Fifth Session, 41st Parliament (2020)
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(HANSARD)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,
SECTION C
Virtual Meeting
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Afternoon Meeting
Issue No. 2
ISSN 2563-352X
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Committee of Supply | |
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2020
The committee met at 1:38 p.m.
[R. Kahlon in the chair.]
Committee of Supply
Proceedings in Section C
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION
(continued)
On Vote 41: ministry operations, $3,682,820,000 (continued).
The Chair: I want to begin by recognizing that we’re participating today from the homeland of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, today known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. We extend our appreciation to them for the opportunity to undertake the work before us on this land.
We are meeting today to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.
Minister, any opening comments?
Hon. S. Simpson: No, I think we started well. I’ll just go to the critic.
The Chair: Great. I’d like to recognize the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.
J. Isaacs: Thank you, Chair, for the remarks. Welcome as the new Chair for this afternoon.
We’re just going to carry on with Community Living B.C. The service plan states that Community Living B.C. will sustain existing supports. In other words, no change to the delivery of services or supports. Can the minister confirm that the key targets will be met?
The service plan also indicates that CLBC would provide new services within ’17-18. What new services became available in ’17-18? Are they still active? Is CLBC planning to introduce any other new services?
Hon. S. Simpson: There has been essentially no change in services over the last number of years. The services have continued. There has been a little bit of focus around some Indigenous services and supporting and conversations there.
What I would tell the member, though, as we move forward…. The member may be aware that we went through a process called reimagining community inclusion, which was an engagement process that brought all the sectors together that were part of the CLBC universe.
The conversation was about where do we want community inclusion to be ten years from now, really thinking very much about a change that we’ve seen in a lot of younger people who have developmental challenges. They’re looking for the same life that you and I want and that we want for our children. They want a job. They want to live independently. They want to have relationships, including intimate relationships. They want to have friends. They want to go to Starbucks, when we can go to Starbucks again. They want that independent life.
We very much are responding to that. The sector, as a whole, including service providers, advocates, self-advocates, Community Living B.C. and others are working. The RCI — the pathway is there. We now have an active committee that involves all those partners saying: “What does that look like moving forward?”
Services have stayed consistent, but I do think that we could see change, moving forward. But it will be change that there’s a consensus on that takes us closer to that greater independence for people who are living with developmental disabilities, to allow and ensure that they have the greatest possible independence and life choices that we all want for ourselves and our loved ones.
J. Isaacs: The increase in the number of caseloads is currently projected at about 5.3 percent, which is a drop from the projections over the previous five years.
Those year-by-year rates projected the number of cases to grow as high as 6.7 percent. Anyway, it is at 5.3 percent, according to the service plan. Cases are getting more complicated and more challenging. We talked a little bit about that this morning. We’re seeing many more mental health issues and severe behaviour problems, including physical and sexual abuse.
Dealing with such complex and intensive cases will require more time per case, more time needed to do the appropriate assessments, proper time for check-ins, reviews and evaluation, as well as administrative time to ensure proper recordkeeping.
The numbers for projected growth, for fewer cases and, at the same time, recognizing that there is going to be considerably more time and resources needed per case…. My question is: when the service plan projects the number of cases, do the number of cases appropriately reflect the staffing levels that will be needed per case in order to meet the intensity of the caseload, especially as we start to shift to a more person-centred care model?
Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you for the question there. I think what we find here among the 23,000 people is that it isn’t so much that there’s been a shift in terms of the complexity, but people’s circumstances have changed some.
I talked about the reeimagining community inclusion process and the increasing desire, particularly among younger people coming into the system, for greater independence. It’s a desire that we’re working and the service providers are working to accommodate to the greatest degree possible. Of course, the challenge that comes with that is that they then, as they have more independence, face many more sometimes real-world challenges that some folks might have been insulated from before. So you need to provide the services and supports that support people through that as well. There’s definitely work done there.
One of the things, the guide to support allocation, which really tells us about the levels of service supports and that…. I think the thing we’re finding is the need to be more focused on supporting that greater independence, which is a goal and an objective that the sector, including the advocates and the service providers and the self-advocates, has endorsed. We want that opportunity of greater independence. How do we support that? That does mean supporting some different services.
The other is…. This is ongoing work between CLBC and B.C. Housing around looking at housing initiatives and housing supports and, of course, health. As the member spoke to, there are folks who…. In addition to the issues around their developmental disability, many will have other health issues that they’re dealing with. It’s an ongoing body of work between CLBC and the Ministry of Health to make sure that those needs are being met.
J. Isaacs: How many individuals and families are currently receiving services through a person-centred model? Is there sufficient funding within the budget to successfully shift other clients to a person-centred care model, which is the model of service that the CLBC has undertaken as a level of care provided to clients, while at the same time dealing with those more intensive and complex cases, including mental health challenges?
Hon. S. Simpson: The individualized service and how we do that. It’s a very good point, I think, that the member makes.
I often reflect that when I first took this job as minister, CLBC was one of the most complex areas for me to fully grasp. I had done it as a critic and dealt with it as a critic, but it took me some time to figure it out. What became clear to me is…. At the point when I became very clear about how…. Well, we have a large group — 23,000-plus people with developmental disabilities — who get support.
This is more about the individual than probably any other area within my ministry. It always is about: how do you meet the needs of the individual? How do you do that? That really, I think, reflects the complexity of the challenge in front of CLBC as an entity. It needs to provide those broad, sweeping levels of services but really needs to have the capacity to target individuals.
A piece of that work that gets done here, for the member…. There are about 330 microboards that are funded through the ministry. Those are arrangements that are made, and supports are provided to those microboards as they move forward. There are about 2,500 individual financial agreements, as well, with individuals who are making their own choices around that.
I would go back and say…. We were talking about some of that funding earlier, the recruitment and retention dollars. A portion of those dollars went to those microboards to ensure that they have greater latitude and the ability to contract the supports that they need to be able to meet the needs of their loved ones.
J. Isaacs: On that note, with the microboards…. Can the minister maybe explain what the difference is between the various home-share programs and microboards? How many individuals…? You said 300, 3,000. What was the number? I’m sorry. I missed it, the number of microboards. You can repeat it. Are the microboard societies required to report to the ministry or CLBC in any way?
We’ll leave it at that for now.
Hon. S. Simpson: There are 330 microboards. They’re all like small societies. They have contractual relationships with CLBC. They’re required to produce an annual report. There is some financial reporting for those that have more significant dollars. They have an ongoing relationship with an analyst for CLBC who is their liaison and their connection to CLBC. That’s ongoing.
I would note that we try hard to not overburden the microboards with a lot of bureaucratic demand over what we need for proper due diligence, because these are often their families. They’re not entities. They don’t have a lot of that capacity. We try to keep that to a minimum while still ensuring that the contracts are being adhered to. Mostly, it’s in the form of an annual report, an ongoing liaison with an analyst and some additional financial reporting if the numbers are particularly significant in terms of the amounts of dollars coming in.
I’m not sure…. I thought I heard the member, maybe, was going to some questions on home share, which, of course, is quite different from the microboards. I’ll leave that to the member to see where she wants to take this conversation.
J. Isaacs: We’ll just stick on microboards for a moment, and we’ll go back to home sharing a little bit later.
For microboards, Vela Canada is one of the microboard contractors. Are there any other contractors? If so, how many other microboard contractors are in place? Does Vela Canada subcontract any of their services or their resources with CLBC? When microboards are being assessed, who actually does the client assessment? Is it Vela or an agency or CLBC?
Hon. S. Simpson: Vela has a relationship with CLBC. They contract directly with CLBC, and then they deliver services to the microboards. They don’t have a contractual relationship with the microboards. That relationship is with CLBC.
The intent, here, is part of that recognition that the microboards are small, mini non-profits, essentially. So they’re there to hopefully be able to support with some of that training, recordkeeping and those kinds of supports. I know that we’ve heard that they’ve been very helpful during COVID with the additional pressures of COVID.
But as to the relationship there, the same as…. Vela is working with the Family Support Institute and others, looking at ways that we can provide assistance to the microboards in recruiting support workers and how they go through the recruitment process, which can sometimes be challenging for a small organization.
But the contractual relationship is Vela to CLBC, and then they are contracted to go and assist those 330 organizations that have contractual relationships with CLBC as microboards.
J. Isaacs: Thanks for that clarification. What are the services, then, that are available in Vela’s catalogue of services? Is it exactly the same as what CLBC offers, or are there other services on top of that? What is the cost comparison between home-share programs and microboards? Does CLBC, as a policy, offer microboards to clients? Are clients aware that they have a microboard option?
Hon. S. Simpson: The services that would be provided are really the services that any non-profit might require, only this is obviously on quite a small scale. What they do is they train people in how to do that.
Examples of that could be: what are their obligations under the Societies Act? What are their legal and other obligations, and how do they fulfil their responsibilities under the Societies Act? What are the basic HR requirements when they contract or hire people to come in to support their family member? What are those HR functions and requirements they have to meet around employment, to meet their needs there?
What are the administrative requirements around contracts? The contract they have with CLBC — what are the administrative obligations of that that they need to fill, and how do they go about fulfilling those? How do they deal with budget development — the development of their own budget for the services they deliver — and their ability to report that more appropriately? That’s the work they do with microboards.
As the member might know, of course, the distinction — which is quite clear between home share and microboards, and home share is quite distinct — is that with the microboard, it is family-centred. It’s the family that has made the choice that they are going to create this small non-profit and handle those services directly themselves to support their loved one, whereas home share is individuals who have opened up their home, with a contractual relationship either through CLBC or through a service provider directed to CLBC, to bring somebody into their home and deliver a suite of services to them.
In terms of the work that Vela does, that work largely is focused around the microboard.
J. Isaacs: Just a follow-up question to that then. Does CLBC offer microboard options to clients that come in? Is this a standard? Is this a policy — that they offer this option, this choice, to families as they come in and start to seek out help through CLBC?
Hon. S. Simpson: Yes. When somebody comes in and they’re in the process of establishing services, staff at CLBC will make people aware of a number of the options for potential service, including microboards, individual funding agreements. They’ll look at, “Here are the different ways that resources can be got” — whether it’s financial resources that you administer yourself through the microboard process or whether it’s accessing service providers who deliver those supports.
Absolutely, the microboard is one of the range, the suite of options that’s put in front of people for them to look at and consider when they’re making those early decisions about what’s best for their loved one.
J. Isaacs: Thank you for that, Minister. Just going back to the number of cases, what’s government and CLBC’s plan in the event that there are unanticipated increases of cases? How will government and CLBC fund any gaps? Is there any risk to clients that there would be a reduction in programs or hours of service or staffing levels? Will clients see a reduction in the assessment tools, particularly the guide to service allocation model?
Hon. S. Simpson: The caseload issues in this particular area…. There’s a lot of certainty around this caseload. It comes because the circumstance of a developmental difficulty isn’t something that all of a sudden appears. Usually, it’s a lifetime circumstance. So Community Living B.C. works with the education system, K to 12, works with MCFD, and is able, then, to track very closely what the expectations are as young people come up, heading to adulthood, when they potentially are going to draw on services from CLBC.
Over the last number of years, the numbers have been very, very good. To give you an example, in the tracking that happened with over 22,000 people in the system last year, the projection and the reality was a difference of 15 individuals — in a body of over 22,000 people. So we’re pretty consistent with that. That, of course, allows CLBC to come to the ministry and the ministry to discuss with Finance, in the budget process, what it takes to manage that projected caseload.
