Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 95
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021
The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued estimates for the Ministry of Finance.
In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call the continued estimates for the Ministry of Health.
In Section C, the Birch Room, I call the continued estimates for the Ministry of Transportation.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); N. Letnick in the chair.
The committee met at 1:33 p.m.
On Vote 26: ministry operations, $307,466,000 (continued).
Hon. S. Robinson: The member had asked a question just before we broke for lunch. Before I get to my response, I just want to correct something on the record that I mentioned yesterday. I was talking about the PST rebate and didn’t read out the full sentence. I think it actually changes the context. I had said that $19 million was the eligible amount approved. That was the eligible amount on the machinery, on the purchases that were approved.
I thought I would just qualify that — that the total amount of the rebate that was approved was $1.347 million. I wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding of what it was that I was talking about. I wanted to make sure that that was clear.
Now, on to the member’s question that he asked before we broke for lunch. I want to make sure it’s…. It’s always hard to keep track. There were so many questions. They were good questions. He had asked about the annual debt-servicing payments for ’21-22, if I recall, and were there to be a downgrade, what the impact would be.
First, I want to acknowledge that we entered the pandemic in a very strong fiscal position. We were strong financially, with a stable, diverse economy, with a tremendous asset, I think, which is the people of British Columbia. That’s been going on for years. It’s not unique to our government — the previous government as well. That’s a testament to the people that call British Columbia home. We expect that we’ll continue to do the good work of taking care of our families, building up this province, making sure that our communities meet the needs of our families, and that good work will continue as part of recovery.
The annual debt-servicing payments for ’21-22 are $2.9 billion. I believe it’s in the budget document, and I can get the page number for the member if he would like. In our understanding, a downgrade, we estimate, would be five basis points. I also think it’s important, given the context of the pandemic, that we still remain the lowest-cost borrower in the country, which I think speaks to the health, historically, of our economy, the diversification of our economy and the hard work of British Columbians.
I’m pleased to tell the member that we’ve been well received in capital markets, in terms of conversations. Since we’ve released the budget and after Moody’s announcement of our triple-A credit rating holding steady, we continue to be very well received.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for the answer. With the discussion we had, also just before lunch, around the baseline credit assessment downgrade, did that have any material impact at all to our debt-servicing costs?
Hon. S. Robinson: No.
M. Bernier: That was a very succinct answer.
I’m sure it had some impact but obviously nothing material, as I phrased it in my question. I appreciate the answer from the minister. I should also, just for a heads-up, let the minister know that probably in an hour or so I’ll have one or two colleagues come in and ask questions. For the most part, I’ll be the leader of the three-ring circus for the afternoon.
I just want to change gears a little bit around the public service. A question, maybe, to the minister. Maybe I’ll put something on the record first of all, and she can quantify this for me. Since 2017, the public service has grown by over 100,000 employees, according to the data in budget documents that we have here in government — 104,124, a 27 percent increase that we’ve seen in hiring in the public service over the last four, 4½ years.
Is the minister able to tell me — to this year, then, with 100,000 new employees — what the increase is to the budget, just for payroll for the public service, since 2017? I don’t need to have each year, just the total increase compared to the 2017 budget to now and into the 2021-22 budget. With 100,000 new employees, what was the increase?
Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to get clarification from the member. He talked about the public service. I’m wondering if he was meaning the public sector, because the number that he’s using speaks more to public sector than it does to the public service.
Public service is, really, folks that keep government running. But the public sector is teachers and doctors and paramedics, etc., a much broader perspective. It requires, first of all, different staff. It requires trying to add up a different set of numbers, so I want to get some clarification from the member.
M. Bernier: That’s fair. I appreciate that. Going off the table here that I have in front of me from the documents, this is everything. It says public service hiring, but we’re talking about health, education, public service, universities, Crowns, colleges and community social services. On this table that I have, it’s a 27 percent increase of 104,000 people that have been hired over the last five years.
To the question the minister had, it’s a little broader, maybe, than the way I explained it at first. That, hopefully, will give her and the people in her head that speak to her a little bit more guidance on what kind of information I’m looking for.
Hon. S. Robinson: I’m grateful for the clarification. It has a different meaning, and that’s really helpful.
Certainly, we have seen an increase in staffing for health. Certainly the pandemic hiring of contact tracers, for example, and making sure that we have folks to do vaccinations has increased significantly. To go back from 2017, I’m actually not able to do that today because staff just haven’t pulled up all of those numbers, but I can say over the last couple of years, if that’s helpful to the member, what that looks like.
We’ve had an increase in terms of head count — about a 29,000 increase in head count for health. That’s about pandemic response initiatives. It’s also about the cancer plan and the surgical plan. We have been accelerating surgeries significantly. It’s people that do surgeries, very talented people. It’s making sure that we have folks to make sure that for those who need hips, knees and eyes, and heart surgeries and cancer surgeries, all of that can happen.
The Hospital at Home program and the rural and remote strategy. These are direct service delivery programs to people here in British Columbia who need these services. That’s been a very significant increase.
The K-12 public education. We have seen an increase in teachers from 45,000 to nearly 48,000 over the last couple of years. Support staff have increased from 31,000 to about 38,000. We needed additional, certainly, teaching staff. The population we’re seeing in our K-12 system is growing, and that’s a good thing. It means that the rest of us can, at some point, retire. That is also, I think, a good thing, because they’ll be the next well-educated generation to take over for us.
The Crown corporations. There has been a slight increase over two years — 22,500 to 26,000. These are elements of making sure that we are continuing, again, to deliver services to British Columbians. I think about B.C. Housing and the amount of work and the volume of work they’ve been doing — building the housing, making sure that we can address homelessness, making sure that we can have housing for women fleeing violence. All of that, again, takes people.
Other community services. We’ve seen an increase of 6,300. Again, that’s about taking care of folks who are homeless, making sure that they have their needs met, because we know what happens when you don’t have these services. Wait-lists continue to grow. Having large classroom sizes is certainly not acceptable. Again, it’s making sure that we have supports for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.
We’ve certainly seen an increase in post-secondary institutions — an additional 3,200 more employees there, again, educating the next generation. We know that you need to have a skill set in order to participate in the economy, in order to drive innovation, in order to drive recovery. Making sure that there are teachers for the next generation is absolutely critical.
The last thing I want to say about that is that when we look at seniors care, I think the pandemic has really demonstrated what happens when you don’t hire people to care for our seniors. Just in question period today, we heard from the Minister of Health and the opposition how important it is to have paramedics and what the impact is if you don’t. So we’ve been hiring more paramedics so that we can have a response.
When you think about seniors and care aides and the work that they do…. It’s intimate work caring for an elderly person, making sure that they have the dignity, that they can access the toilet, that they can have a bath, that they can age with grace. That’s work that is at the bedside, and we saw what happens when you don’t have enough people doing this important work.
Again, I think about the kind of care that my grandparents have received and my mom. Making sure that they had good bedside support was absolutely critical. I’m forever grateful for the work that they do.
M. Bernier: First of all, I thank the minister for that information. I’ll apologize. That was not quite where my question was going, and it could completely be my fault, the way I articulated it. My thought was more around not necessarily where those people were hired, but I will acknowledge that that was good information. But it’s the impact to the taxpayers. That’s where I was going.
On the PSA website, if I’m reading it correctly — I just pulled it up here — compensation is now at about $37 billion for the areas that the minister actually just acknowledged. The point that I was just trying to understand was in the last five years, since 2017, it’s been an increase of 104,000 people, according to the PSA. So what was the impact to the budget, I guess, is what I’m saying? So what did we pay in 2017 for the public sector? Now we’re paying $37 million. So I’m just curious on what that increase was over the five years, because I think that is significant.
I don’t want to take away from the minister’s point of where government makes decisions on hiring into different areas, but I think that it is an expectation, though, from the public to know, okay, what’s that costing them as taxpayers? So what’s the increase in that five years in dollars? Not in people, in dollars, if I can, in this time, to bring us now to $37 billion? What was it in 2017?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I was listening to the member’s choice of words: what is the impact to the taxpayer? And I was thinking: “Well, we’re all taxpayers.” The real impact is that you get your knees done when they need to get done. You get your surgical care when you need to get your surgical care. Your elderly parent or grandparent gets the care that they need, with dignity. And if you should be needing an ambulance, you’d be able to get one.
I think that we always need to tie the taxes that we pay to the services that we receive. It’s not that it just goes into some pot and then just disappears. It is about services. I think it’s really important. And I will always tie it — I think that we should all tie it — to what it means. What’s the benefit? If it means that my kids are going to be educated, if it means that they’re going to get….
Let me talk about grandchildren, should I ever get them. I like to talk about the fantasy I have about grandchildren one day. That they’ll get health care right from the get-go, whatever their needs are. My kids will be able to access early learning and child care so that they can continue in their careers. That my future grandchildren, should I be so lucky to have them, will be well-educated in a public education system and be able to go on to university or trades or whatever their little hearts desire and be well-educated. That they will be able to participate in the economy, because their services and their highways and their health care and their education are well supported.
That, for me and my husband as we age with dignity surrounded by all of our grandchildren, should I be so lucky to have them — my son is probably squirming right now — then I, too, will get the care that I will need as I age. I think that that’s what we all hope for.
We hope for aging with grace and dignity and supports. We hope that we won’t need much, but I think the evidence is clear that we will at some point need something. So I think we need to recognize that we are paying for services. As a government, that has been our commitment: to make sure that the services are there for people when they need them.
With that, I don’t have the numbers going back to 2017. I do have for the last two fiscal years, and I hope this will be helpful to the member.
Total compensation across all sectors has increased by about $6½ billion, and a net change of nearly $3.8 billion is tied to increased resources required for the pandemic, as well as a negotiated increase to the sustainable services negotiating mandate within the health sector. That’s where the change has been.
Again, before I take my place and wait for the member’s next question, I do think it’s absolutely critical that we recognize it is public sector awareness week, I guess, and acknowledge the front-line work that we have seen time and time again. Whether it’s folks working with people who are struggling with addictions and people who are caring for our children in our schools. Whether it’s the janitors, the cleaners that have been working so hard in all of our public institutions to make sure that we all can stay safe. I think that’s really worthy of acknowledgment, and they’re part of this, right? Their services — their salaries are in this discussion right now.
The taxpayers are getting value for money. They’re getting extraordinary health care. Extraordinary education systems. Opportunities for early learning for their children. Aging with dignity for their parents. I think that’s what’s really important here to the taxpayers.
M. Bernier: I just quickly looked on my phone, actually, while the minister was giving that answer. Since 2017, it’s $10 billion, approximately. I just thought I’d mention that. I think that’s important.
I don’t want to take away from anything the minister has acknowledged. Governments make choices. Government’s job — and we acknowledged this, I think, collectively, yesterday — is to bring in revenue to expend it out to help people in different ways. That is the role, frankly, of why governments mostly exist. It’s to be those decision-makers of how to move society forward in the best way possible. Different groups make different decisions, based on what they think those priorities are.
This government has chosen to increase the public sector by around 100,000 people so far in their time, and I do also want to acknowledge public sector week. This is not about the work — and I would agree with the minister, the great work — that a lot of our public sector does. I think it’s also important, especially as the Finance Minister, to juggle the fact that there’s the work that’s being done by the public sector, but that does come at a cost to the people of British Columbia.
I’m quickly looking it up, and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong. When I just looked at my phone here, it’s around $10 billion of an increase. If we’re at $37 billion now, that is a 27 percent — or whatever that would work out to — increase, which pretty well mirrors the increase of the staff complement that we have.
It begs the question — projections. That’s quite a substantial growth over just four years. Does the minister feel in her projections, as long as she’s Finance Minister…? I’m thinking that she hopes that’s for quite some time. But does she see the projection is that we’re going to continue on this train of hiring tens of thousands? We have 40,000 this year. Is that going to continue on a year-to-year basis? Do we figure that we’re at a complement that the government is now satisfied with? I mean, obviously, give or take. You’ve got some movement. I’m not naive in that aspect.
It’s really around: where does the government then see their projections going for hiring, and how is that going to be paid for?
If we are $10 billion further up in costs to the taxpayers — don’t want to get in the debate, necessarily, of the services that they’re getting for it, as the minister already alluded to in her comments — how are we paying for that? What tax increases, what revenue sources does the government see in the short term to pay for this large growth in the public sector? Do they see that happening year over year, or are we going to be slowing down post-COVID?
Hon. S. Robinson: I do need to remind the member that the cost increases that you saw in the early parts of 2017, 2018 until 2019 were part of the 2014 wage mandate that, recall, his government had negotiated. A lot of those increases were negotiated before we even came into government. So that increase was not necessarily a decision of this government. I think that that needs to be taken into consideration when looking at the total increases. In fact, that becomes the largest impact, the largest driver in terms of increases in wages.
Also, the member speaks to the cost of increasing services. There is also significant cost to not increasing services. To not…. I always think about, well, what does it cost to wait in pain to have some medical procedure done? What is the cost, and how do we measure that? Is it just lost time from work? Lost income because you can’t work? What is the impact to the family? What is the impact for suffering? So I think about that, and I don’t know how to put a number on that.
I think about not having a response to homelessness. We’ve certainly seen, and we’ve talked about it in this House, about the impacts to that and what it means. What it means to health care costs, what it means in the end, or criminal justice costs. But still, the costs to communities and the cost to dignity. I think there are also costs to not doing something.
We certainly saw that in the pandemic. The costs were people’s lives by not having sufficient bodies taking care of seniors. It was so challenging that because of historical decisions, people who were doing the front-line care for seniors were working two and three jobs. That was making the pandemic significantly challenging to get control over until we had the single-site order brought in.
This was not the fault of the people trying to feed their families. It was because we didn’t set up a service. We did not have a service established that would allow them to do an honest day’s work, a good day’s work, and still be able to feed their families. So this means having to make sure that we have enough bodies to do that important work that we value. I’m not suggesting that the member doesn’t value those services. But we also have an obligation to make sure that they work well and that they work well for people.
Now, the member did ask about what the future might look like. We have our three-year fiscal plan. We’ve also had balanced budgets before COVID. We’re a government that’s committed to returning to balance. The path to balance will certainly be evident when we bring in Budget 2022. They’ll be able to see what that looks like and how we’re going to continue to deliver the services that British Columbians deserve — as well as a balanced-budget path that I think British Columbians deserve. I think you can do both.
M. Bernier: I know right now the minister has not been able to give a lot of timelines, I guess I’d say, around the balanced budgets, and I respect that. I’ll maybe talk to her a little bit further about that when we have time.
Interjection.
M. Bernier: The minister says we have time. But unfortunately, with everything being delayed the way it was, the estimates have been compressed so much that we don’t actually have as much time as we normally used to for canvassing in most ministries. We’re trying to make the best of that time on behalf of the people of British Columbia as an opposition representing them as well.
Again, I acknowledge the minister’s points that she’s making about trying to help people. I just don’t know if she’s recognizing the point that I’m trying to raise. We always try to do what we can to help people. But there is the acknowledgment that that always comes at a cost. Everybody always has different ideas.
I think the minister talked about waiting for knee surgery. Well, I know people up in my region wait 18 months as it is. That hasn’t changed. They used to wait 18 months. They still wait 18 months. But we’ve increased the budget a lot and hired a lot more people in the health sector. So some would say they’re not getting bang for their buck. Other people would say things are doing just fine. That’s not really the debate for Finance estimates. That can be in the specific estimates. I know Health estimates are going on right now, and there are probably questions around that.
It’s really around the quality and what you are getting for the dollars, for the tax dollars that people spend. My point that I’m trying to just myself articulate for the record is for different reasons, as the minister said some. We’ve had approximately a $10 billion increase over the last five years — a 25 percent, almost, increase in revenues that is needed to pay for public sector workers for the work that they’re doing.
Again, this is not about taking away or debating the work that they do. I’m canvassing from a financial standpoint to the Minister of Finance around the impacts that that has on the work that the Minister of Finance has to do, because I, too, sooner rather than later, would like to see balanced budgets. I believe the minister when she says she would like to see the same thing. That, too, comes with choices, though. That, too, comes with: how are we going to continue paying for growth in the province? Somebody has to pay for that.
There are two ways of doing this. Either the government is going to have to make tough decisions and reduce the public sector that they’ve hired, or they’re going to have to come up with a revenue stream to pay for it.
My question is: what does the government…? What does the minister see that she is going to have to do, whether that’s going to be…? Are there going to be tax increases? I might talk about the carbon tax later. We know that that’s going to be a huge revenue driver, if the government continues to increase on the path that they have. We’ve got the property transfer tax, which is one of the largest revenue sources right now, in a lot of ways, for the government on an increased side of things, and we can debate that if we so choose.
I’m just curious. From the minister’s standpoint as the person responsible to try to get us to a balanced budget, how does she see that happening in a realistic form if we continue on the path of expenditures with no plan in place yet that really is determinant on a revenue source to pay for it?
Hon. S. Robinson: You know, I’m listening to the member’s question, and I’m thinking: would we be in such a good position here in British Columbia at this place in time, in this moment, if we hadn’t made those investments in health care, for example, and in our schools, in education? If we hadn’t done that work earlier on when we formed government, it makes me wonder where we would be, if we hadn’t done those investments.
I’m really proud of the choices. The member talks about choices. I’m really proud of the choices that we made. I think it really played out well for all British Columbians because we made those choices.
Now, the member certainly talks about the revenues and expenses and getting to balance. We’ve historically, as a government, had balanced budgets. It’s been a priority of our government to maintain that, and we did that.
We did that, I have to say, while also expanding services. We did that, and I think that speaks to (a) our commitment to those values but (b) our ability to be very strategic and thoughtful and careful about where we invest and how we invest in the services that British Columbians need so that we can continue to be a have-province, a province that continues to capitalize on our diverse economy and on the strength of our people.
It’s certainly a strength that we have, going forward. I have said in this House and have certainly shared with the member that we will be presenting a path back to balance with Budget 2022, when we have a better sense — and we’re getting a better sense, for sure — about what economic recovery looks like. Now that we were….
I think back to putting this budget together and trying to understand: “Well, where will we be in terms of our economy? When will things open?” And we frankly had no idea. We had no idea that we would be in such a good place here on June 15, opening up and being able to travel around the province, looking towards July 1, when the next stage, we hope, as long as vaccinations keep going…. We didn’t have that information, so it was very difficult to predict how much longer we’re going to need to be in a pandemic state.
As we see things open up and understand which sectors have been thriving…. Because not everybody in the economy, not all sectors have been severely impacted. Certainly tourism has been severely impacted. There is no doubt. But seeing which sectors will need help in the short term, the medium term and the long term, which sectors are thriving that will continue to generate revenues…. We’re looking at how lumber is going right now. It’s not anything that we predicted six, eight months ago.
Again, there’s certainly…. And the property transfer tax. The volatility in the market continues. So really, the predictability that’s required for doing planning, the kind of planning that we need to do for a path back to balance, is work that we’ve started undertaking — to look at how things open up.
I certainly look forward to, in February, sharing with the member, with the House, Budget 2022, about how we are going to get our path back to balance — what that’s going to look like for British Columbians. It will be a path that absolutely protects the services that we all count on.
The member suggested that a friend is waiting for a knee for 18 months. I have a friend in my community who is a staunch Socred — he still goes by the old name; he prefers to call himself a Socred — who picked up the phone to say: “I can’t believe this is coming out of my mouth. I literally waited, like, two months to get my knee done.” He couldn’t believe it.
Now, this was pre-COVID. So I want to qualify that. We do have, certainly, work to do to get back on track, but I want to acknowledge that there have been tremendous strides to deal with the backlog. It’s made a significant difference, even for some old Socreds who prefer to grumble about our government but will give an acknowledgment, I think, when it’s worthy to do so.
M. Bernier: The minister should pass me that gentleman’s phone number. I am an old Socred too. We could have some good talks.
Just to the minister’s point, again, I have talked about choices, about decisions, just like the minister has. The one thing the minister left out was that government has also had to add or increase 23 new taxes so far during their tenure in the last four and a bit years to help pay for that. So she talks about being able to still balance the budget but left out the part of the equation of taxes having to go up or new taxes put in place in order to help pay for that.
I just wanted to make sure I got that point on the record too, because I think if we’re going to be fair on the…. If the minister wants to be fair on the “Yes, we want to do this, and yes, these are choices we make,” the minister also should be acknowledging: “And we also chose to increase taxes in some areas because that’s what we chose to do in order to help fund some of these other choices that we’ve made.”
The minister also — I’m sorry; it was either this answer or the one before; I think it was the one before — talked about some of the increases and staff increases being because of COVID — especially, I would assume, when she mentioned contact-tracers in the Ministry of Health and some of the budgetary increases that have happened because of COVID, especially on the public sector hiring side.
Is the minister able, then, to say that…? Probably, hopefully, sooner rather than later, we’re out of COVID. Does that mean these people will no longer be part of the 104,000 increase? Does that mean that all of these people that were hired because of COVID are temporary hires? Or do the ministry and government foresee the fact that they might continue? You know, there are 40,000 new people this year, and government has continued to say the majority of those have been because of COVID. When COVID is over, does that mean we’re going to have 40,000 fewer public sector employees?
The Chair: Interesting. From a distance, both your masks look similar in patterns. I wonder if that’s telling from a finance perspective.
Minister of Finance.
Hon. S. Robinson: These are butterflies, Mr. Chair, and he’s got music symbols. But then he’s got money symbols on his tie, which I think is always very interesting for me to look at as the Minister of Finance. I think he did that on purpose. Do you think so, Mr. Chair? I think so.
First of all, I want to respond to the member’s comments about taxes. Our government removed two taxes, in fact. Tolls, which are a tax. They’re called “user fees,” but let’s be clear. It’s a tax — I think a wholly unfair tax to, particularly, those that live south of the Fraser. I think it was…. Again, it saved hundreds and hundreds of dollars for British Columbians living south of the Fraser. It may not have affected people in his riding, but certainly, there were people in Surrey who, as a result of tolls…. So we removed the tolls. That was a choice that we made.
Also, I think the biggest tax relief that British Columbians have ever experienced is eliminating MSP premiums, which was a significant tax on people. Again, others might choose to call it a “user fee,” perhaps, but British Columbians all had to pay it. Sometimes their employer paid it. That would be fortunate for folks, but that wasn’t always the case.
This cost, again, thousands of dollars to families. To young people in particular it was, I think, a shock when they suddenly discovered that they actually had to pay MSP premiums. Had no idea when they became adults that they now had this bill to pay. A user fee but, really, it was a tax. So we removed that as well.
I think it’s really important to recognize that this is a complex component, but we still, in spite of that, continued to deliver balanced budgets.
Now, the member’s question that he tacked onto that was about what’s going to happen post-pandemic. I think that’s a question that is appropriate for the Minister of Health, given the bulk of those hires were there. We are still in it, so understanding how things will shift and change is, of course, to be determined. I know that the Minister of Health is having estimates right now. I imagine perhaps someone is asking him that question. That’s where it would be appropriate to ask that question.
The Chair: Would the member like a recess so he can go to the Minister of Health’s estimates?
M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, no. I don’t need to recess to go to the Ministry of Health, because the last time I looked, the Minister of Finance is the one that does a lot of the determining work on how much money goes to each ministry.
The minister acknowledged earlier during the estimates that she has the constant conversations with all the ministers who came to the Minister of Finance asking for what they could use and what they need. The Minister of Finance is the one who has the responsibility at the end of the day for putting the budget together based on that information.
I find it interesting with that comment. I mean, definitely we can find out from the Minister of Health if he’s willing to answer that, which I doubt, because so far most ministers have said to talk to the Minister of Finance, because she’s the one who determines the overall budget determination, especially when you’re looking at a three-year plan, which the minister puts forward.
My question was really around…. Everybody, for the most part, in government, ministers and the Minister of Finance, has said that a lot of the growth has happened because of COVID. So the minister must have done some planning in the budget documents to say that once COVID is finished, we know that we’re no longer going to need all those people. I’m sure that that’s built in somewhere in the conversations that the Minister of Finance has with her staff, especially when they’re trying to put together a long-term strategic plan.
Somewhere in there, there must be something from this minister that she would know on what her projections are.
Hon. S. Robinson: I think that the member’s question is a good segue into reminding him of the pandemic and recovery contingencies that we have built into this budget and for the fiscal plan over the next number of years. In this one, we have a notional allocation of $900 million for health and safety measures.
The minister is responsible for putting together a plan that he determines — with his experts that he deals with, with public health and with the health care system writ large — in terms of understanding how the system needs to respond to the health needs of British Columbians. I know that the member well knows that when the minister identifies a need and puts together a plan, that comes to Treasury Board for deliberation. It’s through that process that that allocation is determined. So what we have here in the budget is this notional allocation that’s part of the pandemic and recovery contingencies.
I am hopeful — and I think all British Columbians are hopeful — that we won’t need most of that. With a successful vaccination rollout and the numbers taking a deep nose dive, which…. Every day at three o’clock, I don’t know about anybody else, but I go to my Twitter feed and see what the update is, and it helps to just remind us about how well we have done, seeing those numbers come down. What that means is that perhaps we won’t need to carry on in the way that we have been. That makes me hopeful, and I’m sure it makes all British Columbians hopeful.
M. Bernier: I’m going to ask — well, on this same topic here — one more question before I turn it over to my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano, who has just a few questions. I might have one other colleague after that, but I’ll flag that for the minister as we get there.
Well, let me just say, I appreciate the minister foreshadowing that we’ll be here next February, hopefully with a lengthier time in this House than we did this session, so we can actually quantify some of the comments that the minister has made today. We’ll have a couple of quarterly reports by then. At least we expect to have a couple of quarterly reports by then.
I understand that the question that I asked might have been a little loaded, in hindsight — that it would be awkward for the minister to answer directly. But I still think it’s important that we highlight the issue directly. The one thing that I’ve been appreciating through the course of Finance estimates is that it’s not so much the political back-and-forth jabs. It’s more about trying to get factual information on the record for the people of British Columbia — the services they get and what they pay for those services.
With that comment, though, I think it’s important to acknowledge that in the minister’s last comments, when we were talking about taxes and we were talking about choices, the minister forgets to acknowledge when she says that they got rid of PST that it had already been cut in half by us when we were in government.
The minister also neglects to mention that only about 50 percent of the people actually paid MSP at that time, so it didn’t impact everyone, as the government tried to say. When, in fact, most economists now, if you talk to them, by putting in an employer health tax…. So it’s the same thing by a different name charging it to different people to generate the revenue for their health.
The employer health tax, in fact, now can technically impact everybody, because you have businesses that were not having to pay it who now have to pay it, which means their product cost goes up, which means people who weren’t paying MSP before are now seeing increased costs at the supermarket, at the fast food restaurant, wherever they may go, because of the employer health tax.
The only reason why I flag that is, again, to the minister: choices have impacts. I think it’s only fair, especially in Finance estimates. If we want to talk about those choices, we should also be articulating, factually, the impacts that those have on people, because that’s really important.
Maybe I’ll end that monologue-ish bit of commentary with just asking the minister…. I know some of it’s in the budget documents. In order to go through this fiscal year, in order to meet the revenues, even though we’re going to be in a large deficit situation…. Does the minister foresee any other user fees or taxes coming in this year to help subsidize and reduce the amount of deficit that we’re going to be in?
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Hon. S. Robinson: I believe that the member said PST, but I believe he was referring to MSP.
Interjection.
Hon. S. Robinson: Yes. My recollection is that it doubled over their time, and really, we were the last jurisdiction in the nation to have a flat fee for a medical services premium. That impacted the lower-income families and had a significant impact on lower-earning families, because they often did not have an employer that covered off for them.
We can continue this debate, I suspect, at some other time. The member asked if we are anticipating any increased or additional taxes, and the answer is no.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the MLA from Peace River South for the time he is allowing me.
To the minister, when the increased luxury car tax was brought in, it also caught in its net cars that are antique cars or collector cars. These are generally cars that are held for long periods of time. They’re driven infrequently. They are owned by car enthusiasts, groups of people across the province that enjoy restoring these vehicles and the social aspect of rallies and car clubs.
Restoring a vehicle can take years. It can be painstaking, buying parts from different places. Then, by the time it is complete and ready to register, it can now trigger the luxury car tax. ICBC has a category of insurance that recognizes these cars as collector vehicles — if it is driven occasionally, if it is 25 years or older. The application of the luxury car tax to these cars means very few are now coming into British Columbia and less are being restored here.
If I can ask the minister: why didn’t government exclude this category of antique vehicles for the purpose of the luxury car tax, and will it do so now? The second piece of that, if this information is available: does the minister know how much revenue is generated through the luxury car tax on vehicles that also qualify for the collector car status for ICBC?
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. I do want to, first, say that I love her glasses. Can I just get that on the record? They look fabulous.
We don’t have specific information on revenues that come from antique cars, per se. It’s not tracked that way, but I do want to say that this tax is on motor vehicles that are $55,000 or more. So it’s really for very expensive cars.
When we think about the progressiveness of taxes…. Typically, people who have these very expensive cars or are purchasing these very expensive cars tend to be high-income folks as well. So if that’s a hobby, this isn’t a necessity. It is a hobby.
It’s hard to rationalize why these cars and not other cars. This is part of recognizing a levy on very expensive vehicles. They’re called luxury, but perhaps that’s a misnomer. It might just be very expensive, because you could argue that a $55,000 or a $60,000 very old car may not be luxurious, but it’s still a very expensive car.
Again, it sounds like it’s used for recreational purposes. It’s used for a hobby. It’s not a necessity, so to speak, so it’s within that context that this tax applies across the board.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that.
I would not categorize all people who have this as a passionate hobby that they have spent their life since they were young people, working on cars…. I don’t think it necessarily equates to their income. But I’ll move on to just a second question that I have.
To support the struggling restaurants in my community, several have asked for the extension of temporary liquor licences from 24 days in a year to three consecutive months for pop-up restaurants. The district of West Vancouver and the local police department gave these businesses permission to operate temporary pop-up locations in Millennium Park for the summer in West Vancouver.
So why have requests for the three-month temporary liquor licences gone unanswered? These are restaurants that already have liquor licences at their primary locations, and these requests began to government not this month but last June in hopes that they would be able to operate this over the summer. So it’s the second summer where these restaurants need support.
I would like to read from an email that one of the restaurant owners received this past October — so June, July, August, September, October — after the request was made. This is from Douglas Scott, assistant deputy minister for LCRB.
“The liquor and cannabis regulation branch is concerned for the individuals, families, businesses and communities affected by COVID-19 and is committed to supporting licensees through this challenging time.
“However, the government is currently in a transition period due to the provincial general election. I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister responsible at the earliest opportunity following the general election and the appointment of the executive council. Thank you for writing.”
I have two questions for the minister, and again, for time, I will put them together. Was there a delay in the issuing of liquor licences for restaurants last year due to the transition caused by the election? The second part of that is: will the minister provide these restaurants with three-month temporary liquor licences to operate properly approved pop-up restaurants to support them over the summer and in time for this summer?
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. I was just confirming with staff that the member’s question about liquor licences really does belong with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. That’s his responsibility.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. It is getting like playing Whac-a-Mole trying to figure out which ministry the LCRB is under. I recently received, in response to a letter I sent to the Solicitor General, a letter back from the Minister of Finance saying that liquor licensing is in the purview of the Minister of Finance. I appreciate that answer, and I will take my question back to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Thank you.
Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to clarify, for the record and for the member, that the two ministries share responsibility for this file in that the Ministry of Finance is around the economic side — the sales component, the revenue that gets generated — but the regulation of liquor policy is through PSSG. So it really depends on what the request is. I’m happy to follow up with PSSG to make sure that the member gets an appropriate follow-up.
B. Stewart: Thank you to the minister for allowing questions to be asked of her budget, coming up. Minister, I want to just bring up an issue that I have raised with you. I have been to your office numerous times in trying to get a particular issue resolved.
I just want to give a little bit of context about this particular issue. I first wrote on May 29, 2020. This is in regard to an additional transfer tax for the people named McCormick. Again, I received a letter turning down their application on July 16, 2020. On July 21, I wrote to the former minister about the previous correspondence, and then again on April 4, I detailed a specific opportunity that does consider the fact that there is, in this particular case, extreme hardship.
We’re not talking about just somebody that was in the business of flipping homes or whatever. These people immigrated here with the best intentions. Mr. McCormick has a role as a financial planner. He and his wife, I believe, now have been accepted through the PNP program.
The whole situation is that they came with a modest amount of funds, invested in a home with relatives who live in Coquitlam. The situation was that they entered into a contract to get a home built in November of 2017, before the provincial budget of 2018. The home in the contract was to be completed on or about April 30, not later than. It wasn’t completed, due to a shortage of skills or skilled trades.
The situation is that the McCormicks did move in, in July, and that seems like a big gap from the date when the exemption period existed. However, besides the trade issues, there were forest fires directly in and around their neighbourhood, and they were refused property insurance, so that delayed them moving in at an earlier date — not early enough to meet the exemption. So it may not be particularly relevant, but what is relevant is the fact that these people have taken their life savings and partnered up with relatives to buy this house.
They were subsequently pressured because of the additional transfer tax. That additional $63,000…. Their partners felt they had been misled by these people. The situation is that the McCormicks have not only sold the house, but they’ve lost everything that they had in the house, and they had to pay the tax that was a charge on their property.
I wrote that letter on February 4. On March 12 I got a letter from yourself. Thank you. However….
The Chair: Member, just, of course, through the Chair.
B. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sorry. I apologize for drifting off there.
The letter on March 12 talks about the fact that these are not considerations, and tax remission is not normally given. Although, having been at the table before, I know that there is, in rare cases where there’s hardship or other reasons — that makes these legitimate reasons to reconsideration.
At this point in time, the McCormicks are now without anything, other than they’re in a house that they’re renting. They’ve lost everything, and the fact is that their only hope of being able to perhaps buy into the market at a much different price is through this remission of tax.
They would be very interested to know when they are going to hear, if you happen to know that or if you could give some opportunity for myself to, perhaps, meet with you — Mr. Chair, through to the minister. If I could have that opportunity to resolve this issue in a timely manner, I would really appreciate it.
Hon. S. Robinson: I first want to just acknowledge the member’s commitment to his constituents in pursuing this matter. These remissions are a decision of cabinet, and the member has alluded to that. I can’t speak to any specific case. Staff are aware of the situation, and it’s under active review.
B. Stewart: If I could just ask the minister if there was some…. When these are actively being reviewed for consideration before they go to cabinet, what’s the length of time that these normally would take place — three, six months, a year? Could I get some idea of the timeline?
Hon. S. Robinson: Again, to the member, really — and I know he’s not going to like this answer — it depends. It depends on how complex the situation is and the amount of research and work that staff need to do in order to understand the particulars of each case. They’re all unique. They don’t happen very often. But each one is unique, so it’s very difficult to provide a very specific timeline.
The Chair: Seeing no…. No, there is a question, of course.
M. Bernier: I know the Chair is always anxious to really do that. But have no fear. There will be no shortage of questions coming from this side of the House, Mr. Chair, at least for the next hour or so on this specific topic.
Just on behalf of my colleague, I know that he would appreciate some kind of correspondence back as soon as the minister is aware. Or even, to his comment of timeline, if the minister is able to take that back to her deputy or to her staff to find out where it’s at, at least, for some assurance.
Obviously, it’s a heartbreaking story to hear of a family who, in good faith, put themselves in this unfortunate situation. I think being left on the end of that plank, not knowing if they’re going to be pushed off anytime soon, that information would be really important. So hopefully, we can get some kind of assurance. I know the minister well enough that she will take this issue seriously and take it back and try to report back to the member, hopefully sooner rather than later, for his constituents. I know that would be much appreciated.
On a different topic, I just want to move to talking about GCPE and spend a few moments on this. I’m wondering. Earlier, in our back-and-forth, we talked a little bit about the growth in the public sector and in all of the different departments. Is the minister able to tell me right now how many FTEs there are in GCPE? Has that gone up at all?
When we talked about other departments that have gone up in the last four or five years, have they stayed relatively status quo, or has GCPE gone up since this government has taken over in 2017? What numbers do they have for FTEs?
Hon. S. Robinson: I can let the member know that there hasn’t been a significant increase, over this time, to GCPE staff. Although recently, there has been a little bit of an increase in order to help with COVID. Again COVID-related — these are temporary, just to help with issues management and making sure that we can get….
Certainly, the digital team has to do more work around the pandemic, making sure that people have accurate information, promoting all the vaccinations and everything else that we’ve had to really push out. It has certainly stretched this team. These are sort of temporary positions that we’ve added, and it was mostly in this last year.
M. Bernier: By the minister’s answer to that, is she able to confirm, then, for this House that all government information campaigns are run through GCPE? Going off my memory bank, that’s the way it used to be. I’m just curious if, under this government, they’ve continued that practice. Does all information that is in campaigns and advertisements and everything that’s going through government and then disseminated out to the rest of the province…? Does all of that go through GCPE, funded through GCPE?
There are no information campaigns or people hired, let’s say, in specific ministries? The minister referenced “because of COVID.” So am I to take from that — and I’ll give the minister a chance in a second to answer — that there have been no people hired in specific ministries, like Health, to work on COVID information plans — that everything runs through GCPE?
I think that’s an important piece to quantify, especially when we are talking about the budgetary allotments for communications of government.
Hon. S. Robinson: I can certainly let the member know that all government communications go through GCPE. There is one exception. For this fiscal, there is an MOU that we have signed with the Ministry of Health. There are nine people who have been hired temporarily to provide COVID communications. They are GCPE folk, but they’re supported by the Ministry of Health in order to provide that service to British Columbians.
M. Bernier: Thank you for that answer. So if I understood the minister correctly, it sounds like it was already existing GCPE staff that were seconded to Health. Or were these nine new hires that are now in the Health budget and not part of GCPE’s budget?
Hon. S. Robinson: In this particular case, most of these folks were seconded from GCPE. There was one person who came from outside government. It’s based on a cost recovery. So it does come out of the Health budget, because they are doing very specific COVID-19 communications and work very closely with the Ministry of Health. It’s temporary through COVID, just through this fiscal, so it’s a cost recovery that comes back to GCPE.
M. Bernier: I appreciate that. That’s good information, and it’s also understandable in the time that those GCPE folks would be situated more closely to ground zero of the activity, I would say, due to COVID.
Can I take from the minister’s answer, then, in that commentary that there are no other GCPE staff situated…? I guess that I’ll put it this way. If the minister will indulge me, I’ll speak from experience.
You know, as a former minister, anything I did around communications in my ministries had to go to GCPE to formulate. I was not aware, though — so I’d love the minister to explain — how the funding for that worked. So if I’m the Minister of Transportation, and I’m working on a whole bunch of information that’s going to be out in the media — whether it’s Facebook, on TV, in the news, announcements — GCPE takes the lead on that. But do they bill back the Ministry of Transportation’s budget, or is that built within the GCPE overall global budget for the work of government?
Hon. S. Robinson: Typically, each ministry has a number of GCPE staff that are embedded in the ministry so that they understand the issues of the day and can support the work. They are, however, paid by GCPE budget. So that’s where all of those resources come from.
M. Bernier: Can the minister, then, for the record…? I know it’s right here in the budget documents for the minister. What is the overall budget this year for GCPE?
If she’s also able to — and this might be difficult — as the minister, say…. Out of that budget for this fiscal, how much of that does she anticipate will be spent due to COVID information that’s being presented? As I think everybody is aware, a good portion of the time that is spent right now seems to be around informational campaigns around COVID.
Hon. S. Robinson: What we have in the budget for GCPE is $28.338 million.
The second part of the question. We have $3.537 million set aside for four campaigns: public health information, the vaccine rollout; the recovery, StrongerBC; wildfire prevention; and anti-racism.
M. Bernier: Maybe I’m going to ask this, and I’m going to preface my comments to say I’m looking for some factual information here. I’m not trying to play gotcha politics with the minister.
I do have an FOI in front of me, and it’s from GCPE. It’s quite concerning, actually, based on the commentary that we’ve heard from the Premier, from the Minister of Health and government officials — with COVID.
I’m just kind of curious, and I’ll ask the minister at the end of this if she was aware of this and can explain to me the reasoning. GCPE direct-awarded to Strategic Communications, Stratcom, which everybody…. It’s no secret here. They’re an NDP-supporting polling firm. They were direct-awarded, and the FOI says it was direct-awarded due to COVID-19 and no time to get a full competition base. So a direct award of almost $100,000 to Strategic Communications to do daily tracking polling numbers on COVID-19. This was for last year, for the three months just prior to the election being called — almost $100,000 direct award.
Again, so the minister…. Can she tell me if she was aware of this — for GCPE doing a direct award using COVID as the reasoning why they couldn’t put it out? But more importantly, to get information on daily tracking polling numbers…. Is she aware of that — that that was done?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member is referring to polling that was done, it sounds like, last spring, if that’s correct. I wasn’t the Minister of Finance. I was the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing.
M. Bernier: Well, can the minister say, then, if she was unaware of this…? I do acknowledge and recognize that she was not the minister at the time. But obviously….
Within GCPE, is this a normal practice — for them to direct-award to a polling company? They’re using the excuse of COVID, but have there been other direct-award contracts of polling information that have gone out in the last18 months that the minister is aware of besides this?
I’m just kind of curious, because the minister said she wasn’t the minister at the time. Is she saying she was unaware of this? So she never saw any polling data, and she doesn’t know anything about this at all?
Hon. S. Robinson: GCPE works with a standing offers list. So there are approved firms. They do go through a competitive process to do various things like opinion research. They do the same thing with advertising firms — the same process.
We also need to remember that, in the pandemic, it’s important to understand sort of how things are playing out on the ground, so to speak, with various changes on public health direction and where people are at. So I’m sure the member can appreciate that during the pandemic, as things evolved…. Things would happen what felt like instantly, where things would change. There was a direct award made, but traditional practice is a standing offers list with approved firms.
M. Bernier: To the minister, I’m aware of a standing offer and the process of having a list together.
It is interesting. This one company, I believe, in the last year, has received almost $400,000 from the government in polling — doing work internally for government, which is interesting.
The minister didn’t also answer the last part of my question. Even though she wasn’t the minister at the time, was she aware of this polling that took place? She was a minister. She was at the cabinet table. Is she able to at least answer for me? This was, yes, last spring, into summer and into July, basically, of last year, shortly before the election was called.
It’s just a little concerning when we see a company that is doing COVID polling information for government, but it didn’t say which ministry that would be going to or whether it was going to cabinet. So I’m curious. If it went to cabinet, the minister probably would have seen it. She was at the table at the time. Is she aware that this was done? And what was the reasoning for this information being gathered?
Hon. S. Robinson: I think that the member recognizes — I believe, based on our discussion — how important it has been for government to understand how the pandemic has been impacting British Columbians so that we could all be responsive to the needs of British Columbians. Making sure that we understood how British Columbians are being impacted by the pandemic, how their lives were being impacted, I think was really, really critical to understanding. So taking steps to hear from British Columbians so we could understand how people are being impacted and in which parts of the province they were having the most impact….
