded in the base budget, and it is not going to be closed. I have publicly said that, and I will restate that today: the unit is going to remain open.
M. Sihota: In that regard, as I understand it, they will have to make provision for keeping that unit open out of the allocation that has been made for the 2000-2001 budget. I just want to make sure that we're on the same wavelength there.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It has been funded in the base budget; it is fully funded in the base budget. It is going to remain open.
M. Sihota: I think it is welcome news that it's going to remain open; I'm going to come back to that in a minute.
But let me just ask another question; it relates to the Gorge Road Hospital. Again, with people here today from the capital health region, I want to ask this question: in relation to Gorge Road Hospital, could the minister advise us what options the ministry is considering in terms of dealing with the mould problem at Gorge Road? In other words, is the ministry just sort of considering leaving it at the status quo, putting some money into sort of upgrading the component of the facility and maintaining the line of work that has commenced? Or are they looking at a larger fit?
My understanding is that the options range from zero to about $30 million. I'm just wondering what options are before the ministry in terms of its capital allocations for this year.
[1050]
Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a full range of options in terms of the Gorge Road facility. Clearly there's the immediate problem around the mould situation, which we are trying to address. We're working on that in terms of a short-term solution. I think that has to be part of any solution, whether you were to leave the particular facility at its current location upgraded, or whether you were to look at other particular proposals. We are working with the CHR and the Ministry of Finance to identify what work needs to be done and to look at the options along a full spectrum. Hopefully, we can make a decision that will resolve some of the problems around it. But we're looking at the full range of options.
M. Sihota: Could the minister advise me what the allocation is this year for capital for the capital health region?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't have that figure on a health authority basis, but we can calculate it, and we'd be happy to get the number for the hon. member.
M. Sihota: I'll come back, then, when the minister's been able to secure that number and ask more questions about the allocations for capital this year for the CHR and, specifically within that allocation, what's anticipated for the Gorge Road Hospital.
Going back to the pediatric unit for a second and back to the questions that were asked earlier on about regional budgets, let me ask the minister this question: does the minister know what the allocation is this year for the capital health region? Has that been determined yet?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We're working with the health authorities to make that determination.
M. Sihota: In doing that work, I presume, the ministry will be doing some work in terms of expectations of population growth and needs in the area. Does the minister have any numbers as to what, from a population growth point of view, is forecast in terms of demand in the capital health region?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't have those specific figures here, and we'll be able to get them for the hon. member. But I would add that had the hon. member informed us of his line of questioning ahead of time, in the same way that the opposition has cooperatively done, we would have been able to have staff here that could provide more satisfactory answers than I am currently able to provide.
M. Sihota: I appreciate that. But on the other side of the coin, I had anticipated that the ministry had those numbers at its disposal. I will, however, return to ask questions about those two issues. So I would ask the minister kindly to ensure that his staff have those numbers at their disposal when I next rise in these estimates.
[1055]
C. Hansen: I would also recommend to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin that he go back and read the Blues from the other day, where the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and the member for Saanich North and the Islands canvassed these very same issues. He will find a record of that which he may find enlightening, based on the questions that were asked by the members of the opposition.
The other day in the House the minister was asked about
At the time the minister indicated that there would be three or four other issues that he was considering referring to the Select Standing Committee on Health, which has not had a meaningful meeting since back in the 1970s, and I don't believe has even met in this House since about 1993. I assume this is the appropriate place, under our discussion on strategic planning, to ask the minister what the three or four areas are that he is considering referring to the standing committee.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of areas that I think would make productive work for the Health Committee
[ Page 15810 ]
to be looking at. One is Pharmacare and issues related to the cost of drugs and the approvals of drugs within the province of British Columbia. A second one is issues around rural and northern health care, in particular around staffing. A third is also related to staffing, in terms of training and how we start to plan a look at -- in terms of physician supply, technical supply -- those types of issues that I think would be appropriate for an all-party committee to look at in terms of where we're going with health care. Another area that I think would be appropriate would be to look at some of the long-term care issues around home care, home support -- those types of things.
C. Hansen: We on this side of the House certainly have called for some time for a reactivation of the standing committees of the Legislature. Certainly the minister could count on our cooperation to make that process work effectively.
I want to move to the issue of the relationship between the Ministry of Health and other ministries. There is a whole multitude of areas that really cross over ministry lines. This is an area that, again, I hope is appropriate to insert at this particular stage in the discussion. I'll defer the questions to a later point if there is a better time in terms of available staff.
I would like to know what discussions are taking place with regard to the repatriation of services that are now covered by the Ministry for Children and Families, in particular public health areas, mental heath and drug and alcohol programs.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We work with the different ministries on a whole range of cross-issues, whether it's the Attorney General ministry in terms of issues related to mental health, or whether it's the Ministry for Children and Families and the provision of services and health services to young people. There is a lot of cross-work that takes place; it's something that I think we try and focus a great deal of effort into.
C. Hansen: There seems to be a growing concern in British Columbia that some of those interministerial relationships are breaking down. The Health Association of B.C., at their convention last fall, passed a resolution that said: "
There is also, I know, a growing concern in the mental health field in terms of the individuals who fall between the cracks when they shift from adolescent mental health programs in the Ministry for Children and Families to adult mental health. We were able to cover some of that when we had our discussions on mental health programs. There is certainly a concern that, rather than these interministerial relationships working, they're in fact allowing far too many children to fall between the cracks when it comes to receiving services that they need. I'm wondering if there is any kind of critical review in terms of where the weaknesses are in those interministerial relationships and whether or not there is an opportunity to consolidate some of these services under one ministry, where there is a clear line of authority.
[1100]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We need to recognize two things. One, we're always reviewing the activities that take place between ministries in terms of how we can improve things. That's an ongoing goal, and it's something we constantly have to be doing.
The second point: when it comes to the provision of youth services and adult services and that crossover, I don't think it's a question of having them all under one umbrella ministry, because as you move from being a minor to an adult, there are certain problems that occur. The law treats them differently in certain applications that sometimes impact on services -- particularly around privacy issues for example, and records issues -- that are there regardless of whether you are in two ministries or under one ministry. It's a problem that we recognize, and we have to try and deal with it in terms of what's best for the patient. But I don't think it's as simple as saying that it wouldn't be there if we had one umbrella covering the entire continuum.
C. Hansen: There have been some contractual relationships developed between the Ministry for Children and Families and, I believe, other ministries -- possibly the Ministry of Education -- and some of the various health authorities. The one example that I'm familiar with is a contract that was signed by the Vancouver-Richmond health board and the Ministry for Children and Families to provide alcohol and drug programs in the Vancouver-Richmond region. I also understand that there's a similar kind of contractual relationship in the Peace-Liard CHSS to contract some of their services to a different authority.
Does the ministry have a policy on that kind of contracted relationship between ministries? Is it something that is expanding across the province? Will we see more of these areas being administratively handled by health authorities, even though the responsibilities rest with other ministries?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The public health services that are done under contract are shared services, so in that sense it's done through one agency. The funding flows from us; the shared portion of that then comes back to us. It's not a question, I think, of them being expanding across the province; it's a question of those services that are publicly funded and are shared.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to health research. It was indicated that this would be sort of the appropriate time to insert some of this discussion. I wonder if the minister could tell us how much was allocated last year to the Health Research Foundation and how much is in this year's budget for the Health Research Foundation.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It was $3 million last year. The current allocation is currently under review.
[1105]
C. Hansen: One of the real concerns that came up last year was the timing of the allocation to the foundation -- that it was more than halfway through the fiscal year. In fact, I think it was probably eight or nine months into the fiscal year before they received even one dime.
The Health Research Foundation is made up of some very prominent individuals in British Columbia, some very busy individuals in B.C., who were asked to serve in that capacity by the provincial government. For them to be structured to put out requests for applications from young scien-
[ Page 15811 ]
tists around British Columbia and then not to be able to respond to any of those applications in a timely fashion because of the way that the ministry allocated its dollars last year was, in my view, a real insult to some very fine British Columbians who serve on that foundation. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us why it took so long for the allocation to be made last year.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The situation around research is interesting and in some ways a little bit problematic, because there's a number of areas that are involved. The federal government, for example, made some significant changes last year in the way that research is funded. One of the things the province wanted to do was to make sure that its envelope would fit in context with the federal research efforts, so that you can try and get the best effort for the money available. Unfortunately, that takes time and can result in some unnecessary delays. I recognize the member's concern around that particular issue. It's something we certainly have to recognize and try and take into account.