J. Isaacs: Is there any risk to the clients that CLBC will have to amend any kinds of policies in order to meet their budget? Would they download additional costs to agencies or home-share program operators or community programs? Are there currently any cuts or reductions in service hours contemplated to meet any budget restrictions?
Hon. S. Simpson: No, we’re not anticipating any service cuts. To give a sense of…. The contractual relationship between CLBC and the service providers is not so much about the dollars — the dollars for the contracts are there — but it is about the service levels. It’s like, “Here are the levels of service that we expect you to be able to deliver, and then let’s reconcile those service levels at year-end,” which gives us very good indications. We do not anticipate any meaningful changes in service levels with CLBC.
J. Isaacs: I’m assuming it’s not just cuts in programs but also cuts in the number of, I guess, hours of service that are provided per client. You can clarify that, but that’s what I…. It’s not just the programs and the services that are being cut but the number of hours within that program and within that service.
Hon. S. Simpson: We’re not anticipating any changes around that. The one caveat I would put on that…. Obviously, during the period of COVID-19 and that, it was quite a different situation. There were programs, like day programs and other programs, that were pulled back. There were services that were limited because of health risks related to COVID-19.
In all of those cases now…. Work is being done with those agencies to bring those service levels back up in a safe way as we move through, hopefully, into managing COVID-19. Other than changes in service levels to reflect health concerns related to that, there isn’t an expectation of a change.
S. Furstenau: Thanks to the critic for the official opposition for helping us arrange some time here.
I wanted to continue on some questions around home-sharing quite specific to my riding. It’s a very significant issue that comes into our constituency office. One of the most numerous in the number of cases we have is with home-share providers and their clients in our riding.
I want to recognize how important it is — the work that the home-share providers do, how compassionate they are in their work. But in the last few months, particularly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, that work has become, in a lot of ways, even more challenging for the home-share providers.
I have one example relayed to me by my constituency assistant, about a man who has two special needs clients in his home as part of the home-share program funded by CLBC. He’s a very dedicated home-share provider. These clients have challenges. They’re compulsive, have poor reasoning and judgment skills, and they are used to accessing external programs as part of their daily and weekly routines. But of course, during the COVID-19 period, those programs weren’t being accessed, and the provider had a pretty tough time trying to explain to them why this was happening.
For the home-share provider, the real challenge was that in the whole period, at least by the time he’d reached out to us — by then, it had been several weeks — he’d had no respite at all. So 24 hours, seven days a week, with no respite.
I’m wondering if the minister can respond to that situation and whether he’s heard of that happening for other home-share providers and what his ministry is working on to ensure that, particularly if we have more periods of isolation coming…. What can he let home-share providers know about how the ministry is going to provide them with respite in times like this?
Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the member for the question. The issues the member raises are real issues. The first thing I would say is that clearly, the focus and the direction through the ministry, through the provincial health officer and through CLBC was that we needed to keep people safe. That meant, largely, keeping people at home in the home-share situations. That obviously increased the challenges that people faced.
As part of that, all the home-share providers were provided an additional $500 to $1,500 per month in order to help offset some of those costs. That’s reflected…. You’ll know that there was an allocation of $35.6 million to CLBC for emergency services. Well, not all of that has been expended. About 80 percent of the dollars that were expended went to home-share services to support them because of many of the types of issues that the member’s talking about.
The direction, also, from CLBC to service providers…. The vast majority of home shares contract through service providers directly, rather than directly with CLBC. They come through service providers. The direction from CLBC, as we move to the next stage of service delivery or expanding and opening up services, is to look very closely at how we open up exactly those kinds of services the member’s talking about — to allow alternate services, group services and other kinds of services — so people can be out and not entirely wedded to staying home.
The issues are real ones. We’ve learned something from it. We’ve applied some resources. There obviously is still more work to do.
S. Furstenau: Just on that, could the minister confirm that every home-share provider did get between a $500- and $1,500-a-month top-up in this period?
Hon. S. Simpson: It would not be every one, because some home-share providers…. The nature or the structure of their contracts didn’t expect or anticipate them to have additional supports there. But any of them that had had those in place as part of this — had these supports and lost those supports — then received these additional dollars. It would have been, certainly, a significant case.
There were home-share providers for which those types of supports were not part of the contractual arrangement and the expectation of the home-share providers. For others, it was. Where they lost those services, dollars were provided to try to offset the pressures of those lost services.
S. Furstenau: I guess further to that, in the context of COVID-19 and the period that we’ve been in, we’ve acknowledged the extra work of care providers around the province in all of this. I guess my question is more of a philosophical one for the minister, which is: given that home-share providers have been, in essence, front-line workers caring for people — not necessarily people with COVID, but caring for people day-in and day-out — does he consider them to be similar to front-line workers that also received the top-ups that were given to other care workers in the province?
Hon. S. Simpson: One of the key differences here, of course, is that with home share they are not employees. They are contractors versus being employees. Having said that, we know that around the pandemic pay, there are a number of idiosyncrasies around those resources. If we want to dig deeply into this, I’m going to encourage the member to dig into the pandemic pay issue with the Minister of Finance, as all of this money and the criteria are all set by the Ministry of Finance. They are the ones who determine the criteria and the eligibility of different bodies to receive the funding.
S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I guess it’s not so much about the specifics of the financing but more the philosophical view of the matter.
I’m going to just jump to one more very specific constituency-related question. Of course, I’m not going to give any identifying information, but we have a constituent who has come to our office, who’s living in a group home funded by Community Living B.C. and has experienced situations there. Her psychiatrist, her general practitioner, her family doctor and her parents agree that this is not a particularly safe or effective environment for her to be in.
However, there have been months of meetings and phone calls and still no plan for this constituent. I’m just wondering if the minister could give some insight into what can be done at that point. Working with our office and kind of hitting a dead end, the situation for this constituent is quite a serious one, and we’re not sure how to move forward with finding a new placement for her. What can the minister offer as advice in that kind of situation?
Hon. S. Simpson: I believe that we are aware of the case that I think the member is speaking about. It is the challenge of being in a group home. These are people who are at different points in their lives being together and where those supports would come. There is work being done on that.
Around the case, I’m not sure that a resolution will necessarily be exactly the resolution that the family may want. What I can tell you is that CLBC continues to work on this particular case, and they are aware of it. My office is aware of it, and we’re continuing to work on it. We’re happy to continue to work on it with the member, her office and the family to find a resolution that makes sense for everybody and, most of all, for the individual involved.
J. Isaacs: I’ve heard a number of operators and outreach workers who have expressed their concerns around the deterioration of their clients’ mental health. Many did not cope well under COVID isolation and, as a result of their frustration, have lashed out at their caregivers either verbally or physically.
Clients who were already experiencing mental health challenges and may not have been properly assessed are now experiencing greater anxiety levels, and their mental health has worsened. This has left operators to manage behaviour risks on their own. Many of the care providers are telling me that they are totally burned out. There has been little respite care available, and they are dealing with more agitated clients, posing a risk to them as well as the clients.
How is CLBC currently dealing with situations or complaints around abuse against caregivers? What supports are being provided to clients and caregivers that would provide an appropriate medical diagnosis and, perhaps, treatment plans for clients who are dealing with these mental health issues?
Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member for the question. We all know that stress and mental health pressures have impacted everybody during the last number of months. We can just see the increases in the numbers, wherever you are in society. There has been great, great mental health stress, and it’s reflected here in this sector. It’s reflected in violence against women, domestic abuse. It’s reflected in so many ways.
It has been a very big topic of discussion at the reimagining community inclusion table, which is a table of all of the advocates, self-advocates, service providers, CLBC and my office, who are engaged in this process. One of the things that we did during the process of the last couple of months is that we essentially shifted the work of that committee to weekly meetings to talk about COVID-19 and to deal with issues. We were very fortunate, through that process, to have Dr. Behn Smith, the deputy provincial health officer, as a regular participant. She was able to take feedback, and particularly valuable feedback.
We have three self-advocates on the RCI committee, three people living with disabilities and who are advocates. They are very, very articulate and vocal around exactly the kinds of issues that the member is talking about. We were able to get that information and feed it back and forth and directly to the provincial health officer, as well as directly to my ministry.
There has been a lot of talk about how do we deliver those supports, both for individuals who are receiving service and for caregivers. It needs to be there for both. There is a focus on that, and it’s part of the reason also that, as I talked about, the work around stage 2 as we move forward…. The hope is that as we can begin to broaden — and we’ll hope we can continue to do this as we manage COVID-19 — the community supports and return some of those supports, either in the form that they were before or in an adjusted form that still meets people’s needs, we will bring some of those pressures down as folks begin to get some of their routine back, some of their activities back that disappeared. They may not have understood why those disappeared, which created the frustration or the anxiety that led to some of the acting-out that the member has talked about and some of those challenges.
That’s very much…. There’s a lot of attention on trying to get as much of that infrastructure of support back in place, hoping that will ease those pressures and bring some normalcy back to people’s lives that they had experienced pre-COVID-19. It’s a real issue. There’s no question about that.
The Chair: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain doesn’t have her hand up, but I think you do have more questions, so I’m just going to go to you.
J. Isaacs: Thank you very much, Chair.
On that note there, is CLBC providing caregivers some access to psychologists or psychiatry resources that would help their clients in this situation, in light of the escalation in mental illness for both clients and caregivers? They’re both experiencing it. Where does mental health fit into the service plan, and who’s responsible for the cost in the service plan for mental health?
Hon. S. Simpson: Maybe it’s an opportune time for the question, because I know that tomorrow CLBC has convened a meeting that is going to occur that includes the service providers, the CEO Network, Vela, Inclusion B.C., the Family Support Institute and others. The purpose of this meeting, really, is to talk about how do we support family caregivers, how do we support home-share providers, around the kinds of issues that the member is talking about here?
There is an acknowledgment that while we’re in a place where we’re beginning to be able to open things up a little bit more, for the next year, 18 months, however long we are going to continue to have to be managing this. So this meeting is the opportunity to sit down the key players in this sector and talk about how do we provide those supports in a way that’s effective to families and to other caregivers and to individuals. So that discussion, I know, is convened for tomorrow under the leadership of CLBC.
The Chair: I recognize the member for another question.
J. Isaacs: Thank you. This is the last set of questions around this topic. It’s encouraging to hear the group getting together to talk about these really important issues.
Does the budget allow for ongoing professional training for staff and agencies to conduct thorough assessments for people living with disabilities or people with developmental disabilities, adults with special needs, such as autism or fetal alcohol syndrome? Is staff receiving the appropriate level of training to identify and deal with mental health challenges and behaviour problems, and is staff being provided with training to properly record this information for data entry and recordkeeping?
Hon. S. Simpson: There are supports there. The contracts with the service providers all…. They include funding for training and supports in the contracts. There’s training for trauma-informed practice that continues to go on.
I spoke earlier about the one-time $10 million fund that went to the contracted social service sector for training in health and safety, and $1 million of that has gone to the CEO Network for them to develop training practices to support folks in the sector, including the home-share sector. So $1 million was provided to the CEO Network for them to develop training for their members and for home-share providers to provide supports in a number of areas, including the areas that the member’s talking….
J. Isaacs: I was getting another message there for another member who wanted to speak, but I’m happy to speak.
Just again, moving back into the residential supports. Can the minister advise how many residential supports are direct care, and how many would be getting residential care through agencies or fee-for-service? Is there any preference given to a home support program over another home support program, or is there a preferred housing option? What is government doing to grow that stock of the preferred model and to prepare and plan for any kind of an increase in projected growth rates?