I mean, I know the member is well aware that many parts of the province didn’t have the same kind of impacts — that urban British Columbians had more severe impacts than rural British Columbians based on service industry and where that’s located.
These are the kinds of things government needed to understand so that government could have a response that would meet the needs of British Columbians in the moment, so that we could get through this pandemic. I believe it’s because we were quick to get the information that we needed, quick to identify the challenges that people were experiencing, that businesses were experiencing, that communities were experiencing…. Because we were quick….
Again, I want to thank the public service for their tremendous hard work in throwing together and pulling together programs to respond to the needs of British Columbians. It’s not normally how government works, but they did, I think, a yeoman’s job in pulling together their teams and getting programs up and running. It has allowed us to be as successful as we have been.
Mr. Chair, can I ask for a five-minute break? Is that okay?
The Chair: Absolutely. Thank you, Minister.
This committee will stand in recess for five minutes, returning a little after 3:25.
The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
The Chair: Let’s go back to Peace River South.
M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. I’ll take the lead on this one for now.
Right before the break there the minister had some interesting comments. From what the minister said — she still hasn’t answered my question, though — it sounds like the minister was aware of this polling taking place last fall and summer. So I’m just kind of curious if she’s able to tell me where that polling….
Why were they asked to poll, first of all? Where did that polling data go? Did it go back into cabinet? I understand if the minister stands up and talks about cabinet confidentiality. But if that’s not the case, I’m just kind of curious where this polling data went.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Hon. S. Robinson: The polling data gets used to hear from different audiences, of course. That’s why we do polling. I just want to say, especially during COVID — I don’t know if this has been the member’s experience — that it’s been a bit more challenging to hear from different groups because we are not at events.
We’re not engaged in the same way on the ground. So it’s important that we hear from a broad spectrum of British Columbians, making sure that we incorporate their thoughts, their concerns, their fears into our program development. That’s what this polling data informed. It informed government’s reaction, government’s program development.
Yes, we do meet with folks through the Zoom channels and certainly on telephone, but really, having polling data just helps you to understand, again, where people are at who perhaps aren’t able to participate in what we call our stakeholder groups, so that we’re getting a much clearer sense from the ground of what’s going on so that we can be responsive. That information gets used in program development. That’s how it has been used, and that’s how I think it’s always used — making sure that we understand where people are at so that we can be a responsive government.
M. Bernier: I think the minister knows I’m well aware of the reasoning for polling data, polling information around decision-making.
My question was…. This was funded through GCPE. Who is the audience that GCPE was collecting the information for? Was it specifically just to the Minister of Finance? The GCPE? Was it for cabinet? Obviously, somebody asked for this information.
We haven’t yet determined the information they’re looking for. But somebody asked for polling information for whatever the decision-making decisions that somebody wanted to make. So was this information for cabinet, or was it specifically for one minister?
Hon. S. Robinson: This was prepared for the whole of government. Cabinet sits around the table, representing government. Given that every single ministry has been impacted by COVID and has had to have a COVID response, having information about how people were responding to COVID, what their needs were, I think helped every ministry to have a response and understand how we needed to work together.
I fondly remember, in my previous iteration as a cabinet minister, sitting with some of my colleagues, safely distant — at the time, you could meet, just a handful, safely distant — and working collaboratively to explore how to respond, given the resources that we each had as ministers, given the problems that we were identifying that people were experiencing and how we could take the resources that we each had access to and create a program that would provide us with the opportunity to respond in a meaningful way.
I do know that it makes people crazy when ministries are at cross-purposes, for example, and it does happen on occasion. But this was a time that I remember well about how closely we worked together, that we were singularly focused on a COVID response. Having the same information helped us to really define how to best respond to British Columbians’ needs.
M. Bernier: Just quickly reading through the FOI here and the requirements around the polling, it begs the question. Throughout this entire pandemic, any time a minister has been questioned around decision-making — any time the Premier has been questioned around decision-making — they have said all of their decisions are based on scientific data and information they have. It’s all science-based information that they’ve used to make decisions.
This wasn’t a scientific poll. This is a daily tracking poll of a select group of people on how they are responding to and dealing with the COVID pandemic, paid for by taxpayers’ money. So this sounds like it was good information to get as you’re building an election platform, I might say, as well, since it was conveniently collected right before an election.
That aside, the reason why I’m actually asking is: a lot of times this information is shared publicly. I don’t see anything that would be, necessarily, confidential here. Is the poll made public? Has it made it public, and I couldn’t find it? Or is the minister and GCPE willing to share that poll publicly and table it in the House?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to just, first of all, refer to our government’s commitment to have a science-based and public-health based response to the pandemic, which we have been doing, for sure. I see the member nodding. I know that he appreciates that.
Government also has to respond to the impact of the pandemic. So when we have to take action — when the public health, based on science, says, “We must do this in order to keep people safe,” which is science-based — we need to understand, as a government: what does that mean for people? What does that mean? How does that impact their lives? How does that impact their work? How does that impact their children?
How does that impact their community? How does that impact their sense of safety in the world? How are they responding to these orders, and what’s the impact? As a government, I think the more we understand these orders that are delivered from a scientific base, and the more we understand how that is impacting on people, the more responsive we can be.
I want to point out that, in addition to some polling, we also did a significant public engagement through the government digital experience, as well as stakeholder tables, like the B.C. Business Council and others. We gathered information from MLAs and their constituency offices, helping to filter into government what you are hearing on the ground.
When I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I had, for awhile, phone calls with all mayors and regional district chairs pretty much every week and then every other week. That’s a lot of being on the phone and listening to what we were hearing from these people, these leaders in communities, making sure that we were feeding that in centrally, so that we understood what it was that we needed to do in order to respond to the impact of these orders and the impact this pandemic is having on people’s lives.
It’s for this reason…. It fits into a larger context of gathering information so that we could have a robust response and we can continue to support the people of British Columbia.
M. Bernier: I completely understand a lot of what the minister said, and even what she didn’t say, around the hope and need to do polling to find out the appetite of the public, how they’re managing dealing with COVID and what programs that government could and should put in place. That can be very important information, especially leading into an election possibly being called.
My question was: who had this information, and was the minister willing to release that information? Is she going to say it’s confidential, and they won’t? Or is the minister saying it’s public and I couldn’t find it somewhere?
Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to say to the member that polling is done by government to understand how programs are being perceived by the public, understanding how people’s lives are being impacted by decisions. Certainly, in this case, this polling, in combination with other ways of gathering information from the public, was pulled together.
Certainly, the member can take a look at all the documents, the StrongerBC documents. All of that information helped to determine how to move in the direction to respond to the impacts, the very real impacts, that people were experiencing from the pandemic. That’s part of the report-out on what we heard in terms of the response that the public sees around “this is what we learned.” This is the response to what we heard from the public around how the pandemic was impacting them.
M. Bernier: Listening to the minister’s words carefully, she still hasn’t answered my question after a few times. I’m assuming the answer is that I didn’t miss it. It’s not out there somewhere. This is government information that the minister doesn’t feel necessary to release.
I also listened to the words, carefully, the minister just used. She talked about, basically, looking at how programs are…. I believe the word the minister used was how programs are perceived. Well, this specific poll was before any programs were announced.
Do I take from that and the minister’s answer that…? I’ll ask directly, then. Was this specific polling firm…? This was directly April 17 to June 30. Was this contract extended? Did they do more polling, or maybe another firm after that?
I understand that on the FOI, right at the beginning, it says that because the pandemic had just started, there was no time to do anything but do a direct award. They wanted this information. Meanwhile, four months later, at the end of this polling…. That would have given them ample time, if we take what the minister says — that they want to continue doing polling to get information — to find out what people need. I’m not taking away from that at all. That’s important to know.
It sounds like, also, whether government programs were working…. That leads me to think that more polling was done after programs were announced. So is that the case? Is there more polling information out there that government used? Was it a continuation after this one, or different firms that were used for polling?
Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to qualify for the member that when I was talking about programs, I was referring to polling in general. It can have many different uses. That is a use that could certainly be used — how polling can be used.
I want to reiterate for the record — I answered this earlier — that typically, polling work is awarded using an approved-vendors list that goes through a competitive and transparent process.
M. Bernier: The minister did answer that earlier. That wasn’t my question, though. In this case, it was done as a direct award. What my question to the minister was…. This was a very specific point in time. April 17 to June 30 of 2020 was this poll.
I’ve asked the minister, consecutively, if that information is public and can be released. She hasn’t answered that. So I’m going to take by her lack of answers that this is not a public document — that this is internal and they don’t plan on releasing it. My question, then, if that’s the case, though…. I’m just asking because this is part of the GCPE budget. They spent $100,000 on this poll. Were there more polls done right after this? This ended in June.
I am not asking whether it was a competitive awarding process or direct award. That’s not my question. My question is more of — was more polling done? This was at the beginning of the pandemic, and as the minister has rightfully said, there were a lot of unknowns and a lot of changes. So polling maybe was an important part of decision-making of government on whether programs were working or other programs needed to be made and where money should be spent.
I guess my question is: was more polling done? Is this the only poll that government based all their decisions on for programming? Or were there more polls done after this, and maybe still being done today, on programs that are being rolled out?
Hon. S. Robinson: The answer to the member’s question is yes. More polling has been done with a variety of vendors and on a variety of topics.
M. Bernier: Do the minister and government plan to release any of that polling data at all? The minister so far hasn’t answered that question. Maybe it’s even post-pandemic. I think that if taxpayers are paying for this polling information, it would be interesting, if nothing else…. If the minister wants to say it’s confidential and say that the information is confidential — will they at least…?
Let’s just say that on this specific one — daily tracking polling — the minister obviously is aware of this one by the way she’s been answering. If we can’t get the information, can we at least get the questions that were asked, so we understand what government information was looking for?
Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reiterate about how, certainly, through this pandemic we have been gathering and continue to gather information so that we can be responsive.
I noticed the Chair is seeing something I’m perhaps not seeing. It’s distracting, but I’m wondering what it might be. Anyway. I will carry on with my response.
There are a number of tools we use that feed into government’s plans to respond. Working together with various mediums for gathering information — polling is just one — we also do public engagement using surveys, right? We get survey information that feeds in. We have stakeholder consultation that feeds in. Each piece, each data point, really helps us to get a big picture or a more solid picture, just continues to fill in the blanks so that we can have a proper response.
In the member’s example, that was a really important, helpful piece of information, but it wasn’t the only piece. Having the stakeholder round table where we heard from various chambers of commerce, the B.C. Business Council and others, feeding in about what priorities they were seeing and helping us understand what tools we could use, as government, to help businesses get through the pandemic.
Hearing from MLAs and constituencies — and getting that fed into the system, as well — certainly helped us understand what was happening on the ground, but there’s no one piece, in and of itself, that you can say “aha.” This is really all of it coming together to give us robust information so that we can have a responsive plan.
M. Bernier: I think I just want to notice…. I do appreciate the position the minister is in. Obviously, decisions are having to be made and information needs to be gathered to make those decisions. There’s no argument, I believe, from myself or anybody that would look at this.
I think it is important just to highlight, before I move on, a few things, though. That polling, the minister has said, is done, was done and continues to be done as part of the decision-making process, but the minister, it sounds like, has agreed that this goes to cabinet and the ministers for part of the decision-making that they make. By the minister’s answers, it sounds like they do not want to release any information that they’ve gathered regarding COVID through that polling, specific to the polling information — or even the questions that were being asked.
Maybe I’ll ask this one — which is a little bit more direct, around polling. To the minister: how much was spent in last fiscal, then — in the ’20-21 fiscal — on polling, and how much is budgeted with GCPE or within government for ’21-22 for polling?
Hon. S. Robinson: Last year, for doing research and polling around pandemic and recovery, blended together, it’s $400,000, with $150,000 for other research — so outside of pandemic. For the year ahead, we have $200,000 identified for opinion research — for this year.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that exchange. I think it’s important information. It leads me into…. We talk about doing polling for programs.
Maybe I’ll switch gears quickly, and we’ll just do a wrap-up on some of the discussion we had in the past, starting in December. The minister, in her opening remarks, if I remember correctly — I think it was only yesterday, but it seems like a long time ago already — talked about the B.C. recovery benefit. Can the minister…? Maybe we’ll just try to get some numbers on the table here, for a little bit. I think it’s important not only for us but for the public.
I’m not sure about the minister. I’m assuming she sees the same ones that I do, because there are still some frustrated people out there. I’ll give the minister an opportunity in a second to maybe quantify what’s gone out or who’s still in the queue. That queue part is important, especially when the frustration letters come to me that say: “We talked about this in December. The Premier talked about getting this money out by Christmas.”
We’ve already acknowledged, accepted, the fact that it was a new program, that there were some problems with the rollout on the first couple of days. Government did, I would say, their due diligence to try to expedite and make sure the system was working again — that the phone lines were up, and doing what they could — which I applaud them on. That’s why we supported, collectively, in this House to have the money go out the door to help people as soon as possible.
The program is set to end here, I believe, if I remember the minister’s comments on this program. It’s only in a couple of weeks that the program ends, for people to be able to apply. So to anybody watching, if you haven’t applied: there’s lots of money still in there. Apply.
It begs the question, though. How many people, again, applied? I’ll put this all in one question, to help the minister. She can wrap it all up for me. How many applied? How many were denied? How many are still in the queue waiting to be paid? And will those people…? Will we have everybody paid by the end of June, or does she see that taking even longer if people still apply?
Hon. S. Robinson: I hope the member has a pencil handy and it is sharpened. Then, of course, he’s got Hansard. So he can always….
I will go through this. The recovery benefit. We have received 2,500,701 applications. The number of applications that have been processed is 1,939,830. The number of British Columbians who have received the benefit is 2,667,585 British Columbians. Remember, there are some couples in there.
We’re talking about number of people who’ve been…. The amount of money that has gone out, the amount of benefit that has gone out — this is as of June 14, or perhaps actually the Friday, in all likelihood — is $1,321,606,197, and 10,000 have been denied. They weren’t eligible. We do have 65,871 applications that are still in process. The application goes to June 30, and staff will continue to process applications until all applications have been reviewed.
M. Bernier: Maybe I’ll wrap a couple of questions into one here. I appreciated the minister explaining to me, too, because it sounded like we were saying more people got the money than actually applied, but then there are the couples that we talked about that are built into that.
Maybe I’ll ask this then. How many people, how many families, households — we’ll put it that way — received the full $1,000? Because as the minister is well aware, when she launched this program, you can get…. Everybody is eligible for $500 or $1,000 to a household, but it was a scale. In this, we could have a lot of people that maybe received 50 bucks.
Yes, anybody who was needing the help and took time to apply might have needed that. But that also meant that if they only received $50, they were making fairly good money during the COVID. How many households received the full $1,000?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member had asked, for the recovery benefit, how many of those that have made application received the full benefit. So for the families, which was $1,000, 85 percent received the full amount. For individuals — I’m just going to anticipate the next question — which was $500, 93 percent received the full amount.
M. Bernier: I just have to ask the question — for the minister to explain to me. I apologize. I don’t understand. I think I do. When she’s saying 85 percent and 93 percent — are those 85 percent of applicants qualified and got the money? I’m asking more from a dollar perspective. If we had just over 2.6 million people who got money, is she saying that of that…?
The math doesn’t match up for me. I’m just trying to understand. Of that 2.6 million people that qualified, it wasn’t 85 percent that got $1,000. What percentage…? If the minister doesn’t have the actual people, her staff might have percentages.
Hon. S. Robinson: We’re all trying to get to the correct description. If I understand the member’s question, he’s trying to discern whether or not it’s the number of applications, because one application might impact two people or more, because they would ask as a family.
I’m just trying to understand sort of…. But it’s still 85 percent of the applications that came in for families, for the $1,000 — that 85 percent of those folks that put in the request got the full amount. Those that were individuals were entitled to $500, and 93 percent got the full amount. So I hope that helps to clarify for the member.
M. Bernier: I can do the math off of that. I apologize, actually, to the minister’s staff for me not articulating the question succinctly enough for them to discern where I was going. My apologies. I was close. The information — I can figure it out off of that.
Again, the minister was saying that it sounds like around 65,000, I believe she said, applications are outstanding. I’ve received lots of letters, and some are telling me that they’ve been outstanding for months. But I’d like, maybe, to hear from the minister or from staff, because originally we were told that that probably wouldn’t be the case. You know, we have to ask follow-up questions, make sure that we have all the proper information. The minister has been very succinct in her points on why that follow-up was needed, based on the criteria that was put in. But understandably, there has been frustration from some.
I always want to put it back, maybe, for the minister to justify or explain or maybe put on the record that that’s maybe not the case, that we’ve actually worked through things in a timely manner. Maybe that’s the answer, but there is still some frustration out there. Are there some that have been outstanding for a lengthy period of time, and if so, why?
How are we going to catch this up? So 65,000 is still quite a few, especially being in the latter weeks of the acceptance. My assumption is we probably won’t get too many more coming in now, but obviously, we want to clean this up and get the money out the door to people who needed it quite a few months ago.
Hon. S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the frustration, for sure. I, too, as well as the Minister of Finance, receive letters of frustration from people, and have been in regular contact with staff about making sure that they have the resources they need to process, certainly the, I’ll say, bolus that we received in the early days.
I also want to let the member know that we’re continuing to get new applications on a daily basis. There are still lots that continue to come in. When I mentioned the number of 65,000, a lot of those are new. They’re not from January or December. A lot of those are new as well, so that continues to come in.
Many of those that are in process — we are still waiting for information. It’s also, I think, frustrating for me, as Minister of Finance. It’s like, we need more information and would love to process it and move it through and get staff doing other things that we need them to do. So I encourage anyone who is still waiting to get the information to us so that we can continue this along and get it through the system.
There are some that are…. Unfortunately, the banking information that was provided wasn’t correct. Those have been harder to resolve, and they’re working through that. Those are, if I could identify three things that we’re seeing that contribute to that number…. That’s the bulk of it.
If I might take a moment to acknowledge Jordan Goss and her team for their commitment and their hard work in getting this program up and running and moving as quickly as they did. It was incredible work, and it was incredibly stressful for them. They did their best to not let it show, but I do know that this was a really big, big undertaking.
I’m grateful. I know that the millions of British Columbians who have received the benefit, who then went shopping in the local economy and helped businesses through the last few months…. That’s made a difference in millions of British Columbians’ lives. I think we can all be proud of helping in that regard.
M. Bernier: Thank you for that information. It’s important. We, too…. I mean, the reason why, again, all three parties in the House supported this was because we wanted it to get out to help people — people who were struggling, people who lost their jobs.
I won’t revisit the whole debate that we had last December. It’s not a good use of our time. Obviously, there was a lot of debate around the criteria. There were a lot of people, I would argue, that lost their jobs in 2020 but, because of the criteria that were laid out, did not qualify to be able to apply for this specific grant.
I guess maybe…. I was just reading through the minister’s mandate letter and one of the bullets in there. “As soon as possible provide immediate relief for people by delivering a one-time recovery benefit.” My assumption is that this is what we’re talking about.
Is there anything else planned, or is the minister going to be able to check that one off her list? Is that what she’s thinking?
Hon. S. Robinson: I have giggling in my ear from staff, because it has been a tremendous amount of work.
Yes. I do get to tick that one off of my list.
M. Bernier: I believe, to go to the point that the minister raised two answers ago…. I’ll also thank the staff. I know what it’s like being in a government position and having to, for whatever reason, make up a policy on the spur of the moment to meet a need.
The work is, as we know, done by the public sector. It’s done by our staff, the people behind the scenes who don’t get the accolades for the work they do as well. So I’ll look at the camera and say thank you very much to them as well. I, too, can appreciate the stress they were under and why they would possibly be giggling, as the minister put it, on being able to cross that one off the list.
One that the minister can’t cross off her list, though…. I’m curious — she hasn’t been able to cross it off yet — what the plan is…. It’s also listed in the mandate letter. This is around a renters rebate, support for renters. This government has spoken about a $400 renters rebate now for five years almost — 2017 election, 2020 election. It keeps coming up in the promises there.
I’m wondering where the minister, though, can point to in the budget documents that it’s finally going to happen. I was not able to find it in there, even though it appears to be in the mandate letter to come up with an income-tested — I believe it is now changed to; it didn’t used to be — renters supplement of some sort.
Is that in the budget somewhere, and can the minister point to that?
Hon. S. Robinson: When we formed government in 2017, housing affordability, I could argue — well, I do argue, and I will continue to argue — was the number one issue, for sure. As a government, we put together a significant 30-point plan that took a look at how to best address what was happening, which, from my perspective, had been ignored for a very long time, and it needed attention.
We took significant steps to build out housing, which hadn’t been built — government hadn’t been concerted in its efforts to build subsidized housing — with a $7 billion ten-year investment to put together the Homes for B.C. plan and build out housing for women fleeing violence, for Indigenous people, for people that needed supportive housing, as well as starting the HousingHub, doing middle-income housing and doing community housing, as well, with the non-profit housing sector.
We also took a number of steps to address loopholes that existed in the system. We funded the residential tenancy branch. It had been severely underfunded for a very, very long time, taking months and months for arbitration. That’s made a difference. We brought in a compliance and enforcement branch so we actually have an enforcer on the ground to help manage the relationship between renters and landlords.
We took significant steps to…. We closed the fixed-term-lease loopholes — one of the first things we did — to make sure that it was a fair system. We’ve been looking at the Residential Tenancy Act and bringing in significant measures there after the Rental Housing Task Force did their work. We took speculation out of the market, with demand-side measures.
The previous Minister of Finance, Carole James, ticked everything off of her lists that she was responsible for in terms of delivering. We’ve been taking significant action, and we continue to. It is a ten-year plan, and we continue to take action.
The new Minister of Housing continues to roll out the housing component in terms of building the kind of housing that is desperately needed and working with the federal government, as well, as a partner. They’re finally back in the housing business. So that’s making a difference. We’ve brought in rental-only zoning and a housing needs assessment report that’s required. We’ve taken significant steps of our 30-point plan, and there’s activity happening on all of that.
There is a renters rebate. That is part of my mandate. I look forward to doing that work and to getting it ready. It is a four-year term that we are here, and part of my mandate letter is recognizing that we have four years to get this work done. I look forward to continuing to roll up my sleeves, with the Minister of Housing, and continuing to make action on the housing front.
M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I guess what we can take from that is…. It’s not in the budget this year, then. She’s saying it’s a four-year mandate. So she won’t be able to cross that one off the list any time soon.
I think it’s also important to highlight, though…. Although the minister and the government continue to try to, I’d say, skirt the issue in a little way, affordability is still one of the largest issues.
Supportive subsidized housing is a piece, for sure, but rental rates have gone up, I believe, an average of around $1,400 a year in the Lower Mainland, as the minister well knows through the property transfer tax revenue. You look at the amount of…. In the housing market, it’s skyrocketing. The values of homes have gone up by hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, on average, for, some would say, a basic home, just to try to get into the market.
It was because of those issues that four years ago the government announced a $400 rebate. The government announced as part of their platform originally in 2017 that because of the housing prices going up, because mostly around the rental stock and properties going up, that they would bring in a $400 rebate. Then they again announced it in 2020.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair]
What I found interesting was also an FOI that I was able to get my hands on that the work was done back in 2018. It was fully costed. It was presented to government. It was a costed plan for the $400 renters rebate, which talked about a $163 million price tag for the phase-out of this. That was in 2018, but then nothing was done.
Now the minister has said, rightfully so, that the government has a majority and a four-year mandate. But if the minister was to take another year or two or three or, let’s say, even the four years towards the end of the mandate to put this forward, that’s now seven, eight, nine years from the original promise.
I guess I’ll wrap that up into a question that the work was done in 2018, fully costed to implement it to be able to, for the Minister of Finance of the day, which was not this minister, obviously…. That could have been put into the budget two years ago. I assume that’s why the work was done to cost it out.
If it wasn’t put in then or in subsequent budgets, is the minister able to commit that, at least to the people that are requiring this, there is going to be some kind of relief coming soon?
Hon. S. Robinson: We are committed to the renter’s rebate, but fixing the housing crisis — and I think the member will likely recognize that — is not easy. It certainly won’t happen overnight. Again, when we formed government in 2017 and I was the Minister of Housing, we took very, very significant steps in a very, very short period of time to form government in July of 2017 and then by early 2018 have a 30-point plan. Again, took a significant amount of work to address a significant housing crisis that had been ignored for many, many years.
We have already taken significant steps to address renters’ needs in British Columbia. I read a list of things that we had done, but what I neglected to include was enhancing both the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters program, SAFER, as well as the rental assistance program. We’ve enhanced that. We’ve added additional funds to support those families. It provides monthly cash assistance to low-income seniors and families. It makes a real difference, given the significant challenges.
The other piece that we’ve done that is really significant, that has delivered hundreds and hundreds of dollars into people’s pockets, is we’ve cut the annual allowable rent increase. Before we were in government, it was 2 percent plus the cost-of-living increase. I could never, for the life of me, figure out where the 2 percent came from. There was no record of it anywhere. So we eliminated that. It was just about the cost-of-living increase, so that it was more predictable.
When you add that up, if you add up just that piece, taking it out of the formula, that’s saved hundreds and hundreds of dollars every single year for renters. That’s a significant indication, I think, about our commitment to supporting renters.
Additionally, through COVID-19, we put in place a rent freeze through to this year. I know that was also well received by renters, appreciating that they could have stability and not have to worry about what that would mean for them, going forward.
I also want to reiterate, during the pandemic, a key program. And I do need to give a shout-out again to the public service, to the folks at B.C. Housing. I was the Housing Minister, and putting together a temporary rent supplement — $500 per month for households with children, $300 a month for households that didn’t have children — and getting that up and running….
I want to say that it was done in ten days, which was like a miracle of miracles. I do need to tip my hat to B.C. Housing, getting it into the hands — and directly to landlords. It was a two-step process. We wanted to make sure that landlords got their rent, at least partial rent.
Again, in my personal experience, those were days of what I would call…. I’ll call them semi-panic, because that’s what it felt like. We were moving so quickly to support people. We didn’t know what the impact of the pandemic was going to be. We didn’t know the impact of COVID-19 and what the health crisis was going to look like. We hadn’t yet figured out protocols for how to keep each other safe.
We just knew that we were all at risk, particularly our seniors. Having folks like B.C. Housing on the ground, putting together a program in very short order, delivering for renters right around the province, was very significant, and I’m very grateful for the work that they have done and the ways in which they helped people get through the pandemic.
M. Bernier: We talk about choices. We’ve brought that up a few times today. Choices have impacts. Earlier, we were talking about polling. I’d be curious if the minister has ever done this kind of polling. I mean, I’m a former contractor. I’ve built lots of houses and have lots of friends who have done that as well — affordable housing, some low-income housing and some larger homes.
When you put supports in place for the renters, I understand that. It’s admirable in the sense that government is trying to help the renters. But if you’re not doing the whole circle, though….
You have to think about supply and demand as well, because the number one issue that I’m hearing in the construction field is: why would I build rental stock when the government keeps putting freezes on what I can or cannot do with that rental stock while prices are skyrocketing right now? The minister mentioned lumber earlier. I mean, I’m doing the math right now on some places, and it’s near impossible to even break even as a developer with the costs to build a place when there are rental freezes on.
Now, the rental freezes were important in certain aspects, but most people would also say that if we build more stock, it also helps alleviate some of the stress. I’ll use an example. My youngest daughter just moved to the minister’s neck of the woods from Dawson Creek. She moved down here. She’s paying more than double for rent for what she paid up in Fort St. John, and that is in a place half the size, forcing her to try to find a roommate. Those are the struggles or challenges that people go through.
Typically, as the minister knows, with myself and herself as former local government people, we try to find ways to inspire contractors, developers to build more stock. We used to always say, even at the UCBM and in local government, if you can get more inventory and more investment and more housing stock, that will, in turn, help the renters, because there’s more availability.
As this government has been putting freezes on, and especially with COVID, what impact has that been, then, to the housing market for development? As a former Housing Minister, I would think the minister would be quite aware of some of those challenges. We want to see both happen.
What’s happening, then? While we are not seeing the renters rebate right away, what’s government doing to try to inspire and instill more investment from the private sector for development to try to fill that rental stock? Is that work being done too?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member was asking questions about how we stimulate the right kind of development. I think I need to go back to some of the work that our government did as part of the 30-point plan. I want to start with the housing needs assessment.
When I became Housing Minister back in 2017, I was shocked to find out that from a housing policy perspective, there really hadn’t been a robust repository of information or data about our housing stock — what kind of housing we had, was it meeting people’s needs, what were the gaps? There was no one collecting provincial data to help government, any government, make a decision about housing.
We immediately set to work around: “Okay, how are we going to get this data?” We’ve made it a requirement. We brought in legislation that requires all local governments to do a housing needs assessment, and they need to update it every five years.
The idea that I learned from when I was in local government was…. I was making decisions for the city of Coquitlam without having an understanding of what kind of housing stock we needed. Coquitlam is very suburban. It is mostly single-family, a handful of duplexes and a handful of townhouses. And because the SkyTrain was coming, we were seeing tons and tons and tons of condos — 600-square-foot condos — but nothing in between.
In hindsight, we now know that the 600-square-foot condos were being built. The developers were saying: “We’re building them because the market demands it.” But the market was not for people having families. The market wasn’t for young people starting out even. Perhaps there was a small portion of that.
It certainly wasn’t for downsizing. God knows, I love my husband, but I would kill him in a 600-square-foot condo. For downsizing, it would be disastrous — more for him than for me. But it would still be disastrous.
We were saying yes to these developments because it was an investor market. It was about a safe investment, and that’s not the kind of housing that people needed. So we brought forward this housing needs assessment, which helps local governments who are responsible for the land use planning to understand what their needs are so they can make informed decisions. It also tells the private sector what the appetite is going to be of the local government, because it meets their needs assessment.
We expect — and we should expect — that our local governments are responding to the needs of the community. So it would align people much better in responding to the needs of British Columbians. That work is continuing. We brought that in, I want to say, in 2019. It is a bit of a blur right now. But that is well in hand. The other thing that we did that I think is about stimulating the market was about bringing in rental-only zoning. We’re starting to see that. There is uptake on that.
When I was the Housing Minister, I would have conversations regularly with the private sector about what their challenges were in terms of building the right kind of housing in different communities, because what the member might need in his community is going to be different than what’s needed in my community. What’s needed in my community right now is row homes and townhomes and duplexes. That might not be what Dawson Creek might need.
What I heard, certainly from the private sector, were two things. One was land costs, and the other thing was access to labour. Those were their two biggest challenges for building rental in particular. So what we did was we brought in a rental-only zoning that would allow some temperance of those pieces of land. So when local government zoned it for rental-only, it took the condo developer out of the market — people that wouldn’t be interested. It changed the dynamics in the marketplace.
That work we’re certainly going to keep on eye on in terms of how it stimulates the market. But I also want to read into the record that home-building has been resilient, with housing starts averaging 37,903 units in 2020, which is well above the long-run historical average of around 31,000. They were down by 15 percent in 2020, partly because of the really significant construction year the year before. But year-to-date, according to April 2021, housing starts were 40.8 percent higher than the same period a year ago.
We are seeing significant housing being built. I don’t have the note in front of me, and I can get it for the member, but if I recall correctly, we are seeing a record number of rentals being built in this province in a way that we have not seen ever before. I’ve seen it, certainly, in my community, in Coquitlam — more and more rental buildings being built. Thankfully, they’re being built near SkyTrain, which makes a significant difference. They’re reducing parking requirements as well so that it actually becomes more affordable.
There are all of these various component parts coming together. There is a still a ways to go. I’m not denying that. We still have lots of work to do. The homebuyer market continues to be volatile, so there is certainly a lot of work for us to do. Working with all orders of government in order to address housing affordability is very much top of mind for me and for the Minister for Housing.
The Chair: We’ve got time for more questions, but if you’d like to move on, I know we are going to be moving to Premier’s estimates shortly.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:50 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson: I call the estimates of the Premier’s office.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 4:51 p.m.
The Chair: I’d like to put this committee into recess until we are ready to go for the Premier’s estimates. Thank you, everyone.
The committee recessed from 4:51 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $14,678,000.
The Chair: Mr. Premier, did you want to make some opening remarks?
Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you very much, hon. Chair and colleagues. It’s an honour and a privilege to stand once again to defend the budget for the Office of the Premier.
This has been, as we all know, a year unlike any other that we’ve experienced as legislators, as citizens, as a country. Not since 1918 has there been a global pandemic that has so rocked, now, a world of seven billion souls. Here in British Columbia, we 5.2 million people have been doing our level best to ensure that we keep each other safe, to ensure that our communities continue to operate and that, to the best of our ability, our businesses have been able to operate with strict protocols put in place, with consultation through the public health office and WorkSafeBC.
Similarly to workplaces, our schools and places of worship have been disrupted and affected by the events of the past 15 months, but here in British Columbia, we have all leaned in together, and collectively, the outcomes have been positive, by and large, right across the board.
This past week we announced step 2 of our restart plan, starting today, ensuring that people can start to gather together in larger numbers in a more safe manner. We’ve seen our vaccination program, the largest in B.C. history, put…. Over 76 percent of the adults over 18 have had a first dose, and we’re heading to 16 or 17 percent of second doses. Registrations continue. Vaccines are now coming in sufficient numbers that we can confidently say that we are absolutely on the right track.
I’ll go back for a moment to put some context for members and for all British Columbians. Back in March of 2020, we did not have the prospect of safe and effective vaccines; we only had the spectre of uncertainty. In fact, we were knee-deep in uncertainty, but we came together as legislators in this place, with a hybrid model, somewhat similar to what we’re seeing here today, coming together to ensure that the business of the people of British Columbia could take place. By and large, we’ve been successful in that regard.
The government, since the start of this fiscal year, has put in place a number of programs, many of them focused on businesses, many of them focused on communities. Of course, individuals also benefited from a tax-free payment of $1,000 through the recovery benefit for families, $500 for individuals. I know those resources were well needed by people right across British Columbia to meet their daily expenses and to continue to go through what has been the most extraordinary of times.
We saw significant job loss in a number of sectors at the front end, and we’ve seen those jobs slowly coming back, to the point now where I’m seeing, in the daily press, more calls for concerns about an absence of workers to meet the demands of a reopened economy. These are issues that we all need to focus on. It’s not just in one sector or two sectors; it’s right across the board. As we took steps to address the challenges in our long-term-care sector, that had an impact on workers in other sectors.
As we start the restart plan, we’re seeing and hearing from businesses that are concerned that they won’t have sufficient workers to meet the challenges ahead. That calls on all of us to make sure we’re doing what we can to support those who are looking for training or retraining, to support those who are looking to transition from one sector into another.
British Columbia is filled, of course, with dynamic, innovative people, businesses and, of course, communities that are as diverse as Atlin in the north, Creston in the Kootenays or even Cumberland here on Vancouver Island — all with citizens focused on getting though the pandemic, rebuilding and having a restart plan that works for everyone.
Now, it has not been without its challenges, hon. Members. I know each and every one of us will have unique stories about people in our community who have faced unimaginable hardship over the past 15 months. Over 1,700 people have lost their lives. Families are grieving the loss of loved ones. They were also grieving the inability to access loved ones in long-term care because of appropriate restrictions to keep people safe during the height of the second and then the third wave.
There is good news on the horizon. We see, through the restart plan, a clear path forward for every sector, for every British Columbian. I know that more and more people are going to be travelling around B.C. over the next couple of weeks. Indeed, as we talk…. I’m going to be meeting with the federal Prime Minister and my colleagues across the country on Thursday to talk in more detail about what an international restart plan would look like, what role British Columbia can play in that restart.
Of course, we’ve been engaging, through various ministers, with stakeholders in the for-profit, not-for-profit and volunteer sectors, as well as families, to try and find out what is the best way forward. Where will British Columbians be comfortable? What we do know is that there’s a high degree of anxiety in communities. I know the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions raises these issues with us regularly in cabinet and in discussions. But we know in our bones that people are anxious about what the future may hold.
There’s a sense of excitement that the worst is behind us. The vaccine program is rolling out effectively. We’re meeting our targets. We’re meeting the criteria, the data that Dr. Henry and her team set out for us. And in the next number of weeks, I’m hopeful that we can get back to something more resembling regular.
Of course, as we go through the final week of this spring session, we can look forward to a fall session, hopefully, where all of us can gather in this place, where we can have the robust and vigorous debates that all of us want to participate in. But I hope that we’ll be able to do that respectfully, acknowledging that each and every one of us comes here with the same objective: to lift up the people in our community.
We all put our hands up in the last election and said: “I would like to go to Victoria and represent your interests, not go to Victoria so that I can represent Victoria’s interests to you.” That speaks to the diversity on both sides of the House, not just in configuration and ethnicity and gender and orientation, but it speaks to the differences we all bring to this place, regardless of where we come from.
I’m hopeful that over the next number of hours, as we go through not just the financial estimates that are usually the focus of these discussions…. I know that the Leader of the Opposition will take the same latitude that I did when I held her position to talk about a range of issues, and I welcome that.
Again, I’m hopeful that we can do that in the respectful way that we have been conducting ourselves, by and large, in question period and in debates around legislation and get through the next number of hours informing the public of British Columbia why we’re making budgetary decisions, why we’re making policy decisions, always focused, regardless of where we sit in this place, on lifting up our constituents and making British Columbia a better place.
The Chair: Recognizing the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
S. Bond: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I appreciate your assistance with the earlier question.
I want to thank the Premier for making his opening remarks. This is the beginning of several days of questions that we will engage in. This is a place of accountability, and this is the opportunity for the opposition…. As the Premier referenced in his comments, I do well remember the days when he sat on this side of the Legislature and the process that we went through.
His remarks, though, provide me with an important segue and a beginning to some of the questions that I want to ask to start this discussion, because it matters to me a great deal. I know the Premier is well known for his referral to the fact that when there are tough issues — and I will use his language — the buck stops with him. We’re going to walk through this process with that in mind.
One of the things that I do want to make sure is on the record: the delay in the introduction of the budget has caused some challenges for the opposition, both opposition parties, in terms of trying to work our way through the estimates process. The time necessary has been a challenge, and that is unfortunate, from my perspective. There will be at times, in this discussion, some uncomfortable questions. That is part of what takes place in this chamber. That’s the way this work has to be done and the opportunity that we get. I certainly do hope that there will be an opportunity for this to continue to be done in a respectful way.
I want to reflect for a moment on the statement that the Premier made about extraordinary circumstances, and I want to begin with a discussion of some of the decisions that the Premier made related to mandate letters. That is his job. He has outlined in the mandate letters to his ministers…. It’s repeated in the mandate letters….
I want to begin there, because I think this is absolutely essential. If one is going to signal that things should be done differently, then one would assume they will be done differently. Here’s the quote from the mandate letter. “British Columbians expect their elected representatives to work together to advance the broader public good despite their partisan perspectives. That means seeking out, fostering and championing good ideas regardless of their origin.”
I’m sure the Premier knows that this will begin a theme throughout some of the questions that I will be asking over the next several days. I would like the Premier to know that I agree with those words, but I’m very concerned that there have been a significant number of opportunities to take advantage of that mandate, which the Premier, to this point, has refused to do.
Let’s start there. Both the official opposition and the Third Party have written to the Premier, calling on him, in the spirit of the language of the mandate letters, to activate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Will the Premier outline for us today why, considering the mandate that he’s laid out for his ministers, he has been so reluctant to demonstrate to British Columbians that of all the issues we should be working together on, perhaps reactivating the Aboriginal Affairs Committee would be a very good start?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. She will know that the past three years have been very, very full in this Legislature talking about issues of reconciliation.
First and foremost, of course, would be the unanimous passage of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the form of the declaration act. We had a lot of discussion in this place. We had a lot of debate. We had a lot of side conversations with former ministers. I see one of them in the place right now, who I certainly talked to personally about some of the issues that were at play in those debates that were taking place here in this House.
Recent events in Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc territory may well lead to a calling of the committee to do work that has been brought forward, as requested by Indigenous leadership in those territories where residential schools or survivors of residential schools and their children and grandchildren may reside. But as I’ve said in this House during the past ten days or the past week, we will be guided by the leadership in Indigenous communities on that question, and if they request that we collect together in this House to have a standing committee meeting to talk about a range of issues, I would certainly endorse that.
We have just released the DRIPA annual report yesterday. This will be a discussion, I’m sure, among members on all sides of the House. The minister stands ready to have those discussions either in here or offline, and I’m confident that that will be productive work.
Should, again, there be, as a result of events in Tk’emlúps territory around the residential school, issues that have been brought to the fore again — that a committee would be struck to discuss those issues, I would welcome that. But that’s not what I’m hearing today from Indigenous Peoples. What I’m hearing today is that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did extraordinarily good work, led by Indigenous People, laying out 94 calls to action.
It’s incumbent on governments to follow through on those actions — the federal government and the provincial government. If there are deficiencies in accountabilities required, I’m confident the Leader of the Opposition will bring that to my attention.
S. Bond: I think the Premier is well aware of the fact that I am not suggesting that we step out in front of First Nations in British Columbia. No one is suggesting that. I absolutely respect the fact that work has been done.
There is no reason that it would not demonstrate the Premier’s commitment to working across partisan lines to deal with an issue as important as this. But it doesn’t stop there. So apparently, the Premier is not prepared to, as this point, activate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
We have also made another request to the Premier. Again, these are issues that the Premier identified in the mandate letter for his ministers. Yet, when given the opportunity to demonstrate that that actually matters, we have seen the answer be: “No.” In fact, in my case, it’s actually not even a no.
Let me explain. Again, the official opposition and the Leader of the Third Party have written to the Premier, not once, not twice — multiple times, in fact — asking the Premier to activate the Select Standing Committee on Health with a particular focus. Again, we’ve talked about Aboriginal affairs and the circumstances related to the need to take action. We have a crisis in British Columbia, with six British Columbians dying every day related to overdose in this province.
I, for one, cannot understand why the Premier would not see it as an asset to engage every member that represents a part of British Columbia where numbers are substantive — where I live, where other people live. I respectfully wrote to the Premier on multiple occasions and, to date, have not received a single direct response to me as the Leader of the Opposition.
If the Premier has made a commitment to doing things differently, it has been unapparent at this point. I received a letter from the minister responsible offering a briefing on a specific issue related to the overdose crisis. I think that six British Columbians dying every day warrants the attention of every member of this House. It should be done in a public, transparent way. The Leader of the Third Party and I were willing to sit down and work with the Premier — his staff, his team, with anybody — to create the mandate for us to have a discussion.
Instead, not a single response to more than one letter — to me directly or to the Leader of the Third Party. Could the Premier just tell me and tell British Columbians why it is so difficult to imagine that we could actually work together in a public, transparent way through an existing mechanism of this Legislature to deal with the critical issue of overdose in our province?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, when I received correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party, I transferred it to the minister responsible for the subject matter that was raised in the correspondence.