C. Hansen: I would suggest that the timing of the provincial dollars last year should have been the exact reverse. It is true what the minister said: there was a considerable change in the way the federal government approached health research funding. The federal government put a significant amount of money into health research funding last year.
There were some very aggressive campaigns across Canada by provincial governments and by leading scientists in each of the provinces to position themselves to take advantage of some of that new money. In British Columbia we had an opportunity to ensure, in a very strategic way, that British Columbia got not just its fair share of those federal dollars but to ensure that we got an even bigger share than a straight per-capita share, given the fact that we have such excellence science and research being done in this province today. Instead, what happened because of the delay in the provincial money coming available, is that we had the British Columbia research community unable to position itself to capitalize on the federal dollars that were coming.
Now, it's true that British Columbia certainly did get some very significant contributions of those federal dollars allocated in these last few months. I think that British Columbia's scientific community and research community are to be applauded for that effort.
But I think if the provincial dollars, small as they were, had flowed earlier in the year, they could've used that small amount of seed money to lever some very significant contributions not just from the federal government but from research foundations around North America and from corporations around North America. If you compare our track record in British Columbia to other provinces, you can see the payoff that comes from the research dollars that are spent, when compared to their ability to attract additional research dollars from outsiders, from other than provincial government coffers.
I would like to ask the minister when the B.C. Health Research Foundation will be able to expect that they will have their allocation determined for this coming year.
[1110]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it's important to note a couple of points. First off, the province is not the major contributor to health research in British Columbia. But it is an important contributor, and it is recognized as such.
The research community itself is also quite fragmented, but that is starting to change. They're starting to recognize the fact that there have been changes taking place in the way that the federal government approaches research. I would say they are coalescing more than they have in the past and are restructuring themselves, if that's the term to use. But my estimate right now is that it will probably be by September that they will know.
C. Hansen: In other words, what the minister is saying is that, again, we're going to be halfway through the year before they're going to know what their allocation is. One of the problems with that is the whole cycle in terms of receiving applications. There's a whole bunch of young, budding scientists that are able to benefit from those dollars. My understanding is that September is too late in that cycle for the dollars to be effectively spent. No, I shouldn't say that. Certainly they are effectively spent. But it doesn't flow in time for them to catch the September to June cycle in terms of an academic year at universities, for example. I wonder if the minister can explain why it takes so long for this allocation to be finalized.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Research doesn't necessarily follow a straight academic cycle; it can be ongoing throughout the year. But I do take the member's point. One of the things we're more than willing to do is to work with the research council in terms of trying to address particular issues.
As I said a moment ago, I also think it's important to note that in terms of the dollars, the majority of the money does not come from the province. They have significant funds to begin with, but the province's contribution is important, and we're happy to work to try to find ways of ensuring that it flows perhaps more smoothly.
C. Hansen: The minister made reference to working with the research council. I hope he meant working with the B.C. Health Research Foundation. In addition, the other body that I think is important for the minister to work with is the Coalition for Biomedical and Health Research in British Columbia. I think those two bodies could certainly give the minister some very good advice on how to
The issue that's critical is how to maximize the leverage value of the B.C. dollars. The provincial dollars are small, as the minister just indicated. But they have the potential, if they're allocated properly, to lever those dollars to significantly more dollars that will come from sources other than the British Columbia provincial government. I think that's really what the focus and objective should be of those provincial dollars as they're spent.
The other thing that has been raised is that health research in British Columbia really does have interministerial dimensions to it. This sort of follows a little bit on the conversation we had earlier on another area. I would ask the minister: what kind of collaboration exists between the ministries of the provincial government in terms of a direction in health research funding for the provincial government?
[ Page 15812 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a working group of staff -- from my ministry, Advanced Education, Education and, in fact, the universities -- that meets to deal with these particular issues.
C. Hansen: I want to move on, but I certainly urge the minister to look at the whole issue of health research as a priority. I think it's one of those things that doesn't necessarily help us in the short term when it comes to better health care in British Columbia, but in the long term it is so vitally important to our ability to meet some of the challenges in the medium to long term in the province.
I want to move on to the issue of human resource planning in health care in British Columbia. I'll start specifically on the area of nursing, because it is the area that has got the most profile over the last few months. I think it's also important for us to recognize that nursing is only one of the professions that is going through some severe challenges when it comes to shortages. Certainly it's the one that is front and centre on most people's minds today.
[1115]
I was looking at some numbers in terms of the cost of overtime in some health authorities. There's an article from the Vancouver Sun that makes reference to the Simon Fraser health region -- that as of February of this year they had already spent $2.4 million more than anticipated on salaries and wages than anticipated because of overtime. I would assume that much, if not all, of that overtime is in the area of nursing, given some of the stresses that we've been through.
In the South Fraser health region, in the first six months of the last fiscal year alone they were running a $2 million deficit. Eighty percent of that was due to overtime for registered nurses. At that point they were projecting that they would end the year with a $3.5 million deficit. I'm not sure what their final numbers were when the fiscal year ended, but of that projected $3.5 million, 80 percent would be as a result of overtime for nurses.
We have seen lots of discussion about the changing demographics of our registered nurses in British Columbia. We know that the average age of a registered nurse is 47 years. We also know from the studies that have been done that it is anticipated that B.C. will lose more than 13,000 registered nurses in the next ten to 15 years, yet we are currently graduating less than 700 new nurses annually.
In last year's budget the provincial government promised us that they would be hiring 1,000 new nurses over a three-year period. The commitment was also made at that time, over a year ago, that there would be 400 more nurses in the last fiscal year alone. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many new nurses were added to B.C.'s health care system as a result of that commitment made a year ago.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We're expecting a report out in the next couple of weeks that will be able to give us an exact number. As soon as I get that, I'll be more than happy to share it with the hon. member.
C. Hansen: If you look at the number of nurses that have actually been added to the registry of RNABC, it paints a concerning picture. I am told that just in order to maintain our existing levels, just to deal with attrition -- never mind increasing the number of nurses in British Columbia -- we need to recruit 1,200 new nurses a year. I know we went through this last year in terms of what that 400-new-nurse commitment meant. It was explained to me by the minister's predecessor that that meant 400 new FTEs in the province.
Yet when we start looking at the numbers from RNABC, what we see is that the total number of new registrants in British Columbia is actually declining. If we start with the number that we need just to maintain our existing staffing levels in British Columbia -- 1,200 a year -- and look at 1996, when the total number of new registrants was 1,271, that would put us into a net-plus position. In 1997 the total number of new registrants was 1,229; again it's in the plus. But in 1998 the number of new registrants fell to 1,135. In 1999 it fell again to 1,103. Given those numbers of new nurses being registered with the RNABC, what we are in fact seeing is a reduction in the overall number of nurses in British Columbia, rather than the increase of 400 new FTEs as was promised by the minister a year ago.
[1120]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Indeed those statistics are correct. I think that's part of our concern: one, that we're training nurses, that there are seats available for nurses who want to enter the profession; second, and equally important, is that there are also nurses who've left the profession, and we want to get them back in.
In fact, what we're seeing is a renewed interest in coming back into the profession. That's why, in the 400 seats that are allocated for this year, there are a number -- as I said, around 75 -- available for refresher courses, which get nurses who have left the field -- get them in and get them qualified and back into the profession. In fact, because the 75 doesn't need to take place over a full year but can be done over a six-month period, you are able to double the number of opted-out nurses coming back into the system. So the potential is there, for example, for that 75 to actually generate 150 nurses who can come back into the system.
C. Hansen: If you go back a year and a half now, it was a year and a half ago that we were advocating several key things that could be done to address the nursing shortage in British Columbia. One of those was to significantly increase the number of training spaces for nurses in British Columbia. I'm pleased to see that the government has finally acted on that.
The second thing is to ensure that trained nurses who have dropped out of the nursing profession are encouraged to come back in. Again, I know there are some refresher courses, which is an issue that needs to be addressed. I think there's a lot more room for that to be beneficial in British Columbia. I've certainly received some letters from individuals who have tried to access those refresher courses. They have found that they are difficult to get into, either because of the way they're scheduled or the remoteness. We're not taking advantage of some of the opportunities for distance education in this area.
The third area that we have to deal with is to ensure that nurses who are in the profession stay in the profession. We have the growing frustration of nurses all over British Columbia in terms of the increased stresses in the workplace -- the issues that are driving them out. We had a discussion about workplace injuries yesterday -- that as the average age of nurses is growing, so are the number of workplace injuries growing.