Hon. S. Simpson: There is no preference. As we’ve spoken about earlier today, we really are, to the greatest degree possible, focused on an individualized approach to service. That’s a service that gets delivered, supported and identified with family and with loved ones and advocates around what makes the best sense.
The preferred options for many, though, are things like inclusive housing. How do people get to live independently? There is an inclusive housing working group in CLBC that’s working with B.C. Housing and others to work at what that looks like and how we expand the availability of that. Also, obviously, the home share option as well, and how we continue to grow the home share option as one of the areas.
It does probably mean less group home models. But we know the group homes are very, very important, particularly for people who have real complex needs and who need very dedicated and sometimes specialized services that a group home best affords. But that is a smaller number of the population.
It really is about trying to accommodate individual desires and wishes as much as possible, whether it’s through inclusive housing or home support models as we move forward.
J. Isaacs: Are there enough housing options right now to meet the current need? How many additional home-share operators or home-share programs have been added in the last three years? And how many do you think will be needed in the next three years to meet the increasing demand?
Hon. S. Simpson: There hasn’t been extensive growth. It’s gone from about 4,200 home shares to about 4,280 — something like that — in the last couple of years. So it’s not been a significant growth. Where we expect that growth to be is in the inclusive housing area. It’s pretty clear, certainly, that folks who are receiving service and support from CLBC and younger people who have developmental disabilities and have some capacity in that….
It’s very clear that to the greatest degree possible, they are talking about the desire for independence and the ability to live independently, to have a job, to have that life that we all want, with the greatest independence possible.
That’s clearly the message that we’re hearing, and that’s where a lot of attention…. CLBC is paying attention to how we make that housing model work best and how we grow that housing. It’s a model that I support, as I think that growth of independence has to be a priority because it’s what people want to see.
J. Isaacs: How are the costs for group homes or home-share programs arrived at? What are the per-diem rates, and do they differ amongst housing options? Who sets the per-diem rate, and what do they base their calculations on? Are the rates consistent across each housing option, or are there different rates that are applied to different housing models?
Hon. S. Simpson: A couple of things here. In terms of how the rates get set, they’re set based on service allocation of the individuals, the people who are there. There are five levels, essentially, of service that people might receive, depending on their need after an assessment. Funding will be delivered or provided based on where they fall within those five levels of the allocation.
In terms of group homes, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Some of them are in B.C. Housing–owned facilities, so they don’t have facility costs in the same way. Some of them will rent a facility privately, so they have additional costs.
What I’m going to suggest, because there’s not one answer for this, is that I’d be happy to have CLBC prepare a note for the member that talks about what those five levels of rates are, how they get determined a little bit and what that looks like in terms of some of the detail around different types of allocation and different kinds of circumstances, depending on who owns properties and those kinds of things. Because it’s quite diverse. There’s not one single model. But I’d be happy to have CLBC provide the member with some information that hopefully would shine a light on the questions related to that.
J. Isaacs: I would like to know what the home providers are paying out of that per diem. So maybe this is part of what CLBC will provide. Are they paying WCB? Are they paying food? Are they paying respite? Does the current funding model meet the actual cost to provide housing? Have you identified any funding gaps between what the home provider actually gets and what the cost to provide the service actually is? If there are gaps, how is government addressing those funding gaps to ensure that these housing options remain viable for operators?
Hon. S. Simpson: The home-share sector and the home-share providers — I’ve had the opportunity to meet with representatives a number of times over the last couple of years. Of course, the challenges they’ve had…. They’ve had a relationship where they haven’t, potentially, had the same kind of acknowledgment of the importance of their service that they would’ve liked over the previous years. And it made some sense to us. It was accurate, we think.
We’ve been working with the folks in the sector to try to support more the home-share model. It’s an important model. The most tangible part of that support, I would note, is that over the last two years, we’ve provided $18.3 million in rate increases to home-share providers. That’s a 15 percent rate increase, the first increase they’ve had in more than ten years.
J. Isaacs: Were any of those rate increases clawed back, leaving the operators with the same amount of money in their pockets? And when there is a lift, does it go directly to the home care providers, or does it go to the agency, or does it go to CLBC first?
Hon. S. Simpson: No, there have been no clawbacks of this funding. In the first year, there were some organizations…. There was a rate schedule that was produced that these additional dollars supported, the increased rate schedule. In year 1, there were some home-share providers whose rates were higher than the rate schedule. They did not receive dollars, but in year 2, every one of the home-share providers received dollars.
It’s a public schedule, so the information is available. All of the home-share providers know what the schedule is and know what they should be paid based on the schedule. I’ll be clear that no dollars went to the service providers or to CLBC. All of the dollars went to home-share providers. And again, there was no clawback of any of these dollars. They all went to the people who delivered these services.
J. Isaacs: One more question just on the respite, which the other member had raised. It is a huge issue right now, particularly with all the challenges because of COVID, and people have higher degrees of frustration and anxiety. A lot of these caregivers are completely burned out, and they just can’t get access to respite relief. As I understand it, caregivers receive an allowance of $100 for the day, but respite costs actually $200, so caregivers are paying 50 percent of the cost out of pocket, if they can actually get one.
Are CLBC and government putting enough resources in place to ensure that families do have adequate respite care and that it’s available when they really need it?
Hon. S. Simpson: A couple of things in relation to this. First of all, as it relates to the pandemic, the respite dollars were available there. But what we did find is that there were a number of families that had a combination of both having a challenge to find respite support but also were very, very anxious about the idea of bringing somebody into their home during the period of COVID-19. So they declined to use those dollars. They asked that they be able to carry that money over to a time when they felt more comfortable to use it, and we have supported that, CLBC has agreed, and that carryover is available.
You’ll also know that we increased the annual respite account by about 10 percent in the amount that’s available for respite. I tried to determine when the last increase was. It seems it was long enough ago that nobody can recall when it was last increased. The other challenge, and this reflects part of the member’s comments, is it’s very difficult to find those respite workers. It’s hard to do that.
I mentioned again, earlier, about the $10 million for training and health and safety, the one-time dollars. A portion of those dollars…. The Family Support Institute and Vela together have combined to set up a support worker central — i.e., a central clearing house of people who will do that work — so that it becomes easier. There becomes a one-stop shop, we hope, that people who are looking for qualified respite workers to come into their homes will be able to go to and find people who can deliver those services to their loved ones.
That’s been developed within this sector, again, with FSI and Vela doing that work, funded by the $10 million that we’ve provided to the social service round table to support their effort.
J. Isaacs: This is the last question on this issue, and then we’ll move on to the poverty reduction strategy.
I was a little bit surprised when I heard this, and perhaps the minister can comment on it. Is the minister aware…? Sorry. I just find it really odd. Is medical history such as mental health, sexual assault, violence and other behaviour issues discussed with or shared with the home-share provider prior to the client arriving at the home, as part of the intake process? If this information is not shared before the client arrives, is the minister concerned that some harm may come to the individuals that are providing care or others who may be living in the house?
Hon. S. Simpson: Thanks for the question.
There are two things we balance here, of course. There are the privacy issues, but there also are issues of risk. The policy of CLBC is to evaluate and determine. If there are issues of risk that create potential risk either for the home-share provider or for the service provider, then that information is shared. If there may be other information that does not create risk for them, then there are issues of privacy in disclosure around that and of not disclosing that information.
It is, then, finding that balance of, yes, what people need to know to keep themselves safe moving forward and what is a legitimate privacy question moving forward.
J. Isaacs: Moving on to the poverty reduction strategy. Obviously, COVID-19 has altered the course of this initiative. Could the minister provide an update as to where the poverty reduction strategy stands currently? And is the minister planning to table a revision to the poverty reduction strategy?
Hon. S. Simpson: I guess the first thing…. I caught part of the first question. We’ll be ready to go with that. What I would say is that we’re not looking at any significant revisions to the poverty strategy, as it was presented as an all-of-government initiative. The targets that are in there, a 25 percent reduction for overall poverty and a 50 percent reduction in child poverty…. Those numbers we are going to maintain. We are confident that we will meet those targets, hopefully, by 2024 or before.
J. Isaacs: I’m impressed if you’re going to make your target since COVID and with all the things that are going on. Is the minister talking to the stakeholders, the non-profits, and how are they currently engaged in the poverty reduction strategy during COVID?
Hon. S. Simpson: We’re very active. The consultations will continue, as the member will know. There is an advisory committee in place under the legislation. That advisory committee is active. We’re preparing the first annual report, which will come out in October. The advisory committee will be writing a commentary as part of that report, to include their comments there.
I talked about the social service roundtable, which delivers a wide range of supports, many of them to those people who are living in poverty. That’s an ongoing process with that round table to engage these issues on behalf of service providers. We also had set up the disability working group, which was set up around the questions of the accessibility legislation.
You may know we have been working on legislation and a wide consultation around accessibility and inclusion legislation for those with disabilities. A working group — again, with many people who have lived experience — is in place. I talk to them on a regular basis. They certainly advise on the issues of poverty moving forward.
We get that again through reimagining community inclusion, around the developmental disability community, and we are increasingly working with the Indigenous communities around a strategy that looks at those questions related to Indigenous issues.
There’s a whole variety of places there, and I would tell the member that I meet quite frequently with the advocates, whether it’s groups like First Call or the Poverty Reduction Coalition membership — those groups. I have a pretty open-door policy for those organizations. Sometimes they come in and beat me up a little bit, and that’s okay. Sometimes they come in and say: “You’re doing good things, and you should do more of that.” We’re very engaged in that process.
It is that process of engagement that I think will allow us to be successful. I’ve never made any bones about it. The success of our strategy is not grounded in the provincial government. It will require the province. It will require non-profits. It will require federal supports. It will require local government. It will require community. If we have a societal response to this, we will more than achieve the objectives set for 2024. I’m very confident of that. If we can’t bring people together in a successful way, it will be [audio interrupted].
J. Isaacs: Actually, I think the Leader of the Third Party wanted to jump in here, so I’ll let him go ahead.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the answers from the minister today. It’s nice to be here with you all, even though it is through videoconferencing.
I just wanted to follow up very briefly. Minister, you mentioned the accessibility and inclusion legislation. I’ve had some constituents that we’ve met with to discuss some challenges that they had around some specific issues. This was a number of months ago. I’m just wondering when you might be able to see that legislation. I’ve had a number of my constituents reach out to me, asking me to follow up about when that legislation was coming.
Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. The Leader of the Third Party may know that we went through an extensive consultation process. We’ve been preparing the accessibility legislation. It originally had been my hope to bring that legislation potentially to a fall session. Of course, the legislative timetable has, to say the least, been thrown into some disarray. But if that can’t occur because of being overtaken by circumstances, I would hope that we’d be able to bring the legislation in, in the spring.
A. Olsen: Thank you for that, Minister. I appreciate it. I know that our wide constituency of British Columbia will be happy to hear that. So I’ll pass that along to my constituents.
Thank you to the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain for giving me this opportunity. I’ll leave the floor to you now.
J. Isaacs: There have been a number of income assistance supports, starting in April. There was the $300-a-month lift for individuals receiving income assistance or disability assistance, comfort allowance or the B.C. seniors supplement.
There are 263,000 people that are eligible for the program, which would amount to an estimated cost, based on enrolment, of about $78.9 million per month. This was COVID-related, of course. It covered the months of April to June. But what are the long-term plans for this subsidy? And are there sufficient resources in the budget to extend the lift over another additional number of months?