That’s a leadership style that is consistent with seeking out the best way for collaboration. It wouldn’t have been a collaboration between the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Third Party and myself. It would have been a collaboration between the official parties on the opposite side and the minister responsible — an opportunity for subject-matter experts to burrow down on the issues that were being raised by opposition members.
I appreciate the traditional approach. Although we did not see the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs sit at all for 15 years, that’s not the point. The point is that as we come through COVID and we come back to a more normal legislature where all of us are here, regularly engaging in debates in this place as well as having revived committees, I think that may well be the appropriate way forward.
As an interim step, I thought it appropriate, in consultation with the minister responsible, to reach out to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party to set up a briefing schedule on issues and areas of concern to members on the opposite side, to have that dialogue and prepare for the fall. Of course, any good ideas that came forward as a result of that would have been immediately operationalized by the minister responsible.
The Leader of the Opposition will know, although she spent most of her time in this place on the government benches in cabinet, committee work is onerous. It’s time-consuming. It takes up the work of committee Clerks. It takes up work to read the reports, complete the report, prepare the report.
I’m not suggesting that’s not without its merit, because it most certainly is. But in this unique time, it seemed appropriate to both myself and the minister responsible, particularly when it comes to the opioid crisis, that briefings on subjects that were of concern to the leaders of the opposition parties and other members were a more appropriate way to start that dialogue.
We are all in this together. The former Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, had a very, very poignant engagement on some of the issues affecting life in communities that see high incidences of opioid deaths and opioid overdoses. I believe it’s that type of engagement the Leader of the Opposition wants to pursue.
I believe the best way to start that is going directly to the subject-matter experts within government, which she knows full well from her time on this side of the House — engage in those discussions and see where we go and how we can better bring on other members of the Legislature to have those dialogues.
In a hybrid model, with all of the resources that are required to just keep us going at what we’re doing today…. To duplicate that into our committee process would have been onerous and difficult. I’m not ruling it out. I’m just saying that it’s not appropriate at the moment.
In the interim, I would encourage the leader to take up the offer from the minister responsible for Mental Health and Addictions. Let’s get some briefings and some dialogues and get some baselines on where we want to go collectively and then start on that journey.
S. Bond: Well, thank you very much. I think our team and critics have taken advantage of briefings provided by a number of ministers. That has been appreciated.
This is bigger than a briefing. Six British Columbians are dying every day. The Premier’s own words talk about advancing the broader public good despite partisan perspectives. There is a connotation that a briefing is one thing; a dialogue transparent for British Columbians, demonstrating the very words that the Premier actually put in ministers’ mandate letters, is pretty important.
Yes, committee work is part of what we do. It’s not considered onerous. It’s considered important and part of how we get to the best outcome, how we get to what is in the best interest of the people of British Columbia. So I will remain disappointed.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Whether it’s related to Aboriginal Affairs, whether it’s related to the Standing Committee on Health, the mandate says one thing. When we actually work hard — and independently, by the way, in terms of with the Third Party, as well — to say that we want to work together to try to be part of the solution here, not receive a behind-closed-doors briefing, that’s helpful, but it’s not what we asked for.
I’ll move on, in the essence of time. The third example I give is one that I find…. I believe that the work of the constituency MLA is absolutely essential, that the work we do here in the Legislature matters. Of course it does. It’s part of our job. But I know the Premier knows this. I know that from my perspective, what I do as a constituency MLA matters enormously. Of all things, that should be above partisan behaviour.
I actually believe one of the things we share in this place as MLAs is that we actually want to serve our constituents well. So I would like to ask the Premier a very specific question, and then we’ll pursue it a tiny bit. Did the Premier provide direction that MLA offices are no longer allowed to work directly with regional offices and regional staff and must instead, in every situation, go through the minister’s office?
Hon. J. Horgan: We will continue to turn over rocks on this side. We have no knowledge — I certainly have no knowledge — of any directives of that kind. I do know that regional staff are engaging all the time with local representatives. I know, from a text that just came through, that there’s an ADM dedicated in the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation to deal with MLAs of all parties on the restart plan to make sure that everyone has as up-to-date and current information as is possible.
If the Leader of the Opposition wants to give us more specifics of these concerns, we’re happy to follow up. But I have no knowledge of any directives of any kind. I do know, having spent an interminable amount of time on that side of the House, how important it is to be able to establish relationships with professional public servants to make sure that you can get easy and timely information for your constituents.
There also gets to a point where it’s more difficult for those professional government employees to do their work if they are doing casework constantly for particular MLAs. So there may be examples where there was an excessive use of that. But again, there would certainly be no directive by me or anyone else to suspend that.
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue with the Premier directly, because there is some work that needs to be done here.
I know I serve my constituents to the very best of my ability, and it is not about partisan politics. I don’t seek solutions so that I can somehow reflect on the government. What I care about are British Columbians getting the answers they need and deserve. For some people, working their way through a government system is virtually impossible without the help of their MLA. I know that I care deeply about that as a constituency MLA, and I would be certain that most people in this Legislature feel that way.
I have seen and I have a copy of a policy directive. I have to admit I am deeply concerned about that. “MLA offices should not contact local FLNRO offices directly.” I only use that because that’s one example. It is a directive that has been provided, and there is documentation required: “MLA offices should not contact local offices directly. Case files from constituents need to be known to the minister’s office.” The direction goes on.
This is from a government that said, and from a Premier who said he wanted to do things differently. They’re different all right. We’re having trouble serving our constituents because, for some reason, relationships with regional public servants are now being discouraged, documented. You have to call through the minister’s office. That is not acceptable. We all want to do the same thing — serve constituents.
I am asking the Premier today if he will commit to rescinding that policy direction. If there has been some specific incident that has caused a massive change — like you can’t talk to your regional staff — then I would be happy to know what that looks like.
I know my caucus, and I know how hard they work. This is an impediment. It is a problem. It is unfair, and I would like to ask the Premier today to fix it.
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m not aware of the directive, but if the opposition leader wants to share the document she has with me, I’m happy to look into it.
I do want to reflect on circumstances. Sometimes — hon. Chair, you’ll know this, as a good, solid, constituency MLA as well as a former cabinet minister — if there are issues that are in regional offices, field staff are there to serve the public. They’re there to assist the public in getting through the labyrinth of processes. I fully support the Leader of the Opposition’s statement in that respect.
I do remember, in my interminable time as an opposition member, a lot of frustration, as well, when I couldn’t get timely answers to constituent questions. One that springs to mind is a logjam in the San Juan River in Port Renfrew, which is a long, long way from this place and a long, long way from the then Solicitor General, who was responsible for emergency preparedness. I had constituents extremely concerned that this logjam that had been building up for generations was going to burst. Media were arriving on scene to watch this catastrophic event.
It was horrifying for the people in my community. I reached out to the then minister at the time. I had to go through the minister’s office because that was what my constituency office was told when they contacted the appropriate person at emergency management B.C.
My own personal experience is consistent with the concerns that the Leader of the Opposition raises in my time in opposition. So I want to assure her that I would not have overseen or directed any such edict to staff, because that’s something that I know is not acceptable in a modern democracy, where people come in good faith, as I said in my opening remarks, to solve problems for people. That’s what we do. That’s why we chose this vocation. Unless I can see clearly what the minister has in her hand that she’s referring to, I can’t really speak to it.
You have significant access through the wildfire season. Again, I look to my friend from Nechako Lakes, who I depended on when the government transitioned from the former government to the current government. His experience with the wildfire season, which at that time was the worst in our history — until two years later, when we had an even worse fire season….
I think the collaboration should be there. I think that there is also…. Again, someone responsible for a lot of field staff, as that member was, would want to know that there needs to be a coordination of activity, and there needs to be some semblance of order as issues are coming forward. If it’s resolving issues for constituents, that’s certainly one thing.
When I think of the logjam, the argument I got back from the minister of the day was that I was going to make politics. It may well have appeared, on the surface, to be the case. It’s a political environment. But it was not that at all. It was about a big, huge pile of logs descending upon a community that I represented. It was not about politics. It was about public safety. Despite that, I had a significant runaround and never did really get the answers I was looking for. Doesn’t matter. The logjam was taken apart. The fish habitat was saved. All was well, but at the time, I was extremely frustrated.
I can well understand if members on the opposite side are feeling that they are being obstructed or impaired in their ability to provide services to their constituents. They should raise it here. If you want to share that document, I’ll look into it further.
S. Bond: I do appreciate the Premier’s response. I’ll just give you the title of it. It’s called MLA Office Quick Guide, Services and Contact Information. It is quite a thorough document, and I’m certain that it wouldn’t be the only ministry that has these guidelines, because I’ve heard it day after day after day.
Let me just articulate for the Premier, before we move on to other important topics, that this really matters to me. This is the heart of what we do. I guess we can look back at experiences we’ve all had, but again, I raise this in the context of the Premier’s mandate letter to each and every minister, which says, and I would remind him again: “They expect their elected representatives to work together to advance the broader public good, despite their partisan perspectives.”
What are we told? Let me just add a few bullets to the last comment I made: “The inquiry process is as follows. The MLA office sends an email to the executive assistant. She will request information from the appropriate ministry staff. Ministry staff will prepare a response and provide it to the executive assistant, who will send it back to the CA.”
How about we just create constructive working relationships in the communities we live in with the people who work as public servants, who actually know that we know our constituencies? Then the kicker for me: “If constituents are not satisfied after the information has been provided to them regarding their file, they can reach out to the B.C. Ombudsperson.”
How about we try to solve problems together? I am going to take the Premier at his word that he didn’t know about this process. I am going to ask that he and his staff reiterate to his ministers the mandate letter requirements. Respectfully, on behalf of other MLAs in this Legislature…. I don’t know if that applies to government MLAs or not. Maybe it does, which would be even more disconcerting. But I know it applies to us, and I would like to see that fixed.
As we talk about doing things differently — communicating, setting aside partisan differences — I hope the Premier will reconsider his unwillingness to reactivate the standing committee on Aboriginal relations and that he would consider finding a way for us to get to yes on working together on an epidemic, a crisis in British Columbia.
I would be happy to provide some of the other observations from members of my caucus as we work to try to serve our constituents in a non-partisan way. I will take the Premier at his word that he will follow up on that and that we can see some improvement.
Our only goal is to serve our constituents. When there is an issue, they’re not going to wait for us to send an email to an MA, who is going to give it to the ministry, who is then going to get back to the MA and to the CA. They need help, and they need it now. That’s what we got elected to do.
Let’s move on to the Premier’s office budget. I know our time is restricted. I’m wondering if the Premier could…. I know that he has multiple staff here, so I think these should be fairly straightforward, basic questions about budget.
My first question is: how many FTEs are funded out of Vote 11, which is $14.678 million for the Office of the Premier?
Hon. J. Horgan: While staff are finding that information, I’d just like to go back to the last question, if I may, for a moment. The Leader of the Opposition is referring to a document. That document may well have been produced by this government, but I’m advised by the deputy of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations that it has been policy for a number of years — i.e., before the government changed.
This policy about ensuring that ministers are informed about issues of the day existed before our arrival, and with the support of the Leader of the Opposition, I’m quite happy to review that and rescind it, because I agree with her that our primary objective here, all of us, is to serve our constituents. It’s not to go through another labyrinth once we get here.
Having said that, as a new government, we were dependent on many of the policies that were developed by the former government over 15 or 16 years, as the former government would have, I’m sure, continued to embrace policies that were left by the previous government. It takes time to work through those issues.
The document the member has may well have been renewed by the new government, but again, it didn’t have any oversight by me. It didn’t have any oversight by my staff that I am aware of at this time, and I will most assuredly go back. Based on the information I have, this is long-standing policy. I understand the principle, though, and that is to make sure that ministers are aware of issues as they’re happening in communities.
I also know…. I used the terrible example of the logjam in Port Renfrew, but there were also numerous times while I was a member of the opposition where I engaged with field staff in the Ministry of Transportation on issues in Port Renfrew, among others — East Sooke, Langford, up the Malahat — and I always, always, always had a positive response from field staff. In fact, I recall having the Deputy Minister of Transportation, as well as the CFO for that ministry, in my constituency office to talk about the challenges on the Malahat.
I see my colleague from Nanaimo is here. She, as I look around, would be the only other person in this place at this moment who would understand how absolutely frustrating the Malahat has been for many, many generations for people on Vancouver Island.
I was accorded the respect of meeting with not just the deputy but the CFO. That’s the type of behaviour that I think everyone would want. I’m confident, though, that the deputy would not have come to my constituency office without the approval of the minister. I think it’s important that ministers understand what’s going on in their files. The Leader of the Opposition would know that, having held many files when she was in government.
Again, basic communication with those who can provide services to people…. It’s appropriate that there be no interface there other than an acknowledgment that the meeting has happened.
With that, I’ll quickly turn to pick up my numbers. I’ll be one second, if that’s all right, hon. Chair.
There are 103 full-time staff in the Premier’s office — fully staffed by this vote.
S. Bond: Thank you to the Premier for that response, both the number and the response prior to that. I can honestly say to the Premier, just to bring closure to our previous discussion, that I haven’t seen templates and forms and: “You need to fill this out, and you need to go through three people to get answers.”
I have prided myself, as have my caucus, on their constructive working relationships. When you have a flood in your backyard, the last thing you’re going to try to do on a Friday afternoon is track down a ministerial assistant. So point made, point taken. I’m going to take the Premier at his word that we will find a constructive way. No one wants to take partisan advantage of a wildfire or a flood or a road disintegrating in Quesnel.
Can the Premier explain the $3.344 million, or 30 percent, increase in his office budget?
Hon. J. Horgan: I will go through this in some detail, because I know the member understands the workings of the executive council.
We created a priorities and planning secretariat to make sure we streamlined information coming through to executive council. This was a determination we felt was important because of the ambitious agenda that we had.
The Leader of the Opposition has read the mandate letters of 24 ministers. We have an ambitious agenda. She will know, having sat at that table, that it can get logjammed if you don’t streamline processes not just coming in but coming out. As decisions are made, you want to be sure that you’re effectively communicating that to the line ministries and their executives so that that work can get done and proceed.
There are ten new people there. They’re not spin doctors, as they’ve been characterized. These are government employees. They were internal competitions for these positions. They are not appointed because of where they come from. They were selected through a competition.
There was one additional person added to the cabinet operations crew who — again, the member will know — works exhaustively to prepare weekly, in regular times, not just agendas and materials for cabinet but the various subcommittees and working groups of cabinet. So one additional staff member there.
Directly in my office, again, there was a transition. The members will know that I’m the first Premier from Victoria in a long, long, long time. A lot of government business over decades — going back to the Socreds, quite frankly, and the NDP period in the ’90s, as well as Premier Campbell, Premier Clark — were Vancouver-based, and they ran most of the shops out of Vancouver.
That has changed to having more people here in Victoria, because that’s my home. That’s where my base is. That’s where the seat of government is. I think it’s appropriate that the Premier’s office be active here in the province’s capital.
We added four new positions — two administrative and four outreach and engagement. Those outreach and engagement positions were a direct result of the trials and tribulations of COVID-19. We established tables with not-for-profits, with businesses, with labour, with various community organizations to hear from them directly and engage with them on the best solutions, going forward, to meet the challenges of COVID. We found this to be useful.
The member will know that, in the past, Premier’s office staff were oftentimes compensated through other ministries, and there were journal vouchers back and forth. This is internal machinations of government. The member will know about this. She’s been through estimates on both sides of the House. The reason that we put these positions directly in this budget was for transparency, so that I could stand here and take the slings and arrows of members on the other side, if they felt those expenditures were inappropriate.
The good news, I would say, about having an experienced Leader of the Opposition who has had multiple portfolios is she understands, as not all members new to this place will, the challenges of streamlining a cabinet agenda — making sure that the decisions that are made by cabinet are reported accurately out to ministries so that those policies and programs can be developed in a way that meets the needs of British Columbians.
I do believe — and we talked about this — my deputy, who I did not introduce…. My apologies. I’m joined by my Deputy Minister, Lori Wanamaker, my chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, and my executive director, Vanessa Geary.
We had a long a conversation about this, and I felt it was appropriate, starting a new government, to lay out quite clearly, so we could have this very discussion, about the number of staff I believe the Premier’s office needs to discharge the responsibilities of that office, not just because of COVID but because of the increased demands on public officials, the increased expectations the public has about delivering services. New technologies mean that people are contacting us in large numbers every day, and we need to make sure that we streamline that.
There have been examples just in this House this session where my colleagues on the opposite side have referenced correspondence that arrived on the day of the question. Thousands of pieces of correspondence come through my office every day. Disaggregating that, making sure appropriate responses are given and making sure that we can be accountable for the comments and concerns in that correspondence and other engagements, whether it be through social media, text messages, all of the various platforms that people use today to engage with their elected representatives…. We need people to manage all of that flow.
I believe this budget is prudent, and it reflects the needs of a Premier’s office in 2021.
S. Bond: The Minister of Finance described the 30 percent increase in the Premier’s office budget as: “We are investing to make sure that he has access to British Columbians. It’s really important that the Premier hear from all regions of the province, that he’s able to engage with all stakeholders and that he talks to regular British Columbians.”
Could the Premier describe for us today what exactly a $3.5 million spending increase — how that relates to access to the Premier? How is that being applied to hearing from all regions of the province, and specifically, how does this help the Premier talk to “regular British Columbians”?
Hon. J. Horgan: As I said, ten of the additional 13 positions are in the priorities and planning secretariat to streamline cabinet procedures, one as a cabinet ops employee to make sure that all of that work is done.
The six additional people, four of which are in the outreach and engagement section, I believe, would be the increase that the Minister of Finance was talking about. There’s no shortage of examples of how that has been absolutely invaluable to me to engage with British Columbians over the past 15 months.
I’m certain the member will know that I’ve been engaging with businesses, whether they be in Prince George, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Mayors councils. Regular engagements, not just by the Minister of Municipal Affairs but also by me with the various regional groups, the Southern Interior Local Government Association, AVICC, the Lower Mainland group — on and on, when it comes to those engagements.
It’s the follow-up, as the member will know. It’s one thing to talk to people. It’s another to listen to them. Why it’s so important for me, in my mind, having the privilege and honour of having this job, is to make sure that I’m not just ticking boxes when I talk to people, but I have the staff that are available to me to implement the suggestions that come forward.
It goes back to how genuine I believe I am on the question that was raised, first by the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to good ideas come from unlikely places on occasion. The best way to operationalize those good ideas is to have the appropriate staff to make sure that those ideas can get to the place where they can be enacted. When good ideas come together, positive things happen. That’s the objective here.
Again, I can’t be accountable for other people’s comments on my budget. I am hopeful that the answer I’ve given to the Leader of the Opposition…. I could go through numerous other examples. I’ll do just one more before I take my seat. That would be our concern about some areas of the province having a slow uptake on registration for vaccinations, just a few weeks ago.
We mobilized leaders from various communities across British Columbia to engage with them, to try and encourage people to get registered, get vaccinated, so that we can get back on track. I’d have to say that we had a very positive result. It wasn’t just dealing with representatives from the media or leaders in the community; it was engaging with regular folk.
As we have been in a pseudo-lockdown — as I’ve been, because of travel restrictions, remaining here on Vancouver Island — using technology and using staff to make sure that the input that we are getting has been distributed as effectively as possible through government, I think, is an appropriate expenditure. I know most British Columbians would agree with that. The challenges that we’ve faced have been extraordinary. The ideas that have come forward, the solutions to problems, have been quite transformative.
Again, I rely on the Leader of the Opposition’s experience in government to fully understand this. When regular people hear that changes to basic liquor laws are sometimes months and months in the discussion and years in the making, this government…. Because of our ability to engage with people in the sector, we’re able to make changes in liquor laws over the course of a weekend that allowed businesses to stay open and to survive through the darkest times of the first shutdown.
Going forward, I think that that’s the sort of thing that makes government better, more effective, more responsive to people. I believe as the head of the government, I should have the resources to not just hear from people but to take those ideas and operationalize them. That’s why we have a planning secretariat. That’s why we now have a new outreach and engagement component as well.
S. Bond: I don’t think anyone is suggesting — I certainly am not — that the Premier doesn’t need to actually talk to British Columbians, but we’re talking about a significant increase in his budget.
In fact, when we look at the increases, in 2016-2017 the budget for the Office of the Premier was less than $9 million. The Premier is seeking approval this year for $14.679 million. In other words, according to my math, he has increased his office budget by $5.68 million, or 63 percent, since taking office.
Can the Premier confirm that’s correct?
Hon. J. Horgan: I do have some other comparative numbers for the House to reflect upon, and that’s other provinces’ offices of the Premier: Saskatchewan, $12.642 million, one fifth the size of British Columbia; Ontario, $37.8 million; Alberta, just to our east, smaller in population, $18.2 million. I think that, pound for pound, per capita, we’re doing pretty well.
Again, as I said at the beginning, rather than as…. I know, as a former government employee, that oftentimes those who work for the Office of the Premier are housed elsewhere.
I felt, again, it was more appropriate — when we’re talking about planning the government’s agenda that’s driven by the mandate letters that I penned and by the direction that I give as President of the Executive Council — that we have a planning and priorities secretariat that will make sure that the stuff coming through is consistent with what we’ve heard in communities as we’ve engaged with people and, also, that when the answers or the determinations and deliberations of cabinet are concluded, that information then flows back to the line ministries so they can deliver on the needs of British Columbians.
That’s what we set out to do. I believe it’s cost effective. This was not about hiding people elsewhere. This was about being open about the resources needed to do the job in 2020-2021. I believe it’s appropriate.
Again, I use the examples from other jurisdictions to illustrate to members of the committee that we are pretty cost effective in the delivery of services out of the Premier’s office relative to other jurisdictions, some larger and some much smaller than us.
S. Bond: I will take that as a yes. His budget has increased by 63 percent since he took office in 2016-2017. I’ll follow that with a question related to a $2 million increase. In 2017, the Premier said: “The $2 million increase in 2017 is funding ten additional positions.”
Can the Premier confirm that those positions remain funded this year?
Interjection.
S. Bond: The Premier would like me to repeat that. In 2017, there was a $2 million increase to fund ten additional positions. So are those positions, created in 2017 for $2 million….? Do they remain funded this year in addition to the new staff that have been added?
Hon. J. Horgan: I can confirm that the additional resources from 2017 remain funded. Again, we’re looking at the Office of the Premier’s estimates for this fiscal year. If you want more detail on previous years, it might take a little bit longer to get the answers.
S. Bond: Well, the Premier has remarkably similar answers to 2017. Consistency might well be an important thing. Having said that, let’s see what the Premier said about the $2 million in 2017: “We do have, as I said, an increase in resources available…to make sure that we’re driving the agenda and the priorities….”
The Premier has a significant number of advisers and specifically added staff to give him advice on priorities as part of the $2 million lift to his budget in 2017. Can the Premier describe why he needs an additional $3.344 million this year for basically more of the same thing?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I don’t know that relitigating the previous budget estimates from four years ago…. I do know that I’ve been pretty clear that the resources that are being allocated or requested through this debate are for ten priorities and planning secretariat staff, one increase in cabinet operations and two administrative and four outreach and engagement personnel to do just what the Leader of the Opposition suggested — engaging with people, hearing their ideas and implementing them.
To implement those, you need to have a robust approach to making sure that when the information comes in, we can formulate in a way that decisions can be made around it. Once those decisions are made, it has to flow back out to line ministries so that those services can be delivered.
S. Bond: In 2017, the Premier was asked if he would continue increasing his budget, and he said: “We don’t anticipate any further increases….” So the Premier has given us a long list of numbers of where people were going and what they are doing.
To be clear, this Premier’s office has increased its budget by 63 percent since taking office, and the Premier said to British Columbians: “I don’t anticipate” — in 2017 — “any additional budget increases.” Can the Premier explain why his budget has continued to increase every single year since that time?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well I didn’t anticipate a global pandemic, first and foremost. I don’t imagine anyone else in this place did. It isn’t accurate to say that budgets increased year over year. They increased in the first year of the government. We were new to the place and trying to figure things out, trying to make sure that directives were tailor-made here, not by previous governments.
This budget estimate has been pretty clear. I’ve said to the Leader of the Opposition there are 103 people operating within my office. That includes the deputy minister’s office, cabinet operations, Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat, which I would have to say had unfunded positions.
We’ve never had more robust intergovernmental relations engagement: 44 meetings of the Council of the Federation since last March; 31 first ministers meetings with the Prime Minister and Premiers. That’s just to talk about those issues that are within Canada. I’ve also engaged with my colleagues south of the border and north of the border to talk about the issues of importance to British Columbians.
There was a budget lift when we first came to government, and there’s a second lift here after the last election, after the global pandemic, directing people’s concerns and ideas to implementation through planning, making sure those priorities are correct and then distributing that through line ministries once decisions have been made.
S. Bond: Well, thank you to the Premier. I guess I simply want to remind the Premier of some of the issues that we’ve grappled with in the Legislature. When you look at the increase in his budget of…. When you look at the $3.344 million increase, 30 percent…. I mean, we’ve brought issues to this Legislature which speak to priorities.
We raised the issue of the B.C. school fruit and vegetable program. That was $3 million. We raised the issue of spinal cord injury research, $3.3 million in funding. We’re still raising the issue of the legions and ANAVETS.
The Premier knows full well that the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions remains the smallest ministry in government, and it’s going up from $12.712 million to $12.735 million. So that is a 0.18 percent increase. That speaks to priorities. While I understand the Premier’s need to talk to “regular” British Columbians, there are a lot of other things that $3 million could be spent on.
I would like the Premier, if he wouldn’t mind, to explain the planning and priority secretariat. Could he be explicit about what the role of that secretariat is?
Hon. J. Horgan: As I said, the objective of the planning and priority secretariat is to deliver the priorities and initiatives of the government over the course of its mandate.
That includes, but is not limited to, taking cabinet direction; developing a long-term plan for the delivery of government’s priority commitments over the four-year term and managing that over the same period of time; coordinating with relevant ministries to ensure that materials are appropriate and consistent and are flowing through cabinet operations in a meaningful way; as well as coordinating two new government caucus committees, which was a hybrid of what the former government did in its first term, to make sure that new members of the Legislature had a good understanding of the decisions that have to be made — the choices and trade-offs that often happen in government.
I spoke with representatives from the former government from the 2001 to the 2005 period about the value of those committees. I was convinced that they were a good idea. They’re working effectively on our side of the House to make sure that, again, content experts are available to the members of the government caucus.
As I have said, and it’s been offered by the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, we want to have those dialogues and discussions with all members of this House as members see fit. The office of the minister remains open to talk to the critics about these issues. As we come out of the pandemic and we get back to a more normal, regular seating of this place, then, of course, other standing committees and other initiatives can be undertaken.
At this time, I believe that it’s appropriate that we focus on making sure that the input we’re getting from people across the province…. I have to say, and I’ve talked about this — it might not have made it to the ears of all members of the House, so it’s worth repeating — that although the pandemic has made it extremely difficult to engage directly with people face to face in the traditional way, it has saved an enormous amount of time in terms of time in airports, time travelling, time waiting to travel. Instead, through Zoom and other technologies, I’m seeing way more people, more effective. But, again, with those engagements as all members know, come good ideas.
With those good ideas, again, wherever they may come from, whether it’s the chamber of commerce, whether it’s the Federation of Labour, whether it is members of this House, engaging and putting that back into the system of government, which, again, the Leader of the Opposition knows extremely well, perhaps as well as any member in this place…. Taking that, coordinating it and making sure it comes up for a decision that is documented and recorded and then goes back into the system to be delivered is not simple work. It requires people, and it requires energy.
I am very excited about the prospects of carrying forward — with the wisdom of this House — once this budget’s passed, delivering on this mandate over the next four years.
S. Bond: Well, I appreciate the Premier’s answer. I’m very disappointed that, in essence, the Premier has said no to cross-party committee work. One of the reasons, one of the pieces he referenced, was it was too costly. It’s costly. It’s onerous.
The fact of the matter is…. The Premier continues to reiterate the fact that I and the Leader of the Third Party can have a briefing. What we have asked the Premier for is legitimate engagement on issues that matter to British Columbia, not dissimilar to what the Premier is trying to do by adding $3 million in his own office to have that kind of dialogue. He has the opportunity to do that with members of opposition parties when it comes to the issue of overdose.
The Premier can continue to reference the fact that we have been offered a briefing. Certainly, the briefings matter. What we asked for, in a respectful and thoughtful way, laying out a pathway for the Premier to bring his mandate letters to life, was to reactivate important committees of this Legislature.
I will certainly end. I know there is a cast of many arriving to report out. But the Premier’s office budget has increased by 60-plus percent. While I understand the Premier laying out the number of positions — the number of things that need to be done — I think British Columbians would suggest that there are some very important priorities that I think the Premier and his team should be considering. Continuing to add people to the secretariat and to all of those things needs to be put in context.
I will just end my comments today with the fact that I think the Premier laid out clearly in mandate letters for ministers that he wanted discussions to be different, that he wanted us in this place to interact for the public good.
I will simply end my comments for today by reminding the Premier of those mandate letters, reminding the ministers of those mandate letters and once again asking that the Premier — asking very respectfully — contemplate giving life to those words by reactivating the standing committee on Aboriginal relations and the Standing Committee on Health.
Hon. J. Horgan: At no time, either before or today, did I rule out the suggestions that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party have made.
I have said that with respect to Indigenous relations, which did not meet at all under the mandate of the previous government, that may well be an appropriate direction to go, provided that as we deal with the tragic revelations and the realizations of what many have known for a long, long time, coming out of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc territory, we await direction and consult with Indigenous Peoples on where they want to go.
It may well not be a standing committee of the Legislature. It may be some other vehicle that would invite all of us to participate in some meaningful way, as we did when we unanimously passed the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in this place in the form of the Declaration Act. I’m not at all ruling those things out, acknowledging and recognizing that we are in the last stages, let’s hope, of a global pandemic, where we will be coming back to a more normal functioning of this Legislature, where that type of activity would be appropriate.
I don’t want the Leader of the Opposition to leave this place thinking that I have ruled this out in any way at all. I know that we’re in the middle of June. We’ve just started step 2 of our restart plan.
We have a number of initiatives that are going on in communities right across British Columbia. As we get back here in the fall for another regular sitting of the Legislature, where we have, I would hope, 87 members all here, all ready to go, all engaging and sharing ideas…. There are people that you’ve not yet met. Members have not yet met each other, other than in a square box on their computer. That does not lead to collegiality. That leads to misunderstanding and distrust. I’m hopeful that all of us can work on that as we come back here into a more regular setting.
With that, hon. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 1:34 p.m.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $23,725,698,000 (continued).
The Chair: I now recognize the member for Kelowna-Mission.
R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I so appreciate it. I do appreciate this opportunity to once again ask some questions.
We’re going to change a little bit away from our previous. We’re going to move on to COVID-19 and schools. My colleague, the member for Fraser-Nicola, has already canvassed in the Ministry of Education estimates. So I’m not going to repeat anything that was said in those. Instead, I’m going to ask a little bit of a different line of questions.
Just last week we saw that children were fast approaching the highest percent of infection. In fact, in this last update that we were just given, I believe the percentage was just under 24 percent from the 0-to-19 category, and in Canada, they are the highest percentage of infection. As transmission and infection is still possible and as the BCCDC now acknowledges that COVID is aerosol….
I’m just going to use a quote. I know that the minister had let me know about the droplets, etc. I’m just going to quote from the BCCDC website:
“COVID-19 infections are predominantly spread through large droplets and through contact with contaminated surfaces. Smaller droplet aerosol spread has been associated with community settings with crowding, poor ventilation, prolonged exposure during expiratory activities and without the use of medical-grade personal protective equipment. However, health care settings have a low risk of aerosol transmission to health care professionals from patients due to environmental and administrative control measures and PPE.”
Well, we do not yet have a vaccine approved for children under the age of 12. That said, we have been watching, over the course of these last 15 months, data from the school year to help prioritize and be strategic. For example, the B.C. school COVID tracker database was used to help identify schools such as Panorama in Surrey or Rutland in Kelowna that for various reasons were particularly hard hit and will continue to be high hit.
Despite repeated asks for school data, would the minister now commit to school data being released, starting in the fall?
Hon. A. Dix: This has been an area of interest for Dr. Henry. She’ll be joining us for this discussion.
I want to say, first of all, that I’m not sure, in terms of the provincial health officer–presented modelling last Thursday…. It’s publicly available. The member will have seen it. It showed that amongst the youngest school-aged people, those people who are not currently eligible for vaccination because the vaccines aren’t approved for them…. That is the reason that that group of people is lower than their share of the population.
Of course, with respect to hospitalizations and mortality under 18, it’s dramatically lower. In fact, in several of those categories, virtually…. Although there were a couple, very sadly, of children between zero and five who passed away from COVID-19 — or with COVID-19, in any event — in B.C. those groups of people are less represented amongst those with COVID-19.
Secondly, I’d say that it shows in what we all need to do is contribute to advancing immunization and vaccines in the general population — all those over 12. Happy to report today that that number over 12 is now 74.1 percent, and second dose is roughly 14 percent, which is good news, and we need those numbers to be as high as possible because they provide protection for students.
In addition, of course, the provincial health office has been working closely with school communities, and that was reflected in the debate between the member for Fraser-Nicola and the Minister of Education. The enormous efforts that have been made to keep schools open in B.C….
I think this is a real tribute to teachers and education workers and students and parents and administrators and provincial health offices in B.C., that while this was a school year like no other, schools remained open in B.C. That is an achievement that many other provinces can’t claim. It’s an achievement in terms of public health as well as public education, because we know, we have evidence for — and, certainly, a guided provincial health officer of that evidence — that keeping schools open was important.
With respect to information and just to read into the record, because we have…. You see, I was doing it from memory there. We’ll see how good I was, I say to the hon. member opposite. Just in terms of the last round of modelling, just for the record…. You see, it wasn’t printed out in full. That’s just the way it goes. I am foiled. We’ll have to concede, hon. Chair, that that’s fine. All of that’s the case.
I think with respect to data transparency, there has been an extraordinary level of data in the system, and with respect to exposure settings — for example, data, location types and the rate that transmission is occurring — the BCCDC COVID-19 public exposure’s webpage, which is often the repository for other webpages, I would say on this question, serves as a central point of information on exposures taking place on flights, regional exposure events, school exposures, workplace exposures, buses, trains, cruises and events.
Equally, of course, there’s the detailed data that is regularly provided, including the significant presentations by Dr. Henry on exposures in school settings. So we are going to continue, obviously, and I suspect that we’re going to be hearing from the Minister of Education fairly soon about plans for the coming school year. At that time, I’m sure the Minister of Education will report on that.
I think it’s fair to say that in British Columbia — I’m sure the member would agree — both the effort to keep schools open and the fact that schools stayed open in B.C. was a huge contribution to public health and to the contribution to the children of our province.
R. Merrifield: I just wanted to welcome to the room here the provincial health officer. Thank you very much. I had a tribute that was ready yesterday, but you weren’t in the room. I didn’t bring it this morning. But know that I thank you on behalf of all British Columbians. Your tremendous efforts and leadership over these last 15 months are truly remarkable and will go down in the history books. So thank you for being a part of all the positive successes, even though we’re talking about, maybe, the gaps in the system right now.
I also wanted to echo the minister’s accolades, because I do agree that teachers have been unsung heroes. I have had teachers, with tears streaming down their faces, explain to me what it feels like to try and protect 30 of their students in the midst of a pandemic with such little information, and I understand that they have truly gone above and beyond to make sure that our kids are well taken care of. I’m not going to argue the merits of schools open, schools closed. I won’t get into the details of that.
I think if we just assume that schools being open is a good thing, then I want to focus on what we need in terms of prevention.
This fall the younger generations will be the largest unvaccinated populations, or the least vaccinated populations. Even if we get vaccines approved for them, we’re still looking into September, October if the modelling continues to where we are, where we won’t have fully vaccinated population groups.
In a nutshell, because COVID transmission is primarily by aerosol, the major mitigation for schools, I think, has been agreed upon. It’s masks; it’s ventilation; it’s air cleaning; it’s distancing, capacity reduction. I do think that as we start announcing new schools….
I think there’s a huge missed opportunity. Having come from a building background, I can say that we need to leverage what we’ve learned about COVID-19 safety mitigations with B.C.’s policy objectives around green buildings and clean technology. We have a wealth of green building and clean tech expertise, but there hasn’t been that alignment of how we can actually go about putting and instilling efforts to make sure that we don’t have to endure another pandemic.
My question to the minister is this. Can we agree that the mitigation efforts, located below, which are masks, ventilation, air cleaning, distancing, capacity reduction and data release, will be implemented starting in the school system this fall?
Hon. A. Dix: Just with respect to what teachers and students have endured, I think they’ve endured what everyone has endured, which is the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s what’s been endured by everybody in the province, and that includes young people.
The member will know that from the period after spring break in 2020 to the beginning of June, when there was a partial reopening, schools were closed in British Columbia. At least, in-class learning, I should say, was closed in British Columbia at that time. Obviously, that has significant consequences for people.
The member will also know that there will be a plan coming, a direction coming, as to what’s going to happen in September. While it’s always good to announce something in another minister’s area two days in advance of when they’re actually going to do it — and that’s within the bounds of their estimates — I’m going to hesitate and not do that. I think the member will understand why that might be.
It’s also because that effort involves, as it has, the Ministry of Education, the provincial health office and our ministry, of course, but also school districts and administrators in local schools across British Columbia. It involves all of those people. In that sense, it’s a collective response to what we’re seeing.
Secondly, vaccines really matter, and vaccinating teachers matters, and vaccinating young people 12 to 17 obviously matters in the higher grades. Today 50 percent of people 12 to 17 are vaccinated, which is a really quick ramp-up, and it makes us different than other jurisdictions because of the priority we’ve given to first-dose immunization in B.C. amongst the vaccine that we’ve had. I give Dr. Henry and her team, including Dr. Gustafson and Dr. Skowronski, a lot of credit for that.
I think the approach will continue to be the same approach, which is working with school districts, working with school communities to find solutions — all of these — and to make things work for students. That approach, which has been collaborative…. Sometimes, I would say, there’s been some testiness in the sort of public realm. If one lived on social media, I think one would see life somewhat differently than in other places.
Nonetheless, I think the response has been very good and will continue to be good if we continue to work together. I think the key…. The member will see this reflected when the Minister of Education and the other stakeholders talk about the next school year. It will be similar in that sense to this year, a collaborative approach involving the school districts, involving educators, involving public health, with an effort to keep children safe.
With respect to the immunization of children under 12, I think it’s fair to say that there are trials going on for the mRNA vaccines right now. I think it is very unlikely that any jurisdiction will be in a position much before the end of the year, if at all before the end of the year, to be able to provide vaccines to that group of people.
Fortunately, the fact that adults are immunized is hugely valuable. Fortunately, there has been less transmission involving younger children. In fact, children under 12 are dramatically below their share of the population in terms of COVID-19 cases — which is, of course, not a bad thing but a very good thing. Their outcomes, as well, are obviously substantially better.
Those are the realities. It’s going to, yes, continue to be the same approach, driven by science, driven by public health. We’re working together, providing significant resources where required, to support local schools in delivering, in the new context of the pandemic — the context of September, when the majority of people will have received both their first and their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine…. It’s to deal with that reality so that people can not just go back to school but go back to school with confidence that they’ll be safe.
R. Merrifield: I disagree with the minister’s comment that teachers have endured what everyone has endured. I do think that we each have our own experiences based on the professions. I would never put myself in the place of a front-line worker, nor would I put myself in the place of a teacher, charged to keep their students safe from harm.
I will also, then, just go to one of the comments that was made, which is that school districts, educators and public health will be consulted, coming in. Could I ask where the parents will be consulted as stakeholders in the return-to-school program?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, I’ll say what I say, and the member can say what she says. Of course, I didn’t say that. What I said was that everyone is living in a COVID-19 pandemic, and that’s the source of the challenge, right? That was what I said, and that’s what I think. If you’re living in the COVID-19 pandemic and you have young children going to school, that’s a particular circumstance. Everyone has their circumstances. We’re both living in a pandemic as a province and living in it as individuals.
Front-line workers — whether they work in grocery stores, deliver essential goods, work in health care or work in education, wherever they work — have been exceptional. I think the member knows that. I don’t think I said anything differently than that, but it always bears repeating.
With respect to parents’ involvement, all that same process of communities involves the organized representatives of parents, as well, as it does teachers, as it does administrators. I would expect that to continue. In fact, it is continuing, and it has been in place since we launched those committees.
R. Merrifield: That’s great news that parents will be included as a stakeholder group in consultation and collaboration with a move forward through to the school year starting.
My next question will be around the amount of funds that are being put aside for that restart of the school system in September. How much of the Health budget is going towards that aspect — any of the ventilation systems or handwashing stations, etc., that might be required?
Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that the money that would directly go to schools for those things would come from the Education budget.
R. Merrifield: The Minister of Education indicated that these funds were exceptional funds and would be coming out of either Health budgets or federal funds or some other form of funds. Again, to the minister, there are no funds within the Health budget that are allocated towards the school restart.
Hon. A. Dix: The question was about ventilation systems, which is school minor capital. That would ordinarily flow through the Ministry of Education budgets and be debated in the estimates. There were exceptional funds this year, as the member will know, from the federal government, and also significant funds allocated through the Education budget.
The actions of provincial Health, of course, in support of public education but in support of all other places as well, are funded through the Ministry of Health budget.
R. Merrifield: What is the allocation, then, for this particular type of contingency within the Health budget?
Hon. A. Dix: It comes out of the very substantial supplementary — because of contingencies — money being spent by public health now. Of course, the member will know that public health plays a very significant role as well, working with schools already. This is part of public health expenditures in the province and will be spent as required.
R. Merrifield: That would be part of the $1.1 billion contingency that is COVID-related funds, I would assume. The minister can correct me if I’m incorrect on that.
My last question to wrap up this section will be on rapid testing. How will rapid testing be deployed throughout the school systems come this fall, as a form of protection?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s really good to see you in the chair this afternoon.
A couple of things. I think we have already used point-of-care testing in schools. That’s at the direction of our medical health officers and all of the health authorities. In the period during the third wave — this was significantly true in Fraser Health and in Vancouver Coastal Health — there’ll be access as required to those rapid tests. The member will also know this, because it’s been part of the public briefings about access in schools to the rapid-access spit tests, which are often easier for all of us, but especially for children, than nasal-pharyngeal tests and others.
I think that will all be available and continue to be available. I would expect that they would be used, and they certainly would be in the arsenal of public health in dealing with school exposures. That’s at the direction of our public health leaders — all of the health authorities, of course, and Dr. Henry.
R. Merrifield: Switching a little bit, obviously COVID had a dramatic impact on much of our health care system, outside of just the COVID virus. When we look…. I’m looking back to May of last year, when the minister announced a $250 million new annual funding for the surgical renewal plan.