[ Page 15813 ]
The fourth area we suggested the government had to move on was to continue to do what, regrettably, we have relied on in the past. That is essentially to steal nurses from other jurisdictions, which is becoming increasingly difficult. I'm pleased to see that the government is moving on most of those areas.
I want to ask the minister about the report that was prepared recently on recruitment and retention of registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses. My understanding is that that document has been in the minister's hands for some time now, and I'm wondering when that will be made public.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The document is public on the web site right now, so people can read it and read the recommendations. We will have a full public response probably in about three weeks.
C. Hansen: I appreciate that. If you look at the number of nurses that are being recruited, the government made this commitment for a 1,000 new nurses over three years. We are now one year into that program. A commitment has been made in this year's budget that 400 new nurses would be hired in this fiscal year. It was presented in the budget as if this was a new announcement. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us whether or not the 400 new nurses is in addition to the 1,000 or simply part of the 1,000.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is the commitment of the funding to fund this year's portion, which is 400. It is not over and above the 1,000. It is the funding required for 400 of the 1,000 that were announced.
C. Hansen: Given that the most significant initiative that has been taken by the government to address the nursing shortage is in fact the additional training spaces that are going to, hopefully, open this September around the province, and that the initiative isn't going to start producing patient care for three to five years, is the minister still confident that they are going to be able to realize their objective of 1,000 new nurses over a three-year period?
[1125]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we are -- for a number of reasons. First, we're finding renewed interest in people coming back into the profession. That has the ability to help very quickly. Second, we are working on issues around part-time and full-time, trying to get some of those resolved where there's the ability to relieve some of the pressure. And third, we are still very much involved in recruiting and actively trying to recruit nurses to work in British Columbia.
C. Hansen: On the issue of nurse training, if you look at the numbers of B.C. graduates that have been part of the new nursing workforce in British Columbia -- that too paints a pretty bad picture in the last couple of years. In 1996, of the new registrants at the RNABC, there were 703 that were B.C. graduates. In 1997 that number dropped to 670. In 1998 it dropped yet again to 659, and in 1999 the number dropped further to 567. This is a very disturbing picture when you look at that trend.
Given that there really have been no new initiatives in terms of training spaces over the last several years -- and that the initiative that has been taken this year isn't going to start producing results for three to five years -- can the minister tell us what kind of numbers we're going to be able to anticipate for the next three years until these new additional nursing students will be graduating from those institutions?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I'll reiterate some of the things I've said, and then make a couple of other comments. First, it again comes around to nurses coming back into the system, so it's a question of refresher courses and encouraging nurses back into the system. Second, the issues around casualization and encouraging more part-timers to take full-time work and to work more hours -- those are areas we're focusing on. Again, recruitment is the other area. But then what's also happening is that there are initiatives being undertaken at the local level to address the pressures. Some of them are quite successful.
I am meeting with South Fraser, for example, in the very near future -- I don't have my calendar with me right here, but it's in the very near future -- to discuss with them one of the programs they've had in terms of attempting to deal with the pressures facing them. It appears to be working quite well, and it is something we want to look at as a program that other health authorities can try to emulate in addressing some of the pressures they're facing.
C. Hansen: I'm wondering if the minister could tell us -- given that the nursing shortage has been looming now for three years and certainly has taken on crisis proportions in many regions in the last 12 months -- why the ministry did not see this coming. Why was there no action taken in terms of forecasting this particular problem? Why is it only now in April of the year 2000 that we start to see some action to address this problem, which has been fairly evident for some time now?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There's not an easy answer, in the sense that this particular workforce and many of the people in the nursing profession have different work patterns at different points in their lives. Many of them, for example, take time out to raise children and then enter back into the workforce, so it's kind of hard to project how that works itself into the system.
[1130]
I would put it to the member this way. The situation isn't unique in B.C. It's right across the country. In fact, it's a worldwide shortage of nurses. That's why I think what I want to see happen and what I've been trying to encourage in the ministry is that we recognize what the key challenges are, and we try and meet them. Part of that -- I think the key and central part -- is to try and ensure that we train as many of our own people here in the province as we can and that we also make it as easy as possible for people to come back into the profession once they have got their credentials. They may work, and they may leave, but we've got to make it easier for them to get back in. We need to be ensuring that that's part of the long-term strategy of the ministry. It's certainly my intention to make it that.
C. Hansen: The minister mentioned that's it's a Canada-wide problem and, in fact, a worldwide problem. But I'd also like to point out to the minister that if you start looking at the stats Canada wide, British Columbia ranks No. 9 out of 10
[ Page 15814 ]
provinces when it comes to the number of nurses on a per-capita basis. Canada may have its problems, but B.C. is certainly lagging behind the Canadian average in that area.
I gather that there is a committee within the Ministry of Health called the Health Human Resources Advisory Committee, which I understand is an interministerial committee chaired by an official from the Ministry of Health. I'm wondering if the minister can outline for us the work of this committee and why that committee's work would not have resulted in this issue being addressed earlier than this particular year.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The committee was set up last year as the Health Human Resources Advisory Committee. Its goal is to develop a health human resources plan for British Columbia. There's a whole series of areas where they are focusing. I'll just list them for the member. The work is related to information requirements, occupation specifics, applied demand analysis, marketing the health occupations that are available to young people, education and training issues and needs based on planning methodologies.
C. Hansen: In a minute I want to address some of the other professions in terms of how they fit into that committee's work. I have a few other issues pertaining to nursing before I do that. Has the ministry developed any kind of forecast as to how many nurses entering the system we will need over the next ten years in order to meet with growing demand, growing utilization, aging population, growing population as well as the imminent retirement of essentially half the nursing force that we have in British Columbia today?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we have. That work is part of the report that is, in fact, posted on the web.
C. Hansen: I would like to ask the minister about the issue of diplomaed versus degreed nurses. It is a concern. On the one hand, health care is becoming much more complex, and the training that is needed by nurses is certainly much different today than it was 20 years ago. There are certainly some very strong arguments in favour of moving to a system of degreed nurses, so that they have the intensity of training that they're going to require for the health care system of tomorrow.
On the other hand, given that we are facing a nursing shortage, the five years that it takes for a degree program are additional years that the particular nurse is not available to assist us with the staffing crisis that we have today. I'm wondering what the ministry's position is on the issue of degreed versus diplomaed nurses.
[1135]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm very familiar with the issue that the member raises. It's an important one, because as technology changes, as the workplace changes, as advances in medicine change, we find the needs around education change significantly as well. So that is something we're working with on an ongoing basis.
The fact is that we have a program in place at the current time that trains very highly skilled nurses who have and can meet the credentialing requirements and that trains excellent people. But I would also add that my first priority right now is addressing the existing nursing shortage and ensuring that we have nurses in the hospitals and the facilities of the province to provide the patient care that we need to provide. At the same time, I also recognize that as we move in terms of how training takes place, the type of activities and the type of procedures that nurses are required to perform, that also requires attention on the training side of things. We will also be addressing that.
C. Hansen: Well, it's nice to see that the minister has his feet firmly on the ground on this particular issue. But the problem is that he's on both sides of the fence, and that gets a little bit painful, I would think. Certainly that was one of the best non-answers we have heard in the last few days of this estimates debate.
Is the ministry's policy in support of a move to degreed nurses?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In a way, I guess I am on both sides of the fence on it, because I think there is validity on both issues. We have a nursing shortage right now which we're trying to address, and the qualifications for nurses as they exist right now are capable of meeting those needs. The nurses we have in the system are well trained and are delivering an excellent standard of care, and they're doing a terrific job.
At the same time, we also recognize that there are changes taking place due to technology, due to new methods of treatment -- all those things. There is increased pressure to move to baccalaureate degrees for nurses. I think we are going in that direction. But I also think that until we get there, we want to do it not just by ministerial decree but by working with RNABC, employers and the nurses themselves to ensure that what we're asking for is in fact appropriate for everybody and that we're moving in concert in the right direction. At the same time, we've got a nursing shortage we've got to deal with, and we've got to get nurses into the system.
C. Hansen: This is the first year that we've actually put targeted dollars into nurse training in British Columbia. In the past it's always been part of the block funding that has gone into institutions. My question is
Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't mean to duck the question, but that is actually a question under the purview of the Minister of Advanced Education.