Hon. S. Simpson: Yes, the $300 was provided to people who are clients of our ministry. That cost is roughly about $50 million a year to provide that to the clients of the ministry. In addition to that, about 56,000 seniors who receive the provincial supplement of $49 also received this. That would bring the number to kind of the area that the member is talking about.
Just yesterday was cheque day, and the cheques went out for the third month of what was an intended three-month period for this. As the member will know, there’s an array of short-term services and supports that the government has provided to the people in British Columbia. The federal government has provided supports, as well, like the CERB and other things.
We’re in the process of evaluating right now whether there is room, an extension of the crisis supplement or an alternative. I would expect that we’ll have something substantive to say about that in the next week or so. But we’re determining what that might look like and whether it’s appropriate moving forward.
This money is coming out of the $5 billion COVID allocation.
J. Isaacs: Are there any plans, particularly when considering limited employment opportunities, mainly due to COVID, to provide a lift for people with disabilities?
Hon. S. Simpson: A clarification, if I could. Is the member asking whether we’re looking at a rate increase? Is that the question?
J. Isaacs: Yes. Are you providing any kind of a lift, an income lift, for people with disabilities?
Hon. S. Simpson: You’ll know the crisis supplement was there and available. There always are discussions around these issues. The budget process is ongoing now for next February’s budget. That will, I’m sure, include a discussion around income supports.
The other thing I would note for the member — and it’s something I’m sure she’ll be interested to see around the end of the year — is the work on the basic income pilot, a project that came through the CASA agreement between the NDP and the Green caucuses. That work is moving forward. That work, among other things, talked about what income supports and modelling of income supports might look like in British Columbia as well as specific questions related to a basic income, moving forward.
I think that that’s going to be an important piece of work and an important part of the debate, moving forward, over the coming months, as we head to the next year’s budget and look at what the next year’s budget might provide. I won’t second-guess what ends up in the budget.
J. Isaacs: This will be the last question, then. I think our time is up also.
When the budget was introduced, the child opportunity benefit fund was announced. It was to benefit about 290,000 families, and it was based on when B.C. had very low unemployment levels. Today, of course, the unemployment levels have changed — over 13 percent. It could continue over the next few months, going ahead.
Does the minister expect more families to be eligible for the benefit now that more families are out of work? Can he provide an update of what the expected enrolment would be, and has the budget allocated for this kind of an increase for the child opportunity benefit?
Hon. S. Simpson: It’s a good question. It’s a question that will need to be answered probably by the Ministry of Finance, who administer the child opportunity benefit through that ministry.
I think at this point…. As the member will know, we have a spike in the unemployed, and it’s going to come down. Depending on which economist you talk to, you’ll get a different scenario for what the future looks like in terms of employment.
Those issues around criteria and that will be determined by the Ministry of Finance as they roll the program out. We do expect people will start seeing cheques in October for the benefit, and we’re sure that it will be a welcome benefit for families moving forward.
The Chair: Members, are there any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote.
Hon. S. Simpson: I want to thank the critic and the members of the Green caucus who asked questions. Thank you for the questions. Thank you for…. We’re kind of the guinea pigs here for this system that will move forward, and I think we’ve done a reasonably good job of this. Hopefully, the rest of other people’s estimates will move forward as well.
We did receive the questions from…. The Green Party provided us a short list of questions. We will provide answers to those questions in writing.
Again, I would make the offer to the critic for the official opposition. If there are other questions that she wasn’t able to get to because of time limitations, do forward them on, and we’ll do our best to provide written answers for those questions.
Other than that, thank you to everybody. Thank you to the Clerks and everybody who made this less-than-ideal system work pretty well. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you to all the members for your patience.
Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote. Before I do that, I see the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has her hand up.
Go ahead, Member.
J. Isaacs: I just want to thank the minister and his staff for his answers today and his response. As I said earlier, we will have some follow-up questions. We didn’t get to all the subject matters that we wanted to. I appreciate the fulsome answers and his time today, and everyone else here.
Thank you to the Chairs and the Clerks. I think we did pretty good.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Member.
Vote 41: ministry operations, $3,682,820,000 — approved.
The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will have a very short recess for us to switch over to the Ministry of Transportation. By very short, I mean within a minute or two. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 3:38 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.
[R. Kahlon in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
On Vote 43: ministry operations, $928,920,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. C. Trevena: I do. Thank you very much, Chair.
I’d just like to acknowledge that, as I think everybody is aware, we’re doing these estimates in a very different way. It’s a very different time. It has been a very challenging number of months for many people in British Columbia.
I’ve got to recognize the work of the people within my ministry, as well as the people of British Columbia, in making sure that some of the essential parts of our ministry have continued going. Most of the aspects of my ministry were designated essential services — whether it’s trucking or keeping supply chains operating or keeping construction going, whether it’s keeping transit so people can get to and from work and essential workers can get to and from work. This has been part of the ministry and making sure that we have been able to work throughout to keep these going.
I have to recognize the very hard work of ministry staff, who have been thrown, like everyone in British Columbia, into a new way of working, whether they’re working from home or sometimes working in the office to keep these essential services going, and also to continue some of the business as usual. The ministry has continued doing its normal work through COVID, and, again, that’s thanks to the staff.
I know that you, Chair, joined many of my ministry staff at YVR when we worked before the federal government came in and then with the federal government on ensuring that we had screening for people coming to Canada. This was above and beyond the call of duty. People were coming from all around the province, as civil servants, public servants, to try and help.
Beyond that, our ministry is really investing in, I think, the future of the province. We’re going to be debating here, over the next number of days, the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. This means it’s our highways, it is our active transportation networks and it’s our bus systems. It impacts everyone.
This year the ministry’s operating budget did increase by $3.3 million with a number of strategic investments. And over the next three years, the spectrum that we’re debating, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is investing more than $5.7 billion in transportation projects across B.C. When you take into account the federal contribution, that takes it up to $7.4 billion.
I think there are a number of highlights in this budget. There is obviously money for the Broadway subway project. We’re continuing work on Pattullo. We’re continuing the four-laning of Highway 1 up to the Alberta border. We’ve got money going into safety improvements and rehabilitation. Safety is obviously essential for our ministry, and we continue to invest in that, whether it is, as I say, rehabilitation for improving side roads, as well as intersection — those small projects, small things that people really do see.
We’re also very pleased. It’s now a year since we launched our active transportation strategy, “Move. Commute. Connect.” This is also part of our budget and our evolution as a ministry. We’re not just investing in highways. We’re no longer the Ministry of Highways; we’re the Ministry of Transportation, and that has to reflect the ways that people travel now.
Yesterday we announced a number of grants that are going to be going to a number of communities. This is now at the core of much of what we are doing. We’re also continuing to invest right through the transportation network to make sure that goods can move as well as people can move. That is vital for everyone in the province. I think people now have a very clear idea of what supply chain means, having been through a number of months of COVID and seen that, thanks to the work of our trucking industry and the work of the ministry, they still got the goods that they needed in the stores when they needed them.
We’re responsible for the taxi industry as well as the new ride-hailing industry. We’re responsible for public transit and for investment in ferries. It’s a ministry that is really dedicated to providing the services that people need, making sure that people do have opportunity and that there is very much an affordable approach so that they can afford to get from A to B because we invest in transit. They can ensure that they are travelling safely, and they can ensure that their economies and their communities are going to thrive because of the strategic investments we’re making.
With that, I will close my remarks and look forward to hearing the questions from members of the opposition.
The Chair: Now I will recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale for opening remarks.
M. Hunt: It’s a delight to begin these estimates. As the minister well knows, she is a real veteran at this whole Transportation and Infrastructure Ministry, having been the critic previously for a considerable amount of time. I am totally a freshman, a rookie. This is my first estimates on it, so we’ll see how well I do.
Just so the minister knows, for the sake of staff, I want to make it clear what my focus will be. This afternoon is going to begin with B.C. Ferries and working across B.C. Ferries. Tomorrow morning focusing on transit, and then in the afternoon, highways and roads. Then, of course, in between there, not knowing how long any of this is going to take, we’ll work in other issues and things. But those are sort of the three main categories that I think she needs staff for. So I will simply start from there.
I would ask this first question, to just make it a really soft, easy lob for the start, and that would be: could the minister please tell us how COVID-19 has impacted the operations of B.C. Ferries?
The Chair: I just wanted to give all the members a heads-up that at 4 p.m., there will be a Chair change. It’ll be a very short recess for the equipment to be cleaned and a new Chair to come in.
Hon. C. Trevena: I did want to acknowledge that I do have staff in the room with me: my deputy minister, Grant Main; Assistant Deputy Minister Deborah Bowman, who is responsible for policies and overarching to B.C. Ferries; and Kirk Handrahan, executive director for the marine section of the ministry.
Thank you very much for the question. I think with COVID, it has impacted every aspect of life and every aspect of transportation. We’ve seen, I think, whether it’s on buses or on ferries, a mass reduction in ridership. On the ferries, we saw a reduction of between 80 to 90 percent of the travelling public, year on year, right at the beginning of COVID. We have seen that start to climb back up. Initially, B.C. Ferries had a significant reduction in sailings on the major routes, which are the ones between Vancouver Island and the Mainland as well as Langdale to Horseshoe Bay.
We did not have a reduction on what’s known as the minor routes, the ones that are linking the smaller communities, smaller islands, which are lifelines. But I think it’s also important to note that under the emergency orders, B.C. Ferries was designated an essential service. It has continued operating throughout the pandemic. It is an essential service ensuring that people do get from A to B and that essential workers can get from A to B and goods can get to where they need to go to.
The Chair: Before we go back to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, we’re just going to have a very short recess while we switch Chairs. Thank you, everyone.
The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.
[M. Dean in the chair.]
M. Hunt: A question to the minister. When was the province notified of possible route cancellations, and what routes were being considered? This is all as a result of COVID-19.
Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question. B.C. Ferries started to talk about the need to look at service levels in around mid-March, not long after the pandemic was declared and the state of emergency was declared. There was a very sharp decline in ridership — as I’d mentioned to my previous question — a reduction of 80 to 90 percent, on some routes, below the year-on-year traffic numbers. They started talking about the need to really match the service to the number of potential passengers in mid-March.
M. Hunt: What routes were being considered? Were these all of the routes or only particular routes?
Hon. C. Trevena: It was across the board.
M. Hunt: I’m given to understand that there were 11 particular routes, minor routes, that were being looked at for rather severe cancellations. Can the minister tell me which routes those might have been?
Hon. C. Trevena: I just want some clarification. The 11 routes…. B.C. Ferries did a significant reduction on a number of routes.
The Horseshoe Bay one and the Brentwood Bay one were removed completely for a while. But the member is looking for the 11 routes — I just want to make sure I give the right answer — that B.C. Ferries was providing discretionary sailings to. Are these the ones?
There were a number of routes that were talked about. B.C. Ferries wanted to reduce those across the board. We have been working, through a number of months, with B.C. Ferries. There were, at one point, 11 routes where there were going to be a number of sailings out of the routes removed. Is this what the member is wanting clarification on?
M. Hunt: Yes. That’s particular…. I totally agree. We had huge cuts on the major routes, but again, because of the volume of service that’s there, it’s not as impacting. But certainly on these minor routes, the cuts there certainly are much more impacting to the mobility of the residents along those routes.
Hon. C. Trevena: The 11 routes that there was discussion about reducing sailings on were routes 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24 and 26.
M. Hunt: Madam Minister, I am an utter, total rookie. Those numbers don’t have meaning to me at this moment in time. I’m sure I will eventually learn what these numbers mean. Could you tell me what those particular locations are — and if I could be so rude as to ask for it in layman’s-type terms?