Obviously, $187.5 million was allocated for the first year, I’m assuming, because we were a couple months into the fiscal year already. Of these allocated funds, how much was actually spent in the 2020-2021 year?
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Chair, just to take the member through this, in moving to surgical renewal, it gives me an opportunity to express my strong appreciation to everyone involved in the surgical renewal plan across B.C. — people of the Ministry of Health and Mr. Michael Marchbank, who is the former president and CEO of the Fraser Health Authority, who took responsibility for this area and who has driven, I think, a remarkable level of success.
Just to put it in context, we have significantly increased — especially in the period subsequent to the return to full surgeries from June 18 on — the number of surgeries, such that 97 percent of the cases in which patients had surgeries postponed in the first wave had their surgeries done. Overall wait times in a number of areas have been reduced. The overall number of people on the surgical wait-lists have been reduced. An additional 21,966 hours of operating time were added, compared to the same time frame last year, and the wait-list reduction is 13 percent.
In addition — and some of this is towards the end of the fiscal year, so the member is right; it becomes annualized in further years — a total of 1,459 medical staff have been hired. That’s 55 surgeons, 64 anaesthesiologists, four general practice anaesthetists, 519 perioperative registered nurses, 74 perioperative licensed practical nurses and 308 post-anaesthetic recovery registered nurses, as well as — this is critical for any surgery plan — 435 medical device reprocessing technicians. Since April 1, 2020, as well, 391 surgical specialty nurses have started their training, and a remarkable 274 have completed it.
As the member can see, this has been across health authorities, and certainly, that level of effort has been expanded across all of our health authorities to a remarkable degree as well. What we’ve seen as a result of all that is, I think, a level of surgical delivery that will continue to advance in the coming years. We have had, during the third wave, some reduction, again in Metro Vancouver, in the number of surgeries that we’ve done in this period. We saw, at ten Lower Mainland hospitals, a reduction or a cancellation of some non-urgent scheduled surgeries in this time.
Given that, under COVID-19, the time it takes to do each surgery has increased, the increase, therefore, in operating room hours was necessary in order to increase the number of surgeries and to deal with where we were. That has been, I think, very effective. The actual expenditure — because some of this hiring came towards the end of the fiscal year — was in the neighbourhood of $62.5 million in this fiscal year, but annualized over the next fiscal year, we’ll hit the numbers, in terms of expenditures.
What we have done, both in surgery and in diagnostics, is hit the target and reduced wait times — reduced the number of people on wait-lists and done the surgeries we needed to do. I think we’ve done it through some 70 different initiatives around increasing and improving the efficiency of surgeries. I think that’s a real achievement for everyone involved.
R. Merrifield: My understanding is that the $60-some million was actually the residual between the $250 million and the $187.5 million, I believe. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Under our surgical plan that preceded it, we’ve been significantly increasing the number of surgeries each year. The incremental money, the call on contingencies in the last fiscal year — I’ll get the member the exact number — was in the range of $62.5 million, I think, if memory serves. Just to give the member the exact number, it was about $60 million, yeah, in the last fiscal year. That was the call on contingencies, in addition to the other increases that took place.
As the member will understand, because we had done fewer surgeries in the April and May period, some of the extra expenditures was money that wasn’t spent but then was spent later in the fiscal year. We have been, as the member will know, significantly increasing surgeries in British Columbia, particularly in categories such as hip and knee and in categories such as dental.
That program — our surgical plan that we implemented in 2018, and then the surgical renewal plan that we implemented in April 2021 — means that we had that money, plus a call on contingencies, of which we used about $60 million in the past fiscal year. We’ll use, of course, more in this fiscal year.
R. Merrifield: So it’s $250 million plus the $60 million in contingency, or was it $187.5 million less the contingency. The numbers are…. I’m asking about the $250 million new annual funding and how much was spent in the ’20-21 year. How much was spent in the ’20-21 year?
Hon. A. Dix: The surgical strategy, including diagnostic imaging…. The call on it wasn’t $250 million, obviously, in the last fiscal year. The allocation was $60 million. The expenditure was $60 million of the contingency money in the last fiscal year. The allocation to the base is a further $165 million. The access to contingencies is $100 million as we see what’s required in future fiscal years. So all of that was achieved with that expenditure.
R. Merrifield: I don’t mean to be daft, but I am still not understanding. I’m writing them down as fast as I can, but the numbers are not adding up in terms of what I think is a pretty simple number.
The $250 million…. So $187.5 million was allocated for this past year. Of these allocated funds, how much was spent in ’20-21 of the $187.5 million? How much of that was spent — all of it plus the $60 million?
Now we’re playing charades. That’s what I’m asking. How much of that was actually spent?
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll try it again. I know there are different numbers here. I’m not….
All of our existing budget for surgical services, which was going up, all the money that would have been not spent during the April to May period and then the call on contingencies last year, in the 2020-2021 fiscal year, was $60 million.
R. Merrifield: So $187.5 million plus $60 million? Or $187.5 million and only $60 million was spent? Just for the record.
Hon. A. Dix: The amount that was spent out of contingencies for the surgical renewal plan was $60 million.
R. Merrifield: I think we’re on the same page.
With this information, what’s the budget for this fiscal year, and is it included within the $495 million, noted in the fiscal plan, of new money?
Hon. A. Dix: There are two sources of revenue. So $165 million to the base and $100 million of the call on a contingency, for $265 million.
R. Merrifield: Which line item in the ministry’s 2021-22 budget includes the remaining funds for the surgical renewal?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s in regional services, and then the MSP budget has some of it for surgeons as well.
R. Merrifield: How many of these scheduled surgeries were performed in B.C. in 2020-2021? Also, let’s do the 2019-2020 year as well.
Hon. A. Dix: In the fiscal year 2020-21, 243,155 scheduled surgeries took place and 72,819 non-scheduled or emergent surgeries took place. This number is, of course…. This is a B.C. total of 315,974 surgeries and, obviously, includes the period in which we had cancelled, essentially, 30,000-plus surgeries. So we made up significant ground in the rest of the fiscal year.
I would say…. In the P4 to P13 period, so the periods that essentially started at the end of May through to the end of the fiscal year — we have 13 weeks, 13 times four — we actually completed 264,043 surgeries, whereas the previous year we completed 255,496 surgeries. You can see that, in spite of COVID-19, our surgeons completed 103 percent of the previous year, in spite of that, that year. Obviously, they did so, and we did so, by significantly increasing the amount of operating hours that were available for surgery.
If you look at that, this was a record year, especially for scheduled surgeries. The total operating room hours in that period, the P4 to P13 period, was 315,504 in 2019-20. It was 336,866 in 2020-21. Since that’s our new base of operating room hours, that means we’re going to have a very strong year this year.
R. Merrifield: I lost track of writing the numbers down there. For all scheduled procedures in ’20-21, could you just repeat that number, to the minister there?
Hon. A. Dix: The total for 2020-21 is 315,974, of which 243,155 were scheduled and 72,819 were unscheduled.
R. Merrifield: And for 2019-2020, just, again, for my records?
Hon. A. Dix: It was 255,936 scheduled and 74,452 unscheduled.
R. Merrifield: This would be so much easier if we were just having a conversation. So in 2019-2020, we had 255,936 scheduled surgeries and 74,952 unscheduled surgeries. In 2020-2021, we had 243,155 scheduled and 72,119 unscheduled?
Hon. A. Dix: It was 72,819 unscheduled.
R. Merrifield: A quick calculation of numbers means that we did 12,781 less scheduled surgeries this year than last. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes. That’s approximately the case. As the member will know, we had cancellation of about 31,000 surgeries in the March–through–May 18 period. And 16,000 of those, approximately, were what we call hard cancellations, in the sense that people had a date and it was cancelled. But others would have been surgeries that would have taken on…. Usually, their slates are booked a couple of weeks in advance. So that was the circumstance of that.
We dealt…. I think our surgical teams did just an exceptional job, because if you look at the period from when they started surgeries again, they did about 10,000 more surgeries than they’d done the previous years, with COVID restrictions in hospitals, which is a great achievement.
I also think that the very significant hiring of new staff and the creation of new capacity will continue to benefit us in the coming months and years. That’s for sure. If you look at the whole period and these periods through the fiscal year, what you’ll see is the commitment of focusing on patients, of increasing surgeries and all of the measures that have been put in place.
I hesitate. I would like to read them all into the record — the 72 initiatives — but I don’t think that’s the…. The member is shaking her head, indicating please, no.
What we’ve seen, in period after period now, is an increase compared to the last year and the number of surgeries during COVID time. Obviously, I’m very proud of our teams. What I can provide, and the member will have this in any event, are the detailed numbers of OR hours by level of specialty, because the member will know that different kinds of surgeries are differently affected.
A high number of the surgeries, for example, that were cancelled were cataract surgeries. But frequently, those aren’t done in the hospital. But you see an increase in capacity across the health care system, such as the operating room hours that were up at 107 percent of last year’s by division.
The challenge with that, of course, for hospitals is — because of COVID measures for surgeons — the time needed. The reason why those 72 measures were needed was for that very reason. So yeah. Because of and during COVID, we did fewer surgeries. But once the surgical renewal plan was put into place, we increased the number of surgeries, and this year, we’re going to see a further dramatic increase.
R. Merrifield: I appreciate the minister’s comments. In fact, I echo them. I think there were truly heroic efforts by all of those within our surgical suites and within our surgical wards to make sure that people were treated in a timely fashion despite having a pandemic at hand. I absolutely echo those sentiments.
By my calculations, we did 14,914 less surgeries overall than the previous year, and that’s based on the confirmed numbers from the minister. So my question is this: with less surgeries having been done in 2020-2021, what attributes to the wait-list actually going down?
Hon. A. Dix: Three sets of things. One, obviously, the very significant increase in hours is now continuing on through into this fiscal year in the weekly hours that are devoted to surgeries in the province. This is part of the 72 measures to increase the number of surgeries that took place through health authorities. This was, in that respect, a revolutionary moment for health authorities in putting in place measures. So that’s one.
Two, one of the things that we did was, I think, better customer service than had been done before. We phoned everybody who needed surgery. That customer service, that connection with people, was important because we have, I think, a better wait-list than we had before. So that’s a second set of things.
Our management through a centralized system is better in terms of data. Some of our surgeries, for example, in areas are entirely done centrally now. That gives us a better control of data. I think what we’re going to be in is a position, as we return to all of the surgeries we did before — which had been record increases in the previous two years in terms of overall number of surgeries — to see that have an even more significant effect.
I think there’s a fourth thing I’d say that isn’t necessarily reflected in the data or advice you get. It is that people…. We saw this in terms of emergency room visits. We saw this in terms of ambulance calls. There was some greater reluctance to get procedures done. I think that’s true. I think we have to acknowledge that, and I would expect that to return as well.
As we significantly increase the number of surgeries compared to two years ago and then to last year, with the surgical renewal plan, which has been, in every sense, an extraordinary success, I think we’re also going to see some increase in demand as well.
R. Merrifield: With less surgeries being actually accomplished, I find it difficult to understand how an increase in hours attributes to a lower wait-list. Those are actually almost mutually exclusive. I’ll ask the minister to clarify that just a little bit.
The other thing is that the wait-list, then, by No. 2, which is better customer service, which I do appreciate, with a more accurate system…. If we had done that same effort in 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020, it would have also been done, right?
Interjection.
R. Merrifield: Well, hey, I wasn’t in power then. So I’m not going to talk about those years.
The wait-list would have been more accurate at all of those stages. So the three first explanations that the minister gave for a lower wait-list don’t seem to make sense.
The last one, a greater reluctance — that actually does make sense. I know, even anecdotally, that there were people who were postponing surgeries because they didn’t want to go into a COVID-infected hospital. But they were not COVID-infected hospitals and were probably one of the safest places for us to be.
Having said that, there was a reluctance. There was this….When we’re all in lockdown as well — right? There are more supports at home, etc. So outside of No. 4, we don’t have to reiterate that one, but No. 1 through 3, is there another explanation for the lowering in surgical wait-times?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s good to note this, in terms of the record. The total operating room hours in 2020-21 was 463,003. The total operating room hours in the previous year, and this includes the slowdown in surgeries, the cancellation in non-emergency elective surgeries, was 441,000. In other words, we increased net operating room hours by 22,000.
We did so during the period of pandemic. We did so by adding staff and resources and increasing our capacity. We reduced the number of people on wait-lists because we increased the number of surgeries from when we relaunched surgery renewal through the end of the fiscal year and now have continued into this fiscal year.
Increasing total operating room hours to 105 percent over the previous year does have a positive effect on wait-lists. So that’s point 1, right? It makes sense. Point 2. Yes, calling everybody and connecting with our patients and discussing alternatives — that makes sense as well.
It was increasing capacity, delivering the surgeries that had been cancelled, doing so in in a pandemic. Obviously, this increase in operating room hours will have a larger impact on surgeries in future, if it’s the case that we’ll be able to reduce what we call a COVID-delay on surgeries.
Initially we estimated — it didn’t prove out to be this big — that COVID would add about 20 percent to 25 percent, as an estimate, to the time of each surgery because of all of the different preparations that would have to take place. In fact, the difference wasn’t that big, but it was significant, nonetheless.
You see this extraordinary growth in operating room hours within the pandemic, including the period when we weren’t doing surgeries. That’s a remarkable achievement in the system. It’s a reflection of the people in the system. Obviously, I’m very proud of it.
R. Merrifield: I did go back to the number of performed surgeries and the direct correlation to wait-lists, all the way back to 2001, which is the earliest data that I could actually find. In some of my investigation, I would say that this year is a complete anomaly. For the minister to say that we actually have a reduction of total surgeries accomplished and, at the same time, have a reduction in the wait-list, to me signifies that there is something in error.
Increasing the number of hours. We actually, on the one of the updates — this was back in the fall — said that efficiencies had now almost come to where they were previous. So the 25 percent was not as great. I agree with the minister, as does his documentation.
Again, I’m going to ask. We have an aging population. Demographically, we have seen a consistent increase in surgeries performed every year, year over year, almost inordinately. Plus, we also have a growing population. Those three factors don’t actually make sense with less surgeries performed and a lower wait-list that’s on the books.
Hon. A. Dix: What we did with our surgical plan and diagnostic plan in 2017 is significantly increase the number of surgeries. It’s true that there was an increase in surgeries of 3,500 in the 2016-17 fiscal year. But that is, of course, significantly less than the significant increases we saw in future years. The number of surgeries has been going up. We significantly increased the number of surgeries, particularly in areas where there had been high wait times.
The member will know that we did, in 2016-17, in the neighbourhood of 14,250 hip and knee replacement surgeries. That number went up to approximately 19,000 in 2019-20. It’s down this year but will be back up in future years. That is a massive increase on a base of 14,000.
That was the initial surgical plan, which was to reduce, particularly in two priority areas where we started, hip and knee replacement surgery and dental surgery. The member will know that dental surgery in the acute side typically happens for people who can’t get normal sedation in dentist offices, adults with developmental disabilities, where we have people waiting for long periods of time in pain. We very significantly increased the numbers of those surgeries in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 fiscal years.
What we’ve seen in the surgical renewal plan, and we’ll certainly see it this year…. The only reason we’re down in terms of surgeries is, of course, we cancelled non-urgent elective surgeries and were dealing with COVID. But the fact that from June 18 on, we increased the number of surgeries in those conditions and dramatically increased operating room hours puts us in a strong position now to have what I would expect to be a large increase in surgeries this year.
Those 72 measures make a lot of sense to do that. If we’re going back in time, we can do that. I’m not sure of its utility, but I would say that we’ve seen, in recent years, significant increases across health authorities in both surgical procedures and diagnostics. That has benefited people.
The effect of that on people wanting surgeries can differ. The fact that we’re going to need this increased capacity, I believe, as the population ages is, I think, obvious. It’s one of the reasons why you do it. But when, for example, in the Northern Health Authority you did 21 MRI exams per 1,000 population, and the Canadian average is 50, then that is greatly under what it should be.
That’s why — it was 21 in the final year of the previous government; it’s now 50 — that’s a positive thing to do. It reduces wait times for people and gives people in the Northern Health Authority the same access to public health care as happens in other parts of the country.
These are real improvements and real achievements. Yes, they came after the application of dollars. In the case of diagnostics, just as in surgery, the improvement in the efficiency of the way we use the system…. Now we have about 25 MRI machines that operate at least 19 hours, seven days a week in the province, where we previously, of course, had about a handful of those.
These are the changes you make, and they do require the application of resources.
R. Merrifield: The application of resources resulted in 14,914 less surgeries. So $187.5 million applied to create capacity for future years on the surgical….
I do want to counter or give an alternate opinion on something that the minister said, and that is that every year, the number of surgeries have pretty much steadily been going up. In fact, if I look back even just to this minister’s tenure, we’re looking at 233,000, 236,000, 248,000, 248,000 and then this last year. I do agree that there has been money spent.
If we want to go back further than that, absolutely. The previous Minister of Health increased it by $50 million, then he increased it by $75 million, and then he increased it…. He also had that same increase in capacity. That was simply to keep up with the growing demands of population growth.
Now we’re putting $250 million, and we have another $495 million that’s going to be going towards the surgical capacity issue. But we have a lowered wait-list.
I would ask again: how is the money being spent actually resulting in something that we can see from the course of this last year?
Hon. A. Dix: The member may wish to say that the health system, given the cancellation of surgeries in April and May, and then the restarting of surgeries at the beginning of June shouldn’t count, that we shouldn’t discuss that. We should just declare that we had less surgeries.
From the point that we launched the surgical renewal plan, we increased the number of surgeries in the most difficult of conditions. It was an extraordinary achievement of the health care system. It’s why public health care constantly delivers its value. We can say that the larger increases in surgeries that we’ve seen and the numbers that the member used aren’t my numbers, aren’t the health system’s numbers, but that’s okay. We can say that there were increases over time.
The difference between the investments in surgery, under this government, is that you see permanent increases in the base, from the beginning. We’ve seen that from the beginning. Obviously, this past year was in contingencies because that’s what we did, things into contingencies, whereas you saw one-time investments under the previous governments that would go for a year or two and then fall off. That’s how you get into the circumstances that we have been in, in a number of areas, from diagnostics to surgeries.
I think that the achievements of surgical plans, in terms of addressing hip and knee replacements and addressing dental surgeries and increase in the significant number of overall surgeries…. Like I say, those numbers are significant. The numbers that we will expect to do this year, as we continue on from June on our surgical renewal plan…. I expect, in spite of some cancellation of surgeries — approximately 2,200 in the wave 3 period — that we’re going to see a very significant increase in the number of surgeries this year.
We’re going to do that because of the measures the government, the health authority — mostly surgeons and nurses and others — have taken in increasing the resources to the system, increasing the number of people working in the system, increasing the number of surgeries. Of course, this will lead to better care for everybody.
R. Merrifield: Just to the minister’s point, I agree. The Q1 of 2020-2021, when surgeries stopped…. Absolutely, that was the lowest year of surgeries completed, on record, as far back as I can see.
In 2020-2021, in Q2, Q3 and Q4, only Q4 actually had any increase over other quarters that had been done, including in 2016-2017 in Q1 and including in 2018-2019 Q1. Obviously, if you plot it out onto a graph, you’re going to see that the summer quarter is the slowest, typically, because that often is when most of the surgical staff are taking holidays and enjoying our beautiful province.
My question is: has the minister identified what is going to happen during the summer slowdown, when we are finally in our restart program and people can travel throughout British Columbia?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the member refers to the lowest number of surgeries on record. In fact, the best year of the previous government was 315,212.
April off, May off, in terms of non-urgent elective surgeries, in terms of COVID and the extraordinary demands of COVID. We completed 315,974 surgeries in ’20-21 and 315,212 in 2016-17. The member says the lowest on record. It’s actually, even with all those this year, more surgeries than the best year that had been achieved prior to 2017. That’s the way the numbers are. I think it’s important to recognize that.
Secondly, one of the techniques we use to address what was a very significant situation, the cancellation of non-urgent elective surgeries…. One of the best things that we did was reduce the summer slowdown. That’s going to be part of the permanent reforms we make in the health care system.
That said, it’s obviously going to be a very challenging year. We’ve got to support our health care staff around the system. When I laid out to the member the increases in staff, the measures that have been taking place, the increase in operating room time, the increases in resources, that reflects a desire to deliver surgery services to people who need them.
Everyone who needs surgery in the public system…. One of the terms that I try and ban — sometimes it comes into me — is “elective surgery,” because it makes it sound like it’s a choice, right? It’s not a choice. They’re scheduled surgeries, not elective surgeries. These are all medically necessary surgeries.
You know, I think our folks have done an incredible job, including significantly increasing the number of surgeries done in the public health care system from June through March, under COVID conditions. It is, I think, a remarkable achievement.
R. Merrifield: With all due respect, I was actually not using yearly or annualized numbers in terms of my lowest on record. I was actually using quarterly to signify the shutdown and how monumental it was and how monumental of a task it was to catch up.
I think also, though, I do want to draw attention to the minister’s number, which is $187 million to accomplish this, except that we had efficiencies that were regained by fall of last year. But in no way…. I agree. The numbers are similar to what we did in 2016-2017 on an annual basis but just not quarterly.
I’m going to move on from this line of questioning just a little bit to drill down a little bit more specifically on a couple of points. That is, what is the budget for anesthesiologists’ service contract for ’21-22, and what was the updated budget used in the last fiscal year? What was it in 2020-2021, and what is it in 2021-2022?
Hon. A. Dix: First of all, just to note that, yes, in spite of two months off and in spite of COVID, we still did better than 2016-17. I think that’s pretty good. People will say: “Well, that’s us, and that’s them.” It’s the people in the public health care system who do, I think, an exceptional job.
Of course, very significant increases that occurred in the other years because of the surgical investments — the permanent surgical investments by the government, not the one-time but the permanent ones — made a substantial difference.
The anesthesia provincial contract costs are not part of contingency costs, but they do reflect significant investments. With respect to a number of aspects of it, we provided…. Obviously, it benefits anesthesiologists, but they aren’t particularly part of the anesthesia provincial contract costs. Budget 2021 invests, over the next number of years, significantly in the investment of health education programs, and the workforce needs, for example, of anaesthesia assistants and respiratory therapists are to be part of those expansions.
In terms of anaesthesia physician contracts, which is because people get paid in different ways in the health care system…. But the anaesthesia physician contracts — the budget for those in 2020-21 was $79.4 million. The budget in 2021 is $112.2 million in terms of anaesthesia physician contracts.
The following sites currently under contract for those measures, as opposed to other ways in which anaesthesiologists and anaesthesia are paid for…. Those sites are the Royal Columbian and Eagle Ridge Hospital sites, which are sites in Fraser Health; Royal Inland; Cariboo; East Kootenay Regional; Penticton; Kootenay Boundary; Mills Memorial; St. Paul’s Hospital; Mount St. Joseph; Vancouver General Hospital; UBC; and a number of contracted facilities.
R. Merrifield: Is this funding part of the $250 million in annual funding dedicated to the surgical renewal or part of the $495 million of the new funding on a move-forward basis?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s part of the regional authority funding — on that line in the budget.
R. Merrifield: Who was consulted in the planning of the surgical renewal plan, and which specialities were consulted in attempting to create efficiencies?
Hon. A. Dix: I think, in terms of the work that was done, it had been work that would been ongoing. Then we launched the surgical renewal plan as we were looking at the cancellation of non-urgent and elective surgeries because of COVID-19.
What we discovered and what we decided to do was to put an outstanding leader in the health care system, Michael Marchbank, in charge of that. He worked widely with health authorities and others in the system and developed a plan that I think is not his plan, in the sense that it empowered those involved in directing surgery around the province to put in place innovation.
We saw that in scheduling and in all the other measures that health authorities took. I’m happy to share, although the member has, I think, the full list of the 72 measures that were put in place to improve both the efficiency of the system and the throughput of surgeries, which is really important. It sounds a bit industrial when you say “throughput,” but there you go.
We put an outstanding B.C. leader in health care in charge of developing a plan to address an urgent moment when we were cancelling surgeries and all of the uncertainty that that would lead to with patients. He’s done an excellent job. He consulted widely and developed a plan, and we presented that plan at the beginning of May and started to implement it on May 18.
R. Merrifield: I apologize, but the term “consulted widely….” I guess I’d like a little bit more specificity, if possible, on just who was consulted. Obviously, we’ve got massive professions and associations associated with the surgical endeavours within our province. Which ones of these were consulted? Is Dr. Michael Marchbank also spearheading moving forward and coming out of COVID-19?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s Mr. Marchbank. Michael Marchbank was the vice-president of the Provincial Health Services Authority, president of the Fraser Health Authority and many other tasks over time. I think one of the reasons…. His experience in health human resources is understanding the system and made him ideally suited to that, although he’s not a surgeon, not a doctor, and so on.
When you develop 72 plans, that involves deep consultation through the system. You empower them. You give people an idea of what you’re going to support.
The adding of OR time, in particular, across the system would’ve required…. It’s not just the availability of that time, the opening of new operating rooms and so on, but the staffing of those rooms. That’s why you need a health human resources plan that involves a significant training component and all of the people on the training side of health care that are required for that.
You need to develop with people who, obviously, operate and work through our hospitals. You need, in terms of scheduling, to consult widely with physicians but also with nurses. You need to consult with unions and representatives of organizations. You need to do all of those things.
This was done in fairly urgent circumstances, because the plan was developed quickly but implemented over a period of time. It was put in place over a period of time. All the measures, the 72 measures, didn’t happen all at once. The member will see — in the regular reports that they would have, month onto month — new efforts to expand our ability to deliver the surgeries we need to deliver.
I think Michael did an exceptional job, and people can see that job, month after month, in the reports that we’re issuing — the transparent, clear reports we’re issuing — on the actions we’ve taken and the number of surgeries that have taken place. People have started to get bored with me delivering those numbers every single week. So I do that less now in our health briefings. These reports are a subject of public record, and people can see the progress that we’re making, as a province, in delivering more and more surgeries in our province.
R. Merrifield: With all due respect, this being hindsight and this having been already enacted, I would appreciate a direct answer and specific answer with respect to who was consulted. I don’t need names. I just want organizations — not just unions or associations but who they actually were, in terms of the enaction of this plan. The other aspect is that I do want to believe, and I stated at the very beginning of these estimates that my goal here is to create hope and to create hope for all British Columbians.
Right now we are looking at less surgeries that were accomplished this year. I do see that the OR time is increased, and I’m going to hope that that translates next year into additional surgeries. Right now we don’t see…. I know that the minister said that surely we can see. Well, we don’t see, because the numbers are actually down from where they were last year.
Could the minister please answer: who were the specific associations consulted before the launch on May 7 of 2020 of the surgical renewal program?
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Chair, I would say that the member is, I guess, allowed to draw her own inferences. But the extraordinary achievements of the surgical renewal plan this year — 97 percent of cancelled surgeries completed, 72 new initiatives put in place, expansion of operating room times, more surgeries done in a pandemic than the previous year, and more surgeries in spite of the pandemic, in spite of the two months of delay than in the best year of the previous government…. I think that’s an extraordinary achievement.
That gives people hope that when we come together and do things, that’s what we can achieve. There’s a provincial surgical advisory committee which advises on surgical matters. They of course were fully consulted, and they have a number of representative groups. I’m happy to give the member the list of people in that group. Of course, there are the Doctors of B.C., the health authorities and B.C. Cancer, who are significant players in surgeries as well.
R. Merrifield: With the customer service initiative that was launched and the calling of each of the individuals, could the minister please provide the data as to the number of reasons and the number of patients in each of the categories that decided to no longer pursue surgery?
Hon. A. Dix: Just the basic facts here. Between June 26, 2020 and March 31, 2021, 264,043 surgeries were completed. So we were fully up and running after the slowdown, including, as I said, 97 percent of the cases in patients who had a surgery postponed.
As patients are contacted for surgeries, some patients, in consultation with their surgeons, have decided to no longer pursue a surgical intervention, which actually happens more frequently than one would think. But it does happen. At the time of this reporting period, 2,198 patients no longer wished to pursue surgery as a treatment. That was in the group of people who had their surgeries postponed.
If we look at those periods as well, that period, 4,294 more urgent scheduled surgeries were performed in that period, and 7,364 more surgeries for patients waiting longer than two times their target wait were performed as well. So the idea of the surgical wait time, I think, was also to address those who have been waiting the longest of the surgical renewal plan, those who have been waiting the longest for surgeries. And, as noted, 1,459 medical staff have been hired.
This is hope as well and investment as well — the fact that we did more surgeries in this year than in 2016-17, the fact that we did more surgeries in the previous year under COVID conditions from the time we started the surgical renewal plan, the fact that we had 72 innovations to improve the number of surgeries we were doing, the fact that we’ve hired 1,459 medical staff, including 55 surgeons, 64 anaesthesiologists, four general practice anaesthetists, 519 perioperative registered nurses, 74 perioperative licensed practical nurses, 308 post-anaesthetic recovery registered nurses, 435 medical reprocessing technicians. We’ve increased the number of training positions. All of that is what makes the surgical renewal plan an extraordinary success for British Columbia.
R. Merrifield: With all due respect, I wasn’t asking for the statistics of the entirety. I was asking for the statistics on those who opted not to have surgery. What were their reasons, and what percentage were each of those reasons that were given?
Hon. A. Dix: I gave the member the number: 2,198 patients. Those decisions, the decisions of those patients, are decisions, as the member would know, made between a patient and their doctor.
R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you. So there was no data collected on those individuals due to privacy, or not being asked.
Okay. We’ll go on to something really light now. Let’s talk about PharmaCare. We have an increase this year in PharmaCare — 14 percent, approximately. I don’t need a spoken, itemized, detailed list, but if the minister could provide a detailed list of the different increases of drugs, that would be great.
I understand that the budget increases twofold. One is just by inflation, and things cost more. Second is by, you know, the actual addition of drugs that are being added to the PharmaCare system. And then, I guess, third would be just the volume of people that require these different treatments.
I want to speak specifically about cystic fibrosis, however. Trikafta is a game-changing new therapy that treats the basic defect of cystic fibrosis. So rather than treating the symptoms of cystic fibrosis, we actually have the ability to treat the basic defect. It’s helped people with CF get off the lung transplant list and go on living. It can treat up to 90 percent of the cystic fibrosis population.
There was recently a story of a woman who went on Trikafta after being hospitalized for almost four months, waiting for a lung transplant. Since being on Trikafta, she has not been hospitalized. Quantifying the cost of hospitalization indefinitely for a CF patient versus this revolutionary drug is almost peanuts in comparison.
Knowing that drug approval is imminent, will the minister commit to fund Trikafta and other CF modulators once they are approved?
Hon. A. Dix: The member will know from the estimates last year that at that time, Trikafta…. There hadn’t been an application in Canada by Vertex. The government of Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, ourselves through the pCPA and others worked to ensure that the application was made. It was accepted for a priority review.
The negotiations between ourselves and, in this case, the company Vertex…. These are obviously negotiations that British Columbia is involved in through the pCPA. What we do is we come together with other provinces and engage in those negotiations. What happens in British Columbia is that we get a recommendation. Once that recommendation is available and in place, then we take action on those recommendations. It’s an evidence-based process.
The only time we’ve gone outside of that evidence-based process was in March of 2017 — I’ve spoken of this before in the House — with a drug called Duodopa. But I think the minister at the time, who was Terry Lake, was correct to do so. That had been a particular drug that had been around for ten years, and the company was refusing to, essentially, resubmit through the common drug review process.
We have made progress since our last estimates with Vertex. Those negotiations are ongoing. When they’re completed, a decision will be made. But we are very strongly supportive, in many ways, of families and people living with cystic fibrosis. Trikafta is a very promising intervention.
The Chair: Members, we will now take a five-minute recess while we undertake cleaning and safety protocols in preparation for a new committee Chair.
The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
The Chair: Thank you, Members, for your patience in continuing debate.
I recognize the member.
R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Welcome.
I want to follow up on the comment made about Trikafta, just on B.C.’s time to list the products after they are listed in the pan-Canadian agreements. That actually seems to be increasing. Over the last three years, it’s almost doubled, from 125 days to 230 days. I think what’s probably most disconcerting is that other provinces and other jurisdictions are actually falling.
Could the minister just give some indication as to why B.C.’s time seems to be lagging and what can be done to change that?
Hon. A. Dix: Currently I can tell the member that the ministry has 85 active drugs under review and that the national common drug review, which we work on together with other jurisdictions — it was launched in and around 2003-2004 — has 72 drugs under review. There’s also the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, which negotiates prices with manufacturers for 38 drug products.
We make our own coverage decisions in British Columbia. There’s the common drug review, and then there’s the Drug Benefit Council, which was established in the same period here in the province of British Columbia. We go through those processes to make the right decisions on safety and the right decisions on costs for people in British Columbia. The result of that is, I think, a PharmaCare program that is robust and supportive of people.
The member will know that in 2018, for example, we invested $105 million to reduce PharmaCare deductibles to make prescription drugs more affordable, the first time that that occurred since the current system — which is sometimes defined by Fair PharmaCare, which is one of the plans — was put in place to increase access. Of course, we’re accessing both access to technology and drugs on a regular basis, based on those negotiations and based on the advice of the public service in those areas.
R. Merrifield: Actually, my question was fairly specific. Why is B.C.’s time to list products after they are already listed with the pan-Canadian…? Why is that time increasing — almost double over the course of the last three years?
Hon. A. Dix: This is a process led by our really outstanding team of public servants: our assistant deputy minister Mitch Moneo and a team of pharmacists and others in the Ministry of Health, including Eric Lun and many others, who do, I think, an exceptional job, as the member will know.
We have consistently increased the PharmaCare budget to allow for the coverage of drugs. Equally, there’s a different process with respect to cancer drugs, which we’ll probably talk about when we deal with the Cancer Agency as well.
The member is presenting interesting information. But I would say that we go through a public service, evidence-based process in the listing of drugs which has made us a leader in Canada, I think, in PharmaCare programs. We have taken significant steps, as well, to increase access.
We have a process that involves rigorous assessment of the evidence here; involvement in national negotiations with drug companies, which B.C. frequently leads; innovative measures such as biosimilars; and our initiatives around generic drugs. The most recent one was signed in 2018 but included initiatives that took place under my two immediate predecessors, which reduced the cost of prescription drugs.
Sometimes within the PharmaCare budget, there are years where the costs go down. That’s because of initiatives like biosimilars, initiatives such as prescription reform, initiatives around generic drugs. So that budget is different than other budgets in a certain way in that sometimes we’ve managed to reduce costs — certainly, the biosimilars initiative, the generic drug initiative and generic drug initiatives in the past, dating back to the 1990s, when B.C. was the leader. Those initiatives were continued on under the previous government and have been continued on by me on generic drugs, and we’ve led on biosimilars.
I don’t know. I think that we have a rigorous program led by public servants. That program makes, I think, very good decisions for British Columbians. So I’m pretty impressed by the work that they do. That work will be applied to Trikafta, as you would expect. Our teams are very much involved in the discussions with Vertex as well.
R. Merrifield: So just for way of information. Alberta — three years ago their days to list were 92; today it’s 78. Saskatchewan was 117; today it’s 76. Ontario, 95; today it’s 72. Nova Scotia, 337 — really an outlier back three years ago, but today it’s 142. PEI was 302; today, 120 days. Quebec, 161; today, 97. B.C. was 125 days three years ago, and today is 230. So I appreciate that we are a global leader in some aspects, but not in how many days it takes us to list products that are already listed after the pan-Canadian agreements are actually signed.
With that, I’ll move on to a question on viral hepatitis. Five years ago B.C. and Canada made a commitment to eliminate viral hepatitis in B.C. by 2030. We were making significant progress towards this goal, but COVID and other factors have slowed our momentum and, in some cases, put that goal at risk. So what is government doing to ensure that it will eliminate viral hepatitis in B.C. in the next decade?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s good to see you there. That’s a beautiful mask. There you go. I’m not wearing a beautiful mask today. So I’m appreciative of that.
One of the key areas in terms of PharmaCare coverage for hepatitis and the plan to treat all forms of hepatitis, viral hepatitis, is a significant investment each year in terms of PharmaCare.
In addition to all of that…. I’m happy to share that information with the member. Just to put it in context with the sheer magnitude of that cost: $142.44 million per year in ’19-20, in terms of medications. But again, the member may disagree with this or have a different view or think we’re taking too long and so on, but we do a very rigorous approach to drug costs, because drugs are very expensive and because that cost has to result in outcomes.
The view on HIV/AIDS — and I don’t think anyone would disagree with this, the work of the Centre for Excellence; it is its own plan in the PharmaCare plan — and on hepatitis C is that this investment and coverage is worthwhile. And it not just has its human benefits, but it has its cost-avoidance benefits and other consequences in the system. I think that I would expect those costs to continue.
In addition to that, the B.C. Centre for Excellence for HIV/AIDS is on broader issues of hepatitis, especially in vulnerable communities in engaging in an approach similar to what was done with HIV/AIDS that is being led by Dr. Julio Montaner and being funded by the province. If you know Dr. Montaner, you know he is a passionate, brilliant and effective advocate for his proposals and for both people with HIV/AIDS and people living with hepatitis.
That program, which is being done in concert with the B.C. Centre for Excellence for HIV/AIDS, I think is a very promising approach. It’s learning the lessons from dealing with one issue, HIV/AIDS, and using it and applying those same principles to another one. So I think we have excellent leadership in this area.
The investment is, and will continue, of course, to be massive in this area. There’s an intent to be innovative. I think that’s one of the places where B.C., decade unto decade, on issues of hepatitis, issues of HIV/AIDS, has been a real leader — most recently, for example, in the latter area, in access to PrEP in B.C., which continues to reduce those rates.
On hepatitis, we want to use, in terms of treatment and prevention, some of the same principles. That’s in addition to the enormous investment in that area that we have made and will continue to make.
R. Merrifield: I do appreciate the minister’s comments and commitment to eradicating this virus.
As we know, it is partly the drugs and that treatment. We also need to identify them, to identify those that are at risk, to test them and to connect those that have the virus to care. We have very effective therapies, which we’ve already discussed, but also looking at how we can benefit and broaden some of that understanding. It is great to hear that that is happening.
I want the minister to be able to take a little bit of a victory lap. I know that I reached out and wrote a letter on behalf of the ALS Society of B.C. as well as the others within Canada. I was so excited and celebrating alongside all those who suffer with ALS on the funding for Project Hope. Establishing this chair and research is absolutely incredible and, I think, a big step by way of actually coming to a cure.
Having said that, there are still some needs within ALS. One of those is…. Now, with a research chair, how do we actually transform the ALS clinic? Looking back at some of the estimates in previous years, this has been an ask. Right now when someone is diagnosed with ALS, they go into the basement of G.F. Strong. It is quite difficult.
I would ask again. Would we be able to…? Would the minister commit to looking at an alternative space for those that suffer with ALS?
Hon. A. Dix: First of all, there have been two significant steps that have been taken for people living with ALS in the period since we last debated the Health budget estimates, which was last summer.
The first is…. We had originally given $1 million for Project Hope, and we’ve added $2 million. Obviously, that was something that people, I think, across B.C. had advocated for. Members of the Legislature, including all the people in this room, had advocated for it. There’s no victory lap. It’s our victory. It’s absolutely not for me to say. What I said last year and what I said when we gave the original $1 million was: if we needed more, we would find more, and we did. That’s a good thing.
The project will, I think, as it develops, connect with very significant work being done, for example, in Boston right now and in the United States with respect to the development of potential treatments for ALS. As everyone knows, ALS is very difficult to treat. Even though people are living longer with ALS, it’s a profoundly difficult thing to deal with and, obviously, leads to death. So there is urgency. There’s always urgency.
One of the things that we did do in the interim period, as the member will know, is list Radicava. It is not a cure for ALS, but it is available for a significant number of ALS patients in British Columbia. The list price, to give people a sense of expensive drugs for rare diseases and the challenge of dealing with those expensive drugs for rare diseases, is, I believe, if memory serves, about $110,000 per person per year for that drug. So it’s significant.
The ALS program, I think, will continue to be at G.F. Strong for the foreseeable future. There are some advantages to being at G.F. Strong, as well, especially…. Having it in one place has some advantages, too, because of the interdisciplinary care needed.
We are, obviously, looking, with the development of Project Hope, with the development of clinical trials, at the advent of new prescription drugs and at the really extraordinary work led by Dr. Neil Cashman, who the member may have met with, who is the academic director of the ALS Centre at G.F. Strong. I think we can make progress. His research lab in this area is located at UBC.
This is a time for some hope and optimism but understanding that, for people living with ALS, it’s a devastating diagnosis and a devastating condition. Obviously, we make every effort in the system to provide support for people. This year’s drug-listing decision plus the support for Project Hope are indications of that.
They’re only part of it, though. Project Hope is that. It’s hope in the future and access to clinical trials, and so on. Everyone understands, I think, across Canada the need for national and international efforts in these areas. It won’t just be B.C., but hopefully, we can play a role and, particularly, ensure that ALS patients in B.C. get access to the same things that other patients get.
R. Merrifield: I agree. It is very good news.
As part of the ALS centre of excellence, the hope would be to host clinical trials. We have ALS patients that are travelling to Washington and that are travelling to Montreal to actually participate in some of these trials.
Will the minister agree that we can actually have and host clinical trials at the ALS centre of excellence and allow the ALS centre of excellence to work with other ALS clinics and centres to bring more and better clinical trials to Canada and to B.C.?
Hon. A. Dix: One of the purposes of Project Hope is to, for the first time in, I think, more than a decade, see that clinical trials are led out of B.C. So I think the answer is…. One of the purposes of what we’re trying to do together is to do that while also integrating British Columbia and British Columbians into progress on ALS that’s being made across North America and around the world.
R. Merrifield: The last one was an ask that I get to not ask anymore, and that is for constant glucose monitoring. Again, I want to thank the minister for the consideration and for the funding of that very important critical element for those that suffer with diabetes and acknowledge that that was definitely something that many were waiting for.
I want to ask a question about the wait times for diagnostic imaging. What are the current wait times for diagnostic imaging, and how many patients are currently waiting for medical imaging utilizing MRI, CT, ultrasound and others?
In the minister’s answer, could the minister also talk about how these wait times are impacted by COVID? Did we see the same decrease as surgical wait times? Did we have the same customer service measures that actually took people off the wait-list, or have these increased?
Hon. A. Dix: Just to give you a sense of where we’ve come in terms of diagnostic imaging in the last number of years, the number of MRI exams across British Columbia has gone from 175,707 in 2016-17 to 189,520 in ’17-18.
We took some initiatives in December. We started our initiatives in December of that year. It was 233,368 in ’18-19 and 252,527 in 2019-20. Just to take us through what happened in ’20-21, that number is 247,106. There were a significant number of MRIs postponed in the same period that surgeries were postponed in the period from April to May of 2021.