C. Hansen: As the minister knows, we're in the middle of Advanced Education estimates in the other House. While I haven't been able to sit in on it, I did have the opportunity to review the Blues in terms of what his colleague the Minister of Advanced Education has been saying. He makes reference to the Health Human Resources Advisory Committee, and he states: "
You know, if you read through the discussion that took place in those estimates, it makes it sound as if they just process the funding and that all of the direction is really coming from the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health.
[ Page 15815 ]
I wonder if the minister could explain to us, for the benefit of his colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, what the Minister of Health sees as the responsibility of the Ministry of Advanced Education.
[1140]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Our role in Health is to advise them as to what the labour market requires in the way of specific occupations, and then it's up to them to make the decisions that are required under their ministry.
C. Hansen: One of the concerns I have heard from health administrators is that newly graduated nurses have very good education when they come out. Sometimes it's referred to as good textbook education. But what is lacking is the clinical experience that was certainly there in years gone by, when we had nursing schools and when student nurses had an active part in the actual delivery of services in a hospital setting.
Now, I appreciate the fact that nursing is taking on some very different dimensions today. It's not just the acute care sector that we have to focus on. More and more nurses are working in the community, which is obviously an important part of a training program as well. But even in that area, they're not getting the field practice. They're not getting the experience on the front lines of the delivery of health care while they are in a student program.
I am told by hospital administrators that when they recruit new nurses, one of the first things they have to do is actually put nurses through a training program in order to orient them to a hospital setting and to upgrade their skill level so that they can become an integral part of the nursing team in a hospital. I also had a comment made that in some cases, because they didn't have that practical experience during their training program, nurses who go through these years of training wind up in a hospital setting only to find out that after all that training, they don't like nursing.
I wonder if the minister could explain to us why we have gone in this direction over the last number of years and whether or not some of these new initiatives will result in more clinical experience by student nurses so that when they come out with nursing diplomas or nursing degrees, they're in fact ready to take a front-line position in assisting in patient care.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There is clinical experience for graduates now. When they graduate, they do have clinical experience, though it would be fair to say that that is not enough. One of the things we're doing is looking at ways in which we can address that problem. One of the health authorities that I mentioned a moment ago, around South Fraser, is coming to meet with me to discuss the program they have in place that manages to address some of the issues -- in fact, those particular issues. So I'm looking forward to that; I do recognize that it's an area that we need to work on.
C. Hansen: If you look at the area of advanced education, co-op programs have certainly been very popular in the last ten or 15 years in a variety of professions. Yet nursing was probably one of the original co-op programs in British Columbia. In most other fields of endeavour, particularly in the high-tech area, we've got co-op programs popping up all over the place to the benefit of the student and to the benefit of the employer and prospective employers.
In health care we seem to have gone the other direction; what was a de facto co-op program before has been phased out. I know there is some talk about re-implementing co-op programs for nurses in British Columbia. This is an area that I think requires some very good cooperation between the post-secondary institutions, the various health employers and the health unions in British Columbia. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us what kind of progress is being made to institute co-op programs for nursing in British Columbia.
[1145]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's one of the areas that we're beginning to look at. I agree with the member. I think it is a very positive idea, and it is a way that we can move things forward and deal with some of the issues in terms of education, in terms of exposure -- those types of things. There's nothing going to happen right away, but we are starting to do the work that's required to move that forward.
C. Hansen: I guess my concern would be that so many of these issues, when they start involving different ministries with no one ministry obviously taking a lead role in it, don't move forward as fast, perhaps, as other issues do. I'm wondering if the minister can give us some assurance that this is in fact a priority and that the Ministry of Health will play a leadership role in ensuring that the opportunities for co-op programs move forward expeditiously.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm more than happy to work with my colleague the Advanced Education minister to try to move co-op programs up the agenda and move them along in a way that can bring results in a reasonable time.
C. Hansen: Before I leave, I'll briefly go back to the issue of diplomaed and degreed nurses in British Columbia. One of the real concerns on the part of diplomaed nurses working today is that they have years of experience in the system. There is a real concern, as we see more and more employers put out job placement notices that specify degreed nurses, that in fact the skills of diplomaed nurses are not going to be factored into that -- that they will in fact be shut out of career advancement opportunities, in spite of the fact they've had years of clinical experience that in some respects may be more valuable than the two extra years of classroom experience training that a degreed nurse may have. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us what the ministry's policy is on that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In a way, that comes back to your comment about why I seem to be straddling the fence on that. In part it is because we should be and will be recognizing -- we have to recognize -- the years of experience that nurses put into the workplace. I think it would be unacceptable, for example, to discriminate against diplomaed nurses who have years of experience and are already doing the jobs in the system, just because there are changes in the way that credentialing may or may not take place. Absolutely that has to be recognized and taken into account.
C. Hansen: I appreciate the minister's good intentions on that area, but what I see increasingly is that if you start looking at the job ads that are being published
[ Page 15816 ]
any leadership from the provincial government and the Ministry of Health in this area, we will see that trend continue. Local health authorities will continue to increase the number of incidents in which they are specifying degreed nurses. I'm wondering what kind of direction and leadership will come from the Minister of Health in this area.
The Chair: Minister, noting the time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Very briefly, the member raises a very good point. I think what needs to happen -- because as he himself said, it is a question of perception -- is some analytical analysis of the exact situation. I think that is something the ministry can certainly be involved in. But I'll also repeat that I think -- absolutely -- we have to recognize the fact that we have diplomaed nurses who are doing excellent work with years of experience, and there is no way that they should be discriminated against in terms of positions being advertised for degree nurses. I'm more than happy to look into that issue and, if there's work that needs to be done, to ensure that the work is done.
Having said that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[1150]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:17 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH
(continued)
On vote 11: ministry operations, $1,682,444,000 (continued).
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We're going to begin our discussion this morning, by agreement with the opposition, on B.C. Transit. Joining me this morning are Bob Irwin, the president and CEO of B.C. Transit; Ron Drolet, the vice-president, planning and marketing and corporate secretary; and Tony Sharp, the vice-president, finance and administration, and chief financial officer.
D. Symons: I'd like to do a little bit on the budget book that covers Advanced Education, Training and Technology, vote 13. On pages 56 and 57 there are some figures I'd just like to ask a few questions about. There is an operating contribution of $43.316 million and debt-servicing contributions of $93.2 million. Are each of these going to the Victoria and other municipal systems? Do any of these contributions go to the GVTA?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That amount goes beyond Victoria and municipal systems. It includes some assets within the purview of the GVTA that we continue to service the debt on: the original SkyTrain line as well as West Coast Express. We're servicing the debt on both those assets, and that would be the lion's share of the debt-servicing contribution that the member sees.
[1020]
D. Symons: I think that answers my next question, because as I looked at the figures and saw the rather large debt service charge -- almost double the operating contributions -- I was going to basically ask: is that really a healthy situation, where the debts seem to be eating up such a large portion of the costs of it? That's primarily, you say, the West Coast Express and the debt of the SkyTrain 1, we'll call it. I wonder if you could give me a breakdown of the numbers that go to debt servicing for West Coast Express and for the SkyTrain 1.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Over 90 percent of that figure would be attributable to debt servicing on the SkyTrain and West Coast Express assets. There is an increase over last year, largely because in previous years the asset and debt split was estimated. But because of the transition to the GVTA -- now TransLink -- last year, there had to be a proper calculation done. So this would be a very accurate figure. Over 90 percent of the debt-servicing cost figure is going to the Vancouver area assets.
D. Symons: I guess I wasn't clear enough in my question, because I wanted to know: of that 90 percent, what is the figure that's the debt servicing for West Coast Express and the figure that's the debt service for the SkyTrain? I wonder if I might have the debt, too, that's owed for those two particular ones -- if you can give me the total debt for the operating version of SkyTrain currently and the West Coast Express. What's the debt that's owed? And what is the debt service charge that you're paying your portion of from this figure here for each of those individual projects?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Unfortunately, we don't have those figures right here. The management of debt falls within the purview of the Ministry of Finance, so one option is for the member to raise it with the Minister of Finance in his estimates. Another option, certainly, is that we have those figures -- the breakdown -- available back at the B.C. Transit office. We'd be happy to forward them to the member.
[ Page 15817 ]
D. Symons: I would be pleased if you could provide those figures in the next short while. I'm wondering what is covered by the amortization of prepaid capital advances. What's meant by that term, and what is covered by it?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That represents the depreciation of the provincial share of all assets. That would include the 90 percent or so referred to earlier for the Vancouver area and then all other assets around the province held by the Victoria system and the municipal systems provincewide.