Hon. C. Trevena: Just to clarify, there were no cuts to these routes. B.C. Ferries had wanted to cut them. This goes back to when the former government made severe cuts to ferry service in 2013, 2014. We as a government reinstated nearly all the sailings on those.
There were a number of routes that were being given above and beyond that. These are the 11. I will give the member the names of the routes. But just to clarify, there have been no cuts to these routes. They are still running as normal.
For the member, they are: route 6, Crofton-Vesuvius; route 7, Earls Cove–Saltery Bay; route 8, Horseshoe Bay–Bowen Island; route 17, Powell River–Comox; route 18, Powell River–Texada; route 19, Nanaimo-Gabriola; route 23, Campbell River–Quadra; route 24, Quadra-Cortes; and route 26, Skidegate–Alliford Bay.
M. Hunt: Yes, these are precisely the ones that my questions are directed to. It’s because these ones…. A special arrangement seems to have been made versus the other reductions. Certainly, there were lots of other reductions. We certainly felt that on the main routes between the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island.
We saw that the provincial government, in fact, contributed funds in order to make sure that those cancellations didn’t happen. So that’s where my focus is. My focus is in preventing the cancellations of those particular routes.
How much money did the province provide, and how long was this expected to last?
Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Ferries was proposing reductions in these routes just as we were starting to see traffic volumes build back up. We were starting into phase 2 of restart. As the member is now aware, we’re into phase 3.
We were looking at how B.C. was already starting to rebuild and restart the economy and society. At the same time as this was happening, B.C. Ferries decided that they would be reducing service on these routes. Obviously, it appeared counterintuitive to be doing that when traffic volumes were increasing across the board and when we were in the restart, so we wanted to make sure that that service continued for these communities. We paid $180,000 for that.
M. Hunt: The question is…. This notice actually came in March. We weren’t dealing with a buildup at that point in time, when the notice was given. Obviously, Ferries was just dealing with the entire system and what needed to happen. The question comes: why these particular routes? There were so many cuts that were made, and they’d given you notice of so many different things happening. Why were these particular routes the ones that the minister chose to expend this $180,000 on?
Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to help the member a little bit here. I think he’s getting a little confused. Back in March, B.C. Ferries, like everyone, saw a massive decline in ridership because of COVID across the board.
We, as a government, worked with B.C. Ferries to get to an agreement where the Horseshoe Bay route would not be running, where the Brentwood Bay route would not be running, where there was a very limited service from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay and where there was essentially cargo and limited service from Tsawwassen to Duke Point. That happened pretty well from mid-March through to April 2 when the agreement was signed with B.C. Ferries to make these reductions in these routes.
The minor routes. B.C. Ferries wanted to make cuts to the minor routes — and as the government, we did not want to see cuts to the minor routes — because B.C. Ferries is obviously very concerned about its bottom line and thought this was the best way to save money. However, it has a contract with us as a government to provide a certain level of service.
These sailings on these specific 11 routes are above and beyond the contract that B.C. Ferries has with the government. It thought that to save money…. It has been saying that it’s losing $1 million a day or $1 million a week. It has been saying it has been losing a lot of money over a long period. So to save money, it would stop doing these sailings on these 11 routes.
We did not want this to happen because we are just in the restart phase. We want to see that all our communities and everybody, all the people in our communities, have the opportunity to have the benefit of a restart. We decided that to make sure that we could continue having these services above the contract, we would pay B.C. Ferries the $180,000 that it costs to run these services. That is up until September.
We’ll continue to have conversations with B.C. Ferries about ways forward. We’re in constant contact with them, to be honest, and we’ll continue to be to make sure that people in coastal communities get the service that they really do need.
M. Hunt: If my memory serves me correctly, I think it was about $1.5 million a day that B.C. Ferries was losing. Really, in the scheme of things, $180,000 across — what is that going to be? — three months seems like a relatively minor amount of money.
My question is simply: why did the minister not include these in the base service levels when she was adding these routes back? Why didn’t she make these part of the base service level? Obviously, she didn’t. My question is: why were they not included?
Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Ferries was already providing these sailings, these so-called discretionary sailings, when we, as a government, put back the 2,700 sailings, which were cut by the previous government, to make sure that people in coastal communities had access.
B.C. Ferries was providing these sailings. They continue to provide them. Under the agreement, if they decided that for some reason they did not want to provide them…. As the member has acknowledged, it’s $180,000. If they decided that they didn’t want to continue providing them, they would give us 90 days’ notice. But they were providing them when we rebuilt the ferry system, after the cuts brought in by the previous government.
M. Hunt: My understanding is that these routes were previously reduced because of low ridership. In fact, the reports I heard were that sometimes on this trip, there was, in fact, more crew than there were passengers. I’m wondering: what is the percent of capacity on these routes as they’re running today?
Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Ferries put those sailings back when the previous government had cut services to coastal communities significantly. B.C. Ferries put those sailings back on those 11 routes because it made economic sense to B.C. Ferries. They obviously had seen that their ridership suited those sailings operating.
I think there’s a philosophical difference between ourselves about the role of a ferry system in British Columbia. Our government sees ferries as essential for the people living and working in coastal communities. We have to make sure that we continue to have a healthy ferry system for coastal communities.
M. Hunt: I’m wondering what options are being considered come September for continued funding for these routes.
Hon. C. Trevena: We are in very regular contact with B.C. Ferries, as we are with Transit and TransLink and others. We continue to have conversations with all our transit providers.
M. Hunt: I’m just wondering, sort of…. I guess the easiest way to say this is: how much does B.C. Ferries need to regain in revenues in order to prevent these being considered cuts again in September? I’m just not getting any feel for some point at which everything’s fine and we’ll continue to go from here.
Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is very well aware what an extraordinary time this is and how things are changing daily. We’re obviously working very closely with B.C. Ferries. But we’ve just gone into phase 3. We’re just going into summer. B.C. Ferries themselves are changing their schedules very regularly. They are bringing back more service on the majors. It seems almost daily that they’re providing new service.
We have the agreement till September. We are working with B.C. Ferries. We are in June now. If you go forward three months into September or back three months to March, it’s a very different world. I think everything moves very quickly at the moment. We continue to work with B.C. Ferries to get the solution that really works for the people of British Columbia.
M. Hunt: Well, considering the fact that we do, in fact, have this kind of fluid situation and constant change…. We had Premier Horgan at a press conference recently, saying…. Oh, I’m sorry. Let me step back. This was one of the funny ones. I’ll give you the question first and then the comment, because it might help to make sense.
The question is: how confident is the minister that discussions with the federal government will be successful concerning funding assistance for B.C. Ferries?
We’ve had the Premier suggest that they were listening. We’ve had the Premier suggest that there’s not particularly a sympathetic ear, because B.C. is so unique in the essence of our ferry complement.
So the question is: how are those discussions going, and how confident is the minister that there will be federal assistance?
Hon. C. Trevena: We are obviously in regular conversation with the federal government. I have conversations with my counterpart, Minister Garneau, and we are in very regular conversation. But I’m not going to speculate on when the federal government is going to make decisions on any specific area.
M. Hunt: Fair enough. I was hoping that, as you said, things are changing, and I was hoping there could be some good news there.
B.C. Ferries recently released their year-end results, reporting their net earnings. We see, in fact, that their net earnings are in fact half of what they were in 2019 — going from $52 million in 2019 down to $28 million in 2020, most of which is the tremendous slide that happened February-March because of the COVID. So obviously, it’s very challenging.
Could the minister give us any idea as to how the revenues are doing currently with B.C. Ferries?
Hon. C. Trevena: That’s a quarter that B.C. Ferries traditionally loses money on. We know that B.C. Ferries has been losing money with COVID as well — as you say, between $1 and $1½ million. But we are also seeing, as we’ve discussed, traffic increase. We’re hearing about issues of overloads and people who are waiting in a long line in a parking lot waiting to get onto the ferries, so we are seeing traffic increasing.
We’re now into stage 3, where we’re no longer just dealing with non-essential travel. We’re dealing with essential travel. There would be people who are travelling for pleasure and leisure. I think that will add to the volumes of traffic. B.C. Ferries, I think, also recognizes that. I mean, they’re already adding ancillary services. They’re going to be opening the buffet again or a version thereof, looking at ways of maximizing their revenue.
M. Hunt: Now, the reality is I simply don’t know how the relationship of the B.C. Ferries budget works in how it is delivered from the ministry. Obviously, when everything is going as planned, there’s going to be X number of dollars going across. I’m going to assume we divide it by 12. It gets it every month. Whatever it is, there’s some arrangement in how that money flows.
Now, with the challenge of these drops in revenues and the changes in service and all the rest of this, I guess my question is: is the budgeted amount for B.C. Ferries going to go to B.C. Ferries regardless of the decrease that they’ve had in passenger traffic, or what is going to be happening there?
Hon. C. Trevena: The simple answer is yes. We continue to fund B.C. Ferries to the full budget amount.
M. Hunt: During the adjustments of this new contract and the new arrangement with B.C. Ferries, there have been fare discounts, including the 100 percent seniors discount from Monday through Thursday — these sorts of things. Is there any talk of those being adjusted as a result of the losses at B.C. Ferries, and if so, what are we looking at?
Hon. C. Trevena: No.
The Chair: Member for Surrey-Cloverdale, do you have another question?
M. Hunt: Yes, Madam Chair. I have lots of them.
What about the…? Is there any thought of further reductions, at this point in time, in order to stem these losses? Or have we reached the bottom of that process, and the expectation is the rebuilding of the economy will go on from here?
Hon. C. Trevena: Well, we’re into phase 3 now, so we’re all hopeful that we are building out. We are starting to not just restart our economy but to rebuild our economy. Having a ferry system that is operating for people across the coastal communities…. Businesses and communities need the ferry system working. Whether you’re in Vancouver or you’re in Alert Bay, you want to have a healthy ferry system.
We’re in extraordinary times, but we are moving forward.
M. Hunt: A question to the minister. Is she aware how much the COVID-19 modifications have, in fact, cost B.C. Ferries to date?
Hon. C. Trevena: It may surprise the member, but with B.C. Ferries being this quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization very much removed from government, we do not get to see the books of B.C. Ferries in that sort of detail. We get to see it in the quarterly and in the annual reports of B.C. Ferries.
M. Hunt: Would the minister know how much the employer health tax is costing B.C. Ferries?
Hon. C. Trevena: No, we don’t have that number.
M. Hunt: A question to the minister. Is the minister or the ministry trying to help B.C. Ferries in any way to qualify as a prescribed organization under the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, whereby B.C. Ferries would be eligible for the subsidy of the 75 percent of employee wages?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. Both myself and the Minister of Finance have been advocating to the federal government, both to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Transport.
M. Hunt: If B.C. Ferries were deemed to be eligible, does the minister have any idea of the order of magnitude of what the subsidy available to B.C. Ferries would be to date?
Hon. C. Trevena: No.
M. Hunt: Is the minister at all aware of any impacts that COVID-19 has had on B.C. Ferries’ capital plans?
Hon. C. Trevena: I believe that B.C. Ferries is working through this, the executive, with its services board, on the implications of COVID on their capital plan.
M. Hunt: I’m wondering if the minister would have any knowledge of what percentage of ferry capacity is allowed to be reserved, separately, on the major routes and on the minor routes. Is there any limit to it?
Hon. C. Trevena: The reservation capacity varies by the vessel. There is no reservation on, I think, nearly all of the minor routes, which are the ones for the smaller Gulf Islands, northern Gulf Islands routes.
M. Hunt: I am wondering if I could ask the minister…. I have no direct way to do this, other than dealing through the minister. I’m wondering if it’s possible for the minister to get me the answers from B.C. Ferries for both the amount of money that they’ve had to spend in COVID modifications as well as the employer health tax.
Hon. C. Trevena: The member is aware that since 2001-2002 and the Coast Ferry Act, we no longer run B.C. Ferries. I’m not being obstructive here. I think it would be as easy if the member himself goes to B.C. Ferries and asks for these, as much as going through us to ask B.C. Ferries. I think they’d be able and willing to provide to the member as much as they are to us.
M. Hunt: I’m just finding this answer quite amazing, because the minister has said that she and/or the ministry are in relatively constant communication with B.C. Ferries. If they’re in constant communication, I just find it amazing that she’s not aware of their capital plan and she’s not aware of their costs — that sort of stuff. It’s just sort of: “It doesn’t matter.” What are we talking about? What’s going on in this constant communication?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Member. I’m very pleased that you’re so interested in the way B.C. Ferries runs, because it’s so important to the people of B.C.
I’m not being obstructive. The information that the member is asking for is information which relates to B.C. Ferries and their operation, not to government’s relations with B.C. Ferries.
Yes, we are in constant conversation with B.C. Ferries in working through various issues with them. But the level of detail that the member is asking for — we cannot provide that. I would suggest that the member ask B.C. Ferries for that level of granular detail.
M. Hunt: Okay, then. Let’s just do exactly the reverse for a moment. Let’s take it out of the granular level, and let’s go up to 30,000 feet.
Last summer the minister referred to a provincial vision for B.C. Ferries. Has that visioning exercise been completed, and if so, how do we obtain a copy of that report?
Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question. I wouldn’t say it’s a 30,000 level, but it is an important aspect to the development of Ferries.
Something that was suggested when we formed government…. I had a review done on B.C. Ferries by Blair Redlin, a special adviser, who said that one of the real needs for us as a province, as well as the ferry system, is to have a vision. Where should Ferries go?
We conducted a two-phase public engagement process. The first phase was seven regional stakeholder meetings around the coast in October and November of last year. Then we went to broader public engagement. The broader public engagement was done both in person and remotely. I think we’re all getting used to remote engagement now.
Building on what we heard from both the regional meetings as well as the engagement we launched in February, a report was written. The engagement actually lasted longer than intended because of COVID. It ended in mid April. We are in the process, at the moment, of analyzing that feedback, and we’ll release the report and the vision later on in the summer.
M. Hunt: I certainly look forward to reading that. Part of the challenge with B.C. Ferries, as I’m understanding it, is the fact that, basically, they have about $3.9 billion worth of capital spending that they’re looking at in order to renew their aging fleet and deal with and upgrade the terminals.
That brings me to the Ferry Commissioner and the setting of the maximum fare. This year is set at 2.3 percent. My understanding is that B.C. Ferries was saying that that wasn’t enough. It included things like the carbon tax and others, which are going to be adding about $73 million a year in expenses, where the contract between the government and B.C. Ferries only covers about $41 million of that.
When the commissioner capped it at 2.3, the corporation appealed, saying that this was, in fact, eroding the ferry system’s financial health at a time when they need these numbers of dollars. It’s noted that the price-cap plan anticipated net earnings dropping from $52 million to just $2 million over the course of four years. That means there is just no margin for anything anticipated, such as the COVID we have.
The reality is this. Buying ferries and building new ferries is much like buying a house or a car. Banks don’t like to finance 100 percent of the purchase. Usually, there’s a need for large down payments. B.C. Ferries’ surpluses are being reduced, and the plan seems to be to reduce them to almost zero.
My question is: how are they going to be able to raise that $3.9 billion to renew their aging fleet if this government is setting it up so that there will be very minimal surpluses in coming years?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. As the member mentioned, he is new to the file. So just to clarify for him, the Ferry Commissioner is independent. He’s an independent regulator, and his decisions are made independently.
M. Hunt: Well, while that may be true, the ministry, in the appeal process…. It’s a process that goes back and forth. In fact, the ministry wrote to the commissioner and basically told him to ignore the appeal.
I was thinking that there may be some reasoning why the ministry thinks that it is appropriate for the corporation not to have surpluses and to have to borrow 100 percent for any upgrades they wish to do.
Hon. C. Trevena: Once again, I wanted to underline the independence of the commissioner.
The performance term process is, I think, a very transparent one. People can participate. Individuals can participate. B.C. Ferries can participate. Others can participate and let the commissioner know what their views are.
As I understand it, B.C. Ferries put in a letter saying that the proposed average fare increase was not enough. We, as the contract holders, said that it was enough. The Ferry Commissioner, who is independent, took all the information he had and made the decision that he made and has left the fare increase at the rate that he set it.
M. Hunt: Ultimately, my question…. Yes, it was the commissioner’s decision. That’s fair enough. That’s independent, and I have no problem with that. I’m asking for the rationale of the minister or the ministry on how they think….
Looking to the future and having a vision for B.C. Ferries in the province of British Columbia, how does the minister or the ministry think that we’re going to be able to have renewal and new vessels and the terminals all being wonderful to attract these tourists from all over the world if we’re not having any surpluses to be able to be down payments for new vessels and construction?
I’m asking the minister for the ministry’s rationale, not for the commissioner deciding why he did. The ministry, as the minister has said, said they don’t need it.
Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to pick up on one thing that the member said before I answer his questions. He was talking about all of these wonderful ferries full of tourists. I’d like to remind the member that ferries are essentially for people and businesses and communities of B.C. Yes, we have tourists who come here who use our ferries, but it’s a service that is for the people of B.C.
Just to answer the member’s question about supporting the B.C. Ferries capital plan, that’s what the Ferry Commissioner does. He looks at the submissions and does analysis on what price increase is needed in order to support the borrowing that B.C. Ferries needs to do to support its capital plan. The Ferry Commissioner thought that 2.3 percent was sufficient, having had analysis of looking at the B.C. Ferries capital plan as an independent body.
M. Hunt: I guess my hope is that as the minister creates this vision for B.C. Ferries and for what ferries are to look like across British Columbia, there will be a vision for the continued expansion and enlargement of that.
Yes, I also am, when the House is sitting, a regular user of B.C. Ferries, and I am constantly barraged by their advertisements for “Take this trip, and do this,” and it looks really touristy from that side. I realize that the minister has a different perspective because she deals with different-sized ferries than I deal with, and I respect that, and I appreciate that.
The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has a question. I will cede the floor to her.
The Chair: Are there any other members who would like to pose a question?
M. Hunt: If she’s having trouble, I believe the leader of the Green Party wanted to ask a question.
The Chair: Leader of the Green Party, would you like to ask a question?
A. Olsen: Yeah. Thank you to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and thank you to the minister for this opportunity to talk about B.C. Ferries.
I would just like to start this by thanking the staff on board these vessels, the staff at the terminals as well as the administrative staff who have obviously all been working on the front lines. They’re very important front-line workers and essential services to so many communities in my riding, so many beautiful communities in the southern Gulf Islands.
I want to thank them for their work and also to recognize that they’ve had the very difficult challenge of often having to deliver messages that were tough messages to deliver, with respect to travel and people wanting to travel back and forth and to limit to essential travel. So to all of the staff of B.C. Ferries, I want to raise my hands in acknowledgment and gratitude for the work that they did.
I want to go back to a question that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale touched on a little bit, with respect to decisions that were made early in this term with respect to freezing fares, cutting fares, reinstating cut routes. These all came at a cost to B.C. Ferries.
Does the minister have any context of what those decisions, the impact that those had now — kind of looking back on them — on the bottom line for B.C. Ferries?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the leader of the Green Party for that nice acknowledgment of the work of B.C. Ferries. I think that you and I…. I live on an island, and I know that the people, whether they’re deckhands or engineers or on the bridge or at the ferry ticket booth, are part of the community and do a huge part, not just in their jobs. They do support us.
Just to answer the member’s questions, the 15 percent fare reduction — rolling back fares by 15 percent on all the routes except the majors, where fares were frozen — cost the province $32.5 million. We also reinstated the 2,700 sailings that the previous government had axed, at a cost of $5.8 million.
These were done in agreement. We negotiated a mutual agreement with B.C. Ferries to enact these. When we first started this, back in 2017, 2018, and even up to last year, B.C. Ferries was at the time making record profits.
A. Olsen: Just to be clear, then, these were not costs that were handed on to B.C. Ferries. These were costs that were paid for by the province.
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, they were paid for by the province, and they continue to be paid for by the province.
A. Olsen: Shifting gears a little bit here, just in terms of the numbers. There have been some numbers that have been publicized, as the member mentioned earlier, $1.5 million a day. That number has been decreasing over time. Certainly, the situation at B.C. Ferries is a bleak one, just as it is for other transportation providers that we’ll get into, I’m sure, as we get through here.
From the answers that the minister has been providing, it sounds like the hope is that the increased ridership is going to somehow make up for this. Maybe I’m not hearing this, the answers that were given, correctly. Does the province intend on providing any financial support for B.C. Ferries, or is it up to B.C. Ferries to make up the losses that they’ve endured through the COVID-19 pandemic, in at least these first four months?
Hon. C. Trevena: We are having a regular dialogue with B.C. Ferries, as we are with B.C. Transit, with TransLink, with all transportation providers. It is unprecedented…. I think the word has become so commonplace, but these are unprecedented times. We are continuing to work with them and continue to follow what is happening with ridership in all these transportation entities, but it’s still too soon to make definitive statements about what happens next.
It is June. The worst part was, obviously, March into the beginning of April. We’re starting to see changes. Times are fluid. We want to work with all the entities to make sure that we come up with the right solutions for the people of B.C.
A. Olsen: Transit and ferries are still operating, so they must have at least some ability to still pay the bills. I’m just wondering what kind of options might be on the table, other than the provincial government supporting these. As the minister has pointed out, these are essential services. With B.C. Ferries, we’ve heard, in the minister’s responses, a couple times of the interesting kind of corporate relationship that we have with this particular service provider.
I’m just wondering what options there might be on the table. The reality is that the system was stressed — certainly, the system in my riding, I hear about it all the time — and was straining to deliver the services to the people of British Columbia. As the minister quite rightly pointed out, that is the primary goal of this service. I’m just wondering what contingencies are in place to support not only all the workers that work on B.C. Ferries but also this service that connects our communities in a vital way.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m sorry. I’m not being evasive here to the member. We are working with B.C. Ferries just to try and understand their complete financial situation. They are an independent entity. So we haven’t, as a province, got the ability to dive deeply into their books. We are working with them to look at the different options, what might transpire.
While we are hitting stage 3 here at the end of June, going into the beginning of July, it is still very early in the restart. Those conversations are still happening.
A. Olsen: Part of the challenge that I think I’m covering here is that while we are still in this situation, and there, perhaps, is still some time to go in the situation that we’re in with COVID-19, the reality is I think that it’s very unlikely the ferry system is going to be able to make up, in the short term, for the very substantial financial hits to their revenue that they have taken over the past four months.
That’s going to impact decisions that they’re making, as was pointed out by my colleague for Surrey-Cloverdale, on their capital expenditures. The problem with that, of course, is that we need these services to be resilient and sustainable over a long period of time. If the only option is for them to slash capital budgets, then all we’re doing is saying that this four-month hit is going to actually be, potentially, years.
It could impact their capital budgets over decades, rather than the government sitting back and not providing the support that might be needed in order for them to be able to maintain some semblance of normalcy — recognizing that there’s nothing normal about the situation that we’re in — so that then they can preserve some of the capital budgets.
I’m hearing, on a regular basis, and I know that you hear from our office, about terminal infrastructure being very underscoped at Vesuvius and Fulford and on many others. Basically, by sitting back and forcing them or by not offering something now, we’re basically making them make a decision to cut investments that they can make to improve the system over a long term. I’m not sure if that’s the best scenario. Have the government and the minister considered the potential impact that that’s going to have on our constituents over the long term?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member and I agreed on the importance of the ferry system, that it is integral to the lives of many people, the success of many businesses and the vibrancy of many communities. That’s why our government has made record investments in B.C. Ferries, and that’s why we are having these conversations with B.C. Ferries. That’s why we are not accepting cuts in service. It’s why we are working with B.C. Ferries to try to find ways forward in times that are unprecedented.
It’s too early to be making any decisions about cuts in capital or cuts in procurement or whatever it is. We are three months into a pandemic that has shaken our economy and shaken our society. This is not the time to be making major decisions. It’s a time to actually be having conversations, to be working through lots of different potential options and to be having those hopefully very collegial conversations about what is in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.
A. Olsen: I agree that we are in the beginning stages of what could potentially go on for a long time. I’m just not sure at what point it is that we go from the situation that we’re in now to the situation that we’re going to be in. At what point do we have that conversation?
I think the reality is that while we, from the provincial perspective, are still in the very early stages and we’re just beginning the restart and beginning the process of building the economy up again, the reality is that this service provider has been losing money every day and has been losing substantial money every day. Because it’s not a Crown Corporation, or because it’s not part of the Ministry of Transportation, the administration of that organization — because it is the corporate structure that it is — has to make decisions. I don’t know that they can just sit back. I think they have to find a way to pay the bills.
If the province hasn’t provided options to that corporation for them to pay bills, then they’re going to be looking for that money somewhere else. It’s my understanding from the answers that the minister has given today that they have not provided other options. That means that clearly, they’re getting the money from somewhere. That’s either emptying out their contingencies or other funds that they have.
That is actually undercutting their ability to provide a sustainable service in the future. I mean, we had a lot of old ferries, and the B.C. Ferries corporation has been in a process of renewing those ferries in a ferry renewal plan that hopefully is sustainable over the long term, so we don’t have to buy a bunch of ferries all at once again.
I’m just wondering. At what point do we go from being in the early stages of this pandemic to actually putting some solutions on the table that recognize the provincial interest of this in a way that…? To some extent, the answers here…. The ferries are arm’s-length, but on the other hand, they’re also a critical provider of transportation for British Columbia citizens to get to their homes, to connect to their homes.
I want to better understand at what point we go from trying to understand the situation that we’re in to actually putting solutions on the table so that they’re not undermining their ability to provide a sustainable service and to do the very needed upgrades that are needed right now, that have been needed for decades, at the Fulford ferry terminal, as an example.
Hon. C. Trevena: We’ve been working with B.C. Ferries since the very start of this. That’s why we got into the agreement with the ferry corporation to reduce service drastically. I mean, to stop two routes, one of the minors and one of the majors, was a significant reduction in service.
We did it continuing to pay B.C. Ferries the full contract amount. We have not cut back any of our funding to B.C. Ferries, even though they are still not providing all the service. We have continued to pay full dollar to B.C. Ferries. Likewise, that’s why — I don’t know if you were across the conversation earlier with the opposition critic — we decided, also, to come up with the money to ensure that the discretionary sailings that B.C. Ferries had willingly provided before but now were not so willing to provide…. We paid that money for them.
B.C. Ferries came into this crisis as a very healthy company. Year on year, they were making record profits.
My answer to your previous question. I’m not being evasive. We are working with B.C. Ferries. We are talking to B.C. Ferries. People from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure are in conversation almost daily, if not daily, with their counterparts in B.C. Ferries as we all work through this.
Yes. We hear the big figures of loss that B.C. Ferries is stating. We have seen the declining ridership. We’ve seen the increase in ridership. We’re seeing that things are moving quickly, and we are working with B.C. Ferries to find solutions that will work for not just the short term but for the long term.
A. Olsen: I’ll ask one more question. It might have one follow-up. Just to let my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale know, I’m wrapping up here on this section.
I think, just to switch gears a little bit here…. I don’t want to leave B.C. Ferries without asking a question about the future. We’ve been talking about the impact of COVID-19 on B.C. Ferry Services and how we have, basically, floating highways where we move cars. It’s very much a car-centric system. I’ve talked with the minister about this a few times. We’ve seen a dramatic increase in foot passenger traffic.
I’m wondering what the future…. As we’re looking at building the economy and making investments in the future and where we want British Columbia to be, what kinds of considerations have been made within the ministry with respect to a philosophical approach to moving people?
We see, in the Inner Harbour, catamarans that bring people out to view the whales. Those boats are built right here on the Saanich Peninsula.
I’m just wondering if, perhaps, the ministry has now turned its mind and its thoughts to how we can revolutionize the ferry service to be moving passengers to where they need to go and to maybe providing an opportunity as part of the active transportation.
What kinds of thoughts does the minister have on that aspect of it, where we can start to move away from moving cars to moving people and getting them to the locations that they want to be? I’m thinking about Royal Bay to Esquimalt to Victoria, for an example, and then something that we’ve talked about: the southern Gulf Islands and ability to connect with Sidney directly rather than into Swartz Bay. There are probably others as well. I’ll leave it at that.
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, yes, thank you very much for raising this. The questions that the member is raising are really one of the reasons why I wanted to move ahead with the vision for the ferry system.
I say for the ferry system because I went into all the meetings that we held — we held seven meetings last fall — up and down the coast, over on Haida Gwaii, the Sunshine Coast and in the member’s own constituency. I believe the member sent his assistant to the meeting. It was to look at what a ferry system could be for the people of B.C., not just today or tomorrow but visionary, to look through the 20 years hence, maybe the 30 or 40 years hence, of what we do, how we want to ensure that our communities are well connected and that people are served in the way that they need to be served.
The member mentioned foot passenger ferries — this came up a number of times from a number of different communities — and also the potential of different routes. The ferry system that we have has been evolving over the last 60 or so years and was built primarily on, sort of, the steamship lines model. It’s just how we can make sure that people are being served in the way that they need to be served.
We’re seeing the growth in electric vehicles. We’re seeing a growth in active transportation. Obviously, our ministry has our own active transportation strategy, which was released last year. We are wanting to see what we can do. I think there is a real opportunity to look at how we can change the way that people are moving, and there is an appetite for that to be changed.
We launched it last year, last fall, had meetings, as I say, up and down the coast. We did online engagement, which was extended up until April because of COVID. We are analyzing the feedback from that. We’ll hopefully be able to outline the province’s vision — both the results of the very strong community engagement and how we as a province feel that a ferry system should be evolving for the people of B.C. — later this summer.
A. Olsen: I just want to end with thanking the minister. I recognize that we are, literally, still in the middle of this; that’s not lost on me. But I did need to push on some of these areas, primarily because I’m well aware — as a minister who is from a ferry-dependent community, I’m sure you’re well aware — of the emotion that’s around this. This is the connective tissue, really, for our constituents who are on the islands, so there’s a lot of concern about the potential impact that this is going to have on the resilience and sustainability of the ferry system overall.
I think this line of questioning was really to demonstrate that we’re alive to those issues. I’ll continue to ask these questions, because I think it’s really important that our constituents do understand that we’re alive to the reality that they need those ferries to get to where they need to get to and to get back home again — and to work, I should say, as well. Thank you for your answers.
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I appreciate the questions. He’s quite right; the ferries are vital. There is not just a huge amount of emotion but a huge amount of need. We want to make sure that we have a resilient system because this is still a marine highway for hundreds of thousands of people up and down the coast.
M. Hunt: I believe the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is ready to go, so I cede the floor to her.
D. Barnett: To the Minister of Transportation, I have a couple of questions. One is regarding the indefinite suspension of the Sea Wolf from Port Hardy to Bella Coola. Do you have any indication when this ferry may be back in service?
This is a very important component for not just residents but also tourism operators. Our tourism operators are suffering, as they are all across the province. This is a major economic engine for the tourism operators in the Bella Coola Valley and right through Highway 20 to Williams Lake.
Could you give any indication when the suspension would be lifted?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for the question. In fact, I took the Northern Sea Wolf last year from Port Hardy and drove up through the Bella Coola Valley and over the hump and through the member’s own constituency — my summer vacation. It was a beautiful trip.
The Sea Wolf was out of commission in the spring. It is now at Deas Dock. It won’t be going on this run this summer. It will be moved up to cover the Nimpkish run in the fall, when the Nimpkish is taken out and decommissioned.
I know that this is very important for the member’s riding and for tourism. B.C. Ferries…. When we had our initial agreement back in April, one of the parts of the agreement was that all the northern routes would be running on their winter schedule. They were not going to be bringing in a summer schedule because we didn’t know what was going to be happening.
Indigenous communities, I know, are very concerned about having tourists come. At the same time, as I say, the Sea Wolf was out of commission. It is now at Deas Dock. So there we are.
The Chair: Member, did you have another question?
D. Barnett: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my understanding that the Nimpkish is running. I hope I’m correct. If it is running, is it running from Port Hardy to Bella Bella to Bella Coola and back again? Is it running just for foot traffic, or is it for cars? Is it advertised for the public at large?
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. Yes, the Nimpkish is running. It’s running between Bella Coola and Bella Bella. At Bella Bella, people can get the big ferry — I think it’s the Northern Expedition — either up to Rupert or down to Hardy. It is a vehicle ferry.
I don’t believe that B.C. Ferries is advertising it for a big tourism push as they started to do with the Sea Wolf, but it is running on that route. It isn’t running down to Port Hardy. It’s running between Bella Coola and Bella Bella. People who wanted to get the ferry would be working through B.C. Ferries’ scheduling.
D. Barnett: I have one more question, and it is a big concern. We, of course, live in, unfortunately, forest fire territory — Tweedsmuir Park, Anahim Lake, Alexis Creek and through there. Of course, there are only two ways out of the valley and out of the Chilcotin — one is by ferry and the other is Highway 20 to Williams Lake.
Has the ministry been working with the emergency planning group? I know all the ministers are involved. In case we do have a forest fire, will there be access to ferry service should we need to evacuate and need to use the evacuation route part of it from Bella Coola?
Hon. C. Trevena: I absolutely understand the member’s concern about this. We would work to ensure that there was a supplemental service going into Bella Coola in the event of an evacuation. We’d work with EMBC. Obviously, we’d work with Ferries and others to ensure that people were able to safely leave the valley.
M. Hunt: Part of the vision of the future for B.C. Ferries is fleet electrification. My question to the minister is: has any initial modelling been done to measure the impact of electrification of the fleet?
Hon. C. Trevena: This is part of B.C. Ferries’ capital plan. I understand that they are investigating electrification of the fleet. They have brought in two new vessels that are diesel-electric, so they can be used electrically. I know that they were planning to bring in four more of these sorts of vessels.
I understand that B.C. Ferries has had conversations with B.C. Hydro, but this is part of B.C. Ferries’ capital planning.
M. Hunt: I thought it might a be part of the visioning. So let me ask that as a question, then. Would this, then, become part of the ministry’s visioning for ferries in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not going to prejudge what actually comes out of the vision, but as a province, as a government, we are absolutely committed to reducing our carbon footprint. We have brought in CleanBC, which has got the most rigorous carbon reductions, I think, in any government, at least in Canada, and I believe North America. We would obviously be wanting to look at how we can ensure that our ferry fleet is also running as cleanly as it possibly can, as greenly as it possibly can.
Our inland fleet — we have a plan of having all electric ferries by 2040. We are absolutely committed to making sure that ferry systems are as clean as possible. The inland fleet is within the ministry’s remit to be able to make that call — that they will be electric by 2040. B.C. Ferries is not within the ministry’s remit, so we cannot dictate for them to be electric or LNG or whichever source of fuel is preferred.
The Chair: Member, do you have another question?
M. Hunt: Working off of that answer, then, let’s shift up to the inland ferries and ask a quick question. Can the minister tell us what impacts, if any, COVID-19 has had on the freshwater ferries?
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question.
Like the saltwater ferries, the inland ferries did see a reduction in traffic — fewer people out on the roads — to a lesser extent than, at least, the majors in the B.C. Ferries system.
We, as a ministry, maintained service throughout the pandemic and continue to do so, bearing in mind we do have Transport Canada’s guidelines on safety on boats, which do apply. Similarly to the B.C. Ferries, we are starting to see an increase in ridership.
M. Hunt: With that, I will shift gears, if the minister has appropriate staff, and she can say yes or no. Could we go to ride-hailing? Would she have staff so that I can ask a question on ride-hailing?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, we’re just going to get them. If the member can wait maybe one minute, we will have the appropriate staff in.
The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 5:51 p.m. to 5:56 p.m.
[M. Dean in the chair.]
M. Hunt: Starting on ride-hailing, my question is: how many companies are licensed to operate as ride-hailing companies in B.C. now?
Hon. C. Trevena: In that break…. I just wanted to acknowledge that we have two new staff members here who are helping. We have Steve Haywood, who is the executive lead on taxi modernization and ride-hail, and Renée Mounteney, assistant deputy minister.
There have been 14 companies that have been approved. Four are operational. Those four are Uber, Lyft, KABU and Whistle.
M. Hunt: Thank you for the distinction between those who are approved and those who are operating, because that was ultimately going to be my very next question. So thank you for that.
Can the minister tell us: of the four that are operating, what regions are they operating in?
Hon. C. Trevena: The areas that they’re operating in are 1 and 3, and I’ve really got to acknowledge the fact that it has taken some time to get ride-hailings to British Columbia — from 2012, when we first heard about Uber. So we were very pleased this year — we are in 2020 — that our government successfully brought in ride-hail in a way that is the safest regime, I think, in North America. People are looking to the way that we operate ride-hail.
Although we have had COVID, and that’s had an impact across the passenger transportation sector…. Talking not only about ferries and transit, but definitely for the taxi industry as well as the new ride-hail industry — the issue of the pandemic has obviously hit hard across the board there.
M. Hunt: Again, Madam Minister, if I could be so…. I don’t even know what word to use. But she’s giving me technical answers.
For the sake of the general population that’s going to read these minutes, what are area 1 and area 3? Not to just make it a short answer, could she then tell us what areas ride-hailing is approved for but not yet operating as well?
Hon. C. Trevena: The areas that have been established by the Passenger Transportation Board…. This is, as the member knows, the independent board that approves ride-hailing applications and has worked very hard through these last couple of years since we’ve been government to make sure that we can deliver on ride-hail as well as the work that they’re doing with the taxi industry.
Region 1 is the Lower Mainland and Whistler. So that’s Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley, Squamish and Lillooet. Region 3 is Vancouver Island, but that doesn’t include the capital regional district. So it is Cowichan Valley, Nanaimo regional district, Comox Valley, Alberni-Clayoquot, Strathcona regional district, Mount Waddington and also qathet over in Powell River.
There have been applications for the other three regions, so everywhere in the province has had applications. For the member, I’ll let him know that region 2 is the capital regional district; region 4 is the Okanagan, Kootenay-Boundary and Cariboo; and region 5 is north central B.C. as well as other areas in B.C.
M. Hunt: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
Does she know how many active drivers are with each one of the approved and operating companies?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is very well aware that we are collecting lots of data as we bring ride-hail in. We’ve said that everything is going to be driven by data, no pun intended — that the decisions that we make are going to be driven by data. I know there’s been a lot of concern about whether it’s licences and boundaries and so on, but the Passenger Transportation Board has been saying that they will make decisions based on data.
The number is updated very regularly. We don’t have access to a specific figure at the moment, but if the member wants to give a time frame, we can find out that data and get back to him. As I say, obviously, things are going to be somewhat different because of COVID, but I think it would be the data…. If we are able to get that for the member, it would be those who are actually working at the moment — if he would like to get that information. But we don’t have it to hand.
M. Hunt: I appreciate that the minister may not have it right at her fingertips, but I would certainly appreciate having that sent to me. And just dealing currently, as of today — you know, pick an arbitrary date here. That’s perfectly fine for me.
Moving on, can the minister provide an update on the budget and staffing levels at the Passenger Transportation Board that are focused on ride-hailing?
Hon. C. Trevena: We can’t identify who is working specifically on ride-hail. It’s a very small organization, and, really, they’ve worked exceedingly hard. We have to thank them and the part-time board members who have been working exceedingly hard over this last number of months. There has been an extreme amount of pressure on them, obviously, to get the applications in last fall and process them when we have just seven part-time board members and six full-time employees, on top of the work they’re doing with the taxi industry, the bus industry and everything else. So it’s been an extreme amount of work for them, and I think the province really needs to thank them for their dedication and their hard work.
M. Hunt: What is the budget for the Passenger Transportation Board?
Hon. C. Trevena: The budget this year is $890,000, which is a $315,000 lift on last year. Obviously, there’s been a lot of work and continues to be a lot of work for the board.
M. Hunt: Would the minister know how many applications have been rejected?
Hon. C. Trevena: We were just making sure that our figures tied with…. We were having a look at a number of lists. We wanted to make sure that we’re giving the member the correct number.
Eighteen applications have been refused. After a lot of questioning of whether anybody would apply to provide ride-hail in British Columbia — with the safest regime and some of the toughest standards anywhere in North America — I’m pleased to say that not only did we get the ones that everyone recognizes, the major international companies, but we’ve had 41 applications from companies across the province wanting to provide ride-hail under our ride-hail standards. I think that’s a great credit. I think it’s a great credit that the Passenger Transportation Board is still being able to work through them.
That’s a long answer just to say that 18 were refused.
M. Hunt: Well, I think that also is a real testament to the pent-up demand, since we are one of the last in North America to get there. Obviously, a great demand, which is great.
My next question to the minister: can she tell us the prevalence or order of magnitude of illegal ride-hailing in the province?
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, this was something that was significant before ride-hailing was brought in. There were a number of companies operating illegally. That continues to be a major focus for the passenger transportation branch. Under Bill 55, the level of penalties increased. It’s not just that the illegal ride-hailer is fined — there is not just enforcement — but there’s also education to try and show that there are alternatives, and there is a process to become a legal ride-hail operation now.
I’m not sure whether I actually mentioned the number. It was eight.
M. Hunt: Thank you for that, Madam Minister. The next question is tied right into that. How are these rules enforced? What is the level of enforcement? Who’s actually doing it?
Hon. C. Trevena: Enforcement is done through four channels. One, as I mentioned, is the passenger transportation branch, a branch of the ministry. There is the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement office, which also plays a part. Obviously, municipal bylaws. The member is from Surrey, so I know that he’s very aware of the question about whether ride-hail is legal or illegal in a community. Finally, the police. The four agencies do coordinate, obviously. They’re not working independently. They are working together to make sure that they are effective.
The fines have increased significantly. The fines to a driver are $1,150 and, to companies, up to $100,000. So far, just in case the member is wanting this information, there have been 135 violation tickets and 110 cease-and-desist orders.
M. Hunt: The minister is doing very well at anticipating my questions. In the midst of that, would she have the breakdown? Of those 135 tickets that have been issued, how many would be under the old fine and how many the new? “How effective have the new fines been?” is the essence of the question. Would she have the breakdown between the old and the new?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very conscious of time, but we’re just a bit unclear on what the member is meaning by old and new. Is this sort of like pre–Bill 55 or post or…? Just if you could give a bit of clarification there.
M. Hunt: The minister is reading my mind. Yes, that’s exactly what it is. Do we have the breakdown between the old fines under the old system and now, after Bill 55, how many we’ve had under the new regulations?
Hon. C. Trevena: We don’t have that breakdown, but we will get it for the member.
M. Hunt: First, a question to the Chair. How long are we supposed to go? When are we supposed to rise?
The Chair: We will rise before 6:30, so in a few more minutes, when the minister is ready to move the motion.
M. Hunt: Thank you.
Let’s see if I can sneak two questions in here. How many complaints have been received regarding the operating companies so far? Would the minister have that information?
Hon. C. Trevena: We were just double-checking. We don’t actually have that. But again, we’ll get this to the member for tomorrow.
M. Hunt: Just being cognizant of the time, could I ask that the minister, when she gets the number of complaints, if we could get the general essence of the complaints — not specific but a general ballpark of what types of complaints they were, how many and on what areas?
Hon. C. Trevena: We’ll do our best.
M. Hunt: Noting the hour, I have a long question that I have the sneaking suspicion will have a short answer.
As the minister knows, workers across B.C. have been devastated by COVID-19. Many have been sidelined — businesses, all those sorts of things — so we have many workers who are looking to supplement their income through signing on as drivers with ride-hailing companies. In fact, several ride-hailing companies have actually written to the minister in May, recognizing this fact and requesting that the minister reconsider her stance on class 4 licensing.
In light of the current pandemic and the recommendation of the all-party committee, will the minister allow ride-hailing drivers to operate with a class 5 plus licence?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very proud that B.C. is operating with the best safety regime in North America with all our approaches we’ve taken to ride-hailing. One of those is sticking with a class 4 licence. It does ensure both that extra level of training for the driver and an extra sense of security for the passengers. Safety has to be our number one priority. I’ve had this discussion many times with ride-hail companies. But we will not be changing the licensing requirements, and we will be remaining with class 4 for ride-hail, as it is with taxis.
M. Hunt: A supplemental on that would be: considering the fact that ICBC has, in fact, suspended road tests considerably, and they are currently working on the commercial side of things, which is your 1s to 3s, could the minister tell us the impact this is having on obtaining enough ride-hailing drivers for these companies?
Hon. C. Trevena: We are committed to safety. We are determined that we will remain the safest jurisdiction for ride-hail. Part of that regime is having a class 4 licence. While we have more limited road-testing at the moment, ICBC has started commercial classes 1 to 3 testing and is still doing the written test for class 4. I’m sure it will be moving as swiftly as it can to class 4 road-testing, obviously then on to class 5 road-testing. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we continue having the safest regime for ride-hail in North America.
The Chair: Member, I will be asking the minister to move the motion. So was there just a final comment?
M. Hunt: The final comment would be…. I have just a couple more questions. We’ll start there tomorrow morning, if that’s all right with the minister.
The Chair: Thank you, Member.
Minister, I ask you to move the motion.
Hon. C. Trevena: If I might just end with…. ICBC is actually taking appointments for class 4 licensing now, I’ve just been told. So things are moving quickly, and we can maintain that we’ll do class 4 licensing.
I’m happy to move the motion.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
Motion approved.
The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 6:27 p.m.