The number of procedures that was postponed — I thought I had this here immediately, but I don’t — was in the neighbourhood, in that short period, of 39,000, which were then made up through the rest of the fiscal year such that we almost did the same number of MRIs as we did in 2019-20. What we’ve seen…. The per-capita rate of MRIs has increased from 36 per 1,000 population in 2016-17 to 48 per 1,000 population in this past year. That’s obviously a significant increase, even when you account for population.
MRI scanners work 356 more hours per week than in 2019-20 and 2,000 more hours per week than in August 2017. The particular and most important impact of the progress in medical imaging has taken place in three health authorities where it had been previously, I would argue, quite significantly low.
Those three health authorities are the Northern Health Authority, which has gone from 6,331 MRI exams in 2016-17 to 14,400 — in other words, from 21 per 1,000 in the 2016-17 year to approximately 50 per 1,000 in this past fiscal year. Equally, in the Interior Health Authority, we’ve seen an almost doubling of the number of MRIs since the 2016-17 baseline, including an increase even in this COVID year in the Interior Health Authority of 4,200 MRIs and a base of 34,423. That number was 20,948 in 2016-17.
How have we done that? We’ve brought in new scanners. We’re performing, obviously, more exams, and we’re operating our system more. That’s how we did that. We had an exceptionally low level of MRIs previously in B.C., and the importance of diagnosis, I think, is obvious to everyone. Getting to diagnosis is an important thing.
What had happened in B.C. for many people was that the cost of getting to diagnosis first was often borne by the patient, which meant that people who had the means to pay for an MRI exam would move ahead on public waitlists. No one thought that was an acceptable result, or at least I didn’t when I was Minister of Health.
Those are the measures we’ve put in place. Yes, there was a period — and this is an estimate — of 39,000 exams lost, but by the end of the year, in the case of MRIs, we almost did as many as in 2019-20. Of course, the number we did was approximately 72,000 more than in ’16-17.
R. Merrifield: Could the minister just indicate what’s being done to address the need for technologists in medical imaging?
Hon. A. Dix: What we’ve seen, I think…. Technologists are trained at a number of places, or sonographers are trained at a number of places. If you look at diagnostic medical sonography in B.C., the B.C. Institute of Technology, the College of New Caledonia, which launched its program in January 2019…. Again, that’s not my victory lap. You could ask the Minister of Advanced Education about that.
Also, I would say, what I believe — we may have this discussion later — is that as with the nursing program in Fort St. John, we need to train people in these important areas around the province. We have to fill positions.
We have to perform MRIs and everything else in the north — and we do — and bring that service to communities. We need new generations of them so that they’re…. Camosun College will launch a new sonography program in May 2021. This program will also contribute.
What we have seen, therefore, is a 24-month diploma program at the College of New Caledonia, increased funding in eight new additional seats at BCIT in February 2021 and a new program at Camosun College. It’s a recognition of what’s obvious, which is that we need…. In the health sciences, this is particularly true. The member will know this from her time in Interior Health. The health sciences professions are frequently the ones that see the most significant shortages.
These are fundamental changes. They’re not the only changes that are required, but they come from the application of specific funding to add spaces at BCIT, specific funding to support spaces at the College of New Caledonia and specific funding to support new spaces and the new program at Camosun College.
All of that is good news, and it just reflects what we need to do. I think that the key issue in health care, always, is health human resources. We’ll no doubt talk about that later in the estimates, but I think this is an important question.
R. Merrifield: Yes, I fully agree with what the minister is indicating, and I thank the minister for that further elucidation.
As of October 2018, the B.C. Cancer breast screening program began providing breast density scores with screening mammogram results. However, the screening program policy for women with dense breasts has not changed. My understand is that the Ministry of Health has put together a working group on this issue. Could the minister confirm this and just outline the timeline for potential policy changes and the scope of work that this group has undertaken?
Hon. A. Dix: In this case, I just want to make sure that I’ve got all the information right. As people know in B.C., it’s something that we did in October of 2018. After very significant advocacy — not least of which by the member from Esquimalt — we became the first province in Canada to provide breast density assessments to patients and their doctors, following screening mammograms.
Just to give a sense of the total number of participants in that and the impact on people…. The participants in the breast screening program in 2019 were 266,405, of which — in terms of the breast imaging reporting and data system, so the BI-RADS score for this — 18,648 were determined to have extremely dense breasts and, therefore, a lower mammographic sensitivity. I apologize — that was the number that I was looking at — to the hon. member as well.
As well as making that change, in December 2018, the Medical Services Plan began covering screening breast ultrasounds for patients with dense breasts — that was December 2018 — when requested by a primary care provider who feels that that patient’s situation warrants further investigation.
Finally, there is work underway, as the member suggests, and it’s ongoing work — and I don’t have a date on it, but I will try and provide that to the member — to provide recommendations on how to increase access further to ultrasound services for individuals with high-density breast composition. So changes in October 2018, changes in December 2018 that followed that.
I think this was something that, again, people had advocated for, for a long time, and I want to recognize those advocates today because I think they did important work providing that information. It was very important. Providing the ultrasound is important.
Then the advice as to the further expansion of ultrasounds…. What we want is to provide that there is discretion on the part of doctors, but to have a standardized protocol around the province. And that’s important work that’s being done by the teams in the area, and we’re hoping for some results soon. I can provide the member with more information about that.
R. Merrifield: As a follow-up question to the minister: how many clinics currently provide supplementary screening for dense breasts utilizing ultrasound, and what are the limitations to expansion?
Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for her question. I have a list of 27 individuals who are involved in the community doing work on that, notably Dr. Paula Gordon, who has done a lot of work in this area and who’s involved in the breast imaging services project.
The working group for phase 1 is significant. It obviously includes oncologists, radiologists, some administrators, some family physicians, some medical consultants, and so on — so people in the area who are working on this together. I think there is significant access. The details in terms of the number of ultrasounds — happy to get them to the member.
In terms of the limitations, ultimately, in the future, the limitations are always the same limitations. That’s why we’re significantly increasing our training in this area. It’s to continue…. If you look at the future in this area, you’re going to see continued and significant growth as population grows, and this is a very significant area of importance to the B.C. Cancer Agency but also, and most particularly, to women in the province.
I think there’s going to be future demand, and part of the reason you see us adding capacity in training in these areas is that we understand that whether it’s in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2028 or 2029, we’re going to need a new generation of people doing this work.
S. Bond: Good afternoon to the minister. Thank you to the critic for allowing me to ask a few questions this afternoon.
It wouldn’t be the Ministry of Health estimates…. I know that the minister has probably been waiting for the conversation we’re about to have. We’ve had it over the course of a number of years. I would like to ask the minister this afternoon about the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia. On the eve of what literally, almost, turned out to be a snap election in British Columbia, I was obviously thrilled to see this government commit once again to moving forward with enhancements to the hospital that serves a large region of northern British Columbia.
The press release notes that, and in fact, the minister has been very clear about his view about the absolute necessity of enhancements at this hospital. In fact, he points out that operating rooms were built in the 1970s and that not only do we need to see a commitment to enhanced operating facilities; we need to have cardiac services provided.
My constituents — and I certainly know that from my own family’s personal experience, and hundreds of others’ — cannot receive any kind of invasive cardiac care in northern British Columbia. They are required to travel elsewhere. The Premier and the minister have acknowledged, on numerous occasions, the need to move forward with this project.
I’m wondering if the minister can give me an update. The last announcement from the government related to the approval of the creation of a concept plan. I’d like the minister, if he could, to provide me with a status on the concept plan for University Hospital of Northern B.C., and I would like him to articulate, for my constituents, when they can expect, with a specific timeline, to see shovels in the ground.
This is badly needed, from a regional perspective. The minister and I have had this conversation on numerous occasions. So I look forward to his update.
Hon. A. Dix: I just realized, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that I was looking over there at her, but she’s actually right down here as well. That’s pretty good. I’m going to learn the technology just as it’s phased out. The Leader of the Opposition is there, and she’s there. That’s a good thing. And on this subject, I think she’s probably everywhere.
In any event, look, this is an important project. The Leader of the Opposition has heard me speak about this project before, but I consider the development of health capital projects in the north fundamentally important. What we have, and I think we have to think about this in terms of history, is our hospitals that have served us well.
Dawson Creek Hospital, built in 1959 — we’re replacing it with a new hospital. Not because…. It will be large, and it will have more growth and capacity. It served us well, but we’re in 2021. It served us for 60 years, and we need the hospital for the next 40 and 50 years and to attract people there — similarly at Mills Memorial in Terrace, similarly in Fort St. John, similarly with the ICU in Quesnel.
I think the Leader of the Opposition understands this well, of course, when you’re a resident of Prince George. But Prince George plays a central role in the way that other major hospitals play a central role in health care in the whole region. We sometimes refer to this as a hospital for Prince George, or we refer to it as a Prince George project. It’s not. It’s a significant project for all of Northern Health.
In September 2020 — and I hesitate to correct the Leader of the Opposition, but I will hear a slight nuance — we approved the concept plan. That means that the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia project, which is in the range of $600 million to $700 million, so it’s not a small project…. The final numbers will be determined in the business plan. This is a major project, bigger than all those other projects, even though they’re new builds.
The concept plan was approved, which means — as the Leader of the Opposition knows, but not everybody knows — it’s in the ten-year capital plan of the government. The money has been approved. That’s what the approval of a concept plan means.
I would expect to see the business plan either towards the beginning of 2022, procurement to follow, shovels in the ground and then the project completed. Some of that will not just be shovels in the ground. I think, if I remember the project correctly, we will need to take down the Nechako building, and so on.
I would say, in addition to everything else that the member has stated, the operating rooms are old.
I encourage the opposition Health critic, if she hasn’t been there, to take a tour of the University Hospital of Northern B.C., and you’ll see the truly extraordinary work that surgeons do there in old operating rooms. They weren’t old in the 1970s, but they’re old now. So what it means is that some operating rooms have been sort of decommissioned and used to assist in those operating rooms. It’s not ideal for the work that they need to do. This is a major public hospital in B.C. So absolutely, surgery.
Two is cardiac, which is central to this. This is something that I believe in. I know the Leader of the Opposition believes in it; I know members around the province believe in it. We can’t always provide care in a community. There isn’t going to be a cancer centre or a cardiac centre in every community.
Having a cardiac centre in Prince George — in the growing, dynamic community of Prince George — makes sense for public health in the province. So I believe — I’ve pitched it; we’ve been approved — that we need to have a cardiac centre at that hospital. That is a change, I’d say, and will be one of the major changes people see.
I think the third thing…. The Leader of the Opposition obviously knows the University Hospital of Northern B.C. more than I do, but what strikes me when I visit the University Hospital of Northern B.C. and what strikes me when I visit all of the hospitals of that vintage is the nature of the acute care mental health services, which typically, in a hospital, whether you’re in the Calgary Memorial Hospital or you’re in a university hospital, are in facilities that were built given our understanding at the time but don’t meet the needs of those people who, inevitably, will be in that hospital — namely, the relatively small number of British Columbians who have acute mental health needs.
That’s why they’re in hospital. That’s why they’re there. That space and that hospital need to reflect the 21st century. So I would say that that change is as important as the cardiac change is, as important as the OR change.
The increasing capacity and number of beds that we’re talking about, including for surgical services…. So 44 net new beds; 12 ORs; obviously, a medical device processing department. This will be finally determined in the concept plan stage, as I say to the Leader of the Opposition, but we need the beds associated with cardiac care. So that would be, I would expect for such a project, 12 or so beds, with the capacity to grow.
You have to create, in these hospital units, the capacity to grow. It’ll involve the addition of floors to the existing parking structure, as well, to provide additional parking space — considerably down the list of priorities from cardiac, mental health and surgical and operating rooms but still important for the hospital to be the hospital we need for the 21 century and…. Well, I won’t say the 21st century and beyond. That would be irremediably pompous, I think. But certainly through a good part of the remainder of the 21st century.
Obviously, we’re going to involve the Ministry of Health and the Fraser–Fort George regional hospital district in all of this planning. We’re at business case planning stage, but this is going to happen. It’s going to happen because it needs to happen. It’s going to happen because people in Prince George are committed to it happening.
It’s going to happen — this may be the least important — because I’m the Minister of Health, and I’m committed to it happening. I think it’s an important project, as are all the capital projects around B.C. I think in the lives of people in northern B.C., this project is going to make a big difference.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response. I know he has certainly been straightforward about his commitment. I would simply urge him that it is time to see the physical project move forward. I completely understand the process, and I appreciate the components that he has outlined. It is so essential to northern British Columbia when you look at the regional nature of the area that I live in. So I appreciate that. I am sure that I will be back in the next set of estimates asking for another update.
I will simply put on the record, as well, that I appreciate the fact that the minister actually called me, as he was discussing this in the media in Prince George, and referenced my advocacy. I want him to know that I see that as a pretty significant way to do business. It is appreciated and noticed, so I thank him for that.
I have one other question. I’m fully cognizant of the lineup to talk to this minister, but I also know that we can put a new building in place, but without the trained professionals that work in that space, we have no improvement in care.
The minister also knows how difficult and how challenging it has been to attract, to train, to recruit, retain specialists. He knows my passion for insuring that we have PT/OTs, speech — all of those specialists — trained in northern British Columbia. It’s one of the ways we’re going to be able to keep them and provide services in northern B.C.
We also know that we have seen, during the pandemic and beyond, incredibly difficult and heavy workloads, particularly for nurses. He and I have discussed at length the issue of safety for nurses, related to the pledge that many of us signed a number of years ago.
I recognize the minister probably can’t outline all the steps in the next two or three minutes, but I would very much like to see from this government an outline of the training plan, which, of course, needs to be done in conjunction with the Minister of Advanced Education. Once needs are determined, the plan needs to be put in place.
While we’ve made some progress in terms of…. Under our government, we train physicians for the first time outside of the Lower Mainland. I’m very proud of that accomplishment, but we need to build on that template by continuing to train specialists in northern British Columbia.
I’m very interested in knowing what that training plan looks like. We look at recent numbers, and there is definitely a need for additional health care professionals. I also want to note, specifically on behalf of nurses in northern British Columbia, the very challenging situation that they have faced. I know it’s faced by nurses across British Columbia, but I speak today on behalf of the nurses in our community and region.
The workload has been challenging. We need to make sure we have health care professionals today and in the future. I’m excited about the potential of a new hospital upgrade and with all kinds of new additions, but without the health care professionals we require, the building will be just that. We need people beside the beds in order to provide care. I’m very interested in seeing the plan for training, recruiting, retaining health care professionals and also, specifically related to nurses, how we are going to support them.
I will thank the minister in advance for his time, for his responses. He knows I won’t end this discussion without two things that matter passionately to me, and that is the issue of defibrillators in public spaces. I fully intend to re-introduce my private member’s bill. I urge him to think about the importance of a non-partisan approach to heart and stroke in British Columbia. The same should be said of ALS and the need for clinical trials in B.C. We need to do a better job, jointly, of serving people whose lives are impacted by ALS.
With that, I will thank the minister, await his comments and return the floor to the critic and others of my colleagues.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for her questions.
First of all, to a degree, the issues are linked. For certain types of professions, especially specialist professions, having the new facilities that we’re going to build at the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia in itself will be a recruitment tool. It’s not sufficient. I totally agree with the member, but I think that’s one step, and it will help us in Dawson Creek. It’s helping us, although it’s very challenging, in Fort St. John, helping us in Fort St. James, helping us in Terrace and in Quesnel.
We talked, just before the Leader of the Opposition started her intervention about the training of sonographers in Prince George, which I think is important.
Obviously, the program of nursing in Fort St. John…. The Leader of the Opposition and I agree that we need to train people around the province, that it’s very challenging to train people, for example, at BCIT and then encourage them to work in the north. We need to train people in the north. These are opportunities.
The third area that I think is important and that’s going to be especially important in the north is the training and the involvement of new Indigenous health care workers, Indigenous health professionals in the north. In many communities, a significant share of the young population are Indigenous people, and we need to provide opportunities. That means a health care system that addresses issues of historic discrimination against them. So we need more programs in the area.
You’re going to see the full health human resources plan coming up in the fall, but I would also say that this year, in this budget, you’ll see the $96 million added to the budget to address issues, particularly in terms of the training of nurses. That’s in the budget and was debated in the budget of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training.
Equally, I would say to the member, and in conclusion, that the Leader of the Opposition and I met some…. It’s COVID time, so I lose specific track of time, but it was a few weeks ago. We will be following up on that meeting with some specific proposals, because she knows and I know the real challenges facing not just nurses but health sciences professionals, doctors and health care workers in the north, particularly during the pandemic. There are some proposals both in Fort St. John and in Prince George that we’re looking at and that I want to brief her and the Health critic on in the coming two or three weeks.
My apologies. The Leader of the Opposition, being very shrewd, snuck in a couple of extra questions on me there, which I didn’t get to. So I wanted to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the member for Kelowna-Mission, the opposition Health critic, spoke about ALS, and we had some extensive discussions on that, obviously. I think the extension of funding to Project Hope, the additional $2 million in support for that initiative, which will be a launching point, I think, for the return of clinical trials for ALS in British Columbia, is an important step.
It’s not the only step. We’ve talked a little bit about something that the Leader of the Opposition raised with me in past estimates and in her correspondence, which was coverage for Radicava. That happened at the time because, in part…. We worked and saw the advocacy of a number of different members, including the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, at that time. That’s in place on ALS.
On the defibrillator issue, we are making some progress. What I’ll do is share with the member a briefing note we’ve made, but obviously, I understand her commitment to that issue, where it comes from. I look forward to her introduction of her bill, and I look forward to discussing it with her — practical ways as well. In the meantime, we can extend that across British Columbia to a greater extent than it is now.
R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for those questions. I am going to ask a few questions on nursing and human resources, and then I’m going to have a series of others of my colleagues come in towards the end of this hour just to ask specific questions related to their own jurisdictions.
Obviously, we are more than a year, 16 months, into dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, and nurses are at the brink. They are physically and emotionally exhausted, and this third wave has definitely taken a dramatic amount from them. We’ve heard from the B.C. Nurses Union and the president, Christine Sorensen, on what she calls an untenable workload. It’s contributing to an estimated 60 percent of nurses showing “serious emotional distress leading up to early signs of PTSD. That was last June. It’s only gotten worse. Every nurse tells me they’re exhausted.”
A study that recently came out by McKinsey and Co. actually said that 22 percent of nurses indicated they may leave their current positions, but 60 percent are “more likely to leave since the pandemic began, driven by a number of factors.”
Today what I’d like to do, with that very minimal preamble, is talk about nurses and talk about nursing staff and what we can do on a move-forward basis. Last year was incredibly difficult on all of our front-line workers. But as these statistics show, they are planning to leave in droves.
How is the minister addressing this mental health and workload issue amongst nursing staff?
Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, we began to talk about the demand on nurses. There are two sets of things.
The need to train more nurses…. The very significant increases in training spaces for nurse practitioners, for licensed practical nurses have occurred in the last number of years. This reflects…. We’ll talk, probably, about nurse practitioners more when we’re engaged in talking about the primary care plan. But I’d be happy to go into that in detail, because there’s been a sea change already in the use of nurse practitioners and one that’s going to continue in primary care.
I think what we all understand is that in every realm where nurses do work — whether it’s in terms of all nurses: nurse practitioners, registered psychiatric nurses, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, etc. — the stress of the pandemic has been significant. The stress before the pandemic has been significant. These are, as workplaces in the acute care settings and all of these settings, challenging workplaces to work in. Our nurses do exceptional work. No less of which the largest group of people doing immunizations right now are nurses, in addition to all the other things they do.
We talked prior to this about the significant increase in the surgical capacity of the province, which is dependent on the recruitment of nurses. I listed off to the member those increases. We’ve seen an increase in nurse workforce over the last number of years, but it’s an increase of FTE positions — 25,867 in 2017 to 27,645 in 2020. So the number of nurses is increasing, but the pressure on those nurses is significant. And I would argue that the role of nurses in the health care system continues to grow more important as we expand, in many cases, the scope of practice in specific ways.
There was a debate and discussion in the estimates of the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, for example, of the expanding role and scope of practice and leadership of nurses throughout their system. The Provincial Health Services Authority, of course, now is being led by a nurse and an extraordinary one, David Byers, who’s leading that authority. But that is reflected throughout the system. Nurses are playing a greater role in leadership. Their scope of practice is expanding, and the challenge of that work is growing greater.
Part of the challenge, it seems to me, is what was reflected in the budget, which is the need to increase training spaces and increase investment in training for nurses so that we have a new generation of nurses to support the existing generation of nurses.
Secondly are the efforts we make around retention and support for our nurses in the system now, which are considerable. Thirdly, I’d argue, is the need to address, in this COVID year, not just the health implications but the combined implications of health and safety in the workforce.
Obviously, the creation of a new agency in B.C. is intended to help with that, which is being led by health care workers, but as well, an understanding that once we get through this period of COVID-19, we’re very likely to see an increasing number of challenges in the health and service sector for what one would broadly call mental health claims under WorkSafe, but also pressure.
We see that, and we have seen that, in the last number of years, across the health care system, such that there’s an increase in claims reported under the category that WorkSafeBC uses by nurses, but not just nurses — ambulance paramedics, health care assistants, and so on.
All of that work together — some of it consistent with collective agreements that we have signed with unions, but others of it — is obviously going to be needed, and particularly going to be needed now. We’re in this moment, hopefully…. I say hopefully because we hope that the pandemic will recede somewhat, although COVID-19 will continue to be with us in the next little while.
It’s certainly my expectation, and it’s what we’ve seen on the evidence — a return in demands, especially in acute care. For example, emergency room visits are back to being similar to what they were prior to the pandemic or ranging around that. That will occur, of course, at a time when people have been through the pandemic, and all its stress is another consideration.
There are, obviously, processes to support nurses, but I would also say that everyone working in an acute care setting, everyone working in the community, is facing unprecedented challenges right now. We’re taking all of the measures we have in place, and it will require new measures as well to ensure that nurses and others are supported.
R. Merrifield: How many nursing training positions have been added per year since 2017?
Interjection.
R. Merrifield: In what health care fields have additional training programs been funded this year? That’s an additional question to the one previous. Then, are there targets set for each field that the minister can share? With that, we’ll wait for those answers, and when you receive them, if the minister could just indicate, that would be great.
I’ll move on to the next question. During the 2020 election, and included in the minister’s mandate letter, is to implement a “comprehensive health…human resources strategy.” What work is underway for this initiative?
Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, there’s significant ongoing planning done. There will be a new health human resources plan presented in the fall to the hon. member and everyone else, and we’re on track to deliver that at that time, which is, obviously….
I think it addresses, probably, the final part of the member’s previous question, which was to ask…. We’ll see that, then: these sorts of aspirational goals in different areas of health care.
In terms of health human resources — in terms of replacing existing staff, which is significant — we have some generational change required in health care. This is notably true for health care assistants but also for nurses, and you see that in HHR strategy it’s a part of everything we do in health care. So the surgical plan we’ve put forward has a significant human resources component, but this will be the health human resources strategy for the province. We’ll expect to see that in the fall.
R. Merrifield: What initiatives are underway currently to improve the province’s credential recognition process and licensing?
Hon. A. Dix: There’s a series of partnerships that we have to think about and that are required. First of all, with the federal government, we have to incorporate their policies with ours in this regard. Obviously, the federal jurisdiction has a responsibility for immigration into the country, and that has important consequences for credentialing. So some of that work is work that we have to do together.
Secondly, we have to find and eliminate, where we can maintain standards, restrictions on credentialing that stop people from coming here and performing tasks that they can readily do. We saw this. There were changes that were brought in, in 2016, for example, that put impediments in the way of health care systems, in other provinces in Canada, to come to British Columbia.
It was absolutely not the intent of my predecessor to cause problems with that; quite the contrary. His notion was to raise standards — and we need to raise standards involving the care aide registry — but the effect of that was to impede otherwise qualified health care workers from other provinces to come and work in British Columbia, and it essentially imposed on them an extensive need to requalify. Those are the kinds of changes we need, too, for it.
There’s also ongoing work in terms of professional credentials with the colleges, which is a significant part of their work, both in the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the new College of Nurses, which has 60,000 members. They play an important role, obviously, on issues of credentialing and professional responsibility. Those are all initiatives that are part of that, and obviously, any recruitment plan needs to address these issues of credentialing. In British Columbia, I don’t think people would accept or want a reduction of standards.
At the same time, we need to facilitate people in British Columbia in getting their credentials. That means adding spaces — and that’s what we’re doing, including and especially in this budget — but, as well, assisting people who want to work in British Columbia to be able to work here. Facilitating that is important work that we need to do, particularly in nursing but in other areas.
R. Merrifield: What is being done currently, outside of the stockpiles, to make sure that adequate PPE is available to any nurse, in a way that they feel safe and protected?
Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the final question, we are back to point-of-care assessment for health care workers in terms of access to PPE. Obviously, the provincial health officer — we discussed this at some length yesterday — has been providing and continues to provide professional guidance in this regard. We’re back, essentially, to where we were before the pandemic, in point-of-care assessments on the need for PPE.
With respect to quality assurance for PPE, which is an important part of that, of course, most PPE requires a medical licence from Health Canada, and that’s important. We have our own independent verification and certification of effectiveness, and this is established in B.C. under WorkSafe B.C. regulations. Obviously, the Canadian Standards Association also developed a certification program for medical respirators in the past period, given the difficulties in getting product across the border.
We have our own quality assurance process, designed to do two things. There’s the fit of products, and this has been a challenge with N95 respirators, in particular, in the nursing professions. It’s not just an issue of having respirators but having respirators with the appropriate sizes, as anyone could imagine in having to wear one. If you were involved and needed one in your profession, having one the right size is critically important.
We provide tests on all the PPE that comes, and B.C. has its own quality assurance lab for PPE at Vancouver General Hospital.
R. Merrifield: Well, I do take, somewhat, a concern over the treatment of mental health amongst our nursing staff as kind of a “wait and see,” talking about acute cases coming down when COVID ends. That will, hopefully, de-stress the system to some extent, but I would say we can’t rely on that.
Again, back to the article in which Christine Sorensen says that in acute care hospitals, nurses are seeing many incredibly ill people. “They have seen their colleagues break down and cry often during a shift. Many report they’re crying before and after. They’re looking for ways to leave the profession or looking to find safer workplaces in the health care system.”
With all due respect, the minister and I have sat on phone calls and phone conversations with entire nursing groups that are begging for some relief from these mental aspects of trauma within their work environment. Again, how is the minister going to address the high stress levels that we’re seeing in the hospitals for these nurses?
Hon. A. Dix: I said exactly the opposite, actually. It’s my view that we’re going to see a return to previous demands.
The situation with COVID-19 was significantly more stressful because of COVID-19 and its implications in all health care settings, whether it be long-term care, assisted living, acute care or any other health care setting, for that matter. It would be my expectation, in any event, that we have seen a return to pre-COVID levels of, for example, emergency room visits and, obviously, demands on our health care system. It’s quite the contrary.
COVID-19 may disappear as a significant factor. We have gone from 511 hospitalized to 136, but it’s quite the opposite for everything else. I would expect that we will see…. One of the reasons we’re building hospitals is that our hospitals were at 103.5 percent of capacity prior to COVID-19. They’ve dropped to COVID-19 levels during COVID-19, but it wasn’t like things got easier. We had COVID-19.
I just want the member to understand. I wasn’t saying that we expect cases to now get easier. Obviously, COVID-19 becoming less important, and the reduction of the number of hospitalizations from COVID-19, which we’ve seen consistently, over time, in both critical care and acute care, is going to help. I don’t think anyone would argue that. Of course it’s going to help.
We have a second public health emergency, the overdose crisis. It’s significant and, I would argue, has an equal or greater impact. We’ll need to evaluate these things. They both have a significant impact on the quality of life of people in the health care system, from ambulance paramedics and nurses to health science professionals and doctors to health care workers and everybody else. And we’re going to see a return, I think, to previous levels of demand for other services.
What I say to people, and part of what I talk about in our briefings, is that there was and is an extraordinary appreciation for health care workers that I absolutely agree with and that we have to recognize. We have to also recognize that the health care system is going to continue, day by day, 24-7, to have to provide care. We have outstanding health care professionals, significant resources in our public health care system. The fact that it’s a public health care system has demonstrated its worth in this pandemic.
That’s a long way of saying that I agree that this is going to be a very significant period in the support of our workforce across the board. It’s not a wait-and-see question. We understand. It’s happening, and it exists now. It’s why I engage with workers, on an individual basis as well as a collective basis, all the time. We understand the challenges of that. Qualitatively, the work became slightly different under COVID, but quantitatively, it’s going to be significant all the time.
I think this period of transition is actually going to be quite challenging for the health care system. People in the world are going to want to take a breath; people in health care are not going to be able to. They’re going to have to continue to do what we ask them to do, which they do day after day, week after week, month after month.
That’s why with those supports — the supports from the provincial occupational health and safety organization, which is directed by health care workers and health care professionals, and the supports for people in our system, the significant programs that are in place to support people in the system — more is going to be required, and the development and the creation of new positions.
The one thing I’d say, finally, about that is this. One of the challenges in a workplace is new people as well. We don’t just ask doctors and nurses to benefit from the arrival of new people; we ask them to train and incorporate and include them. That’s a responsibility, as well, that nurses face. They do exceptionally well, as do doctors, as do health sciences professionals, as do all workers when there’s a new person in the workplace, in supporting them. All of these things are happening.
If we train more people, that can be more work. If we don’t train more people, that’s an impossible situation. So we have to train more people. That’s why this budget trains more people and trains more nurses.
That’s not an immediate answer to the challenge. That’s why, in some workplaces where things have gotten worse than others, we have to work in the circumstance we have to make things better. This is something that we’re doing day by day, every day, and it’s a significant part of the work being done by the health system now.
R. Merrifield: I’m relieved to hear the minister’s answer, and I appreciate the correction. I also appreciate the understanding of the mental health aspects and the dramatic amount that all front-line staff — in particular, nurses — have had to endure over the course of these last 15 months, 16 months. I’m losing track of how long it’s been.
I am going to go back to what the minister was saying, which is… It’s great to have a long-term plan. It’s great to understand how many nursing training spaces we’re opening up to increase the number that we’re graduating, but on the other hand, there is an immediate need.
I’m going to ask the minister again to be more specific. How is the minister addressing the violence against nursing staff and all front-line workers in our hospitals, as well as their mental health needs?
Hon. A. Dix: There’s a series of initiatives that have been put in place and an initiative that is forthcoming as well. There’s a provincial framework on workplace violence prevention, and that is implementing a series of instruments. I’d be happy to provide a briefing to the hon. member on that.
There’s workplace violence prevention training. As of this June, 82.9 percent of health authority staff members who work in high-risk areas have completed this training. A physical violence prevention curriculum was developed in June 2019, with 350 medical residents completing that training.
In terms of occupational health and safety, we’ve consolidated and joined the joint occupational health and safety committee violence prevention resources to work through some of these issues, and we have provided funding to support this work.
At the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital in Coquitlam, we work together with representative nurses. Also, in that case, the BCGEU is the other significant union there. That model was put in place at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital with some good effect. It’s undergoing an analysis now, and an assessment to apply to other sites.
We’ve committed, through the Nurses Bargaining Association, for safety improvements at specific sites. Michael Marchbank, who I referred to as involved in the surgical plan before, has produced a report. This is a significant report on violence in the workplace which will be followed by recommendations and action in the coming few months.
Obviously, the creation of the B.C. Health Care Occupational Health and Safety Society, which itself is considering how it will advance workplace violence protection as part of its initiatives, is in place.
Finally, there’s a new ministry health sector, a health and safety unit, that works with key partners to lead, monitor and report, especially providing data on workplace violence. So all of these initiatives are in place, are being put in place, but significant new ones will be coming with the implementation of the Marchbank report, and that implementation will be coming soon.
R. Merrifield: My understanding is that Mr. Marchbank is doing the workplace violence report as well as leading the surgical renewal program. Is my understanding correct?
Hon. A. Dix: He has completed the report. He’s assisting us with that. He’s not, at present, as of March 31, for very understandable family reasons.
Michael Marchbank, I think, based on his work on surgical renewal and many other things, is someone who should be recognized for his contribution to the province. He’s one of these individuals who retires, and then we ask him to do more. Then retired, and he ended up doing more. He is actually retired and retiring, although he continues to assist us with some of these matters. So no, he has produced his report, and now we’re preparing the implementation of that report.
R. Merrifield: Please extend my congratulations. We should all enjoy our retirements. So that is great news.
The Finance Minister has actually directed this next question to the Health Minister. How many of the roughly 40,000 additional pandemic hires in the public sector will remain post-COVID? Are these temporary jobs? And how many will be laid off?
Hon. A. Dix: I think I’d make a distinction between the surgical renewal plan, which…. It’s obviously part of a response to COVID, but it’s also the surgical renewal plan that will take us going forward. So the people hired there are just going to continue to be working, and we’ll need more.
The same is true, in the general sense, in terms of seniors services. We covered this last week. We need more care aides in health care in B.C. because we’ve significantly increased care standards. That means we need more care aides, because we’ve added resources. These jobs are now better. The single-site order makes it that way. We’re going to be adding long-term-care spaces in our heath care system, so all of those people are going to stay.
People whose positions aren’t permanent are obviously the people working on immunization, for example — the many people who have been hired from the tourism industry to support immunization programs. I have to say…. I don’t know what the member thinks, but the response to our immunization centres — the customer response, the patient response, the citizen response — has been positive not just because it’s vaccinating against COVID but because the tourism industry staff who came in and supported the nurses and doctors have just been exceptional.
Obviously, they’re going to go back. We’re not going to run immunization clinics. We don’t need to run immunization clinics. It’s a massive, unprecedented effort. So some of those individuals will go back.
We’ve added, in the system, in terms of contact tracing, a number of people who had previously retired. So the contact tracing, we’re not going to be continuing to have. We added 1,400 contact tracers, but all of those positions aren’t going to stay in place, obviously, although some of them do exist and work in public health, and some have been transferred to other work.
I don’t have an exact response for the member, but in the key areas of ongoing priorities — seniors and surgical — those will continue on. The things that are clearly temporary in terms of COVID-19 — those hired in immunization and those hired in contact tracing…. Some of those positions will go away, although the individuals — we just had a discussion of the need for nurses and everything else — may end up being transferred back or doing other work.
We need health care workers. If health care workers come forward, we’re going to be able to use them, and quite a few more like them in the coming time.
You have to make a distinction between those kinds of work. I don’t have quite the context of the 40,000 and what’s said. I presume some of that is not just in health care. But if you look within the health care system, I think you make the distinction between what we’re doing in those permanent initiatives and then what are clearly temporary initiatives.
R. Merrifield: Perhaps the minister could actually attempt to quantify which of those within just Health, understanding the scope, are the permanent positions that have increased and would be brought on, on a permanent basis, and which of those are part of the COVID-19 efforts in the vaccine clinics, etc.
I know that in our questions yesterday, some of the $100 million plus of that vaccination…. We identified that the number one cost is going to be the personnel that are associated with that.
If the minister could identify not necessarily the cost, but what are the orders of magnitude, and what are the numbers of contact tracers and nursing staff, etc., that will not be required there but, as we’ve already and just identified, will be required within the health care system on a permanent basis?
With that, Chair, I will turn my time over. I assumed that the minister would not have a direct answer right away. If you need time to get it, that would be fine.
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just say this. For example, in immunization, we’re obviously compensating people to be part of those efforts to do the immunizing. Those are doctors, nurses, paramedics, health science professionals, pharmacists and dental hygienists who have played a real role.
Almost all of those people are doing that on the side. So they’ll be returning to their positions — the professional staff. The non-professional staff, in that sense — the ones who are supporting the overall logistics effort — are going to be moving on to their previous positions. Those aren’t permanent positions.
We’ll try to quantify it. I think that on some of those things for the member, I’ll probably send her a letter. There will be a list of these things at the end of estimates — questions where she sought more information.
I don’t know where the number 40,000 comes from. It’s not my number, so it may not be that number. The distinction is still going to be the same, between ongoing work in health care and people returning to other work, including some of the people we’ve counted on to lead contact tracing. That’s work that requires senior people with experience — and who are now, obviously, more experienced than they ever would have liked to have been. We’ve seen their impact on people’s lives and the contacts they’ve made.
Other people…. Most of the people who are health care professionals in any way involved are going to go back to other positions in health care.
I think that we’re going to go to what some people might call the lightning round.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for your time this afternoon.
I certainly want to thank my colleague for Kelowna…. Gosh, I’m going to get it wrong. She’ll correct me, I’m sure. I want to thank her for the time to ask a few questions.
I also wanted to follow up on, of course, the discussions between yourself and the Leader of the Official Opposition and echo some of her comments. I do appreciate the minister’s openness and availability. I know that you and I have had a number of discussions, Minister, and I appreciate that openness. I imagine that we’ll continue to have these discussions, moving on.
My first question. We spoke about it here not so long ago. I’m wondering if maybe the minister can give us a bit of an update on funding around staffing the Fort St. John Hospital. I know that a number of my colleagues are asking around recruiting of doctors, recruiting of nurses and such.
We do have a shortage of health practitioners in our Fort St. John Hospital. Of course, it is a significant hub for the northeast. I’m just wondering if we can get a bit of an update on where that is right now.
Hon. A. Dix: We were kidding the member. It’s a nice thing to have some members on Zoom and getting riding names correct and not. I’m not going to say who said that he’s the member for Peace River West. I’ll just leave it there. There’s actually quite a lot of western territory in the member’s riding. Really, there’s quite a lot of everything in the member’s riding — so north, south, east and west. There’s, I’m sure, a song in that.
The member will know we had an opportunity to meet with health care workers in his area and with Northern Health with him recently. He will know that we’ve taken some significant steps to look at what immediate actions could be taken to make things better at Fort St. John Hospital. I think that the hospital in Fort St. John…. There are two sets of things we have to do. One is what we are doing, which is obviously expanding nursing spaces in the north and in Fort St. John. That is a medium-term approach, but there are some immediate things that need to be done.
I’m getting a report with recommendations shortly. After that, I’ll be again meeting with the member for Peace River North to go over those things in detail.
D. Davies: Thank you to the minister for that.
Kelowna-Mission, I do apologize. It had nothing to do with direction. I will never live that one down, I’m sure.
Another question regarding accommodations for medical patients. Of course, this is very significant to our neighbours to the north in Fort Nelson, Northern Rockies. Whether we’re talking having a baby…. It’s been almost a decade since there has been the ability to have maternity services in Fort Nelson. So all of these people have to travel down here, maybe to Fort St. John or Prince George or somewhere else where family members live, for a month in advance of their pregnancy, which is all out of pocket.
I know the minister…. I heard you earlier answering my colleague’s question. You were talking about Prince George and recognizing that surgery services aren’t going to be available in smaller communities. We agree with that, and we agree that people need to have equal access to these services.
People should also not be having to mortgage their home or take on significant debt to go have a child somewhere else in the province because the services aren’t available in their community. One would think it absolutely ludicrous if you asked someone from Vancouver to have to come up to Kelowna and stay in a hotel or at a friend’s house to have their baby. It’s unacceptable.
I know that you and I have spoken about this before. I’m just wondering if there is some movement toward offering some sort of a rebate — I know there are some tax breaks on those medical expenses — or a granting piece where people can apply to offset some of these costs when they travel to have these medical services elsewhere.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for Peace River North for his question.
I think the member may appreciate it if I take that in two ways, the first with respect to maternity care. I think we are looking, for example, at expanding the use of midwives to try and provide more access across the province, and we are doing a review of maternity care, for the very reason he discusses now. The issue that he’s talking about doesn’t just apply to maternity care — I understand that — but the PHSA, the Provincial Health Services Authority, is doing a review of that.
One of the things that I always have in mind…. The member will know this. Whenever I meet at the UBCM, which, I think, might be virtual this year…. I can’t remember. I’ll be meeting virtually, or I’ll be meeting people in person. Clearly, that’s a meeting that I regularly hold with people in Fort Nelson. He’ll know.
We sometimes talk about what happened under this government and what happened under that government. That was ten years ago that that happened, but it has been a challenge to get it done. It didn’t happen because someone decided, one day and another, that they didn’t want to provide services in Fort Nelson. It was because of real challenges with the delivery of care that those decisions were made. So we are doing that review.
In that review, the desire to provide more stability in maternity care, in more communities across the province, is an important consideration. That’s just the example he took, not the broader policy issue. But I think it’s an important one, because we have to look at that. Fort Nelson is a community, but it’s one of many where, effectively, you’re asking people to move at a very important time in their lives — to move to be close to care, for very good medical and public health reasons for them, for their families, for their babies but nonetheless, at a significant cost.
We haven’t looked at…. We don’t have housing and accommodation policies. We don’t have those in place currently, and we haven’t had those in place historically, but I would be interested in any suggestions that the member would make. This is, obviously, a consideration we think of and really reflects a modern change in health care that has taken place — not over the last few years but over decades — which is a growing increase and improvement in the expertise in public health care with the centralization of services that has occurred.
We see this in other jurisdictions, dramatically. Anyone who has come from Saskatchewan knows the significant reduction in rural hospitals and the centralization of hospitals in that province, which is a big province. That’s happened everywhere. I think what the public health system has done, over decades, is used the fact that it doesn’t cover travel to view travel costs, when you centralize services, as not a cost to the system when, obviously, they’re a cost. They’re just not a direct cost to the taxpayer, but they are a cost to individuals.
That’s why, with respect to cancer care, we’ve made some significant innovations, especially in diagnostics, especially in the member for Kelowna-Mission’s hometown recently and in Victoria recently. It’s why we have to continue to take those steps so that we don’t have those issues.
The member will correct me — in fact, I know the member will correct me if I’m incorrect — but I believe that some communities do take some steps to support people. I know that in Dawson Creek — I’m not close enough, and I don’t go to Dawson Creek enough, to call it D.C. — there are some efforts. My friend the mayor of Dawson Creek has been involved in this, using some existing facilities to provide space for people to at least come and live easily.
Obviously, children who need different acute forms of care do get support from organizations. That’s supported by the province — including organizations such as Canuck Place and Ronald McDonald House and other things — but those are not what we’re talking about here. I’d be interested in any thoughts that the hon. member has.
We are also looking at improvements to the travel assistance program, which affects people in all regions of the province, but certainly, it affects people in the north.
I just want to say, with respect to his comment about my response to the Leader of the Opposition, I think it’s important that we have services in Prince George, but as a practical matter, people in some communities in the north are going to come, if they need extra services, to Vancouver, because the transportation links are better than they are within the Northern Health Authority. These are health authorities that serve huge distances of people.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I’d be always interested in his suggestions as to improvements we might make.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Just a final question before I turn it over to my colleague from Fraser-Nicola.
Certainly, I think this would be a great thing for the Select Standing Committee on Health to look at, rural health care. I think that would be one suggestion that I would make. I do appreciate, of course, the Ronald McDonald houses and such. Dawson Creek does provide some of those services. There are some things out there, but we need to be looking at doing things better to help out our rural communities.