[1025]
D. Symons: On page 25 of the budget supplementary book we have the same figure as we have just been discussing, but below it is a section that's headed "Special Accounts." I'm curious if special accounts has something to do with public transit, because it comes under vote 13. It's got public transit, and then it looks like it's almost a subheading: "Special Accounts" -- transfer of ministry votes. I'm assuming that's not part of the transit; it must be something else that's all lumped together. Is that part of transit or not?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I did have staff here yesterday -- one staff member in particular, who is much more familiar with
D. Symons: I guess it's nice to know that other people are as confused as I am. So it isn't just myself, obviously, who is having problems looking at these figures. On page 68 of the supplement, under "Management of Public Funds and Debt," the interest on the public transit capital financing is $109.8 million. I note that $93.2 million of this is listed as recoveries from the consolidated revenue fund; that leaves about $17 million recovered external to the consolidated revenue fund. What's the source of that particular recovery? I'm suspecting it's municipalities, but I'd like confirmation on that.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Those represent fiscal agency loans -- meaning loans that we've made to municipalities for the municipal share of a capital asset, a transit asset. And then they repay government.
D. Symons: So these are more like the buses that have been purchased, and they're gradually paying it off.
In table H9 -- I'm almost finished taking these out of the various government budget documents -- in the "Provincial Net Debt Summary" of the budget book, under the "Capital financing purposes" heading, the public transit 2001 estimate is for a $972 million debt. Below that, we find Economic development Crown corporations and agencies: British Columbia Transit 2001, estimated $82 million debt. I wonder what the difference between public transit, which is listed on this particular page of debt summary, and B.C. Transit is? Why are the two particular things
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The larger number would represent approximately the debt that should be outstanding on SkyTrain -- the original line -- and West Coast Express, which doesn't fall within the purview of B.C. Transit but is debt held by the province.
[1030]
D. Symons: I would like those papers back to keep in my files too, but I wanted you to see what we were referring to, so we'd be clear on the question. This sort of answers the question I was asking earlier about the debt on SkyTrain and on the West Coast Express. This seems to be the table that responds to that, apparently. We've got that one clear.
This will be out of your purview, I suspect, but it's the same thing. I'm going to just ask
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think it would be most advisable, rather than us taking a stab at the answers on these, to have staff in here who have a better understanding of how the entire book works, as well as the Rapid Transit staff, who understand exactly the structure of financing and can explain that more fully to me to explain to the member.
D. Symons: You may want to say the same thing for the next one, and I'll pass one of these across also.
This is out of the quarterly statements that are put out from the Finance ministry. Under British Columbia Transit they have "Expenditures, Operations, Maintenance, Administration," and so forth. The first question I'd like to ask -- probably not today, but if you could pass it on to me as well
I was hoping, also, to get a sheet that listed data for each of the municipal systems, which I have got in the past from the ministry. That really gave us such information as the cost per service-hour, etc. That information wasn't in the briefing book that I received last week. The performance plan did have some figures that I did find helpful, and I'll get to those in a moment.
Page 7 of the performance plan
[ Page 15818 ]
[1035]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: First, the member referred to a breakdown he requested in the briefing. I'm informed that that isn't
Secondly, the increase in cost per revenue passenger would be attributable to the fact that this would represent an increase in service. Often they are longer routes. So if you've got longer routes carrying a similar number of passengers, you're going to end up with a situation where you could end up with a higher cost per passenger. Often that's the result of an expansion of service.
D. Symons: So you're expanding service and trying to attract more ridership. But what this seems to be translating into is that although you've got more passengers per service-hour, it's still going to cost you more to service those passengers. You're getting into a sort of divergence here, where your costs are going to continue to go up even though you're getting more passengers. I'm wondering if that's going to be a healthy situation if this continues. You know, this expansion of services is recent, and the passengers will come, so to speak. Like Kinsella says: "Build it, and they will come." If that happens, that'll be great. But if this continues -- and it seems to be continuing in your projections here, where your costs per person that you're servicing are going up faster than other things -- you're in trouble.
If we just go down to the custom transit from Victoria regional as well, looking at the same sort of thing
Hon. G. Bowbrick: What this represents is major growth in the custom transit services in particular -- in this case, custom traffic services, period. The growth happens in suburban areas, which tend to be lower density. It's a door-to-door service. When you're expanding into
It's important to note that this is a service which people with disabilities use; they can't use conventional transit. So it's an important service to expand. At the end of the day, while of course it's important to be as efficient as possible, transit is about service. What the corporation is trying to do is expand service, first and foremost.
There are other reasons why the cost per revenue passenger would increase. One of the key ones is inflation. Fuel costs have risen considerably. That would be reflected in these numbers -- and whether, I guess, fuel costs are projected to stay for a while perhaps.
D. Symons: I note that the same thing is true if we look at municipal systems as well, so I won't repeat the questions for that. One other thing I would like to look at there, though, is
[1040]
The reason I ask that question is that I think the taxi saver turns out to be more cost-effective and, in a sense, gives better service. Many people have to book the handyDART a day or two in advance. Within a certain timeframe the handyDART will arrive, whereas with a taxi service, you can often do it the same day and get within-the-hour service. That's just not true for the handyDART service. So I'm wondering if we could break those figures down so we could take a look at the relative costs.
I realize the handyDart service is available for people that have perambulatory problems and really need wheelchair access. Many of the taxis don't, but some of the taxi firms do offer that. I'm really saying that I think we have to look more at effective use of taxis to save the costs in the transit system, so that we can end up providing more service. With the taxis, if you were to give them a differential for providing handicapped wheelchair access as well, I rather think that you could end up cutting costs considerably and giving much more service for the same dollars.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The typical taxi saver trip is approximately $7 to $8. The system works by way of coupons, which give the rider 50 percent off the meter. I should add that handyDART trips cost about $14. The difference is that it is comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. The taxi saver program is managed very carefully by the corporation to ensure that they're being used for short trips, whereas handyDART is being reserved for longer trips. If the member wants more detail, we can certainly get it to him. They're essentially different services, so a straight comparison of costs wouldn't necessarily be that helpful, I don't think.
D. Symons: Thank you, and I would appreciate it if you could give me those figures. It's not only a straight comparison of costs. I think there has to be a comparison of service too. As I mentioned earlier, the handyDART is not as prompt in providing service as the taxis. That is a factor, also, that I think should be considered. The hours that one's available and the other isn't is also a factor. So there's more than just the costs involved. There's also the degree of service you can get through one that's not always as available as the other. I think we've covered that pretty well.
The next topic I'd like to look at involves the "Internal Audit Report -- B.C. Transit Risk Management and Insurance," that was done on April 14 -- or I received on April 14 of this year. I wonder if we might take a look at that and item 1 -- we have the person whose name is on this sitting right behind you there, so that will help -- on page 2 of that report under the "Executive Summary." It says: "
[ Page 15819 ]
[1045]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It's important to note that that was an audit that was done and pertained more to the Vancouver system at that time. But certainly management for the rest of B.C. Transit, as it is now, is now documenting a risk management strategy. There is a formal management response to this report, and we don't have it available here. But I can undertake to send it to the member.
D. Symons: It's part of the appendix, and it basically said that that particular issue would be dealt with by April of '99. That is why I was asking the question -- because this is a year after that point.
On page 6 of that document it says: "We did not compare B.C. Transit insurance coverage to that of other Crown corporations. Our specialists could not find true comparables among Crown corporations and noted that partially comparable Crowns have been reluctant in the past to release insurance information to the government." I'm just curious
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The insurance, of course, is done through ICBC. The difficulty, I'm informed, is that it isn't that useful to have the insurance permission from other Crowns, because they're running different businesses. This is the only Crown that runs a transit service. It has unique insurance needs that are being met by ICBC, and a comparison to another Crown wouldn't necessarily be that useful.
D. Symons: It is interesting that the internal audit made those comments; they were not suggestions of mine. Obviously the auditor missed the point that you've made in that case, if that's the case, and it's here.
[1050]
On page 15 of the same book -- we were just speaking about ICBC -- section 6.1 refers to ICBC claims. It talks here primarily about the problem of Transit and ICBC both doing parallel work when it comes to, I suppose, accident claims and not working together and sharing information. It says:
I wonder if you might comment on those particular statements in this internal audit. Then I would have some comments too."To eliminate this overlap and reduce problems in information exchange, we believe that one organization should have responsibility for investigating and settling all ICBC-related claims. Currently, B.C. Transit must monitor ICBC claims closely to ensure that the unique aspect of B.C. Transit's operations are considered. In addition, B.C. Transit is the only organization in its 'rate class,' consequently any ICBC payments relating to B.C. Transit ultimately end up increasing B.C. Transit's ICBC premiums. Since B.C. Transit indirectly pays for any settlement relating to ICBC claims, we believe it is logical for B.C. Transit to be directly responsible for investigation and settlement of these claims."
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There is a revised adjudication process in place now. It's not to say there aren't disagreements between Transit and ICBC at times. The way it basically works, to put it very simply -- the way I can understand it -- is that in minor claims, Transit takes the lead in investigating those claims. Presumably a minor property damage would be an example of that.
In more significant claims, ICBC would be involved, particularly where there would be a serious personal injury. The rationale is that it makes some sense to rely upon the degree of specialization that has been developed. With a more serious claim, ICBC has a specialization developed to adjudicate that claim; in smaller claims, Transit can take the lead.
D. Symons: As I read this, it gives me some cause for concern, really. It seems that B.C. Transit would like to do its own investigations. It sort of gives me the feeling that there's a bit of a conflict of interest if Transit is investigating the accidents that might involve Transit. They're investigating themselves, in a sense, and they may get a biased result in relationship to the claimant, who is probably the general public. So you indicated a little bit that in serious claims that's not going to happen, because ICBC is still doing it. But in lesser claims, it looks like -- from your response -- the investigation is done by B.C. Transit.
Usually, when there's an accident involved, there's somebody who investigates both sides of the issue -- from the claimant's viewpoint and from the insurance carrier's viewpoint. This here would seem to indicate there's a conflict, I would think -- that B.C. Transit is doing its own investigation in accidents that involve B.C. Transit.
[1055]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: B.C. Transit does an investigation, in any event, for their own purposes. So it's not just for insurance purposes or for the purposes of dealing with a client. They want to deal with situations to deal with the employees to see if it was a preventable accident or not, and this type of thing. But for very small claims -- i.e., those that are below deductibles -- as I say, they're doing their own investigation anyway. They must submit reports to ICBC. ICBC is free at any time to step in if it wants to follow up -- if they have any concerns about what's going on. So this isn't exclusionary in any way. ICBC can step in, even though Transit may be taking lead responsibility for minor claims.
D. Symons: Just one further question or comment on that. It seemed to be written between the lines in the statement I read -- from the audit there too -- that ICBC was not that cooperative with B.C. Transit as one of its customers, its policyholders. So in one sense, you seem to be indicating that ICBC wasn't supplying information back. I would hope that both organizations would be fairly open with each other, and I got the impression from reading that that ICBC wasn't. So have you pushed ICBC on this issue and had results in getting more cooperation in passing information on to you?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I should emphasize first of all that B.C. Transit considers itself to have a very good relationship with ICBC; it works very cooperatively with ICBC around traffic safety and CounterAttack, as a couple of examples. And the comments made in that report -- of course, that report is at least a couple of years old -- were related more, I'm informed, to claims processes in Vancouver. In fact, the concern that was raised there was more about a difference in the
[ Page 15820 ]
format of information. It was about a communication problem; it wasn't a lack of intent to try to communicate. I'm informed that that particular sort of technical problem, if we can call it that, has now been resolved.
B. Penner: I would like to thank my colleague from Richmond Centre for allowing me at this time to ask a question relating to Chilliwack. I just wonder if the minister can tell me if there are any additional plans -- or a change in plans -- for transit service in the Chilliwack area.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: All there are for this year are very minor adjustments. B.C. Transit worked closely with the district of Chilliwack on their local strategic transportation plan. So in the short term, it's only minor service adjustments, but B.C. Transit is providing information to the district for service expansion in the medium to long term to coincide with whatever projected growth there would be in the area.
[1100]
B. Penner: As the minister knows, Chilliwack is outside of the area covered by TransLink and the GVTA. Given that there's talk about a $75-per-vehicle surcharge, many people in my community would say: "Thank goodness we're not part of the GVTA and TransLink."
In years past, there has been some talk about reviving a service called the Inter-Urban Railway. It last carried paying passengers in the 1950s, but there continues to be a privately owned railway operating along a stretch of track from Chilliwack to New Westminster, I believe. It's called Southern Rail of British Columbia. It was formerly an offshoot of B.C. Hydro and, before that, B.C. Electric. I just wonder if the minister is aware of any discussions or any ongoing talk about efforts to revive some form of passenger rail service along what was known as the Inter-Urban Railway line.
The Chair: I would remind the member and the minister that future policy and speculation and such are out of order in Committee of Supply debate. Standing order 61 requires strict adherence to areas that are under the administrative authority of the minister at this time. I just offer my advice.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'll certainly take the Chair's guidance on that. There are no formal discussions that have gone on, in any event.
B. Penner: I'm tempted to say that the advice is worth what we pay for it, but I guess we are paying for you somehow.
The Chair: You don't know how much you're paying -- if the comments continue.
B. Penner: Well, I just appreciate the opportunity to flag that issue with the minister. It has been a topic of considerable interest amongst constituents in the Fraser Valley who are frustrated at the ever-increasing traffic congestion along Highway 1. Many people hope that someday there'll be an alternative to using the Trans-Canada Highway or the freeway to get into Vancouver. I know that the West Coast Express is convenient for people who live on the north shore of the Fraser River, but it isn't used by very many people that live in Chilliwack and east of Chilliwack to help them get to Vancouver.
With that I'll yield the floor again to my colleague from Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I'd like to look at the auditor general's report of 1999 that was a follow-up on "B.C. Transit: Managing Operator Productivity" and "B.C. Transit: Its Success as a Market-Focused Organization." I'll just deal with operator productivity. On page 48 of that report, you find the original audit said they recommended: "Transit should implement a transit centre operations system that supports decision-making, eliminates duplication of records and reports on the efficiency of operations."
It goes on. The response from the corporation for the Victoria region at the time said: "
I'm wondering if you might be able to give me an update on that. This was the auditor general's follow-up of a year ago. What is the status right now on the Victoria system for tracking the spareboard and operations?
[1105]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That work was complete and the system was up and running in January of this year.
I should add for the member's information that we were, at the beginning this discussion, talking about some more detailed financial issues. I have staff here now who can answer those questions, if the member would like to return to them. Maybe when we're finished with B.C. Transit, we can go into some of those financials. Whatever the member likes; staff are here now.
D. Symons: I would be content to have them just give me the figures rather than go through the oral questioning side of it.
Further on that issue we were just speaking about, the auditor general's report also recommended that Transit should explore whether or not there are opportunities for further efficiencies in the way which daily work is assigned. We skip over to the Victoria region's response to that particular recommendation: "A primary restriction to significant improvement in this area is restrictions posed by the collective agreement
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The collective agreement comes up for renewal on March 31, 2001, so any discussion that may happen around the collective agreement will happen in that round of negotiations. I am informed, though, that at the depot level there is a good relationship. Union and management are working well together, for example, to get better information and have greater efficiency when it comes to assigning daily work -- i.e., work that comes available when someone calls in sick, for example.
[ Page 15821 ]
D. Symons: I just draw to the minister's attention that the actual auditor general's report came out in '97 and that that recommendation was made in '97. The figures I read were the responses made to it. So you have had an agreement come up between then and the time that the member has mentioned. It would seem, then, that you haven't made progress on that particular recommendation and are waiting till the next particular time for negotiations comes up.
One thing that the previous minister mentioned near the beginning of the year was working with the capital regional district in seeing whether there could be discussions on getting a regional transportation authority going. Are these discussions still going on, and at what stage is the possibility of a regional transportation authority for the greater Victoria region?
[1110]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There has been one meeting with CRD staff. Provincial staff and representatives from B.C. Transit have met to put together a policy paper, which they expect to go to cabinet maybe in early fall. It would form the basis of further discussions on this issue.
D. Symons: So we might say that things are moving slowly on that particular issue, but in that direction. Are there other discussions with other regions, looking at the possibility of setting up regional transportation authorities with other regions besides Victoria? Is the government in favour, or promoting the idea, of regional transportation authorities?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: This tends to be generated more from within regions. First of all, the answer is: no, we're not involved in any discussions or consideration around other regions right now. One of the key elements of going forward with GVTA is that the GVTA had a growth strategy in place -- the Liveable Region strategy. That was an important foundation for that agreement. We would like to see those types of growth strategies in place in other regions, if they're to come forward and want this kind of an arrangement. Certainly we're open to the possibility.