My final question, Minister, is just around auditing processes. I know that government looks at the different health authorities and where they’re doing well and where they need to improve. What does that process look like in comparing…? Is it transparent? I don’t recall seeing anything saying: “This is where XYZ health authority needs to make improvements or should reflect and look at this health authority over here to make things better.”
I see things here in Northern Health that are done quite differently than maybe in Interior Health, and I sometimes shake my head. The emails that I receive from constituents also shaking their heads…. I’m just wondering what the process is at looking at the structures across the province in the different health authorities to make sure that all the health authorities are doing best practices across the region. That will be my final question.
Hon. A. Dix: The member is there. So he’ll forgive me if I give him a slightly longer answer than I usually give.
The health authorities. We have the five regional health authorities, and we have the Provincial Health Services Authority and the First Nations Health Authority. One of the changes that we’ve made — and I want to underline the very significant role played by the deputy minister, Stephen Brown, in this regard — is, I think, the coordination of health authorities. They’re working together. Their regular meetings, the bi-weekly meetings of the leadership council, which really is the presidents and CEOs of the authorities and the Deputy Minister of Health, have greatly improved things.
The health authorities report to each other regularly. They’re not isolated from one another. They work together. They work together as a team. I think that work, which has been exceptional work by the deputy minister, has supported that. It’s part of the way that we’ve tried to function as a ministry in the time I’ve been minister.
I’m not going to speak to what it was like under previous ministers, who were all very effective politicians in their own right. My approach has been to, yes, be hands-on but to be hands-on and to provide that direction through the deputy minister so there’s coherence.
I think, in a general sense, the deputy minister who, like many deputy ministers in this pandemic…. He, I think, is the person who deserves the most credit, along with Dr. Henry, of anyone in British Columbia for B.C.’s pandemic response and its coherence across health authorities and is a thoughtful and generous person. He has led that. I’ve seen the health authorities work better together because of Stephen Brown’s leadership.
Secondly, we have instituted and worked together more in the health authorities as chairs, which is more my direct responsibility. We have in Northern Health…. Unfortunately, I say to the member for Peace River North that Colleen Nyce is from Terrace, which is maybe part of Peace River west, but it’s to the west of his constituency. But I think our board, which represents Fort St. John, represents Dawson Creek, has represented Mackenzie and other communities. Of course, Prince George in the northwest has two Indigenous members and does an exceptional job.
Our chairs come together regularly. They work together regularly on projects. I think we’ve broken down, both at the CEO level and at the chair level, some of the impediments to improvements. That’s necessary.
There is always…. I haven’t heard a single person who doesn’t live in Northern Health ever criticize Northern Health. Right? So your own health authority is always going to be the one where you see the improvements. Naturally, because we’re looking for improvements, when a health authority does things better, as the Northern Health Authority frequently does, for example, in primary care — about which I could write songs to the member for Peace River North — I think you don’t see those. But I think, through those efforts, we try and do a significant job at assisting one another and in finding innovation.
There are historic issues in the health care system that date way back, about information systems. We’ll know to talk about them — information systems that don’t speak to each other and those sorts of problems. But I do think, and I would say to the member, that Northern Health — its CEO, its chair — is always responsive to suggestions. I think the Northern Health Authority, given the territory that it represents, the work that it does, the services that it delivers and the work that it has done during COVID-19, does an excellent job, and it has historically, I think, in serving that region of the province.
I’d just say, finally, that people sometimes say to me: “Wow, six health authorities. Shouldn’t that be one?” We should follow the Alberta model of one. Sometimes people say that it should be more than that, because the more the merrier.
This is an occasion — the creation of these health authorities, including the Northern Health Authority — where I would argue that the previous government got the balance right. You can make an argument for eight or nine or different geographic boundaries, but the nice thing about having six is that you have that continuity to compare, and you can have continuity over time.
There may be, in some areas, a time to look at boundaries — for example, along the coast of the province, which is currently in Vancouver Coastal Health but might be more appropriately put somewhere elsewhere — and where we could consider those options. That’s been a discussion in Interior Health for some time. But I would say that I think that our overall balance and approach is the right one.
I think you could make improvements. I could suggest improvements. We could proceed with improvements. But I think that the massive administrative change that that would entail would not be worth it and that we can work within the existing health authority system. Six feels about right, and I think we’re going to stay that way.
If there are things the member would like to improve in Northern Health, well, my door is always open for that, as is Northern Health’s. But I think Northern Health, which is led by people from the north and serves people in the north, has done exceptional work.
The Chair: Members, we’ll now take a recess to undertake cleaning and safety protocols in preparation for a new committee Chair. I would entertain a suggestion on how long. Five? Ten?
Hon. A. Dix: I’m getting suggestions from the side here. I’d like to recommend a five-minute-and-30-second recess.
The Chair: All right. We will recess for five minutes and 30 seconds, which takes us to…. Actually, let’s take it to 5:10.
The committee recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.
[B. Bailey in the chair.]
The Chair: We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Health.
I believe it’s now going to be the member for Fraser-Nicola. Is that correct?
J. Tegart: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Please go ahead, Member.
J. Tegart: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
As the minister is aware, we’ve had an active Health Care and Wellness Coalition in Ashcroft for many years. They deal with doctor retention, staff retention, service levels and interaction with Interior Health and the communities we serve.
In the 2020 election campaign, the NDP candidate announced that Premier John Horgan had committed to a 24-7 emergency room service at the Ashcroft health site if the NDP were elected. Imagine the excitement in not only Ashcroft but in the region as a whole.
Now, I could be here today asking the minister when that promise will be fulfilled, but in working with the Health Care and Wellness Coalition and Interior Health, much discussion and work has been done to try and develop a sustainable model of health care that would meet the community’s and the region’s needs.
The model that’s been identified is a hybrid urgent primary care and community health centre. It would provide, at a minimum, seven-day service with extended hours to meet community needs. It has been designed with the local Health Care and Wellness Coalition in partnership with Interior Health and broad consultation throughout the region. It is my understanding that this model is included in the Interior Health Authority budget.
My question is to the minister. I know that he took quite a bit of time with the last question he answered. This one can be a simple yes. Will you commit to fund a consistent and sustainable health care model designed by local community members in partnership with Interior Health and governed by a community board to ensure it doesn’t fall apart?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s very good to see you in person for the first time in some time.
Thank you to my colleague from Fraser-Nicola for her question.
Indeed, the member will know that last weekend there was a small issue in Ashcroft. Obviously, well, it was significant for people there. An unexpected absence led to reduction in service. That happens from time to time. It’s that kind of inconsistency that we want to do away with.
I’ve encouraged Interior Health to work with the community, and I would expect us to make progress on that. I’m not making…. I know the member would like me to make an announcement today.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: She’s saying to herself: “Boy, wouldn’t that be great if the member talked about this important issue in Ashcroft and made an announcement in the Douglas Fir Room?” So that won’t happen today.
I would say that what I believe is that people in Ashcroft have worked very hard since 24-7 care went away in 2014 to raise this issue. They’ve made it a significant issue. The member knows this and this history because she’s been working on this issue as well in that time, both on the government side and on the opposition side. I want to recognize that work today.
I think the key is that’s certainly a commitment I have — to improve services in Ashcroft. That’s been my direction to Interior Health — to work with the community and improve services in Ashcroft. I look forward to making an announcement soon. I’m not saying that the announcement will wait for me to get to Ashcroft, because I don’t think that’s the right way to do these things.
I would say…. Obviously, as a community, I think that Ashcroft is hugely vested in our public health care system and has made the case for a long time. We’ve taken some steps, from last year, to stabilize the situation in Ashcroft, the hospital in Ashcroft, in a way that has been positive but not sufficient, I think.
What I can tell the member is that I’m on it. I hear her. I hear the community. I’ve been engaged with Interior Health on that question, and I look forward to having something to report sooner rather than later. I can assure her — as I try and do, typically — that I’ll be letting her know before I let everyone know.
R. Merrifield: If we go back to some of the human resource questions that we were asking, I know that the minister had indicated that there were certain positions that were going to be retained as FTEs, other positions that were going to be reallocated and then some that would not exist further.
There was the promise of the 7,000 new front-line workers. Those fell into different categories: contact tracers, screening staff at long-term care, screening staff at health authority acute facilities and then health career access program staff and support. Those have been updated on a fairly ongoing basis, although the last numbers that were given were actually a little outdated, maybe a couple months ago.
If we could get an updated list of those different workers. How many have been hired? What are the timelines? Are these positions considered full-time positions? Which ones are not? Which of those staff in the contract tracing and screening will be reassigned or redeployed, in terms of a number? Which ones will cease to exist?
Hon. A. Dix: I think that we’re talking about two different things. I would say to the member…. This may not have been the member’s intent when she refers to the 7,000, because the 7,000 is part of the seniors workforce proposal. So that’s the long-term-care proposal.
Of that, those 7,000 — it’s a three-year program — 5,330 positions have been filled. They’re full-time-equivalent positions. So when we say 7,000, we mean 7,000 FTEs, not 7,000…. You know, not 1,000 temporary workers or something like that. We mean 7,000 full-time-equivalents.
So 1,864 of those have been hired into age cap; 1,521 into visitation; 1,945 baseline vacancies — which was a key part of the proposal, because that was a real challenge — in health care assistants, food services and housekeeping positions. That’s one set of things.
When she’s talking about contact tracing, we have hired and filled approximately 1,400 contact tracing positions. I know Mr. Pokorny will have the exact number for me shortly. Those positions were in addition to and were announced in August because of our expectations around the fall — especially November, December and January, respiratory illness season — about COVID-19. We initially made the intention to hire 500. I think that was announced by the Premier. We, within a week, had increased that to 600 and then, ultimately, to 1,400 or so contact tracers.
Of course, Mr. Pokorny has just provided me with the number 1,563, which let’s just say is close to 1,400. But it’s better, right?
Of these contact tracers, some of them will move back to other positions. They’re staff in the health authorities. So 667 nurses are among the professions hired in contact tracing, 587 contact tracer aides or assistants and 309 who are environmental health officers in Allied Health.
I think what’s happened in public health is that, more than many other things, the work of COVID-19 has become the work of public health. In that sense, many of these people will move back.
The contact tracing group is a different consideration than the first 7,000. We’re talking about 1,563 — I will get it right this time — total hires as contact tracers. That was many people moving from other positions. There were internal hires. There was a significant portion of those….
I think the member will remember, when we were reporting on health care registrations in the system…. Many retired nurses and retired doctors came back, and other people who were retired in the health care system came back to the health care system, especially in the early days of COVID-19, to assist us. That was, obviously, of great value, and they tended to be used in back-office work. I don’t mean unimportant work but work such as contact tracing on the phone and other things. So that freed up other staff to do more direct front-line work. All of that happened.
The contact tracing positions will continue to be important as we engage in our public health response through the fall. So while you don’t need as many contact tracers when you’re at 1,400 active cases as you did when you were at 11,000, you still are going to need a body of contact tracers so that you can respond immediately to COVID-19 outbreaks where they occur.
They will occur. The vaccine isn’t 100 percent effective, and even though I’d like us to get to 100 percent of people vaccinated, we may not reach that, or we’ll reach another level. Those positions are the kinds of positions that are funded on a contingency basis.
If you look at those two questions, they’re different categories of workers. Equally, everyone involved in our vaccination clinics frequently…. In the case of my own vaccination, for example, there was an outstanding doctor who generally works on the Downtown Eastside who has developed an extra shift.
The member for Peace River South is here. He’s here because he knows how long my answers can be. He’s looking for that, and that’s really good.
Those are the kinds of considerations with respect to the hiring of workers. Obviously, those that have been hired — the significant staff that have been hired to support our surgical renewal commitment — will continue to work.
R. Merrifield: Absolutely, the blend of the two questions was a little bit confusing. So I apologize.
Could the minister give an update as to the health career access program and how it’s addressing the workforce gaps? Then, also, how many staff and support have actually accepted job offers through the HCAP or in the HCAP?
Hon. A. Dix: The number in terms of the HCAP program…. The target is 3,000 FTEs in the health career access program, of which 1,864 participants have been hired to date.
Just so that we understand, participants begin this program by working as health care support workers, or HCSWs, and receive employer-sponsored training that will lead to formal qualifications as a health care assistant. What a great program and everyone involved in it. I just think this is a fantastic thing that they’ve done and that we’ve done together as a province.
Of the 1,864 people hired through HCAP as of June 2 — so this is right up to date — 662 have already begun their formal health care assistant training with recognized post-secondary institutions. So you can see that this is the hiring and then the transformation that will occur to bring in significant new FTE employments, with a higher level of pay but also of responsibilities in an area that we need.
I think it’s a really good program. It obviously has a number of purposes. It helps to transition people. I think it’s fair to say there was some uncertainty about the nature of employment, but let’s just say that there are…. Well, a lot of employment has been restored. These are permanent full-time positions because of the single-site order.
The health care assistant positions are much more family-supporting positions than they were. They obviously help us stabilize and augment staffing in long-term care facilities, which is really important in and of itself. That’s one partial goal. It also has, in the long term, the capacity to increase the supply of health care assistants, which we’re going to need, all of us are going to need, including those of us who are 57, at some point in the future.
R. Merrifield: Well, I hope that the minister needs that support faster than I do. I’m glad that he’s preparing for both of us, which is very positive.
Obviously, as the minister knows…. I love that we celebrated this program. I do love the innovation, and I am actually very excited about it. But it was a significant investment. We’re talking about $587 million that is being made into the government’s health career access program, or HCAP, as the minister just identified. With the recruiting target of 3,000, it works out to approximately $195,000 to recruit each health care support worker and then train them as a care aide.
Perhaps I have missed something. Could the minister please outline how this money will be spent?
Hon. A. Dix: I’m going to put my glasses on now — people don’t recognize me without my glasses — so that I can clearly focus in on these questions.
It pays for a number of things, and remember that that is over three years. It’s a lot of money. It’s a lot of money over one year; it’s a lot of money over three years. The majority of the money…. Remember that we have hired, under this program — and it’s not the only part of the $185 million — just in the HCAP portion of the program, 1,864 people. They’re hiring. The principle cost is their salaries and benefits. That is the significant cost in the program.
In addition to that, $34.6 million, as of the end of the last fiscal year, as part of the program, is provided for wage and benefit supports while individuals train. A further $3 million is provided to the Ministry of Advanced Education.
The majority of the money in the program…. We’re hiring people. We’re training people. It’s over three years, and it’s going to build up to 3,000 people. That’s an expensive program and not an expensive program, because we need more health care assistants in B.C.
We have to have more health care assistants in B.C. We decided, as a government…. We’re funding, for example, health care at 3.36 direct hours per resident-day, which is a dramatic increase over what had been there before. That requires people there to give the hours, to provide the care and to ensure that it meets our standards. So all of those things make it, yes, an expensive program but a necessary program.
I would argue that it’s money the government ultimately would have to spend anyway, because we need more health care assistants. By the way, it’s not just this program, not just the visitation program, not just the efforts to recruit unfilled positions, not just those efforts. We need more efforts than that to continue to address human resource positions in the health care assistant area.
If you look at that workforce, it’s a workforce that is older than the provincial average. Many people have worked in a dedicated way with, particularly, residents in long-term care — but others and all of the different work that health care assistants do in acute care in the community, in long-term care and all of the supports that we need in the home support sector. So this is an area where this program, in any event, was needed.
I felt — and I am not sure what the right word is to use to describe this — that those circumstances that occurred in COVID-19 at that time were circumstances that both required action but also allowed for that action to be successful. The fact that we’re able to find this many people across B.C. in the sector to do this work is a reflection of the times as well.
This was a moment where we needed to act, and I think that there is a public momentum and desire to improve circumstances in long-term care. I would say that hiring health care assistants is not sufficient in and of itself, but it’s one of the things that we need to do to have a system that meets what we all want to do in the future.
R. Merrifield: Thank you so much to the minister for that explanation. Again, I echo the excitement on this program, but I also echo the excitement on hiring in all circumstances and on all levels. I think that, throughout the course of our conversation, we’ve both agreed that that is and needs to be paramount in order to really de-stress the system, as it were.
With that, I’m going to actually turn over my next question to Peace River South, taking us on a little bit of a journey through the Peace River country and ask my colleague to go.
M. Bernier: Thank you to my colleague for giving me a few moments and to the minister. We just made eye contact recently, but of course, with COVID, I have to jump back out of the room and do this virtually. I can’t wait for the day that we get everybody vaccinated, that we get things opened back up completely and that we can actually be face to face again, as I’ve heard the minister say.
I have a couple of questions. The reason why I’m here, just to the minister, is…. We’re wrapping up some of our estimates in the Ministry of Finance, and as a lot of things take place and questions get asked, sometimes the answers are referred to another minister or ministry. If the minister will indulge me — and I promise that my question won’t be as long as a lot of his answers — I just want to kind of get things rolling here.
I was asking questions around GCPE communications and the work that’s done by our communications staff within ministries and government and cabinet, per se, especially around decision-making for COVID and the communication strategies. One thing that I want to ask the minister, first of all, is…. Last April, leading up into July, there was polling done by the government, and I’m curious if the minister is aware of this.
There was a company direct-awarded — Stratcom, Strategic Communications Inc. — which I’m sure that the minister would know, because it’s a company that’s well known in the NDP circles for contributing and supporting the NDP. But they were direct-awarded a $100,000 contract, and the project title was “Daily Tracking Polling, COVID-19 Pandemic.” This was a three-month exercise. Then the Minister of Finance confirmed that there was more polling done afterwards as well, but this information could have been used by the Ministry of Health for decisions as we’re going through the pandemic.
Is the Minister of Health aware of this polling that was done last year after the pandemic started? I’m curious to his answer, then, what he would use that polling information for.
Hon. A. Dix: I see the members for Peace River South and Peace River North on the screen. I feel a challenge between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John on vaccination levels is a good idea. Let’s just say that the loser should have to fully shave his head. I think that would be a fair competition for the two members of the committee, so I want to put that out there, because some of that’s happening in Fraser Health.
Polling is done. I mean, I hate to do one of those things where we send you back to another estimates, to the member from Peace River South. As I understand it, polling is done, when it is done by government, under the authority of GCPE. It may well be that there’s reason to do polling, for example, to assess the response to measures, and so on. I’m happy to look into polling that may have taken place for the hon. member.
Two things happened in that period. I know that the BCCDC did a major public survey that wasn’t polling, in the strict sense that he’s talking about, but involved about 400,000 people in B.C. to assess and to give people a chance to express their views on the first wave of COVID response.
I think there was a similar follow-up thing we haven’t released the results on yet, but BCCDC is processing to assess the more recent period, both the COVID response and COVID’s effect on people to help to guide and advise policies.
It would not surprise me at all, but, again, I’ll check with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, about polling that may be taking place. Perhaps what might be best is for me to get the information for the member, or the Minister of Finance can, and then I can report back.
I suspect that my estimates are not closing today. This is a show that never ends, although it does end, eventually. What I’ll endeavour to do for the member is get information about any polling that’s taken place and then just report back. What I’ll do is report back, on the record. I’ll try to let the member know when I’m doing that. If he has follow-up questions, he can ask them then.
M. Bernier: I do appreciate the challenge that the minister put out for myself and the member for Peace River North. By the looks of the Zoom screen, I think I already won that challenge, if it comes to shaving your head.
All kidding aside, I will thank the minister. I know he has reached out, and we do need to do a better job of trying to make sure we up our vaccination rates. I know the member for Peace River North has been very vocal in his riding, as have I, trying to get that information out.
Back to the topic at hand, to the minister, if he could get that information. I do find it interesting. The Minister of Finance, on the record, said that the government chose to start doing polling around the COVID-19 pandemic, and they were using that information to try to shape decisions that government was making.
The reason why I was asking that is based on the FOI and the information, obviously. The Minister of Health and the Premier have been very public on the fact that the decisions they make have been based on scientific information they have collected.
This wasn’t a scientific poll that was done. I would just be curious, because the Minister of Finance did confirm — it sounds like the cabinet was aware of this polling — that more polling was taking place.
A little bit of a cynical comment from myself that the minister would appreciate is that a lot of this was done right before the government chose whether or not to call a snap election in the fall.
It would be nice for the minister to come back on the record. I appreciate that offer. Whether he was aware of this polling, whether that polling information was used at all for shaping any decisions within the Ministry of Health, as far as the campaign around COVID-19 and getting information out to people. Then the decisions that were being made within the ministry on how to approach the pandemic and move decisions forward.
I appreciate that offer. I’m not sure if the minister wanted to comment any further on that, if he has no further answers for me.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you. Yes.
By the way, I wanted to express my appreciation to the members for Peace River North and Peace River South. I was genuinely kidding them. I know that both of them have been active supporters of our immunization efforts and their staff in the BCCDC in the Peace — that we’ve had drive-thru clinics in both Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. I mentioned it to the member for Peace River South because I thought he had more at stake in the prize that I offered.
I mentioned that to him, and mentioned it, as well, that Fort St. John community health service area has now moved slightly ahead of Dawson Creek. I’m just saying that. We have to establish benchmarks. I really encourage them to continue to do that.
I want to publicly express my appreciation to both of them for both their support and their promotion of vaccination, and the real courage in the member for Peace River South in speaking about COVID-19 publicly, which I think had a very strong impact on the province. We’re all delighted to see him back and in fighting form now. I just wanted to say that.
I don’t know…. I would say that it’s a reasonable thing, and the member seems to have the polling material from FOI. So he knows more than I do, which is always an interesting situation to be in, in these estimates. I would say it’s not unreasonable, in an unprecedented public health emergency, to ask people what they’re thinking, what their concerns are, how they’re following public health measures and what they think of those measures. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable.
Of course, public health decisions involve following the science, but there are other decisions as well that have to be taken. What we want to consider from, I think, a communications perspective, for example, on the issue of immunization, is: who are, if anyone, the people who are reluctant to immunize, for example? What argument might we make to convince them? The only way to ask that, sometimes, is to ask it through public opinion research. One can call people up and do that.
What I endeavour to do is to get the information, for the hon. member, about COVID-related polling — there may well be others — and then check what the Minister of Finance said in response and see if I can add anything to that. We’ll leave it there, and maybe the member has more questions. I’d love a question on the Dawson Creek Hospital, but only if he’s ready to offer it.
M. Bernier: Maybe I will just take that opportunity to thank the minister, and I’ll turn it back over to the main Health critic. I will not directly ask about the Dawson Creek Hospital. I’ll thank the minister that we’ve worked collaboratively on it, to the point where I did not have to ask, during estimates, where we’re at. He has been very forthright with the information. I thank him for that.
R. Merrifield: Thank you so much. At this point, Minister, we are going to do a speed round. We have a lineup of other questions that are going to come from MLAs and my colleagues, but we’ll try and get them all done so that you don’t have to be with me on Friday.
With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you, Member, and thank you for providing me with that list.
Recognizing the member for Peace River North.
D. Davies: Thank you, Chair. I was wondering. I appreciate, again, my colleague. I’ll make this question really quick. It is only one question, and maybe the minister may want to get back to me in writing, as a follow-up.
Just regarding the Air Ambulance Service — I know this has been a topic of discussion over the past number of years — for Fort Nelson, there seem to be many issues around getting air ambulance out of Fort Nelson to centres where they need to go. There is a local company there that has been working with the ministry, working with B.C. Ambulance, trying to get up to speed. For every step forward this company makes, it seems like they’re pushed two steps back to get to where they need to be — providing an absolutely critical service for this very rural and remote community in the far northeast.
I’m just wondering if the minister is able to look at some further details on ways they can improve how we can get contractors in these smaller communities participating and providing these much-needed services to our residents.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for his question. The member will know that we implemented, under the rural remote COVID-19 response framework, a significant increase in resources for ambulance services for rural and remote communities, First Nations communities and Indigenous communities. Those included the addition of more ground ambulances and five additional air ambulances.
Interestingly, this was an issue that I had a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition about. There were some concerns around some of the contracted arrangements that were put in place in one or two of those cases.
What I can say to the member is I’d be happy if he put us in touch to have staff of the PHSA or the staff of the Ministry of Health get in touch with the member, or I’ll do that myself and get in touch, just to work through and see what issues there might be. What we’re trying to continue to do is to improve our rural and remote response, not just in COVID-19 but in ambulances in general. There has been an extraordinary investment to do that.
Still, this is a large province with very significant demands. So I look forward to the member forwarding the name of the company and the circumstances, and I’d be happy to follow up with him.
The Chair: Does the member for Peace River North have a follow up?
Recognizing the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.
M. Morris: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.
Of course, my topic is also on Air Ambulance Service. We have spoken about the helicopter in Prince George. I am just wondering. Can the minister advise how many additional helicopters the B.C. Ambulance has in service in the last couple of years, and where are they?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s great to see you there in person. It’s just fantastic news. It’s nice to see people in person.
What I’ll do is I’ll be coming back tomorrow in estimates, and at the start of estimates tomorrow, I would say to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie that I will give him a response to that. He’ll know that — both fixed wings and helicopter — we added five after April 20 of 2020 to assist, because the notion was to be able to get people in rural and remote communities closer and more quickly to acute care settings during COVID-19.
We understood that when an individual deteriorates to the point of hospitalization, in many cases in rural and remote communities you need to be closer to an acute care hospital. That would frequently be Prince George, but it might be Mills Memorial or other hospitals in the province or Dawson Creek or Fort St. John.
I know we had ambulances at that time and air capacity at that time. But what I’ll do is I’ll come back after question period tomorrow, if the member is available at that time, and give him a precise answer to his question.
The Chair: Member, do you have a follow-up question?
M. Morris: I do. Yes, please. I appreciate that. I look forward to the answer.
I guess the other question that I have for the minister is: has he ever considered…? You know, we have STARS just to the east of us in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that has been operating now for a number of years. They have equipment that’s tried and tested from a medevac perspective and their training. So I’m just wondering whether the minister has done any exploration as to contracting with STARS to come and to set up in Prince George and Fort St. John or Dawson Creek and providing that level of service that we have.
Trauma-related injuries that we have in the oil and gas sector, in forestry and in mining, is quite extensive and remote in areas like this. The quicker we can get help to them and get these folks into hospital for treatment, I think, will save a lot of lives at the end of the day. So I’d just be curious as to what the minister’s position is on bringing STARS into the province.
Hon. A. Dix: Of course, this has been something that has been debated in the Legislature before. I dare say it might have been debated when someone else was in my position. But I think our approach to rural and remote response…. We do contracting, as the member will know, and did, in developing our rural and remote COVID-19 response framework and the additions to ambulances and other supports in rural B.C. that occurred at that time.
We believe the model that we’re in, which uses contractors at times, is the right model. There were some concerns that the member had and I think his colleague from Prince George, the Leader of the Opposition, had with respect to the awarding of the contract in one of the cases. We’ve made some adjustments based on that through the PHSA.
The decision to add additional air ambulance resources within what BCEHS is doing now — five, and 55 additional ground ambulance resources — was done in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority and HAs. It reflects on advanced-care paramedics, rapid response and other aspects in terms of acute care, in terms of no refusal policies, for example, for patient transfer for certain rural and remote locations at mills and at UHNBC. That plan also adds to it some support, if necessary, for people on the eastern border of the province with our friends in Alberta.
All of those represent a comprehensive plan to respond to rural and remote issues during that. So while I think STARS is considered — there’s a lot of interest in STARS always, and that question gets asked — this is the direction that we’ve gone in.
M. Morris: Just one follow-up to that. I’d just be curious to see whether there has ever been a business case developed looking at the superior service that STARS provides by virtue of the kind of equipment that they have but also the training of the staff they have on the helicopters there themselves.
Has there ever been a comparison study done with what we’re doing with B.C. Ambulance and what STARS could provide us? You know, they’re pretty much a plug-and-play entity that we could be looking at in various areas of the province here.
Hon. A. Dix: I will certainly ask for that, but I do think that our teams at B.C. Ambulance and B.C. emergency health services, over time, also do exceptional work and, I think they would argue, better than other jurisdictions. I think they would have argued that, I say to the member, in 2016, and they certainly argue that today.
I’m happy to come back and give a further response to the member. But I don’t believe…. I think that, obviously, policy options are considered, including options that are pursued in other jurisdictions, but I think the best practices and the recommendations that came out of provincial health services and BCEHS are reflected in the policy directions that both agencies have followed — not just under my time as Minister of Health but before.
The Chair: Member, does that complete your questions?
M. Morris: It does. Thank you very much, Chair.
J. Rustad: I’ve got one question I want to ask, and then a couple of questions that I hope I’ll be able to get a written response to from the minister.
The community of Granisle had met with the minister and talked about the challenges they have with ambulance services. There are certainly a lot of challenges, as we know, across the province with ambulance services, especially in the north, with only a few ambulances available. When they get out on a call, it can leave communities without service within any reasonable period of time.
There’s a pilot project that was happening, that I believe started…. There was some work being done on the Island. When this community of Granisle met with the minister, there was talk from the minister with regards to extending that pilot project to Granisle. I’m curious as to how that pilot project is advancing and whether the community of Granisle can expect to be a part of that.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m happy to follow up with the member. As the member will know, communities such as Granisle and communities across rural remote, First Nations and Indigenous communities across the interior of B.C. have seen significant increases in resources.
What I’ll do is I’ll check specifically into the question around Granisle. At the time that I report, maybe at the beginning of estimates tomorrow, I’ll deal with that question and the ones that were prepared by other members, at that time. Then you’ll be able to get those responses on the record.
J. Rustad: I appreciate that. The follow-up questions here, just in the interest of time for my other colleagues, if the minister could give me the answers in writing would be fine.
In particular, I’m curious. With the hospital moving forward in Fort St. James, which is good news…. The next step of that, of course, is to make sure that there are appropriate staffing levels for the hospital. There is a concern that there will be a lot of locums to be able to handle that and the pressure that would put, as well, on the Vanderhoof community, the health community there, in terms of supporting Fort St. James.
I wonder if the minister could detail any plan that might be in place in terms of being able to meet the staffing requirements for the new hospital in Fort St. James. The second question is around the replacement of the clinic in Vanderhoof. It’s a real challenge. I know that the doctors and Northern Health are working with regards to advancing that project. I’m just wondering, from the minister, a status of that and whether or not there is any allocation of funding to be able to advance that project.
With that, I’ll thank the minister for those answers that he might be able to give and pass it on to my next colleague.
Hon. A. Dix: I do feel like…. Hon. Chair, maybe I will consult with you. I can respond. I have 15 minutes to respond to this question?
I could give at least a 15-minute response on the Stuart Lake Hospital redevelopment project. The member will know, because he was there the day that we announced a concept plan approval for the project, subsequently business plan approval for the project, the issuing of the RFP. The construction is starting soon. The project is expected to be completed by early 2024 at the latest. It’s fantastic news.
We had, interestingly — the member will know this — more bidders on this project than we had on most public hospital projects, partly because it was a smaller project. It’s not small; it’s $116.1 million, and 84 percent of that is being provided by the Ministry of Health. We’re not in any kind of public space right now, so I can say that 16 percent is provided by the Stuart-Nechako regional hospital district. No other hospital districts and none of his colleagues are going to hear that information and know that at this time. But it’s great news.
He’s right that we have, as a primary care group in the Fort St. James area, some of the most talented primary care physicians in our province, I would argue, who have done some unique and remarkable things there. It’s moving to see the work that they’ve done with Nak’azdli and other Indigenous communities in the region to improve primary care in recent times.
I think what that reflects is the need, in response to his second question, to continue to advance services in Vanderhoof — because it’s part of the same broader health region — and to get the Vanderhoof physicians the physical space required to do that job properly. I expect that he’ll see progress on that very, very soon, in response to his second question.
I agree with him that building a new hospital in Fort St. James — and going from a temporary modular hospital built in 1972 to last ten years to a new hospital — is going to obviously make a difference in recruitment. But, obviously, there’s going to be a significant recruitment plan between now and the opening of the hospital, which means an increase in capacity for the region in order to make that happen.
That’s something that I know that the community in Fort St. James and the Northern Health Authority are very focused on. That’s going to be…. That day, when we all come together, whether I’m Minister of Health or not, I’d like to be in Fort St. James on the day we open the hospital. I think that the day we announced together, and the member was there, the concept plan in Fort St. James, was one of the best days that I’ve had in elected politics.
J. Sturdy: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to the minister and ask some questions.
The minister may know that I was employed by BCAS for many years — a couple of decades, actually — until very recently, when they summarily terminated me because I have not worked enough, being I’m not eligible to work as a provincial employee as an elected official. Interestingly, as a full-timer, my status would have been protected, but as a part-timer, it’s not. Just an inequity that I thought I’d pass on to the minister.
It’s not likely that I’d be going back, but nonetheless, for others coming behind me, that’s something that the minister may want to look at. But that’s not what I wanted to talk about.
It’s come to my attention that there’s a proposition for the Sea to Sky for some changes to full-time status, specifically in 219, which is the Pemberton station, which is where I was actually hired. There have been full-time employees there for several decades at least, and now I understand that those positions are going to be terminated and moved into a part-time status. I just wanted to make sure that the minister was aware of the challenges of staffing part-time stations and not having a full-time unit chief.
I understand as well that there are going to be other changes with regard to 224, which is Whistler, and potentially in Squamish as well. I wonder if the minister could help me understand what those changes are and how it is justified to eliminate full-time positions in favour of part-time positions.
Then, on from there, querying about the need for a transfer car in the Sea to Sky. As I think the minister well understands, the transfer out of the region into Metro is a four- to five-hour turnaround at least, depending on what standby is required in the city. In a critical care situation, we’re often taking nurses and doctors out of the region that are sorely needed in the region. We already do have a shortage of family physicians and emergency physicians, in Whistler in particular.
As well, one more piece would be the desire to see critical care services in the Sea to Sky. I think we see it in much smaller communities with less demand, frankly. I would hope that we could see some critical care services in the Sea to Sky, going forward.
Hon. A. Dix: I want to say to the member that recounts are a wonderful thing. So it’s good to see him here. I think he’ll appreciate that.
With respect to those issues…. First of all, I want to express my appreciation for the member’s involvement and support in the immunization efforts and all the challenges that people had at Whistler during the pandemic, and on the North Shore. His work was much appreciated. He’ll also know that we’ve worked together on other projects such as hospice care in Squamish and other projects which are important.
I’m interested to hear his information. Broadly speaking, the intent of our collective agreement on the ambulance side is to add full-time paramedics. That’s what we’ve done, in significant numbers. That creates some challenges for some people. It has changed, and it creates some challenges, but that’s what we’ve done.
What I’ll do is to ask them to provide detailed information about the specific stations he’s talking about so that I can report back. I’ll report back tomorrow at 2:30.
C. Oakes: First, I do want to go on record to thank the minister and to thank Deputy Minister Stephen Brown and all of your staff for the work that you have done during a very difficult time. Please know, from us in Cariboo North, that we very much appreciate the work that you have done.
I do need to clarify. Earlier today I raised a question on behalf of our constituents and paramedics where I had talked about the fact that the Quesnel station has 1,300 calls annually. I was incorrect. Actually, it’s 4,000 calls annually. The 1,300 calls were actually for the kilo unit that is going out of service.
I certainly recognize the investment that the government has put into health and to the paramedics. I understand the intent of the change in the model that the government is doing. I recognize that we are in transition right now. I just am humbly, on behalf of my constituents and our paramedics, asking for help. The reality is that we are now down to one car for a very large geographic area. I know that the minister mentioned that there were additional ambulances that were put in place.
We did not get one of those 55 cars that the minister mentioned in his response — not to split hairs. My concern is that with such a significantly large geographic area, with the reduction in service with our kilo cars, we are down to one ambulance for a population of 35,000 people. In area, Cariboo North is the size of Vancouver Island. I am worried about the health of our constituents, and I’m worried for the mental health of our paramedics.
I am pleading with the minister to sit down with our Quesnel station. Anything that I can possibly do to help rectify in this transitional period…. Also to note that I am hearing very strong concerns that as we get into July and August, as we start to look at holiday seasons, our community, our region, is going to be in absolute crisis. We don’t have a close community to lean on to access an additional ambulance. We are talking hours away to access an additional ambulance.
Please, to the minister, will you help us, in the Quesnel station, rectify the crisis that we currently have with our ambulance service?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for Cariboo North, both for her kind comments and for her work in supporting her constituents during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is much appreciated. What I will do is share with the member some information. There’s no need to read it into the record because there are lots of questions. I’m happy to do this about ambulance response and call volumes in the Quesnel community.
I think this information is a real tribute to the work done by ambulance paramedics in the region, such that in a period when what are called purple and red events, which are the most serious ambulance events, in Quesnel have actually increased from 2017 to the present in that region — from 500 calls in 2017 to 654 calls in 2020 — median response time has actually gone down in that period. On purple and red calls, that is a reflection of the excellent work that paramedics do in the region.
I’m happy to look at that issue and the issue that the member raises. I take her concerns very seriously. This transition that she talked about is one that was developed with CUPE Local 873 and is an important transition that is going to lead to more stability because it’s going to create, in Quesnel, for example, four net new full-time FTEs.
I appreciate that she’s on the scene. She’s talking to people every day. I commit to her that I’ll follow up with her and with others to see what the present situation is, particularly as we move towards the summer.
R. Merrifield: I just want to make sure that my colleague from Cariboo North was all finished. Perfect. We got a thumbs-up.
I will continue on the same note. What I hoped to do was paint the picture of a lot of rural communities that are somewhat in distress, with where the BCEHS is today. I know that the minister has referenced the stabilizing paramedic work and the staffing in rural and remote British Columbia. There are a few different numbers floating about.
Just to start us off in this area of questions, could the minister just indicate how many net new emergency paramedics, advanced-care paramedics, critical care paramedics, community paramedics and dispatchers were hired in 2020-2021 and are to be hired in 2021-2022?
Hon. A. Dix: I think what I will do is just give a brief response, and then we’ll start with the opposition Health critic. We’ll start tomorrow with this answer and then continue on from there, if that works for her. I think that we’re at 6:11 or something.
I personally like overtime more than anything else and had suggested the possibility to the committee Chair of doing 17 consecutive hours of Health estimates. I think that would be a new record and one that may or may not be universally applauded, but it’s one that I think would be innovation, innovation in health care, very similar to our decision to run MRI machines across British Columbia 24-7. All of that is good, and we expect other people to do that. People might reasonably ask us to do the same thing.
Obviously, we’ve seen the largest investments in B.C. emergency health services that the province has ever seen since the development of the Ambulance Service in 1972. Obviously, there are significant demands on ambulance paramedics during two public health emergencies, both quantitatively, although the number of calls has been fairly stable, and qualitatively, especially with respect to the overdose crisis in communities around B.C.
People sometimes associate that with Metro Vancouver, but the member and everyone will know that that overdose crisis is felt everywhere in the province, so there are significant demands, and there has been a significant increase at every level — in the community paramedicine program, in rural and remote communities, in urban communities — of paramedic and paramedic positions. That will continue through this year.
That’s been going on for three years. It’s likely to continue to go on for some time because we need to…. The whole nature, I think, of B.C. emergency health services is changing. It used to be connected in communities to, effectively, part-time work or on-call work, where people had full-time jobs and then they became ambulance paramedics as an extension of that.
That world, to a degree, has gone away from us, and we are in a different world — not better or worse, just different — where we’re going to have more full-time care paramedics. That’s what we’re doing, in consultation with CUPE Local 873. I’ll start that, and then we have a series of answers I’ll give at the beginning of estimates tomorrow, including the details on that.
I move that the House rise and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Health and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 1:41 p.m.
On Vote 43: ministry operations, $948,948,000 (continued).
The Chair: Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Langara.
We did lead off with the minister waiting to reply, unless you have further that you’d like to add, Member.
M. Lee: No, just to hear his reply.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Minister.
Hon. R. Fleming: I would just ask the member if he could repeat the heart of the question, and I’ll be pleased to give him a response.
M. Lee: Sure. Just before the lunch break, the minister and I had an exchange about the understanding of this government in terms of the overall cruise ship industry in the world. I’d asked the minister the understanding of how many passengers have been travelling on cruise ships since last summer. He had one response. I had the other response, which was that it’s actually been over 500,000 passengers around the world, including market areas like Asia, Australia and Europe.
More importantly, of course, as we look at the U.S. jurisdiction, there certainly is a move forward in terms of cruise ships travelling to Alaska from Seattle, in the United States, bypassing British Columbia. That is happening in July, August, September and into mid-October. That is all around, of course, the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act that was tabled at the end of the third week of February into early March. Now it’s been enacted into law.
The question to the minister was really around: what concern does the government and his ministry have around the potential and permanent impact on the cruise ship industry in British Columbia? I will say, if given the opportunity now to supplement the question, that we have seen, from this government, a lack of awareness in terms of the cruise ship industry opening up again around the world and in the United States, in terms of what is happening next month, in terms of bypassing British Columbia to go to Alaska.
With all of that, the attitude of the government seems to be that they weren’t concerned that the temporary measure that was coming across would be passed, which is what the government could have avoided if they had acted more quickly with the federal government to put in place those technical stops at the time, or at least collaborated more with the Alaska representatives and the U.S. government to do something that would not have to have the temporary measure that has been brought forward under that Alaska act, and then now the threat of it becoming permanent.
The concern is, as I say, with the cruise ships that are now moving past British Columbia this summer…. Cruise ship season is clearly open. Now that that act is in place, the question is: what will happen if that becomes a permanent measure? What is the concern of this government? Has it done an assessment as to the potential damage to the cruise ship industry and to the tourism sector in this province of this measure, temporary or permanent?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, it might be helpful if he understands the position of the industry and some of our harbour authorities in B.C. I have a Business in Vancouver article that I think is quite interesting. It quotes, at length, Mr. Ian Robertson about exactly what he is asking the Prime Minister to do.
He writes to the Prime Minister and says, clearly, that they have shared the government of Canada’s concern about ports not being safe to reopen, back when that decision was made in February 2021. He says in this article that his organization originally supported Ottawa’s ban on cruise travel due to COVID-19. But he says this: “Things are changing, and policies need to keep pace.”
Indeed, in a letter — it was quite recent, on June 11, late last week — he writes to the Prime Minister again. He says: “While we continue to respect the February 28, 2022, date for the return of cruise to Canada, what’s become abundantly clear to us over the last month is the need for an immediate signal by the government of Canada directed toward the cruise industry that there will be,” and this is their ask, “no further extension of this order beyond February 28, 2022. Simply put” — his words again — “a confirmation that cruise will indeed return to Canada in 2022.”
The industry position, and I understand this is supported by CLIA as well, is that they would like to see the government of Canada provide some certainty to the cruise industry that, at a minimum, the February 28, 2022, port closure will not be further extended. That’s the certainty that harbour authorities and the cruise industry are looking for from the government of Canada right now.
We have provided…. We’ve talked about this quite a bit in this estimates process so far. Our position was…. We believe the government of Canada could find a way to allow technical stops. We have said to them — and the Premier has said this repeatedly publicly — that when the Prime Minister makes a substantive announcement about reopening the land border and our airports, he, the Prime Minister, should deal with, at the same time, the port situation.
We have talked extensively during this estimates about how in a real live, not a hypothetical, public health crisis and emergency — the COVID pandemic, here in Canada — the Prime Minister made a decision in February based on the best information he had available at the time. We understand that. The industry has said they understand that. That meant closing Canadian ports.
What is most important for the industry is to have that certainty of a signal about…. It may include being included in the end of a cruise season, from our ports, this year. I don’t know. But I do know, and I’ve shared this with the member as well, that the provincial health officer, Dr. Henry, has a working group that has reviewed the U.S. CDC guidelines published on May 6, five weeks ago, and is sharing those views with Dr. Tam, Canada’s public health officer, about whether that may be possible.
It is interesting — I’ve also shared this with the member — that even with the uncertainty…. We hope the Prime Minister will give the industry the certainty that they want.
Even with the uncertainty, it is interesting that — and this is by no means an exhaustive list — Holland America is currently booking Alaska cruise packages in the spring of 2022 departing from the Port of Vancouver. Princess Cruises is booking right now, in U.S. and Canadian dollars, cruise departures from the Port of Vancouver to Alaska in the spring of 2022. Disney Cruise Line is booking cruises that originate and depart from the Port of Vancouver to Alaska as well. Cunard Line…. Celebrity Cruises is also booking two-nation packages that originate from Vancouver and travel to Alaska, as well as Seabourn Cruises.
There may be others. I know that there are print brochures, and there is a rich online resource available for the member to peruse.
The industry would like certainty, but the industry is also planning without that certainty right now. We want to provide that certainty. That’s what the province of British Columbia wants. What the government of Canada has told us is that they want a pan-Canadian approach. We need Quebec and Atlantic Canada — in particular, Nova Scotia — to also share, with the public health officer, the science-based approach, the confidence that we can do this safely.
I would expect that if there are Canadian safe cruise guidelines that are developed and published that allow the cruise industry to resume out of Canada’s ports earlier than February of 2022, those will be developed significantly with the collaboration of the U.S. CDC.
I’ve also shared with the member that there’s some political uncertainty with what’s going on in the United States right now. The original solution on technical stops advanced by the Alaskans was not validated by the U.S. border and customs patrol. So that legislative mechanism looks to be unhelpful for Canada.
It’s really about reopening the ports. When is it going to happen? What signal is the government of Canada going to give? The Prime Minister said June 21, six days from now, is when he will give a comprehensive border reopening plan for the country. Really, the variables are: do the ports open in advance of the published date, or if they remain in February 2022, is that a firm commitment that the industry can plan around?
I’m happy to see that the private sector cruise lines are planning around it. This is a choice, premium global destination for the cruise industry. Prior to the pandemic, we were on a magnificent growth trajectory in the province of B.C. I think, in 2019, we had a 22 percent increase of cruise passengers leaving Canada’s ports over 2018.
Before the world was disrupted by the pandemic, B.C. was increasing its market share, and the cruise industry was putting more vessels and having more departures for the Port of Vancouver than they’d ever experienced in history. We want to get back to that. We want to work, and have been working, with the Alaskans. Right now the most important thing is that Canada considers public health advice.
They have certainly engaged with the Premier. I know that Minister Mark has met with Minister Joly. I know that Minister Mark has met with others that have an association with the industry. I have met with my counterpart — I’ve explained that to the member — to give our view. I was very happy to see Bonnie Henry say on the record yesterday, in one of her three-times-weekly health briefings to British Columbians, that there was a significant amount of work being done based around the public health guidelines in the United States.
The member’s point, I think, if I’m reading it correctly, is yeah, the United States is planning to reopen its cruise industry. They haven’t done so yet. They have trial sailings. I don’t know if they have departed just yet.
These are uneconomic sailings to test the safety guidelines that have been published. They will have, perhaps, 10 percent of their typical passenger load, and they will look — if there is success from those conditional sailing certificates — to have additional sailings under the guidelines that have been published. I’ve shared with the member the details of those guidelines. For most cruise ships, it will be 50 to 75 percent capacity. There will be masks, PPE and other protective measures in place on a ship sailing in America in July and August that will conform to the guidelines. Cruise lines are looking at a vaccination requirement, for example, of 90 to 95 percent.
These are all influencing Canada’s decision. It has to be one of the longest land borders in the world — I think I’m accurate in saying that — and complex, in terms of the number of provinces bordering the number of states along the border, but an issue that our province and other provinces have been sharing advice to the government of Canada about.
They are on the eve of a decision. It will happen next week. We have urged them to bring clarity and deal with the issue around marine borders at the same time they deal with the land border.
Airport authority executives have also had access to our government and our public health officials to make their case with Ottawa about what they think the COVID safety metrics should look like for reopening international airports to American travellers.
I think that the approach British Columbia has taken on safely reopening literally dozens and dozens of industries and economic activities in B.C. has been the right one. The results are there for people to judge, in terms of the COVID safety for our citizens relative to many, many jurisdictions in the world. We’re at the upper tier of one of the safest places that weathered the pandemic together but also saw among the least amount of economic disruption in activity.
It is extraordinary that B.C.’s job recovery rate is 99 percent of what it was before the pandemic. It’s welcome and good news that economists from banks and credit unions in B.C. have seen a negative GDP growth rate far less severe than was originally anticipated. B.C. stacks up as the best in Canada in that regard.
It is also very positive, from the projections going forward from the Economic Forecast Council and other economists in the country, that B.C. can expect a 4½ percent rate of growth in GDP this year and a similar rate of growth in GDP next year. That’s how you manage things well.
Look, every jurisdiction in the world was trying to figure out what rules would work. All of us were trying to figure out what the threat of the virus was and to live around it and to try and restore things in our lives that could be done and work around things that couldn’t be done because of COVID safety.
We’ve been through some harrowing times in Canada. British Columbia has had some very difficult periods. We came out of Christmas and in the New Year with some additional concern about COVID. It was anticipated that the virus would spread in indoor settings that the winter brought upon us, and in fact, it did.
Then we got into new variants coming into the country, which have also been of concern. If the member listens to Dr. Henry, we continue to very actively monitor the delta variant, for example, and how that could spike up numbers if we’re not too careful.
We are in a place today, here in the second week of June, that I don’t think anybody could have imagined in February. The vaccine rates at that time — I’ve shared this with the member as well — were 2 percent of Canadians, far behind the United States, but have caught up well, getting close to 75 percent with a first dose of vaccine now. Children as young as 12 are receiving their first dose of vaccine in British Columbia. This is fantastic news.
We think that all of this information — and this is definitely the view of Dr. Henry — is absolutely pertinent and crucial to the federal government exercising their sole discretion, their sole constitutional responsibility, around undoing some of the extraordinary measures they had to take as they relate to the border. That means signalling a different course. Perhaps it’s going to be in stages. I don’t know. I am eager to hear what he says on June 21.
As I say again to the member, the Premier has been clear that we want clarity on the marine border at the same time as we get that on the land border. We need the advice of airport executives in international airports in British Columbia to also be part of what the government of Canada announces.
M. Lee: Well, the minister had 56 seconds left, but he chose to give the floor to me. We’ve been at this now for almost two hours and 40 minutes, I guess, and he chooses to use 15 minutes for a response.
I get it. I get that the minister doesn’t want to answer my questions. I understand this.
Let me ask a question to you, Minister. What is the Premier’s stance when he goes to meet the first ministers and the Prime Minister on June 21? Is he going to advocate for the lifting of that ban on February 28, 2022, to give certainty to the industry and to the sector? Is he prepared to make a public statement today that that is the position he’s going to take? Is that the position the minister’s taking? Is that the position this government is taking to give certainty to the sector?
Hon. R. Fleming: I can’t speak for the Premier, but I know he’s been on the public record many times, urging the Prime Minister to deal with the marine border at the same time he does with the land border. We’ve talked for many hours now about the position I’ve advanced on behalf of the province of B.C. with my counterpart the minister of transportation, Minister Alghabra, in Ottawa.
We have spent many hours now completely dissociated from the main body of estimates at hand. I haven’t had a single question about infrastructure or about programs or about any of our public transit authorities from the member opposite. He’s asked me about various letters that weren’t even directed to me. I’ve done my best to answer them. I’ve talked about the all-of-government approach involving the IGRS. I’ve talked about our calls for the government of Canada to seriously consider the interests of our tourism industry here in B.C. The Premier has said the same to his counterparts.
I’ll correct the member a little bit. The Premiers, first ministers, of the country are meeting this week and meeting with the Prime Minister this week. The Prime Minister is making an announcement on the border next week. So that meeting is not on June 21. It’s not between the Premiers and the Prime Minister. That’s this week. That’s imminent. It’s interesting that we spent 100 percent of the time in this set of estimates talking about this question.
The member opposite is in the habit of writing me lots of letters, sometimes after the fact, when I’ve made announcements. But I appreciate them nonetheless.
He’s written to me about very valid concerns about intercity bus operators who, during the COVID pandemic restrictions, saw a 95 percent drop in ridership. He asked about how they were going to be rescued, and we responded with a $16 million package.
He asked me about regional air carriers and the economic hardship they were experiencing, and I appreciated getting that letter. We worked with Ottawa on getting a package. We’re just getting to phase 2 of that package for our regional airlines to keep service connecting communities across B.C.
He’s written to me about the freshet and the flooding in the Cariboo, which is obviously a real, live concern. We’ve put 200 people on the ground to begin repairing roads there. I appreciated his interest in that.
I’ve cited some of the letters he’s written. I’ve actually looked for a letter from him to me about port reopening and about border policy and about technical stops or anything related to the cruise industry, and I received no letter from the member opposite. So he’s very good at correspondence, but he wrote nothing on the cruise ship industry. I find that interesting.
He’s suggested in this set of estimates that we should have been calling in October for the overturn of the port ban that Canada brought in. I can tell you that nobody in the world, and certainly not in Canada, was calling for that at that time. There was considerable concern about the spread of COVID-19 through the winter and early part of this year. The industry itself has said they stand by and understand the decision the Prime Minister made to close the ports. Some of them aren’t even calling for the port ban to be overturned before February of 2022. So he’s, I think, advancing a position that is even ahead of where the industry is at.
The options on the table are twofold: the government will rescind the February 2022 ban on Canadian ports for the cruise ship industry and replace it with a new date, or they will maintain it and send out the signal that they will not extend it beyond February 2022. Those are the two options. The cruise industry and the port authorities have said they can live with either one, and the market is already rallying around the idea that we will have a strong spring cruise season in British Columbia in 2022.
There is a glimmer of hope, and it’s thanks to the leadership of the public health office, working with Dr. Tam in Ottawa, that we could provide some certainty a little bit sooner. I can’t say that for certain today. It’s not my role to say; it’s the Prime Minister’s. But we have been given an opportunity to provide advice and insights from British Columbia — I have — to my counterpart in Ottawa, and I’ve done so.
Madam Chair, we’ve spent a lot of time on this. I feel like we’re not getting into any new questions. I’m sure the member will have more, but this is quite a departure from how estimates normally work — to not have received a single question about the service plan, the $948 million operating budget for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, or any capital programs, including ones that are in his constituency, like the Broadway subway line, which is a massive pandemic economic recovery opportunity that will create tens of thousands of jobs, activate contractors and supply chains, be good for businesses, and train Indigenous workers and women and other people that are underrepresented in the trades.
These are fantastic things that are happening in British Columbia at exactly the right time, when we’re trying to recover a strong economy here in B.C. and build back better. There are some projects in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure that actively demonstrate that plan that we have as the whole of government, but I’ve yet to receive a single question on that.
The Chair: Member, this is becoming a tad circular. I would like to remind the member that the committee is discussing Vote 43. Can you please ensure that your questions are clearly relevant to this vote.
Thank you, Member. You may continue.
M. Lee: Well, the relevance is, Madam Chair, that the minister, in answer to my questions, has indicated his involvement, when the House was not even aware of his involvement. When members of our opposition caucus asked questions of this government about the cruise ship industry on March 23, it wasn’t the minister who stood up; it was the Minister of Tourism.
The Minister of Tourism continued to stand up week after week to answer on behalf of the government — if it wasn’t the Premier. We didn’t hear from this Minister of Transportation until, I think, June 3.
To us on this side of the House, it seemed as if the file had shifted from one minister to the other. But, certainly, I take the minister’s point. In the course of this conversation, it’s evident that the minister has had involvement, but it seems to have missed in all sorts of regards.
The industry, CLIA, was communicating with the Minister of Tourism and didn’t even copy the Minister of Transportation, as he mentioned, on that letter. If the Minister of Transportation was engaged with the industry, CLIA, why is it that they wrote the letter only to the Minister of Tourism on April 28? If this minister was clearly communicating with the cruise ship industry in this province, why is it that CLIA would write their letter to the Minister of Tourism and not even copy the Minister of Transportation?
I get it. I get the minister does not want to answer my questions. I understand in terms of the convoluted nature in the way he’s answering my questions for the last three-plus hours. I understand it.
It’s just endemic of when the Premier yesterday, in QP, responded to the fact that…. “Again, I’ll confirm for those on the other side that there are no cruise ships going up and down the coast of North America today” — I think he might mean the west coast, or maybe he meant the east coast, but we’re sitting here in British Columbia, so let’s just assume he meant any coast, including the west coast, the one that we care about — “and there won’t be for the foreseeable future.”
Well, last time I checked, “foreseeable future” includes next month. How can the Premier and this government be missing so much about what’s important to the cruise ship industry? Again, the minister, in response, continues to talk about what is happening next year, the summer of 2022.
I put into the record, just as he has done, the cruise ships that are sailing to Alaska in the summer of 2021, bypassing British Columbia because this government wasn’t able to advocate to the federal government to deal with the Alaskans to put in those technical stops so that that bill, the temporary measure, did not come into place.
It’s very clear. Even in CLIA’s letter at the end of April, they are asking the B.C. government to give the advice and the clarity that’s needed to the Public Health Agency of Canada and Transport Canada. The reason for that is because when CLIA was talking to the federal government, they were saying: “Go talk to the B.C. government, because we’re giving considerable deference to the B.C. government.”
This minister and this government may want to stand behind constitutional jurisdictions, but this is also a cooperative federalism model. We expected leadership from this minister, not missing in action like the Premier.
I don’t have any more questions because we do have to move on. I will now invite the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, who is the critic for B.C. Ferries, to ask questions to the minister on B.C. Ferries.
J. Sturdy: Thank you for the opportunity to be here and to ask a few questions of the minister with regard to B.C. Ferries.
I think we certainly understand that the impacts of COVID on the ferry service have been pretty dramatic — in fact, arguably as dramatic or more so with regard to the regional travel bans than on some of the other public networks, although certainly TransLink and B.C. Transit have been seriously impacted.
The safe restart agreement is clearly very important to the sustainability of the service. I heard the minister this morning mention $308 million with regard to the safe restart. I take it that’s a cost share with the federal government, so it’s actually $154 million from the province. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s good to see him — virtually, in this case.
To the Ferries critic, he is correct. It is $308 million. That was part of a safe restart package for B.C.’s three main transportation authorities — B.C. Ferries, TransLink and B.C. Transit — which totalled $1.044 billion.
B.C. Ferries’s share was $308 million. It was 50-50 partnership funding from the province and the federal government. So $154 million from each partner, in recognition of the reduction in fares and the additional money that would be necessary to keep B.C. Ferries’s sailing schedule intact while it was declared an essential transportation service for the duration of the pandemic. That was anticipated, in the package, to last until March 31, 2022.
I know the member will have other questions, but I am pleased to see the response from British Columbians to the announcement from Dr. Henry yesterday about stage 2 and stage 3 and then, eventually, stage 4 of our reopening plan. It was received by…. In this case, I can actually say that a website crashing is good news or a good sign. It was restored at midnight, but B.C. Ferries’s website did crash yesterday because British Columbians are very eager to get out and spend their hard-earned money and have a vacation and enjoy accommodations and the spectacular coastal communities that are linked by our B.C. Ferries network.
That is really the main task for TransLink, B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries. It was understanding and supporting a loss of business that was deemed non-essential. The agreement, the restart funding, was absolutely vital to B.C. Ferries, in this case, being able to maintain service so people could get to medical appointments or get to and from work or whatever essential activities they’re engaging in.
Look, this is a pretty fantastic partnership with Ottawa, particularly as it relates to B.C. Ferries, because we do not get operating contributions, as the member well knows, annually. We take the position — I think his government took the position — that our coast is part of our marine highway system and that there should be some participation from Ottawa. That has been a position that has not been taken up, but it was during the pandemic. I want to thank the federal government, the Prime Minister, who responded to that specific request from the Premier.
That was probably the most difficult part of the negotiation about the whole restart package: that B.C. Ferries had to be considered, given the number of communities — major cities here on the coast, smaller towns and communities, Island communities, Indigenous communities. In order for no one to be affected by sailing reductions, service reductions, and face isolation and, potentially a disruption of medical attention or their link to the economy, if it was the case of their job, we needed consideration for B.C. Ferries. The Premier was successful in getting that.
I know that the CEO of B.C. Ferries was in the media today, specifically pointing out how positive it was that B.C. and Canada were able come up with a safe restart package that included B.C. Ferries.
J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I think it is important to acknowledge that the federal government does make a regular contribution. I’m sure the minister didn’t mean to suggest that they don’t, albeit a small one, especially relative to the east coast contributions.
Is it fair to say that B.C. Ferries’ resources, notwithstanding the restart contribution, have been depleted and are being depleted over, certainly, the time of the COVID pandemic? It will be some time before we see travel patterns restored to 2019 levels — which I believe were, essentially, record levels — and recognizing that there are significant contributions from the users, not just in fares but also in usage of retail and food and beverage.
What does the minister anticipate B.C. Ferries’ fiscal position will be once the restart money is used up, I guess, for lack of a better term, and it takes some time for travel patterns to be restored? What is the minister thinking in terms of what this situation is going to look like at the end of the year and in the years following?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I wouldn’t be in a position to speculate if $308 million is the magic number for some of the fare losses that B.C. Ferries has had. Those agreement discussions started last summer. Of course, we had a relatively normal summer and a restoration of the travelling public last summer when COVID numbers were very low.
The better time to really answer the member’s question will come after we’ve had the summer and the peak season, which extends through most of October this year — so this fall. We would expect B.C. Ferries will start to release some financial reporting towards the end of the calendar 2021 year, after they’ve been through that period.
The member is correct. I was in error. The federal contribution is normally about $30 million a year. So the fiscal position that was reported in December 2020 for B.C. Ferries would show that at that time, having received $308 million from the safe restart agreement, plus the annual $200 million — rough number — contribution for sailing subsidy from the province and the annual, at least since 1977, $30 million contribution from the federal government, they had about $500 million worth of contributions from B.C. under the safe restart agreement — an extraordinary contribution from the federal government as well.
J. Sturdy: Thank you for that answer. I hope the minister keeps an eye on that federal contribution and works to encourage the federal government to up that contribution. I recognize that the maritime contribution — which is significantly greater, from the federal government — is, to some degree, baked into the creation of this country. However, that doesn’t mean that our ferry service is any less valuable.
I think an additional contribution would support local travel, would support communities up and down the coast, First Nations and others. I’m sure the minister will make some efforts to enhance the federal government contribution.
From a ministry perspective, what does the minister see, on a good year, as the retained earnings for B.C. Ferries? What can they reasonably expect to be able to reinvest or pay down debt with on a regular basis?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, thank you for his question. Thank you for the preamble, which was to urge our government to work with the federal government to make a pandemic innovation — in this case, a significant contribution to keeping B.C. Ferries running. That’s a post-pandemic innovation.
I know the federal contribution hasn’t budged since 1977, so under governments of various political stripes, that, unfortunately, has been the case. But after a once-in-a-century event like this pandemic, perhaps that recognition from Ottawa will be achieved. It’s certainly something I’ll be pushing for. I haven’t had a chance to talk to Minister Alghabra about that. The inequities the member has mentioned with Atlantic Canada are well known to the government, but they bear repeating, I think, as we recover.
In answer to his specific question, the government service contract with B.C. Ferries is based on four-year performance terms. The current contract for performance term 5 covers the period 2020-21 to ’23-24. The service plan is based on three years, and the current coastal ferries budget in the service plan for this set of estimates is $231.115 million each year. This level of funding was used by the B.C. ferries commissioner to set annual price cap increases at no more than 2.3 percent per year.
Provincial funding levels are usually set so that they can limit fare increases to something around the inflation rate. That’s one of the many measures this government has used to promote affordability. And it comes after…. Of course, we made some price adjustments: a 15 percent cut to sailing rates earlier in the first term on some routes and the restoration of free travel during weekdays for seniors. But that’s how it’s regulated, and it’s based on the funding level in this set of budget estimates.
Now, to the other part of his question. Should actual costs under the contract exceed the budget amount for any reason, the ministry will ensure that it meets its financial commitment to B.C. Ferries within our overall budget.
J. Sturdy: Just for clarity, the 15 percent cut to rates…. There was a contribution from the provincial government towards that, I think. But ultimately, the bulk of it was carried by the corporation itself.
My understanding of the provincial contribution is not…. There’s no CPI component to it. It’s a fixed amount for the performance term. Is that something that the minister feels is equitable and that doesn’t put additional pressure on the ferry corporation, especially in times like these where we’re seeing reduced ridership over this period of this last year and reduced revenues from other services?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. The point the member made around equity is something the commissioner took into account when government brought the fares down in the first year of its mandate. The commissioner’s analysis took that into account for the price caps. Government did not pay that on a one-time basis. It pays the amount of money that it cost the province to bring the prices down on an ongoing basis. So that’s baked in, if you will, into PT5.
J. Sturdy: Understood. But costs are up. Ridership and retail are down, yet the provincial contribution is fixed. It doesn’t seem like a situation that will end particularly well, short of ridership dramatically increasing and retail revenues coming back.
Maybe I missed it. I apologize. Did the minister speak to what his sense of an average retained earnings is?
Hon. R. Fleming: Retained earnings vary by year. The regulatory environment that has been designed to give B.C. Ferries sufficient funds to support its operations, its debt obligations, its borrowing requirements for fleet capital — these are all things that are included in the law that the commissioner analyzes around sustainability of operations.
That’s important. But to go back to the $308 million in safe restart funding, this puts B.C. Ferries on a very strong footing to recover. We expect to see ridership rebound. The safe restart funding is built to be patient in that regard.
Look. Again, judging by last night on the B.C. Ferries website — when it could not handle the volume of people that were trying to log on and make bookings, and the website temporarily crashed — it looks like there’s significant, pent-up demand to go and visit people on the Mainland or for Mainlanders to come to the Island and be able to see one another, to embrace the 50-people outdoor gatherings and all those sorts of things that are possible now.
We were very happy, as a matter of fact, to see some of the declines in ridership when non-essential travel was banned, particularly during the circuit breaker period that we’ve just been through in the spring.
The signs are good, as I said in an earlier answer. B.C. Ferries…. We’ll have a much better idea, once we’ve been through the summer and peak season, to see where we’re at. I think that based on the comments from the CEO himself recently in the media, that safe restart agreement, which was negotiated by the Premier with the Prime Minister and the government of Canada, was absolutely needed to be able to meet the essential transportation requirements that were part of the emergency orders in this province to keep service levels maintained.
Now we come to the rebuilding process. I think the lifting of provincial health restrictions, the updates from Bonnie Henry around safe travel and what summer is going to look like have given people things to think about in their lives, and clearly, they’re thinking about travelling again to see friends and loved ones.
J. Sturdy: I don’t disagree with the minister, although I think he’s a bit optimistic in terms of recovery. I would agree with the CEO in that there is no question that that safe restart money was absolutely critical. Without it, we would have seen dramatic service reductions. I mean, there really isn’t any other choice.
I think, from what I’ve read and looked at, it appears that by the end of this performance term — the minister says, I think, 2023-24 — B.C. Ferries will have depleted its financial resources to some degree. It will just have less ability to move. It will have marginally increased its debt outside of its capital debt. It will have delayed…. In fact, it currently has delayed the capital plan for vessel acquisition and for terminal improvements. I think you’re focusing purely on safety improvements, which is entirely appropriate. Nonetheless, it does have impacts on the provision of services going forward.
I would point out to the minister — I hope he’s aware of this; I’m sure he is — that the Coastal Ferry Act does not actually allow for the commissioner to consider debt repayment outside of the currently being considered performance term. So at this point, with essentially no retained earnings for a couple of years, with delayed capital plans and no sinking fund or no reserve fund to pay for debt…. Maybe the minister could help us understand what…. I understand there’s significant debt that starts to come due in 2029-2030, and there is no provision, from what I understand, for repayment of that debt.
Given, as I say, the limited retained earnings and the challenges that go with the pace and the slow recovery that’s anticipated…. Albeit, I think we’re all very thrilled with what happened last night. I don’t think we want to see the system go down. Nonetheless, it does display an enthusiasm on behalf of the travelling public.
To reference back to the minister’s previous conversation with the Transportation critic, we’re not expecting to see international visits for some time yet. So all of this is playing into an ability for B.C. Ferries to reinvest and also, ultimately, pay down debt and pay off some of the bonds that are out there and are coming due, with limited provision for an ability to pay.
Hon. R. Fleming: I apologize to the member for the time there.
Essentially, there’s a task force between the board chairs, the executive team at B.C. Ferries and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. They worked on the restart agreement. They are monitoring the post-pandemic recovery.
I wouldn’t go to a dire place around B.C. Ferries. I think there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic. They managed very well and exceeded expectations and targets at various phases during the pandemic. They have had their minds on a number of innovations around the reservation system and other passenger improvements, once the time is right, to support ridership recovery.
They went into this pandemic in very good shape. It was a healthy company going in, and we expect it to be a healthy company going out. The restart funding was absolutely essential for that. I think $600 million in equity going into the pandemic.
The sense I’m getting from B.C. Ferries, from their team, is: “Yes. We are going to monitor things closely.” They are going to respond to the new reductions in health restrictions and travel restrictions and begin serving the travelling public in a very busy way, likely. I think the summer season, the peak season, is going to be very important to monitor. They’re up for the challenge.
There are many that are expecting…. Really, the challenge is going to be to help British Columbians get to their domestic travel destinations this summer. That’s a good problem to have after British Columbians having to live in lockdown and not being able to enjoy and explore our coastal communities.
There is, I think, reason for cautious optimism. That is underpinned by the safe restart agreement. That was absolutely essential for B.C. Ferries to be able to maintain essential service levels and to have a strong outlook for the pandemic recovery.
J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for that. I think we differ a little bit in terms of our assessment of the fiscal situation. I think it’s important to recognize that the commissioner is constrained in his ability to consider debt repayment. I think it would be worthwhile for the province and the government to consider an amendment to the ferries act to allow for the commissioner to consider long-term debt repayment and the creation of reserve funds.
At this point, the commissioner isn’t allowed to do that. I don’t think it provides a strength in the company over time. I think currently B.C. Ferries has about a $1.5 billion debt — and a strong and robust capital plan, but based on the revenues of strong ridership. I think it’s acknowledged that like with the transit system, it’s going to take some significant time to recover to previous pre-pandemic levels.
I think it’s worthwhile for the province to consider that type of amendment. I’d be interested in the minister’s comment on that.
Beyond that, there was a change in the legislation, as the minister I’m sure is aware, with regard to the authority board and the mandate of the authority board, to include “in support of public interest.” I wonder if the minister can comment on how he’s seen that implemented. Or how has it been implemented? Has it had tangible impacts?
Also, I was reading the authority board’s annual report. It mentions that there was a protocol agreement that they terminated with B.C. Ferries in June of 2020. I wasn’t able to dig up what that protocol agreement is, why it was necessary and why it was terminated. Will it be replaced?
The Chair: Members, we will now take a five-minute recess while we undertake the cleaning and safety protocols in preparation for a new committee Chair.
The committee recessed from 2:57 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.
[A. Walker in the chair.]
The Chair: Thank you, Members, for your patience.
Minister.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to these proceedings.
Thank you to the member for the question, related to the 2019 legislative amendments that were passed. The substance of the change was that it clarified the oversight role as it relates to the B.C. Ferry Authority board and its ability to provide input on the strategic direction of B.C. Ferries that meets the test of public interest.
I would direct the member to the annual report issued by the B.C. Ferry Authority board, which talks at length about the provincial vision on public interest that was outlined originally by the Redlin report. His other question — I think there were two in there — was around the protocol agreement that previously was in place between Ferry Services and the Ferry Authority. Were that to be renewed or restored, that would be a decision made by both boards — B.C. Ferry Services and B.C. Ferry Authority.
J. Sturdy: In reference to the B.C. Ferry Authority annual report, it says: “Also, as a result of the changes in the legislation pertaining to the authority’s mandate, the protocol agreement which came into effect in October 2010 will be terminated, effective June 25, 2020.”
That one seems to me that it was very much a direct result of the changes in legislation. Again, to the minister: I’m not familiar with that protocol agreement. I wonder if the minister could help me understand what it is and why it was required to be terminated. Will it be replaced? If not, why is it no longer necessary?
Hon. R. Fleming: In answer to the question from the member, the protocol agreement is in no way linked to the 2019 legislation that we were discussing previously. The dissolution of that protocol agreement has nothing to do with the ministry, so it’s difficult for me to answer. I do understand it was an internal protocol used between the two boards and was dissolved or made redundant as a decision between the two board chairs.
J. Sturdy: Okay. I’m just reading straight out of the authority’s annual report. As I say, it says: “As a result of the changes in the legislation pertaining to the authority’s mandate, the protocol agreement which came into effect in October 2010 will be terminated….” I’m not sure that that was a mutual agreement. And I’m not sure why…. Well, to some degree, it contradicts the minister’s response there.
I will maybe look to another piece of the B.C. Ferry Authority annual report. I’m again quoting: “On the basis of meetings with the minister and MOTI staff, it became apparent that once completed, the visioning process planned by MOTI, aimed at establishing a long-term vision for the coastal ferry service, would serve to further inform the authority of its role with respect to its strategic oversight responsibility.”
Has this visioning process occurred? If not, when will it occur? Perhaps the minister could help us understand who was in attendance or was responsible for this process — perhaps through a deputy or at a deputy level.
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, just to go back to his previous question — I’ll be very brief on this — the protocol that he referenced was the determination of the boards. It was not required by the legislation. It was not directed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
In my understanding, it was dissolved, and it was a decision of the board chairs to do so. I just wanted to make him clear on that. It was not in any way linked to the legislation. So I can’t speak to his reading or interpretation of the Ferry Authority annual report, but it certainly was not part of the 2019 amendments.
On the issue of the visioning process that the member raised, this was a highly public process. Prior to COVID, it was one of the most significant public engagements that the province of B.C. had ever undertaken. Who was involved was one of the questions the member posed. So 5,000 individuals from right across British Columbia were involved. This was an open process, open to the public. It was followed up by specific stakeholder engagements that were led by my predecessor, Minister Claire Trevena.
The report was released in September of 2020. The whole genesis of the report was that one of the core and key recommendations of the Redlin report was to talk to ferry users, talk to British Columbians about what the purpose is, what the vision is, for B.C. Ferries. It was a future-oriented exercise, and as I mentioned, it was one that was very well subscribed in terms of the opportunity British Columbians had to, in fact, participate in that process.
J. Sturdy: Okay. Well, I’ll look forward to reviewing the new report, because this was the 2020 annual report. My apologies for misunderstanding or getting my timing wrong.
I see, though, that the ministry has…. As a result of the legislation, there has been a change in terms of approach with regard to the authority board and the board appointments. I see that, essentially, through OIC, I suppose, the majority of the authority board has changed. It’s interesting to note that with labour, government certainly has a majority on the authority board now.
With regard to the authority board’s approach to service board appointments, has that approach at all changed? I think in the past it was described as a collaborative approach. Would the minister still describe it as such?
Hon. R. Fleming: The board is still nine members. Government does not appoint half of them. They appoint four of them. Four come from local areas. So they’re nominated by a local government — the north coast, north Island, Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland. Those are not nominated by government. Four are. The labour representative is a nominee not made by government but by the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers. So that’s the composition of the nine-member board.
J. Sturdy: I think the question was more about the authority board’s approach toward service board appointments and whether it remains a collaborative approach. Perhaps I’ll ask the minister to respond to that. Maybe he can’t. Fair enough.
Maybe one thing he could provide me with some insight on is that it appears that the authority board’s budget has tripled over the past year, from a quarter million to three-quarters of a million dollars. I wonder if the minister is aware of that and perhaps could shed some light on why that would have happened.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. It has always been the role of the B.C. Ferry Authority to appoint the B.C. Ferry Services board. That is unchanged. That has not changed. At least, it has not changed since around 2009 or 2010. That remains consistent.
In terms of the B.C. Ferry Authority budget, it has increased. That’s correct. Those changes are not linked, in the budget, to an increase in the number of board members. It’s the same. It is a reflection of the increased area of responsibility that the Ferry Authority board has.
J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for the response. I’m well aware that the authority board has always had responsibility for the services board appointments. As I say, it was more about the approach and whether it remained a collaborative approach. Perhaps the minister can’t comment on that.
Moving on to just one last area I’d like to explore a little bit. My time has, unfortunately, come close to running out.
The Premier and others…. I’m not actually sure if the minister has made statements about this or not. There has been much discussion or consideration of what B.C. Ferries’ responsibility is for building ships in British Columbia. It’s been a challenge, certainly. I think there’s a long history there, which I’m sure the minister is very well aware of.
I wonder if there is a strategy with regard to an initiative for shipbuilding in British Columbia, generally, but, more specifically, with regard to B.C. Ferries. I understand that there’s an advisory group that is informing government policy.
At what point would we expect to see an articulated policy? Is there a sense of what the right type of production is for a made-in-B.C. B.C. Ferries shipbuilding program?
Hon. R. Fleming: The lead for the made-in-B.C. shipbuilding strategy is with the Jobs and Economic Recovery Ministry. That’s obviously very exciting for the province — to rebuild our shipbuilding capacity here in the province of B.C., to support more high-paying, high-skill B.C. jobs, to revitalize our shipyards.
Of course, the member will be aware that a significant boost to that effort was secured by the Premier, who successfully argued for and received support from the federal government on polar 8 Coast Guard vessels to be built in B.C. Seaspan will be a major beneficiary of that. That will help them make investments, knowing that they have that amount of federally supported work coming into B.C., to have a capacity for B.C. Ferries and other made-in-B.C. shipbuilding suppliers.
I would add that there is some exciting news from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure that does touch upon made-in-B.C. shipbuilding efforts. One that we will begin construction on this summer in Nelson, B.C. was a contract that was awarded last September, $62.9 million, to design and build a ferry for Kootenay Lake. Western Pacific Marine of Vancouver was the winner of that. That’s an important project that will begin construction, as I said, this summer and will be very important for the economy in Nelson, B.C.
J. Sturdy: Certainly, I appreciate and understand the contract for the inland ferry service. I was speaking more in terms of a coastal ferry service.
I think the minister is well aware that there is a premium for ships built here. As I said, I understood there was an advisory group that was informing government policy here, and I wondered: are we going to see an articulated policy? Is there really a sense of what makes sense? Does it make sense, here in British Columbia, to build ships from the hull on up, or are there components that were better suited to adding value? It is a complicated issue — I certainly understand that — and not without its risks, as I’m sure the minister very much appreciates.
Will we expect to see a policy coming out of this government with regard to coastal ferries and the construction of coastal ferries here in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Fleming: As I mentioned in my previous answer, JERI is the lead on developing the strategy.
This is something that’s very exciting for the province — to enhance our capacity so that we can build more classes of vessels. Our competitiveness comes from when shipyards in B.C. are making significant investments in their workforce, in their facilities. That received a significant boost with the polar 8. I’m really looking forward to the strategy. The Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation will be leading that effort to grow out that strategy.
Out of the gates, in terms of a new mandate, the Premier being able to secure federal resources that will expand our competitive capacity, lead to significant government investment that leverages private investment, I think is very good news for the B.C. shipbuilding industry. It could be the most significant news that we’ve had in a couple of decades. Certainly, we haven’t seen the scale of revitalization in shipbuilding capacity like this for a very long time.
J. Sturdy: I wouldn’t disagree with the minister with regard to increased capacity and the value of federal programs.
While the Minister of Jobs and Economic Recovery may well be responsible for the shipbuilding strategy, at the end of the day, it’s the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure who, with the responsibility for B.C. Ferries, has a big part to play in a mandate to purchase ships in British Columbia and the capital costs associated with that.
I will certainly look forward to hearing more about the impacts that these initiatives could potentially have on B.C. Ferries and, frankly, on the ratepayer. I think it’s conventionally understood to be something in the neighbourhood of a 30 percent premium on construction here in British Columbia. At the end of the day, those capital costs need to be paid by somebody. So it’s either the province or, maybe, in conjunction with a successful initiative in negotiations with the federal government to support capital costs for B.C. Ferries in a British Columbia–built ferry service — B.C. Ferries vessels built here in British Columbia.
At the end of the day, this is a responsibility that will lie on…. Its impacts will affect the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I look forward to learning more about what that plan looks like and assessing its impact, certainly on the travelling public. The minister is welcome to comment on that.
If I may, Chair, my critic has given me an opportunity to have a few more minutes to discuss local issues. I’m sure the minister will have anticipated some of my West Vancouver–Sea to Sky issues, and I’ll take this opportunity to canvass some of them. Maybe I’ll just leave it for a second.
Did the minister want to comment at all on made-in-B.C. ferries?
Hon. R. Fleming: Yeah. My only comment…. This could be an interesting discussion offline, and I’d invite the member to contact me about that.
I think what’s interesting is that we’re on a different trajectory now for B.C. shipbuilding. It needs to be informed by a strategy. B.C. shipbuilding capacity has suffered and waned. It has also increased. Certainly, ship repair and refit, at places like Point Hope Maritime, have benefited from B.C. Ferries contracts. They’ve demonstrated a competitiveness.
The options and choices we’d like to have to build larger classes of vessels are enhanced, as I mentioned, by things like a guaranteed supply of work for the Polar 8. That premium that the member mentioned between B.C. shipbuilding…. I presume he’s comparing it to Romania and Poland and places where vessels have been procured for B.C. Ferries. That premium only comes down as our level of investment and modernization of our shipyards in B.C. increases.
A big piece of that is the federal announcement that was made which leverages hundreds of millions of dollars of private sector investment in modern shipyards in B.C. That’s a very positive step in the development. It’s one that will inform, undoubtedly, B.C. Ferries’ capital plan, and it’s one that will provide significant benefits to B.C. taxpayers through the income and the taxes paid by having those jobs here in British Columbia as opposed to foreign shores. There’s a lot that will go into the economic multiplier that comes from having more vessels, not fewer, built in B.C.
Our capacity did suffer. It’s now building itself back up. I don’t think we’ve even begun to absorb how big of a boost that Polar 8 award was to B.C. It looked to be a possibility, a very unfortunate one, that all that work could have gone to Quebec yards. But the Premier stood up for B.C., worked with Seaspan and convinced the federal government that Canada’s west coast should be a huge part of the Coast Guard vessel shipbuilding program.
J. Sturdy: I will look forward to that offline discussion.
My research suggests that — what? — six times in the last century has there been a B.C. shipbuilding mandate. Every single time the minute the public dollars stopped flowing, the shipyard closed or scaled back to a skeleton and was a shadow of itself. It doesn’t have a particularly good history outside of those public dollars. But hey, I’m enthusiastic. I hope that it’s successful, and I hope that we can have a robust new shipbuilding industry here on the west coast. Again, I look forward to that opportunity to have an offline discussion.
If I might now pivot here to regional transit. I’m sure the minister is not going to be at all surprised by what I’d like to ask about, and that is regional transit for the Sea to Sky. Now, this is something that has been advocated for by every local government in the Sea to Sky, including the two significant First Nations — the Squamish Nation and the Lillooet.
I say significant not only because they are also significant investors in fuel distribution. I mention that because there’s a unanimous approach from the Sea to Sky to develop a public transit service that will connect Lillooet Nation and Mount Currie with Pemberton, and Pemberton with Whistler, and Whistler with Squamish, and Squamish with Britannia Beach and Porteau Cove and Lions Bay and Horseshoe Bay and West Vancouver and the city.
Since Greyhound left, the issue has become more acute. It’s been actually surprising. I’m sure the minister will be…. He may well be aware of traffic volumes in the Sea to the Sky over the course of the last year. Where one would expect to see very significant reductions in traffic, we’re really not down. We’re only down, I think, 10 percent, which is quite interesting.
It does highlight that once we see traffic come back, once we see people start commuting again, once we see…. Well, actually, I think, probably starting this weekend, we will see significant increases in volume. We have a limited capacity on the Sea to Sky highway, which the minister knows is an amazing piece of infrastructure but is essentially only three lanes — and, in fact, barely three lanes.
There are already congestion issues. We’re seeing tremendous growth in the Sea to Sky. Everybody is on the same page here about the need for a regional transit service. A proposition was made, as the minister will be aware. In 2016, we completed the Sea to Sky 25-year regional transit plan — again, unanimous support amongst the municipalities, First Nations, regional district. The recommendation was a transit commission and a transit levy to fund the service.
There’s much to commend this proposition. It’s a funding model that works in Metro Vancouver. It’s a funding model that works and was enhanced both in Metro Vancouver and in the capital regional district. I heard the member for the North Coast this morning speak glowingly about the northern regional service and additional investments in that service and the ability to connect remote communities that don’t have any other transit options. I think that’s exactly what we’re talking about here.
We have communities that have no other options other than your thumb or a car. It’s something that we all agree on, that we’re all supportive of. And now that we have a new minister in place, I wonder if the minister can articulate his support for this service and for the model that all these local governments have been promoting.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for this question. Indeed, it comes as no surprise that he would want to engage in this, and I appreciate that. I appreciate his passion for an active transit authority model in the Sea to Sky and intercity connections in that region between Pemberton, Squamish, Whistler and Vancouver, of course.
This is part of Minister Heyman’s mandate, specifically, as well. I’m sure he’s aware of that reference in his mandate letter.
There is a body of work, pre-COVID, that B.C. Transit has conducted under our government with local partners that would allow for the kinds of expansion and governance model and funding model that I think the member is speaking to. We did have extensive public engagement in 2017 and 2018 on a variety of options. I’m actually looking very much forward to renewing those discussions. There are some that are underway right now with our counterparts to do that. I have nothing to announce today for the member, so he’ll be disappointed in that, of course.
COVID has been a busy period for us. We’ve talked during these estimates about restart funding as it relates to B.C. Ferries, as it relates to B.C. Transit. It’s been absolutely essential to keep service maintained for his constituents during COVID. Just for his interest, Whistler has received $3.65 million in restart funding during the pandemic to maintain service; Squamish, $360,000; Pemberton, $210,000 for B.C. Transit.
There have been, unlike, perhaps, Highway 16…. He referenced the member for North Coast talking about B.C. Bus North and the exciting news around a funding model that will go to at least 2025 and be developed through the Northern Development Trust. That’s an area where there was no private coach operation after Greyhound pulled out. We had to create that.
At least in Sea to Sky, there are, I think, six providers that are private that do offer transit options on the corridor. But those are perhaps not satisfactory to those trying to get to and from work. They cater to different audiences. We’re interested in the work that was done in late 2018, going into 2019, where B.C. Transit created a Sea to Sky transit service area and a regional transit commission. We’ve got those changes in place.
We’re working towards what it might look like to create the level of service expansion that the member is talking about. We’d like to have some discussions with the federal government, too, about fleet enhancements. They’re very keen to work with the province on that. I can tell the member that the one wrinkle, I suppose, in the discussions — where we were pre-pandemic and post-pandemic — is the gas tax. Its sustainability has really taken a hit. In Sea to Sky…. I think volume of gasoline sales there are down by nearly a quarter.
What I can tell the member is that we’re involved with all the stakeholders in discussions about how we better integrate public transportation through the corridor, what better alignment we can have with TransLink once you cross Lions Bay, as well as B.C. Ferries, quite frankly, and other modes of transportation.
J. Sturdy: Well, that’s positive. I think I heard the minister say that there’s been creation of a transit commission for the Sea to Sky. I was not aware that that had happened. When will the minister be populating that commission?
Perhaps, if I might, as an addendum to that…. The recommendation around the commission was that it also included representation from the Squamish Nation and Líl̓wat. My understanding is that transit commissions are only…. The members have to be of a local government. In that case, the Squamish Nation and the Líl̓wat Nation representatives wouldn’t be eligible. That would require a change to legislation, I believe. When could we see that, in order to populate this commission appropriately?
Hon. R. Fleming: The member’s question is understandable. It’s a good one. But it arrives at a time when we are working very actively on the aspirations of the community to have better intercity bus connections in the Sea to Sky corridor.
That’s something that is in my mandate. I’m working with Minister Heyman on exactly that. We’re working with B.C. Transit on an analysis of what a sustainable model would look like and trying to secure other partnerships for that.
The member is correct. The commission was never named. It was contemplated, and I would expect that that would be part of the corridor connections and service that we’re actively looking at right now.
J. Sturdy: Given the constraints we have in time, perhaps there’s an opportunity for the minister to provide me with a bit of a briefing or have his staff provide me with a briefing on where we’re at, where the gaps are, what we can try and do to overcome them.
As the minister understands, we really don’t have a service that works for the people who live in the region. Any services that are there are pretty much focused on a different segment of the population. Given the housing crisis and given the shortage of labour and a need for people to move around the corridor efficiently and effectively and cost-effectively, it really is critical that we have a city-to-city bus service. I’ll look forward to being updated on that.
If I might, I have got one more issue. I know I’m being pushed by the Leader of the Third Party. I respect her time. I’m sorry about that. I apologize.
I did send off a note to the minister a month ago or so. Perhaps I sent it to the wrong email address. We have a long-standing issue up in the Sea to Sky with regard to CN Rail rights-of-way and the ability to cross those rights-of-way, especially for active transportation use. There have been many people very interested in this issue over the years. We worked with B.C. Rail Properties originally and then, ultimately, with CN and really haven’t made much progress.
Despite the fact that the rail line in the Sea to Sky is in a bit of a…. It’s in abeyance, frankly. There hasn’t been a train running for months and months. Nonetheless, CN seems to be up here ticketing people for crossing the line illegally. I don’t really understand why that’s a priority for them. However, we’re seeing — we track some of the usage on some of these trails — 500 to 600 crossings a day on a B.C. Rail or on a CN bridge.
We think that there’s an opportunity to do this safely, but we need the support of CN to build a crossing associated with the bridge that they have. There have been circumstances around the province where there are trails that are associated with bridge structures. Telkwa is one that comes to mind. I think there’s one in the Okanagan. However, we’ve been getting just nothing but push-back from CN.
We have many people who are very interested in this issue, some of whom have reviewed the B.C. Rail-CN lease agreement. It appears that there is an opportunity for the province to require a right-of-way for community benefit.
I’ll quote the page. I don’t expect a response right away here. I understand this is a complicated situation. However, on page 109 of the lease agreement, it says: “Statutory rights-of-way is subject to the terms of other MOT agreements. If and where required by the province, the landlord, the tenant and the B.C. Rail partnership, will, from time to time, grant registerable statutory rights-of-way over title or titles to all or such portions of the property as the province may require in respect to rights of access.” The layman’s interpretation is that the province could require CN to agree, or to accept, anyway, a right-of-way for trail use.
We have a great proposition, which would be funded by the local community, whereby waivers of liability would be provided and whereby the Municipal Insurance Association would be able to become involved. But we have an unwillingness to engage, with regard to CN. We do need a government sponsor to promote this. Obviously, it would be the province which would, essentially, require CN to become engaged and to come to an agreement.
I won’t ask the minister for an answer to this right now, but I will very much request that he look into this and see if we can find a way to resolve some of these crossing problems that we have that have been decades in the making.
At this point, there’s little, if any, effort on behalf of CN to resolve. Whereas, the community is more than willing to solve these problems.
With that, I’ll thank the minister and look forward to his response. Perhaps we can have a meeting to discuss the options.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. He threatened that this was his last question, and it was two questions, in fact. I’ll try and answer both of them.
The first was really around a request for a briefing on the Sea to Sky corridor. My response is: yes, we’ll absolutely do that. We beg of him a little bit of time to allow us to do some more substantive discussions and some more work. He caught us sort of midstream, trying to reactivate proposals, as we come out of COVID, to look for opportunities to build back better, if you will, and to reignite the interest there. I know he’s been passionate about it before. We’ve gotten close, and we want to have those discussions.
I put this delicately, but mayors and councillors come and go, so we’ve got new actors around the table in some of those communities. We’ve got stakeholders that are reaching out to have discussions. When there is an occasion to offer the member a briefing, absolutely, we will do that. We’ll keep in touch with him as that develops.
I would thank him for the letter — I did receive it and review it — about the issue around CN Rail. It does, indeed, sound like a safety issue, as well as the annoyance and cost of being ticketed for being on a rail line that is under a private lease agreement with CN. It sounds like this is a significant area of interest for lots of mountain bikers and recreational uses to get from one side of the track to the other.
I’ve reviewed his letter, as I mentioned. We will be drafting a response, and we’ll be getting back to him. I do thank him for bringing it to our attention. It was the first time I’d had an opportunity to understand that this was indeed an issue in his community. We’ll examine the content of that letter and give him a response in due course.
A. Olsen: I’ve been waiting an hour and 40 minutes to jump up and ask a question about cruise ships to the minister. But it’s not the question you’re thinking of.
I did ask the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture about an article that was written in February in Business in Vancouver about sewage grey water and scrubber wash water. I recognize that this is definitely coming from cruise ships but also from just large international vessels and that the Canadian laws….
Specifically, the British Columbia coast is more vulnerable than any other part of the coastline here in western North America because Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California have much stricter laws than we do about dumping sewage grey water and scrubber wash water. So this is the place that those vessels discharge.
I recognize it’s a federal responsibility, but since there’s been so much focus put on the conversations that are happening around the cruise ship industry between the provincial and federal governments, I thought that I would at least start this session that I and my colleague from Cowichan Valley have by putting it on the minister’s radar as well.
It is an issue that, with some changes to Canadian regulations and advocacy from this provincial government, we could improve the outcomes for the Salish Sea, which I know that we have some jurisdiction over. As well, a very big interest for our constituents. Just wanting to get the minister’s commitment to raise this issue with the federal government.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for raising it. It’s an important issue. It’s not one, perhaps, that the Ministry of Transportation would take the lead on. It would be the Ministry of Environment. They certainly have done so with the air pollution that is related to cruise ship traffic.
There have been some very good programs with the federal government that the Port of Vancouver has worked on: clean shore power to reduce air pollution and new standards around bunker fuel that reduce particulate matter.
The issue around marine pollution from sewage and grey water that the member raises is a good one. I’ll take his point that it’s of interest to all British Columbians, but it’s something that the member raises on behalf of his constituents — to talk to other members of the government about what engagements there have been or could be around this issue.
It does pain me to hear that the United States may have a higher standard than us in this regard. The member could be accurate there. I’ll have to go away and look into that.
I commit to him to have a conversation with some of my colleagues who are in a better position to have this discussion with Ottawa to see if there are opportunities to look at what the member has raised today.
A. Olsen: I recognize that there is a variety of ministries here to raise this with and that others are maybe better suited. I recognize that. I just thought I’d take advantage of the narrative that’s been rolled out over the last little bit to say…. We’re in these conversations, and there’s some timeliness to it, at the very least. So I appreciate the minister’s receptivity.
Going back to the member from Sea to Sky’s questions around B.C. Ferries, if I may, just for a moment, and the discussion around the $308 million that’s been put in place. My colleague from Sea to Sky has done a good job of outlining, I think, some of, maybe, the medium to long-term challenges that COVID might have on the three big transportation providers: TransLink, B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries.
As the member knows, my riding is…. B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries are very important to the constituents living in Saanich North and the Islands.
One of the…. I think this is an area that wasn’t canvassed. So maybe I’ll just ask. If it was, I was paying attention but maybe not. We’ve all been there. With respect to the impact of COVID on the bottom line for B.C. Ferries…. They have quite a robust capital plan. I’m wondering about the impact on ship replacement, terminal upgrades. We’re talking about a pretty substantial terminal upgrade at Swartz Bay but, as well, the need for terminal upgrades on most of the southern Gulf Islands that I represent.
I’m just worried about the potential impact of COVID on the capital budgets and the reserves within B.C. Ferries. Just recognizing that…. I’m wanting to get, I think, the minister’s perspective on whether or not we would use the COVID contingency funds that are set aside in order to support B.C. Ferries in becoming whole if, in fact, the impact of COVID-19 has had a damaging impact on the capital infrastructure plans that they have in place over the short, the medium and into the long term.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. We have canvassed, and I presume he is able to watch or read a written record of some of the questions, about the restart funding and how that was able to stabilize at exactly the right moment, during COVID, the fiscal integrity of B.C. Ferries as well as maintain service levels while the ferry service was deemed essential and ridership was significantly hampered. That is something that has really improved the outlook for B.C. Ferries.
I talked to the Ferries critic earlier about, really, a better period of time to look at revenue recovery, which, of course…. The authority internally funds its capital plan. It depends upon how healthy the revenue situation is, retained earnings, all those sorts of things. We’re going to have a better idea, after the summer and peak season, where B.C. Ferries is at.
In December of 2020, they did have over $500 million of government support given to them at really the height or the midpoint of the pandemic, which I know that B.C. Ferry Services and the executive team at B.C. Ferries were very thankful for. They did publicly announce some deferrals in their capital plan. They’ve mentioned some shifts from new vessels to refurbishments.
We’ll have better information later this year about what that looks like, but he can probably avail himself of the things that B.C. Ferries has publicly made known about how COVID thus far has impacted their capital program. I think it might be a fair characterization to say that B.C. Ferries is hopeful and optimistic that some of the earlier announcements that they’ve made could be further amended. But that’s the information I have at this point.
A. Olsen: I recognize that it’s very difficult to be answering these questions now, I think, in terms of what might be, and we have to see what is. However, I think the point of the question is more along the lines of just being able to articulate that my hope is that with some of the money that’s been set aside as a contingency for this government, B.C. Ferries be viewed in the light that it’s a necessary part of our transportation network, as the minister knows.
They were working towards upgrading, in their capital plan. It’s to ensure the sustainability of that system for the users. I would just voice my support, I should say, in the government making the investments in that system. If the capital plans are delayed because B.C. Ferries had to use money that it had or whatever the situation is, I’m voicing my support that we ensure that those capital plans continue as best as we possibly can. I’ll just leave it at that for now.
The member from Sea to Sky was talking about the bus transportation on the Sea to Sky. I wouldn’t say I’ve got a similar situation in terms of the distance but in the connectivity from greater Victoria out to the Swartz Bay ferry terminal, including the Victoria Airport Authority area.
I know the minister and I have had some initial conversations, since his appointment in this file, about the potential of a rapid bus, or at least the advocacy for a rapid bus, on the Saanich Peninsula. I’m just wondering if the minister can highlight any plans there might be in terms of advancing that and what the philosophy is around it and what we might see, going forward.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s, really, a couple of parts.
One is around Highway 17 physical improvements, along the lines of the queue-jumpers at Sayward. We’re just in the planning stage right now around Mt. Newton. For any additional initiatives that would help facilitate the speed at which bus service is improved on Highway 17, there is an opportunity with that. We’ll keep the member apprised of the planning exercise on that, when it becomes available.
In terms of rapid transit corridors that are identified by B.C. Transit and approved by the transit commission board, the Saanich Peninsula features very prominently in that, along with the West Shore and along with rapid bus that’s connected to the University of Victoria.
There is a new local area plan exercise that B.C. Transit is going to be leading, with a spotlight on the Saanich Peninsula. The process is in the very early stages right now. It is seen as a multi-month process, but it is in this fiscal plan, in this fiscal year. We’ll keep the member apprised of that as well.
I would say that I’m encouraged to have received correspondence recently from the CRD’s transportation committee that aligns perfectly with the types of strategic priorities that B.C. Transit has already identified. I think, in terms of having the regional district government and B.C. Transit both identifying what are priorities, including improved bus service for the Saanich Peninsula, serving the areas that the member identified, that is a good and recent occurrence. I was pleased to receive that from the CRD.
A. Olsen: I’m pleased that you received that from the CRD. That’s great news. I certainly appreciate the distinction. I think that when I was originally having this conversation, in years past, there was a perspective that perhaps more lanes, etc…. Really, I think what happened at Sayward, that infrastructure upgrade at Sayward, is in line with what’s needed.
I’ve lived my whole life on the Saanich Peninsula, and to at least get the buses out in front of traffic would be a really tremendous start. I know that the business community is in support of this work and in support of investments that would be made on that corridor. A substantive portion of the industrial lands in the capital regional district are in Keating and, as well, on the Sidney airport lands, the Sidney airport–North Saanich business park.
There’s about $1 billion worth of economic activity that’s generated there every year. There’s a lot of commuting into that area, and I think that this would be a really, really positive investment for the business community. As well, I think the business community would see that as an investment in their longevity in the area. I really encourage that continuing at the CRD level and, as well, with the provincial government.
One of the issues that’s been raised with me by the former member for Saanich North and the Islands and now my colleague, CRD director Gary Holman, is around the lack of recognition of the southern Gulf Islands — Saltspring Island is his responsibility, but the southern Gulf Islands as a whole — as part of the southern Vancouver Island transportation study and the lack of planning outside of the greater Victoria area and not including the southern Gulf Islands.
We have a situation where the southern Gulf Islands are rural, and they’re classified as urban. They’re in this mix. Sometimes they’re included, and sometimes they’re not. What we normally see in Transportation estimates are MLAs getting up from every single region in the province, talking about road maintenance, road surface.
The maintenance budgets are never big enough. The resurfacing plans are never aggressive enough. We can never keep up. On the southern Gulf Islands, we’ve got a pretty substantive challenge when it comes to road surface, road maintenance and road upgrades. As the minister knows, we’ve talked about Fulford-Ganges as being probably the most travelled.
I’m just wondering if the minister can talk about the plans in general. I know there are going to be MLAs across the province that have road surface, road maintenance challenges. Perhaps the minister can talk a little bit about his philosophy in terms of whether or not asphalt is the solution. Perhaps there are other road surface applications that can be used that could extend the life of the road and also diminish the cost to the provincial government, and how that could be rolled out across the province to alleviate some of the challenges that we face from constituents who are reminding us that their roads are less than what they would expect them to be.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Member.
There are a couple of parts to the question. One was specifically about the general problem of road maintenance that is felt by MLAs from all parties and all regions around the province, which I’m pleased to say you have kicked off in the discussion under these estimates. I look forward to more.
What I would go back to are some points I made at the beginning of the estimates that are very strong around the budget at hand, including, on the capital side, $819 million for highway corridor rehabilitation. That is all about resurfacing and, in some cases, bridge rehabilitation, thousands of bridges, replacement in some cases and seismic upgrades.
Also there’s a very significant enhancement in side-road improvements, which is important in communities around B.C. That can include everything from gravelling to drainage, road base improvements, shoulder improvements, culvert replacement. Of course, in some parts of the province, we’re moving to a much higher climate resilience standard to prevent weather patterns that have been significantly changed.
Regarding Mayne Island, there are some seal-coating projects coming up on Mayne Island, which I think the member will be very pleased to hear about. He’s probably already aware, knowing that he knows the contractor there.
Fulford-Ganges. Of course, we heard very clearly that one of the most important things around that very travelled route is to have space for other road users, specifically cyclists and pedestrians. So that’s part of the improvements that we want to make on that road.
Then the member asked a good question about asphalt and whether there are other longer-life or more environmentally friendly technologies. We are in an interesting time right now. The road-building industry is embracing alternatives. We’re certainly working with new technologies like microsealing and seal-coating on a significant number of kilometres now of road maintenance. There’s hot-in-place recycling of asphalt. So you don’t bring in new material; you reuse it. You extend its life. It’s both cost-effective and has a much lower impact on the environment because it doesn’t require the new use of as much asphalt, oil and hydrocarbons, which are part of the ingredients of asphalt.
A. Olsen: I appreciate that. As always, I would advance the southern Gulf Islands as a fantastic place to pilot these new technologies. There are kilometres of road very close to the capital region here and the capital for the minister to pilot those projects. The people of the southern Gulf Islands would be very pleased to welcome you to the island.
Earlier the minister mentioned that there hasn’t been a question on the Broadway subway. Is that correct? No questions yet, so let’s ask one. This will be my final question, then I’ll turn it over to my colleague from the Cowichan Valley.
We know that there are 56,000 students and 15,000 faculty and staff that head out to UBC. It’s the Lower Mainland’s third-largest employment centre. Daytime population of the campus is about 75,000 people. The current project is funded from VCC-Clark station to Broadway and Arbutus, and then it will be connected further from the 99 B-line from Arbutus to the University of British Columbia.
I’m just wondering if the minister can provide an update on the funding opportunities that are looked at to complete the expansion all the way to UBC, if there’s any thought of doing that. What’s the timeline for this project to be completed, and where does the project stand currently?
Hon. R. Fleming: A big question and a great question. We have hit some significant project milestones with the Broadway to Arbutus line this year — perfect timing in terms of creating skilled jobs under a community benefits agreement. Lots of young workers will get their first opportunity to work on a major project like this. Indigenous youth, women, underrepresented people in the trades will benefit from this $2.8 billion project.
Of course, it comes at a great time for creating jobs and activating supply chains and helping local contractors of all types. The number of jobs it will support, both directly and indirectly, is in the thousands, which is great.
Tunnel-boring will begin next year. The project will be complete by 2025, which is a long way of saying that the road to UBC from Clark street goes through Arbutus. So that is indeed phase 1, with six stations that provide considerable opportunities, working with the city of Vancouver, to build things like affordable housing and add to the job corridor that goes down Broadway.
Your question was a good one, and it comes exactly at the time that the TransLink Mayors Council is sitting down to create a new ten-year transportation investment plan. We gave them an extra year, under the severity of COVID, to deliver that to the provincial government. Undoubtedly, the discussion will be about when and how to create a phase 2 of the Broadway line that would go out to UBC.
We’ve heard advocacy from UBC. We’ve certainly held a number of meetings with the city of Vancouver and with the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh. Minister Heyman would be very critically involved, too, as the Minister Responsible for TransLink, on some of those discussions. Right now, in terms of what exists around the concept of that, there is a pre-business-plan case that was done by TransLink that envisions some of the benefits, the challenges and very rough outlines of cost for what would be phase 2 of the Broadway subway out to UBC.
I will add, too, that it was very welcome news, just a few months ago from the federal government and Minister McKenna, that the government of Canada was creating something that I think a lot of people had advocated for a long time, which is the permanent transit fund — $15 billion. That will come into effect in a few years’ time, but in the meantime, there is also money for projects like the one the member mentioned.
He will know that, I think, what is the most exciting thing on the most immediate horizon — besides the project we just started on Broadway out to Arbutus — is we’re hoping for some federal partnership on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, which would be a very significant project as well. It would represent the first mass transit expansion south of the Fraser in 30 years. I think it’s fair to say that the TransLink Mayors Council continues to hold that as their highest priority. We’re working with important officials and mayors around the table at the TransLink Mayors Council on exactly that right now.
S. Furstenau: Thanks to my colleagues and to the minister. I’m delighted to have this opportunity to ask a few questions.
I’m going to go back from the Mainland back over to the Island, here, and just highlight some of the road concerns that we have heard about over the last while in Cowichan. In Shawnigan Lake, lots of constituents are reaching out about roads that need to be repaired, about drainage problems, potholes, damage to vehicles.
In Youbou, at the other end of the riding, there are about 30 logging trucks a day, which results in, especially when there’s any kind of rain, very slippery, muddy roads. The indication from Ministry of Transportation is there’s a budget for about three road sweeps annually. Constituents have indicated this is, in their mind, very not sufficient. They’re hoping for at least one road sweep per month.
I hear a lot about worries in Cowichan Bay, where, I’m sure the minister is aware, the road is very narrow. The village is very crowded and tight. There’s parking right on the roads. I appreciate…. I think we got approval for digital speed signs coming to Cowichan Bay, so that’s great.
Inconsistent snow removal in Cobble Hill. We’ve referred to the maps and the planning for snow removal, and it doesn’t always follow that.
Lack of safe bike lanes and walkways for students in school zones near Bench Elementary School. Deloume Road being very narrow but having very fast traffic on it….
I know that this is replicated in every riding. Of course, roads are very significant issues in every riding in British Columbia and one of the most challenging files, I imagine, to stay on top of. While I know that it’s hard to effectively be able to respond to and address every issue that’s raised, I think what we’re keen to hear and to see from the minister is a little bit more effective communication, transparency, a way for community members to know that their concerns are both being heard and will be addressed in a particular way within a particular period.
My question is. actually. a much more general one. Is there room in the current budget for increasing community consultation and input on roadwork that would include being able to communicate more widely to communities about timelines and the decision-making processes around road maintenance and safety?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. She packed a fair bit into her question. I will try and answer all of it.
First, I would just want to say, generally, that efficient, ongoing communication with local governments and all of our stakeholders is a key priority. In fact, it’s one of our strategic objectives in our service plan. She may have caught that one, 2.3. It’s an area of continuous improvement that we invest heavily in, because we know it pays significant dividends with constituents like hers, regional districts and all parts of the province.
I would bring to the member’s attention — perhaps she knows this — that there is a standing commitment to meet at least twice annually between this ministry and the Cowichan Valley regional district. In fact, there’s an opportunity coming up for her to work with her regional district directors because a meeting is scheduled, I understand, July 15. That’s in a month’s time.
With regards to road maintenance and road conditions, when the member has inquiries by her constituents and they want to talk to a contractor, report something that they feel is unsafe or even just make suggestions about how to be more proactive on road maintenance — she’s probably already in the habit of doing this — referring her constituents to the district office is really important. Often we can get results based on the eyes and ears out there of people living in communities. We can get results on their concerns quite quickly.
The Bench Elementary School student safety. I’m pleased that we have just concluded a digital speed reader program with the regional district there to draw significant attention to student safety and also that drivers are often exceeding posted speed limits. These very same speed readers that allowed us to have analysis around Bench Elementary are going to be available for the Cowichan Bay area, where she mentioned they have these same problems in terms of motorists’ behaviour and safety for community members there.
I’m pleased to report to her that she can share with her constituents, if they’re not aware already, that the ministry does have that technology and will be using it to create a very visible reminder to motorists that they may be driving in a manner that’s not safe for others.
S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister. I actually do want to really commend the minister and the staff. We do send these issues and reach out to his office and his staff. They are very responsive, and I really appreciate that. I know that it’s a big network of roads out there.
I guess just a little bit more deeply on this. I’m aware of the meetings at the CVRD. I actually really appreciated when those started, when I was an area director. They are a great avenue for having those conversations with the area directors who are obviously most in touch with all these issues.
For the general public, say they’re not going through their MLA’s office, and they’re not going through the local government. What are the avenues that exist for the public to be able to reach out, communicate road needs, receive transparent information on planning from the ministry on projects and planning in their region?
The Chair: Members, we will now take a ten-minute recess while we undertake cleaning and safety protocols in preparation for a new committee Chair.
The committee recessed from 5 p.m. to 5:14 p.m.
[D. Coulter in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, first of all, I would like to thank her for the compliment which she delivered to ministry staff in her region — the south coast, but right around the province — in terms of the effort they put into offering timely, clear responses to the concerns of B.C. residents in whatever part of the province they live in.
Certainly, I have appreciated, in my brief time here, inheriting a system of dedicated, passionate people who are engaged in that work. It certainly isn’t — and this is pleasantly so — the first time I’ve received a compliment from a member about that in terms of the skills with which our staff engage with people like her constituents. I very much appreciate that comment.
Social media presents a number of opportunities for engaging people, so the ministry has five lines of social media engagement with people who wish to provide feedback or get information with our ministry. Drive B.C. is the most-trafficked website in all of the B.C. government and is relied upon for up-to-date information for people living in all regions of the province.
We have a Twitter account on social media. The ministry has a Facebook presence as well, Instagram, and a blog service that is provided. People are very interested, in British Columbia, in interacting and relaying their concerns to us. We do look for opportunities to have additional engagement with people. The member will know that, for example, we meet directly with residents associations. She mentioned the example of Youbou. That would be an example of where our staff directly go into communities and meet with them. We’ll soon be able to do that face to face again, as we gather more.
Local area directors are critically important in putting us in touch with members of the business community, local businesses in Cowichan, to go to another one of her examples. We do have direct contact, when there are concerns, with institutions like Shawnigan Lake School or Brentwood College, about areas that touch upon the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s responsibilities and work with entities like that.
S. Furstenau: I appreciate that list from the minister and will be sure to share that out with constituents who reach out to us as well. But I do want to reiterate that it is really commendable how responsive the staff are.
I’m going to move to a topic a bit more high level and perhaps more political. This is around addressing climate change in B.C.’s transportation network.
In his mandate letter, the minister is tasked with achieving CleanBC’s goals. However, this government continues to make investments in the fossil fuel sector, with subsidies to the oil and gas industry — in particular, LNG. In the report released today by Stand.earth, it concludes that, in their research, these subsidies will make it all but impossible for B.C. to meet its climate commitments and achieve net zero by 2050.
In March of this year, the provincial government announced plans for investments with the federal government to acquire approximately 15 medium-duty buses fuelled with compressed natural gas or “renewable natural gas” — I think the line “renewable” and “natural gas” are a bit of an oxymoron — to replace existing buses in greater Victoria.
Yet it seems imperative and incumbent on all of us to recognize that if we’re going to meet our climate targets, we really do need investments in clean energy technology rather than any technology that relies on fossil fuels. While natural gas may well emit fewer greenhouse gases than gas or diesel when it is burned, it is the extraction and, particularly, the release of methane in the process of extracting that has scientists basically in agreement that fracked natural gas is as intensive, in terms of a climate change–driver, as coal.
My question is to the minister. What role does the minister see his ministry taking in actually fully electrifying the transportation sector as not just a part of our recovery from COVID-19 but a part of our debt to the future and future generations?
Can he speak to the work being done with the federal government and what conversations he’s having to halt investments in LNG and other fossil fuels to encourage, instead, investments in truly clean energy technology?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The transportation sector has a very important role, maybe a disproportionate role, in helping the province achieve its emission reduction targets by 2030, given its role in the amount of inventory, from two million private vehicles, tens of thousands of heavy-duty vehicles.
Electrification is critically important to the efforts our government is making. We play a role in accelerating the transition to net-zero emission bus fleets, for example. We’re working closely with TransLink on its low-carbon fuel strategy. We are supporting innovative companies to support the clean economy here in British Columbia.
The member will be aware of new investment vehicles to do that which the government has introduced. We continue to take a range of actions that will grow the electric vehicle market for all vehicles. B.C. is, of course, No. 1 in North America right now in terms of its percentage of private vehicles that are fully electric.
We’re also working through StrongerBC to add additional investments around rebates for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles for B.C. businesses and local and regional governments, public sector organizations — greening that fleet. We have a special used vehicle incentive program that includes rebates for battery electric or hydrogen-fuelled passenger buses.
The electrification of B.C. Transit, which, of course, serves about 130 communities in B.C., is critically important. They’ve partnered with the federal government to provide funding for the electrification initiative of a new bus fleet that we acquire. The low-carbon fleet program is a ten-year plan. It’s a strategy to transition B.C. Transit from the current diesel-based buses to a low-carbon alternative, but mostly electric buses. That itself will go quite a ways to helping us achieve our emission reduction activities.
With the government of Canada in 2019, the province announced its first purchases of electric buses for the B.C. Transit system. TransLink is acquiring them as well.
I would note for the member’s benefit that right now we have a good problem to have, I suppose, in Canada. With bus factories making electric buses in Winnipeg and Quebec, their orders are severely backed up. We’re working to make sure that B.C. can acquire more, because we want to utilize both the federal and provincial money to be able to acquire more and more electric buses on an accelerated basis. We’re just entering the next phase of executing that plan.
S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate all of these initiatives.
I guess, on a bit more of, again, a philosophical level, given that I think we can all agree that we are indeed in a climate emergency. The kind of partway measures — some electrification, some LNG — and kind of capturing all that as low carbon…. It really just isn’t reasonable to suggest that LNG is low carbon in any way.
I think it’s important to treat this emergency the way that we’ve just treated the pandemic emergency, which is to say that we’re not going to give two-thirds of a vaccine to people. We’re going to give the full dose of two vaccines. We’re going to go all in. We’re going to act as though this is an emergency.
I think that we need to see that kind of urgency, particularly given the direction of B.C.’s emissions, which have actually been in the wrong direction. While much of the world and even overall Canada has seen either a slowing or a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, B.C. has been rising.
I agree with the minister that the transportation sector and network really is a key piece to this. I also think that it is…. I appreciate, again, the focus on public transportation. This has to play a very significant role if we are to hope to achieve these goals.
Just on one specific…. Can the minister break down, in terms of the new buses that will be coming online…? What percentage of those will be electric, and what percentage of those will be natural gas?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s a big question, but I’ll try and give her some specifics that I think will help her understand how our public transportation authorities are looking at a zero-carbon future very seriously.
B.C. Transit has reported that, on the basis of its fleet renewal program and other zero-carbon initiatives that it’s undertaking, they will exceed the CleanBC targets that were set out for them, specifically, in 2030, in 2040 and again in 2050.
The member asked earlier about compressed natural gas. Yes, we have acquired some of these. They do allow a significant reduction in GHGs. It’s a transition technology, for sure. Right now the first ten electric heavy-duty buses are scheduled to arrive in Victoria next year, in 2022.
The procurement policy for B.C. Transit in 2023 is to only buy electric heavy-duty buses. So when I referenced CNG being a transition, it was what was available while the electric bus industry matured. It’s growing apace. Half of B.C. Transit’s fleet are heavy-duty buses. The other half will be fully electric by 2028. So electric only in that case.
I’ll try and address the member’s question as it relates to TransLink, because, very importantly, just a few months ago TransLink updated their electrification plan. That was published and posted just a few short months ago.
They have 15 electric buses coming into service in 2022. They plan to have 667 fully electric buses. That is part of the 2021 plan that I just referenced. That will require some capital investments around the TransLink area. Sixteen route chargers will be part of the electrification initiative, and two fully electric bus depots will support that fleet to return to and recharge.
It’s an ambitious plan. It’s a good plan. It requires that 591 all-diesel or hybrid diesel buses will be replaced over the next ten years. They will be retired. The first set of diesel buses that will retire in 2023 — there are 57 of them — will be sequenced with procurement purchases to replace them with battery-electric buses.
I would also mention…. We’ve canvassed this earlier in estimates. The member may have missed it in her busy day.
TransLink should be also seen, in terms of this budget, as benefiting from a very significant rail-based transit infrastructure. We broke ground, in a big way, earlier this year on the Broadway subway. It operates on one of the busiest, if not the busiest, transit corridors for, currently, bus ridership in North America. It will be able to triple its passenger volumes along the six kilometres between Broadway and Arbutus. A very important project. One that will be completed by 2025. We begin boring the tunnels on that in 2022, creating a lot of exciting trades-related green jobs in building that type of public transit.
We hope to have news very shortly activating the regional priority and our government’s priority, our commitment, to build the SkyTrain out to Surrey-Langley. So one of the fastest-growing areas in the province. It’s expected to add hundreds of thousands of residents between now and 2035. It will be anchored by a Surrey-Langley SkyTrain connectivity. That will be the first rapid transit, mass transit, project south of the Fraser Valley in the last 30 years.
We’ll certainly keep the member apprised of when we receive a positive funding contribution from the federal government, which is what we’re waiting on right now. All indications are…. Given the federal government’s goal to transition to a low-carbon clean economy, they certainly view public transit solutions for infrastructure as a key way to meet their GHG targets, as we do to meet our GHG reduction targets.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that response. I assure him that if I could, I would stay riveted to his estimates all day long. However, as he points out, we have a lot of bases to cover as a tiny little caucus of two.
I think we’ve reached our time. So I will hand this back to the critic from the official opposition.
I really thank the minister for his responses and, again, just want to shout out appreciation to his staff for their very good and responsive work. I look forward to hearing more about the greening of the transportation sector.
The Chair: I now recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.
M. Lee: I just want to invite my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.
P. Milobar: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the critic for creating this time for me. I just have a couple of quick questions for the minister around a local project that is in Kamloops–North Thompson and that, actually, extends into Kamloops–South Thompson as well.
It’s the East Shuswap Road. It connects Highway 5, the Yellowhead Highway, all the way through to Pritchard. It is in very bad shape. It runs, for a large portion, right through the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc reserve lands as well some other areas.
There was some work done on it a few years ago, but the section, in particular, from the intersection of Highway 5 and the Tk’emlúps area, right past their administration offices and all of that infrastructure…. Unfortunately, it’s also in the same area as the residential school that we’ve heard so much about. It’s a fast-growing area with a golf resort that the Tk’emlúps has partnered with for housing. It’s growing very rapidly. The road is getting more and more traffic on it.
The long and short is that the roadbed needs to be replaced. There’s a need for safer walking and bicycling on the shoulder. It connects in with a couple of wineries. It is washing out. It runs next to the river for large sections of it, and there have been washouts and a caving in of the road as recently as last year. A permanent fix needs to be done, and it needs to be done properly. There are roundabout and intersection issues, as well, as part of the project.
I guess the question is…. I know the Tk’emlúps has been working in partnership with the ministry as well as area landowners and the regional district. What is the timeline for that replacement work to happen?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate his advocacy and inquiry about this. This is a recognized priority for our ministry. There is, this year, survey work being done to understand the engineering scope of the project.
There is some road base that would need to be addressed, as well as archeological work, given the Tk’emlúps Nation’s traditional territories, their recognized territories there. So an analysis is required, and that’s what’s being done this year. The analysis would also include what property acquisition the ministry may need to engage in, as well, to do some of the road improvements.
The condition that the member describes of the road, of East Shuswap Road, is one that our ministry wouldn’t argue with. We are working currently with Tk’emlúps on a study around active transportation potential, which they’re interested in, in their territory, so looking at pedestrian and cycling improvements, doing some analysis of use and opportunity if there were improvements done in that way.
There is likely some significant digging and repairing of the road base that would be required, in combination with resurfacing, on East Shuswap Road to get it into a condition that we would hope to see.
P. Milobar: Thank you for that, Minister. Certainly, both myself and the member for Kamloops–South Thompson regularly field calls, as this is a road that actually connects our two ridings on the north side of the South Thompson River.
The road does run parallel to the Trans-Canada Highway on the southern side of the South Thompson River. So as a result, when there’s an incident along Highway 1, the Trans-Canada, a lot of times, the traffic does get rerouted down this road. It’s happened, actually, more frequently in the last few years than I can remember ever before. So unfortunately, with faster cars and more trucks on the road, there seems to be more incidents on the Trans-Canada that necessitate that road being used as the alternate route, so it is quite critical that the work get done.
I’m just wondering if the minister could share, then: what is the overall scope target of this project? Will it be including the interchange improvements and turning-lane improvements needed at Highway 5 and East Shuswap Road? Will it be including the roundabout needed around access to the Sun Rivers golf resort housing area as well as the band’s administration offices and school area on the other side of that same intersection? If so, what is the targeted timeline for this project?
It’s great to hear there’s some surveying work in getting the scope of the depth of the engineering done, and some of the consultation needed with First Nations as well. That’s critical, as well as the archeological. But what is the actual target for the government to be looking at having this work contemplated within the capital budget? Is it a three-year window of time? Is it a five-year window of time? What is the current working target, recognizing that may move over time? Without an actual, physical target in place, it will make it tough.
The scope and the timeline would be appreciated.
Hon. R. Fleming: There are three components to Shuswap Road improvements. The first deals with the member’s first question. It’s getting an assessment on the road condition, doing the engineering studies to determine what the scope of resurfacing will be. That’s the work that’s happening this year. Once we have that completed, we will have a better idea of how a project can be scoped, in essence, that will deal with strictly road condition improvements.
The second component of his question was really around the roundabout opposite the former residential school that is across from a subdivision. I have been informed that the Tk’emlúps and Sun Rivers development have taken a lead on design work on the roundabout. The roundabout would be on MOTI property. It may require additional property.
In reference to the earlier answer I gave about needing to understand what property might need to be acquired for the roundabout improvements, that’s the work that is underway. The designs, I understand, may be complete. When they’re completed, of course, we’ll move on to stages around permitting work for the development of that roundabout intersection.
The third component of the member’s question was concerns around Highway 5 where it meets the Shuswap. The signalized intersection there was the subject of a traffic count study in 2019, which is good because, obviously, pandemic traffic volumes were altered. So it was pre-pandemic. It’s the most recent and most useful year. The conclusion was that the intersection is working well, within the parameters to which it was designed, but of course we’re going to keep monitoring that to see whether traffic volumes unexpectedly increase as we go forward.
P. Milobar: Perhaps the minister could just confirm, then: what is the hoped-for timeline of the overall repair-rebuild new project to be done? Is it a three-year window? Is it a five-year window? What is the hope of the ministry at this point in terms of seeing this work completed?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, to give him a precise timeline would be a bit difficult, because the scope will be determined by the findings. So the work that’s being done this year.
What it means is one of two things. If we find that the amount of work, particularly rebuilding road base, for example, versus the amount of work that could be done through a resurfacing project…. It will determine whether this will be done over one year or needs to be over a couple of years. If it’s resurfacing, it’s obviously relatively more simple.
What I can commit to the member is that we will begin physical work on this project as either a one- or two-phase project — hopefully one — next year. I think he can take that to his constituents to say that the ministry is planning to begin road repair work next year.
The paving should account for the active transportation interest that the Tk’emlúps have. If the project is going to involve widening shoulders for pedestrians and cyclists, it will likely involve us needing to enter into an agreement with the Tk’emlúps to acquire property to be able to have that space and have active transportation as part of the revitalization and reconditioning of this roadway.
D. Clovechok: Thanks to our critic for this opportunity. Thank you for taking these questions. I only have a couple of them, and they’re all local.
I just want to start out very quickly by saying and recognizing the MOTI staff in our area. Like other areas, they’re fantastic people. They work really, really hard for our shared constituents. Katie Ward is the new manager out there and is just doing a phenomenal job. I just want to read that into the record.
The minister may know that the 2022 junior world ski championships were awarded to Panorama — awarded amongst many European countries. We won that. It’s in my constituency. It’ll host 65 countries with around 650 athletes plus their families and international, national and local fans. So it’s really exciting. It’s an opportunity for us to really showcase our area, not only Canada and B.C. but Columbia River–Revelstoke.
One of the issues, however, is that the Toby Creek Road that takes folks up to Panorama is treacherous at the best of times. It’s a tough mountainous road. I know that there are significant investments that are being made to that road.
What I’d ask the minister today is to confirm what those investments are that are being made, in relation to the Toby Creek Road, and the plans for continual road upgrades leading up to this amazing world event.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the kind words to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff, sharing his positive experience with the ministry. I appreciate that. That’s on the record. There are lots of ministry staff behind my earbuds who heard you as well, so appreciate that.
This is, obviously, a very exciting sporting opportunity for his region and for our province. His question is about Toby Creek Road, which services Panorama. There has been some investment. I think $1.8 million over the last five years. I can share with the member that this year we’ll be investing $1.4 million into the high-priority areas that will get the road in better condition to host the skiing.
This will include base repairs to the road, drainage improvements, signage improvements. There will be some sightline improvements to ensure that vehicle interactions with wildlife are reduced, so shaving rock, brushing programs. The work will begin this summer. They’re just getting into the post-freshet season.
Hopefully, that answers the member’s question about the scope of work and improvements that have been identified and are being actioned.
D. Clovechok: Through you, Chair, to the minister….
The Chair: I’ll recognize you, Member.
D. Clovechok: Sorry about that, Chair.
To the minister, it does answer my question. It’s a treacherous road that needs an enormous amount of work. We certainly don’t want that to be a bad experience, and of course, public safety is paramount at all times with that particular road.
The second question I have is around the Golden bridge, which, I believe, was built around 1952, before the minister and I were even born. There’s a desperate need to realign this bridge with the roadway. If you’ve ever been there, you know. If you’re heading northwest, it’s a very sharp kind of an S-turn to the right. If you’re coming south, it’s the same way, in the other direction.
During the closures for the Kicking Horse Canyon twinning construction…. They were coming through 93, 95 and then down through Radium and then through Golden. That bridge has been a bit of a problem. It’s caused some accidents already.
The question that I have to the minister is if the minister could give an update on the plans for a new bridge in Golden and the realignment opportunity that is so desperately needed.
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member: thank you for raising this. Golden bridge, 1952, as he says — old and narrow, vulnerable to flooding. He’s made the case, as others have, around it needing replacement and the opportunity for realignment there. It’s certainly something that we recognize.
Right now the ministry is at the point where they have completed planning of what a replacement would look like. We need to begin the engineering work so that we can get an idea of what the costing would look like. This is likely going to be a very expensive project. It’s technically two bridges. It’s one where, on a previous occasion, we have sought federal funding, but there wasn’t enough at that time.
We will look for a new opportunity from the federal government, where they recognize that there are some projects that are important, because of the age of the infrastructure in this case, the disaster mitigation and the importance of adaptation to changing weather patterns and freshet and flooding. In this case, it’s a bridge that is very challenged during icy seasons.
The Chair: Noting the hour…. We have to end at 6:15 here. So I’d ask the minister to move the motion.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:15 p.m.