D. Symons: In February of this year, one of the ministers at that time made a comment that all seniors would be given bus passes. He said that some restrictions that had applied before -- that you had to be either on welfare or receiving old age security pension -- were no longer the requirement. It seems, in the way he made the announcement, that all seniors would be covered.
I'm wondering whether that has now been done. Are all seniors now eligible? Have they been notified of their eligibility? As this was government-initiated, is the government going to carry the full cost of the program, or will part of the cost be put onto municipalities?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: No, this hasn't been done. It is under consideration. I think the minister who made that announcement is no longer a minister.
A Voice: He's asking questions in estimates next door.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I hear that. Maybe he'll come and join us.
So it hasn't been done, but it is under active consideration, and we'll see whether we're able to proceed with it or not. It would likely involve the cost being absorbed by government generally at some point, if we were to proceed with it.
D. Symons: There are a lot of small items that I'd just like to cover quickly here, if we can. The B.C. Career Colleges Association has been feeling that the flex-pass student discount program is unfair, as it's only available to students attending publicly funded post-secondary institutions. I know they've been lobbying in Vancouver quite heavily over the years to have Transit consider expanding the FastTrax program to include full-time students at bona fide post-secondary education facilities, regardless of whether they're government-funded or not. Has there been some movement on that?
[1115]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Because this has an impact on the revenue that the local partners receive -- in the case of Victoria, it's the regional transit commission; in the case of other municipalities or other parts of the province, it's the municipalities themselves -- they are key to this. In Victoria the commission has approved this program with any institution -- public or private -- as long as it meets certain criteria. For example, they want the length of the program to be three months or more; they don't want it to apply to a one-week program. Also, there has to be agreement with the commission that the institution will administer the program itself.
Other than that, it's a bit hit-and-miss with other municipalities. They have to consider the impact it will have on their revenue coming in from the transit system. But it is open to them to have similar agreements.
D. Symons: It does seem fair, if it's available to one portion of the student population, to include the others as long as they meet the conditions that the minister mentioned. So that's good. But it's up to the municipalities, as you say.
Another idea that's been coming up to give transit service is the dial-a-ride concept that would possibly deal more with outlying areas, where regular bus service becomes very expensive to provide for the few riders that may use it. I wonder whether B.C. Transit has been looking at that as an option in some of the areas around the province, as a way of providing transit service without providing regular bus service where it's uneconomic to do it.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There are many municipal systems that have had this service in place for a number of years now. The challenge is to make sure that it's serving a viable market. At that point of getting to a dial-a-ride system -- getting into fairly remote areas, quite often -- it can be very borderline in terms of the economic scale. But in the Victoria area there are dial-a-ride proposals that are being worked on right now for Sooke and North Saanich. Those will be going to the commission in Victoria in June. Then they'll go to the B.C. Transit board. If they're approved, they could be implemented by January 1.
D. Symons: I'm getting very near the end here as far as Transit goes, so if you want to notify the
On that same idea, the Lanyon report that came out on the taxi industry a year ago made a number of suggestions on
[ Page 15822 ]
using taxis to augment or complement bus service. I wonder what Transit's position on those recommendations might be. They involved shared rides and using shared-ride feeder services being integrated with public transit and late-night, early-morning taxis as a bus service. Is B.C. Transit considering any of those suggestions that were included in the Lanyon report?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The short answer is: yes, these are being considered. The Lanyon report, I am informed, also encouraged proposals from the taxi companies themselves. It has to be dealt with carefully. I'm told that in Victoria, for example, there is only one cab company that's accessible to people with certain disabilities. In consultations with potential users, including members of the disabled community, there are concerns about quality that have to be addressed. So it is a matter of approaching it cautiously to make sure that there is a high level of quality.
But the answer is: yes, those proposals in the Lanyon report are under active consideration, and there may be moves in that direction.
[1120]
D. Symons: Just for the minister's information, I think the Lanyon report wasn't suggesting that these particular ideas might be considered just for the disabled or in relationship to handyDART service. They were for general bus service as well.
I do want to move now into that concept of custom transit. I'm wondering if the minister can give me the average cost per hour of service for the operations of the handyDART system. Do you have -- for the municipal systems, for instance -- an average cost for operating the handyDART service?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The operating cost per hour last year was $46.54, and projected for this year it is $46.71 in municipal systems.
D. Symons: I gather that the total cost for the taxi saver program for the last fiscal year is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $115,000 -- and that's net. The usages -- I think I've got the figures right here -- were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 37,000 people. Do you have the cost per trip used by the taxi saver program? I think you gave that to me earlier. I wonder if I can just get an idea of what that would be.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In Victoria it's just over $7 per trip.
D. Symons: What I was noticing, looking at the figures in relationship to the handyDART and the custom transit service, is that it seems that the custom service was carrying somewhere around 15 percent of the rides but was only costing 4 percent of the costs. That again goes back to the issue I was mentioning earlier -- that maybe there could be more effective use of taxi and that sort of service. Using a taxi saver or using taxis in lieu of handyDART seems to create considerable cost savings. If you can do 15 percent of the usage for 4 percent of the cost, that seems to be an incentive to move in that direction.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: As I indicated earlier, it's not an easy comparison to make. B.C. Transit is deliberately approaching the taxi saver program as an opportunity to assist with short trips. They're reserving custom transit -- handyDART -- for longer trips. I guess it stands to reason that the taxi saver program, because it's making inherently shorter trips, will be able to provide more rides to more people and at a lesser cost. In fact, the average cost per ride I indicated was about $7 for taxi saver and, I think, about $14 for handyDART. The handyDART is making longer trips.
[1125]
D. Symons: I have some information from the Kelowna system. It seems that the average taxi trip up there on the taxi saver program is $6.50, where the customer pays half and Transit subsidizes the other half, so it's basically a $3.50 cost to Transit on that. The handyDART only operates from 9 to 5, and taxis operate 24 hours a day, so again, there seems to be some sort of advantage in looking at that. If we take a look at the cost of operating the handyDART system in the Kelowna area, it's somewhere close to $50 per service hour. So in every respect, for a community like that, it would look like expanding the taxi saver program, or possibly paying a higher subsidy for the taxi firm to supply a disabled cab so that they can take wheelchair people, would be a better way to go, financially.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: First of all, I think the member was referring to figures like the cost per ride of a taxi service versus the cost per hour of handyDART, which I don't think is really a fair comparison. But I think a couple points need to be made.
HandyDART serves all comers. It has to serve a wide range of people, including those who have the most difficulty getting around. It can be very time-consuming. Operators may be dealing with caregivers for the people who require assistance. They're dealing with people who in many cases have very serious challenges. That isn't the clientele of the taxi saver program.
The taxi saver program tends to serve more mobile people. It's a little bit like the debate we sometimes hear about an exclusive private school versus a public school when we look at outcomes. Well, the exclusive private school doesn't have to take all comers; it doesn't take the same diverse group and deal with all of the needs that are out there.
That's a bit of what's happening here. The taxi saver program isn't as highly specialized; they're able to serve a certain clientele, and B.C. Transit supports that. But handyDART has higher costs, because it serves a clientele that often has much greater needs.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I also thank the minister and his staff from B.C. Transit for being here. That concludes the questions I have for B.C. Transit itself. We move now into the major project in Vancouver, the Rapid Transit Project 2000.
[1130]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'd like to now introduce the staff who are with me. To my left is Lecia Stewart, the president and project director for Rapid Transit Project 2000. To my right is Teresa Watts, the director of system design. Behind me is Colin Smith, the chief financial officer.
D. Symons: Just as an introduction, I'd like to spend a few minutes looking at the choice of the Rapid Transit ALRT
[ Page 15823 ]
over the light rail. If we look at some costs
I'm looking at the results of SkyTrain 1. It was built in 1987. It left a huge debt. It left a drain on resources. Going back two Premiers ago, I guess, when that member was responsible for B.C. Transit he used to continually tell me that part of the reason they didn't do things with transit, particularly in Vancouver, was the fact that the SkyTrain had eaten up all the money, and there just wasn't money there for buses and all the rest.
Considering all that sort of history of things, I wonder if indeed there had been enough consultation on this process of going out for it. I noted that you had a business advisory group set up prior, somewhere in the mid-1980s, to work with the Rapid Transit Project office, to give advice and so forth. It seems that on June 3 of 1998 the people who were on that advisory committee got a mailing -- I suspect it was couriered out to them -- saying that due to the announcement made in Montreal by the minister responsible, they're now doing the ALRT automated light rail transit -- SkyTrain, in other words. They were sent this information as background information.
These people were on a business advisory committee with the Rapid Transit Project office. They did not know until the moment the announcement was made by the minister responsible that now it was going to be SkyTrain. I find it absolutely astounding that you've got advisory committees out there working who are totally in the dark as to what's really going on behind the scenes. So again, the choice of going for the SkyTrain rather than the light rail seems to be made on the whim of one particular person rather than on good studies made. Certainly the people who were part of the advisory committee were left out of it entirely.
[1135]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I believe this matter about choice of technology was probably fully canvassed in last year's estimates. I would just like to note for the member that we now have $760 million in committed contracts on this line. A discussion about technology is completely academic and moot at this point.
However, just a couple of very brief points. The city of Vancouver recently did their VCC west study. So it wasn't us; it was the city of Vancouver, with their own consultants. They looked at the cost. They had to make a choice around technology west of VCC or Commercial. Their estimate of the cost of LRT at grade was $59.9 million per kilometre. The actual cost in Los Angeles was $51 million per kilometre. For the Millennium Line, the first part of the line we're building, our estimate is $53 million per kilometre for SkyTrain, so it's fairly competitive. But the city of Vancouver came up with numbers, as well, which are supportive of our position.
If the member wants to really get into it, I guess we can for a bit. But I'm just saying that in terms of reality, we've got three-quarters of a billion dollars committed contracts out there. We're not going to change the technology now.
D. Symons: Yes, and we have $500 million that went into a fast ferry program that people didn't want to talk about either. So I think it's important to look at the history before I move into the current things, if we can. We saw what happened on 1. This
The Chair: It would be wonderful, hon. member
D. Symons:
The Chair: Member, please, for a moment. We are bound by rules of relevancy, and it's items that are under the direct administration of the minister whose estimates are being examined. Past decisions are really difficult to bring forward under the relevancy rule this morning, so I just ask the member to be a little cautious. I know he's generally very cooperative in committee, and I would just ask the member to be cautious on standing order 61 on relevancy under the direct administrative control of the minister. Thank you.
D. Symons: I wouldn't dare to challenge the Chair, but I believe there is relevancy in my questions relating to consultation, because the Rapid Transit project office talks about consultation and has consultants going on at all times with the communities. I think it's a case of what happens with the results of those consultations that's going to be part of the problem.
Mr. Wendell Cox, who is a noted international transit consultant, did say back in 1992, which is before this whole process began: "In the view of substantial financial burden that SkyTrain places on local taxpayers, it would be preferable for future rapid transit decisions to be made by consensus, including both provincial and regional elected officials."
The change to the technology was not done by consensus, that's for sure. People in the Vancouver area did not know that they were suddenly having SkyTrain. That was a foisted-on thing.
Also, in mention to the continuation of the line further west on Broadway from Vancouver Community College, I believe Vancouver was basically told: "If you go for any other technology than SkyTrain going in that direction, we will not participate in it financially. In other words, you must continue SkyTrain on the westward extension. You cannot decide that you may want to put light rail in, or RapidBus or something of that sort." So in one sense, when you say the decision was made by Vancouver city council to go ahead that way, they didn't have much option, to be honest, with the parameters put on them by the Rapid Transit Project office.
[1140]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Well, certainly it would enter into the thinking of anybody and any decision-maker that if there's another level of government offering to pay two-thirds of the cost of a certain technology, then that's going to have to be taken into account. It doesn't change the fact that Vancouver came up with their own figures about the cost per kilometre, quite independent of us. Their costs were fairly similar. They would have said: "Okay, well, we can go to LRT and pay the
[ Page 15824 ]
full cost, or we can go SkyTrain and pay a third of the cost, roughly." So they made that decision. It doesn't change the fact that they came up with a cost per kilometre for LRT which was substantially higher than you've indicated.
Because I understand, and I think accountability is important. All I'm saying is that we can have a discussion about the decision to use this technology. But it's a fact.
First of all, to compare this to fast ferries is just wrong -- I think the member knows that -- for a number of reasons. With SkyTrain we're dealing with a proven technology; this isn't experimental. Admittedly, I think, fast ferries were experimental technology -- okay? But this is not. We have experience building the original line in this province. In fact, many of the senior staff on the project right now were involved in the eighties in the construction of SkyTrain. So it's a proven entity. The technology is proven; it's popular with the public. We know that it works, and we have a great deal of experience in building SkyTrain. I think the first line was essentially in about three phases out to Surrey.
Secondly, we have learned from the fast ferry experience. There's no question that we're much more sensitive now about how we approach a major capital project. We have fixed-price contracts on this project. On the fast ferries they were open-ended; they were cost-plus contracts. Cost-plus contracts are going to get you into some trouble. We don't have cost-plus contracts here. So those are just a couple of the major examples of difference.
I also would like to point out -- I don't have the exact wording in front of me -- that the Deloitte report about major government capital projects that came out a number of weeks ago was certainly critical of the process that led to the decision to go with SkyTrain. Fair enough -- that's criticism; there's legitimacy to that criticism. But the fact now is that the decision was made. We've got all of these contracts committed.
What we have to do now, and I think that what the opposition would be very interested in now, is making sure that we're vigilant and that we make sure that this project is completed within the budget that's allocated. That's the most important thing that the people care about.
D. Symons: I would certainly agree with the minister in the sense that the decision has been made, and we're going ahead with it. If I was in the government's shoes at the time, I don't know that I might not favour the concept of a SkyTrain as well. I think the issues I've been raising are more on the process and the way it was done, rather than the actual technology that we're now dealing with.
But to move on a little bit, to do with the success of the project, I wonder if we could take a look at the daily ridership on the current working SkyTrain -- I will refer to SkyTrain 1, to differentiate the two. At the peak inbound hour, what is the passenger count at the load point that's between, say, Broadway and Main Street stations, if you could give us the figures for ridership then?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The current daily average is 140,000; the peak point is 8,000. I think it's important to note -- and anybody who rides SkyTrain during rush hour knows this -- that it is absolutely full. There is a need for more capacity; I don't think there's any question about that.
[1145]
D. Symons: Having ridden it through there, I agree with the minister. I think one of the problems, though, when that particular line was first put into operation is that they expected a lot of people to get out of their cars and get on SkyTrain. They found a lot of people got out of the bus and got on SkyTrain. There wasn't a large increase in transit usage because SkyTrain went in.
I wonder if we could take a look at the projected ridership numbers for the Broadway portion of the new line. What are you projecting for, let's say, just east of the Vancouver Community College one -- somewhere between, say, Renfrew and Commercial Drive? What would your ridership projection be for that portion of the line? I'm trying to pick the ones where the ridership's highest, you'll notice.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: First of all, I think the member referred to the fact
Secondly, the estimates for New Westminster to VCC would be in the 30 million range annually.
The Chair: Member, minding the time.
D. Symons: That, I assume, was the first year. I'm wondering if you might give me a first year and a fifth year projection on it.
If I can just move on, minding the time, I wonder if you might be able to give me the original construction engineering schedules that you had for the SkyTrain project and the most updated schedule, because apparently you're four months behind in some phases of it, I gather, due to a late start in the program. So if we can have that information, maybe you'd want to supply that to me rather than giving me answers later on.
The last two or three things we can lump together. I gather that the tunnel and three stations were to have been completed, on the original one, by January 1 of this year. That's why I'm asking that question -- if we can know what it was originally and what it is now. How far behind schedule is Bombardier on their construction schedule, if we could do that by component -- by the tunnel part, by the guideway and by the station? Could the minister confirm that the interfaces with the Rapid Transit Project office design manuals and Bombardier's design manuals are not in synch with each other?
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The minister has asked about five or six questions there. It's pretty hard to keep up when he just reads them out like that. If the member can do them one at a time, then we can respond one at a time. Or if they're in writing and he'd like to submit them, then I would certainly undertake to respond. I mean, he's asked for construction schedules. We can get those to him; that's not a problem.
So perhaps we'll break now. When we come back, maybe we can then return to this, and we can go one question at a time, back and forth -- however you want to do it. But it just makes it a little easier to handle.
So noting the time, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada