Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 96
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Speculation and vacancy tax, annual report, 2019 tax year | |
B.C. Arts Council, annual report, 2020-21 | |
Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Ministerial Order
M242/2021, Minister of | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2021
The House met at 1:34 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Whiteside: I have to say it is such an honour and a pleasure today to rise in this House to celebrate the birthday of a wonderful member of our New Westminster community, Eileen Glavin, who turns 100 years old today.
Born in England to Irish parents in 1921, Eileen has led a remarkable life. She worked in the RAF as a code breaker for the Bletchley project during the Second World War. She then emigrated to Vancouver in 1957, raising four sons as a single mother and taking in many of her sons’ friends along the way. She then worked for a rabbi’s family in Vancouver, helping to raise their nine children.
Eileen has been a treasured member of the community, always active in New West. She sang with the choir at Century House, always has a smile on her face and is beloved by her family and her community.
Would the House please join me in wishing Eileen a very happy 100th birthday.
T. Shypitka: Not so much an introduction but, more or less, a recognition of great service. My beloved constituency assistant Heather Smith will be retiring on June 25. I often referred to Heather as my boss to many people, because she was just that. She kept me on time. She kept me organized, and if anybody knows me personally, that’s a pretty tall order.
She was my constituency assistant right from day one, when I was elected in 2017. Before that, she was my predecessor Bill Bennett’s constituency assistant from 2013.
Before that, Heather had a long career. She worked 31 years with Service B.C. She’s very well respected in our community. Everybody loves Heather. She’s a fountain of information, always happy to help anybody that comes through the door no matter what your political stripe — the way it should be. She’s going to be sorely missed.
She and my part-time assistant, Christy Wheeldon, will both be retiring, Actually, Christy has already left.
I want to just really recognize all of the hard work they’ve done over the years. We all love them. I just want to let the House know this and join me in sending them a really big thank-you for all of the work that they’ve done.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I encourage this Legislature to send a hearty congratulations to graduating students in Nanaimo from Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo District Secondary School, Tsawalk Learning Centre, Wellington Secondary School, the career technical centre, Island ConnectEd, Nanaimo Christian School, Vast Centre and Dover Bay.
These are extraordinary graduating students entering their next chapter at an extraordinary time. Please join me in extending our congratulations.
A. Olsen: After a little break yesterday, I want to introduce Fred and Lesley Mussett today. They’ll be joining us in question period.
They’ve shared their story with me, yet another family that is part of the Holding Hope group. The story of their daughter Heather, who is 33 years old and is almost living in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside.
Her story took a turn when her doctor refused to continue prescribing the medication that she needed to keep her anxiety at bay. She began self-medicating with street drugs and is now addicted to heroin and fentanyl.
In February of 2020, Fred and Lesley’s life took a turn. They were called by the hospital. They thought the news was the worst news that they could possibly hear — that their daughter had succumbed to her addiction. Instead, they learned that their daughter had been pregnant. They now have a lovely granddaughter they’re raising whose name is Hope.
Today I think, like the days of the past that I have been introducing these stories, that it’s important to acknowledge that they continue to flow in, and they’re all around us.
Today we keep Fred and Lesley in our thoughts, as we have every family that has shared their story with us.
M. Dykeman: I have two very brief introductions.
The first one. I was wondering if the House could please join me in wishing John Kromhoff, a constituent of mine…. It is his 100th birthday. If the House could join me in congratulating him on this very special birthday.
My second introduction. I wanted to know if the House could please join me in congratulating all of the graduates from Langley schools this year on this incredible achievement.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)
AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 12, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021. The bill makes several amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act related to the new enhanced care insurance model to address technical issues identified during the drafting of the enhanced care regulations and to address litigation that would undermine the efficacy of our public vehicle insurance system.
This bill also amends the Motor Vehicle Act.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill 12, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
Q’WAXSEM PLACE AND SUPPORT BY
CARIHI SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS AND STAFF
M. Babchuk: I’d like to share with you a story of how one young person, driven by kindness, compassion and acceptance, brought together hundreds of people to make a difference in his community. On February 5, I had the privilege of attending the opening of Q’waxsem Place, a 50-unit, fully serviced supportive housing development that offers a safe and secure home for the community’s most vulnerable.
Q’waxsem Place is a beautifully designed facility that was created out of a partnership between the city of Campbell River, the Vancouver Island Mental Health Society and B.C. Housing. During its development stage, many residents voiced their concerns about the project — proximity to nearby schools, risk to children, potential increase in crime and impact on property values.
One young man didn’t understand why there was so much negativity around this project and wanted to lend his support. Trent Perras, a grade 12 student at Carihi Secondary School, took the initiative, prepared a presentation and communicated to his classmates and teachers why he believed that this project was so important to its community, the residents and the facility.
As it turned out, he was not alone. Together, more than 300 students and teachers created and signed a poster welcoming their neighbours. Trent and fellow grade 12 student Heidi Schulte walked over to Q’waxsem Place and presented the poster to the residents, some of whom had been unhoused for a decade. This simple gesture warmed their hearts and gave them that feeling of acceptance.
This is a shining example of how important it is to open our hearts and our minds to accept people for who they are and where they are at in their lives. It demonstrates how one small gesture can make such a big difference. And isn’t it wonderful that these young people are going to be the leaders going forward in the future?
Would this House please join me in recognizing Trent Perras, the staff and students of Carihi Secondary School for making people feel welcome and demonstrating what it means to be part of a community.
RACHEL SHEPARD VOLUNTEER WORK
AND WESTERN TOADS
PROJECT
J. Sturdy: In British Columbia, we’re fortunate to benefit from hundreds of dedicated groups and individuals who donate their time and efforts to provincial parks and protected areas across our province. The annual B.C. Parks Volunteer Awards are an effort to recognize volunteers who go above and beyond in their contributions.
This year B.C. Parks has chosen to recognize a Squamish resident, Rachel Shepard, as provincial Volunteer of the Year for her outstanding work as project coordinator of the Alice Lake western toad monitoring project. The endeavour is an ongoing citizen science project, in collaboration with B.C. Parks and the Squamish Environmental Society, that monitors western toads in Alice Lake Provincial Park.
The project seeks to reduce human impacts on toad populations by informing B.C. Parks and the public of their vulnerable breeding and migration seasons.
Rachel has donated an extraordinary amount of time and effort since she became project coordinator in 2019. She has excelled in her role, coordinating with volunteers, B.C. Parks and the media, conducting field surveys and writing detailed and informative reports for B.C. Parks using scientific protocols.
While Rachel is not a trained biologist, her curiosity and devoted research have allowed her to contribute insights that have greatly improved the scientific aspects of the project.
The western toad is a federally listed species of special concern and is yellow-listed in British Columbia. A similar research project undertaken in Whistler has allowed the municipality to better inform the public about mitigating human disruption of toads in that region.
I congratulate Rachel Shepard on her award and her outstanding contribution to protecting local ecosystems.
I’m sure the House will join me in acknowledging her and all of the other award recipients and nominees around the province and the many volunteers whose dedication and commitment are vital to the stewardship of our parks.
SURREY-CLOVERDALE COMMUNITY STARS
BURSARY PROGRAM AND
RECIPIENTS
M. Starchuk: Today I stand virtually to announce the inaugural Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Starchuk’s community stars bursary program.
With the assistance of the Surrey Fire Fighters Charitable Society, we were able to create three community-based bursaries, one for each of the three high schools in my riding. These bursaries are awarded to the students that are active in their schools and communities.
Students graduating in 2021, during the pandemic, will have years to embellish the stories of their high school days. We have all endured the stories of our parents and grandparents, when they told us they had to walk ten miles to school each day in the snow, in their bare feet, looking for cow pies to warm their frozen toes. Of course, it was uphill in both directions.
To all of you that are graduating in B.C. this year, be prepared to explain to your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews just exactly what Zoom was and how it felt every time your teacher called you out and said: “You’re on mute.”
With the help of Aaron Cyr and the Surrey Fire Fighters Charitable Society, we were able to find three outstanding community stars, and they are as follows.
Joanne Dahyeon Park from École Salish Secondary has over 950 hours of volunteer experience in the community and with her church. She’ll be studying kinesiology at UBC in the fall.
Adam Pederson of Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary is the school’s valedictorian. He was on the student and grad councils. He was a PE school leader, and in the community, he volunteered at the Ocean Athletics Track Club and the neighbourhood art studio. Adam would like to become a doctor.
Animesh Loura is from Clayton Heights Secondary and is an active member in his religious and cultural community and a member of his school’s robotics team. Not surprisingly, Animesh will be attending the faculty of engineering at the University of Victoria in September.
Would the House join me in sending congratulations to these community stars, as the bright future that they have is in front of them.
GUIDANCE FOR GRADUATES OF 2021
J. Tegart: It’s a pleasure to stand in this House today and talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart, that being education. I’ve had the pleasure of delivering many speeches to graduating classes.
I share the words of Robert Fulghum:
“All I really needed to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten…. These are the things I learned. Share everything. Play fair. Don’t hit people. Put things back where you found them. Clean up your own mess. Don’t take things that aren’t yours. Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. Wash your hands before you eat. Flush. Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you. Live a balanced life — learn some and draw and paint and sing and dance and plan and work every day some. Take a nap every afternoon. When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.”
As we come into graduation season, I wish all students a successful learning experience, some joy, some laughter, maybe a few tears, but all in all a great experience. This is just the beginning of your journey. You have the tools, and no, that isn’t for the new car we bought you. Use them wisely, and remember to practise lifelong learning.
To teachers, parents, support staff: thank you for all you do to make every child feel important, supported and cared for.
Congratulations to the class of 2021.
LORI GREYELL AND COMMUNITY
GARDENS IN PORT
MOODY
R. Glumac: If you were to walk by the arts centre in Port Moody today, you might see a little bit more than art. You might see kale or lettuce growing on the front lawn, and you might ask: “Why are there vegetables growing on the front lawn of the arts centre?”
At least one of my constituents is asking: “Why not? Why not grow vegetables in many places in our community?” That constituent is Lori Greyell, and she helped create this demonstration garden in this high-profile location so that we can all think a little bit more about the places where we can grow food.
Back in 2013, she helped to organize over 50 garden plots on the grounds of the Port Moody police station. In these gardens, a community has come together and been cultivated. Alongside the plants and vegetables, people have come together. They had work parties, potlucks, movie nights. They made stone soup from the vegetables that they grew. Groups of children would come and learn about growing food.
Four of the plots are dedicated and used by the food bank and three by the SHARE community kitchen. It’s been such a great success that the wait-list has grown to over 80 families.
Now Lori is working on her next project, a new community garden at the Art Wilkinson Park in Port Moody, with another 60 accessible plots.
If you’ve been thinking about growing some food but you don’t have a garden of your own, you might want to think about putting your name on the wait-list or attending one of the many gardening workshops that are being held throughout the summer on topics from edible flower gardens to composting 101. Sign up at portmoody.ca.
Thank you, Lori, for helping bring our community together in our community gardens.
MINING INDUSTRY AND BLACKWATER
PROJECT IN PRINCE GEORGE
AREA
T. Shypitka: As our province looks to economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and to furthering partnerships and benefits with our First Nations governments, mining can play a lead role. With commodity prices high and six mines in B.C. close to final permitting, we all need to do everything possible to get these projects over the finish line. These mines represent more than $4 billion in capital spending and thousands of high-paying and highly-skilled jobs.
There is no project better suited than Artemis Gold’s Blackwater project located southwest of Prince George. Blackwater is an open-pit gold and silver mine that has a 23-year mine life with proven and probable reserves of 8 million ounces of gold and 62 million ounces of silver, making it one of the largest new mines in British Columbia in decades. Artemis expects to invest approximately $600 million in initial capital in order to commence operations, along with 825 workers per year over the five years of construction, which includes the two expansion phases and 457 full-time workers during its operations.
To support local contracting, the Blackwater project office has developed a directory of local businesses and suppliers. The economic spinoffs to the project region are in the tens of millions per year. The project is expected to generate $73 million in municipal taxes, $2.29 billion in provincial taxes and $1.5 billion in federal taxes. The project is designed to meet high environmental standards, which include the protection of water, wildlife and sensitive species.
In conclusion, B.C. is home to about half of Canada’s 31 critical minerals that will launch us to a low-carbon future and secure the national security of our country and our allies. On top of that, projects like Artemis Gold’s Blackwater project represent a clear way to a post-pandemic economic recovery.
Let’s all make a conscious effort to realize the potential and benefits that these mine projects represent. It’s time we turn the page and get these projects moving.
Oral Questions
ACTIVATION OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
S. Bond: The critical work of advancing reconciliation can’t be left to a minister, a Premier, even a government. It needs to involve everyone in British Columbia and to include all of us, as elected representatives.
Three weeks ago, in response to the MLA for Skeena, the Premier committed to “whatever steps we can take, whatever resources need to be brought to bear…. With his help and with the help of other members of this House, I’m confident that we can bring together a plan that all of us can be proud of.” Important words that would bring to life an important step that would begin the work. It would allow all of us to hear directly from First Nations, if the Premier were to do what he could do today, and that is activate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
Now, with just two days left in this session and four months before we’re back here again, it’s a simple ask. It would mean that the Premier meant what he said. It would engage all of us in this absolutely critical path to reconciliation.
To the Premier, will he do what he said he would, make sure that we’re bringing resources and opportunity to the table, and commit today to reactivating the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs?
Hon. M. Rankin: First of all, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I very much appreciate the spirit of the question.
It seems to me that she rightly points out the non-partisan nature of this issue. This has been a difficult period, as the member has pointed out, and our thoughts are with the people who are grappling with the implications of the Kamloops residential school. I think the House unanimously stood up and supported the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and indicated that it is non-partisan in nature.
This issue involves all of us. My door, as minister, is open to all members who have constructive suggestions on how we can work together to address this challenge of reconciliation.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. While I appreciate that answer, now more than ever, words are not enough. People in this chamber need to send a strong signal about how absolutely critical it is that we work together to listen, to learn, to work constructively with First Nations.
One of the ways that we can do that is by taking a small but significant step. Yesterday the Premier told me: “Committee work is onerous; it’s time-consuming. It takes up work to read the report, complete the report, prepare the report.” Well, of course, it does. That is exactly the point. As legislators, we need to take the time to do that critical work. There are two days left in this session. It will be four months until the next time we will be together in this Legislature. Work can and must be done during that period of time.
Again, it is bigger than a single minister. It is bigger than a Premier. It is bigger than a government. It is time for us to send a clear message and to create a place where together we can listen. We can learn and do the work that tells First Nations in British Columbia that we are prepared to move beyond words and take action.
Will the Premier honour the commitment that he made to move beyond words and to take action? It’s simple. He could do it today. He could reactivate and begin that work with every person represented on that committee. Will the Premier today commit to activating the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs?
Hon. M. Rankin: I much appreciate what the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said. She has said that words are not enough. I completely agree. She asks that we work constructively in a non-partisan way. I think that’s absolutely true. I agree with her, as well, that this issue is much bigger than a particular government.
I think the idea of a standing committee of the Legislature on Aboriginal affairs being reinvigorated is definitely an idea worthy of consideration, and I will ask my government to consider that as we go forward. But a standing committee is but one vehicle to do the work of which the hon. member has spoken. There are many vehicles that we need to work on together to achieve reconciliation.
As we come out of this pandemic together, there may be opportunities for a more normal functioning of the Legislature, where this type of activity would be appropriate. So I think it’s an idea very worthy of consideration. I thank the hon. member for her suggestion.
E. Ross: In relation to the request to strike up a legislative committee, it’s not just an idea. It’s a process where members of this Legislature can come together and actually breathe life into what the Premier promised. Those are nice words coming from the minister of Indigenous affairs or Aboriginal affairs. But that’s all they are. They’re just words.
These empty words and these empty speeches are what got me into politics in 2003 in the first place. I heard so many speeches about reconciliation and closing the gap of the standard of living, but nothing ever changed — not until our council took matters into our own hands and actually started working with industry and government. We got tremendous progress.
I’ve said it before. My band is not talking about poverty any more. There are many other bands that need help. Canadians need help in healing from what was discovered in Kamloops. The commitment that was made by the Premier was pretty clear. We will do what we can together as a legislative body and work together.
There’s no need to think about anything unique or extravagant. You’ve got a process already. It’s called a legislative committee, which hasn’t been enacted in the four years that I’ve been here. Now is the time to act and stop talking. Canadians and British Columbians are the ones now asking for action.
My question is to the Premier. This is not the time for rhetoric or for empty speeches. Will he get down to business and activate the select standing committee on Indigenous affairs?
Hon. M. Rankin: To the hon. member for Skeena, it is not just words. These are not empty words. Our government has released a consultative draft just on Friday last with 79 concrete, achievable actions to achieve what we all committed to in this place when the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was enacted.
These are concrete actions in social areas, in resource areas, in revenue-sharing. The government has spent considerable sums of money on housing, for example, on reserves. Something which is not done in other parts of Canada, since it’s primarily a federal responsibility. Three billion over 25 years is to be shared with the 204 nations of British Columbia, with gaming revenues. These are not mere words. These are examples of the concrete actions we need to take together to make lives better for Indigenous People.
Whether the particular vehicle that’s been proposed by the member, mainly resurrecting and reinvigorating that particular committee, would be part of that solution is an idea that is worthy of consideration. But to suggest that these are merely words is a complete misstatement of what this government has done successfully and will continue to do throughout its mandate.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.
E. Ross: A misstatement of words? Who do you think you’re talking to here?
Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.
E. Ross: Through the Chair, who does the minister think he’s talking to? I was born on a reserve. I still live on a reserve today.
The incident that happened in Kamloops affects 203 bands. It affects me directly. There are people in Canada that are in pain. They want to do something about this. You’ve got a vehicle ready to go. What’s the delay? What’s the fear?
A commitment was made by the Premier that the members of this legislative body could actually address something together. We’re at a historic moment where Canadians and British Columbians are asking the leaders to do something — in real terms, not just talking.
At least respond to the citizens of B.C. Don’t take any condescending remarks with me in relation to First Nations issues in B.C., and don’t hide behind an UNDRIP speech or hide behind a stump speech. This is not an election. We are dealing with people’s lives.
We talk about the initiatives that are possible here. We talk about protocols and respect, but the committee hasn’t sat a single day in the four years that I’ve been here. Maybe the Premier can hear this, hear his own words and what he said in relation to me and what we could do in cooperation with everybody in this legislative body. “Activate the committee.” That’s the request from the member from Saanich North. That’s the request from myself. That’s the request from this side of the House.
I’m hoping the Premier isn’t actually delaying the announcement simply to use it as a prop when he goes to visit Lower Post.
Interjections.
E. Ross: Yeah, let me hear your groans. Based on the minister’s response to what I just asked, the previous question, let me hear your groans.
I’ve been listening to this my entire life — politicians making promises and empty speeches — but nothing happens unless it’s for a political agenda that doesn’t serve Aboriginal interests. Delaying this standing committee for politics is unacceptable.
Again, my question to the Premier. Stop the lecturing. Get off the rhetorical….
Interjections.
E. Ross: I can’t hear you. Members on that side of the House, I can’t hear you. Can you speak up?
Mr. Speaker: Member, continue.
The member has the floor.
E. Ross: I’m waiting for the laughing to stop.
Mr. Speaker: Just ignore it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
E. Ross: Come on. Let’s hear it.
Interjections.
E. Ross: Yes, I agree with you. Let me hear the groans, then.
My question to the Premier. The lectures have to stop. You have to get off the rhetorical high horse, stop the delay and allow British Columbians to start healing together. Will the Premier activate the select standing committee on Indigenous affairs?
Hon. M. Rankin: I very much respect the member for Skeena and the pain that he refers to. I really don’t believe that our government can be accused of wordsmithing or simply making political statements on an issue like this. I don’t think there’s any reasonable suggestion that that is the case.
We acknowledge the healing together, of which the member has spoken. We have been in touch, for example, with Kúkpi7 Casimir of the Tk’emlúpsemc people, who is apparently working on submitting a budget and a proposal to specifically address the issue of the Kamloops school.
We are listening to other nations that have come forward in respect of this particular issue of bringing home the lost children, calls for action 71 to 76. I’m working in close coordination with the minister, Marc Miller, at the federal level to address this critically important issue.
It’s not words. There’s a budget available. We are standing by for specific requests from different nations, and we will take them as they come forward. But only taking our lead from those particular nations, all of whom, in the diversity of the Indigenous community in British Columbia, will have a different path forward. We want to be respectful of that. We believe that concrete actions are required.
I very much reject the idea that this is rhetoric or that it’s words. I think the actions we have taken as a government since 2017, inside and outside the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, show we are putting the resources there to deal with the legacy of colonialism that is reflected in the Indian Act. We need to make concrete changes in our system of government, as a province, to address those realities.
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ROYALTIES
AND STATUS OF LNG
INDUSTRY
S. Furstenau: Yesterday Stand.earth released a report that finds that this NDP government has doubled oil and gas subsidies since they took power in 2017. The report found that by 2023, this government plans to spend almost $1.8 billion on fossil fuel subsidies, more than triple what the B.C. Liberals spent in the last year that they were in office. Let’s be clear what this means. Billions of dollars of public money is driving the expansion of fracking and LNG terminals in B.C.
This government likes to say that B.C. has the best climate plan in North America. They sell British Columbians the idea that we’re somehow climate leaders. Yet they pump billions of dollars into the fossil fuel sector, which is making it impossible to meet our climate targets.
Meanwhile, the United States is eliminating fossil fuel subsidies altogether, replacing them with clean energy incentives. The reason, according to the U.S. Treasury…. The subsidies, they said, undermine energy independence, undermine the fight against climate change and harm air and water quality in communities.
These are not lofty goals. They are the very least we should expect from government in a climate emergency to protect water, air and our future.
My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. How can the minister explain his government’s massive and increasing handouts to fracking companies when the rest of the world is going in the other direction?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her question.
I’m very proud of the work our government has done and the Green caucus and the former member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head did when it came to creating CleanBC. Together, we developed the strongest climate action plan in North America. Our government has a plan to fight climate change, build a clean energy economy and make life better for British Columbians. We are dedicated to keeping B.C. on track to meet our emission reduction targets.
My mandate from the Premier provides direction to me to undertake a comprehensive review of B.C.’s oil and gas royalty system, an action that the old government refused to take. This review will be done to ensure the system meets our goals for economic development, a fair return on our resources and continued environmental protection.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Wow. The member for Skeena mentioned rhetoric, and that answer certainly summed it up.
I’m sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation is proud of the $1.3 billion in fossil fuels in 2021. He’s proud of the deep-well royalty program for fracking operators that cost taxpayers $421 million. He’s proud of the outstanding liability that has grown, under this government, to $3.1 billion from those royalties.
Is he proud of the fact that this government is giving more to oil and gas companies, by a wide margin, than what they’re receiving back in revenue and that the people of this province, including the youth, in particular, who are going to inherit this climate-changed world, are on the hook to pay for these royalties for decades? It’s not a lot to be proud of.
Spending billions of dollars to subsidize the fossil fuel sector isn’t just terrible for the climate. It’s terrible for B.C. taxpayers. It’s moving our economy in the wrong direction.
A month ago I asked the Minister of Energy and Mines about a landmark report from the International Energy Agency which forecasted a deep decline in the global market for oil and gas and said that we don’t need any new LNG projects, warning they could become stranded assets in a world that is moving on.
At the time, the minister said he couldn’t speak to the report because he hadn’t had time to digest it. It’s been a month now. I assume, on a file as important as this one, analyzing this report and its implications for B.C. and our economy has been a priority for this government.
My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. Will the minister acknowledge that it’s now clear that LNG is not the way forward for our economy, and can he please tell us what he is doing to urgently change course and fix this government’s mistake on LNG?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her question.
I’m afraid the member has mischaracterized the way the program works, and that is disappointing. Credits are not paid or owed by the government to producers. They partially reduce royalties that must be paid when production occurs.
To speak to the review, which is underway, the ministry has commissioned an independent review of the royalty system. That will be undertaken by two experts from academia and will be released publicly once complete. The report will examine how the royalty system works today and consider whether it is positioned to achieve B.C.’s goals into the future.
After the independent review is made public, the ministry will conduct public outreach to ensure that all British Columbians have a say about the future of resource development in our province. After collecting public input, the ministry will review the royalty system to ensure that it meets B.C.’s goals for economic development, a fair return on our resources and environmental protection.
COVID-19 RELIEF GRANT ELIGIBILITY
FOR ROYAL CANADIAN
LEGION BRANCHES
AND ANAVETS CLUB
B. Banman: The Premier, for reasons only known to himself, is playing favourites when it comes to which veteran groups to support. It took repeated questioning for the Premier to finally provide support for the legion. Yet he chose to deny the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans that same respect.
Randy Williams, the president of ANAVETS in British Columbia, has written another letter to the Premier: “All 16 of our units in B.C. have endured exactly the same financial stresses as the legion during our periods of mandated shutdowns as we struggle to pay operating expenses, insurance premiums and property taxes.”
My question to the Premier is: can he tell us if he will finally — finally — do the right thing and treat these veterans the same as legions and provide them the funding they need and deserve?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think we can all agree that every member in this House supports our veterans. We certainly respect the work that these organizations do.
As I shared with the member last week, we have received the request from the organization. In fact, staff have found that there are multiple other organizations, as well, that serve veterans that didn’t request dollars. We’ve proactively reached out to them, as well, to see what their needs are. We’ll have some more information for the members once those discussions are complete.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford South on a supplemental.
B. Banman: Well, the Premier managed to give his office a boost of almost $4 million this year. The cost to treat the ANAVETS equally as the legions is under $200,000.
While it’s great that the minister has given us words that he’s looking at others, Randy Williams, the president of the ANAVETS in B.C., has written in his letter: “Both entities provide invaluable contributions and assistance and support to our esteemed veterans. So to only choose one rather than both to receive the funding is essentially saying that our members and services are not as worthy or valuable in your government’s opinion and thought process.”
Last week the minister said: “We received the request. We’re working on it, and we’ll have more to say soon.” There are two days left. Two days left.
Again, will the Premier…? Will this minister admit right now and give a yes and provide the exact same funding to the ANAVETS as he did to the legions?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that the member has got a piece of paper that he’s got to read off of. I just gave him an answer, which is that there are other organizations, as well, that haven’t requested dollars that are serving veterans. We have proactively reached out to them to assess their needs and to ensure that we can support as many organizations as we can.
We’re proud, on this side of the House, that we have the highest per-capita supports for people and businesses in this country. We’re going to work with all of the organizations that need supports to find ways to ensure that they can have the dollars they need.
We continue to talk to the federal government as well. We believe that Veterans Affairs Canada can do more to support the important work that our veterans organizations do here in British Columbia.
ANCHOR ATTRACTIONS PROGRAM FUNDING
FOR PACIFIC NATIONAL
EXHIBITION
T. Stone: Well, when bungling isn’t enough, the Premier moves straight to botching it. The PNE has been crying out for months and months, noting that they need significant financial support to survive. The Premier then goes and bungles this file by playing jurisdictional games.
He did finally decide to announce a program. He unveiled the program, and he said: “It’s attractions like the PNE that we had in mind when we developed the program. This was designed for the PNE.” Those were the Premier’s words. And then the Premier botched it. It turns out that the PNE does not qualify for the funding in this program.
Can the Premier please tell us why he designed a program to help out events like the PNE, only to then develop criteria which events like the PNE can’t meet?
Hon. M. Mark: The Premier and I did make an announcement. We announced $50 million to support anchor attractions across the province, across the ecosystem. We worked with industry leaders, targeted funding up to $1 million for some folks, up to $500 million for others in rural communities, up to $500 million for tour bus operators. The ministry is reviewing applications as we speak, with good news to come, hopefully in July. Well, definitely in July. That was the announcement that we made.
I just want to put it on the record, because the Liberals like to kind of play their games with technicalities. The PNE is an independent, not-for-profit organization wholly owned by the city of Vancouver and governed by a board of directors.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.
Hon. M. Mark: In addition, both the PNE and the city of Vancouver make annual capital investments. There’s the PNE Fair. There’s the Playland amusement park.
Let’s emphasize the amusement park, because this anchor attraction was intended for amusement parks and big things that you can’t move. And good news is going to come in the coming weeks. I’m very proud of that announcement that we made with the Premier.
Thank you so much to the member opposite for the question. It’s one thing that we’ve done, in addition to the other efforts that we’ve put out there, to provide relief to the tourism sector, which has been hit by this global pandemic.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, where to begin with that? “Good news is yet to come.” Just like, I suppose, what’s happening in B.C.’s cruise ship sector.
This minister kept saying: “Good news is coming. Good news is coming.” She says it all the time. Here we have a minister who says one thing and does another when creating programs. They announce a program that they say is intended for events like the PNE, only to then have eligibility criteria that the PNE can’t meet. That’s not a technicality. It’s also not a technicality that this government is No. 8 in the country at getting direct grants and relief out to businesses and organizations. That’s not a technicality.
This is another attempt of this Premier, who has a pattern of showing up, making a splashy announcement, and then he disappears. The minister can do her darndest to rewrite history, like claiming that this particular fund was never intended to support events like the PNE. But if that’s, indeed, the case, then the Premier shouldn’t have included the PNE in his comments when he announced the creation of this program.
This from Shelley Frost, the president of the PNE: “The B.C. anchor attraction program excluded applications from ‘events and festivals.’ As a result, the PNE was not able to apply for support for the largest part of our business, the PNE Fair. During the program launch, the Premier said this program was designed to support organizations like the PNE. However, we were disappointed that the most significant part of our business is not eligible.”
Again to the Premier, why did he say one thing then do another thing and, in the process, completely botch this file?
Hon. M. Mark: What we’ve done is we’ve worked with the tourism sector. We took counsel from those that work in the tourism industry. What we announced was $50 million to support anchor attractions across the ecosystem. That’s in addition to the 4,100 tourism businesses that received a grant — grants, not loans — which was also a call to action.
We’ve met with the PNE. We value the PNE. I’ve been going to the PNE since I was a kid. There is more to the PNE than just the PNE Fair. There’s Playland and all of their grounds. That’s the part that the member opposite wants to dismiss and overlook.
I’ve talked to the mayor of the city of Vancouver, and I’ve talked to my federal counterparts about supporting the PNE and us working together, all hands on deck, all levels of government working together.
There’s $400 million on the table from the federal government. We’re going to make sure B.C. gets its share of those funds. We’re going to continue working with the sector to support them. Good news is going to come in July.
[End of question period.]
C. Oakes: I rise to present a petition of 78 signatures….
Mr. Speaker: Member, just a second.
Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Petitions
C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition of 78 signatures to request to repave Likely Road this year. The road is getting worse by the day, and action is needed immediately.
Tabling Documents
Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to table before the Legislature the second annual speculation and vacancy tax report. This report is for the 2019 tax year. The 2019 report shows that our government’s housing investments and policies, like the speculation and vacancy tax, help to bring much-needed rental units back to the market.
For the second straight year, more than 99 percent of British Columbians are exempt from paying the tax. There is clear evidence that the tax is turning empty housing into homes, in particular, in greater Vancouver, where more than 18,000 condo units have been added to the long-term rental market in 2019 and 2020. This tax is also supporting affordable housing measures in regions where it’s applied.
As with any new program, we recognize there can be opportunities for improvement. That is why the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act requires annual consultation with the mayors, followed by a report on the key outcomes.
I’m very pleased to table the report here today.
Hon. L. Beare: On behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, I have the honour to present the 2020-2021 B.C. Arts Council Annual Report.
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling a report for the Minister of Safety and Solicitor General pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to appoint the special committee to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The full text of the motion has been provided to the two other House Leaders.
Leave granted.
Motions Without Notice
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:
[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165) pursuant to section 80 of that Act.
That the Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:
a. appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
c. conduct consultations by any means the Committee considers appropriate;
d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
e. retain such personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.
That the Special Committee report to the House by June 15, 2022; and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.
That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Rick Glumac (Convener), Susie Chant, Janet Routledge, Henry Yao, John Rustad, Tom Shypitka, and Adam Olsen.]
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Premier’s office.
In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Health.
In Section C, in the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Transportation.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 2:32 p.m.
The Chair: While we get ready for this next set of estimates, we’ll take a short recess. Thank you, Members.
The committee recessed from 2:32 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $14,678,000 (continued).
The Chair: I’d like to call this committee into session for estimates.
Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition.
S. Bond: Thank you very much. Recognizing the constraint on time that we have, I’m going to get started right away. We have a number of issues to canvass this afternoon, and I want to start by just letting the Premier know that the estimates process, I think it’s fair to say, I can describe as fairly frustrating for the opposition this session.
Obviously, the delay of the budget has meant that we are cramming time to ask important questions. I will just point out that getting answers to questions has been difficult, including from the Premier. When we look at how often he has responded to questions directly asked of him, the percentage is not stellar.
I think even more frustrating for me has been watching the estimates process, where we have ministers of the Crown…. When there is precious little time, ministers have taken, at points in this process…. Over the course of an hour, maybe, they have answered two, three or four questions.
Today I’m going to begin by asking some questions. There are a number of unanswered questions, so I have asked a number of critics to join me this afternoon to get to the bottom of some of the issues that matter to the opposition and to British Columbians. I’ll get started, and we’ll work our way through some of those critical issues. It’s unfortunate there were not more forthcoming answers during an estimates process, which is designed to do exactly that. The Premier would well know that, considering the time he spent on this side of the aisle.
Yesterday the Premier confirmed that his budget has increased 63 percent since he took office. That includes, this year alone, a 30 percent increase for ten new positions for a planning and priorities secretariat. I’d like the Premier, if he could, to confirm that that includes an ADM, four executive directors, four director positions and an executive coordinator. Could the Premier confirm that, please?
Hon. J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, I’ll just pick up on some of the comments the Leader of the Opposition made. I’m advised by the House Leader that the hours for estimates this year are consistent with past years. I am also advised that it has been quite collaborative throughout the session up until today, and I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to carry through that for this session as well.
I can confirm that there are ten positions at the planning and priorities secretariat. There were, in total, as part of the budget increase, going from 86 FTEs to 103 FTEs: one is cabinet operations; two admin positions; four outreach and engagement positions, which I canvassed yesterday; and the ten priorities and planning staff, which consists of one associate deputy minister, one executive coordinator, four executive directors, four directors overseeing portfolios for social initiatives, reconciliation, economic initiatives and skills training, as well as DRIPA, education, equity, anti-racism and multiculturalism, innovation, skills training, transportation and other related issues.
S. Bond: According to the subvote description: “This subvote provides for coordination of government caucus committees.” Can the Premier describe what is meant by “coordination of NDP caucus committees”?
Hon. J. Horgan: The Leader of the Opposition may well be…. And the member for Abbotsford West. They were both part of the government of 2001 to 2005.
It was a very large caucus, and an innovation in that caucus was to create government caucus committees, which allowed representatives from the government caucus to participate at the cabinet level, getting access to subject and content professionals within the public service. They were bound by cabinet confidentiality.
There is a requirement to coordinate that activity, because it does involve cabinet operations staff. It does involve ensuring that everyone on the committees, which includes cabinet ministers and government members, are fully briefed and fully understand the material that they’re discussing so that there can be a better outcome at the end of the day.
As I say, I poached that idea from the former chief of staff to the former Premier. We discussed it at length. I found it was a good idea. It seems to be working very well for us, as it did, I understand, for the former government.
S. Bond: Could the Premier describe how often the NDP caucus committee meetings take place, and if they’re regularly scheduled, with agendas, would the Premier be prepared to share those agendas proactively?
Hon. J. Horgan: There are two committees — a social initiatives and an economic initiatives committee. They meet every three weeks. The agendas are subject to cabinet confidence, because it is part of the cabinet process.
Again, this is not an innovation by me. It was an innovation brought in by the former B.C. Liberal government.
S. Bond: Can the Premier confirm that Donna Sanford, the former head of the NDP-Green confidence and supply agreement secretariat, is now the ADM responsible for a $1.6 million secretariat?
Hon. J. Horgan: I can confirm that Donna Sanford does head the unit.
S. Bond: So perhaps the Premier can explain how he has taken what was a secretariat to serve the unique circumstances of a minority government and interactions specifically with the Third Party and, in essence, has now turned it into a much larger, more expensive secretariat to support the majority NDP caucus.
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the role and function of the planning and priorities secretariat was outlined yesterday, and it is not exclusive. It is not confined to one component of cabinet operations. It’s involved in a whole host of issues and initiatives that are not just government caucus–related. That’s a misrepresentation of what I said yesterday, and it’s a misrepresentation of what’s actually happening with the secretariat.
Of course, the secretariat is not unlike others in jurisdictions like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We have had similar secretariats in British Columbia in the past. The objective is to coordinate activity, ensure that the information that’s flowing into the executive council is coordinated and ensuring that the outcomes are also dispersed to line ministries, as I said yesterday, so there’s coherence for the professional public service in terms of the direction of the government that’s consistent with the mandate letters, that’s consistent with directives from cabinet.
That’s the objective. That’s the undertaking. It’s a massive undertaking, one that requires coordination. That’s why the body exists not just here but in many other jurisdictions.
S. Bond: Well, let’s start with being clear. I wasn’t misrepresenting anything. I was asking a question for clarity.
I think the Premier actually knows he’s going to be asked those kinds of questions when he has a 63 percent increase in his office budget since he took office. It’s fairly transparent that the person who headed up the confidence and supply agreement secretariat is now the head of the larger, more expensive secretariat in the Premier’s office. So I wasn’t implying anything. I was simply asking the Premier a question.
Let’s ask this question. As members of the public service, are employees of the secretariat bound by the B.C. public service Standards of Conduct, which says…? Let’s remember that we’re talking about the NDP caucus here, and the Premier would know the NDP caucus…. We’re talking about coordination of the caucus committees.
Interjection.
S. Bond: Perhaps I could finish asking my question. Let’s try that again. As members of the public service, are employees of the secretariat bound by the B.C. public service Standards of Conduct, which says: “Employees must not engage in political activities during working hours or use government facilities, equipment or resources in support of those activities”? Can the Premier confirm or make comment on that?
Hon. J. Horgan: All employees within the secretariat and all of those that work in the Office of the Premier under the Public Service Act are bound by that code of conduct.
S. Bond: In 2017, the comptroller general directed the government to work with the B.C. Public Service Agency to develop written terms of reference for the confidence and supply agreement secretariat to ensure consistency with B.C. public service standards of conduct. Those terms of reference were made public.
Has the Premier consulted with the comptroller general about this new secretariat, which is coordinating NDP caucus committees?
Hon. J. Horgan: The secretariat that was put in place following the minority government of 2017 included opposition members. Therefore, we went to the comptroller to get clarity. I think it might have even been at the request of the official opposition that there be clarity on the institution that was established to have smooth, consistent and, for a period of time, stable government here in British Columbia.
Completely counter to that would be the priorities and planning secretariat, which is a component of the professional public service designed to ensure that cabinet gets timely information and that decisions are then dispersed to line ministries so that the objectives and the direction of government can be implemented.
S. Bond: There is an additional expense, and there is an additional set of responsibilities that…. While the Premier wants to talk about how smooth cabinet is going to run, we are talking about NDP caucus committees.
Interjection.
S. Bond: Well, the Premier can shake his head all he wants. The subvote describes this as “coordination of government caucus committees.”
Can the Premier, then, at least tell me whether or not there are written terms of reference and whether or not he is willing to lay out and make public the details about the expenditure of those dollars related to that subvote?
Hon. J. Horgan: I guess I’m taking issue with the Leader of the Opposition calling them NDP committees. They’re government caucus committees, and this isn’t the first time they’ve existed in British Columbia. The first time they existed was under the B.C. Liberals’ watch in 2001 to 2005.
These are committees that are populated by a third of the members being cabinet ministers and others from the caucus to have better coordination of activity within cabinet. They’re cabinet committees. They’re not caucus committees. They’re cabinet committees. They’re staffed by professional public officials, and that’s what happened in 2001 to 2005, and it’s exactly what we’re doing right now.
S. Bond: Might I just remind the Premier that I’m simply reading the description of the subvote. He can be sensitive about the title, but the subvote description says: “This subvote provides for the coordination of government caucus committees.” So he can continue to have that debate.
The question was: are there written terms of reference, and is he prepared to lay out publicly what the government caucus committees do and what their agendas include? We’re talking about an increase in the Premier’s office budget of 30 percent, and that at a time when we are constantly raising issues that the Premier has chosen not to fund. I think it’s important we actually get the specifics of why he has a 63 percent increase in his office budget since he took office.
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate that maybe we’re just speaking across each other. It is a cabinet caucus committee. It is not unlike any other cabinet committee. The guidelines have been well established over long periods of time about how cabinet committees operate: what the terms of engagement are and what the responsibilities of the membership are in terms of confidences, in terms of a host of other initiatives. The member knows that full well.
I’m taking issue with her calling it an NDP caucus committee. Because it is a cabinet-first — cabinet-first — caucus committee. It’s an important distinction, and I’m confident that the member knows that, because she was a member of cabinet caucus committees in her time as a member of this place.
S. Bond: I hope we’re not going to spend the afternoon with this kind of back and forth from the Premier. The subvote description calls it government caucus committees. It doesn’t mention the word cabinet. So we’re not going to have a debate about that.
We’re talking about a substantive increase in dollars to this Premier’s budget. Let’s hear what the Premier had to say in 2017. He received an additional $2 million in 2017, and he said, “We do have, as I said, an increase in resources available…to make sure that we’re driving” our agenda and the priorities. That was in 2017. The Premier has a significant number of advisers and specifically added staff to give him advice on the priorities as part of a $2 million lift to his budget in 2017.
What do we see now? He is adding $3.44 million for more of the same thing. What happened and what changed since 2017?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, this is the budget estimates for the budget of ’21-22, not 2017, but I’m happy to go back and revisit those issues.
We were a new government. We had come to power with a CASA agreement with the members of the Third Party. We put in place structures to make sure that we could implement the objectives of government, which is the right and priority of government.
Every year we came into this place and defended those estimates. There was a one-time increase in 2017 and a modest increase of previous year to pay for a Francophonie summit, I’m advised, by some $250,000, and then there would have been COLA increases or whatever increases were required because of collective agreements. That was it.
Fast-forward to 2021-2022 — new government, new challenges, global pandemic, increasing concerns about issues like climate change, increasing concerns about how we take our forest sector, which, in my opinion, had been neglected, but that’s another point.
We had serious issues that were not the fault of the government. The mountain pine beetle decimated the Interior forest sector. Successive fire seasons further decimated the Interior forest sector. Challenges abound. So to create, as other jurisdictions in Canada have, a planning secretariat to streamline the activities of government to make sure that every component part of the government understands the mandate and the purpose and the function is, I believe, appropriate. If it’s appropriate in Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be appropriate here.
S. Bond: We’re certainly not debating the estimates of the government of Alberta or Saskatchewan, but we are debating the Premier’s office estimates. The Premier makes commentary about previous increases. The reason for these questions is the fact that when you add them all up, the Premier’s budget has increased substantively since 2017, in consecutive ways.
Let me outline for the Premier. He may want to correct me here. But after adding ten new staff in 2017, the Premier actually continued to add new political staff positions in his office from 2018 to 2020.
Let’s walk through a few of them here: October 22, 2018, a new position of policy director, salary $125,000; April 1, 2019, two new positions — director of executive operations and director of strategic outreach, salaries up to $125,000; November 1, 2019, a new position of communications manager with $100,000 salary; January 24, 2020, a new position of executive adviser, project and strategic liaison, with $100,000 salary.
Given the Premier’s office budget has already increased almost 30 percent from 2017 to 2020, why does the Premier need an additional $3.5 million this year, a further increase of 30 percent? It is an over 60 percent increase in his office budget since he took office.
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, let me just go through the FTE count. From 2017, there were 20 FTEs; April 2018, 21 FTEs; May 2019, 22; May ’20, 21; and now with this budget, an increase of FTEs within the Premier’s office of 27. The individuals you talked about were repurposed and reassigned, and salaries move along. Again, this is not a surprise to the Leader of the Opposition, having spent 16 years in government.
I would just say: “The cabinet government caucus committees we have implemented today will open up decision-making, create new opportunities for public input and involve all government MLAs in developing solutions to the challenges that we face…. The government caucus committees will review policies, programs and legislation and make recommendations to cabinet.” That’s from June 2001, a press release from the then Premier’s office.
I note that the member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, was a member of the economy committee, and the member for Abbotsford West was a member of the natural resources committee.
Again, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a good idea then. It’s a good idea now. That’s why we implemented it.
S. Bond: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Well, you know, the Premier is here to answer questions, and not all of them are going to be comfortable.
I just want to remind the Premier that the reason this question is relevant is because he…. When asked directly if he would continue increasing his budget, his answer was: “We don’t anticipate any further increases.” Yet that is exactly the opposite of what’s happened — a 63 percent increase in his budget since he took office. Our concern is that staffing is…. Certainly, I understand the flow of the Premier’s office, the cabinet office. I actually had the privilege of serving for a number of years in my career. But I also know that the Premier has, without having….
As recently as today, we asked in this Legislature about funding to support the ANAVETS, army, navy and air. The answer is: “Well, you know, it might happen. We’ll wait and see.” We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions of dollars. So it is an issue of priority.
These questions are important, and they’re relevant. And British Columbians understand that there’s been a 63 percent increase in the Premier’s office budget.
With that, hon. Chair, I am going to ask my colleague to ask several questions at this point.
Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just conclude this component and again say that the quote that was referred to was from 2017. We were a new government. I didn’t anticipate a global pandemic. I didn’t anticipate the changes that we’ve seen over those three years. This is a new government, with new challenges, new responsibilities. We’re in the midst of a global pandemic.
On average, the FTE count in the Premier’s office, between 2017 and 2020, did not change. It did not change. The budget from 2017 to 2020 did not change. Every year we came into this place, and we debated those estimates. There were opportunities for all members of the House to ask questions about who these people were, how they got here, what they were doing. Absolutely appropriate.
Mischaracterizing the situation four years ago to today, I think, misses the point. We’ve explained — I’ve explained — why we’ve increased the component of FTEs in the Premier’s office and the cost of implementing that. I’ve made it clear. We followed some of the good ideas that came out of the former government. Again, as I’ve said in my mandate letters — and I was criticized for this yesterday — good ideas come from a variety of places. In the case of government caucus committees, not my idea but a good one, and I was happy to adopt that.
T. Stone: I’m pleased to participate in the Premier’s estimates for a little while here. The first line of questioning that I would like to canvass with the Premier involves what, arguably, is one of the most disappointing and, frankly, pathetic aspects of government support for businesses during the pandemic, and that’s just how difficult it seems to be for this government to get money out the door.
The three grant direct-relief programs that I’m speaking of are the circuit breaker grant, which was launched two months ago, and 40.4 percent of the dollars are out the door. The launch online grant was announced four months ago. Only 37.9 percent of the dollars are out the door. The big one is the small and medium-sized business recovery grant, which was announced fully eight months ago. To this point, only 49.8 percent of the dollars are out the door.
The obvious question to the Premier is: why has it taken so long, and why has it proven to be so difficult to get much-needed supports out to small businesses in a timely fashion?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. I welcome him to this debate.
I will say again that he, also, in the past has been a member of the executive council, and he understands full well the challenge of creating programs from scratch, from nothing. We did not anticipate…. None of us — not just in this room, not just in this province, not just in this country but internationally — anticipated the gravity and the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The impacts on British Columbia have been profound, but the response, I believe, has been equally profound. It’s abundantly clear, based on other province’s efforts in this regard, that B.C. has provided more per-capita direct supports to businesses and people than any other province in the country.
There was $234 million provided to small business recovery grants, up to $45,000. That continues to run through to July 2. The circuit breaker was wildly successful and was expanded again because the case counts were unacceptably high to the public health team that had been assembled to guide us all through these challenging times.
I appreciate there will be a series of other questions on the various programs we put together, but I just want to, as a foundation for the questions to come, make it clear that these programs did not exist until they were created. That in and of itself is a herculean effort by the professional public service, aided by multiple engagements with the business community, whether it be local chambers of commerce, the B.C. chamber as an umbrella organization, boards of trade, the B.C. Business Council, the B.C. Federation of Labour, multiple engagements with municipalities across the board.
By continuously meeting with Premiers and the Prime Minister, we were able to get a significant amount of resources from Ottawa. One-time money, to be sure. We would have preferred a more focused approach by the federal government on issues like the Canada health transfer. I hope that we’ll be able to discuss that today. But those dollars came to British Columbia because of advocacy by ministers on this side of the floor.
We created these programs because of the hard work of professional public servants who worked overtime for months and months to put in place the foundation and the criteria. Were there blips in the criteria? Were there deficiencies in the criteria? Over time, those were discovered. Those were corrected, and we’ve had good outcomes. We’re going to continue to have good outcomes until the programs expire.
T. Stone: I would point out to the Premier that British Columbia is actually No. 8 in the country when it comes to direct relief, direct grants for small business, and fully 68 percent of the supports that have been provided to small businesses here in British Columbia have come in the form of liquidity supports, which, as the Premier I’m sure would know, are deferrals and loans. These are moneys that ultimately have to be paid back. They have to be paid by small business.
The Premier said in his previous response that there were challenges creating support programs from scratch. Was it that, or was it the challenges that were brought on by the Premier calling an election in the middle of the pandemic, which threw a bit of a wrench in the spokes of the wheel in terms of actually getting the programs out the door to support small businesses desperately in need?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the majority of the moneys that we talked about, whether it be the circuit breaker or whether it be the small business recovery grants, were just that: grants, cash.
The major attractions funding was cash, grants, not loans, not deferred expenses — in other words, a component part of that, to be sure. But there was a host of other initiatives, whether it be B.C. Hydro waiving hydro cost for months, whether it be a range of other initiatives that we put in place — establishing paid sick leave. Again, this was done by the Legislative Assembly upon advice from the Minister of Labour and others through a consultation with a host of others to get to a place where we could make progress.
Again, I suppose we can spend the rest of the afternoon talking about: at what point did we discover there was a deficiency in the program? But I recall that member, particularly, talking about the approach of maybe just putting a hockey bag full of cash on the ground and seeing who wants to come and take some out. You have to have criteria, and as the criteria is tested by applicants, you’ll find deficiencies. That’s the nature of a new program. That’s the nature of a new initiative.
As we discovered deficiencies, we put in place amendments, and that came as a direct result of input from small and medium-sized businesses who were very anxious and pleased to work with us to get these programs right. That’s what we undertook to do, and I think we’ve hit the mark, by and large, as we come to starting stage 2 of our restart plan and hopefully getting to stage 3 by July 1.
T. Stone: Well, it’s a little bit early in the day to be as engaged in hubris as the Premier seems to already be when it comes to this line of questioning. This is happening on his watch. It’s his government that is bungling the rolling out of direct relief for small businesses across the province.
Let’s take a look at the timeline here. I know that this timeline represents a bit of an inconvenient truth for the Premier. This Legislature unanimously approved billions of dollars of supports, including for small businesses. That was on March 23 of 2020. The Premier says they had challenges creating programs from scratch. Well, he didn’t even roll out his StrongerBC program for six months after this Legislature approved the funding. That was StrongerBC, announced on September 17.
Then four days later we discover what the real reason was for the six-month delay. It was that he decided to call an election on September 21. The small and medium-sized business recovery grant then gets rolled out on October 9. Then it takes another eight months to bring us to where we are today.
We’re sitting here looking at, as I said earlier, less than 50 percent of the dollars out the door in the small and medium-sized business recovery program. If we actually go back to when the funding was approved, we’re talking about 15 months that it’s taken for this government to get to a point of only 50 percent of the dollars in this program out the door.
The question to the Premier would be this. How can he justify to small businesses that are barely hanging on across this province that there’s so much money, still fully 50 percent of each of these grant programs that I’ve just mentioned? So 50 percent of the dollars in these programs, months and month after the programs were created, are still sitting in the government’s treasury as opposed to being put out into the pockets of small businesses that need the support.
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member will know that the initial program was a $300 million program, and that has been oversubscribed. That’s why it’s now a $534 million program. We increased the program over the past number of months, and we’re continuing to get applications up until July 2.
Now, I have been engaging widely in conversations with business owners and operators, as well as with umbrella organizations like the chambers and the B.C. Business Council. I don’t hear the concerns that I hear from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. I hear from them a sense of relief that there’s a plan, a sense of relief that they can call on government.
Every time they want to bring up issues, we’re there, whether it be through the Minister of Finance or through the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, whether it be any member of executive council or even caucus members. If there are concerns, we hear those concerns, we adapt, and we move on.
It’s that adaptability and flexibility that I think separates us from other jurisdictions in the country. We’ve been focusing on trying to get people, businesses and communities to a place where they can come out of the pandemic stronger than they went into it. When we look, almost 99 percent of the employment that we had pre-pandemic is back.
We’re hearing now from businesses, as one would expect. We were hearing that call before the pandemic of labour shortages. That’s what I’m hearing from the hospitality sector. That’s what I’m hearing from various other components in the economy. “We don’t have enough people.”
That’s the challenge of the day. It’s not liquidity. It’s not grants. It’s how do I find the people to meet the demand in the community? That’s the challenge that we all have, going forward. I’m happy to have a dialogue with the member on that any time.
T. Stone: Well, I suppose the Premier hasn’t spoken to any of the 8,000 business owners that are no longer in business in Metro Vancouver, through this pandemic.
The Premier talks a lot about adaptability and flexibility and so forth. The reality is billions of dollars were approved in this House 15 months ago. So I would suggest that the adaptability and flexibility that the Premier talked about was actually his decision to call an election in the middle of this pandemic, which resulted in small business owners paying the ultimate price, not receiving funding in a timely fashion.
If it wasn’t the calling of an election that delayed everything on the small and medium-sized business recovery grant being 15 months since the dollars were approved, what the heck was it that resulted in us being here today, where his Minister of Jobs said earlier in the estimates process that only 49.8 percent of the small and medium-sized business recovery grant program dollars have been actually paid out?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the average turnaround for grant applications for the circuit breaker grant, which is the most recent program that we announced and then extended because of the high case counts through the third wave: applications received, 12,000; applications adjudicated, 5,000. Incorrect banking information — there was about 20 million in that regard. Applications submitted for adjudication with all documents, 90 percent. Program staff turnaround time, eight business days.
What’s the response been from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce? “We applaud the B.C. government’s quick action to provide financial support. This announcement is a win for business and demonstrates what can be achieved while private and public sectors adapt to collaboration in an approach to problem-solving.”
Also, the executive director of ABLE-BC: “This is a lifeline.” A restaurant owner here in Victoria: “This helps us stay open and keep employees.” It goes on. There’s no shortage of affirmation of how businesses have been responding to the programs that we’ve put in place. I’m happy to continue reading those if the member has more questions.
T. Stone: Well, the sad reality is there are businesses that are gone forever because of how slow this government has been in getting supports out the door, and there are many, many more that are just hanging by a thread because of eligibility requirements, which make it very restrictive and very difficult for businesses that should be eligible for support but do not get that support. But I’m going to move on.
On September 6, 2017, the Premier cancelled construction of the George Massey Tunnel replacement. At the time, the NDP promised immediate actions to “find the best solution” for the George Massey corridor. That was four years ago.
The obvious question to the Premier is, four years later, four years after cancelling the George Massey Tunnel replacement project: why can he not stand up today and tell British Columbians whether there’s going to be a new tunnel or a new bridge to replace the existing structure? What is taking so long?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, I’ll go back…. The member will be very familiar with this. He was the minister at the time.
Of the some 28 municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region, only one supported the former Premier’s bridge. There was a lot of anxiety and apprehension in Richmond, which, of course, is where much of the civil works would have taken place. They were opposed to the bridge, as were a number of other municipalities.
When we came to government, we consulted widely, and it was abundantly clear that there was only one jurisdiction that thought it was a good idea. Everyone else thought we needed a better plan than that. That involves consultation; that involves time.
I believe that in very short order, the people in the region who depend on that Massey crossing…. Of course, as a Vancouver Islander, it’s the primary crossing for those who are coming from the ferry, so I know it full well. You don’t have to live in Delta to understand the need for improvements in this piece of infrastructure. Before too long, we’re going to be seeing improvements on the approaches on both sides of the access point.
I will also advise, hon. Chair, that if the member wants to get more detailed answers, the Minister of Transportation’s estimates are happening right now.
T. Stone: Well, nice try, I say to the Premier. He’s the head of government; he’s ultimately responsible. This is a massive infrastructure project that was cancelled. He cancelled it.
I will remind him that it had received environmental assessment approval, ALC approval. It addressed critical seismic concerns. First responders were on board with it. It was anticipated to significantly reduce collisions. It was going to provide for 9,000 jobs. It included a $500 million component for transit. The project came in at $900 million under the original project budget, yet the Premier cancelled it.
It’s been four years, Premier. It’s been four years, and the people who live in this corridor are still waiting for an end to the gridlock. It’s a massive impact on their quality of life. It shouldn’t have taken four years to be asking questions today about: is it going to be a bridge, or is it going to be a tunnel?
Now, the MLA for Delta North, who’s now the Jobs Minister, is quoted as saying: “As MLA, I will make sure that this gets done.” He also, as part of that, said that he preferred a tunnel.
The question, again to the Premier: is it going to be a bridge or a tunnel? If it’s a tunnel, is the Premier aware of the fact that the Tsawwassen First Nation does not support a tunnel? They do not want a tunnel, in which case if this government….
The Chair: Sorry, Member. We’re having some technical issues with Zoom. I really apologize.
I’m going to have to ask…. In order to involve all members to have their democratic right to be part of this place, we’re going to have to take a short recess. Apologies. It just wasn’t coming through, as I’m advised. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 3:25 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
The Chair: Thank you, Members. Apologies to all for that.
Thank you to our team at Hansard for working so quickly to try and get that resolved.
I’m not quite sure where it cut out for the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, but I’m sure he’ll give it another go.
T. Stone: Well, as a former tech CEO, you’ve just got to snap the fingers, make the technical problems go away.
My question to the Premier, again related to the George Massey Tunnel. I had said that it’s been four years. This is a decision he made to cancel it. It’s equally his decision to move forward. I quoted the Minister of Jobs, who is on the record numerous times saying that he supports a tunnel.
Then my question to the Premier. The Tsawwassen First Nation does not support a tunnel. Is a tunnel or a bridge the preferred option of this government? If it’s a tunnel, how does he reconcile opposition of the Tsawwassen First Nation with that position?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his patience. He will know that this…. On his watch, this was proposed to be a ten-lane tolled bridge, not supported by the vast majority of the people in the region at that time.
We’ve been working on the business plan. He will know — well, certainly, those who are in the budget estimates for the Minister of Transportation will know — that Budget 2021 does include funding for the approaches to ease congestion on Highway 99 going into the George Massey crossing area.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
We’re still in consultation on the business case with the federal government. Unlike the former government, we’re hopeful that we can have federal participation in this piece of infrastructure. Because of its importance to our trade corridors, we believe that this is an important piece not just for the Lower Mainland and British Columbia but also for Canada. We are committed to not having tolls on public infrastructure. That’s, again, a departure from the former government.
As we finalize discussions with the federal government and other stakeholders, we’ll have something to say on what the preferred option is.
The Chair: Kamloops–South Thompson.
T. Stone: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.
Well, the Premier made some comments about the project that would’ve replaced the George Massey Tunnel on my watch, or the watch of the former government. I would remind the Premier that if the Premier hadn’t cancelled the project, this ten-lane bridge that he speaks of would be opening up next year. British Columbia’s number one choke point, most congested corridor in the province, would be alleviated. We’d be providing relief to all of the residents and the businesses that rely on this corridor every single day.
On May 23, 2019, the Premier said: “I think we can get going on this quite quickly. Minister…Trevena is seized with this opportunity.” Again, we’re two years later — two years since the Premier said the government was “seized with this opportunity.” I guess the most important question here…. The Premier wants to talk about tolls. He wants to talk about which mayors supported or didn’t support the project. The project was widely supported by the public.
The fundamental question that I think matters the most is: when is the Massey Tunnel going to be replaced? What is the date, even the target date, for this government’s replacement of this critical piece of infrastructure that would uncork the number one clogged traffic artery in the province of British Columbia? When will the tunnel be replaced?
Hon. J. Horgan: The member may well remember that when we took the tolls off the Port Mann Bridge, congestion in the entire region was eased. People started using that bridge because they didn’t have to pay for it. That was a step in the right direction to ease congestion while we consulted.
I am obliged — and I regret this very much — to read some of the learnings from the former minister that he articulated back in October of 2017. I don’t know if people were placing bets on that, but somebody is winning some money here. This is what the member said at that time: “A lesson for me that I really want to apply, moving forward: I think we had our elbows up a bit too much with the mayors. I think the tone of the conversation was not always one of partnership and working together.”
I, like the member opposite, like to learn as life goes by. I believe that a more aggressive approach with the mayors in the region was not the right way to go.
We’ve been working hand in hand with elected representatives in the region and with the First Nations to find a way forward that meets everybody’s needs. We’re very close, in the final stages of discussion. We don’t want to foreclose on federal participation in this project, which is something that the former government chose to do. The former government wanted tolls. The former government did not get agreement from the federal government. They had multiple mayors.
I’ll just read one more quote, hon. Chair, because I had some quotes thrown back to me. The chair of the Mayors Council on September 2017, after we announced that we were moving in a different direction: “It’s exactly what Metro Vancouver regional district called for. We acknowledge there’s a traffic issue along that corridor, and something needs to be done. But the scope of the ten-lane bridge was too big, and they needed to work with local governments around the whole region, including Metro Vancouver, to find the appropriate solution.”
What I chose to do, when I was given the privilege and honour of holding this position, was to engage with as many people as possible to try and find that triple-word score where everyone who was involved could come away feeling that this was the best outcome possible. That’s the value of being an early, new government.
When the member was having to make those decisions, it was in the latter stages of a fourth term. I appreciate that at that point, perhaps, the elbows-up mentality that he now concedes was the wrong approach may well be the status quo. It’s not today; It won’t be, going forward. We want to make sure that we’ve got buy-in. We’re very, very close. I appreciate that the member would like an announcement today, but it’s not going to happen.
T. Wat: I’d like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me some time to canvass the Premier on the Tourism file, for which I have the privilege to be the critic.
When I had the debate with the Tourism Minister on her file, the anchor attractions grant had not been announced. I would like to ask the Premier today: how many applications have been approved under the anchor attractions grant? How much has actually been paid out and/or will be paid out?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Richmond North Centre for her question.
The program closing date was last week. So far, we have reviewed 130 major attractions applications. This is a $50 million grant program, up to $1 million for major attractions in urban areas and up to $500,000 for attractions in rural areas. I know the member will be quite familiar with that information. I guess the new information for her is that 130 major attractions have made application.
T. Wat: Thank you to the Premier for the information.
How many of them are rural, coming from rural areas, and how many are from urban areas? Is the number according to expectations from the government?
Hon. J. Horgan: The application deadline was June 7, so we’ve had just over a week. I can give you the global number of 130. I can’t break them out at this time. Again, I will undertake to get you that number as estimates close and the Legislature rises.
At this point, I think the time it would take to determine that number could be better spent on other questions. I will commit to get you that number, if we can disaggregate those as quickly as possible.
T. Wat: Thank you to the Premier for committing to following up with the breakdown.
When we asked about the Quesnel rodeo, the North Thompson Fall Fair, the IPE and the others, the Tourism Minister encouraged them to apply under the anchor attraction grant. But when they tried to apply, the response was: “As noted in the program guidelines, festivals and events are ineligible”
I would like the Premier to explain why groups were told by the minister to apply for funding they were not eligible to receive.
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate, again, that these are specific questions that have or would be better asked of the minister responsible. I understand that I have an obligation to try and get you the best answer possible, so I hope you’ll accept this in the spirit with which it was offered.
The Quesnel rodeo did not fit the criteria. But there were other areas of government where they could have accessed resources, as I understand it. Animal care, for example, which would be critically important to the rodeo — they were able to access dollars for that purpose through the Ministry of Agriculture. As I understand it, the member for Cariboo North has been consulted on these issues with respect to that particular event.
Again, I expect that these questions would have been better asked to the minister. But the program for events had a period of 60 days of operation. Not knowing how long the Quesnel rodeo required to conduct its business on the front end of the program and then the rollup at the end, it was appropriate to ask them to apply to get a better understanding of the business model, the business plan, what their requirements were, and then to find other areas within government so we could assist.
That appears to be what happened in this case. The Ministry of Agriculture did have resources available to assist that particular event. But the only way you can determine if you meet the criteria is to apply. Not everyone is successful, and that is regrettable. But that does give an opportunity for government to look across the various opportunities for funding and to find those places where a program might fit. That appears to have happened in the case of the Quesnel rodeo.
T. Wat: Thank you for the Premier’s response, but unfortunately, as I told the Premier earlier on, my debate with the Tourism Minister took place before this program was announced. There’s only one more day in this legislative session, so we have to ask the Premier.
There has been confusion and frustration since the funding was announced. This is what the IPE fair says: “We understand the ministry’s position that the IPE doesn’t qualify. Of course, this frustration is compounded, given the minister’s comments in question period.”
Why was there this confusion? And would the Premier please extend the eligibility to include these groups, as the Premier has the final say in the government?
Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that festivals and events were not eligible for the major attraction program, but there has been recently announced by the federal government a $200 million program for festivals and events — the minister is advocating with her counterpart in Ottawa to secure those resources for events like the Armstrong exposition — as well as community fairs and festivals, another $200 million, and $500 million for tourism relief.
These are initiatives that we’ve been advocating for through the intergovernmental relations program in my office to try and make sure that we are supplementing the work that we’re doing here by making sure that we attract our per-capita percentage of federal expenditures on these types of initiatives. I’m confident that we’ll be successful with some, perhaps not with all of them. But this is a challenging time. We want to hear from people. We want to know what their challenges are.
The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the ANAVETS, for example. When we responded to a not-for-profit not being able to access a circuit breaker grant with respect to legions, we inadvertently left out ANAVETS. That’s being done. But we’re going a step further than that, to make sure that there are no other veterans organizations that were not eligible for resources but could desperately use them. We’re trying to be as fair and equitable as we can across the board.
I know in my own constituency, the Luxton Rodeo and the Luxton Fall Fair were not eligible, but they’re major attractions, major anchors in the rural component of my community, and they’re not going to be able to proceed effectively. The rodeo season is gone. The fair in the fall may well be there, but these are community events that are always, year to year, struggling to get volunteers, struggling to get sponsors, struggling to get the resources to carry on.
Larger undertakings I’m sure we’ll talk about in a moment. We’ve tried our level best to make sure we have got the resources to help people bridge this most difficult of times, but we can’t satisfy everyone. That’s why we’re looking to the federal government to make sure that we get our per-capita percentage of the funding for tourism initiatives landing here as quickly as possible.
T. Wat: When the program was announced on May 18, the Premier said: “It’s attractions like the PNE that we had in mind when we developed the program. This was designed for the PNE.” But last week the minister directly contradicted the Premier. She said: “It wasn’t designed for the PNE.” Can the Premier clarify who is right?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for the question. I hope that I will clarify the issue rather than further complicate it for the member and for members of the House who are participating today.
The member, I’m sure, will know that the corporate structure of the PNE is entwined with the city of Vancouver. There is a permanent structure there at Hastings Park, Playland, which also has a racetrack and has a pseudo-casino attached to it. Then there are the events of the PNE. The events are not eligible for the major attractions grant, but Playland is. Again, it’s a not-for-profit run municipally but also has commercial interests through the Hastings racetrack.
There are complexities upon complexities when it comes to us generously saying “the PNE.” The Pacific National Exhibition is an event; it’s not a major attraction. The major attraction is Playland, and part and parcel of its mandate is to deliver the PNE. So they are eligible to apply for a component of their activity. We’re hopeful that they will. We’re hopeful they’ll be successful.
We also are engaged in discussions with the city of Vancouver, the owner of the facility, to try and find ways to make sure that this major, major event/attraction has the resources it needs to continue on.
T. Wat: Thank you to the Premier. The thing is…. I just want the Premier to know the Tourism Minister was the one that caused all the confusion. She raised hopes, and then she contradicted the Premier. This is exactly the kind of issue that’s so confusing to the tourism sector and causing anxiety and upset for the already struggling organization.
I’m just trying to…. Earlier on, I asked about all of those organizations that applied. They were told by the minister, in question period, to please apply. If she had known that they are not even qualified — as the minister, she should know the file in and out, really well — then she shouldn’t have asked them to apply, raising their hopes and anxiety. And now, they were told that they are not eligible. So you raise people’s hopes high and then drop them down. Is that fair to them?
Coming back to the PNE, the Premier was saying that it’s a federal program, which is true. But is the Premier aware that it is actually not true — that the PNE actually was not eligible for the federal program? Even the Premier’s buddy, the mayor, Kennedy Stewart, said in a statement that the $1 million in provincial funding for the PNE is disappointing. He said that when the Premier said the PNE should apply and that Victoria will see what it needs and what he can do. The mayor said: “I take him at his word.”
The Premier should have known that the PNE is not qualified for any federal program. For the provincial government to give them just $1 million just doesn’t cut it. We don’t want to see this century-old icon to be gone.
My question is to the Premier. Has he considered…? I understand that there’s a $100 million contingency fund to try to help the tourism industry recover. Now, we just allocated $15 million. We still have $15 million. We don’t know how much of this $15 million has been allocated.
Would the Premier consider providing more funding to the PNE so that they can survive through this crisis?
Hon. J. Horgan: I did raise with the opposition member from Richmond North Centre the corporate structure of the PNE and Playland.
The door is not closed on federal funding. There is a CRA ruling that has complicated this issue because of that corporate structure. So we are advocating with the federal government on behalf of the PNE, Playland, the city of Vancouver to ensure that that federal money will flow.
Again, I believe that the minister, appropriately so — I would have done the same thing — erred on the side of caution. If you don’t understand the business model of those that are seeking assistance, you ask them to apply so that you can review their business plan, see where it fits and then maybe shift it over to a place which would have been a better starting point. I think that’s appropriate.
With respect to the PNE, Playland, Hastings Park, all of that had to be taken into consideration. It continues to be under consideration actively here, actively in the city of Vancouver and actively in Ottawa.
M. de Jong: I’d like to canvass a couple of issues with the Premier involving our bilateral relationship with the U.S. Neither issue will come as a big surprise to the Premier. Time is always at a premium in these proceedings, so I’ll try to keep the editorializing to a minimum and put my questions to him.
Firstly, the unfolding debacle with the cruise ship sector. I will say — only in my view — it has not represented the finest hour in the life of his government and his time as Premier.
The government became aware in February of a looming issue. There was an exchange in this House, dating back to March, focusing on the potential for a legislative change that would, on a temporary basis at least, change the rules. The Premier, at the time, was pretty dismissive of that initial legislative challenge in the U.S. Congress. He used words like “blip” and described the prospects of passage as being remote. His minister used language even more dismissive than that.
Well, he was wrong. We know that now. His minister was wrong. But my question today is: why did he say those things, almost taunting the other side? Was it on the basis of advice, and if so, from who?
Hon. J. Horgan: If “debacle” and “dismissive” aren’t editorializing, I don’t know what it is. I’ll appreciate that’s a minimalist approach to editorializing. I will follow suit.
I want just to remind the member of where British Columbia was in February of this year. We were coming out of the second wave and heading into the third wave. We had an uncertain supply of vaccines. We had an absolute desire by the people in my community, Victoria, to keep people away. We wanted to ensure that we kept people safe. Whether they were businesses, whether they were communities, whether they were individuals, our focus was on keeping people safe.
The member says the members of the opposition brought to our attention a legislative process in another jurisdiction that had not yet even determined who had won the election that was held in November.
They couldn’t agree on night or day. We had an insurrection in the capital of the United States of America. The member thinks that if I had done something other than said, “We’re going to do our best to get through this,” it would have changed the course of events. I just disagree with that.
I believe we’re on the right track now. We have the best record in Canada for vaccinations for first doses. We’ve seen our case counts plummeting. We’re at the second stage of our reopening. Tomorrow, with the goodwill of the Leader of the Opposition — and I thank her very much for that — I’ll be participating in a first ministers conference about reopening the borders so we can have a genuine discussion about welcoming the world back to British Columbia, which every member of this House wants to do. I know that the member on the opposite side does. I know that I do.
Here’s the challenge. The borders are closed. Did I do that? I encouraged it, to be sure, hon. Member. I absolutely encouraged it, and I insisted upon it. But I did not close the borders, nor can I open them. That is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. I’m going to do my best over the next 24 hours to make the case for an early reopening when it is safe to do so, and I believe that’s the overwhelming desire of not just all British Columbians but the tourism sector as well.
I don’t call this a debacle. I don’t call it dismissive. I call it prudent. I call it the space in time where we were at when you raised the issue and where we are today — very positive engagements with the harbour authority, very positive engagements with the minister of intergovernmental relations in Ottawa as well as the foreign minister about how we can best have that legislation sunsetted, which is what Senator Murkowski said would happen once we open our borders.
M. de Jong: We’ll get to the follow-up in a moment.
With the greatest respect, all very interesting. It didn’t answer the question. The Premier chose to use language, and he chose to proffer an opinion — not, by the way, in February but at the end of March — about the prospects for a piece of legislation passing the U.S. Congress that has significant ramifications for the tourism industry in B.C. He proffered that opinion and claimed that there was no prospect of that legislation passing. His minister echoed those remarks.
The Premier has got more files on his plate that engage negotiations with the U.S. I think the committee and the House are interested to know what the basis for his intel was. A few days later, the legislation passed unanimously. So the Premier, on the one hand, says it has no prospect of passing. It actually passes unanimously.
Now, I don’t actually believe that the Premier just proffered that opinion out of the blue. He must have been advised by someone about what was taking place in Congress. He must have been advised by someone before he made those remarks. He must have someone advising him on issues that engage international attention involving British Columbia — in this case, the Congress of the U.S. He wasn’t just a little bit wrong; he was wildly wrong.
Who gave him the advice, and who was he relying upon in these matters?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I have a seat in this Legislature. I can engage in debate and discussion. I can move legislation. I can work with others on all sides of the House to pass legislation.
I have a seat at the Council of the Federation. I can sit with Premiers across the country, and we can engage on what the best possible outcomes are for British Columbians and Canadians. And I have a seat at the first ministers table where I can engage with the government of Canada, who, in February, put in an order to suspend cruise ships for 12 months.
We had no vaccines. We had ridiculously high case counts. We had hospitalizations that were unacceptably high. And the United States was coming out of an election that was uncertain to some. I will admit that I missed a call in an institution that I do not sit in, where I have no authority, where I have no ability to effect the outcome, particularly in what the member acknowledges was a unanimous decision.
What I can do, hon. Chair and other members of the House, is try to effect change now in those areas where I have the ability to do so, and that’s what I’m going to do, going forward, starting tomorrow, or hopefully concluding tomorrow, when we start to get to a place where we can reopen our borders and welcome the world back to British Columbia, whether it be on a cruise ship, whether it be on a bus, whether it be on a bicycle.
M. de Jong: Well, the Premier shouldn’t sell himself short. He may have already effected change.
Just a couple of days ago, in the follow-up to the unanimous passage of that piece of legislation, asked about a subsequent piece of legislation that is now winding its way through Congress to make the change permanent, the Premier again very purposely — and he’s now experienced in the role of Premier, and he’s certainly experienced in the role of a publicly elected official — chose to refer to the junior senator from Utah, a landlocked state.
Now, that’s not accidental language. The Premier was poking. He was also wrong, by the way, at least half-wrong. I wonder what the Premier’s interpretation of those remarks would have been if they had been made by a foreign leader about him. He just finished lecturing the House about how these are processes that fall outside of our control — he’s right about that — and he’s poking the very people who control those processes, misdescribing them, describing them inaccurately.
Again, my question to the Premier is…. He chose to use that language. That was completely within his control. He chose to describe the senator who is the senior senator from Utah as the junior senator. He chose to — for whatever purpose, he did — point out that Utah is not a coastal state. Is this part of some grand strategy that the Premier is developing for fostering closer relations with the Congress that is going to rule on these matters?
Hon. J. Horgan: I know that the member is not unfamiliar with hyperbole in the Legislature. If he wants to take issue with the words I used, he certainly has a right to do that. I’m going to focus on solving the challenges that face us in this Legislature and in Ottawa with the federal government, to get our borders open so that we can welcome the world back to B.C.
M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, I didn’t make the statement. The Premier made a statement, directly relative to an issue that engages the attention of British Columbians, about people who will play a direct role in the resolution of the matter. I didn’t make the statement; he did.
What was the purpose? What was the purpose of belittling the senator who is advancing a piece of legislation that could very well make a change — permanent — that will have negative impacts on British Columbia? It’s his language, not mine. Is it part of a strategy, or did he just misspeak?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate that the member for Abbotsford West is now fixated on language that was used in the back-and-forth in this place and in other parts of our daily activities here at the Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia. Today the objective, in the time we have available, is to canvass the budget estimates for the Office of the Premier.
M. de Jong: You can always tell when a member of the executive council doesn’t want to talk about something. I can’t say I blame the Premier. I think he’s a bit embarrassed about the language he used, and he should be. It wasn’t smart; it wasn’t smart at all.
He also had something to say about the head of the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. He called him a federal appointee. He was wrong. I don’t know if he’s called him and apologized. But on an issue that is of paramount importance, the Premier seems to be awfully flippant, awfully dismissive and awfully prepared to poke people who can make decisions that will impact British Columbia in a very, very negative way. We’ve this question. We found out the other day that, for all of the protestations to the contrary, the government….
Oh, I was going to ask this. Who’s the minister in charge of this file? Who’s the lead minister on this file?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, there is a Transportation component. There is a Tourism component. There is an intergovernmental relations component. We’ve been working methodically through these various component parts, the minister responsible for Transportation with the Transportation Minister in Ottawa, about the prospect of technical stops, which was one of the suggestions that was made to us. We’ve brought that forward. We raised that with the federal government. It is in their hands.
I engage with the Prime Minister on borders and on how we conduct our relationships between international foreign bodies, whether it be the United States, the U.K., the EU — you name it. I’ve worked with the federal government in that regard, and the Minister of Tourism engages with those who want to bring more people to British Columbia.
For my part, I engaged in a very good discussion with Senator Murkowski, who did sponsor and pass the legislation that I missed on back in February and March. She is a neighbour of ours, in Alaska. She knows full well the importance of stopping in Prince Rupert. She reminded me, in fact, in our conversation, that as a young person, whenever she was leaving the Alaska panhandle to come down south, she came through Rupert. She knows the important relationship we have between Alaska and British Columbia.
I’ve engaged on this question with the governor of Washington. Again, positive working relationships with our neighbours — that’s what I’m doing to try and resolve this issue. I believe that over time, once we’ve opened our borders, we’ll get back to normal and go from there.
What I took issue with, with the opposition’s approach, quite frankly, was that this is largely a federal issue. Not once have I heard the opposition say: “What about Canada opening up the borders? What about Canada making overtures to the ambassador in Washington?” International relations are the responsibility of the federal government. I have not heard one member on the other side raise that question. It’s all our fault. It’s all a debacle. It’s dismissive.
The issue is a federal issue with respect to the borders, and it’s an international relations question that is handled by GAC, the external affairs ministry and minister in Ottawa. I would love to hear any suggestions that the opposition has on how we can better manage those relationships between Ottawa and Washington.
The Chair: Before I recognize Abbotsford West, just a reminder to our colleagues on Zoom. No conversations using electronic devices, please. I appreciate that.
M. de Jong: Thanks. Here’s a suggestion for the minister. When a matter like this is raised, when the question of technical stops had been brought to the government’s attention back in February, it’s probably a good idea for the B.C. Minister of Transportation not to wait until the end of May to pursue the matter with his federal counterpart.
Surely the Premier is prepared to stand up today and acknowledge that a four-month delay between the time an issue, and possible solution, is brought to his government’s attention and the time his minister finally commits pen to paper and writes to his federal counterpart is not acceptable.
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we did discuss technical stops. I was told explicitly…. Do you really think at that time we felt…? We were advised through Homeland Security officials that a technical stop would require people to disembark from the vessel. Do you think that would’ve gone over well in Victoria? I don’t. That’s why we didn’t pursue it.
M. de Jong: Yeah, the Premier will forgive me. I’m not really trusting of his instincts on these matters any longer, given the track record. Here we’ve got a situation today where there is the introduction of U.S. legislation that would eliminate, on a permanent basis, the requirement for a cruise ship travelling from the lower 48 states to Alaska to stop at a B.C. port of call.
Now, the Premier’s response to that threat is interesting. It has shifted from: “It won’t happen” to “Well, even if it does, the impact will be minimal.” I disagree with that.
My question on this one for the Premier is: can he alert the committee to the analysis that he and his government have done today to consider the impact that this change on a permanent basis would have for the cruise ship sector and tourism in B.C.? What studies has he commissioned to answer that particular question?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll be speaking with Ambassador Hillman tomorrow morning about this issue, and I’ll have more to say to the member once I’ve consulted with the Ambassador to the U.S., who is, of course, paid to address these issues, to monitor them, to do that research. I may well have more tomorrow.
Again, my responsibility here, not just today, which is the budget estimates for my office, is to take care of the business of British Columbia within the confines of our province. If there are external factors, that’s the responsibility of the federal government. We have a very positive working relationship. I raise these issues. I leave it to the responsible authorities to manage them.
M. de Jong: Right. Thanks. I accept responsibility for the…. I think the Premier misunderstood my question. I wasn’t…. If we had time, I might pursue the matter he has raised in more detail, but I wasn’t asking about that.
There is now an instrument, a statutory instrument, winding its way through a foreign congress that the Premier and I agree that we don’t ultimately control. But it would be prudent, I would think, for the government now to be engaged in an analysis of what the impact would be were that statutory amendment, that statutory instrument, to pass. What would the impact be?
Because we are limited in time, I’m going to disclose to the Premier what the cruise ship sector is saying. He got a letter just, I think, yesterday from the Victoria Cruise Industry Alliance where they point out that as attractive as British Columbia in general is and as Victoria specifically is to cruise ships leaving Seattle, the point is people bought a ticket to go to Alaska. If they don’t have to stop here, a lot of them won’t. That’s what the cruise ship sector is saying.
The stops have developed over years. But people are buying tickets to go to Alaska. If they can spend an extra day or two in Alaska, the concern is that’s what they’re going to do. More than half of Americans don’t hold a passport. Heretofore, they have not been able to get on one of these cruise ships because they have to stop in a foreign country. If the bill is passed in Congress, you won’t need a passport.
Now, I can’t say for certain what the impact will be. I think there will be a negative impact. The cruise ship sector believes there will be a negative impact. All I’m asking the Premier today is has he begun the work to consider and quantify what the impact would be if that instrument in Washington, D.C. passes and the act is repealed permanently? That’s what I’m asking.
Hon. J. Horgan: The Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Transportation are meeting with cruise officials — have been, will continue — I believe throughout the week into next week. My objective is to determine, through the ambassador in Washington, again someone charged by the government of Canada to oversee and observe events and activities there — to get a brief and a report from her on what she believes the way forward is.
Again, I spoke to the sponsor of the first bill, the Jones bill, Senator Murkowski, and she ensured me that the sunset provision was put in because she values the relationship between Alaska and British Columbia.
I can’t talk about the motives of members of the Senate or members of Congress or the members of the U.S. administration today. But what I can say is that in February, the federal government closed the cruise ship industry to the west coast for 12 months.
I believe circumstances have materially changed. I’ve raised that with the federal government through the intergovernmental relations minister, through the Prime Minister, and I will do it again tomorrow. Those are the steps that I’m taking, hon. Member, to resolve the issue. If they don’t meet your muster, I regret that, but I suspect that we’re going just continue to agree to disagree.
M. de Jong: Circumstances have certainly changed. They’ve become worse. Future prospects have been put at risk. I’m sorry to say that the Premier bears a significant amount of responsibility for that.
The Premier can say it’s nonsense, and he’ll get his chance. But I think any reasonable thinking person looking at the commentary from the Premier, looking at the timeline of his government’s lack of engagement and the realization today that no work is underway to even begin to contemplate the impacts the passage of the Lee proposal in Congress…. That’s negligent. That is negligent on the part of a government that is supposed to be acting on behalf of British Columbians.
Second issue. Can the Premier…? Ironically, also one engaging our relationship with the U.S. How have this government — the province, of course, has been through this numerous times previously — and the Premier organized or aligned his government internally to deal with the ongoing softwood lumber dispute?
The Chair: Just a reminder. We’ve been asked to keep our masks on. Thank you.
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, certainly, we began our efforts on this repeating saga, as the member knows full well, having been involved in at least two go-rounds in his time…. I picked it up at the ends of his time on this file with a trip to Washington to alert those there, whether it be the trade representative that I met with, the Commerce Secretary, the then ambassador and a range of other legislators in the Senate as well as in the Congress. I met with union leadership that has a positive working relationship on these issues. That was a useful overture.
We are now awaiting adjudications. As the member will know, they’re always frustrating, but we always win. Prices today have softened the blow. They’re at record highs. Saying “record” really doesn’t do justice, hon. Chair, to the size of the increase in lumber prices, and I’m sure the member has been consulting commodity prices over the past little while.
We’re always engaging with COFI on this issue. We have relationships in recent months — in fact, recent weeks — with the governments of New Brunswick and Quebec, two significant players in this file that have similar concerns to ours, as well as continuing to retain in my office, working with my deputy, John Allan, the special adviser. John will be well-known to the member as a former deputy minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the former spokesperson for the lumber coalition here in British Columbia on these questions.
Mr. Allan is critical to our progress going forward. He’s leading the discussions with industry. He will be leading the discussions if we go further with respect to another visit, perhaps, to Washington based on recommendations and advice we get from Ambassador Hillman.
M. de Jong: Who’s the lead minister within the government on this file?
Hon. J. Horgan: The Minister of Forests is responsible for it, but I take an active role because of my interest in the file, the importance of it to the province. That’s why Mr. Allan is attached to my deputy’s office.
M. de Jong: Is there a cabinet committee in place dedicated to tracking — either a cabinet committee and/or a deputy minister’s committee on softwood?
Hon. J. Horgan: Yeah, there is a working group in cabinet for forestry.
M. de Jong: Sorry, a working group…. And then I missed the last part. A working group comprised of who?
Hon. J. Horgan: Members of executive council. I don’t have the list in front of me. If you need it, I can get it for you.
M. de Jong: Mr. Allan, John Allan…. We used to, in former rounds of this, have someone designated as a lead negotiator. Does he fulfil that role, or is it slightly different?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, there’s nothing to negotiate at the moment because we’re in adjudication. When the time is right, certainly John will be leading our efforts because of his vast experience in this regard, his respect in the industry here in B.C. as well as across the country. I think it’s an enormous asset to have.
John took up the challenge of running the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development for a period of time. Even though he wanted to retire, I encouraged him to stay on working with my deputy specifically to ensure that we had the best possible person available to us when the moment was right to engage in a negotiation. At this stage, that’s not the case.
I can tell the member I had a discussion with the federal Finance Minister within the past two weeks — I could get my calendar and figure out when that was — about this issue. It was a file that she carried for a long period of time. It’s no longer her primary responsibility, but I wanted to just test her out on how she felt things were unfolding in Washington. She was just back from the G7 and is building relationships with the new administration in Washington.
I think I’d like to say I’m cautiously optimistic that there will be some progress. Again, the National Association of Home Builders in the United States is clamouring to see a reduction in lumber costs so they can start their recovery, coming out of the pandemic. Always having consumers as allies is a good thing. I don’t need to tell the member the power of the producers’ lobby in the U.S. He knows that better than I do perhaps.
M. de Jong: I’ll perhaps only take issue with the observation the Premier has made about there not being anything to negotiate. I’ll explain in a moment why I do so.
For the moment, I just want to be clear on the role that Mr. Allan is playing. It sounds to me like the Premier has designated him the point person for the government of British Columbia on this file. I don’t want to put words in the Premier’s mouth. If that’s not the case, he should say so, and I’m sure he will. But if that is true, I am interested to know and I think people would be interested to know who is….
Where is he taking his instructions from? Is it from the Premier? Is it from the working group? Is it from the cabinet? What’s the line of authority there?
Hon. J. Horgan: John was the chief negotiator for the province when he was in his position as deputy minister. He continues in that position. He takes direction from cabinet.
M. de Jong: Okay, thanks. That’s helpful.
A moment ago the Premier said there is nothing to negotiate. I’m going to put this to the Premier for his consideration on this file, because the negotiations on something like this take place at different levels. There’s the bilateral negotiation between Canada and the U.S., but there is also a negotiation within Canada. I think that is a fair comment to make, because the interests are not always aligned, and sometimes that’s been a challenge for British Columbia and for Canada as a whole in engaging with the U.S.
The agreements that we have seen in the past…. And I suppose it’s always possible that something completely different would emerge, but that has not been the history. We’ve seen agreements that rely on either a border revenue measure to influence the volume of lumber moving from Canada and British Columbia into the U.S. or a volume control measure, a quota. We’ve seen both in living memory. The agreement that arose in the 1990s was a quota-based deal. The one that came along in 2005-06 ended up being a border measure.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
I have views, and I don’t have time here today to express them. I wish I did. More relevant though, today, is whether the Premier and the government have views and whether they have indicated to the federal government their support for either of those options, if and when negotiations arise, and the implications, in particular, a quota-based deal have for smaller operators, for remanners, and going back to the Premier’s concept paper, intentions paper, the desire to attract new entrants into the forest sector. Quota deals are based on history and the history of shipments and automatically operate contrary to the interests of those smaller operators, remanners and new entrants.
I’m interested to know whether the Premier and the government have articulated a position vis-à-vis the federal negotiators and what that position is.
Hon. J. Horgan: I will say that the member is quite correct that although there are no negotiations formally going on…. I want to just clarify, because the member is correct. Discussions have been going on for three years, whether it be interprovincial, whether it be bilaterally with Ottawa, with their teams.
I was very pleased that when the Prime Minister had an opportunity, the first opportunity to sit down with the new President, softwood lumber was on the agenda. That was a direct result of myself and others at the COF table making the case that although there were lots of issues that were present based on the pandemic that were pressing and urgent and needed to be discussed, the transition from the former administration to the new administration involves a whole bunch of other pleasantries. Critically important to the majority of members at the COF table was that the Prime Minister focus on softwood the best he could.
I’m not going to engage in negotiations today with the member — I think he’ll appreciate that — about preferences. Those discussions have been ongoing. What I can guarantee the member and all those in the committee is that I will adopt, at the appropriate time, the best possible position for operators in British Columbia — the diversity of operators that the member referred to. That’s my intention.
I commit to the member and, in fact, I’d like to juxtapose this helpful discussion on a critically important issue to British Columbians with the previous discussion, also critical to British Columbians, but more of a creation of politics rather than an imperative of policy.
I value very much the experience of the member opposite. When the point comes where I could call on his advice, I’m hopeful that he will provide it.
M. de Jong: I won’t take the bait on the penultimate statement with respect to the final invitation from the Premier. I would only say this. This is not the time or place for a more detailed conversation.
If, as I hope it will, the government of British Columbia concludes that a quota-based agreement is not something it wishes to pursue for reasons it, I hope, will settle upon then, I would urge the Premier and his advisers and his negotiators to consider making that as public as possible as soon as possible. The momentum in some quarters to drive the country in that direction — and certainly, the pressure from south of the border that he and the government will encounter — is great.
As I say, I don’t know what the government’s view is. I have quickly tried to urge one upon them, but if that is a position that they are sympathetic to, then the more public and the more quickly it becomes public, in my view, the better.
Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the final intervention by the member for Abbotsford West. Again I want to assure him that…. He will know that British Columbia is the dominant softwood lumber producer in Canada. That’s well known in the U.S. It’s well known in Ottawa. Again, I go back to my conversations with federal Finance Minister Freeland, who was responsible for external affairs through the first period of our time in government.
It was very valuable to have someone with not just her insights but her ability to transcend the regional differences that the member will know full well, about preferences on this side of the border for an outcome. But I know he was referring to both sides of the border in his appeal. I’m also conscious of that. We’re going to make the best possible choice for the industry in British Columbia. By industry, that also, of course, includes the communities and workers that depend on it.
P. Milobar: I have a few questions for the Premier around some of their processes around moving major health projects forward through the process that he has set up with his government. I was going to start off with the Prince George Hospital commitment. Many of these projects I’ll be asking questions around, the Premier has committed to in several elections, two in a row, so there is a lot of interest in these communities where exactly the status is of these.
The opposition leader queried the Health Minister, I believe it was yesterday, asking about it. The Health Minister indicated that it’s in a concept plan of $600 million to $700 million, which means that puts it into a ten-year capital plan, because the concept plan has been approved, and that the business plan is now being worked upon.
I guess the question to the Premier, just so we can understand the flow of process…. You have concept plan approval. That puts it into a capital plan. A business plan starts to be created. Has Treasury Board looked at this project? Has Treasury Board already approved it? If so, what stage of that process did Treasury Board engage?
Hon. J. Horgan: Conscious of the latitude that the opposition has provided to me, I don’t want to belabour this. The Minister of Health is in estimates now, so the content experts are, of course, with him. What I’ll try to do for the member is to lay out broadly how the process works. Then I’m sure he’ll have many, many more questions on that and will perhaps allow us more time to get the specific information with respect to Prince George or any other of the capital projects that are underway in the province.
I don’t think I have too much explaining to do. I know at least two former Finance ministers on the other side who would be able to walk the opposition caucus through the process. The concept plan was approved for the Prince George hospital, as well as a number of other hospitals that we will inventory once the material arrives. From that point, it then goes to a business plan, so it’s refined. The concept plan is approved by Treasury Board to then refine that through the business plan so that it can get more granular on what the overall costs are going to be, what potential escalation issues are in play based on circumstances in the labour market, what commodity prices are looking like.
The concept plan could start in year 2. The business plan may not be completed until year 4. And the change in circumstances between the first point and the last point could be significant. So that’s why the process oftentimes takes longer than it would maybe feel comfortable for those who are yearning to get these capital projects underway.
That’s the process. Treasury Board is involved every step of the way. Final determinations are made when the announcement…. And the budget is tabled. There are a number of hospital plans that are in the budget this year that have gone through concept business and now are being constructed.
P. Milobar: Yes, I’m looking more for process, how the Premier has set up Treasury Board approvals and whether or not there are changes in that or not.
Just to clarify, then, nothing would go to Treasury Board until there was a concept plan ready for Treasury Board to evaluate. I understand that this one has a concept plan. It went to Treasury Board, and it’s been approved. But that would be the first interaction with Treasury Board on a hospital project — that the concept plan is ready to be looked at by Treasury Board for approval?
Hon. J. Horgan: That’s correct. First stage, concept plan. General approval. It moves to the second stage, which is that granular process to get to the business plan. And I’ll just say that’s been consistent since the beginning of time, I would suggest, but certainly over the previous government into this government.
P. Milobar: The minister had also indicated that it’s working through, and because it’s in the ten-year plan, there wasn’t a direct idea, a direct timeline yet with the Prince George hospital. Does the Premier have an expectation, in his office, of a timeline that he would like to see this project proceed, or is it strictly under the purview of the Minister of Health’s timelines?
Hon. J. Horgan: For the committee’s edification, there is a ten-year capital plan, which I believe was or is being canvassed with the Minister of Health. We have three-year budgets. As projects move into the ten-year plan, that happens when projects move out, that being they’re completed. So it’s always an evolving list or an inventory.
I know, from my time on that side of the House, it was always frustrating to have government say, “We’re going to be building X or Y,” and then demanding to know what line item in the budget would identify that. I know exactly what that feels like, but the reality of the matter is it’s ten years’ worth of commitments that move through, based on their approval and the refining of the initial concept, to the final business plan to the eventual outcome.
P. Milobar: In the interest of time, I won’t belabour that. It does not sound like the Premier’s office has an expectation of timeline over and above the normal timelines for the Prince George project.
Can the Premier confirm, then, whether or not the Richmond Hospital redevelopment and acute care tower has had a concept plan approved? And if it has, has it also got its business plan approved?
Hon. J. Horgan: It would have been useful to have this for the Prince George hospital, and we’re endeavouring to find that.
With respect to the Richmond Hospital, the concept plan was approved in March of 2018. There was a revised concept plan as the business plan was being developed. This is, again, why it’s an evolving process, Member.
The concept plan says: “This is what we need in this space.” As you start working on the business plan, decisions get made based on input from experts, based on input from practitioners saying: “Perhaps a more expanded ER.” That is what’s going to be happening, a new intensive care unit, which was not in the first concept plan, and a fully equipped imaging department, which, again, was not part of the initial plan to just have the care tower.
In April of 2020, a revised concept plan was approved, and in February of 2021, the business plan was approved. The request for qualifications is going out, and the expectation is that construction will be completed by 2027.
P. Milobar: This is a project that has been promised in two elections by the Premier. In fact, the member for Richmond-Steveston promised the voters in the most recent election that there will be shovels in the ground in 2021. We are at a loss to find it in the capital budget.
Can the Premier confirm that it is in the capital budget, it has been approved in this year’s budget and it will be proceeding, and ground will be broken in 2021 as per commitments made by members of his government?
Hon. J. Horgan: We’re advised that the very question that was asked by the member for Kamloops North is currently being asked of the Minister of Health in his estimates. I suggest, in the interest of time, that we allow the content experts that are with the minister responsible for this project to answer the questions on behalf of the government.
P. Milobar: Well, that’s fine. We’ll check the Blues for that, and we can always circle back tomorrow, in the estimates here, if need be. I will, then, switch to asking a couple of questions about a project that seems to be 100 percent the Premier’s commitment. I think the Premier will know where I’m coming from with this.
In October, during the election, our side of the House made a commitment for a cancer centre in Kamloops. On the very next day, the Premier made a commitment to a cancer centre in Kamloops. Then, on October 17, about a week and a half later, he showed up in Kamloops, doubled down and made a very public commitment that it would be built in four years. “The services will be prepared and delivered within the mandate of the next government, absolutely,” was the quote at the press conference. That quote has never been corrected by the Premier or any of his staff.
I’m just wondering. The Health Minister has made it very clear that it continues to be in a ten-year cancer plan. In fact, he did that about a half an hour ago in his estimates. He reconfirmed it to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. The Premier is the only one that keeps talking about it being in the four years.
On January 18, we sent a letter. When I say “we,” there were five area MLAs — Fraser-Nicola, Cariboo, Shuswap, Kamloops–South Thompson, Kamloops–North Thompson — because that’s how big of an area this project impacts. In fact, it impacts further. It impacts all of the Okanagan and all of the Kootenay MLAs as well, because two of the five machines being used in Kelowna, that are aging out of useful service, are actually used by people who live in the area of those five MLAs that sent the letter on January 18.
The only response we’ve gotten back, to this point, from the Premier, was: “Thank you for the letter. I’ve sent it on to the Minister of Health.” He was already cc’d to the letter, so one would think he’d already got it. We’ve had no other correspondence from government since. In fact, it was cc’d to all health boards, all locally elected, the Cancer Agency, everyone.
I guess my question to the Premier is: has a concept plan been developed for this site?
Our letter asked very specific questions: what is the expected operational date? Has the planning for the new cancer centre started? What is the scope of the cancer treatment services? Where will the new cancer centre be located? Is the money for planning being provided by IHA or the Ministry of Health? Which will be the lead agency on this project — the Ministry of Health, IHA or B.C. Cancer? They’re fairly straightforward questions on a health project. And we actually end the letter: “…wanting to work together, because it’s an important health project for all.”
Again, I ask the Premier: has there been a concept plan for the cancer centre that the Premier specifically promised for such a large geographic area of this province during an election?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I don’t know if it’s comedy or tragedy that we have two members for Kamloops — one in this place asking me the same questions that are being asked by the other member for Kamloops to the Minister of Health.
I would say the ten-year cancer plan was announced because there hasn’t been a cancer plan for some time, and that doesn’t just include the needs in the Interior, which are significant. I absolutely accept and respect the member’s overtures to work together to resolve this issue that has been long-standing. The concept plan is underway for the Kamloops cancer centre.
P. Milobar: Well, that’s interesting, because no one in Kamloops has been contacted to work on a concept plan. I’ve checked with foundations. I’ve checked with IHA. There does not seem to be much knowledge of any planning happening whatsoever on this.
It’s interesting that a concept plan is being developed still. We’ve established that a concept plan happens, and it goes to Treasury Board. Then a business plan. But the business plan does not start until a concept plan has gone to Treasury Board and been approved, according to the Premier earlier in my questions.
Yet when the Premier was on Radio NL on February 5 and asked about the letter and asked about the project and the status of it, here is the Premier’s response. “I have made that commitment, and we’re on it. I know the Minister of Health has been on the show. He’s talked to you about it. It’s in process. That means that business plans are being developed.” The only way that can be happening is if concept plans have already been to Treasury Board and been approved. He then says: “That means the Treasury Board is looking at the costs.”
The Premier keeps insisting that it’s a four-year plan. In fact, he goes on to say: “We have a four-year mandate ahead of us, and my commitment during the campaign certainly stands just months later.” But the Minister of Health keeps insisting it’s in a ten-year plan, not a four-year plan.
The Premier earlier made it very clear that you need to have a concept plan approved at Treasury Board, then a business plan. Yet we’ve just heard the Premier say the concept plan is still being worked on. Nothing has gone to Treasury Board. However, on February 5, he tells Radio NL and all the listeners in Kamloops it’s at the Treasury Board.
Which is it, from the Premier? Is it at the Treasury Board already? Is there already a site located? Is there already a plan in place? Or are people supposed to just take the word that keeps changing on this project every single time an official from this government gets asked about it?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, there is a ten-year capital plan, where a host of health initiatives go through. There is a ten-year cancer plan, which is separate and distinct from that. It’s not just about bricks and mortar. It’s about services. It’s about a whole range of research and other initiatives.
The concept plan is underway. It involves finding out what the requirements are in the region, what the expectations are that can be reasonably met in the time available. Then the business plan flows from that. They are part and parcel of the same thing. I appreciate that I disaggregated them in the interest of the last question, but you can’t get to one without the other, and it’s all part and parcel of the process of getting services for people. That’s what we committed to, and that’s what we’ll deliver.
P. Milobar: Again, the Premier is totally avoiding the question. These are the Premier’s words. The Premier told an area with a project which will impact probably close to 14 MLAs’ service areas that the Treasury Board is looking at the costs. Yet he cannot confirm that Treasury Board is looking at the costs, because there is no actual plan in place yet. There is no concept plan developed. No one has been consulted locally around what that concept would look like. No one has been consulted on where a location would be suitable to put a building of this magnitude, especially with the technology involved inside.
Again to the Premier, is this at Treasury Board, as he told people on radio on February 5 — which is now going on four months ago, 4½ months ago — or is it not at Treasury Board? Which is it? It can’t be one or the other.
Hon. J. Horgan: My commitment to the people of Kamloops remains firm. This project is in process. I articulated to the member what the process was. I know he’s done five-minute interviews on NL, and I’m confident that he didn’t go through the nuances of the Treasury Board process. We are committed to building this initiative in Kamloops for the people in the region. Hold me to that.
P. Milobar: No, I would not commit something to be at Treasury Board if it wasn’t at Treasury Board, especially if I was the Premier, on a project that as soon as it was announced, people had distrust of because of the previous promise on the cancer clinic, when the NDP previously were in government. It got reversed the day after the election and got located in Kelowna. Until the equipment started to age out, which it’s finally doing, it didn’t need a replacement centre built.
It now does. Population growth, age growth — all of that is happening. People shouldn’t have to drive two hours for treatment daily to occupy two of five machines. It creates backlogs in Kelowna, unnecessarily. That is why it’s important that it gets moved forward. I was not the one that went on Radio NL and said it was at Treasury Board. The Premier knows full well that saying something is at Treasury Board indicates that it’s well on its way to being done, much further advanced than we find out it is.
This is now 4½ months later from when the Premier first raised it. In fact, his own Health Minister just finished confirming that it’s still nowhere on the horizon. He won’t commit to anything other than a ten-year window. It’s only the Premier that keeps committing to four years. For a geographic area, this project impacts 14 different MLAs. It’s absolutely…. Words don’t describe it.
I guess I’ll end with this question. We’ve now discovered that the Premier was completely wrong on February 5 and that, 4½ months later, it’s still not at Treasury Board — 5½ months after we sent a letter with very, very straightforward questions that, if planning were already underway, would be very easy to answer.
Since the Premier can’t commit that it’s actually at Treasury Board, can the Premier commit to taking the time to get us proper answers to get all of those people that are cc’d on that — all of those locally elected officials that are on the letter, all of those hospital foundations — a response to those very straightforward questions as to where all of those questions stand in terms of getting an answer? Because we know it’s not at Treasury Board, we know there’s no way it’s going to make a four-year window. The least we could do is get proper assurances that things have even started on this project.
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ll just remind everyone that the Minister of Health is currently answering these very same questions with all of the content people at his side. We made a commitment to the people of Kamloops to build a cancer centre there so that they’d not have to go to Kelowna to get the services they’d so desperately need. I appreciate, as a cancer survivor, the importance of this. I’m committed to the region to make this happen.
We have a ten-year cancer plan that is not exclusively capital. It’s a range of other policy and program initiatives. That’s what the minister, I believe, is referring to. I’m not there. I haven’t read the Blues. I can’t confirm that. What I can confirm is that the concept stage is underway, which is part of our capital deliberations.
If that was misunderstood by the people of Kamloops, I will go on NL and make that retraction. I will not retract my commitment to the people to build this project so that they can get the services they need. That’s what I said, and that’s what we’re going to do.
S. Cadieux: Good afternoon to the Premier.
The Premier will know that B.C. has the worst gender pay gap in Canada, at 18.6 percent. Does the Premier still believe that my call for pay transparency legislation is a political stunt?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. My apologies for the delay in responding.
She will be aware that our government is committed to closing the gender gap when it comes to pay. It was in the 1990s that the public service introduced and implemented pay equity for provincial public servants. Although the private member’s bill that the member brought forward was a useful step forward in the discussions about how we close the gap in the private sector, there are still some concerns about that approach.
My comments at the time were in the heat of politics. The question you’re offering today is with the intent that I know that you offer it. How do we solve these problems? One element of that would be to utilize the bill that you put forward, but there are a bunch of other measures that we’re working on as well — increasing the minimum wage, bringing forward more opportunities for child care, expanding possibilities for training for women. All of those things are directed towards closing that gap.
The private sector is the big challenge. You identified that in your introduction of the bill. We’re committed to closing that gap over time. We’d like to do it tomorrow. As you know, there are 29 women on this side of the House, only 28 men. The issue is a more pressing need than ever before.
It’s a shame it had to wait for that balance to be struck to represent and reflect the broader community, but it has happened. I think that that, at the end of the day, will be good news, and I know that I can count on the member for assistance, whether it be through working with the minister responsible for this, and Finance, as well, with the gender secretary from Victoria.
S. Cadieux: I thank the Premier for that answer. That’s correct. He mentions a number of things. The gender barrier equity policy in the public service doesn’t extend, unfortunately, it would appear, to excluded members, so the executive. A Vancouver Sun article last year bore that out.
The minimum wage is a good thing to do. I raised it when I was Labour Minister, so I do appreciate that effort for the majority of women that earn minimum wage. However, women have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. The Premier knows this. A minimum-wage hike isn’t going to help women that have lost their jobs — 28,000 fewer jobs for women than at the start of the pandemic. This seems like a really good time to get to the issue of pay equity in the private sector.
I’m not of any illusions that…. This is only something that is part of the problem. There are lots of other issues, and I know government is working on some of those, albeit very slowly.
Certainly, obviously, the Premier knows that pay equity legislation, pay transparency legislation, is seen as a best practice across the country. It’s seen as a best practice by the bureaucracy in a briefing note from the parliamentary secretary from April of 2019.
I know that the Premier is genuine in his desire — I believe he is — and in wanting to do something on this. Otherwise, why would he have included pay transparency legislation in the pandemic election platform. But what I don’t understand is the hesitancy to move forward. I’m not suggesting moving forward necessarily with my piece of legislation. I understand wholeheartedly that it will be a government bill when it comes forward. I am not sure what’s taking so long. That’s the question.
The mandate letters from the Premier to the Minister of Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity state that it “means seeking out, fostering and championing good ideas, regardless of their origin. I expect you to reach out to the elected members from all parties as you deliver on your mandate.” A mandate that says: “With the support of the Minister of Labour, lead the work to close the gender pay gap by continuing to address systemic discrimination in the workplace and moving closer to equal pay for equal work through pay transparency legislation.”
It’s estimated that 4 percent of the gap is related to the gender pay gap as opposed to the issue of women in lower-paying professions. So there’s 4 percent we can close by putting this legislation, or something similar, into action. I would think, given the pandemic and given the disproportionate affects on women, that the Premier would want to do that.
I know the Premier loves clichés and metaphors. I’m a Scrabble player, and I was listening earlier to the Premier’s comments. I would like to suggest that the Premier should consider passing the legislation. We have another day. He could call it. We could get it done. It would be a bingo on a triple word score, Premier. I think it’s time to move forward. I appreciate that the Premier has committed to it after introducing a bill four times. Let’s just get it done, Premier.
Hon. J. Horgan: I am grateful for the member’s passion and her commitment to this issue. She will know that we have a Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity. She will know that we have a second consecutive Finance Minister who is a woman. We also, at this moment in time, have the convergence of a federal Finance Minister who is also a woman. There is no better time than now for women to make a big step forward to eradicate the systemic problem that she so eloquently just described.
We’ve taken some measures — we talked about that; the member even acknowledged that, and I’m grateful — bringing forward changes to accessing child care, changing wage standards. And she’s right. The member is correct that women have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. We are all in the same storm, but we’re in decidedly different boats — people of colour, women, disproportionately affected.
Real wages for women have gone up by 4 bucks an hour over the past four years. They only went up 2 bucks an hour over the previous ten. I’m not saying that as a partisan statement. I’m saying that there is a shift in the marketplace, and we need to capitalize on that opportunity.
I would have preferred to have done it yesterday. I would have preferred to have done a whole host of things yesterday. But that has been a significant challenge through the pandemic, the inability for us to gather here and have those rigorous discussions using the committee structure, which has been the topic of some discussion.
Again, when we’re all here, we can gather. We can deliberate face to face and have those conversations that are so critically important to cultivating those good ideas, wherever they may come from. Harder to do on a Zoom call. Harder to do when it’s infrequent. But I know that I can count on the member to work with government to get to the objective that she’s just outlined. I know that the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary are committed to that as well.
S. Bond: I want to just thank all of my colleagues this afternoon for raising issues that are critical.
Part of the reason that we’re here in this chamber is because even as we speak, we’re still experiencing, as MLAs who have the right to ask questions of ministers, lengthy, lengthy answers and long delays — four and five questions in an hour.
I am encouraging the Premier to have a conversation about…. I’ve been on the other side of the table as well. But I thought it was really important for the Premier to hear directly about issues that matter and, in fact, that he’s had things to say about. The Premier is the person who regularly reminds us that, ultimately, the buck stops with him.
I think it’s very interesting that his last response to the member for Surrey South…. And I appreciate her tireless efforts on this topic. I think she’s introduced a bill four times. One would think there are times in this place, pre-COVID…. Yes, COVID has caused challenges. This bill has been introduced numerous times. There’s just a place where British Columbians must say: “For heaven’s sake, can’t we figure out how to do this?” The Premier made a commitment to do that, yet time and time again, even today, he referenced: “Let’s use committees.”
We’ve been asking for weeks now. I’ve written the Premier multiple letters about the Health Committee, as has my colleague the Leader of the Third Party, to say: “Let’s talk about overdose in a way that is meaningful.” With all due respect, a briefing from the minister is one thing. Having a conversation about those issues to demonstrate to British Columbians that we actually mean it is not partisan. I hope we can continue to have the discussion. I sometimes feel like…. Just say yes, and let’s get on with doing the really important work that can be done and should be done from a multiparty level.
I just want to do a couple of housekeeping things. I have brought with me the document I referred to yesterday. The Premier’s office reached out to me. I know the Premier made reference to the fact that maybe this was an existing policy. I can assure the Premier a change has taken place here.
I have example after example from our MLAs, although I’ve included the document that I was referring to. Today we just saw it happen in another House — a minister saying: “Well, you know, we should be able to get this done.” We have an MLA who needed a speed reader board — a pretty important, straightforward idea. Yesterday it was the Minister of Forests. Today it’s the Ministry of Transportation, which, by the way, does exceptional work on the ground in regions across the province.
The regional person was told that they had to get permission from the minister’s office to talk to the MLA about a speed reader board. So I brought the document. I’m holding the Premier to his word. It is time for us to get that fixed so that MLAs can meet with regional….
We understand the need for the minister’s office or the ministry to know what is going on. That is past practice. But to ask permission to have a conversation with an MLA about a speed reader board? It’s time we got that fixed, and I am counting on the Premier to take care of that. I’m hoping. And I’ve included the document. I’ll pass it over, through the staff here, momentarily.
I want to change topics for a minute. One of the most significant decisions this Premier made was to call an election during a pandemic — a pretty significant choice. Lots of things got put on hold, and even today we’ve heard about how the pandemic impacted everything — the work we do, all of those things — but he managed to call an election.
Let me start here. Yesterday the Finance Minister confirmed that the government had issued $400,000 in opinion research contracts during the pandemic and has a further $200,000 planned. One contract, including a $95,000 emergency direct award contract, was for “daily tracking polling” regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in B.C.
So let’s start here. Can the Premier confirm that he was provided with daily opinion polling done by his government using taxpayer dollars related to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member will know that there’s a prequalified pool of potential providers that are selected by a public service process. It was an extraordinary time. There was daily tracking at the beginning of the pandemic, or certainly through the critical points. There was no polling during the election period at all that was done by me or for me.
We utilized this information, as the member will know, to better track how the public was responding to the messages that they were receiving about the status of the pandemic. It was, in fact, instrumental in making the choice, unlike other jurisdictions, to lead on the communications of the challenges of COVID-19 to public health officials, not politicians.
You would have noticed that other jurisdictions had Premiers up every day talking about these issues. That was a choice that I did not make because of the information we were able to glean from public opinion polling. The best way forward is to have the content expert speak directly. In this case, it was Dr. Bonnie Henry. And the results over that period of time have been very good compared to other jurisdictions.
S. Bond: Maybe I missed the answer to that question. I’ll repeat the question, but I’m going to ask another one in the essence of time here.
Can the Premier confirm that he actually was provided with that daily opinion polling done by the government? The polling was not a broad consultation, in fact. It was limited to a daily sample of 180 completed surveys. Because the polls were paid for by taxpayers, will the Premier share the results of that polling and, in fact, provide us and the public with the specific questions that were asked?
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
The Chair: Premier and Leader of the Opposition, you’ve been at this for over two hours. Should you or your staff need a break, let me know, please.
Hon. J. Horgan: In the interest of time, hon. Chair, I’d like to at least answer this question, and then perhaps if we could have a few minutes, I’d greatly appreciate that.
The daily tracking is part and parcel of that prequalified bidders process. There was a deputies committee at that time, and the advice would have gone to cabinet. It didn’t come directly to me. It was part of our working group on COVID, and it was very useful.
The members will remember, of course…. Now that we’ve come through the eye of the storm and we’re feeling more comfortable in our communities and with ourselves, it’s hard to remember the anxiety and the uncertainty that British Columbians were feeling at the height of the pandemic. So public opinion research, absent the ability to interact directly with people beyond the Zoom calls, which were in the many thousands for all of us inside our work and in our daily lives, became very useful to shape and inform how we worked with the public to better understand the consequences of COVID-19.
I’m not aware of any restrictions in releasing that information. It would have been done proactively, I would expect. If not, I’ll certainly…. Beyond anything that might well be cabinet confidences, I’m happy to get back to the member with a release of that information if she hasn’t been able to get it already.
S. Bond: Well, the Finance Minister actually said these polls were used to develop StrongerBC. StrongerBC was, ironically, released four days prior to the Premier’s pandemic snap election.
Can the Premier explain to us how it could be appropriate to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on taxpayer-funded opinion polling which then, according to the Finance Minister, actually shaped what ultimately was a platform for this Premier’s election?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not aware of any daily tracking that was used to inform StrongerBC. The whole intent…. Again, this is an experienced member of this place and of the executive council. Public opinion research is a useful tool to better shape public policy, and that’s how it was utilized — not for political purposes but for developing processes that could meet the needs.
We spent…. One of the colleagues was asking me about the delivery of these programs. We helped inform those programs by asking the public through these preapproved processes that existed before we arrived here. Many of the prequalified providers would have been services and companies that were used by the former government. This was standard operating procedure, as near as I could tell.
With that, I’ll ask if we could take a few moments for a break.
The Chair: We’ll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 5:32 p.m. to 5:40 p.m.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
S. Bond: I want to pick up where we left off. When it comes to the issue of polling, I’m relieved to hear the Premier say that he will look at releasing the specific questions. I think it’s actually pretty critical. If it’s public opinion polling that was related to COVID, I’m not sure why there would be issues of cabinet confidentiality. I have no idea why that would happen.
I do believe we’ve asked for those questions before and been told no. I think the Premier could understand how there would be a bit of skepticism about the fact that there was daily tracking, polling — however the Premier would like to describe it — that was paid for by taxpayer dollars, which, actually, the Minister of Finance indicated had been used to develop StrongerBC. Ironically, StrongerBC actually was released four days prior to the Premier’s pandemic snap election. In fact, after that was done, media referred to StrongerBC as part of the NDP election platform.
I would like the Premier to stand up today and explain to taxpayers in British Columbia how using taxpayer-funded polls to gauge support of his government’s COVID actions was linked…. I’m not sure how he could, for a moment, suggest it wasn’t linked to the production of StrongerBC, which his Finance Minister has already confirmed, and his decision to go to the polls during a pandemic. He was conducting polling about his government’s performance.
We will look forward to seeing the specific questions. Ultimately, I’m assuming that helped shape his decision to go to the polls. Perhaps the Premier could let us know if that’s correct.
Hon. J. Horgan: StrongerBC was the government’s plan. It was not the NDP platform. How it was characterized is not something I had any control over. The polling that is done regularly by government informs the creation of policies and programs.
I don’t know the specific connection to the information that you’re talking about, of the daily tracking versus the regular omnibus polling that governments do. I’ll have to get it on a time horizon before I could give anything remotely close to an answer to the question. I haven’t indicated that, subject to any potential cabinet confidences…. We’re happy to release the information where it was garnered and what the content of the questions was.
S. Bond: Well, I think most British Columbians would find it pretty ironic that a government comes out with a massive program called StrongerBC — sounds kind of campaign slogan–ish to me — four days before the Premier decides to call a snap election. I am absolutely convinced, as I’m sure British Columbians are, that the Premier didn’t wake up one morning and say: “We’re going to an election.” I actually think that this polling was used to shape a program, called a government program, that ultimately looked, walked and felt a whole lot like an election platform.
Let’s just pursue the election a little bit further, because I think most British Columbians think that those answers from the Premier just don’t cut it. You’re polling about your government’s reaction, response — how British Columbians are feeling about the pandemic and this government’s response — and miraculously, a program comes out, StrongerBC, and four days later, this Premier goes to the polls.
Let me ask another question. On September 21, 2021, Dr. Bonnie Henry said: “I can say that Premier Horgan did not ask for my advice around calling an election.” I find that extraordinary. So we have a government that’s polling to figure out how people feel about the way they’ve handled the pandemic. This is a Premier…. Well, the Premier disagrees. I look forward to seeing the questions. We have asked for the questions, and if there is no concern about the content of those questions and the use of them, then release them.
Here’s the bigger issue. All of us in this House, despite the aspersions cast by others that the opposition doesn’t actually care about the pandemic, didn’t do anything…. That’s nonsense, and we all know it. But this is a Premier that has stood up time and time again and said: “I’m going to listen to the advice of the public health officer. I’m going to listen to Dr. Bonnie Henry. I’m going to listen to the advice of Dr. Bonnie Henry.”
Can this Premier stand up today and tell British Columbians why on earth, when he considered going to the polls during a pandemic, it was the one time, apparently, he didn’t think that advice from Dr. Bonnie Henry mattered? It mattered. We’re going to get to that part next.
Can the Premier explain to us, those of us who were caught up in that process, how polling didn’t influence his decision and why on earth he didn’t go to the public health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, and ask her about whether it was wise to go to an election or not?
Hon. J. Horgan: A lot to unpack in the Leader of the Opposition’s questioning. I will remind her that the B.C. Liberal Party ran on a slogan of “Strong economy, secure tomorrow,” and that became part and parcel of everything they did thereafter. These are words. Words are important. I get that.
The polling that was undertaken by the government of British Columbia was not to measure the public’s opinion of the government. It was to gauge their concerns around COVID-19 and what steps could or should be taken. There was never at any time a “Do you think that you’re going to vote NDP or Liberal or Green?” That’s not what government polling does, and the member knows that full well.
There was no shortage, of course, at that time, of public domain polling. Leger was doing tracking on a regular basis, a weekly basis, highlighting how people felt about how governments across the country were dealing with COVID-19. So the polling was in the public domain. There was polling done for government to shape the policies that would meet the needs of British Columbians.
With respect to calling the election, there’s only one person that can do that. It was me, and I did. I did it based on how I felt the government needed to respond to the challenges that we were facing. I felt we needed a secure government that could focus on the next four years, not on the next four months. I’m confident that the outcome reflects how people felt about it at the time.
S. Bond: The Premier’s answer is actually quite astounding. It’s not specifically about the government’s response. It’s not directly related. The Premier himself said it was to gauge people’s concern about COVID-19. To suggest that that did not influence his decision to call a snap election is unbelievable.
The government had a process of using taxpayer dollars to measure how British Columbians felt. It went to cabinet. So to suggest it didn’t inform StrongerBC…. The Premier can use the words all he wants.
Four days before an election, a whole new program called StrongerBC emerges. We then discover there has been polling for which we have no idea what the specific questions are. Again, I look forward to hearing that. But the Premier actually didn’t answer the question I asked him.
He has relied on advice from Dr. Bonnie Henry every single step of the way. In fact, every news conference…. And I am not being disrespectful asking that question. I understand that. But it is pretty unbelievable to me that when the Premier is asking British Columbians to leave their homes for the first time in who knows how long, the person he didn’t talk to, even in a casual conversation, was…. I know she can’t call the election. I get that. I actually do know that. But he didn’t say: “Do you think this is a good idea?” I find that completely unbelievable, and I think I wouldn’t be alone in that assumption.
It’s not just pre-election polling. The NDP caucus spent $205,000 of taxpayer funds on advertising, including nearly $150,000 on a direct-mail campaign just prior to the 2020 election. Can the Premier explain what coordination took place — despite the fact that I know he’s going to get up and say: “I’m the only person who can decide on that, and I woke up one morning….”? There was direct mail. There was a new program called StrongerBC.
British Columbians had done everything they’d been asked to do, and more. They followed the public health orders. So when the Premier of British Columbia gets up and says, “Okay, it’s all right for us to go to the polls,” that’s what they did. And now we find out the government did polling?
The Premier implied the reason we were going to an election was because things weren’t going so well in here. I was in this place. I didn’t get that sense at all. Was there tension on issues? Of course there was. That’s how this place operates.
We’ve got polling. We’ve got direct mail. We have no conversation with the very doctor this Premier has relied on every single day. Can the Premier explain what coordination occurred or what prompted $200,000 on taxpayer-funded advertising just weeks before the election?
Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make all of this nefarious in hindsight. She will know that caucuses are responsible for their budgets, as directed by their executives, directed by the members of their caucuses on how they spend their money. Liberals spend money as they see fit. Green members spend money as they see fit, as did the NDP caucus.
We have already said that the polling that was being done was not to ask how you feel about the government. It was about how you feel about COVID. What concerns do you have? At the time, we were coming out of the summer. People were back in school. People were working. The economy was open at the time. I mean, again, this revisionist history may well suit the moment, but it does not change the result, and it doesn’t change the facts.
No one made the decision to call an election but me. I did not consult Bonnie Henry. She is a public servant and had no role or function in that process.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Horgan: She had no role or function in that process. She has said….
Interjections.
Hon. J. Horgan: The Leader of the Opposition is calling into question the integrity of Bonnie. Bonnie has said clearly…. I did not ask her. She….
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. J. Horgan: You are too. You are too.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. I’ll have order. I’ll have order, please. Thank you.
Leader of the Official Opposition, you have a request?
Point of Order
S. Bond: I do, on a point of order.
I would ask that the member withdraw the language that other members of this House have been asked to withdraw in the past. That was unacceptable, and I expect it to be withdrawn.
The Chair: Premier.
Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I unreservedly withdraw the comment.
The Chair: Thank you, Premier.
Debate Continued
S. Bond: Let’s be clear. For the Premier to suggest that difficult questions about one of the most significant decisions he made in this entire time is nefarious…. He wants to talk about the facts. I’ve given him the facts.
If we look at the polls that were taken by this government, the Finance Minister said that the polls were used to develop StrongerBC. StrongerBC is delivered miraculously to the people of British Columbia as a government program four days before this Premier called a snap election. To suggest that I was making remarks about Dr. Bonnie Henry would be inaccurate. And I’m sure the Premier and his staff will go back and review the Blues. The person I’m talking about today is sitting across from me, who is the Premier of British Columbia.
I have been respectful and thoughtful and always appreciative of Dr. Bonnie Henry. To suggest that asking a question of a Premier who has relied on her advice every single step of the way…? Suggesting that’s nefarious is offensive at best. So let’s ask the other questions.
This Premier made a political decision. That’s what it was about. He weighed all of the information that he had, and I can assure you that how people felt, gauging their opinions about COVID, played a part in the decision that this Premier made. So let’s just look at this.
The Premier is going to, if he was upset by those questions…. In the months prior to the election, 5,000 cases were reported. During the two-month period of a caretaker government, there were 22,000 new cases. The daily case count went from 128 new cases to 887 new cases. So let me ask the Premier today. And hopefully there’ll be no bad language or casting aspersion on my character. My job is to ask these questions on behalf of British Columbians.
Does the Premier have any regret that he didn’t talk to the public health officer?
Interjection.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please. Thank you.
S. Bond: Does the Premier have any regret that he didn’t have a conversation about the public health implications of calling a snap election?
Hon. J. Horgan: What disturbs me is that I have said publicly that the decision to call the election was mine and mine alone. Dr. Henry has been asked if she was asked if there should be an election, and she said that she was never asked the question. I’ve said it publicly. She’s said it publicly. To suggest that that’s not believable draws into question the integrity of the two individuals you’re talking about. That’s how I interpreted it. There’s a difference of opinion, clearly. In this place….
Interjections.
The Chair: Through the Chair.
Premier, just one moment, please.
Look, folks. I’m not usually here during question period. So let’s go through the Chair, please. This is not question period.
Hon. J. Horgan: I will quote Dr. Henry: “To be clear, our work has not been because we were expecting an election but because we knew COVID-19 would be in our communities for some time to come and we needed to be ready, whether it was municipal” — which there were, municipal by-elections, pending — “provincial or federal elections that might come. We needed to ensure any election in B.C. could happen safely. It was just an integral part of our democratic process to be able to vote.”
My frustration, hon. Chair, with the implication of the Leader of the Opposition’s question was that she was drawing into question the integrity of Dr. Henry. I’m quite….
Interjections.
Hon. J. Horgan: That’s my interpretation. That’s how I’m interpreting it. We have a disagreement between parties. Hon. Chair, that happens, as you know, oftentimes in this place.
In my opinion, what the leader was suggesting was that somehow I was distorting the facts with respect to my relationship with the public health office.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m talking about my interpretation of how you characterized your question, Member, and it is my right in this place to do so.
As I have my feet, I’ll continue.
The Chair: Premier, through the Chair, please.
Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair.
There was an abundance of public domain polling about the state of play in British Columbia through the summer of 2020. The public opinion work that was done to shape and form StrongerBC was designed to build a program which we’ve been talking about for some time, not just in my estimates but the estimates of the minister responsible for the program, as well as the Minister of Finance. That was a program that was developed based on what the best needs of British Columbians were.
Governments across the country consult with the public through opinion research all the time. The public domain polls made it abundantly clear what the state of play was here. The only person that decided to call an election in British Columbia was me. I’ve said that from the beginning. It’s never a bad idea to ask the public who they want to lead them and where they want to go, and I felt it was the right choice at the time, and I stand by that.
S. Bond: First of all, we’re going to take the opportunity to clarify the record. At no time…. I’m not sure who the Premier was listening to — maybe the staff sitting beside him. I’m not sure. At no time in this discussion have I ever — or in this entire circumstance — questioned the leadership of Dr. Bonnie Henry. Perhaps the Premier should have listened to the Health estimates the other day, when I actually had some very important and complimentary remarks.
That didn’t happen today. What is under discussion here is the fact there was polling. Whether it’s normal or regular isn’t the question here. Every day before this Premier called a snap election, during a pandemic, when in fact we still had a public health emergency having been declared…. So we have polling. We have direct mail. Contrary to what the Premier suggested, one would think he’d want to take the time to have a conversation about the potential health impacts.
British Columbians had been in their homes for months and months and months. They were just starting. And this Premier decides he’s going to call an election. My point was this. He didn’t ask Dr. Henry. One would assume that considering he…. Every single other announcement, everything: “I listen to Dr. Henry.”
I’m not suggesting she can call the election, but the question is: wouldn’t it have been prudent…? I suppose the Premier can dismiss that because he got what he wanted, which was a majority government. That’s what he wanted. My point is it had risk, and it had polling, and it had mailouts, and it had StrongerBC, all conveniently lined up four days before an election call.
I asked the Premier a question. He didn’t answer it, and I’m going to ask it to him again. I’ll repeat it so that it’s not misconstrued. In the months prior to the election, there were 5,000 cases reported. During the two-month period of caretaker government, election call, caretaker government, lots of delays…. I won’t get the chance to ask those questions, but there were lots of delays. This government was on hold while the Premier and his now cabinet ministers were out campaigning. All kinds of things were put on hold. I’ve got lists of them.
There was an impact to calling that election. During the two-month period of caretaker government, there were almost 22,000 new cases. The daily case count went from 128 new cases to 887 new cases a day.
Does the Premier have any regrets about focusing on campaigning during a critical time in a pandemic?
Hon. J. Horgan: The period that you’re referring to has to be significantly longer than the writ period with respect to the case counts, but to suggest that the election facilitated the case count increase, I think, is inconsistent with epidemiology and the advent of the second wave here in British Columbia and, indeed, around the world.
With respect to time frames for public opinion research done by government to inform public policy, I don’t know at this moment. I don’t have it before me. It may well be coming — the time frame which the member is referring to, on when that polling was done to inform the creation of public policy.
During the caretaker period, the full authority of the government of British Columbia was in the hands of, then, the former Deputy Premier and Finance Minister. Government functioned throughout that period of time, delivering services, ensuring British Columbians’ needs were met. That is part and parcel of democracy. Elections happen all the time, and one happened in October of 2020 here in British Columbia, and the consequences were just what they were.
Dr. Henry has said, in fact, that the caretaker period had no impact on outcomes. What had an impact on outcomes was COVID-19.
S. Bond: Well, I don’t even know where to begin, but I will. Here’s what Dr. Bonnie Henry had to say: “We had that rapid takeoff in the end of October and into November. In hindsight, maybe we should have done more then.” Pretty critical period. Where were we? In caretaker mode.
The Premier can continue to take shots across the aisle. The point is he called a snap election. His comments today: “Elections happen all the time.” Snap elections don’t happen all the time. Pandemics don’t happen all the time. Declared emergencies don’t happen all the time. Calling an election during a pandemic doesn’t happen all the time. To the Premier’s comments about, “Well, everything just kept going,” actually, the election and the interregnum period lasted 66 days during a pandemic, with numbers on the rise.
The non-partisan public service identified at least 44 separate initiatives that were delayed by the election and important enough to brief the incoming cabinet in transition binders. For the Premier to say…. And he knows full well that work stops on certain issues where public servants know that there are limits to the work that continues. In fact, 44 separate initiatives — a pause in IFE funding initiatives that may implicate funding and program timelines. Climate change discussion paper — it was delayed due to the election. The list goes on. There are 44 of them.
I want to be respectful to my colleague the Leader of the Third Party and her colleague from Saanich North and the Islands that are here to have their time. The time has been compressed.
What is most discouraging and difficult for me at this moment is that my job is to ask this Premier hard questions, and his reaction today was disappointing and in fact, at times, lacked credibility.
Hard questions need to be answered. This Premier made a risky decision. That’s what he did. He had a goal in mind, and it was to win a majority government. And you know what? He did. And British Columbians said to me and members of my caucus that they want us to be the opposition party. You know what that means? That we’re going to be effective, and we’re going to work hard, and we’re going to continue to hold this Premier to account for the decisions he made, including calling an election.
I’ll just end my remarks for this section. I think we are getting an hour again tomorrow, when we have countless questions to ask.
This is a Premier who said that things were going to be different. It’s a Premier who said he was going to take good ideas from wherever they came from. It’s a Premier who stood up and said: “I listen to Bonnie Henry on everything.” But apparently not when it…. It didn’t even cross his mind to ask her about whether an election was a good idea when it comes to public health outcomes?
I’m asking the Premier to keep his word. He said he would take good ideas from wherever they come from. We’ve asked, over and over again — and not us by ourselves. My colleagues, who are going to get their chance in a moment, have asked this Premier, as well, to activate the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, activate the Health Committee, accept the legislative ideas of the member for Surrey South. Those are the kinds of things that demonstrate that this Premier actually meant what he said about doing things differently.
With that, hon. Chair, I’ll cede the floor to the Leader of the Third Party.
Hon. J. Horgan: The tracking polling, the daily tracking polling that the member referred to, was conducted between April 21 and May 29, at the heart of the pandemic, to get a sense of how people were feeling across British Columbia. They were not pre-election questions; they were questions asked at the beginning of the global pandemic. During the pandemic: an election in Saskatchewan, an election in Yukon, an election in New Brunswick, an election in Newfoundland and an election here in British Columbia.
I want to reiterate again, because I want to be absolutely clear: Dr. Henry has said publicly that I did not consult her on the calling of an election. I have said publicly that I did not consult her on the calling of an election. To say that it’s not credible to believe that — as the member opposite just said — I think, draws into question the integrity of the two individuals that we’re referring to here.
That’s what got me excited, and I think appropriately so, to protect the integrity of a public servant whom I have heard the Leader of the Opposition praise — rightly so — for her extraordinary work during this extremely difficult time, almost without a day off in that whole period. The question about calling an election was mine. I’ve said that at the beginning, during and today. If that’s not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, I very much regret that.
I will do my level best to get the information that we weren’t able to get with respect to the questions that you wanted answered — and similarly to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and other members, particularly the member for Surrey South.
S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to have this opportunity for a dialogue with the Premier. It’s the first opportunity since September 18.
I’m interested about the conversation that has just happened between the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Premier. I think the question that I asked, in response to the throne speech in December, was around that election call. It was really the question of what British Columbians deserved. Did they deserve better? Did they deserve more than a caretaker government in the months where we saw the cases rising in the second wave of the global pandemic?
There have been a lot of really, I think, very important conversations and discussions around decisions that were made, around words, around collaboration and cooperation, working together versus actions and outcome, and what that has played out as. I think that given the 3½ years prior to the election call, there were countless daily examples of collaboration — not just between the government caucus and our caucus but between all of the caucuses in this House.
It was celebrated not only in response to the collaboration around COVID but celebrated in sessions prior to that, where there had been unanimous consent in this House around enormous initiatives, like the passing of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, where private members’ bills were coming forward, being debated and passed in this House, where amendments were being made to bills — as this place should function. What happened in the wake of that collaboration and, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the polling and the presentation of StrongerBC was a choice, a political choice.
What I find fascinating in the months that have followed that political choice…. It is absolutely understandable that the system that we have encourages political parties to make those kinds of political choices, because our system is really geared towards power, not collaboration.
Three minority governments across Canada went to elections during the pandemic. One of the Premiers said: “Well, I saw how it worked out in the other provinces. So I think I’ll do the same thing.” The parties were motivated to have more power and less collaboration. A minority government depends on collaboration.
It’s been an interesting conversation. I think it would just be fine, really, to own it. “Yeah, this is the political system we’re in. It’s first-past-the-post. It provides false majorities. It provides enormous power. And that’s what we wanted.” When the Premier says, “We wanted to put politics behind us. We wanted a strong mandate,” that’s what this system provokes. From my point of view, this system and the way we do things, particularly under majority governments, does not meet the needs of the people that we serve.
There are 87 representatives in here committed to serving their constituents, who bring ideas and initiatives every day in hopes of serving better. Collaboration actually makes it better. People were very happy with the minority government. So lots of talk around working together, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition.
My first question to the Premier is: what does he envision working together? What does that look like under this new majority government, and can he speak to specific initiatives and efforts that he has taken to create that climate of working together?
Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the Leader of the Third Party’s participation in this committee debate.
With respect to the first-past-the-post system, she and I and her colleagues stood side by side, encouraging British Columbians to change the electoral system in British Columbia, the third time that’s been tried in this century. Regrettably, the public had a different view than she and I and the member for Saanich North and the Islands, so we have a first-past-the-post system. Be that as it may, that seems to be the will of the public.
We have amended bills this parliament. The member sitting right behind you assisted in making a bill better in this place, so that’s a tangible example of collaboration that continues what had been a positive working relationship with all sides of the House at the beginning of the pandemic.
With respect to other initiatives, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has reached out to both leaders of the two opposition parties to start the process of collaborating on what’s going on in British Columbia, what’s happening in the communities that are represented by members on that side of the House, to better understand where we can make progress.
These are steps that are not as seismic as the steps that we took together during a minority parliament. I will certainly agree with the member on that. But I do not for a minute dismiss the potential for all of us in this place to come together. That is, in fact, integral to how I’m trying to direct our executive council — to listen to other people that you wouldn’t necessarily listen to, to engage in broadening the tent so that the public has a better representation in this place and in the outcomes that we are able to achieve because of that collaboration.
I know that in the heat of partisanship, we get worked up. When integrity is brought into question, all of us are heated, because we all come here with the best of intentions. We all come here with a clean slate, designated by our communities to come here and represent their interests, and I fully intend to keep doing that with all members of this House to the best of my ability.
S. Furstenau: The two examples that the Premier just pointed out…. On the amendments to a bill, my colleague worked very hard to point out those flaws in that bill, and yes, it was amended. That’s not an initiative that the Premier took. My question really is to the Premier as the leader of the government, as the leader of his caucus. Briefings are, I think, a bare minimum of expectations in this House. Briefings are a matter of course and should be expected to continue as such.
Specifically, beyond the words in the mandate letters and the words in here, I’m asking the Premier this because the reality is that the table for collaboration needs to be set by the people with power. The Leader of the Official Opposition and I have been presenting opportunities, ideas, initiatives, ways to collaborate — over and over, quite a significant amount, in fact, for only being into the second session that we’ve had — and they have been rebuffed.
On the health emergency that has been ongoing for over five years and that is claiming the lives of six people a day in British Columbia, what is provoking us and, I expect, our colleagues to call for that collaboration is that building consensus on issues that require some political ambition is really important. There need to be some very significant steps taken if we’re going to stop people from dying every single day from a toxic drug crisis.
Having all three parties, all three leaders say, “We are all in agreement that these steps need to be taken with urgency,” depoliticizes those decisions, gives the government political cover to take the necessary steps to stop people from dying every day. So it’s not just that we want a briefing. It is that we want to give you the capacity to take some pretty enormous steps.
My question, again, is to the Premier. What has he done to set that table for collaboration, specifically on the toxic drug crisis in this province that is a devastating reality? Will he agree that on that kind of emergency, on the scale that it’s at, bringing together all three parties is actually an important if not an essential step?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her questions.
The toxic drug supply. The deaths of British Columbians in unacceptable numbers has been an ongoing crisis for half a decade.
I participate in conferences with other jurisdictions. We were the first to have a minister dedicated to daily managing these challenges, by having a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. There were none when that happened; now there are three. There’s a minister in Ontario, and there is a minister in Manitoba. I suspect this is going to continue right across the country, because this is not just a British Columbia issue. It is a national issue and, indeed, a national shame.
That’s why I followed the lead of the national police chiefs and called on the federal government to decriminalize simple possession for personal use — so that we could start to destigmatize. These are issues that all of us agree on in this House. There’s no need for a committee to be struck for us to agree that we need to decriminalize possession of opioids for personal use. We need to ensure that we’re increasing budgets for paramedics and other front-line workers. We’ve all agreed to that through supporting the budgets that have been put forward by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, as well as others in this place.
If we’re going to turn this around, we need to start by having the door opened. That is exactly what the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions did when she responded to the two leaders, saying: “Let’s get together. Let’s have a briefing, and let’s figure out where we go from here.” That’s the setting of the table for the collaboration that the member is asking for. A committee of the Legislature is not the only way that we can collaborate. I recall that in the last parliament the committees were meeting regularly, and it was taxing for some members. They dropped off those committees because there was too much work to do.
That’s not to say that we can’t find a way to invigorate those, but let’s start first and foremost by getting the table set, by talking to the minister, talking to her staff, figuring out — all parties in this House, with the two leaders sitting down with her — where do we want to go from here. That’s what we offered up, and I’m disappointed that the two parties are not prepared to accept that.
S. Furstenau: I think it’s important to not suggest that the two parties are not willing to accept briefings. The two parties are asking for something beyond that.
The toxic drug crisis is claiming so many lives and is a health emergency. Yes, decriminalization, I think we have agreement on. What I didn’t hear the Premier speak about — which is what health experts, advocates, Dr. Henry, have all noted, and which is essential to actually preventing deaths — is a regulated, accessible, safe supply for people.
We’ve made some strides in that, but it’s nowhere near what it’s going to need to be in order to prevent the number of deaths that we’re seeing. There are many communities in British Columbia right now where there aren’t safe injection sites, overdose prevention sites. It’s a health emergency, but the infrastructure there to prevent deaths is not meeting the urgency of the health emergency. I think there’s much more that could be done, and I think that collaboration is a way to do it.
I’m going to go to some comments that the Premier has made about where we are and, again, about his decision to have an election. We want to get, as he says…. He says with the challenges that we are facing, he needed a strong mandate for four years, needed to put politics behind…. And he’s, in the last few days, talked about how we’re getting to near the end of COVID and things are getting back to normal. He said: “There’s a sense of excitement that the worst is behind us. The vaccine program is rolling out…. We’re meeting our targets. We’re meeting the criteria…. And in the next number of weeks, I’m hopeful that we can get back to something more resembling regular.”
Unfortunately…. And this is where we were a year ago when we were talking about building back better. There was significant acknowledgment that what we didn’t want was just to get back to regular. We have a climate emergency. We have biodiversity collapse. We have inequality at untenable levels in this province, in this country, growing around the world, and it’s gotten worse because of COVID. We have a housing crisis that has gotten worse because of COVID.
My question to the Premier, really, is: given the not particularly bold legislative agenda from this session, what is this vision, his vision, for where he wants to take this province, from this place we’re at right now? And is it just getting back to regular?
Hon. J. Horgan: I believe that British Columbians can want to get back to something resembling normal and also think big and bold.
That’s why we’ve launched the largest child care undertaking in our province’s history. That’s why, with respect to poverty reduction, we lifted income assistance and disability pensions by the largest amount to ever happen. That’s also why we’ve legislated GHG targets. That’s why we’ve disaggregated industrial emissions to include oil and gas in one place and other industrial emissions in another place, so we can better manage and regulate these things, going forward.
The vision for British Columbia is laid out, in my mind, quite thoroughly and exhaustively in the mandate letters of the ministers that sit with me at the executive council. Our job is to try and get people back to where they are comfortable with their health and well-being within their family unit, within their community and within the province and, at the same time, talk about those bold initiatives that the member and I often talked about in the previous administration.
I don’t believe those are exclusive. I think that both of those things can happen at the same time. There’s a whole bunch of people that desperately want to do what they were doing a year ago, and that would be sufficient for a period of time. So let’s get to that spot, and then we can proceed.
We are proceeding concurrently with all these other initiatives. We haven’t missed a beat on poverty reduction, bringing forward initiatives. We haven’t missed a beat on collaborating with the federal government and, in fact, encouraging the federal government to mirror the work we’re doing on child care that’s going to lead to a significant investment in the not-too-distant future that will transform the workplace for women, that will ensure that our children are getting early childhood education, not just babysitting.
These are all exciting initiatives. They are bold. And I’m excited about the future.
S. Furstenau: I know the Premier brings up…. For example, he mentioned climate just now, yet getting back to normal, it appears to be that normal has become that this province is massively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.
Yesterday’s report from Stand.earth found that the NDP has doubled oil and gas subsidies since 2017 and that by 2023, this government plans to spend almost $1.8 billion on fossil fuel subsidies. To the south of us, the United States is eliminating fossil fuel subsidies altogether, replacing them with green energy incentives.
I know that the Premier will mention CleanBC and the collaborative work that was done with the B.C. Green caucus and the former leader. However, there is a giant LNG-sized gap in CleanBC and in meeting those emissions targets. That is fuelled by fracking in the northeast, which is heavily subsidized by this government, far more than it was subsidized by the previous government — subsidized to the extent that the amount that taxpayers are providing to oil and gas subsidies far exceeds the revenues that this government sees on its books from oil and gas.
Is that the normal, the regular, that we want to get back to? Can this Premier speak to the urgency that so many people, particularly young people, feel about needing to take concrete, bold steps on climate action and stop funding the industries that are driving climate change?
Hon. J. Horgan: Firstly, I want to say that I’ve been advised that the Green caucus has welcomed the overture to sit down with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I’m grateful for that, and I’m hopeful that the official opposition will follow suit and we can get back to that collaborate place to have the cooperation that the public will see in this House that will reflect how we want to see our communities respond to that challenge.
With respect to the data the member talks about, we are, as she knows, conducting a review of all of the incentives or subsidies through the royalty review that’s currently underway. Some of the dollars that she refers to are actually incentives to reduce emissions.
We won’t be shutting down the oil and gas sector next week. That’s the conventional wisdom of almost everybody. We need to transition away from where we are to where we want to get to. We are of one mind on how we do that, as quickly as possible, but quickly as possible is not instantaneously. It will take a process to reduce our dependence as individuals and communities on natural gas, for example. In the Lower Mainland, over one million people depend on natural gas. It won’t disappear tomorrow.
That’s just in British Columbia. Five million souls here in a sea of seven billion souls. We had a discussion today with Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and also now special adviser to the EU and, I think, to the Prime Minister of the U.K. Very compelling. He’s just written a fantastic book. I commend it to your attention if you haven’t had a chance to look at it.
Here we have a banker, a national banker for Canada and for the U.K., saying without any hesitation that we need to rapidly move to a different way of doing business. That is the view and vision of the province of British Columbia. We’re going to do that by collaborating with new energy alternatives, by making sure that those that are in the sector that want to transition to cleaner, more efficient, more effective sources of energy to power the world….
That’s what we’re talking about here. This isn’t about little, tiny things. This is about a global economy. So to have someone of Carney’s stature, not just here in Canada but internationally, leading a crusade to change the way industry looks at these things…. The numbers he talked about were staggering in terms of the trillions of dollars being invested in alternatives by those very companies that have been the bedrock of the fossil fuel industry.
They are transitioning. If the fossil fuel industry is starting to make that transition, certainly to goodness the rest of Canada and the rest of North America can do that as well. I’m heartened by the changes in the United States, of the administration there, most assuredly.
The Glasgow iteration of COP is almost upon us. Certainly, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be attending on our behalf. I may well go. I’ve been talking to the governor of Washington about subnational units like B.C., Washington and others, forming a bloc to go to COP and say to national governments: “This is where we need to go. The sooner you get on board, the better we’ll all be.” That’s the agenda that I’m on, and I know I’ll have the support of the two members from the Third Party.
S. Furstenau: I thank the Premier for his response.
I talk a lot about the foundational pillars of democratic systems, and that’s trust. What erodes trust is cynicism, and what can create cynicism is when governments say one thing but do the opposite. So to speak about the absolute need — we agree on this — to be transitioning away from fossil fuels but, at the same time, increase the propping up of that industry in this province with taxpayer money, says one thing and does another.
To the comments about how some of those subsidies go to electrifying the industry, the reality is that it still results in fracking enormous volumes. It goes contrary to the polluter-pay model, which is taxpayers paying industry to be cleaner, just as taxpayers have been on the hook with this industry in particular, the fracking industry, on the cleanup costs, because after all the money is made and they get out of town, they leave the wells behind.
Realizing how close we are to the end, I’m going to turn to one last topic here, which is our environment — old growth, species at risk — an issue that is clearly very important to a lot of British Columbians. The Minister of Environment no longer has a mandate to create species-at-risk or biodiversity legislation, which was part of the confidence and supply agreement and has disappeared from the mandate at a time when we’re seeing massive biodiversity loss around this world. The notion that we are not going to be proactive, more proactive, on protecting biodiversity and habitats for species at risk is alarming.
In terms of old growth, which has been dominating the news, much of the input that we’ve certainly gotten — and I’m sure the Premier has heard it — is around protection of old growth in this province. People are very, very concerned about this. We have a precedent that’s been set in the Premier’s riding. Indigenous nations have a pathway to stewarding and conserving their lands, to negotiate better economic terms than what is typically offered to them in so-called benefits agreements.
For decades, there have been calls for renewal of the forestry industry and policies in this province — gone unheeded. And right now, there is another nation that’s calling for the immediate deferral of all logging in their territories, and that’s Squamish Nation.
My question to the Premier is very important. Will he immediately recognize the call from Squamish Nation to defer all old-growth logging in their territory so that the conversations about the future of that territory can go without chainsaws running in the background?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m not telling anything to the Leader of the Third Party that she doesn’t already know. These are my neighbours; these are my constituents. This is an area that I’ve grown up in.
We embraced all of the recommendations of the Gorley-Merkel report, and we are working on implementing those recommendations. We deferred 200,000 hectares. I appreciate that the member doesn’t care for the math, but that’s what we did, and we’re going to defer more, after consultation with Indigenous Peoples. We were going to immediately defer the central Walbran, and we were asked by the Pacheedaht not to do that until they’ve had time to look at it.
We’ve been in consultation for months and months, and gratefully, we’ve come to a conclusion whereby the Fairy Creek watershed as well as the central Walbran have been deferred, while the Pacheedaht and neighbouring First Nations conduct their own integrated resource plans on what they want to do on their territory.
We’ve also already begun discussions with the Squamish Nation. They have been going on for not as long a period of time as with the Pacheedaht, but they are well advanced. I’m confident that we’ll see positive outcomes there, but it requires consultation, it requires time, and it requires human resources to do that. It’s a big undertaking.
Concurrent to that, we announced an intentions paper, mostly for the Interior forest sector, which does also have old-growth groves and areas that should be protected for species that are at risk.
As coastal dwellers, we oftentimes assume that old growth is only the majestic cedar and spruce that we know so well from southern Vancouver Island, but there are unique stands of old growth in the Kootenays, in the Cariboo, in and around the Prince George area. Unfortunately, while I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a particular stand of old growth that was protected by the previous government, just outside of Prince George, they would not be considered majestic forests by the three of us, because we come from here.
All of that work requires concerted effort by government, by communities, by workers, by not-for-profits and by industry. That’s what we’re undertaking: to make a seismic shift. I’m paraphrasing Garry Merkel, but these are values that I share and, I know, that the members on the opposite side share. If we’re going to have a paradigm shift, it needs to have a strong foundation of buy-in from everyone — not just the loudest voice, not just those that choose to blockade but those who want to move forward together. That’s what we’re trying to undertake.
I would hope that…. I certainly would welcome collaboration on these issues with my two friends from southern Vancouver Island. We have the same objectives. There’s a disagreement on time and pace, but I’m confident that if we keep at it, we’re going to get to where British Columbians want us to be — protecting these majestic stands, protecting the biodiversity that comes with that. It’s not just about the trees. It’s about the animals, it’s about the salmon, and it’s about the whole integrity of the bioregion. That’s what we’re committed to, that’s what we’ve stood for, and that’s what we’re going to deliver.
S. Furstenau: One question my colleague is keen to hear an answer to is that in the benefit agreements, section 11 of these agreements indicate that once a nation has signed onto those, they cannot speak out against any of these resource benefits agreements in forestry. Once a nation has signed on, they cannot speak out against the activities that happen on the lands.
Can the Premier provide confidence that there will be no consequences or punishments for any nations that speak out against those agreements?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll undertake to get back to the member about the language and the impact-and-benefit agreements. We had a technology failure for the subject-matter expert on that question.
I will say, because I think this will be of equal interest to both of the members, that we are working very constructively with the federal government, the Minister of Environment, on a nature fund, a significant fund. It’s one of those “I’ll believe it when I see it” things with the federal government. I see my former colleague from the House of Commons. He’ll understand this full well, as well as the private sector and not-for-profits that are in the business of nature trusts and so on. We’re trying to bring all of these components to bear.
I’ve heard, through question period, these types of models being referenced, and I want to just assure both members that we’re very actively pursuing that. This is not about: “Sign here, and forever hold your peace.” But when you enter into an agreement — again, these are contractual arrangements — party A and party B agree to certain things.
Certainly, it’s not the intention to muzzle. It’s not the intention to not speak out. I would assume, and I expect and demand, that agreements are entered into freely and fairly. Free, prior and informed consent is a component part of that.
The member is shaking his head in disagreement. That’s the intent with which I offer the comment.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:52 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 A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), 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 10 a.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 2:39 p.m.
The Chair: We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health. I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s good to see you again today. Good to see everyone here. Good to see my colleagues on Zoom as well.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Dix: I like that. Look at that. I’m telling you. I was suggesting to the opposition Health critic that at some point in the afternoon, maybe in the five-minute break at 5:30 or something, they could try the wave on Zoom. We’ll see how that works, because that takes real skill. That would show professionalism.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $23,725,698,000 (continued).
Hon. A. Dix: There were a few detailed questions that were asked yesterday that we sought answers for, and I’ve got answers to start our estimates debate today.
The first was a question from the member for Kelowna-Mission, who wanted some information on the net new positions added to the B.C. emergency health services. In 2020-2021, there were 283 net new positions added. Those positions break down as follows: advanced care paramedics, 15; critical care paramedics, six; primary care paramedics, 252; dispatch, ten.
For 2021-22, nearly 400 net new additional permanent positions will be posted July 2021. The vast majority of these positions are primary care paramedics, as they are the largest component of our provincial service. The vast majority of the 400 new positions being posted in July 2022 are PCP and CPs, but the licensing breakdown would be confirmed upon hire. CPs hold a PCP licence. As well, there will be 12 additional dispatch FTEs added.
The member for Cariboo North had some specific questions about the Quesnel station, again of the B.C. emergency health service, the ambulance service. I just want to note that there are two ambulances still serving Quesnel. Today one is full-time, 24-7, and one is on call 24-7. Previously, one ambulance was staffed with one full-time paramedic and one on-call paramedic, both posted in the station for their shift.
The change that occurred converted the on-call paramedic to a full-time FTE. This resulted in four new full-time FTEs in Quesnel. The second ambulance in Quesnel was an on-call ambulance for the area. There’s no change in that.
The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, who has some personal experience in this area, asked a question specifically about station 219 of the B.C. emergency health services and other questions related to employees in his constituency. Pemberton, which is the station that he asked most specifically about, is part of the move to a scheduled, on-call staffing model to stabilize staffing in rural and remote B.C.
Pemberton is moving to what is called a pre-hospital scheduled, on-call staffing model. As part of the move, Pemberton will have two net new 0.75 FTE paramedic positions. These paramedics will work three days on, three days off, eight hours a day, followed by 16 hours on call in their home or community. These are regularly scheduled jobs with benefits.
Pemberton also has 2.53 FTE community paramedics. These positions are remaining and will continue to provide service to patients in their community. So a significant increase in service in Pemberton.
In Squamish, there are currently four full-time paramedic positions. With a conversion of casual, on-call shifts, known as fox shifts, which the member referred to, B.C. emergency health services is adding four net new paramedic positions in Squamish, doubling the full-time staffing. The area will continue to have the same on-call or key load staffing it had had previously.
With respect to Whistler, there are currently four full-time paramedic positions, and the conversion of casual, on-call fox shifts will result in four net new paramedic positions for a total of eight full-time paramedics — so four to eight.
The area will continue to have the same on-call, key load staffing coverage it has had previously. As part of the deployment of surge resources, there are also two acute care paramedics based in Whistler seven days a week.
Further, there are two additional ambulances in the area, based in Squamish and Pemberton, which are part of the 55 additional ambulances that were part of our surge response. All are seven-day-a-week coverage.
The member for Nechako Lakes had a similar question about ambulance services in Granisle, called the Granisle pilot project. Just to be clear about his question, he asked how that pilot project was advancing, whether the community of Granisle can expect to be part of that.
As part of the provincewide transition to a scheduled on-call staffing model for many rural and remote communities, and following the pilot prototype first rolled out on Vancouver Island, the village of Granisle is moving to a scheduled on-call staffing model being used in our smallest communities. This will result in an improvement to their staffing, providing one part-time, regularly scheduled paramedic position to the station, in addition to the current 0.67 FTE current community paramedic, with community 911 response support as needed by on-call staffing.
The member for Prince George–Mackenzie had questions about STARS and the relationship between B.C. emergency health services and the STARS system. B.C. emergency health services does use STARS when needed. In 2020-2021, STARS flew 34 missions in the northeast and the southeast of British Columbia. The B.C. emergency health services air ambulance program responds to emergency 911 medical calls and provides specialized emergency patient care and transport for critically ill and injured trauma patients across the province, through the BCEHS critical care transport program.
In 2020-21, BCEHS completed 7,453 transports. Of those, 2,291 used helicopters. A component of this CCT program auto-launches a protocol that ensures patients with life-threatening injuries are transported to a trauma centre as quickly as possible. The protocol simultaneously dispatches both a ground ambulance and a helicopter, based on information provided by a 911 caller. It is available within the flight ranges of dedicated helicopters located in Vancouver and Kamloops that have a range of approximately 300 nautical miles.
For areas not accessible for auto launch, BCEHS has early fixed-wing launch for improving transfer time for patients. The EFWL program also provides a secondary resource for areas covered by auto launch where a helicopter is unavailable.
The BCEHS dedicated air ambulance fleet consists of six helicopters, based in Vancouver, Kamloops, Prince Rupert, Prince George and Nanaimo and ten fixed-wing aircraft based in Vancouver, Kelowna, Fort St. John and Prince George. This includes the recently added five additional air resources to improve access for patients in rural and remote B.C.
In addition to their own dedicated air resources, BCEHS can call upon 35 prequalified air carriers across the province to provide service as needed.
As part of the rural and remote and Indigenous COVID-19 response framework announced on April 20, 2020, BCEHS has added an additional 55 ambulance and five new air resources to best support individuals in rural B.C., including the dedicated air ambulances mentioned previously.
The member for Prince George–Mackenzie also asked how many additional helicopters B.C. Ambulance has in their service. I think I just answered that, but just to be specific — in service in the last couple of years and where they are — BCEHS has expanded air coverage by one-third as the result of an additional five air resources, as part of the COVID surge, moving from 11 dedicated air resources to 16. These additional resources are two helicopters located in Nanaimo and Prince George, and three fixed-wing in Kelowna, and two in Prince George.
The second Prince George fixed-wing recently provided critical care paramedic care at night. This is the first time that 24-7 critical care coverage has been provided outside of Vancouver, which is, obviously, excellent news.
There are 35 additional ad hoc service providers as well across the province that can be activated as needed. The 35 ad hocs are predominantly helicopter resources and are utilized when all dedicated carriers are busy. Ad hocs represent less than 2 percent of the total BCEHS transport volume.
The member for Peace River North asked a question about Fort Nelson and about a company there that wishes to provide just the services that I referred to, to B.C. Emergency Health Services. BCEHS has been in contact with Villers Air for the past two years and has provided information to help them become a qualified ad hoc contracted service provider in the Fort Nelson area. BCEHS further issued a letter to Villers in October 2020 to support their application to become an ad hoc service provider for BCEHS. The letter was intended to support their plans to acquire an aircraft that could meet BCEHS contract requirements for patient transfers.
To date, Villers has not contacted BCEHS to inform them that they have done so. With respect to improving access to smaller contractors in rural communities, BCEHS is going out provincewide with a request for information for fixed-wing operators in June. Operators such as this one are welcome to participate in that process.
The member for Prince George–Valemount, the Leader of the Opposition, also asked a question and for an update about automated external defibrillators, AEDs, and where we are right now in the province. This is some basic information which I will summarize here and then share by letter today with the Leader of the Opposition. It’s a more detailed answer.
An automated external defibrillator, of course, is a safe, portable device anyone can use to identify cardiac rhythms and to deliver electrical shocks to correct abnormal cardiac activity. An AED, combined with CPR, can save the life of someone experiencing sudden cardiac arrest.
As of May 31, there are 2,026 active AEDs in the provincial registry of a total of 2,909 registered. To remain active, the venue hosting the AED has to keep up with the ongoing maintenance. This is the highest number of active AEDs we’ve ever had in B.C., largely because of the extraordinary advocacy of the government and of MLAs and, of course, of the Heart and Stroke Foundation as well.
BCEHS maintains the provincial AED registry. It helps emergency medical dispatchers connect callers or anyone with a PulsePoint app in their area — I encourage people to get the app — with community AEDs.
There are more details, but I’ll share that directly with the Leader of the Opposition. All of this correspondence will go forward to all the MLAs. In some cases, for the sake of time, I’m summarizing these responses.
Finally, the opposition Health critic asked a question about the availability and the cost of B.C. Cancer’s breast screening program. With respect to the breast density change that was made in October 2018, B.C. began reporting on individual breast density in October 2018 on their screening mammogram reports provided to B.C. Cancer’s breast screening program.
The billing codes and fees for screening and diagnostic breast ultrasounds are the same, which equals to $103.90 and includes breast sonogram unilaterals, $69.07, and breast sonogram additional side, $34.83. The fee amount includes both the professional fees and the technical fees. The fee amounts are payable to the diagnostic facility, if approved to bill MSP.
Screening breast ultrasounds are performed in community imaging clinics and at hospitals. Currently the known facilities that offer this service are Royal Inland Hospital, Shuswap Lake General Hospital, Queen Victoria Hospital in Revelstoke, East Kootenay Regional Hospital in Cranbrook, Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail, the Vancouver Breast Centre in Vancouver, West Coast Medical Imaging in Victoria, the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia in Prince George, Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace, Dawson Creek and District Hospital in Dawson Creek and the G.R. Baker Hospital in Quesnel.
I have a more detailed response for the hon. member on that and other questions.
With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you very much. It’s good to be here today.
R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for that information, Minister, and for the updates. I would…. Will we be receiving all of that, as well, in written format or just what you read into Hansard? Okay, perfect. Awesome.
Continuing on, on the BCEHS, we heard of the 283 net new that were hired this past year. So that was 2020-2021. How many vacancies are there still currently, or is that representative of all vacancies having been filled and the new postings of the 400 net new being posted in July of this year being what will refresh again?
Hon. A. Dix: Just to put this in context, in a general sense, of where we are…. Mr. Pokorny is getting information on vacancies for us. So we’ll have that shortly.
We added, prior to 2020, 115 new positions. Under the collective agreement, there will be 490 new positions created. This is under the collective agreement. The conversion is 270 new full-time positions scheduled on call and 220 new regular part-time positions.
In 2020-21, 283 net new positions were added to the system. I described those previously, so I won’t go through those numbers. Nearly 400 positions will be posted in July, and 12 additional dispatch FTEs will be added. Recruitment is underway across our province to fill vacancies.
In the first quarter of this year, just to divide up the 273 and what happened in last part of the fiscal year, 73 paramedics have already been hired. Changes made to implement the collective agreement will neither result in the loss of any services nor ambulances in any communities. Most communities across the province will see an increase in service levels. I understand there are currently 13 vacancies.
The broader issue, as the member will know, and anyone involved in the ambulance system will know, is that the challenges facing ambulance paramedics, in particular, is the increase of people who are away on medical leave. It is the most significant challenge. Although there is…. You know, to add 400 positions is a significant recruitment challenge. But it’s a good challenge to have and one that we’ll continue to do what we’ve been doing for the last three years, which is increasing full-time staff in the ambulance service and adding to the resources of the B.C. emergency health services in B.C.
R. Merrifield: How many retired or quit in 2020 or otherwise left the position? How many are expected to retire within the next three years?
Hon. A. Dix: We’ll endeavour to get that information to the member.
As I said, this is the response that we will have, and I’ll let the member sort of lead through the questioning as she sees fit. But I think the broader question is staff on leave, which is clearly an area that has increased and why we need to respond significantly to that area as well. But we’re happy to get information about retiring paramedics as well.
R. Merrifield: To the minister’s last comment, I agree. I think that that is where we are going. Over the past year of COVID-19, obviously, this pandemic has taken a huge hit on our front-line workers as part of our conversation over the last couple of days has gone.
The ongoing opioid crisis has also had a profound impact on our first responders, especially and including our paramedics. The Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. report that close to 25 percent of members are now off on WorkSafe claims or seeking mental health supports.
Can the minister confirm this? What additional resources have been added to ensure that paramedics have accesses to the mental health supports that they so desperately need?
Hon. A. Dix: I think the relevant information, which is delivered in a slightly different way than the member asked but may be helpful to the member, is….
Obviously, sick leave continues to pose a significant problem. It’s the physical nature of the work, which I think everyone has understood and has always been in place, as well as significant mental stress that can be part of it. The member identifies, as I do — certainly in every meeting I have with ambulance paramedics, it’s raised — the impact of two public health emergencies on the mental stress that can be part of the position.
In 2020, 697 paramedics were injured at work and missed 51,267 days due to injury. That is obviously a significant loss of term over that time.
Obviously, we are significantly increasing the supports we have to paramedics, and doing that work in cooperation under both the collective agreement and our work together with the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. and WorkSafeBC, to provide immediate support for paramedics with musculoskeletal injuries. That’s a significant part. BCEHS has also implemented, again in cooperation with the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C., an early referral case management program aimed at supporting workers, paramedics off work, suffering from psychological conditions.
R. Merrifield: Chair, I missed some of those numbers. If I could just ask the minister if he could speak up just a little bit. I know the numbers might be very familiar to him, but I’m trying to keep track as best I can.
My concern is this. I think the last numbers…. In 2018, we had 4,750 total employees under BCEHS. Let’s say roughly 5,000 today — one of the numbers that’s on the website. I don’t know how accurate that is. Let’s say 25 percent of those members are on WorkSafe claims or having these types of issues. The number that was just stated, I believe, was 697 that had a form of WorkSafe claim, and we’re replacing that 697 with 400.
To the minister, if he could just clarify. Obviously, when someone is on a WorkSafe claim, we’re not replacing them. But how are we relieving the stress or strain on the remaining individuals at BCEHS with the hires that are being undertaken?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the information is that during the course of the fiscal year — in the course of a year — 697 paramedics were injured at work and that they missed, collectively, 51,267 days. Obviously, the 697 people didn’t miss the whole year. So this very significant increase in positions will have a positive effect.
Some more information about that may be of use to the member. This is a more relevant number for long-term questions: 140 long-term disability claims were received, with 65 for mental health–related issues, 53 for musculoskeletal and 22 for others. Those could be a whole variety of different things.
The intention…. In collaboration with the ambulance paramedics and WorkSafeBC, we have a connect and recovery program, as noted. One example of the CAR program is that paramedics can be supported with employer-covered physiotherapy within one day, which is obviously important for people in terms of their recovery.
In 2020, as I noted to the member, BCEHS also implemented a significant case management system. The days are a reflection of the time off that’s put in place. Obviously, BCEHS, with this significant increase in resources — really unprecedented in the history of BCEHS, much of which came in consultation with the union in the period of collective bargaining — represents very significant increases in the number of ambulance paramedic positions across B.C. All of that provides support to the service.
I would say this — that just because you can replace paramedics, it doesn’t mean we’re satisfied with this level of time off. It indicates, I think, the significant difficulty and stress of this work and why we have to continue to support paramedics who do miss time to get back more quickly. That’s why these programs, both on the mental health side and the musculoskeletal side, have been put in place in cooperation with the union — so that we can get people recovering and back to work more quickly. That is obviously critically important.
It’s because this is an important workforce because of the work people do, because they work in the public health care system, wherever it would be. Particularly for front-line response workers, such as ambulance paramedics, we want to get them well. It’s not just budget issues and whether we can replace them, and whether we’ve added all the resources. We’ve done all those things, but it’s also a significant fact that we’re seeing a lot of ambulance paramedics dealing with both physical and mental health issues. That requires, I think, prevention — that work is happening between BCEHS, the ambulance paramedics themselves and WorkSafe — but also rehabilitation from injury.
R. Merrifield: The number of 140 long-term total, or the 697 that were off — how do those numbers compare to previous years?
Hon. A. Dix: I would say it’s significantly up. What I’ll do is endeavour to share with the member and the House detailed information that we have on that, year into year.
I think what we’ve seen is a pattern of increased injury over time. Some of that injury, I would say — in the discussions I’ve had, certainly, with both the union and with BCEHS — is how difficult the work is, physically. But a significant part of the increase I would say would be mental health claims regarding the challenges facing ambulance paramedics. What they’re seeing, particularly in a period of an overdose crisis where they’re repeatedly coming to residences where people have passed away, is extraordinarily challenging.
I don’t think it’s easy for people who don’t do that in their daily lives, who may have family members affected by the overdose crisis but aren’t as involved as front-line workers, such as ambulance paramedics and firefighters and, of course, people in health care. I think everyone has to recognize that that is profound and it’s effect on people can be profound. All of us might imagine how we might handle those circumstances, but ambulance paramedics have to live that. That’s why it’s very important to support them in dealing with mental health injury, and support them in both getting back to work but also in recovering.
R. Merrifield: I agree with the minister that this is one of the most difficult jobs. Anyone who has paramedics as friends or colleagues will know that the stories and what they carry, any of those first responders, it’s truly tremendous.
One of the numbers we have located was that in January of 2018, we had 4,750 in the categories that I mentioned — the emergency paramedics, advanced-care paramedics, critical care — under the whole of the umbrella that we had mentioned previously. To date, they are saying that that number hasn’t changed significantly. We’re looking at about 125 new positions now. That might not include all that the minister has mentioned, of the 283.
Having said that, my concern is: how was the 400 arrived at in the recruitment process? What is the attrition rate? If that attrition rate is growing, are we covering with enough new positions to cover the attrition?
Hon. A. Dix: These are net new positions. They would include the positions that are full. Then there are net new on top of that.
There’s always a debate in any organization as to whether doubling the rate of increase in spending and hiring a whole bunch is enough, especially in the ambulance paramedic system. Unlike a lot of places in the world, there are massive coverage challenges in rural and remote communities that B.C. paramedics and Canadian paramedics in general have to deal with. That’s one set of challenges. We can always debate about whether it’s enough.
What’s not debated is that there has been a very significant increase in positions and an increase in full-time positions and a transformation of the service that took place — I’m very proud to say this — after, really, the first successful negotiation, freely and collectively bargained, of a collective agreement in a very long time. It really didn’t happen under the previous government, and it didn’t happen that much under the government before that, if we want to go further back.
There had been, I think, a challenging labour-management situation, and we made two changes. One is we gave ambulance paramedics the right to bargain again. That was a real challenge because they had been part of a wider bargaining association. A lot of people said: “Well, you’ve never able to negotiate before. Can you do it now?” That was a challenge. The government has challenged the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. They met that challenge, I think. The teams at the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. did a very good job.
We said to each other, “We can do this,” and we did. The good thing about that increase was that it means service improvements. It’s right in the agreement. It means support for ambulance paramedics. It’s right in the agreement. We’re working with the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. to implement that agreement. I’m proud of that change. I think the other thing about a freely negotiated collective agreement with a group of workers this important is that it provides ownership on both sides. A large majority of ambulance paramedics supported the agreement that we’re implementing now together. Obviously, the government did.
I think that’s an achievement. It speaks well of them. When we come together and agree, it has always involved, in collective bargaining, compromise. It always does, but there’s ownership as well, as opposed to some form of arbitrated or imposed agreement or an agreement negotiated by others. All of that is positive, but there is still the challenge of the world out there and two public health emergencies. I think that everyone acknowledged what a challenging year and a challenging time this is for ambulance paramedic work.
R. Merrifield: How many training spots have been added in recent budgets to increase the number of paramedics within the emergency health services? What is the recruitment strategy?
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll do two things. I’ll share with the member later today — I’ll just get it printed off — a copy of a joint letter sent by BCEHS and the president of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C., Troy Clifford, which is working towards the recruitment of the 400 positions that we’ll be posting in July.
You can see from the success we’ve had in adding positions that people want to be ambulance paramedics, and I think that’s a good thing. This is some of the most important work you can do. I believe that we’re going to be able to recruit for these positions. That is part of the most significant work that BCEHS has. Because we’ve been adding positions year unto year, they are experienced at the recruitment strategy — the people of BCEHS, working with the Ambulance Paramedics in B.C.
Perhaps rather than talking about those successes, which we can do, I can also lay out, from that letter, which is dated from last week…. It’s a joint letter that shows BCEHS and CUPE Local 873 working together, doing what we need to do, which is adding 283 positions since last year. Adding 403 more is still a significant challenge, but it’s one that I think we can meet because of the value of this work. These are really good jobs, although very challenging jobs.
Not everyone, I suppose, is inclined to be an ambulance paramedic, because of the difficulty of the work, but I think we will be able to recruit for those positions, working with the union, working with the health care recruitment system through the PHSA, working together to see those positions filled. That joint letter is an indication of the efforts we’re making together, not just BCEHS but BCEHS and the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C., CUPE Local 873.
R. Merrifield: I’m just going to restate what I’m hearing from the minister. In the letter that I will be receiving is the actual number of training spots that have been added over the course of the last two budgets.
Hon. A. Dix: I think training and the positions are different things. I mean, I’ve laid out the hundreds of positions that the BCEHS has added over the last number of budgets. Those include significant increases in community paramedicine, new positions created, people recruited, the 400 positions to be posted in July 2021, the recruitment efforts.
On all of that stuff, I’ll share the numbers directly with the member, but also the joint letter and other things to show the recruitment plan to add what is yet another massive increase in full-time paramedics in B.C. that’s coming.
R. Merrifield: Perhaps we’re speaking of different things. I was asking about the training spots; you’re talking about the new positions. Are those the same? Are they equal, then, the training spots and the new positions?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, ambulance paramedics are trained in different ways, and some of that is training. When we add positions…. Obviously, people move through levels of experience at the B.C. Ambulance Service.
I’m happy to share all of the information on that and will do so in advance of the end of estimates — all the details on the hires, all the details and the letter — so that the member, if she wishes to return to that question, can do so tomorrow.
R. Merrifield: Of the 400 spaces, what’s the anticipated time frame that those will be filled within?
Hon. A. Dix: The intention is to add those positions in this fiscal year. We’ll be starting in July and recruiting. There is a process of recruitment and, obviously, all of the things that are involved in hiring. The intention is to add those positions in the fiscal year that we’re debating, the budget estimates we’re debating.
R. Merrifield: Over the last several months especially, there have been numerous stories of unstaffed ambulances and long wait times. I understand that there has been a new staffing strategy that’s been deployed, but what is the peak number of unstaffed ambulances across the Lower Mainland, and has it ever gone over 30 in a single night?
Hon. A. Dix: What I’ll start with is just to first talk about outcomes, because outcomes are important, both before the critical response model that was put in place by BCEHS, which we’re working our way through now, and after.
Response time on purple calls, which are the most serious calls, has been reduced in metro-urban communities, in rural communities and in remote communities. Rather than go through all the data, I’ll share it with the member. We’ll do that.
Red calls, which are the next level calls, have stayed the same in metro and urban areas. Rural and remote calls have been reduced. That was the key priority, which was to increase our access to those calls.
I just want to give a sense of what people go through — because the number of calls I think people have a sense of — and what the different calls are in the CRM model, just to give a sense of what we’re dealing with.
Purple calls have stayed relatively stable. That would be expected. These are calls which are, without putting too fine a point, very serious, life-or-death calls.
Red calls are themselves serious. Red calls increased, in 2017, from 108,821 to 116,980.
Orange calls have also gone up in that period, by 10,000. That’s the next level down. So it’s purple, red, orange. They’ve gone up from 145,000 to roughly 155,000. So you see that increase. I think that is about — I don’t know — 7 or 8 percent.
Then yellow calls, which is the lowest level of calls, have gone down, from 245,000 to 236,000. Sometimes yellow calls — these are not always the case — are where people don’t need ambulances. We’ve seen some unusual cases that…. Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. and the dispatchers always speak, I think once a year, about the most unusual calls they’ve received. But also, they’re real health care calls as well. It’s just a tiering of it. The idea of the tiering was to get to the purple and red calls more quickly, and they’ve done that.
On the details of days and so on, I’m happy to get that information for the member. There are ambulances, obviously, out of service — we know this — for staffing reasons, especially with changes in staffing. It’s a reason, in these times, why we have to continue to both increase resources to the service and ensure that the service is in place.
As you can see from the substance, over time, wait times in the most serious calls have continued to be very good. This isn’t to my credit, by the way. It’s to the credit of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. and to the dispatchers and the teams at BCEHS.
We have to continue to do this work. There’s nothing inevitable about dropping response times. Even in this period, which has been a very difficult period…. We talked about June 2 being the largest day of calls that the ambulance paramedics had received, other than two New Year’s Eves, which are normal days when calls are very high, except for this year — I just want to leave that out there — where changes made around New Year’s Eve, which were controversial at the time, did see a very slow day of emergency room.
That’s something maybe we should all reflect on next New Year’s Eve, I would say, both in support of our ambulance paramedics and in support of one another.
In any event, it was a very serious day. Even on that day, we were responding to purple and red calls within the guidelines of nine minutes which, again, reflects the outstanding work of ambulance paramedics across B.C.
R. Merrifield: I would not agree with the minister that we should have another New Year’s Eve like we did this last year. I appreciate all of the citizens of B.C. that abided by those criteria, but I certainly think it took some of the fun of celebration of a brand-new year out of the day.
We have a strategic plan that was actually done from 2015 to 2018. Then we also have the stabilizing rural and remote paramedics staffing report and the community solutions in rural communities. Do we have an updated actual strategic plan for anything past 2018?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, we have regular reports on progress, which I’m happy to share with the hon. member. I think they’re all publicly available.
R. Merrifield: I wasn’t actually speaking about reports. I was speaking about a strategic report. There is a strategic plan, I should say, from 2015 to 2018, but there is nothing past 2018.
I’m just wondering if there was ever any strategic planning that was done for the Ambulance Service beyond 2018. I do note the minister…. With the action plan, there were progress reports that were being issued. The last one was issued June of 2019. If that is still continuing, could the minister provide those to the critic?
Hon. A. Dix: I’m happy to provide updates. What changed in 2017 was a very significant increase in resources. That’s what changed. Changes were occurring. They occurred a number of times in the ambulance service. Notably, in what we sometimes call the noughts, the period between 2005 and 2009, under the direction of Minister George Abbott, who brought in the community paramedicine system.
There were other challenges at that time. I was the Health critic at the time, but those were changes that the minister and I had certainly advocated for together. Then in the period between 2012 and 2017, the average lift for the ambulance service was just over 3 percent. Obviously, in the time of this government, it’s close to 8 percent. Yes, this involves significant strategic planning, and significant strategic planning occurred after the collective agreement, as we are moving toward the current model. I’m happy to share with the member the reports that we have on that.
R. Merrifield: Could I ask why the new updated strategic plan after 2018 was actually not posted on the BCEHS website?
Hon. A. Dix: The actions taken are reflected in the dramatic increases in the positions that were put in place. In many cases, it was a continuation of the aspirations of the previous plan with significantly more resources. Two fiscal years ago we negotiated a collective agreement which supported that as well.
As the member will know, we’ve seen very significant increases in resources, unprecedented increases in resources in the last fiscal year and more, based on an agreement about the workplace with the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. We’ve seen the impact of that both in rural communities and in urban communities.
We’re very happy to summarize that. One, obviously, is the change in May 2018 to the clinical response model, which was put in place. And two, significant increases in patient care across regions in B.C., including, for example, 22 paramedics in the Kelowna area, including West Kelowna and Lake Country, which is great news for people in Kelowna and much needed, if anyone understands that community, which I have not seen since 2019. But I look forward to going back soon.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: Well, after Tuesday. That’s a reasonable date. You know, after Tuesday, the possibility….
I hope to have the opportunity to see health care workers a little bit around B.C. this summer in as safe a way as possible. We’ve been doing a lot of that stuff by Zoom, and it would be nice to provide support. I think that our health care workers in Kelowna — and everywhere else, but in Kelowna — have done an exceptional job for the whole region. So that’s just an example of that period, the 2017 to 2019-20 period.
Now we’re seeing, of course, significant increases in addition to that, including in air ambulance services. As well, we’ve added new classes. So we’ve added significant positions in the community paramedicine program, which I referred to before. We’ve created…. The rural acute care community paramedics were implemented with a wider scope of practice in Campbell River, Saltspring, Cranbrook and Prince Rupert. As well, in 2019, BCEHS implemented an electronic patient record, which streamlines and automates the documentation and transfer of patients between paramedics and hospital emergency rooms.
One of the things that we continue to look at — and it has been a significant challenge under COVID in one way that I think we can continue in the immediate, to deal with response times — is that under COVID, the arrival of people in hospital has taken longer. That’s understandable, because everything has taken longer for everyone, but we need to ensure that protections are in place. Dealing with that situation in our emergency rooms is something that we’re looking at now, as we review access to acute care, which will include issues.
We talked a little bit in the estimates with the Leader of the Opposition about visitation in long-term care, but there are also issues of visitation in acute care and access to acute care hospitals. But those have affected, I think, in terms of ambulance paramedics, the amount of time they spend with patients in that process. They’ve increased that time.
Hopefully, as we move through this time, we can continue to do that safely but do it in such a way that will reduce the time burden on ambulance paramedics, because we don’t need ambulance paramedics at emergency rooms longer than absolutely necessary. But clearly, the COVID pandemic has affected that aspect of the work.
R. Merrifield: We have a strategic plan that was done 2015–2018. Then we have the action plan that was done in 2016 based on the strategic plan that we had, then, progress reports issued for. And it’s easy for us to kind of track the progress over the course. In fact, actually, on the BCEHS website, you can click through every single report and see what actions were done.
I’m listening to the minister’s different initiatives that have been undertaken. But without a strategic plan — and this is the question to the minister — what is the minister using as the main deliverables that are targeted for the time beyond 2018, so from 2019 to 2021-22?
Hon. A. Dix: I think that one of those major deliverables is improvement in services and the development of permanent positions across rural British Columbia, which is something, I think, that rural British Columbia has long been waiting for.
We heard from some of the members of the opposition yesterday and members on the government side as well who have been calling for that. So we’ve had a significant increase in resources and a transformation of resources in the schedule-on-call model that has been put in place. In addition, of course, the emergency response model has been put into place.
In addition, we’ve enhanced and dramatically expanded previous initiatives, and we negotiated a collective agreement. Under that collective agreement, there were joint commitments to implement the schedule-on-call model and to convert fox shifts to regular full-time positions. The intent of these changes was part of the plan that we came up with together with our workers.
As everyone in B.C. knows, the relationship between the ambulance paramedics in B.C. and the government of B.C., in the period from 2005 to 2016 especially — it got a little bit better in 2016, I’d say — was not very good. The only group of workers who didn’t get the bonus, I think, in the entire public sector, in 2007 to 2009…. It was sometimes called the Carole Taylor bonus. The only group of workers that were not provided that by the government of B.C. — ambulance paramedics. Can you imagine, hon. Speaker?
We negotiated a collective agreement that works together to increase 24-7 paramedic coverage, to improve service delivery and patient care, to improve the recruitment and retention of paramedics and to improve the health and safety of paramedics. The day-to-day implementation of these initiatives is being closely monitored and overseen by emergency physicians within the BCEHS.
In 2020-21, 283 new positions were added. Over 1,000 on-call staff are now receiving health and wellness benefits as well as earned vacation time. A night shift premium was implemented for all paramedics and dispatchers to help with staffing hard-to-fill and weekend shifts. We can talk about the schedule-on-call program.
This is a period of extraordinary reform. They’re not my reforms. They’re the reforms of the BCEHS. They’re the reforms that we negotiated and worked with and put in place, transforming a relationship that had been poisoned to one where we negotiated a successful collective agreement and are working together to recruit significantly more paramedics.
R. Merrifield: With all due respect…. I’m listening to these initiatives. Those are spectacular initiatives and commendable. I reflect the eagerness and the excitement of treating the paramedics and the front-line staff with such respect. I absolutely commend.
My curiosity and my questions have actually been around a very different topic. That is strategic planning, which is a big picture, a very 50,000-foot level for us to take a look at the crises that we’ve endured, whether it be the opioid crisis, which is really five or six years, almost, under an emergency situation but certainly not in the making, as well as the pandemic that we’ve just endured.
We’ve got 25 percent of our workers in the paramedic staff that are actually suffering through some form of mental illness — you know, supports, etc. How are we, as a collective, dealing with the strategic planning of such a vital service for our citizens?
My question to the minister will twist a little bit. Understanding that we haven’t had a strategic plan from the course of 2018 on, are we now in the process of creating a strategic plan for, let’s say, ’21 to ’24, which would be a logical assumption considering that would probably be when the next election would come?
Hon. A. Dix: These changes are not one-year infusions of funds, which the health system regularly has received in the past in advance of an election. They’re permanent changes. Regardless of whether I’m the Minister of Health or someone else is the Minister of Health in the future, we’ll be building on those successes.
What we’ve seen, I think, in all these areas, for rural and remote communities, is a significant plan put in place on April 20, 2020, and implemented. I’ll say to the member…. I don’t have a great memory for dates, but that’s my birthday. So there you go. I remember working and doing that on my birthday. That’s why I know the date of that. It’s not some sort of weird memory about dates in any way or something written down.
What you’ve seen is what we need to do, which is deal in a more difficult world with two public health emergencies, with communities that need and are crying out for more transit, in many cases. It’s harder to get around. A strategic plan that adds resources and that moves us to a model. Part of that, of course, is the schedule-on-call model.
I think we’re working on the basis of a plan to improve service for British Columbians and to build a paramedic service that, I’d say, had one foot in the past and one foot in the future. Some of the steps to get us into the future took place under the previous government. We took some of those steps, added to them and provided the resources.
The collective agreement and the scheduled on-call model were a significant part of that. As Mr. Clifford and Ms. MacKinnon, the chief operating officer, have said, it represents a big change to the way we work. It is one we feel is positive for our service and for the communities and patients we care for.
A key part of these hirings — and the member will see this — is a series of communications with ambulance paramedics themselves and significant consultations so that they can support the effort of recruitment.
I think that path is a good path. That’s the path of more ambulance paramedics, more ambulances, more full-time ambulance paramedics and full-time positions in rural and remote communities. Significant hiring, not hiring for hiring’s sake but for the obvious needs of a service that faces challenges and that needs to improve service but also faces challenges, some of which we see on the news.
R. Merrifield: I agree. I agree with the minister. I agree that we are seeing stories on the news. I agree that we are hearing communities crying out. I agree that we are hearing paramedics reaching out and asking for support. I also agree that — forgive the analogy — we’re fighting fires with increased staffing measures and some of the new initiatives.
My question is this. Without a strategic plan, how does the minister actually assess success?
Hon. A. Dix: We are operating on the basis of a plan to improve services and to transform the service and bring it into the 21st century. We’re a little along into the 21st century to do so. We’re doing that, and we’re doing it with our partner, the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C.
That involved a dramatic, unprecedented investment of money in the service. We haven’t seen this in decades. The negotiation of a collective agreement. The transformation of rural and remote paramedic care, which is so important for people who live in rural and remote communities because of the distance many of them have to travel to health care facilities. It’s very important. The significant transformational change of adding positions and making this not temporary work, not partial work, not on-call work but full-time work, which is a remarkable transition. All of these are part of the plan we’re taking forward. I think it’s a good plan.
Not all of the ideas are mine. Not all of them started with me. It didn’t all start when I was the Minister of Health. What I do — and I think everybody tries to do this — is I take good ideas wherever they come. I don’t care. In fact, I’m delighted to credit George Abbott every time I mention this. I don’t care that he created community paramedicine. I think it’s a good idea.
We have added community paramedics, and I believe we need to add some more. They stabilize the system around B.C., and they create, in paramedic work, the kind of work that is family supporting. I think that is a good thing.
We have a plan. You see us delivering on this plan. That plan has elements, including the response model. That plan has elements, including working with other first responders. That plan has elements, including increasing resources and a detailed and obligatory move towards the increase in full-time positions that was negotiated and agreed to at the bargaining table with ambulance paramedics. What a change that is, from toxic to working together on an agreement.
R. Merrifield: What happens in a strategic plan is that you create goals and strategic priorities. Then you also create deliverables. With deliverables, then you can measure your success of initiatives against deliverables. Without such a plan, it’s not a form of accountability.
To the minister once more, will the minister look at delivering a strategic plan for BCEHS for ’21 to ’24?
Hon. A. Dix: There is a plan. You can see it being executed now. One element of that plan right now is the 400 positions we’re posting at the beginning of July, 400 positions, based on planning that involves communities in every part of B.C. That’s the plan.
Negotiating and changing the relationship with our employees and negotiating a collective agreement — that’s a plan and execution on that plan. There are measurements on that, including response time measurements in the response model that we see and that, on purple and red calls, have seen progress in a very challenging time for ambulance paramedics, when the overall number of calls has increased. That’s the plan.
There is a plan. The member says: “It needs to be a strategic plan.” Well, I think that plan is pretty strategic too.
R. Merrifield: Oh, a zinger at the end.
According to the 2020 to 2022-23 PHSA service plan, over the next two years, “BCEHS plans to increase the number of community paramedicine patient visits by increasing the range of patients that can be seen through the program and the range of patient referrals that can be managed” through supporting deliverables such as home health monitoring.
Understanding that COVID has impacted all aspects of health care, to what degree were these patient visits increased?
Hon. A. Dix: What I’ll do is I’ll provide that information to the member so we’re not stuck on that. I would say…. Some of the work of community paramedicine, just like all home health support, has gone more virtual in this time. I think we all understand that. So sometimes the numbers…. What’s an at-home visit versus a visit? We’ll be happy to provide that to the member.
I think that part of the plan that the member has just laid out, which I’m delighted about — of course, I hadn’t mentioned it, so I was delighted to see that — is a reflection, I think, of that program. Again, a program that was created and was transformative for many, many people and where we have consistently hired people into that.
We also want to make that work worthwhile. The purpose of community paramedicine, beyond its creation of positions that are family-supporting positions and that people can take in communities around B.C., where the number of calls might not justify, necessarily, the creation of a position if workers aren’t doing that work…. It also helps us stabilize staffing, of course, and allows us to reduce 911 calls through the exact kind of home monitoring we’re talking about.
I think that program, I can tell the member, has been extremely successful. I was happy to celebrate, I think, the ten-year anniversary of the program with the former Minister of Health, Mr. Abbott. There have been a number of Ministers of Health since then — there was Mr. Falcon, Mr. Lake and others, and there’s me — who were part of that and who were part of that celebration as well. I think that program continues to be successful, and it’s why we’re going to continue to expand it.
The purpose is, of course, to stabilize ambulance services in rural and remote B.C. and also to provide services for people. I think the program has been very successful, as have most of our community-based health services programs, which have significantly expanded over the last number of years.
R. Merrifield: This will be my last question, and then we’re going to move on. I’m just telegraphing this. We’ll move on to capital expenditures, and I’ll start calling on some of my colleagues to ask some questions as well.
This being my last question, I’ll make it really quite an easy one. What is the protocol for paramedics to transfer patients to the hospital, and what are the current wait times for admitting? I know that we had talked about this a little bit, not necessarily just under COVID-related times. Are there system improvements outside of the ones already mentioned, like the electronic records transfer, under consideration?
Hon. A. Dix: I think I responded to this a little bit in the previous question. Obviously, the handoff has to occur. The challenge occurs when emergency rooms are facing COVID protocols and where emergency rooms are also busy and that coincides with the times when ambulances are busy.
Those issues of protocols, now that we are entering new phases of COVID, is one of the issues we’re looking at, because we want to see those times reduce. I would say that in general, they were flat in the COVID-19 period — increased because of the protocols, decreased because of a slight reduction in overall calls — although there’s a severity of calls in the two public health emergencies.
What’s happened more recently is that we continue to have protocol challenges. Now, of course, we have a return to more normalcy in terms of emergency room visits — about the same — but as you would expect, on some of the same days that there are a lot of ambulance calls, there are also a lot of emergency room visits.
That work is being done right now, and as we work through this with the teams that run our emergency rooms and acute care service, the improvements, I would be happy to brief the hon. member.
T. Stone: I do appreciate the opportunity to weigh in with a couple of questions during Health estimates. I appreciate the time that I have been allocated from the official opposition Health critic. There is a little bit of context and background to my question. So I’ll get right at it.
On October 6, 2020, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and I, as B.C. Liberal candidates in the provincial election, promised that our party, if elected to government, would invest in two linear accelerators for enhanced cancer treatment at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. This investment would allow cancer patients in the Interior to receive their radiation treatment in Kamloops, saving countless parents and their loved ones the added stress and expenses incurred by having to make a trip elsewhere.
Eleven days later, on October 17, 2020, the Premier came to Kamloops to also make a big announcement during the provincial election campaign. The Premier promised the people of Kamloops and area that a re-elected NDP government would establish a new cancer care clinic in Kamloops within four years. The Premier said: “The services will be prepared and be delivered within the mandate of the next government — absolutely.”
Then, when asked by Radio NL host Howie Reimer live on radio — on February 5, 2021, so after the election was behind us…. The Premier was asked to confirm that the new cancer clinic would indeed be opening its doors in Kamloops within four years, as he had promised during the recent election. The Premier said: “I have made that commitment, and we’re on it. That means business plans are being developed. That means that the Treasury Board is looking at the costs. The commitment we made during the campaign stands.”
Enter the Minister of Health, who has made numerous public comments about the cancer clinic commitment, saying, for example, on Radio NL, on January 27, 2021: “What we committed to in the election campaign is a ten-year cancer plan.” Of course, there was no mention of the Kamloops cancer clinic commitment in the recent 2021 budget.
My question to the minister is this. The Premier clearly promised a cancer clinic would be built in Kamloops within four years if the NDP were re-elected. In contrast, the minister has consistently refused to reaffirm that commitment, referring instead to the provincial ten-year cancer plan. Obviously, the people of Kamloops, the Thompson valley and the surrounding areas that are served by Royal Inland Hospital are confused and concerned about these contradictory comments.
To the minister, who are the people of Kamloops and the region supposed to believe — the Premier who definitively said that the cancer clinic would be built and open in four years or the minister who keeps saying that the cancer clinic commitment is part of a ten-year plan?
Hon. A. Dix: To my friend from Kamloops, I would say, first of all, that because he didn’t take us back to the 1990s, I am not going to say anything about the intervening period between the 1990s and 2017 on cancer care, except to say this. I think these are important services, our capital programs, that we put in place over time.
[H. Yao in the chair.]
When I became Minister of Health, one of the first decisions I made — we have a new Chair; welcome to my friend from Richmond, who’s now in the chair — was the continuation of the next phase of the Royal Inland Hospital redevelopment project. It’s really a remarkable project. It’s being built now, and it’s just fantastic. It’s going to make a huge difference for people in Kamloops.
I spent a lot of time focused on services in Kamloops. The member will know this. Our first urgent and primary care centre, our family practice learning centre, the support for primary care in the area, the increase in the number of MRIs, the increase in the number of surgeries — all these things in Kamloops. I see Kamloops, because of its role in serving whole areas, as vitally important.
I think these are projects, these major projects…. That particular one, the one at Royal Inland, started on the previous government. I’ve taken action. We’ve continued it, and we’re still building it. I suspect that when it’s finally finished, I dare say to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, it’s possible that I won’t be the Minister of Health opening it. It’s just the way that these things go, right?
With respect to cancer care across the province, the government will be presenting a ten-year cancer plan that deals with a number of aspects. Some aspects are ones of service, because we’re going to see, in the coming period, because of our aging population, a significant increase in cancer diagnoses. Because of our improvements in cancer care in B.C., we’re going to see people living with cancer, which is, I think, a joyous and wonderful thing.
It presents, obviously, challenges in the system, but it’s a joyous and wonderful thing. People are living longer with many cancers, and that’s because of the great work in our health care system and because of the prevention work we do together — prevention work such as the lung cancer screening program that we’ve initiated and the colorectal cancer screening program started by the previous government.
One of the things I believe really strongly is the need to add services, so we’ve added diagnostic services for cancer, for example, in Kelowna, in Victoria, which have meant that people can get services in those communities closer to home. I think that’s an important thing that we’ve got to continue to do.
Everyone understands that not every community can have a cancer centre, but I think we have to do what we can at the time of one of those diagnoses that everyone remembers. They remember the day and what they were doing when they learned that a loved one has cancer. Obviously, people who have that cancer diagnosis themselves have that feeling.
I believe that it should be part of our ten-year cancer plan to add cancer services in other communities. In the election campaign…. The member refers to Kamloops, but we also spoke about Nanaimo as well — that we wanted to expand services. This is important for the people of Kamloops but also people of the entire region. That’s what we proposed to do.
We’re also adding a cancer centre at the second Surrey hospital. A new Surrey hospital and cancer centre is being constructed. It has had its business plan approved and is moving forward now, and we may have occasion to talk about that as well. I just can’t wait. I think I could talk all day about that new proposal and maybe all night.
I believe strongly that Kamloops should have a cancer centre. What does that mean? I think that there’s always a debate: what are the services? What do you mean by a cancer centre? I want to say that it will be — so that people can visualize it and the member and his colleague from Kamloops can visualize it — similar to the one already operating in Victoria on the site of Royal Jubilee Hospital and the one that’s being planned to be integrated into the new Surrey hospital. These cancer centres have exam rooms, chemotherapy treatment spaces, linear accelerators for radiation therapy and advanced diagnostic imaging. That’s the core of it.
There are, obviously, like all health capital projects…. I mentioned the Royal Inland project, which I believe was started under the Health Minister prior to Terry Lake — I’ve got to get the order right; the member will know — and then continued under Terry Lake and continues under me. It takes some time.
Nonetheless, it’s our intention to proceed. They are complex projects. They do take years to deliver. But it’s our intention to plan and deliver that in the context of a ten-year cancer plan, which is not just about building capital and building new cancer centres but about providing services across B.C. I think that what we’re doing is developing, in addition to that, plans in the interim to improve services in those communities.
As we build out the capital build for such a project, which is significant — those are large-scale projects, and the member will know this very well — we intend to provide clinics, perhaps of the type that he described. Now, I’m not sure — and I say this with delicacy to the hon. member — that the decision to proceed in a ten-year cancer plan with a major decision to add services in Surrey and Nanaimo and Kamloops was made because of an announcement that he made in the campaign.
I just say that with delicacy, but he will understand that that’s a debate that he and I may have. I don’t think it’s the important debate. The important debate is…. What we need to do is move to improve cancer care for the people of Kamloops and the people of B.C., and that’s what I intend to do. With the Kamloops cancer centre, when we announce the full plan, the member will see that, and we’ll proceed from there.
The Chair: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, do you have a follow-up question?
T. Stone: Yes, I do.
Well, there’s a lot to unpack there. When the minister refers to delicacy, there’s nothing delicate about what was a very clear, very stark commitment that the Premier made to a cancer care centre in Kamloops that would be open by the end of a four-year mandate should he be successful in the last election.
He was successful in that election. So the question that I asked was not the broader details of a ten-year cancer plan — with all due respect to other communities that really do need enhanced cancer services, like Nanaimo, like Surrey, and so forth. As one of the representatives for Kamloops, my responsibility, as the minister knows very well, is to stand up and to advocate for the needs that exist in my community.
It was the Premier who came to Kamloops and said very clearly that Kamloops would be the site of a cancer centre that would be open within four years. I’m not going to take an opportunity to go back to the 1990s for the minister’s benefit, there, but I will say that I kind of wish he would talk about the intervening years — the work that our former government did in Kamloops.
We invested over $625 million in Kamloops in the 16 years that we were in power. That included the $80 million clinical services building and the $417 million patient care tower, which the minister mentions was actually a project that was initiated and business plans done and funded under our former government. We’re obviously very pleased that the current government has carried on with that project, but we provided enhanced funding for operating rooms, for the second floor redevelopment, the $17 million Hillside tertiary mental health centre, intensive care [audio interrupted], medical device reprocessing, redesigns, and on and on the list goes.
The minister often — and I say this with all due respect — likes to insinuate that if the B.C. Liberal MLAs had really been advocating, we would have been advocating for enhanced cancer care sooner. The reality is, we advocated for what the community’s top priorities were in health care, and those priorities were delivered.
One of the next most important services is enhanced cancer care. It wasn’t me who stood up in Kamloops and promised, on October 17, 2020, that a cancer centre would be built in four years in Kamloops. It was the Premier. The Premier has said that, in fact, Treasury Board is working on it, that Treasury Board is looking at the cost.
My question to the minister would be this: first, can he confirm that the cancer care centre for Kamloops is actually at Treasury Board, as per the Premier’s comments on February 5, 2021, or did the Premier misspeak? Secondly, back to the fundamental question here. The minister talks about a ten-year cancer plan. The Premier has consistently referred to a four-year window for the build and opening of a cancer centre.
The minister and the Premier both can’t be right. Someone obviously is in charge here. Is it the Premier’s four-year commitment for a cancer centre to be opened, or is it what the minister is saying — that we won’t see a cancer centre in Kamloops within a four-year period, but, rather, it will be delivered within the context of a ten-year cancer plan?
That’s my final question, and I thank the minister for his time.
Hon. A. Dix: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson used the term “insinuate.” I don’t think that I was saying anything of the sort. What I was saying, and what I was reflecting on, was that these major projects involve governments and they involve communities.
I’m very, very proud, and the member will know this, of my record of advancing capital projects. I’m very proud — I don’t think this is going to win me any honorary membership in the B.C. Liberal caucus — of the projects we’ve delivered in ridings represented by Liberal members. We’ve done that consistently across the board, and members will know that. The hospital was built in Dawson Creek in 1959. We needed a new hospital, and we’re delivering a new hospital. That’s a good thing.
That’s the same view I take for Kamloops. I have been an advocate for health care in Kamloops. The member will know this. When I was the Opposition Health critic, when I was the Leader of the Opposition, I advocated for Kamloops with passion and consistency. I had a little spot in front of Ponderosa Lodge where I held forth many, many times on those questions.
I talked to people and engaged with people in Kamloops all the time, because I took it very seriously and also — I say this, again, delicately but not delicately in criticism of the hon. member; I think that he misunderstood this — partly because I enjoyed press conferences with Angelo. I know he did, as well, and I think about that all the time.
We’re proceeding with a cancer centre in Kamloops. We’re proceeding with a ten-year cancer plan. Improving cancer services in Kamloops and developing a centre like the one I’ve described…. The member can go to the one in Victoria and see what I’m talking about in bricks and mortar. It’s something that the government is committed to, I’m committed to and the Premier is committed to. We’re proceeding.
We are going to deliver the details of that ten-year cancer plan soon, but this is part of the capital part of that. There are significant other parts of that that include prevention and services in communities across B.C. and led by the teams of B.C. Cancer.
I think that’s the answer that the member wanted. The answer is, yes, we are proceeding. He’s going to see more details of that when we present, publicly, our ten-year cancer plan. He will know, as an experienced former member of the Treasury Board, that such a proposal…. While I can’t comment, and he will know this as well, about the proceedings of Treasury Board, I’m a member of that Treasury Board, and I’m the Minister of Health, and I can tell him that we’re proceeding with a ten-year cancer plan.
We’re going to have a new cancer centre in Kamloops. We’re going to have one in Nanaimo. None of that is going to be announced without the approval of Treasury Board.
The Chair: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, do you have a follow-up question, or are you finished?
T. Stone: No, I don’t have a follow-up question, Chair.
I will say, again, that the minister did not answer my question. The Premier has said a four-year time frame for this cancer centre in Kamloops. The minister is skating all around that and keeps referencing a ten-year plan. That’s not the same thing that the Premier committed to, to the people of Kamloops and the surrounding area.
That’s it. I don’t have any further questions at this point.
Hon. A. Dix: I understand. I look forward, also, to meeting in person with the member.
I think this is an important thing for the people in Kamloops. As the member will know, I hold him in high regard. We’ve worked together on projects before. I think this is a project that isn’t just about a government or a party. It’s about the whole province and the community.
What we announced in the election was a ten-year cancer plan. The Kamloops cancer centre and the Nanaimo cancer centre will be elements of that plan. We’ve committed to that. It’s my job as the Minister of Health to deliver on that, and I intend to do so. I profoundly believe that delivering cancer services in different parts of the province is valuable.
I may be wrong, but I think the member agrees with that. I’m absolutely not implying that because he has criticisms of it, he doesn’t support the Kamloops cancer centre. I know he’s an advocate for that, and I look forward to working with him to deliver on that for the people of Kamloops and the people of B.C.
J. Sturdy: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for his interest and assistance in getting the Squamish Hospice across the line. He mentioned it yesterday in estimates.
I think he knows that the community raised a tremendous amount of money. In fact, significantly more money than was originally asked for. Even then, that turned out not to be enough. So I do want to thank the minister for his efforts in ensuring that the community efforts were not in vain.
The takeaway there, however, was…. The design requirements and the procurement process were problematic. The cost of this renovation was in excess of $2.6 million for four beds, a nursing station and that sort of thing and a quiet room. Nonetheless, it’s $2.6 million for four beds in an existing facility. That’s an awful lot of money. The budget was about $1 million less than that originally.
Part of the reason the cost was so high was that local contractors, I understand, were not eligible to bid due to an exorbitant and virtually unattainable amount of insurance that they were required to have. This was really only attainable by the largest companies. So the bids were very limited.
I guess my first ask would be for the minister to review the circumstances of this particular project to see if there are things that we can learn from it. Can we make these projects more accessible to local contractors? Not only would spreading that opportunity to local people and businesses but also…. I think the benefit here would have…. We could, potentially, have a significantly lower cost to some of these projects.
I’d be interested in the minister’s comments on that.
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s very good to see you there.
Thanks to the member for his question.
The member approached me on this file because of the need for additional government support to make this extraordinary local venture happen. He brought it to my attention. We worked on it, and we delivered on that. So I really appreciate it.
I do recall meeting with him, I think, in the Legislature during our mutual House duty, which, of course, should be voluntary but is mandatory, in any event. We took the opportunity to do that. He made the case eloquently. We responded, and we got that. I agree, and I want to acknowledge and appreciate his efforts on that.
Hospice is something that is, I think, a labour of love in communities around B.C. What happened in Squamish, and that was reflected in his community, shows that.
There are high standards for health care facilities. They present significant cost challenges. We see this all the time.
One of the things I would say, though, is…. For large capital projects, there are relatively few people who can deliver that. You’re only going to get a certain number of companies who are able to build on a project as extraordinary as St. Paul’s. It does seem to me that on smaller capital projects, we can figure out other ways. Sometimes we’re….
We talked about this. I’m not going to get into a community benefits agreement debate. So I’ll leave that to one side. I would say to the member that I would be interested in his suggestion. I look forward to hearing the details of that story he describes, with respect to Squamish. I’ll endeavour to take a look at that issue, as I did the previous one, and get back to the member.
One last thing. I apologize to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, but I have an answer to a previous question from the member for Kelowna-Mission, so I’ll just provide that.
Our target for this year for community paramedicine visits is 24,000. We achieved 18,000 this year, which was slightly less than in 2019-20, when it was 18,661. In 2018-19, the number was 14,889.
What I’ll do is that when we provide other detailed information — I don’t want to make the member write all these things down like it’s the only time she’ll get it, and look at the Hansard record — this will be included in that answer. But I want to give her a sense on community paramedicine — 14,889 in ’18-19, 18,000 this year, 24,000 in ’21-22. Our target, and that’s why we’re doing this review and expanding the scope here, is 30,000 in ’22-23.
The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, do you have a follow-up question?
J. Sturdy: I do. Thank you, Chair.
As the minister is aware, the previously mentioned hospice is attached to Hilltop House, which is also attached to Squamish General Hospital. My questions are about long-term care and acute care in the Sea to Sky.
Hilltop, in particular, as of a couple weeks ago, anyway, had a 35-person wait-list. As the minister knows, there’s really only one way space frees up at these long-term-care facilities, so waits can be very long. I know from personal experience. It took, I think, over two years to get my uncle into Hilltop.
Really, the options…. There are no other options. If you don’t get into Hilltop, you’re going to Vancouver, going to Metro and, perhaps, beyond Metro Vancouver. That is just the way it is. While Squamish is an hour away, for the northern parts of the riding and many of the First Nations — the Líl̓wat, the N’Quatqua and the In-SHUCK-ch, in particular — it means that if you’re not at Hilltop, which is already several hours away, and if you’re into Metro, you really have no access to your Elders or seniors.
We have, I’ll remind the minister, no regional transit services, despite many years of efforts to see that come to fruition. I heard from the Minister of Transportation yesterday that I might hear some good news in the near future, and I will hold my breath. However, if your relative ends up in Vancouver and they disappear into the system, it’s really challenging to access them and support them.
The region is also growing quickly, I think, as the minister understands. The demand for both long-term care and acute care continues to grow. After a significant amount of time, in terms of denying we need much in the way of expansion, the VCH, I understand, has now agreed to a regional review, particularly for acute services, although I hope that includes a long-term-care assessment as well, for the Sea to Sky. I believe it was to start last fall, but that, I think understandably, is delayed, although it doesn’t look like it’s going to start again until next fall. So it may be another year before we see an updated regional plan.
Some of the things that are happening…. The minister, I’m sure, is aware, or perhaps aware, that the CAT scan that the community supplied, essentially, in Whistler has aged out and will need to be replaced. I understand the new location would likely be Squamish Hospital. But again, you don’t want to put in a CAT scan and find out it’s in the wrong place. So we do need that longer-term vision.
Squamish maternities are at a record level and showing no sign of slowing down.
Despite COVID, the Whistler health care centre remains busy and will, I think, be right back up to the numbers we saw previously, in short order here. We do appreciate the opportunity that has been provided, in terms of upgrading the trauma room.
The other issue is that family physicians, particularly in Whistler, find it a real challenge to maintain an economic practice. We’ve seen several clinics, as well as private practices, close down, just because the economics don’t support family physicians.
All of these things are concerns for the region. I wonder if the minister could ensure that we can have confidence that this planning process will be advanced rapidly, that it will be robust and encompassing enough to consider all the various health care issues in the Sea to Sky, which, I think, we all somehow think is sort of a part of Metro. Parts of the region are a very long way from the city. Even the new St. Paul’s is very challenging for many people. Services in the region are needed, and we need to plan for them.
I thank the minister, and I look forward to his response.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for his questions. The opposition Health critic will excuse me, I’m sure, for putting this in the context of broader initiatives, because I think the questions that the member has also reflect other constituencies.
First of all, I want to say, with respect to seniors care and Hilltop House, that I agree with the member. There are two sets of things that need to happen, it seems to me, in our long-term-care facilities. If we look at them across the board, across British Columbia, what we see are a lot of health authority–owned and –operated care homes. When the previous government increased beds — and this is just what happened — they principally increased beds through private providers between 2001 and 2017.
There wasn’t a lot of investment in health authority–owned and –operated. A lot of our health authority–owned and –operated care homes, as a result of that — and, you could argue, lack of investment by other governments, as well — date from a significant period ago.
What needs to happen at Hilltop House. We need to ensure that it meets 21st-century standards. These are our seniors living at Hilltop House, first of all.
Secondly, we need to…. This is not as much of a problem at Hilltop House. If I remember correctly, I think there aren’t too many multi-bed rooms, but frequently our older health authority–owned and –operated tend to have multi-bed rooms. Those don’t meet modern standards. We saw across the country — less so in B.C. — the impact of infection in multi-bed rooms. Our family is quite familiar with multi-bed rooms because a loved one lives in long-term care with three other people in her room.
We need to invest in long-term care as much and as importantly as in all of the other work — the raising of standards we spoke about last week, the need to hire staff and to deliver services. We’ve got to rebuild our existing long-term-care homes and add beds. Hilltop House is certainly one of the care homes under consideration for that. There is a significant initiative coming forward.
A lot of our capital expenditure in the first number of years and the projects we promoted have been in acute care. You can see that through the large number of hospital projects. I think that the capital priority incrementally…. This is true in Richmond, where we’re going to see significant investment in long-term care in the next number of years. It’s true in communities across B.C., and it’s true at Hilltop House as well. I see that as obviously meeting the need to renovate, improve and add resources to Hilltop House. I believe that to be true.
That does not mean I’m making the announcement today. I say to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky that there’s no press release in the offing, but it’s a priority as we look and we significantly expand our capital project in long-term care. It’s just to say: I agree with him. There’s clearly demand, and we need to make the care better. Part of that is operating, and part of that is capital. With respect to capital, Hilltop House seems to me to be a priority in B.C.
There are others on the North Shore that one could imagine. I know there’s a continuum of service. Obviously, we’re building a new patient tower at Lions Gate Hospital, but there are other significant public health investments in long-term care on the North Shore — I’m thinking of Berkley; I’m thinking of Evergreen — that are both in the same circumstances, I’d argue, as Hilltop. Those are the kinds of things we’re looking at in the next little while. The member’s question and his advocacy come at a good time.
In primary care, the Whistler and Sea to Sky division of family practice is working right now with Vancouver Coastal Health to start planning for the primary care network in Whistler–Sea to Sky. What we’re looking to do, as you know, is build out team-based care across the province. In my view, from Whistler, Pemberton, back through to the North Shore, where we do have an agreement with the local division of family practice — say, in North Vancouver — is ideally suited to the development of a primary care network. It’s my expectation that that would be part of our work in the ’21-22 fiscal year.
I’d recommend the member endeavour to meet with his local division of family practice, because this is a partnership. We’re working…. I don’t believe that you need to add services that may lead to the closure of existing services. You need to add and support that. Putting in place team-based care is something that we can do together. On long-term care, I agree with the member. On Hilltop House, I agree with the member. We’re pursuing primary care networks, which I think will address many of the other questions raised by the member, in terms of primary care.
The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, do you have a follow-up question?
J. Sturdy: I just wondered if the minister could comment on the strategic plan that has been committed to by VCH for the provision of acute services. As well, I agree with the minister on the family practice and the team-based care. I think that’s something that we’ve long been looking at over the last several years, certainly in Whistler, to try and put in place a team-based care model, just due to efficiency. I think that at the end of the day it provides better service.
Overall, is the minister aware of a commitment to the creation of a more of an acute care strategic plan for the Sea to Sky, recognizing the growth and activity in the region? Also, I wonder if the minister did have a response — perhaps he made it earlier, and I missed it — with regard to my questions about B.C. Ambulance Service reallocations of shift patterns from full-time to part-time.
Hon. A. Dix: The member for Kelowna-Mission suggested that I reread the answer….
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: …but I want to say to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky: I will be sending him this answer in writing as well today, but it’s also in the Hansard record — my response to his questions about paramedics in Whistler, in Squamish and in Pemberton.
I’ll also add to that a second letter about an update around VCH’s acute care planning. As you can see, we’re looking at progress both on the primary care and the long-term-care side, as well as on the ambulance paramedics side. I think that reflects the growing needs of people in his constituency.
I’ll leave it there and not re-read it all into the record.
T. Wat: Why there was a passing mention of the hospital in the budget? There was no funding or timing given for Richmond Hospital’s new acute care tower. Can the minister tell my constituents why they were left out of the budget?
Hon. A. Dix: The people of Richmond are in no way left out of the budget. We’re proceeding with the acute care tower at Richmond Hospital.
I’m looking forward to an announcement of that soon. We’re proceeding, obviously, with that project and, in addition to that, with the new urgent and primary care centre, investments in long-term care, building a primary care network and building on the announcement of a primary care network and the continued hiring of people in Richmond.
The people of Richmond, in the health care budget, were very significantly represented.
The Chair: Member for Richmond North Centre, do you have a follow-up question?
T. Wat: Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Premier came to Richmond Hospital on July 2, 2020, and promised the Richmond community that he would be back in the fall of 2020 to confirm approval of the business plan so that the new hospital could move ahead. We all know what happened in the fall of 2020. We are now eight months behind those days. Also, my colleague the MLA for Richmond-Steveston said that there would be shovels in the ground in 2021. Now we are into 2021, and we are eight months behind those days.
Why has the business plan failed to be approved in a timely manner?
Hon. A. Dix: I just want to say, as all members will know, what an important proposal this is for Richmond: a nine-storey tower with an expanded podium; 48,522 square metres in size — I think that’s more in square feet; 115 parking stalls. There will be 113 new in-patient beds added to Richmond Hospital, bringing the total to 353. That’s a 47 percent increase.
Emergency department spaces are increasing from 60 to 82. The number of operating rooms will increase from eight to 11; a fully equipped medical imaging department, with four CT and two MRI machines; an intensive care unit; and a pharmacy. The new tower will obviously be built for earthquake safety and constructed above the floodplain.
As well, mental health services will be relocated to the redeveloped south tower and brought up to modern standards. I think we understand that. I think I’ve said that to members. One of the most significant things that we can do as we build new acute care hospitals is bring our mental health services and those facilities up to modern standards, the standards that we would expect if it was our family member that needed to be in acute care for mental health or addictions reasons.
New moms and their families will have access to an updated maternity ward and a neonatal intensive care unit also in the south tower. As well, the redeveloped Ilich Pavilion will be home to a cancer care clinic, outpatient clinics and the UBC school of medicine department of psychiatry.
It’s going to be a fabulous project. We’re going to be announcing the business plan soon. It’s going to be fantastic for the people of Richmond. I myself have attended foundation events. They do a remarkable job. This project has brought people together in Richmond. I just can’t wait. I can’t wait till the day when we break ground and start physically building this new hospital. It’s a great project. It’s a commitment by the Premier. It’s my job to deliver on that commitment, and I am doing just that.
The Chair: Member for Richmond North Centre, do you have a follow-up question?
T. Wat: Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with the minister this is a great project, and we are also excited about the expansion. But we know that a business plan was completed in November, so that means the new acute care tower is now nearly eight months behind where we could be today.
The Premier committed to completion in 2024 last July. Even the mayor of Richmond, in a letter to the Premier also copied to this minister on May 21 this year, said: “The project that was first announced by the province in 2018 and was supported by an additional announcement in July 2020 could identify a more comprehensive plan for the project, including more patient rooms and additional amenities, with a target completion date of 2024.”
The Premier committed to a completion date in 2024. Even the mayor of Richmond also put it down in writing. The mayor was requesting a meeting with the four Richmond MLAs in June. Unfortunately, my three other MLAs could not make it in June. I don’t know why.
Can the minister confirm here whether the Premier’s commitment to have the acute care tower be completed in 2024 is still the completion date?
Hon. A. Dix: All I can say is that every other week I have the opportunity to meet with Richmond MLAs, and all they advocate for….
Now, it’s fair to say that they were pleased with the announcement of a new urgent and primary care centre in Richmond, which is necessary. They’re delighted with the work we’re doing with the primary care network with the Richmond division of family practice. They’re proud of the work we’re doing in long-term care, increasing care standards and doing all of that work for people in Richmond.
Every couple of weeks our Richmond MLAs call me, and they say…. Well, I won’t say how they address me. They call me, and they say: “The Richmond Hospital is our top priority.” We are delivering on this hospital, and we’re working together to see that delivered. I’m proud of their advocacy and their work, as I am of the member for Richmond North Centre.
This is a community project in Richmond. It’s going to make a difference for decades to come. We’re proceeding with the project. It’s great news. The member is right that the initial plan was insufficient. We needed to do something bigger and better. And you know what? We’re doing something bigger and better.
I can’t wait. I can’t wait for the day that’s coming soon when we announce the business plan and we just get on with this and we don’t have political debates — that the advocacy of our Richmond MLAs will bear fruit. And this announcement, moving forward, delivering on this project, will make a difference for people in Richmond. It has already, I think, brought people together in Richmond.
I thank the member for her advocacy and her questions.
The Chair: Member for Richmond North Centre, do you have a follow-up question?
T. Wat: Yes, please, Mr. Chair.
I can’t wait either, Minister.
When the minister says soon, how soon is the soon? It is clear that the Premier’s schedule is not achievable. The minister hasn’t really made any comment on my question asking about the Premier’s commitment to have the [audio interrupted] of 2024. On the other hand, we also have now heard that the planned date for completion for Vancouver Coastal is 2027.
It’s so confusing. I would like the minister to confirm the date and that plans remain on schedule to complete it then, either as the Premier’s commitment of 2024 or the Vancouver Coastal now starting as 2027. Or will this be another missed timeline?
Hon. A. Dix: I was just smiling to myself, thinking about how proud I am of this hospital project and the work that’s been done — the work that was done by the chair of Vancouver Coastal Health on this project, Dr. Penny Ballem, who said that the existing project, the concept plan that had been developed, wasn’t sufficient and that we would do a bigger and a stronger plan. And how proud I am of the Premier, who made this a centrepiece of his commitment on health care to British Columbians.
We’re going to deliver on this project. I can’t wait. The details, of course, of the business plan will come when we deliver the business plan. But I have delivered the basic details, the ones that matter to people, the services that we’re adding. This is going to be an extraordinary thing for the people of Richmond, and the people of Richmond deserve it, because they have been strong advocates of this hospital. I’m glad that our Premier took a lead role in delivering this. My job as Minister of Health now is to deliver on his vision.
T. Wat: This is my final question. I don’t seem to be able to get the minister to confirm whether the Premier’s commitment to have the replacement tower completed in 2024 will be missed or not. There’s no point for me to ask again. I won’t get any confirmed date.
My final question is…. Over $50 million has been raised towards the project, and donors in Richmond are concerned. They are extremely concerned that progress has stalled. Some donations will undoubtedly be at risk. What does the minister have to say to the more than 150 donors — individuals, families, businesses and community leaders — who are waiting to see this project approved and funded?
Hon. A. Dix: You know what I say to donors to the Richmond Hospital Foundation, who I have met and worked with and stood side by side with? What I say to them is: “Thank you for your commitment to this project and for the energy of your fundraising.”
I know Natalie Meixner, the CEO of the Richmond Hospital Foundation, very well. She does exceptional work. We’re regularly in touch. We’ve met. Back when we used to meet, we used to meet in my constituency office, which is on Joyce Street in Renfrew-Collingwood — for my constituents. I look forward to meeting with Natalie again.
What I’d say to all the contributors, the members and supporters, of the Richmond Hospital Foundation who have attended events with me…. I recall one particular one at the River Rock which was just fantastic. Because I had to do two foundation events that night, I only got to eat the salad, but it was a lovely event indeed. I saw the community of Richmond. We met there.
I am so appreciative of the people who contribute to the Richmond Hospital Foundation and all our hospital foundations. I think they are a public face of our collective commitment to public health care, and I’m very appreciative.
What do I say to the Richmond Hospital Foundation? Thank you. I look forward to seeing you soon.
R. Merrifield: I’m just going to ask again. Where on the ten-year plan is the Richmond tower?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s right in the ten-year plan.
R. Merrifield: Which year is the starting of the Richmond tower?
Hon. A. Dix: What happens with capital planning, in the capital planning process, which is not new to this government but has been in place for some time, is that a concept plan is approved. In this case, a concept plan was approved. In this case, because there were such significant additions to that plan, the concept plan was amended and significantly expanded.
That announcement was made in July of 2020. That means it’s in the ten-year capital plan. You can’t announce a concept plan without it being in the plan. The money is there. It’s in the ten-year plan.
What happens next is the approval of the business plan. The expression of that in the bureaucratic sense — sometimes we debate about this — is that it will appear in projects over $50 million. That happens through the fiscal year. So as the quarterly reports are prepared by government…. If there are new projects to be added above $50 million, you’ll see that at that point.
Those are the various parts of it. The concept plan is approved. The expanded concept plan is approved. It’s in the ten-year capital plan. We are proceeding, and there will be more details when the business plan is released.
R. Merrifield: We’re going to move on to the second Surrey hospital at this point. I would ask: could the minister define what “net new” means as the hospital is described in the fiscal plan on page 50?
Hon. A. Dix: To go back to my previous answer, what that means is that the business plan has been approved. The money is in the three-year…. If the project is over $50 million, then a business plan is approved. So you see it there.
We’re proceeding with the second hospital in Surrey, in Cloverdale. In addition to that, there will be a new cancer centre. I won’t repeat my lengthy exchange with the member for Kamloops–South Thompson except to say…. What you see in a cancer centre, in addition to a second hospital in Surrey, in that case, is what you see at cancer centres in other places, including Victoria. We’ll have….
We have cancer services at Surrey Memorial Hospital. We’ll have a new cancer centre, which we thought was an excellent plan.
What “net new” means is that it’s not a replacement project. We’re doing a major and expanded project in Terrace at Mills Memorial Hospital. That’s a replacement project of an existing hospital, which people have been waiting for, for a long time and which we’re proceeding with. That is unbelievably exciting for the people of Terrace.
In the case of Fort St. James, it’s a replacement project. In the case of Surrey, there is no second hospital now, so this is a kind of a greenfield project. It will be on a site in Cloverdale, and that’s what I think the member is referring to as net new.
R. Merrifield: In all of the other instances that the minister gave examples of…. If it was, let’s say, Kelowna, one that I’m very familiar with, in terms of the cancer centre being next to or adjacent to the hospital but not integrated inside of the hospital, a cancer patient wouldn’t walk through the hospital to receive services. They would go to the cancer centre. I believe the same is similar in Victoria and Vancouver as well.
In the Surrey hospital example, it’s actually integrated. Could the minister explain what an integrated hospital cancer centre is?
Hon. A. Dix: It means that the decision to build a second Surrey hospital, so needed given the growth in the city, so important for the life of the community, is an opportunity for British Columbia and for the Fraser Health Authority, because we’re building a new project. We can integrate the new cancer centre fully into that hospital. In other words, it will be built at the same time and integrated into the hospital.
The reason that Royal Jubilee is separate is because Royal Jubilee had been in place for a long time and then the cancer centre was added after it. That will be, likely, the case, for example, in Nanaimo, where we have the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. We’d add a cancer centre. It would be a new project in its own right, whereas in this case, we originally approved the concept plan for the second Surrey hospital. Then we approved the concept plan for the cancer centre and added it to the project because we thought that made sense.
We’re doing this extraordinary and unusual thing, which is to build a second and a net new hospital in a community, in B.C.’s soon-to-be largest community and fastest-growing community. This was an opportunity for us to expand needed cancer services in Fraser Health at that time.
That’s what we mean by integrated. Frequently, our cancer centres are naturally put on hospital sites, but this one will be built and integrated with other services at the hospital, which I think is a unique opportunity. Certainly, people of Fraser Health felt that and the Provincial Health Services Authority felt that this was a unique opportunity and we shouldn’t miss it.
R. Merrifield: I absolutely agree. This is a great opportunity. It will be a great resource for all of Surrey.
In the $1.66 billion that’s attached to the hospital cancer centre integrated, how much is attached to the cancer centre, and how much of it is the hospital?
Hon. A. Dix: I think one of the advantages of building them together is that it’s less expensive than building them separately. There’s an advantage in building them together.
The largest cost is obviously the building of the hospital. That cost is well over…. If you were to do it without a cancer centre, it would have been well over $1 billion. Then the cancer centre would probably add in a small hundreds of millions to do that, but we wouldn’t carve it up in that way because, of course, we’re building them together.
That gives a sense of the quantum. The hospital is — and this is really a one-time spend — the most expensive project to the direct treasury of the province in the history of B.C. The St. Paul’s project is bigger, but that’s a joint venture with Providence Health Care. Our contribution is not the full project, although in that case it’s a $2.1 billion project, which is a substantial project as well.
These are legacies for the future, and I think the decision to go ahead with the cancer centre was really the right decision. It was one that I was very committed to, but the idea didn’t come from me. It came in the concept-planning process, and it came from PHSA and Fraser Health, who said: “Boy, this is an opportunity to do something we need to do.”
It reflects, I think, the changing nature of Surrey. Surrey is B.C.’s youngest community. I think you could argue it’s the most dynamic community. Certainly I think that. But it’s changing. Over the next coming decades, it’s going to transform into being more like the rest of British Columbia in terms of its age distribution. We’re going to see the largest absolute increase in the number of seniors in Surrey. It changes the dynamic of a community, and its needs change.
Building this hospital together — I think there is massive support for proceeding in this way in the community of Surrey — is the right thing to do. Adding the cancer centre is really making a clear statement about the future and the future needs of the community.
R. Merrifield: I would agree with the minister. Surrey is one of the largest, it’s one of the fastest growing, it’s one of the most dynamic, and it is going to continue to age as a community and as a centre. It is a hub for the city centres around it as well.
With that comment in mind, how was the determination for only 168 in-patient beds made for this particular hospital?
Hon. A. Dix: I don’t know what to say about a world where it’s a $1.6 billion project, and we use the term “only.” I’ve got to get used to that. I’ve got to get used to that word.
What this is, is an integrated acute care system. In Surrey, you have Surrey Memorial, which is obviously a massive hospital that provides many services, including cancer services, and it will continue to provide cancer services into the future.
A detailed planning process…. That’s what concept planning, in all cases, and business planning are about. What are the needs in terms of acute care beds in a community? And then other services. We know that the average length of stay in hospital has reduced over time and has reduced significantly over decade unto decade in our health care system. So what are the needs?
The assessment…. There’s a detailed planning process that is led by the Fraser Health Authority, in this case, and, in other cases, by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority that determines the need to increase beds. Sometimes that increase includes shelled beds, where you say: “We don’t have that, but we might want to shell in some new beds.” In other cases, it doesn’t….
In the case of St. Paul’s Hospital, which has roughly 420 acute care beds now…. The new hospital is going to be about 548. So net new, I guess, that’s 128. Obviously, it’s the replacement of an old hospital with a new one.
In this case, the determination on the number of beds was made, in the detailed concept planning process by people who are specialists in this area, against the needs of the community. It also, on cancer care and other things…. A lot of the care that’s provided in those circumstances is day care, but it’s needed to be in-hospital care. Increasingly that’s what hospitals do and move forward with.
That’s what we’re doing. That came out of the process. It’s a very significant increase and improvement in services in the Surrey community in addition to, obviously, ongoing increases at Surrey Memorial Hospital. I think this is what our health planners determined was the right size for this hospital at this time and, in addition to that, all the significant services, including outpatient services and cancer services.
R. Merrifield: Just to take us down memory lane somewhat. When the Surrey Memorial expansion was announced almost a decade ago, it was for 151 beds, which was just an expansion, as the minister had mentioned.
Again, with the fastest-growing municipality, how were 168 beds — which is only 17 in addition to what the former addition was a decade ago — deemed the essential number?
Hon. A. Dix: Through a detailed planning process. The services were determined in that process. Those include, for example, 55 treatment spaces to accommodate 78,000 emergency room visits a year. It’s a detailed planning process, over time, that determines it.
A medical imaging department that will offer mammograms and ultrasounds, three CT scanners, two MRI machines. Pharmacy and laboratory and academic space. Parking and dedicated space for spiritual care. In terms of cancer care, 50 exam rooms, 54 chemotherapy treatment spaces, the capacity for six linear accelerators for radiation care and two PET-CT scans. And on and on. The project will also include a daycare centre on site.
That’s a detailed planning process. It said: “Here are our demands, in terms of emergency care, in terms of outpatient surgery services, in terms of cancer services and others, and here is the hospital we need to build.” That’s why — and this is frustrating for people sometimes — we have such a detailed planning process and concept planning process — so that we can go through that in detail and then deliver the care services we need.
In addition to that, I’d say this as well. We also need to expand long-term-care centres, both to remediate, replace and renovate existing centres and to add service centres and capacity in Surrey. I think that’s another significant opportunity for the people of Surrey.
This is what was rightly determined in the planning process. We, I think rightly, defer to experts in assessing future demands and what a hospital will look like and what services it does and how it integrates with the existing services. This project, which is, I think, going to be a remarkable project for the people of Surrey, is what emerged from that. I think people are going to be really proud of it.
R. Merrifield: What are the total existing in-patient beds currently in Surrey?
Hon. A. Dix: Because I know that the member will be anxious to ask the next question, I will say…. We added surge beds to hospitals in recent times. But we’ll have that answer, I think, in two seconds.
The idea of having two hospitals in a community…. We saw the improvements that are now finished at Langley Memorial Hospital, the addition of an MRI, the new emergency room, the new changes at Peace Arch Hospital, Surrey Memorial Hospital and the second Surrey hospital. All of those things are obviously going to be integrated together, and they are, by a health authority. That’s determined in the bid process.
I’ll just leave it. Perhaps the member can ask her next question, and we’ll provide that on the answer. They’re just getting it.
R. Merrifield: There are two different dates for the completion of this hospital within the budget. There’s one date of 2027 and another of 2028. Could we identify which date we were thinking opening would be?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair. It’s so good to see you.
I’ve got two numbers for the member. So 629 is number one. That’s the number of acute care beds at Surrey Memorial Hospital, which makes it a big hospital — as I say, bigger than St. Paul’s will be. Secondly, 2027.
R. Merrifield: Will the equipment and staff be all new in this hospital, or will resources be reallocated from the existing Surrey Memorial Hospital or others within the Fraser Health Authority?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think there are two ways to look at that. One, clearly people move from hospital to hospital all the time. So they won’t all be…. We’ll have many experienced staff people who will be leading this new hospital when it opens. They’ll come from different places.
If you’re supporting these beds and chemotherapy and the very significant other services, you’re going to require very significant net new staff. That’s our expectation, and that’s our intention. So it won’t be that it’ll be the same number of staff; it’ll be the staff we need for Surrey Memorial now plus the staff we need at the new hospital.
As individuals, they may come from different places across the country, around the world, but from British Columbia as well. We wouldn’t have just newly trained staff there. We’re going to have experienced staff from all over. You have net new staff when you have a net new hospital.
R. Merrifield: On September 23, the Premier said that the business plan was approved and that funding for the hospital is in the budget. He also stated that construction would break ground by the end of 2021. Will we be breaking ground in 2021?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the Premier was correct, and the budget that we’re debating is a demonstration of that. The money is in the budget. It’s a very significant amount of money and a business plan approved by the government, and it’s in the plan of the government.
We’re going through the next phase of it. Once the business plan is approved is the request for proposal process, and then we begin construction. We’re off and running now. The project is on its way. It’s going to be built between now and 2027 and opened in 2027.
R. Merrifield: Will we be breaking ground in 2021?
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: The Chair is clearly, clearly putting his thoughts in my head. The Chair would prefer it if I was continuing to talk about the Richmond Hospital, but that’s another story. He would love me just to not stop talking about that hospital.
We’re now in the process to build a hospital. It’s been approved. It’s approved by cabinet. The money is there. The budget is there. We’re proceeding to go to contracting. All of that stuff will be announced publicly. We’ll have even more detailed information about the business plan soon. We’re going ahead. It’s fantastic news. We start from here.
We’ve come a significant distance, because there was no planning process for a second hospital in Surrey. We started the concept planning process in December 2021. We announced an approved concept plan in December of 2019, I believe. We approved the business plan, and it’s in this budget in April 2021, and now we proceed.
The next stage, I’d just say to the member, is the request for proposal and the tendering stage. That’s where we’re entering in now.
R. Merrifield: I want to go back to the Surrey cancer centre. I know that you had provided a list of services that were to be in most cancer centres, as well as included in this one.
I just wanted to ask about a couple of other things. What about genetic counselling? Is that on the list as well? Is palliative care or hospice support? What about psychiatry?
Hon. A. Dix: As you work through, in the coming years, service design work, the details of services delivered in a specific sense will come at that point. But all of the services you’d expect in a hospital of this type, the new Surrey hospital and cancer centre, you will see there.
In terms of cancer care services, those include an oncology ambulatory care unit, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, functional imaging, including PET and CT cyclotron, and space for six linear accelerators. That’s some of the planning process. There will obviously be mental health services provided, as well, and significant numbers of in-patient beds.
This hospital is going to help to meet the needs of the community, along with all that goes on at the very significant Surrey Memorial Hospital. What I would suspect, as we go through service planning, because all of those services need to be provided now in the existing health care facilities, that what we create is a hospital where many of these things can happen.
On some of it, for example the need for space for chemotherapy or other issues, that’s specifically planned out. For the rest of it, though, we would expect cancer care to be similar to other cancer centres around B.C. The detailed service planning around a hospital is a key part of the capital planning, but the detailed service planning will happen closer to the date of the opening.
There will be more information about that as we provide more information and as we go forward through the competitive bid process. We’re building the hospital now. The services will come when it opens.
R. Merrifield: When will the service planning be completed?
Hon. A. Dix: Concurrent with the hospital being built. In this case, there will be a consultation process, as everyone would expect, that would involve the community, that would involve First Nations, and so on. The basic structure and what we’re doing there is inherent in what we’re building — a cancer centre, a hospital with X number of beds. Then we’ll be working with the community in terms of service planning.
That involvement is also occurring in the many, many hospital projects — given the hour, I won’t list them all now — around B.C. A lot of that planning of what services will do and how you’ll change services has involved, especially, I would argue, all of the hospitals in B.C. Surrey — you can make an argument — is B.C.’s largest Indigenous community, with the largest number of Indigenous people living in Surrey. Vancouver is very significant. And there are Indigenous communities around B.C.
In our planning and as we build out, for example, Cariboo Memorial Hospital, the significant involvement of First Nations, of the Tŝilhqot’in First Nation, Williams Lake First Nation and others in that process…. So that process is going to happen over the period and concurrent with the bids and proceeding with the project that’s occurring over the next few years.
R. Merrifield: That will allow us to move maybe a little bit into a higher-level discussion about cancer care.
I’m going to quote the minister from last week in seniors estimates. “I think we have to prepare for a moment….”
“We talk about this, and we’ll talk about it next week when we talk about cancer….” That’s right now, when 50 percent more people will have cancer by 2035. “It’s not because we’re not doing a good job with cancer care in general. It’s because there’s going to be more age-related cancer, and outcomes are going to be better. That creates a problem that we haven’t had in human history before.”
Do we have a ten-year B.C. cancer plan?
Hon. A. Dix: What we’ve had is a significant increase in spending over the last number of years compared to what it had been before and, obviously, increases in services, some of those focused on prevention, some of those focused on surgery.
I think that what we need, given the future that I was describing, is a ten-year cancer plan, which we’re preparing and will release publicly soon, that will lay out the road map for the next 10 years. I was referring, I think, to 2035. That’s, obviously, beyond the time of the plan.
What I was suggesting is that we’ve got three sets of issues. One is a good one — that the cancer services we’re providing are improving, and the health care, from a treatment perspective, is improving and becoming more expensive. One of the primary ways it’s become more expensive in cancer care is the almost exponential increase in the price of cancer drugs, for example. How you marry that and meet that with prevention — which is critically important, living with cancer — and other care is…. Will cancer drug costs crowd out the full other aspects of the plan, as they sometimes do?
That’s why you need a plan that addresses issues such as capital, such as the one I was discussing with the member for Kamloops earlier, but others as well — the capital requirement. Can we provide more and better services around the province, given that there may be greater concentrations of people with cancer given the increase in numbers of people with cancer around the province?
Ensure that we meet the actual demand and the growing demand for cancer services in the province. Also — and I think that this was an important part of the debate that I had with the Leader of the Opposition on seniors care — increasing the quality of life for people living with cancer. I don’t think there’s a family — certainly, my family is not immune from this right now — who doesn’t have beloved family members living with cancer. We have to make sure that we deliver, when many people are living with cancer as a chronic disease or living with cancer for years and years, and that we have services that support them in that, while at the same time being able to develop and to meet the technology needs of the future.
I would say, one, we’ve got improving treatments, but they cost money. We need to prepare for that and be on the cutting edge of that.
I think that some people think that B.C. was — 15, 20, 25 years ago — at the cutting edge at different points. This is not a political comment. This is us, right? Let me be clear — I don’t mean it in any way that way — that there was a time when we were world leaders, and we need to do that.
I like being world leaders, but I also like to provide care to people — right? — real people, who often need the core services that an agency provides. So we need to be on the cutting edge in terms of research, development, treatment and technology and provide better care.
We need to provide supports for a larger group of people who are going to be living with cancer, including age-related cancer. We’ve got to bring cancer care closer to home, and that means more cancer centres in more communities. The technology may invite us to do this more effectively in future, as well. Hopefully these cancer centres, while they’ll look like the Victoria cancer centres, will be better than that. That may not mean the same footprint and everything else.
And that we do prevention. One of the aspects of that that we have implemented, that we’ve launched and will be implemented, I think, in March of 2022, is lung cancer screening. When you ask people in cancer care, “What’s the way to save the most lives and provide the best prevention and early intervention, which could be the most effective?” and “How would you save the most people?” well, it’s lung cancer screening, which sometimes, historically, I think, has not been viewed as much of a priority because of the inevitable linking of lung cancer to smoking, but which is really important. So I’m very proud. I think that’s a great idea.
I advocated for colorectal cancer screening, and Premier Campbell announced it. I was an opposition Health critic, and I advocated for that for years. I’m so proud of it that I put it in my biography. So there you go.
I think that all of those elements have to come together: prevention; the delivery of services; of course, intervention; and how we deal with the growing population. That’s why I think having a ten-year plan that gives our researchers, our clinical staff, our health human resources side and people and screening a plan that takes us through this next ten years and has B.C. leading the country and the world is a good idea. That’s what we’ve asked the Cancer Agency to develop.
We have some sense of it now. We’ve talked about what that sense is, and I think I’ve described the elements of it. I look forward to announcing it soon and then just doing the work. Hopefully, if it’s a good plan, and I think it will be — driven by the science and driven by people both living with cancer but also the clinicians — then it’s something that governments will pursue over a ten-year period.
R. Merrifield: I agree with the minister that, truly, a ten-year cancer plan would be a legacy for the minister and for British Columbians.
I would also agree with the minister that we have a cancer tsunami coming. In looking at some of the numbers and even some of the early intervention measures that we are talking about with COVID having been a factor over the course of the last 15, 16 months, I wonder how many cancer patients went undetected and how that will be affecting us in just the next couple of years.
I’ll go back to my original question. We’ve referenced having a ten-year plan, and it’s coming soon. Knowing all of the work and effort that it takes to actually develop a ten-year cancer plan, is there one in the works? Is there one that has already been presented, at this point, to the minister?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes. Inevitably, I think it’s…. The idea that an answer would just be yes is impossible to consider.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Dix: Interestingly, more laughs from this side.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Dix: They spend some time with me — Dr. Brown and Mr. Pokorny.
The answer is yes. I mean, obviously, you’re doing drafts and drafts and drafts of this, and it’s being directed by the Provincial Health Services Authority and the Ministry of Health. But it involves every health authority. Because even though the B.C. Cancer Agency delivers cancer services — they do so — a huge amount of the work is actually done in health authorities, in primary care and everything else.
It’s led by the PHSA. And if the PHSA is listening, I know how well everybody works together in the health authorities all the time. It would involve all of the health authorities. So that’s the process.
Yes, of course, they’re drafts and direction, and so on. They’re working their way through that. It comes forward, and then we work on it. We want to make sure we get it right. Then, obviously, there are funding questions and other questions. Principally, I think….
Of course, we’ve seen drafts of it and discussed what should be in it. Some of it is what we’ve described and what the member just said. Okay. How do we deal with what’s coming? The good is that people are living with cancer for a long time, and the challenging is that people are living with cancer for a long time. How do we deal with that over the next number of years?
That work is being led by the B.C. Cancer Agency, but there is literally a cast of thousands involved.
R. Merrifield: That is such great news. I wanted to do a little cheer. For Hansard, I was cheering while the minister was talking about a ten-year cancer plan. I am concerned. I am concerned that not enough planning has been done.
As we have seen…. The first announcements about the second Surrey hospital came in 2017, and it won’t be completed until 2027. So we know how long some of these measures take.
My next question to the minister is: where is the cancer plan currently in the fiscal plan? Is there any money budgeted based on that cancer plan?
Hon. A. Dix: Yeah. We’ve seen very significant increases in the expenditures of the B.C. Cancer Agency and on cancer around British Columbia. A significant lift over what it had been, as we have across the health care system. It’s not surprising the overall lifts have been larger. The lifts for cancer and the demand for cancer, particularly…. The significant inflation in cancer drug programs is there.
In some early stages of it, for example, where we’ve made decisions and we’re proceeding…. For example, lung cancer screening is there, and that will, obviously, become one of the screening programs that’s part of the plan. So will colorectal cancer and other areas.
What you’re going to see when we announce it is also an announcement around costs. That will happen, and happens, in the process when we announce the plan. I expect we’ll see the plan soon. There will be operational costs, and there will be, over time, capital costs. The capital costs will go through their own process.
In the case of the cancer centre in Surrey, it has gone through fully that process and the business plan approval. Then it’s integrated into the larger $1.6 billion hospital project. In other cases, they would go through their own business plan and be approved.
That’s the process we’re going through. I look forward to presenting the plan. You can’t present a plan in full in government without…. This is not an academic paper. Part of that plan has to be the delivering of resources to support that plan. It wouldn’t be necessarily delivering resources over ten years. Those resources would happen, but you would definitely be looking at the early years of the plan and saying: “We’re doing this, this and this.” Then adjustments will be made along the road, and you’ll do more.
The plan will be presented in full when it’s ready to be presented. Obviously, the financial question will be a key part of that. I look forward…. It sounds like the member will look forward to that briefing as well.
R. Merrifield: According to the B.C. Cancer Agency website…. They actually report out on five main areas: new diagnoses, incident rates, mortality rates, survival rates and then statistics on cancer types.
Is there a reporting body that reports out on wait times? I know that there is some information on wait times on one of the government websites, but it doesn’t specify what group monitors it or collects it. So is there a reporting body that reports out on wait times?
Hon. A. Dix: B.C. Cancer reports on wait times, as do health authorities in general. They would be the ones reporting on wait times.
I think the issue of wait times is always a challenging one because it’s generally done in the public reporting from the day that the surgery is booked to the surgery, for example, if it’s for surgery, and maybe for other procedures. That’s the way that it’s been done historically in B.C., and that’s the way that we do it.
With respect to cancer, B.C. Cancer reports on wait times through the Ministry of Health.
R. Merrifield: Would the minister commit to reporting on cancer wait times and cancer outcomes?
Hon. A. Dix: I think one of the key elements of a ten-year plan, just as one of the elements of…. We were talking about emergency health services earlier. It’s response times. That’s one of the elements of that plan. There would be other elements.
One of the elements of this plan, and the reason we think we need a ten-year cancer plan, is that we see a growing demand for cancer. So one of the elements of such a plan is: well, how do you measure the success of the plan? A regular reporting. Similarly, we know…. We did the surgery renewal commitment. I report on that every week. We do monthly reports on that every month.
I would expect a similar process to be in place, not just sort of annually or regularly, but a regular process of reporting on the cancer plan is something that would be a key part of it, and that means all of the elements of that plan — how we’re doing the capital side, how we’re doing on surgeries, how we’re doing on other interventions, how we’re doing on diagnosis. I would expect that to be a significant part of the reporting on a ten-year cancer plan.
Whenever I do a plan, that’s what I like to do, but I don’t think it’s unusual to me.
R. Merrifield: I think that the wait times that you were referencing before were actually related to cancer surgeries, but I’m not entirely sure. If the minister, or any of the minister’s staff, could respond to how we compare to other jurisdictions in our outcomes for cancer.
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair. It’s still very good to see you there.
What we can do is…. We have health information units in the Ministry of Health. Generally speaking, the interprovincial comparisons are sometimes produced by CIHI, which is the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and other national bodies, and other people do comparisons of wait times.
What we can do is a review of those interprovincial comparisons and share that with the hon. member. We get them, from time to time, and I’m sure we can produce that and send some to the hon. member in the coming few days.
R. Merrifield: Luckily, I’ve already done that with the Canadian Institute for Health Information. So I will just let the minister know…. If the minister would like to provide that information for me, as well, that would be fine too.
What I could say is that our radiation treatment wait times, in terms of percentage, have actually been slipping year over year, since 2017. They are dramatically off what the Canadian average is.
In fact, in 2017, Quebec had a 98 percent, and ours was hovering at about 93. Ours today is just over 91, and Quebec and Ontario are both at 98 percent. The national average is actually at 97. B.C. doesn’t just trail; we’re actually one of the almost lowest, in terms of where we rank with the rest of Canada.
Looking at the data, it seems that not only is B.C. low, but we’ve also seen a steady decrease in our outcomes and worsening of wait times over the course of the last three years. For those who might be reading Hansard, the lower the percentage, actually, the worse that you are on this particular outcome.
What would that be particularly attributed to, would be my first question, and the second is: what is the plan to solve it?
Hon. A. Dix: What that particular indicator…. As the member will know, there are indicators where we have gone from last to second. I look forward to that discussion. I look forward to sending you those.
[B. Bailey in the chair.]
In that case, what it shows is that we’re below the national average, and we’re still below the national average. It says to me that we have to improve that.
The Chair: Member.
R. Merrifield: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome.
How are we going to actually solve that issue?
Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, these issues emerge over time. Part of it is an investment of money. When you doubled the increase for the B.C. Cancer Agency that had occurred prior to 2017, you start to address that, see increasing demand.
It’s in part through investment. It’s through a health human resources plan. In the case of this government, the significant investments that have been made in cancer care, in particular, the improvement of services in different regions, including the region represented by the hon. member — all of those are the ways that you address that problem: applying resources, innovating in the system.
The change, when the member talks about a dramatic drop…. We were in that measure that she’s referring to, which I think comes from this week’s CIHI. Perhaps that was it. It shows some measures where we’ve gone up.
That particular measure for the past year was, I think, measured through the time of pandemic. Ontario and Quebec were above us in 2017. They’re above us now. The idea is for us to do better on that measure. There are some measures — as the member will know, because she read the report — which demonstrate the efforts we made in British Columbia to improve, relative to other provinces.
I don’t talk about those that much, although I look forward to doing it sometimes. But I would say that when you look at other important measures in our health care system, particularly on the diagnostic side, the comparison of before 2017 and now is dramatic. In this case, we were near the bottom then, and we’re near the bottom now, and that means we have to do better.
R. Merrifield: With all due respect to the minister, in 2015, we were actually at 93 percent, whereas today we’re at 91 percent. The national average back in 2015 was 98 percent, and in 2020, it was actually 98 percent as well. In actual fact, we were doing better in 2015 than we are doing today. I will reiterate that we’ve had a steady decline in our percentage. We’ve had a steady decline in our outcomes for this particular wait time.
In the budget, we have $300 million that is funding, over three years, that was announced to support MSP, PharmaCare and cancer care. How much of this is allocated to cancer care?
Hon. A. Dix: For people watching at home, the 2018 numbers that were produced on this thing were based on previous years. We were tenth of ten provinces when I became Minister of Health, and we’re still on the measure the member talks about — tenth of ten provinces. That’s what we inherited, tenth of ten, and we’ve got to make it better. I agree with the hon. member.
With respect to the budget for this year, the number is 65 for cancer, a 7.2 percent increase in the budget of the B.C. Cancer program, which is $65.8 million.
R. Merrifield: So tenth of ten in 2018, and tenth of ten in 2020. I would have to go back to see where we ranked in 2015, but what I can say is that we’ve gone steadily down. Despite still being tenth of ten, we’re going down in what our actual outcomes are. We are significantly down from 2015 to 2020. The jousting match I can let go, for this particular moment.
My follow-up to that last one is: is there an expected increase in cancer medication over the next three years, as the $300 million or the $65.8 million is allocated as a three-year amount?
Hon. A. Dix: Like the PharmaCare budget, the cancer drug budget is increasing substantially. It’s just to get the net drug change, which includes a reduction in costs due to the biosimilar project program, which also deals with cancer drugs.
If you look at the net change in percentage of costs of cancer drugs, the years go as follows: 5 percent, 2015-16; 6 percent, ’16-17; 13 percent, ’17-18; 9 percent, ’18-19; 13 percent, ’19-20. Over those five years, if you take them together, that’s an annualized 10.4 percent average. That includes significant negotiated rebates and so on that we do. So you get a sense of what the annual increase is.
If you took away all of that, it would be in the nature of 17 percent. By the way, on the cancer drug measure, those increases…. We talk about what it was before and those are really defined by the cost of the drugs. It’s kind of a needs budget that you’ve got to manage within those needs. Those would go year-onto-year.
I think in the previous estimates, I had talked about the net during that period, but that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about double-digit increases going back a decade. What it reflects for policy-makers and for myself as minister is a little bit of what we can expect for expensive drugs for rare diseases in other areas.
With respect to expensive drugs for rare diseases, in my view, the cancer drugs, which are that kind of drug, are kind of a canary in the coal mine of the demand for expensive drugs for rare diseases. It’s why British Columbians led on those files.
There are a lot of people talking about national PharmaCare. I hope it happens, and I’ll be there for it. If they have a meeting on Boxing Day, I’ll be there for it. I’ll be there for it on July 1. I’ll be there for it on any day, if they want to have a meeting on national PharmaCare.
What I’m committed to, though, is driving the federal government to play a bigger role on expensive drugs for rare diseases. You see that in cancer care. What we’ve seen in cancer care over the last decade we’re going to see in that category of drugs over the next ten years. That’s a consideration for everybody.
R. Merrifield: I want to go back to something that I asked for earlier, just to make sure that I heard correctly. I believe I heard a commitment to actually reporting out on cancer surgery, cancer wait times and then cancer outcomes. I just wanted to clarify and make sure.
Hon. A. Dix: That’s right. That reporting out will be a key part of the plan that we put together — regular, systematic reporting out, just as we’ve done on the surgery renewal plan, where our teams put out, month to month, a report on surgeries we’ve done, types of surgeries we’ve done, the impact of those surgeries.
That, I think, has been exceptionally successful. When a plan is working, such as that plan, it builds momentum and a sense of support for the plan, not just in the public but amongst all those participating. I think when you’re involved in a large system, people like to see themselves doing well and performing well. I think that’s a good model. That’s the model we intend to put in place with the cancer plan.
R. Merrifield: I agree with the minister. I love it when we take a document and a plan and then can measure against it — and change it as necessary, as we see things change.
Back in 2015-2016, we started seeing predictions that cancer incidence in British Columbia was expected to grow by 57 percent. The B.C. Cancer Agency started to really talk about this back in 2018 and make some very fierce predictions and some strong predictions. We’re seeing that our wait times are slipping. I can only imagine that that’s due to having more people, because as the minister has talked about, there were additional supports and infrastructure in 2012, and the minister has identified how MRIs have increased, etc., in the course of us talking through some of the other aspects of digital technology, as well as radiology and surgical wait times.
What is the current commitment? I’ll talk about those that are already there: our oncologists. What’s our current commitment to them, to the ones that are working way too many hours with a lot of patients and really bearing the brunt of this onslaught and of this incredible tsunami of cancer? I’ll start there with that question.
Hon. A. Dix: Just to say with respect to the CIHI report, in 2016, we were tenth of ten as well. This isn’t that we’re there. We want to do better.
My point wasn’t that it’s essentially the same result now as it was then. I don’t want the member to think for a minute that I don’t have expectations to do better, right? Whether it’s the same result as then, it’s not a good result in that area. We’ve had very significant improvements against other provinces on other measures. We’ve got to do that there. We’ve got to do that together.
What’s our commitment? The very significant increases. I think it was the 2018-19 budget, the $105 million investment in increased services — the money we’ve put forward, the money we’re putting forward to train and develop more oncologists, which we’re going to need. As well, it’s not just our oncologists, but it’s people throughout the cancer system — our technicians, our health sciences professionals, our nurses, our care aides.
I can tell you that this isn’t just at the B.C. Cancer Agency, which is receiving and has received significant budget lifts over the last number of years, but in our health authorities. It’s why we need to build out and help to support a new generation of health care professionals and health care workers as well.
Providing resources is one thing we need to do. That’s why we’ve increased those resources to cancer, why we’ve added new screening programs, and why we’re going to continue to do that work together by following their path and, finally, I think, by continuing to invest in research and continuing to make the B.C. Cancer Agency what it has been and what it should be.
There was a lot of, and has been, a fair amount of disruption. If you go back through the last period leading into when I became Minister of Health, there had been a lot of interaction and negativity around the Cancer Agency. I think the leadership of the agency, broadly — I mean hundreds of people — has done a really good job under a lot of pressure, because of the increase in the caseload, the fact that elderly people move from other jurisdictions to here.
People will live their whole lives in the province of Alberta. A very large number of them move to British Columbia in a time when they would be most likely to get age-related cancer. There’s some movement in the other direction, but I don’t think, speaking to the member for Kelowna, there are as many people moving from Kelowna to Calgary as there are from Calgary to Kelowna. I think that’s a fair description. I won’t discuss why that’s the case.
That’s the challenge in B.C. People are moving here as well. People move here to retire. That presents, itself — it always has presented but I think even more so now — more challenges to age-related cancer.
The commitment to oncologists is their involvement in the development of a ten-year cancer plan. Our commitment is our need to train more oncologists. Our commitment is our need to support them. That’s, at least in part, reflected by the budget increases that I’ve been proud to present to the Legislature for the last few years.
R. Merrifield: We have had an incredible increase in caseloads, as just recognized by the minister. We’ve got a 57 percent increase in cancer incidence. We actually have estimated new cancer diagnoses that are exceptional over the course of the next years. That doesn’t even take us to 2035, as that report did.
I asked specifically about oncologists, but I do appreciate the minister increasing the scope to also include nurses, care aides, radiation techs and therapists. What I would ask, again, is: what is the current recruitment and retention strategy for these positions? How many new positions are included in this current budget that we see before us?
Hon. A. Dix: The deputy minister is not going to get a ten-minute break, because apparently — told by you, hon. Chair — it’s 5:50. So that means only three to four hours to go today. Our ratings go up when we do this in primetime. As I said, they do that opposite Wheel of Fortune.
We’ll get the specifics on the numbers. As we’ve discussed before, there’s also a significant health and human resources plan, because this is not just an issue in B.C. cancer…. It’s an issue at B.C. Transplant. It’s an issue across health authorities and across the health system.
I think that what the deputy minister is getting are year-to-year numbers. If we don’t have them, then what I’ll do is I’ll get them for the member before we begin again tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. precisely, more or less.
R. Merrifield: I thank the minister for his perseverance throughout all of these questions, etc. It is a lot. It’s intense. Being new, I’m sure that he wishes that it were someone else, but that’s okay. It’s been very, very good. I much appreciate it.
In looking at the budget, and acknowledging that we see inflationary increases and percentages year over year…. Obviously, the largest percentage of increase is PharmaCare, but that doesn’t address our increases and our, I guess, being behind with two different aspects of the cancer plan at this point. I’m not talking about the general ten-year cancer plan, because I’m not aware of that.
It’s twofold. One is the human resource capacity, and I’m asking questions about recruitment and retention of different aspects of the B.C. cancer area. But then the second one is actually the infrastructure. We’ve got the Surrey cancer clinic that’s going to open in 2027. I’m very excited to hear that it’s 2027 instead of 2028. But that puts us almost at a huge gap between any amount of infrastructure increase.
This is the question to the minister. How are we going to survive, knowing that…? I mean, I don’t want to sound alarmist, but I will sound the alarm. How will we survive until 2027, when the first aspect of infrastructure increase will actually come on, on stream?
Hon. A. Dix: First of all, it’s not just Surrey. Burnaby is doing the same thing. So there will be two in the Fraser Health Authority, which represents 38 percent of people in B.C. and a growing number of seniors. So those are two significant facilities.
It’s not just cancer centres. I think that if I were to say to the member, “Well, you haven’t created a cancer centre in a few years, and therefore there is an increase in capacity….” There are very significant things that one can do as an interim to that. It’s not just the building of hospitals that is necessary. A lot of the best cancer treatment is primary care and the supports for primary care.
The centres give us new capacity for chemotherapy and radiation, but we can also increase that capacity in existing centres. You’ve seen that with diagnostics, as well, most recently in Kelowna and Victoria, which were real changes that were, on the capital side, paid for by fundraising. But the operating side, which is the biggest cost, let’s face it, is paid for by the public health care system. So those kind of improvements, we have to continue to make.
I don’t think we’re waiting until 2027. It would be great to have that centre, great to have Burnaby open, great to have Kamloops open and great to have Nanaimo open. But there are a lot of people who we’ll be serving in the interim and continuing to provide better and more efficient services to. That’ll be required year unto year, including in some of those communities, because some of those communities will need services before that.
There isn’t just that we wait until we build a big centre. With these significant year unto year increases in a ten-year plan, the capital will be one portion of that plan. But I would argue…. It’s all significant, so I’m not going to compare its significance. But there are other equally or more significant parts of a cancer plan in terms of increasing the capacity of the system to respond.
R. Merrifield: I’ll agree with the minister that there are other things that we can do. That is what I’m asking for, in terms of: what are we going to do until 2028, specifically related to our human resources? As many MRIs or as much surgery and OR time that we increase…. What are we going to do, and what is our plan to recruit human resources to cancer? How many new specialists are required to simply to stave off this tsunami?
Hon. A. Dix: In 2018, with surgery and with primary care, and then when we launched the surgical renewal plan…. I’ll spare the member the repetition of the extraordinary human resource aspect of that plan, which saw medical processing technologists and surgeons and nurses and health sciences professionals and health care workers added to the system and recruited in the system. It’s been an exceptional success.
On primary care, equally…. Human resources are a key element of our primary care plan. The urgent and primary care centres — hundreds of health care professionals and workers working there. Our primary care networks are adding and building out the team in primary care. There will be, I’m sure, an occasion before we finish the estimates to talk about that.
When you’re talking about a ten-year cancer plan, human resources are a key aspect of that, and they have been, obviously. We’ll get the member the numbers. There are obviously more people. As we build out the B.C. cancer budget in recent years, that reflects it there. But I would argue that the human resources part of it is of equal or greater importance than the capital aspect of it.
There will be lots of debate between my friend from Kamloops south and people in Nanaimo and everywhere else, in Surrey and Burnaby, about those projects, but the human resource plan, which will get less debate and less profile, is equally or more important.
R. Merrifield: Would the minister commit to publishing a cancer surgery report wait time card by hospital in B.C. before the B.C. cancer ten-year plan is released?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think the purpose of reporting out is to provide benchmarks. So I’d expect to be providing benchmarks. Those are the things that you can judge against, in terms of outcomes.
Clearly, as we pursue surgical renewal, cancer surgery is very important. Frequently — it depends on the surgery, of course — you’re talking about surgery wait times that are not within months but within weeks. That’s an important consideration. So that would absolutely be part of it.
Part of what you’d want to establish is where we are now — not just in wait times for surgery, which is necessary and occurs and people do a very good job, just as they do in cardiac and other areas, but wait times for radiation, for diagnosis and others. Those are the building blocks, I think, of a plan — to say where we are and where we want to be and to judge the importance of addressing wait times there against the importance of other considerations, including prevention and supports in communities.
You don’t want…. I think this is the issue with cancer drugs frequently — to ask ourselves the value of that expenditure of cancer drugs compared to other things. That’s why you need a plan, it seems to me, to say: “Well, we need to do drugs. We also need to do health human resources, and we need to have targets for wait times.”
I think the key wait times that are of greatest concern are not just surgery wait times, which British Columbia and, I think, other jurisdictions do reasonably well on. It’s the important questions around diagnosis and waits for radiation and other things. So I would expect those benchmarks to be part of the plan.
If you’re going to lay out a plan, you have to start from somewhere. You have to say, “Well, we started here. This is where we are. This is where we’re going,” and then be able to measure that year to year against the obvious and expected growth in cancer patients.
R. Merrifield: I’m going to agree with the minister. I think it would be excellent to be able to establish these benchmarks and to be able to measure the ten-year cancer plan against them. So would the minister agree and commit to establishing these benchmarks this year but even before the ten-year cancer plan is released?
Hon. A. Dix: I think a significant portion of this information is publicly available. I’m happy to share it.
I think it will be important, when we lay out the ten-year plan, to provide those benchmarks and to say: “Well, this is where we are.” This may be adequate in some areas and we just need to maintain, which is no small feat when the numbers are going up on the one hand, and these are areas where we need to improve, from B.C.’s historic position, for where we are now.
R. Merrifield: Does the minister have the oncology numbers in terms of current recruitment, retention strategy for oncologists, radiation techs and therapists, nurses and care aides in terms of how many are required, as well as what the plan is to recruit human resources over the course of the next year?
Hon. A. Dix: I think this is the same question that we were looking for before, but I’ll….
Obviously, we see the very significant investment in health human resources and both reflected a little bit in my budget and a lot in the budget of the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training. So we see that. I’d be happy to share…. I think we’re going to share some more information on those seats and that training.
There’s an ongoing effort, ongoing recruitment, across the health care system which has been going on and we have seen reflected in seniors and in surgery and in primary care and we’ll see reflected in cancer as well. And then there’s the cancer-related portion of the health human resources plan, which will be integrated with the ten-year cancer plan, which will have a significant human resource component.
R. Merrifield: What is the plan right now to help with the oncologists currently, this year — to help them with the current workload with respect to cancer patients?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Very good to see you there as well.
As we’ve laid out and presented, I think I said to the member that we’ll get information on both training seats but also on the increases in various disciplines within B.C. Cancer, and we’ll try and share that by tomorrow so that she’ll have a chance to follow up on that. I think that’s what she’s asking for.
There’s very significant, I’d say, competition for specialty health care. One of the advantages we have in British Columbia is that we’re British Columbia, and it’s a beautiful place to live. People want to stay here. We are building some of the most modern and extraordinary hospitals in the country. We’re adding research capacity in health care, and we’re recruiting people to our agency. So there is an ongoing and considerable recruitment effort across health authorities.
We’ll share some of the information from B.C. Cancer. They’re going to share it with us, and I’ll share it with the hon. member.
This is work we’re doing all the time. As I’ve said to her, we also have to take a long-term view of it. There’s adding positions. Obviously, when you increase the budget for B.C. Cancer, as we have, again and then again and then again, there are more people working there. That requires recruitment. There’s also replacing the people who are retiring and moving on. That’s an ongoing and high-priority effort in health care in general and here in British Columbia.
As I committed to with the previous question, I’m happy to share the details of how we’ve been doing with the hon. member.
R. Merrifield: I appreciate the minister’s comments. I hope that the minister sees that I am attempting to advocate for those that are on the front lines and attempting — again, back to the original comments at the beginning of these estimates — to bring hope and a message of what planning is being done on a move-forward basis.
As we know, the pandemic has been a light and the light that has shone through the cracks. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there has been a spotlight on health care, a spotlight on our front line and our front-line workers. It also has shown us just the cracks in our legislation and in our planning and in our programs. If we choose to simply ignore this light and just hope it will go away eventually and the cracks won’t be as noticeable, well, then we’re just doomed as a society to repeat it.
I love the words of Dr. Tam. I won’t quote her directly, but recently, on a webinar that I watched, she urged all governments to take the opportunities and the revelations of the pandemic, to make sure that we learn from them and to make sure that our sacrifice is not wasted, as a society.
I think that there is no greater area that has suffered than watching some of our racial minorities suffer through this pandemic as well as our front lines. I understand that all mandate letters — and this I will quote — have urged “a moral and ethical responsibility” to take racism and discrimination in all forms.
My question to start off a little bit of a different twist on health care and the front lines is: what are the specific funds that are dedicated to this end, within health care and within this minister’s mandate, and to reduce racism and discrimination in health care?
Hon. A. Dix: I agree with the member that some of the most important things we need to do are to address issues of racism in society and to address issues of racism in health care. We can’t heal in a system that is not safe for people.
I’ll just give an example to the hon. member. We did a report called In Plain Sight that was delivered by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. I’ll have more to say about that in a moment. It identified Indigenous People as 11 times more likely to leave, against the advice of their physician, one of the most prominent and highly respected health care institutions in all of B.C. than the average woman in that case.
One of the things we did in the middle of the pandemic, faced with concerns about racism in the system, was launch the In Plain Sight report. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who, in my view, is an extraordinary person and an extraordinary British Columbian, agreed to do the report in June of 2020. By November 30, she released the report.
When you look at other reports that have been done and the quality of the report, from the point of view of data and the point of view of the involvement of people and the point of view of the quality of the recommendations, that report is an outstanding piece of work.
One of my tasks as Minister of Health — with the assistance of our new Associate Deputy Minister of Health, Dawn Thomas, the current vice-president of the Vancouver Island Health Authority who is working for us as Associate Deputy Minister of Health as well, and an outstanding leader; and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond herself; and Indigenous leaders across B.C. — is to implement that report. It provides, I think, a clear road map with respect to Indigenous People in health care and what we need to do.
I think we started some of this work with a significant engagement in many health authorities, in particular, I would argue, in the Interior Health Authority, over time. I would note the work with many nations in the Interior Health Authority of the former CEO Chris Mazurkewich, who the member will be familiar with, which was excellent work. But it was collective work. It’s why we now have the most diverse health authority boards we’ve ever seen. Each health authority board has two Indigenous members on it but many others who represent diverse communities.
At every level, we have to put this at the centre of our action. One of the things that I’m most proud of was the decision by this Legislature to introduce and pass Bill 47, which repealed Bills 29 and 94, which disproportionately and outrageously negatively affected racialized communities in health care. We passed that bill unanimously — one of the most important days that I will never forget in public life.
We have to make those actions at every level, from a leadership level to a board level to a hospital level to a community level. We need to make the health care system a reflection of the anti-racism that we all aspire to represent in the conduct of our daily lives.
R. Merrifield: I would agree with the minister. What are the specific funds dedicated to this end? I’ll ask it in maybe a little bit of a different way, as he brought up the Turpel-Lafond report. Which of the recommendations of the Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond report will be implemented?
Hon. A. Dix: The task of Dawn Thomas, who will be leading for us the team involving the First Nations Health Authority and First Nations representatives but also representatives of health care that will be put in place, is to implement the report.
Part of that implementation — and budgeted this year in incremental funding — is $45 million over the next three years to deal with First Nations cultural safety and humility. That’s not necessarily the sufficient number or the number, but they are additional, incremental, identifiable dollars that are in place right now to address the issue of addressing Indigenous racism in our health care system.
R. Merrifield: I would agree with the minister. That’s a great start.
My next question is: how much of the budget is going towards the First Nations Health Authority?
Hon. A. Dix: Just in the interests of time — I know the member has more questions — I’ll say this. Obviously, the primary funder of the First Nations Health Authority, which I think was a really significant achievement of the previous period…. People in B.C. will know the outstanding work led by Grand Chief Doug Kelly in developing the First Nations Health Authority, and many other people as well. I know the challenge of that because of the diversity of views that are there.
The First Nations Health Authority took its primary funding from the previous services provided by Health Canada. There’s the federal funding, and then there’s an agreement we have with the First Nations Health Authority that is significant in terms of funding.
What I want to bring up to date for the member, and I’ll share with her in the morning, is the work we’ve done together in terms of immunization. I think the First Nations Health Authority has played a really remarkable role working with regional health authorities, such that in all of the many diverse 204 communities around B.C., all of the community approaches and priority were given to immunization against COVID-19 in those health authorities.
In addition, there’s a series of tripartite agreements. We have agreements with the First Nations Health Authority to build out First Nations–led primary care. For example, in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, at 12th and Nanaimo, Lu’ma Housing has a community health clinic. That’s one of the development projects of that.
In Surrey, there are others we’re building and doing that work. In the Eastern Fraser Valley with the Sts’ailes. There’s a primary care plan to expand out the Indigenous-led primary care facilities in B.C. that will serve Indigenous communities and, inevitably, the broader community as well, but Indigenous-led and directed by First Nations communities, and the work we’re doing with the Métis National Council and others.
All of that work is coming together, and we see that we provide both, therefore, operational funding to the ministry, and to the First Nations Health Authority…. I’ll just read this out for the member. The ministry provided $5.51 million in 2016-17; $7.88 million in ’17-18; $10.27 million in ’18-19; and $13.17 million in ’19-20. I will have this written out for the member. And $10.97 million in 2021 to support joint project primary care initiatives. I would expect that number will be significantly more in 2021-22.
In addition, in the period in ’19-20, the ministry provided a further lump sum of $22 million to support the FNHA. The ministry, in the time of the FNHA, has also provided $100 million, but that time was from 2006 to 2019-20. That’s what this period reflects. The base operation funding for the First Nations Health Authority is $18.9 million.
We also manage on their behalf their schedule for their prescription drug program and, obviously, through the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, are doing a significant amount of projects around the province. I’ll be happy to share all of the details of those.
R. Merrifield: I do appreciate the minister and the update. What I would ask is if the minister could provide me not only with the numbers up to 2020-2021, but also 2021-22 and what is included in this budget.
I also want to just echo the commendation of the First Nations Health Authority and just how comprehensive their health and wellness indicators are. I think that here’s a lot that we could learn or glean from, how they are actually transforming health and wellness and how they are actually emulating just some of the cultural aspects. It’s truly a beautiful document and a beautiful read. I hope that we support this effort in meaningful ways.
There’s also, though, the Métis Nation health that we are contemplating or mindful of. As the Métis people make up roughly one-third of B.C.’s Indigenous people yet the government does not use distinctions, base language, or include the Métis Nation in the provincial budget….
In the spirit of reconciliation, and in the year your government passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, could the minister please tell me why the government excludes one of the recognized Indigenous groups in Canada’s constitution?
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just say, to finish on the FNHA, that from the beginning of our…. We stood up our response to the public health emergency around COVID-19. The First Nations Health Authority has been represented at every meeting. They’ve been involved and integrated at every level, as they are…. Every time the health authority chairs are together, the First Nations Health Authority is represented. In other words, I think they’ve been a key part at every level, including the leadership level, from the beginning of the pandemic.
With respect to Métis Nation B.C., as was the case under previous Ministers of Health, we work with Métis Nation B.C. Funding is provided. The First Nations Health Authority is a different creation. It’s a creation of the federal government and came through a path in its own way.
I’ll just give you an example. The In Plain Sight report was developed by Dr. Turpel-Lafond. The process, going forward from there, will include Métis Nation B.C., as you would expect. We continue to do that.
I think it’s fair to say, as the Minister of Health, that we’ve continued what previous governments have done in this respect. I think Métis Nation B.C. has played a very important role in this. We’ll need them to continue to play a role. As the member rightly says, the Métis Nation is a significant fact in B.C. life, and there are significant health indicators.
One of the things that we determined, for example, through the immunization program is a very significant level…. Métis in B.C. were included in the vaccination program. As you know, Indigenous people in B.C. 18 and above who are not living in First Nations communities were included from the beginning. There was some debate about that in some places — but included from the beginning. That included Métis people in B.C. from the beginning. When we opened it up to our Elders, we also included Indigenous people 18 and above.
The impact of that is reflected in the numbers that we have for that, which is that as of…. I’m just looking at the date here, because our vaccination numbers change every day. As of last week, 67.7 percent of Métis who are 18 and over have received their first dose of vaccine. We’re able to determine that. We put that measure in place, and that was put in place on the recommendation of the provincial health officer, who also works with Métis Nation B.C. I’ll just note, as well, that amongst Métis people, 84.6 percent who are 65 and older have received their first dose of immunization.
The effect of prioritizing and working with it is that that community was well protected in terms of vaccination and very much involved at that priority level because of the social determinants of health outcomes that we all know are reflected in general health information around B.C. As well, the In Plain Sight report obviously reflected on and directly addressed the concerns and involved Métis Nation B.C. and Métis people in British Columbia.
R. Merrifield: The Métis Nation relationship accord II lists the health of individual families and communities as a shared priority.
I agree that we do see the health status of Métis people in the Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond In Plain Sight data. It notes that Métis health is actually quite poor. On page 132: Métis citizens experience significantly higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, depression, ischemic heart disease, COPD compared to other residents in B.C.
Will there be an investment made in Métis health this year?
Hon. A. Dix: I think one of the important things to look at is the data and to properly assess needs. One of the things that the provincial health officer expected to do this year regularly — and has recently released — is wellness reports with respect to the First Nations community and Indigenous people. We’ll be expecting to do a similar wellness report, which will help to guide, I think, our policies going forward.
In addition, we have a partnership table on the implementation, which will involve Metis Nation B.C., of the In Plain Sight report, and that’s a priority. We continue to expand services, particularly in communities such as Surrey and Vancouver, for Indigenous people and Indigenous communities.
I’m not sure whether you’ll see something in parallel to what we’re doing with the First Nations Health Authority. But certainly, as demonstrated in the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and the ongoing work of the provincial health officer and the In Plain Sight report…. It shows the priority we give to the health and wellness of Métis people.
R. Merrifield: We’ll switch a little bit to a different form of racism. That type of racism we’ve seen is the 700 percent in terms of the increase in acts of violence against Asian and South Asian British Columbians.
Many Asians found accessing information as well as their vaccinations during this last few months difficult. Racism is not always overt or direct. Oftentimes racism can simply be what we’re providing in care or the way that we do so, in a way that’s not understood or accepted or socially proper in other cultures.
My question is: what is being done to address this for other racial minorities that fall outside of the Turpel-Lafond report?
Hon. A. Dix: Really, this reflects a government commitment well beyond the Ministry of Health. It’s directed from the Premier’s office. It’s reflected in individual initiatives — for example, the restoration of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, which empowers people. It doesn’t empower government. It empowers people to see the expression and to support and give expression to the need for human rights across communities in our province.
It sees expression, yes, in the In Plain Sight report, in the work, on a day-to-day basis, I think, that we carried out in the immunization campaign to provide communications across communities and to respond to communities. One of the reasons we sought out, in a broad request for public involvement, the views of hundreds of thousands of people, to hear the specific views of people in different circumstances across the province.
There are significant initiatives across the health care system, both in terms of representation at all levels and in terms of anti-racism, to reflect that in the way the health system interacts with all communities and to give priorities to issues as well.
One of the things that we worked on and I worked on with people in my community, which is maybe the second most diverse community in all of B.C., is the impact of hepatitis on certain communities for historic reasons beyond the communities. It happened to be the case. There are certain…. The priority given to that care reflects the work that the community did in advocating for people in the community.
We have to empower community members. We have to see…. They have to be reflected in the boards of health care, in the senior management of health care. I’m very proud, for example, in terms of the representation of women in our health care system, which is important. All five regional health authority presidents are women and are leading efforts to reduce racism in their health authorities. I think that reflects the change we’d like to see.
All of those actions are taken. But we have a governmentwide responsibility in everything we do to reflect anti-racism in our government with all of those actions taken, from high-profile actions, like the restoration of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, to the day-to-day actions to our response to racism when it occurs, I think that’s a responsibility of every minister in the government.
Since the Minister of Health of course represents a significant share of both the government’s budget and those working for government…. And an organization such as Fraser Health is maybe the most diverse health authority in the country, led by Dr. Victoria Lee, is leading many of those efforts in their jurisdiction. I think the health system is working on these issues.
I hesitate to say that we’re doing a good job, because that would imply that I see an end to the need for this work or that there’s something that we’ve achieved that is sufficient in the face of the problem. But I think it’s something that I expect at every level of our health care system to reflect all the time. Some of the key actions we’ve taken have certainly reflected that.
R. Merrifield: I’m glad that you brought up the issue of women. I want to talk a little bit about something that many women would find somewhat discriminatory. That is the issue of birth control. So I, having four boys and a girl, have many talks about the cost of being a woman but also the cost of not being able to afford birth control.
In this last election, as well as the election before, the NDP promised, as part of its campaign, to fund birth control for women. Will the minister commit to funding all types of contraception, as a one-size-fits-all is not appropriate in this matter?
Hon. A. Dix: The Premier, our caucus, committed to a program in the election campaign. We are working and consulting with people to implement that program, and we will as a government. We’re doing that work now. It’s a significant campaign commitment.
I’m happy that the opposition parties, including, I think, the Green Party, are supportive of that. That’s good news. It’s our intention to move forward, obviously, doing the work on it now, as we have in a number of other areas where we’ve expanded access and led the country in access, particularly with respect to women’s health.
We have done so, I think, in a thoughtful way that empowers people. An example of that was when I first became Minister of Health. We became the first province — and it required significant ingenuity at the time, in the creation by the Provincial Health Services Authority and the PharmaCare division of the Ministry of Health — to provide first-dollar coverage for Mifegymiso, and that has transformed a woman’s right to choose in the province and without a massive public debate.
Sometimes these issues are difficult, but we expanded the rights of women and choice in our province in a significant way. The result, I think, that would be interesting to people is the access for women across the province in a more equitable way — not just in major centres that had what were subjects often of huge debates, such as abortion clinics. It enhanced their access and their control. The result has been, as I think you would expect, a significant reduction in the number of surgical abortions in our province.
All of that happened because we took action in that area on a major women’s health issue. This is another major women’s health issue. The Premier has stated the position of the government. It’s my job to implement a program that works for women. We’re doing the work right now, led by the Ministry of Health by our PharmaCare division, but obviously involving women as well, to see that this program is implemented.
It’s a fundamental commitment, and it’s my expectation that it will come forward consistent with the commitment made by the Premier in the election campaign.
R. Merrifield: When will this funding be available to women?
Hon. A. Dix: The officials in the Ministry of Health and others are consulting widely now and putting the program together. When we’re ready to announce it and develop, of course, the funding in support of it, we’ll announce it to everybody. I don’t have a date to provide to the member except to say that it’s a commitment by the government in this mandate and one that we absolutely intend to deliver on.
R. Merrifield: Is it in this budget?
Hon. A. Dix: The PharmaCare budget is a broad budget, and we make allocation decisions within it. The program will be ready when it’s ready, and then it will be announced by the government and implemented. I’m not announcing it today. I’m not providing a date today, but I can tell the member that the government intends to deliver on this and is doing the work to see that that happens.
R. Merrifield: As part of also looking at women’s health, would the minister commit to funding a portion of fertility treatments as well?
Hon. A. Dix: That’s not something that we’ve considered in the current fiscal year. I know that there’s significant advocacy for people who wish to access such services and would like the government either to support it or to provide support for it. I hear that advocacy. I meet with groups from time to time in that area, but there’s not a plan in this fiscal year to pursue that — different from the previous proposal, where there was a specific commitment and we’re doing active work.
R. Merrifield: In other jurisdictions, there are supports for women with fertility treatments that are provided by provinces. I would ask: if it is not in this fiscal budget, would the minister consider providing some planning exercises to potentially include it in further budgets?
Hon. A. Dix: That’s an issue we’ll continue to work on and, obviously, hear from people on.
As I recall, the advocacy on this issue has taken place now over decades. There are regular requests from people asking us to consider this and always requests to expand the scope of health care. So we’ll absolutely consider that in future years.
R. Merrifield: Because we have only, really, time for one more question, I believe, I’m going to go back to the BCEHS for just one more. I had a question that I omitted, and that is….
Paramedics stationed in rural communities were previously guaranteed four hours of pay per on-call shift at a regular pay rate, whether or not any calls came in. That model, the kilo guarantee, was phased out and the $2-per-hour model became the new normal. This was with the understanding that the BCEHS would resume work on a new scheduled on-call model.
Is that the model that was brought in just recently? And why was this change done in the middle of a pandemic and before work on a new scheduled on-call model was completed?
Hon. A. Dix: At the end of this response, I’ll move the motion. I think we’re at that time. I get that sense.
The reason we’re proceeding is to improve the Ambulance Service. The scheduled on-call model was part of our negotiated collective agreement. It involves the hiring of hundreds of full-time paramedics all over B.C. It is the plan we need for the future. It’s consistent with the direction of the Ambulance Service. It’s the right, I think, approach for the Ambulance Service in B.C., and it reflects our signed and negotiated agreement.
The member is suggesting that we not make these improvements because we’re in a pandemic. I think. I don’t think she’s really suggesting that. So I want to be fair. I don’t think that’s the case.
I think we have to continue to take steps to improve the Ambulance Service. That is precisely what we’re doing, with the most significant investment we’ve ever seen, the most significant hiring of people we’ve ever seen, the transformation of the Ambulance Service — essentially, the professionalization and the creation of full-time paramedics where they did not exist before.
This is an excellent plan and one that we have to continue to proceed with. I suppose we could have put the plan on hold. I suppose we could have asked the union to put the collective agreement on hold. We believe what we negotiated was the right thing to do, and that’s why we’re proceeding.
R. Merrifield: I’m going to read out a response back from the member for Cariboo North. She actually says…. She wants clarification on this. She thanks you for the response, but just to clarify….
Two ambulances are currently serving Quesnel until the end of June — one full time, 24-7, with eight full-time positions, and one on call, 24-7, with currently six on-call staff at the Quesnel station. Previously, one ambulance was staffed with one full-time paramedic and one on-call paramedic, with both crew members posted and stationed for their shift.
You’re correct that a change occurred to the on-call paramedic position to a full-time FTE in April 2021, which resulted in four new full-time FTEs in Quesnel. You’ve been advised that there is no change to the second unit in Quesnel, and you’ve been provided possibly a misleading statement, which is very concerning.
The critical information not raised to you is that the four new full-time positions went to four local on-call staff, which has subsequently resulted in the on-call unit going out of service. The station only has four on-call staff left. Likely, this unit will be completely unstaffed by August 1, leaving one ambulance servicing a large area.
The community ambulance is 4,000 calls annually: 2,700 calls completed by the full time and 1,300 calls completed by the on call. Without the second ambulance staff, there is no one to respond to 1,300 calls. This will lead to negative patient outcomes. The closest ambulance for support is 130 kilometres away from Prince George, 130 kilometres from Williams Lake or 100 kilometres from Wells, if in service.
These communities are also struggling to staff ambulances and often do not have units available. To give you an understanding of the size of the response area for the Quesnel station, the ambulance responds 70 kilometres to the south, to Alexandria; 70 kilometres to the north, to Hixon; 130 kilometres east, to Wells and Bowron Lake; and 200 kilometres west to Kluskus, including serving a large Indigenous population.
I don’t need a response necessarily for that. I understand that is a lot of information for the minister to take in. I just wanted the minister to be aware of that in response to what the minister had said at the beginning of our….
With that, I will conclude for today and come back tomorrow with regular vigour.
Hon. A. Dix: I just know that the transformation of four on-call positions to four full-time positions is good news for the people in Quesnel — and good news for those four people. It is.
I’m happy…. I have a very positive working relationship with the member for Cariboo North. So I’m sure we can have a further discussion on that.
With that, I would say…. The members of my caucus often understand my desire to go into overtime. I feel that the elimination of the all-night session is something that is…. It may not have been a good innovation. I’m always ready to go all night. I would love it. I’ll be all alone in here, but that’s all right.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:47 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); A. Walker in the chair.
The committee met at 2:42 p.m.
On Vote 43: ministry operations, $948,948,000 (continued).
M. Lee: We’ve had significant exchanges. We’ve also provided to the minister and his office the update in terms of the schedule of topics for today’s lineup, including the major topics, plus the topics for the local MLAs as well, for today and through the balance of tomorrow. I hope that will facilitate the conversation in the time that we have. I look forward to all of that discussion.
Just to lead off in this next section. Of course, the minister and his office have been very good at facilitating some of the briefings that I’ve been able to attend with the members for Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin and Nechako Lakes. Those are the three MLAs now that will talk to the minister about some of their concerns and questions relating to side roads in their region.
Over to the MLA for Cariboo North.
C. Oakes: I want to sincerely thank the members for this opportunity to raise the concerns of the constituents of Cariboo North. I think it’s important…. I have limited time, and I want to effectively be able to utilize this time to represent the constituents of Cariboo North.
I think, in context, it’s important to make opening remarks with the fact that I just looked at DriveBC to understand exactly, as of today, this discussion, the impact of roads that are currently being challenged in Cariboo North. If you look at the Cariboo travel advisory, we have eight roads currently closed, 89 roads that are impacted. That does not include a number of the roads that impact constituents, such as Radio Range Road, and other roads that I do think it’s important to raise and discuss here. So a significant impact in Cariboo North with our road infrastructure.
I am going to start with a petition I just raised in the Legislature, and that is a petition with 78 signatures from Likely and region. I do want to note that there were far more signatures, but unfortunately, the Big Lake store burned down recently, and there were a lot of people who had signed the petition there.
The first question. The petitioners are requesting to repave Likely Road. It is deteriorating by the day, and action is required this summer. So to the minister, will we actually see repaving of Likely Road this year?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question, and thank you to her for passing on information that’s been really important to ministry staff, who have set up a command centre in her region to deal with a very high-water freshet season this year, coming on the heels of a very wet winter season that also was threatening and damaging roads.
As she knows, we have 200 personnel in the region that we have moved there from other district offices to deal with the Cariboo flooding situation and get onto roads that we can repair immediately. People have been working through long weekends. Contractors have been working into the evening. We’ve hired locals to supply their equipment, to add to the capacity to respond to that.
I just wanted to say that at the outset. She and her colleagues and the Cariboo regional district, in particular, have been very helpful to the efforts of the ministry to be able to respond in a way that will take into account the very extraordinary challenges that the Cariboo road network has experienced.
In regards to Likely, B.C., and the road that is in question here, I’m advised that at this point in the season, we are going to do extensive maintenance on the road. It is scheduled to be entirely repaved next year.
C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. I do want to thank the staff and the minister. It has been a significantly challenging several years — 200 roads last year, 150 this year.
I guess my question…. These are obviously…. The damage that has happened is beyond the scope of the quantified report plans that are being put forward by the maintenance contractors. When we see these types of challenges that have happened in the last few years…. Where does that money come from? Are those emergency funds that come out of the ministry, or are these funds that…? On the extraordinary level of impact in the regions, are those the requirement of the district maintenance contract to pick up?
Hon. R. Fleming: The types of repair that will be done.… There are some that will be done by the contractor that are in the scope of what the contractor is compensated for. So both Emcon and Dawson in the region in question.
Then, for additional money that is necessary for emergency repairs…. The ministry funds that from preservation funds that are built into the budget. Last year, she may recall, about $30 million of Cariboo-specific emergency road repair funds were expended. We believe we’re on track for another $30 million in emergency repairs this year. Then we have some proactive resiliency funding that is going to go into the region that will help with things like riprap, culvert expansion programs, scour, as well as drainage improvements, in the effort to avoid some recurring flooding problems in the areas that we will repair as we go.
C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. I think what is also critically important is how we engage the federal government. I think when you start looking at the scope of the challenges that we’ve certainly seen, it’s critically important that the federal government becomes a part of the solution and the investment.
Last year over 200 roads were impacted in the region. A lot of those impacts, a lot of the work, what ended up happening…. What happens on the ground is that when you have these significant events, it really does impact the work that the maintenance contract can do out of their quantified plan, whether it’s culvert repairs or…. Sometimes things definitely shift in the plans, and then we find ourselves, the next year, with significant challenges.
A lot of the issues that we faced this year, when you look at Horsefly Road particularly…. That culvert was supposed to be replaced last year, but I recognize there were all these challenges. Then, not only do you have, not necessarily, just a culvert replacement. Now you have a very expensive, significant repair.
I’m not a road engineer, but I’m certainly somebody that listens closely to constituents and has been tracking this over a number of years. So I was very surprised…. If you look at page 157 in the budget document, looking at your service plan, it notes that the Ministry of Transportation is the lead negotiator for the next round of federal-provincial infrastructure programs and is also responsible for the negotiations with the disaster financial assistance funds with the federal government.
If you look in the budget document this year, there are zero dollars going to disaster financial assistance. I’ve certainly followed up with a number of stakeholders and ministry staff. I’m just curious. This is not to put anyone in a defensive position. I’m very concerned that with two other roads damaged last year, we were not successful at accessing any of the disaster financial assistance funds through the federal government.
I want to work with the government, and I certainly know my colleagues do as well, to make sure that we maximize the fullest extent of funding necessary to come back to our regions to do a thorough repair of these roads. And not just…. Well, I’ll leave it that, and then I’ll ask the next question.
I’m wondering: why are there zero dollars from the federal government on the significant road damage that happened last year? Where are we on track for putting applications in for this year? Is there something that we can do, as members of the opposition, to assist?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you for the question.
The province, of course, has a number of roads that have been washed out, in various degrees of disrepair. As she knows, some of these are going to be major rebuilds. Some of them are relatively minor; we can get in and repair to the same or better condition than we found. There are a lot of jobs that are in the hundreds of thousands — under $2 million.
The federal money is important for helping us when we have disaster situations. I have spoken, in the case of this flooding season, with the Minister of Transport in Ottawa to let him know the extent of the damage, to let him know some of the major areas of concern that will need to be rebuilt and, in many cases, realigned, and to give him that heads-up that we would be calling on them. He expects that and understands it and appreciates it. He appreciates that it’s, in many cases, related to a changing hydrology and the impacts of climate change in the Cariboo that is causing these extraordinary events that are damaging our infrastructure.
I should point out, generally, that in this Transportation budget, the federal government’s contributions are significant to our ministry. Of the $7.6 billion in capital we expect to spend over the next three years, $1.6 billion of that primarily comes from other partners, and that means the federal government.
Emergency management B.C. is in active discussions with Public Safety Canada. Our record on getting federal assistance I think has been pretty good — about half a billion in recent years. That was to address extraordinary disaster events in the Peace region in 2016. In 2018, significant funds from the federal government for, primarily, the Thompson and Okanagan region, as we responded to disastrous events there in the southern Interior.
The member will know, too, I think — I believe we covered this in one of our briefings to her — that the West Fraser Road, which needs to be rebuilt, is broken in three places over five kilometres and is going to require an extensive repair, and is likely to be north of $100 million, in terms of rebuilding it proper, to a higher climate-resilience standard — is one where we have an agreement-in-principle in place with the federal government.
We don’t have a booked amount, in terms of what their contribution will look like, but we do have a federal understanding. They’ve been very receptive and acknowledging that this is a project that should be a recipient of disaster financial assistance. So we’re underway, as she knows, in rebuilding West Fraser.
I think that just gives you an example of discussions and commitments-in-principle we’ve received and, for this season, discussions that we’ve had with the federal minister to give them a heads-up that they should anticipate requests as we rebuild infrastructure to a higher, more resilient standard in the Cariboo.
C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. I do want to acknowledge and thank the ministry for their investment and partnership with the federal government for West Fraser Road. Of course, that road was impacted in 2018, and it’s been significantly challenging.
It has definitely disrupted both the quality of life and the economy of the area. when we talk about 150-plus roads this year, 200 last year…. These are people’s lives. Behind every single one of these roads, there are families that live — an economy, especially the roads that are closed. Again I make this argument, as I do every single year, and I’d be happy again to make this presentation to the federal government. A lot of the damage that was done last year and this year is clearly aligned with the damage that happened in the 2017 and 2018 wildfires.
To make the presentation to the federal government…. Yes, it’s about climate change. It’s also about an incident that has happened in the region that we continue to try and…. As we look at doing resiliency and recovery, I would say road repair is a significant portion of that. We should be accessing those funds to do that. I know that we have been able to access a small amount, but I think you’ve clearly articulated that when these roads go, we go from an investment in a culvert of $100,000, $200,000 now to a complete rebuild of a road that’s now up to $100 million. These are the kinds of challenges that we have in the region.
Again, I offer to the government and the ministry that we, as the Cariboo, are sending a very clear message to all levels of government that we have not rebuilt following the wildfires and that we still continue to need to have that investment.
I guess I move now to communications. That’s one of the service objectives in the service plan, objective 2.3: to provide excellent service to British Columbians. Key strategy: communicate and engage efficiently and effectively with the ministry’s stakeholders.
It has been extremely challenging to get updates from the ministry. Let me preface it with this. I recognize that last year, with over 200 roads damaged, the ministry was obviously extraordinarily busy. This year with 150 roads again…. Granted, right now we’re looking at 89 roads and eight closed just in the Cariboo. I understand that there is…. I get that. But for our constituents who live behind these roads, whose lives have been absolutely completely impacted, there needs to be a better way to communicate back to the stakeholders what the plan is for the roads.
I’m going to use one road as a particular example of this. Soda Creek–MacAlister Road has been closed now for several years. The constituents did as was asked — to call the 1-800 line through the ministry to get an update. What they were told was: “If the damage didn’t happen this year, don’t call that line. We’re just dealing with this spring freshet. We’re not dealing with past spring freshets.”
Then the other challenge that we’re hearing, for example, on that particular road, is we’ve been waiting over a…. We know that there was a report that was done. I think that’s the challenge. Our office doesn’t get updated. We just hear from our constituents that they hear that there’s a report done. Then when we ask the ministry, they say: “Stay tuned. We’ll be updating the constituents.” I guess a comment on how we can better communicate, how we can ensure….
The Premier made the commitment yesterday in estimates on this notion of not being able to talk with our regional managers and our local managers on particular issues as they pertain to constituent issues, such as a road, that we should be able to have that conversation locally, with our local and our regional managers.
Using this as an example and the objective within the service plan, for example, when can Soda Creek-MacAlister Road expect an update from the ministry staff on what the government will do about that closed road?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate some of the context she was providing about how hard hit Cariboo residents have been and how many of them who live in areas serviced by road systems are affected differently than other Cariboo residents in terms of the types of travel times they have to live with and the inconvenience that is part of having to get in there and repair things.
As she knows, we create a priority. Obviously, the most dire situations are ones where all access is cut off. Those are the priority projects.
I should mention…. I think the member was generous earlier in giving thanks to the boots on the ground, the people, the experts, the geotechnical advisors, the hydrologists that are in the Cariboo region right now trying to figure out what kinds of fixes can be done, working around the clock, in some cases. We did that last year as well.
Of the 200 road incidents where there were impacts, 175 of them were repaired and completed, which is good. That’s 87½ percent. That doesn’t mean a lot to the people in the 25 other areas that have to continue to live with that, but it does give you an idea of the scale of mobilization that has been occurring to get roads repaired and functional.
She made some comments about communication. Our commitment to her is to continue to have the district managers reach out weekly to constituency offices in the region. That’s a practice that will continue if it is useful to the member, through her constituency assistants.
She asked specifically about Soda Creek. Soda Creek is interesting, because again, going back to that priority assessment, it’s a loop road. So there aren’t people trapped there. They may have to take a longer way out. The area where the road is not passable right now is still an active landslide. So it’s a complex level of assessment that is required about what the fix is going to look like on Soda Creek. What I can say is that we can provide the member with a substantive update based on the latest assessments on what her options might be when it comes to Soda Creek and repairing it sometime later this summer.
C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Minister. I really, sincerely do appreciate that.
My time is running out. I think probably the most effective use of my last question is to say this. The first is: when we see these types of impacts on the roads, please know that it’s not just about an inconvenience for people. Many of these roads, we can’t get ambulances on. We can’t get the fire department on them. These aren’t necessarily rural remote roads or side roads. These are, some of them, right off Highway 97.
The challenges that we are experiencing…. Imagine if you lived in a pretty populated area, as it means for a rural area, and then all of a sudden now you actually can’t get an ambulance to your house. It is an inconvenience, but it’s much…. It’s about public safety. It’s about economy. It’s about the whole transportation network.
I will say what is desperately needed, and I’ve raised this before, is a regional transportation plan that clearly outlines the issues that we have with the entire region. We’re down to the point where, again — I said this last year — Highway 97 was almost at risk. The backup for Highway 97 is gone. It’s one of the closed roads. The backup to the backup of Highway 97 is a road that is — that’s at Knickerbocker — highly vulnerable. I can say the same about going into Williams Lake. All of our major roads, almost every road in and out, are at risk of compromise or have been compromised.
I just think if you look at the ministry’s responsibility, if I review the service plan, there is a clear need to have an effective, safe transportation network in British Columbia, and I think that there needs to be a review of the Cariboo on what that transportation network looks like. Where are the risks? Where are the vulnerabilities? What are some of the options?
In closing, I heard the minister say that we can have weekly meetings with our regional staff. So just to clarify, if I put in a request to get an update on where we are at on the roads…. For example, on DriveBC, if I was to put in a request to get an update on the 89 roads that are impacted and the eight roads that are closed…. We’ve certainly tried to put in that request multiple times. What we have heard is that we need to go through your office first to get that approved.
The challenge is, I think…. Obviously, clearly, it’s a miscommunication. So this is our opportunity here, today, to clarify and to set things in motion to make sure that, moving forward, we have the opportunity to reach out to our regional transportation manager and ask or raise issues with roads.
What I can tell you is that we could save government a lot of money, we could save our constituents a lot of challenges, if we had the ability, as MLAs, to reach out to our regional transportation staff and say: “Look, I think you’ve got a culvert that you need to look at.” Or: “We’re hearing challenges in this part of the area. This road is damaged, if we can get somebody in to fix it.”
I think it would go a long way. Just to put it into perspective, we have the Ministry of Transportation roads and then, of course, in our rural areas, we also have the challenges with FLNRO roads. A lot of times, the two intersect, and we may ask for one road….
The process that is currently in place…. Let me just use one road as an example. We put in a request about Radio Range Road. We sent an email March 8. We sent another one on the 16th. On the 24th, we were told to go to the DM’s office. We did. On April 11, asked for an update. On May 11, asked again for an update. On May 25, asked again.
On June 4, we got a response. It’s actually a FLNRO road, and the response that we received back was: “This area was impacted by wildfires, high water levels. We’ll investigate options.” Well, I could have said that. But for people who are flooded, and their road is gone or at risk of being gone, we’ve got to find a better system.
I think to be really effective, supporting our constituents and respecting taxpayer dollars…. If I could get the commitment from the minister that we can, again, start with the meetings that we used to have — quarterly meetings, for example, with our regional manager, that listed the roads and listed the work that would be done — I think that would be a significant improvement on what is happening right now.
Hon. R. Fleming: There was a lot packed in there, into the member’s final question, if indeed it is.
Let me just, first, generally say that I’m taking the situation very seriously. It’s why I’ve been involved in a number of briefings around the Cariboo. It’s why we’ve reached out to the federal government. It’s why we’ve moved people from around the province to be on the ground, on the scene.
Some of them have been there for weeks and longer, now working out of the district operating centre. The Cariboo regional district provided space to house all the additional supports and human resources that were put into the region.
I’m told that the 1-844 number for residents to directly communicate to the district operating centre, including the district manager, is handling, right around now, about five calls per week. It’s maybe lower than we expected, but it’s still useful in terms of residents that are availing themselves of that. That’s really for people to say: “Look, there’s flooding here. It’s happening now” or “I’m worried that there’s going to be a drainage failure” or “This ditch is not functioning” or “A culvert is about to be overwhelmed.” That’s why we set it up when we did. That’s a resource that is available.
Just to give the member a further sense of the scale of the response right now, we have 170 pieces of equipment available to us in the region to do road repair as quickly as we can. Of course, some roads we can’t get onto this week, but we’ll be able to get onto them next week — that sort of thing. That’s how it goes. It’s the team assessing which roads are ready for repair. Having the capacity, which we have scaled up dramatically, to be able to go in there and do those repairs, I think, is important.
In terms of fiscal resources…. It’s worth stating, too, that in terms of the annual preservation funds in the budget that we’re discussing today, it’s now over $500 million. When we came into government, it was at or below $300 million annually. So there are significant resources there that have been enhanced to help ensure that the annual preservation programs are covering a wider part of the province and are available for these sorts of situations.
I would be a little concerned if the district manager was not responding in a timely way to inquiries from the MLA’s office. I do know that they endeavour to reply in a timely, effective way. If she can further advance any suggestions that might help us do that.
She mentioned Radio Range Road. I think she emailed our district manager on March 8. I’m informed that she got a reply from the district manager on the very same day. Yes, it was not our road; it was FLNRORD’s. I will take her information that, perhaps, in this case, it was FLNRORD who was not timely in a further response. I am advised that we responded to her constituency assistant the very same day. So I’m pleased to hear that.
If there’s any follow-up for us to do, I can speak to the member offline about that. If there are any other situations where the member is feeling that she’s not getting timely information, we can deal with that as well.
I do have a long list of engagements. I know she’s made many inquiries into our office. They don’t always have to go through my office at all, nor would I want them to. I understand that there was an inquiry just a couple of weeks ago, at the end of May, about the status of a project by the MLA. That was responded to directly. It didn’t go through my office.
If there are any situations where the member wishes to either create structures or processes beyond the weekly call that her constituency office receives from the district manager, I’ll take those suggestions under advisement. We certainly want to get the information to her that she needs to do her job with her constituents.
I appreciate her comments earlier in this discussion and the compliment she had for the staff about how hard they’re working and doing their job and making every effort to communicate quickly and accurately with people who live in the Cariboo region.
M. Lee: I just wanted to thank the minister for his response and for the time that he took to consider that, in reference to the member for Cariboo North. I know that, in listening in, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky has sent in another example.
Certainly, on behalf of our opposition caucus, we appreciate the fact that the minister has confirmed, as we’ve seen at times on the ground — and then the minister spoke to us earlier — an understanding of the importance of MLA roles in the regions. I know that when I sat in on some of the briefings in the Cariboo region, the minister very much appreciated that direct line of communication and understanding of the on-the-ground issues that the member for Cariboo North just outlined.
Very much, what I’m hearing the minister say is that the practice will continue in terms of ensuring that regional MOTI directors are in direct conversation and communication with local MLAs and that that line of communication will continue beyond, obviously, all of the other hotlines and other measures that are being put in place and the dedication of resources. We very much appreciated that.
The only comment I would make is: if there are any MLAs in our caucus that have any particular challenges with that line of communication, that certainly, I presume, the minister would be open to hearing that directly to ensure that we are getting that direct line of communication with regional representatives and directors of MOTI.
Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, if there are MLAs in his caucus that want to bring something to my attention, either positive or, in some cases, negative experiences where they don’t feel they’ve had timely responses, I am absolutely fine with that.
What I would like, though, are MLAs in his caucus and all caucuses that are part of the assembly to continue to access their existing relationships with district managers out there. I understand that some of them are very strong. They very much value the direct connection they have in making inquiries on behalf of their constituents.
I also recognize that a lot of constituents don’t necessarily go through their MLA offices as their, sort of, first line of inquiry. It hurts me to say that, given our role, but that’s the way it is. They use multiple opportunities they have through our social media platforms. We covered those a little bit yesterday. We have five avenues for citizens of B.C. in every part of the province to be in touch with our ministry.
The avenue of sharing information or getting information, requesting information through district managers, through MLA offices, that’s under discussion today is one that I think is very valuable. I’ve heard all the evidence that supports that it is valuable and that that should continue. I’m supportive of that continuing. I know the district management team is as well.
M. Lee: One last quick point. I know that the member for Cariboo North talked about this in terms of the weekly call mechanism. As a component of the minister’s confirmation of the need and recognizing the need for on-the-ground direct line of communication between district managers and local MLAs, just a question to confirm that the weekly calls can be arranged directly between the local MLA and the local district manager office without necessarily having to go through the minister’s office. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Fleming: Let me try and make a clarity of distinction here. For very specific individual information requests that are related to a constituent or a small group of constituents, MLA offices should continue to access the lines of communication they have with district managers to make inquiries and get information that way.
If it’s of a nature where it’s a very detailed, regionwide area of concern, or something about a major project, and the MLA wants a briefing, and it’s more than just picking up the phone and getting a fairly simple response about the status or on-the-ground situation — where it’s, in fact, about a large project or a regionwide area of concern — then MLAs should continue the existing practice of going through my office so I can bring a team of both provincial and regional ministry experts that can make themselves available to the MLA. I know that this MLA has made that request, and we’ve provided briefings of that type of nature.
I think for the smaller, constituent-based types of timely information being requested, to continue to leverage the relationships they have with district managers is appropriate. I should mention that the weekly call is a standard in the Cariboo right now. It is not realistic in every part of the province every time. We would have too much staff resources going to weekly calls that may not be necessary at all.
When we’re in a situation where we have an active flood zone and we have roads that need to be repaired, then those weekly calls should continue to be, so long as they are useful to the MLA offices, the way we’re responding that situation.
M. Lee: I appreciate what the minister has said there. I would just encourage, in terms of the practice, recognizing resources here, if that’s the consideration among others. When we look at the Cariboo region and what’s been happening — certainly what I’ve seen, as the critic, with my colleagues….
As I started my comments at the beginning of the session, there has been a fair degree of cooperation from the minister’s office to ensure that the briefings are there for the members from Nechako Lakes, Cariboo-Chilcotin and Cariboo North, for example. But recognizing the actual concern of the region, knowing that, as the minister said, there has been a great redeployment of resources there, including ministry resources, it would seem appropriate that once the arrangement is set….
There’s a recognition in the Cariboo region, at least, that there is that ongoing weekly mechanism. It is something that is quite widespread, as the member for Cariboo North has talked about and as the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, I’m sure, will be about to talk about, as the minister well knows.
Again, I would just ask if the minister would ensure that at least for the regions that most need it, he would certainly consider the arrangement up front to ensure that those weekly call mechanisms were placed, as opposed to having to keep coming back to the minister’s office to revisit the weekly call mechanism.
Is that something that the minister would be prepared to consider here?
Hon. R. Fleming: The weekly meetings, to my understanding, are generally not with the MLA. They’re with the MLA’s constituency office staff. It should continue as long as it makes sense to do so.
When you have an urgent situation, when information is needed on a timely basis, when you have a situation that is quite extensive — in terms of the flooding that’s been experienced in the Cariboo, for example, or on previous occasions, if it was the North Thompson that needed a focus of urgency — that’s what we’ll continue to do.
I think the urgency of the Cariboo this spring is one that guided our response overall. To relocate 200-plus personnel from district offices around the province, to bring in the chief engineer from the Kicking Horse Canyon project to be one of our lead assessors and do engineering work on some of what we know will be big projects, in terms of rebuilding some of the roads that have been damaged and are still in active slide areas, I think speaks to the mobilization and the response that our government provided to the Cariboo.
It’s going to take a lot of work. There’s no question about it. It’s going to be a very busy, active summer, to get roads repaired. We have identified funds in our budget to do so — a very similar level of investment, as I mentioned earlier, in response to questions to the funding level, that we provided in the Cariboo last year to get, in that instance, 175 of the 200 roads repaired.
We want to move to a much more proactive model, continuing to provide, as we did through a variety of funds, including StrongerBC this year, investments in culverts, hundreds of kilometres worth of ditching programs, and really understanding, based on the recommendations from hydrologists, how to shift towards proactive, preventative repairs and investments that will help Cariboo road networks be more resilient.
M. Lee: Again, I do appreciate the minister trying to address this. Just to recap again, for specific issues that….
For example, in my colleague’s riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, something about a speed reader — that’s a specific item that presumably has come from a constituent concern or the MLA himself. That sounds like a discrete item that can go directly between the MLA and the district manager. Based on the minister’s previous answer, that would be my understanding.
Just a last point then. In terms of the regions and recognition of either Kicking Horse or, now, Cariboo region, I would again just ask the minister to please just consider, given the nature of all of the letters, communications, briefings and questions that are being asked here in estimates, on behalf of the MLAs in those regions, that those weekly calls are very vital to the local MLAs, to be able to have that direct line of dialogue and understanding.
I would say, during this period of time, where that redeployment of resources is happening, I think it’s appropriate for the local MLAs to be kept very much up to date with the local teams.
Would the minister please consider that request and take that back and make that happen?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the critic’s question, the commitment from the district team is to keep those weekly calls going. That’s appropriate in the Cariboo right now. That is the area of focus.
I would also say that calls are available between MLA offices and our district teams at any time. If there’s an ad hoc call that’s required because something is happening and it needs to be brought to our attention, or the MLA has a need for information and it doesn’t make any sense to wait till the end of the week for a weekly call, then by all means, call the district manager.
I would say for the time being, while weekly calls are necessary and desirable, we’ll keep those going. We’ll hope for a time in the near future that hopefully they won’t be necessary, because I think we could all be doing other things. But as long as they’re useful, we’ll keep doing them.
L. Doerkson: Thank you to my colleague and, certainly, the minister and the staff for this opportunity to ask a couple of questions. I just wanted to start by echoing some of the comments from my colleague from Cariboo North.
Of course, the entire region that we are in has experienced some unbelievable challenges. I am happy to hear the minister confirm that we will be able to reach out to our local offices, because that has been a bit of a mixed message. I can appreciate my colleague’s frustration, because that really has not been the direction that we’ve received. So I’m happy to hear the minister confirm that we can reach out.
I was also surprised to hear that the…. I guess I’m surprised and not surprised at the lack of calls going into the 1-800 number. Now, I’m appreciative that that system has been set up in Williams Lake, at the Cariboo regional district, but to be honest, I’ve had more than five calls since last evening.
I’m quite surprised that the call centre is only receiving five calls per week. I don’t know. I mean, it’s certainly not on my part. I’ve been advertising it, putting it on my Facebook. But perhaps that’s something that we could do a bit of a better job of — getting that number out there. I know that there are, certainly, a number of problems still with us.
Now, that said, floodwaters, in many cases, have receded. A lot of the properties that we have seen, for instance, in my riding — Borland, Valley, Knife creeks, all of those — have receded quite a bit. I can appreciate that the calls have gone down a little bit, but I was surprised to hear that there are only five a week.
That said, I want to move on to some questions. I do appreciate the time to meet with you, as we did a couple of weeks ago. At that time, I had talked about the Dog Creek area in general. I have spoken to this in the chamber, of course, as well. I think the last time that we met with the ministry, I had confirmed that there was at least one house that was breaking in half and that the family was in a position to likely have to move out. There was another house on Dog Creek that was also in jeopardy.
I’d like to update the minister and let him know that the family now has had to move out. The house is now unsafe. The house across the road from them is now also under consideration, and there are three more homes that we know of that are now in harm’s way as well. There is a letter-writing campaign now, started by a retirement community called Terravista, which has replaced an $800,000 wall out of their pocket. Many basements have been flooded in this community.
Dog Creek is now an absolute disaster. We have a slide there that continues daily. We have a road now that I believe the ministry has decided, in some areas, not to even repave. It sounds like we’ll just keep taking the pavement down until it’s gravel, until we figure this out.
The damage continues on Bann Road, Gibbon Road, from a culvert that I was told the ministry would reconsider or have a look at. I was also told that a hydrology study would be started up there, and I haven’t had any response to that for the last number of weeks. So I just wondered where we’re at with that project and if I could just get an update on Dog Creek in general.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The general question he asked was an overview or an update on the Dog Creek situation. If there’s something I left out, he’ll have a chance to come back at me with a follow-up, or we can do that offline.
The substantive things that he’s looking for, I think, in terms of the information…. He asked about the hydrology report that we’re doing with the Cariboo regional district. That is still underway. It’s scheduled to be completed this summer. Of course, part of what it is looking at is making a determination if the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, our drainage systems, in any way have contributed to the situation.
He also asked about Gibbon and Roberts Drive. We’ve just completed the lidar study that has surveyed the slide movements there. That should be information that can be communicated with him in his constituency office, if that’s something that’s useful or that some of his constituents have requested. That has just been completed.
In terms of residents who’ve had to move or are contemplating moving, I think they had a meeting between district and ministry staff and the MLA. There was a discussion about that, about what relief might be possible. So we’ve forwarded information to emergency management B.C. about the displacement of individuals and families, and we’ve asked them to get involved in the situation. That has happened as a result of the meeting that we had with the MLA — that EMBC has been brought into the picture.
L. Doerkson: Just to update you, we have heard from EMBC. I believe that the funding for help that’s available for these people is in the neighbourhood of about three days. The DFA applications — two of them that we’ve sent in, of course, have not worked. We’re talking about people who are having to move out of their homes forever. So that’s good to hear that we have heard that.
I think, as far as lidar is concerned, with respect to the minister, I’m definitely interested in seeing that. I definitely will take you up on the opportunity to meet with you again. But I don’t need lidar. I can put my rubber boots on, walk from a culvert through about ten yards that we are currently flooding, have not stopped since last October….
I had asked for that culvert to be reassessed. We know that the ground is moving. We also know…. I’m happy to provide videos, as I’ve suggested I would, for this culvert that is flooding these homes. It seems to turn off once in a while and then turn right back on.
I’m wondering if there has been any real look at this culvert from the ministry. And then I’ll come to the next question, about Highway 20.
Hon. R. Fleming: The functioning and the water flow that’s associated with the culverts is, of course, an integral part of the hydrology study that is being done. We will get the completed report to the member later this summer, when it’s available. It’s an ongoing study that’s underway, as I mentioned.
Following the meeting that our team had with the member about the culvert that he believes is malfunctioning, we did have staff go out, based on his information, and do an on-site review. There has been some work on culverts in the area, but I don’t have specifics. I’ve tried to wait for them to get that advice through my earbuds here, but it might be more productive for me to get that information to him outside of estimates this afternoon, when we can, to let him know what the work that has been done entails and also what the on-site review assessment provided.
L. Doerkson: This is exactly, I think, the point that has become quite frustrating for the residents of this area. I have never suggested that the culvert isn’t working properly. The culvert is working absolutely as it should, but it is flooding many homes. That is a consistent answer that the residents are receiving for this. That is the frustration.
I really do hope that I will hear, with respect to the hydrology report, what’s happening up there. Certainly, I don’t suggest that the culvert isn’t working. It’s working perfectly. I think it needs to be in a different area. I think that the residents feel that as well.
I guess maybe one more question around this: how does triage work? How do you determine…? We’ve got ditching projects that are happening up in areas like Gunanoot — or, apparently, they’re supposed to start happening — and of course, we’ve got paving and other things, and believe you me, I’m not ungrateful for the paving that’s happening, but we have many residents that are questioning: “Why are we doing that and not fixing this? Why are we putting resources to that?”
Now, I understand that there’s a five-year plan. How is this affecting that five-year plan? Are we seeing resources pulled off, perhaps, some of that maintenance that is very necessary, and being re-routed to some of these emergency situations?
[M. Dykeman in the chair.]
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you so much, Chair. Good to see you.
Thank you to the member for the question, quite a comprehensive question. I’ll try my best to answer it.
We operate on a multi-year rehabilitation plan for roads and infrastructure. The district office manages regional priorities that develop a four-year rolling plan that gets renewed as some new priorities emerge and others become less urgent. It’s a living plan that does get amended in response to events in real time. There would be a whole bunch of criteria about what makes something a priority over another investment, even though they may all be required.
Avoiding or addressing any infrastructure failure would obviously be key for priority identification. Things that would create a certain mobility loss or a loss of connection would be projects that would be put for urgent repair — or impacts on industry, for example. If there were a huge economic impact to the loss of a road, for example, obviously that would be taken into account about what needs to be addressed.
Then there are things within the rolling plan that are tracked in terms of condition — bridges, side roads. Sometimes we identify side-road projects for a go-ahead, a green light on improvements, based on larger paving contracts that are nearby. There’s an economy of scale to do more side roads. We’ve talked about this earlier in the estimates.
There is a significant lift to the road maintenance rehabilitation budget under discussion today. It’s about $500 million annually. It was previously, I think, before government changed, around $300 million. That’s good for the member’s region, but really around the province, that we’re able to do more of that.
The other thing that affects the plans and develops the prioritization is, really, our consultation with regional districts, local governments and local Indigenous governments about what their priorities are, where they would like to see investment occur. Again, that would be assessed on what road performance looks like. If it’s a safety project, we’d of course look at accident data that we have, to address safety-related investments that we may make.
I hope that gives the member a bit of an idea about how those things are developed. Again, that’s something that he could have in discussion at his next meeting with the district manager.
M. Lee: Just before the member for Nechako Lakes asks his questions, I just wanted to take this opportunity to continue on from my questions from my colleague, from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, because there were a few points I wanted to raise here with the minister in respect of the additional road maintenance plan.
I appreciate, again, that after the briefing that the minister arranged for myself to have in preparation for these estimates, there was some supplementary material that was provided, including a table which basically gave a breakdown of the road maintenance plan budget.
Before I ask a specific question about that breakdown, I wanted to ask the minister to comment further. Obviously, the member for Cariboo North spoke about the impact of wildfires and the ongoing, of course, challenge that we’re seeing, over the last number of years in particular, in terms of climate change. Certainly, as we’ve seen with the flooding and the various issues that we’ve seen in the Cariboo region, for example, there are significant impacts that are happening on side roads, bridges and other road conditions.
What has changed in the last number of years from the ministry’s perspective on this in terms of its assessment of road conditions in that region? For example, what challenges is the ministry anticipating in terms of a greater need for road repair and maintenance not only at the surface level in terms of patching up roads but, more importantly, structurally — the drainage, the structure underneath these roads? Is the ministry seeing additional erosion of the foundation of the various roadway systems that we have that so many people rely on in this region?
Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a fairly big area of discussion. But in terms of the question, which I think, overall, was really about climate adaptation…. We’re living amongst climate change. How do we move from responsive — you know, wildfires and flooding — to being more proactive and building to a higher standard, taking into account that the landscape has changed so fundamentally in a region like the Cariboo?
What I would say is that we have some climate resiliency program funding that is available, approximately $30 million in the region. That allows for culvert replacements, drainage improvements, scouring of the landscape. This is outside of the ministry preservation program. We also are utilizing maintenance contractors to also take into account climate impact so that the type of summer work that they do — leaving aside the winter work that the highways contractors would do — includes things like accelerated ditching programs; again, more culvert replacements; and the removal of vegetation in preparation for the winter and spring seasons.
In terms of an all-of-government approach, too, it’s probably worth mentioning that FLNRORD is on track — I think by the end of this summer — to have planted a billion trees over the last three years. The wildfires and the beetle-wood kindling that contributed to some of that activity…. It needs replanting to be able to restore the water absorption characteristics of renewing those forests.
FLNRORD also has hydroseeding programs as well that take into account the protection of MOTI assets. One of those can be seen on Elephant Hill in the region in terms of that. Although done by a different ministry, it is done in conjunction with us. Also, in general, more close alignment with emergency management B.C., modernizing the act and the programs to take into account the changing climate.
I would just maybe conclude on this note. More generally, the climate lens is now applied to virtually every investment that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure makes. We look at what kind of mitigation needs to be done, what kind of adaptation is required in light of climate change. We look for additional opportunities.
During the pandemic, for example, where we had extraordinary funds being invested in different communities, some of it was to employ people that do good things that we knew needed to be accelerated at the same time. So $6 million specifically was invested in the Cariboo through StrongerBC. It was entirely about enhancing resilience from spring flooding. It was primarily riprap programs and getting road base protection enhanced in different areas of the road network.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
We are going to take a ten-minute break. We will be returning at 4:32 p.m.
The committee recessed from 4:22 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.
[M. Dykeman in the chair.]
M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister before the break. Obviously, it’s definitely a concerning change that is impacting on ministries’ planning. Just to clarify, a couple of questions here that’ll just wrap into one set or series here.
The minister said earlier, in terms of the climate resiliency funding of $30 million, that it’s separate from the ministry preservation program, as he referred to it. Just a clarification: is that program part of the $500 road maintenance plan figure which includes $162 million towards side roads?
Of course, I certainly acknowledge that there’s been an increase in the side-road and highway bridge maintenance budget, as the minister has indicated. What we see, of course, planned out over the fiscal plan, is $162 million this current budget year, next year followed by $115 million, followed by $118 million. That is a slight decrease in year 2, year 3. Why the decrease?
Secondly, why not a further increase? Given the nature of the complexity around the challenges of climate change and the impacts that we’ve seen over the last four to five years, does the ministry not see a greater need to add additional resources towards side-road budget expenditures?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, he’s correct. There was a significant uplift in the side-road program this year. We’re very pleased to get this year’s uplift, and we think that’s going to inform budget-making in future years. Certainly, he’ll remember from his time in government that when you demonstrate that you can utilize new resources, that’s typically a good position to be in to request more, and certainly that’s the plan for budget-making next year.
The slides and washout funding, just to confirm, is outside of the preservation program. So we have a budget this year of $45 million for those expenses, but of course, we do have the ability, should that be required, to find the funds that are needed to address repairs that are the cause of slides and washouts from within our plan.
M. Lee: From what I’m understanding from the minister’s response, this current number of $162 million…. Let me ask it this way, then. What is the projection, then, in terms of the $115 million and the $118 million, following the $162 million? What is that based on, in terms of the lower expenditure amount?
Hon. R. Fleming: For Budget 2021, the previous year’s amount was $110 million for the side-road program. It went up this year by $52 million to $162 million. The out-years in the three-year plan are at $115 million and $118 million. We were very pleased to receive additional resources this year. Those numbers that are in the out-years were the previous sort of baseline numbers. Next year will give us an additional opportunity to invest more in side roads, in 2022-23, which was exactly what happened in Budget 2021.
M. Lee: Just in the interests of time, and to turn it over shortly to the member for Nechako Lakes, if I could just ask the minister this. The minister just indicated, in terms of the previous year, that it was $110 million for side roads. That actually was the point that I was going to raise.
As a request, I’d ask the Minister and his team just to provide a written response to the following questions. That’s something we don’t have to address right now, but just for the record, as a point of reference, I would like to ask: what were the budget amounts for side-road and bridge maintenance, for comparison purposes to this fiscal year, for each of the previous four years?
Could the minister please provide a breakdown of this budgetary amount on side roads for each of the regions — south coast, southern Interior, northern? Can the minister provide a further breakdown of these amounts for each district in each of those regions?
If the minister would just consider those questions. Appreciate a written response to follow.
Minister, would you be willing to do that?
Hon. R. Fleming: We will get the information to the member when staff can put that together. We’ve made a note of the specific questions, and they’ll be, of course, available verbatim in Hansard. We’ll get him that information after staff compile it.
J. Rustad: I want thank my colleague from Vancouver-Langara for fitting me in. I recognize that time is short in terms of this. I’ve got three questions to ask, and I would request if I could get a response in writing to all three.
The questions are these. North of Fort St. James — the road up towards Germansen Landing, which is known as the North Road — there’s a lot of work that was talked about being done there, including approaches to bridges, some culvert work, some base rebuilding in some areas. The road is in desperate need of some investment. I believe there were requests that came forward for significant additional funding to be able to help do that work on that road.
I just would like to know, from the minister…. So question 1 is if you can confirm that that request has gone through and when there might be an indication as to whether or not that funding will be available for that North Road.
The second question I have is actually from the Houston area. Houston has got a problem with an overflowing creek. It requires some pretty significant work to stop the creek from flooding in the area and actually running down along a path that is not where the creek is supposed to go. Really, I think what’s needed there is likely a pretty major culvert put in under the highway, likely some work with CN as well.
I’m just wondering if the ministry has a program that would be available for doing that kind of project. If not, what sort of program or through what ministry we might be able to go after, to get work like that done.
The third question I have is around the side roads. I understand, from a conversation earlier, that there’s some budget around this. The side roads through Nechako Lakes are in brutal shape this year. I want to say that the contractors I know are doing their best. The roads are starting to dry up, and the contractors that are working in the area are trying to get to doing some of that work, but there is so much work to be done. There’s just no way it can be done within the existing budget that contractors have.
The amount of frost heaves — the roads are being chewed up, just unbelievably in some cases. Basically, if you don’t have a truck or even a 4-by-4, you can’t even get through to where you live on some of these roads. Other roads, it’s kind of like playing Mario Kart, where you’re dodging back and forth between chunks of road, basically, where the hard surface is completely gone, and you’re just trying to dodge the potholes.
In Houston, there are some of the side roads there that logging trucks have been going down that have been so pounded out in areas that if you’re not crawling through them, you risk doing serious damage to your vehicle. One fellow, a person who lives on one of those roads, which is just a regular side road, not a logging road, actually had an axle break on his vehicle, just trying to get home.
There’s a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done, and there’s a significant budget that would need to be allocated to be able to repair these roads. Without additional funding, I’m afraid it would take a good number of years to be able to address all of these issues with the existing maintenance budget that contractors have available for these side roads.
The last question is whether or not the ministry has additional funds that are being allocated to the Nechako Lakes region to deal with these side roads, and if so, if the minister could provide a number in terms of the budget that would be available to be able to address some of these side roads.
As I mentioned, I appreciate having the opportunity to ask these questions, and I hope that the minister will be able to provide those answers in writing.
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, I thank him for sticking around. We will give him a written response to the three questions he posed. There are a couple of things I can say that he can go away with today that might be of use and will be reiterated in more detail when we respond to him in writing.
To the first question around the North Road, there is a $1.5 million gravelling project program that includes base repairs, ditching and paving of the bridge approaches that he mentioned there. So we’ll get him more details on that, but that is active.
On the issue around Houston, we’ll give him a written response as well.
In terms of the maintenance contractor, there is an additional $18 million available in his area for a variety of improvements that I think speak to some of the road conditions that he raised today. But we will give him a much more fulsome update on the questions that he has posed here this afternoon.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, and I want to thank my colleague for Vancouver-Langara for giving me a couple of minutes here.
I’m sure staff have probably whispered in the minster’s ear one of my main questions, which I asked his predecessor a number of times. That is around the Taylor Bridge replacement. I know my colleague for Peace River South and myself have been actively engaged in trying to get the replacement of this bridge done for a number of years. The amount of commerce and industrial traffic is ever increasing on this bridge, as well as just the movement of goods and services between the two districts. Of course, it is the main transportation route for Yukon, the state of Alaska, as well as the Northwest Territories.
We’ve seen this bridge now go from annual maintenance to biannual to monthly to almost weekly. As it is known, the deck is beyond its life. There was supposed to be public engagement taking place this past spring. Of course, COVID kind of threw things off on that.
I’m just wondering if the minister can give us some sort of a course-plotting forward in regards to some timelines on the replacement of this absolutely essential piece of infrastructure in our province.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I understand he has been here before and has spoken to my predecessor, Claire Trevena, who, of course, announced in November 2019 that extensive engineering and consultation would begin on a variety of options, including replacement for the Taylor Bridge.
Just to bring him up to speed — this information may or may not be new to him — we are about to start consultation, a broad consultation process, including the use of a facilitated stakeholder group. I’ve spoken with some of the mayors and local government officials up there as well as First Nations myself. But it will also be open to the public through online questionnaires and virtual open houses. This will start in the summer, and it will conclude in the fall of 2021. We did do direct consultation with the affected First Nations around the area of the bridge in 2020.
We have done some engineering and field investigations. In fact, we recently had a piece of equipment, a snooper truck, that extended its crane out and over and under the bridge. It was up on Taylor for about a week. That assessment of bridge condition was done very recently. All of this work is going to inform us for a long-term solution on Taylor Bridge.
I know this has been an issue that has been going on for a couple of decades in the region. Certainly, I want to credit Minister Trevena for moving it further forward than it has been before by creating the resources, many hundreds of thousands of dollars, for the studies that we’ve done to date. We’ll continue with the engineering as part of the pre-project work package, and we expect that to be complete in 2022.
I’ll leave it there except to say that the inspections, for the member’s benefit, have concluded that the bridge is safe but have also raised concerns about the escalating maintenance costs to the decking. That’s probably not new information for him, but that is the latest information on bridge conditions that is part of informing the engineering and design and public consultation that’s about to begin.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that. I do look forward to seeing these on the capital plan, or the completion of the Taylor Bridge on the capital plan, very soon.
My next two questions, Minister — just, again, in light of time, if I can get a written response as soon as possible on them. One is rural roads. Obviously, over the last number of years, just with weather and such, we’ve had a number of roads that are becoming near-impassible. In fact, on the Baldonnel Road, school buses sometimes can’t make it down. Emergency vehicles can’t make it down and access residents. There’s Cecil Lake Road, Siphon Creek, and the list goes on and on.
I’m hoping that an audit can be done in the near future on the rural roads in the North Peace — and I hope that I can be included in those discussions — in regard to plotting out a plan to get some of these roads repaired and brought up to acceptable conditions. That was the one question about rural roads, an audit and the long-term planning of getting these roads repaired.
The next question is about rest stops in the north, specifically north of Fort Nelson. As you can imagine, once you head north of Fort Nelson, you are about 6½ or seven hours’ drive, with very few rest stops and no cell service. So looking at a plan, hopefully, to have some formal rest areas with toilets and the possibility of a cellular booster station would be incredibly valuable to the public that travel that long and often treacherous piece of highway in the province.
I understand that it is a federal highway, but hopefully…. We’ve seen partnerships already. I thank the ministry for the Gotta Go program. There have been some good partnerships between the province and the federal government, as well as Northern Rockies, on already developing one of these rest areas south of Fort Nelson. We are hopeful to see some more of these further north. If I can get a response on those two questions at the earliest convenience, that would be great. With that, Chair, I’ll turn it over to my next colleague.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I will absolutely get him, in writing, an analysis of the side roads.
What he may wish for is a meeting, when he’s back in his constituency, with district staff, just to go through the road inventory. The road condition is assessed on an ongoing basis. A contractor will have information, in conjunction with our ministry district office. If he’d prefer a briefing to writing, we can probably show him some information that may generate questions that he wishes to ask there. That’s certainly something we’ll do.
In terms of the rest stop issue on the Alaska Highway, we have notified the federal government — this highway is, of course, under their jurisdiction — that we’re committed to the Gotta Go program for a further three years. There is B.C. funding to, hopefully, leverage some additional improvements from the federal government on that highway that’s under their administration and maintenance.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for taking a few of our questions. It’s good to tag-team after my colleague from Peace River North, knowing his questions, because now I don’t have to ask the Taylor Bridge question. I do have two, I would argue, semi-specific questions for the minister that I’ll try to run through quickly here.
His staff will be able to help him. They’re well aware of this. One is the South Taylor Hill. Around ten years ago, when we were in government, we announced the twinning — four-laning, I guess — of South Taylor Hill from the Taylor Bridge to the top. Due to the incline, obviously, as a single-lane passage, as it was, a lot of our oil and gas and trucks in the area were spinning out and blocking the road. There were a lot of issues and challenges. The first half was done, because it was broken into a two-phase project.
When I spoke to his predecessor, when they came into government about four years ago, I was told that phase 2 was still going to happen. We actually had federal funding, if I remember, in the $18 million range, to partner for part of that. The next year, I was told by his predecessor that it was going through geotechnical work. We’re all well aware of the geotechnical issues in the area, but we were told that was being looked at and resolved on where we were going and how that four-laning would continue for the second phase.
Anyway, it’s now been over four years, and I’ve heard nothing from this government on what the next steps will be, other than from his predecessor that geotechnical studies were being done. I know some of that was done, but I do not see it in the budget. Is the minister able to give me a bit of a timeline for the second phase and the top phase for the continuation for the South Taylor Hill?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. As he acknowledged, this is geotechnically complex. The design work that we’ve done has confirmed that the landslide is a much larger challenge than anticipated. It’s also confirmed that the federal money confirmed is completely inadequate to do what’s likely going to be required.
We just completed, in the fall of 2020 — so six or eight months ago — the installation of 130 anchors. That was a $7-million-stabilization investment. But embedded in the anchors are sensors that are giving us information about the slide activity. We need to go through a couple of seasonal cycles of gathering data about what’s happening geotechnically there, which is going to help us inform what the scope and engineering fix will be for this project.
So happy to offer the member some ongoing updates as we gather that data. It’s going to require a much bigger federal partnership. Hard to ask, though, until we’ve completed the geotechnical assessment. But I am pleased that just last fall, that work around stabilization and the installation of the sensors has been completed. That’s going to help inform us in a big way as we go forward.
M. Bernier: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. That is good information. I was unaware of that. I would appreciate if the minister is able, through his staff, to keep me updated on that.
As he can imagine or appreciate, it is a huge concern in my riding. Lots of people ask me questions, and I can actually assist the government by giving factual information out so people are aware of the progress and the work being done. I think everyone will agree we don’t want to throw good money after bad and do the work if it’s not going to be suitable. So I will support as long as I have the information. That would really help.
My last question to the minister. I’m looking for a little understanding of what the goals and objectives are around my riding for capital infrastructure. I’ll say this. I’ll thank the government for not cancelling, and continuing on with, the bridge replacement or bridge work that is being done in Dawson Creek on 8th Street. It’s a culvert that’s being turned into a bridge that was announced in 2016 after the major floods.
I went through all of the work. It’s given me a good understanding of how long it takes to actually do the engineering design work. That took almost five years before we started. It is started. It is underway, and I thank the government for continuing on with that.
I will say that I have some other concerns. We continue to have multiple, multiple fatalities every year on the highway between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, which is why, about 15 years ago, there was the announcement that we were going to look at four-laning or, at the very minimum, putting in passing lanes. We had just a two-lane highway for the entire 60-kilometre stretch, and we were looking at four-laning and passing to try to reduce some of these really horrendous areas that we have. In some years, I have anywhere from ten to 12 fatalities in a year on just a 30-kilometre stretch of highway.
The troubling part, and the question I have to the minister, is that since this government has taken over, we’ve had no new dollars spent. We were doing a project a year — a four-laning a year or a passing lane a year — being announced and being worked on. For the last four years, we’ve done zero. It came to a halt. I’m curious if the minister can point to something that I can share with my constituents and the people in the area who are constantly worried and upset that that seems to have been on hold under this government.
We continue to have fatalities. In fact, I’ve had, unfortunately, another few in just the last six weeks. I know the minister will send his condolences as well, and I don’t wish to have to put that as part of the question. But what are the plans to continue on for the safety of the people on this stretch of highway? Can he point to anything or give some insight for the next year for the budget of what they’re doing?
Hon. R. Fleming: There has been investment since 2008 — significant, I believe. Around $171 million. Highway 2 and Highway 97. There are no additional four-lane or passing lanes in the budget at this point in time.
The member raised some concerns around safety for his constituents travelling between the two cities. We’ve, of course, had a year we’ve just come through of really strange and interrupted traffic patterns during the COVID pandemic. We expect here, and in other parts of the province, that traffic volumes are going to come back up.
It’s been quite a while since there’s been a proper safety study on this highway. Maybe if I can commit to the member today that as we come back and keep moving through the safe restart of our province, a safety study may be of value — one that would include visual information for motorists.
Speeding is one of the contributors, is my understanding, on the fatalities, even on the straight stretches where visibility is fairly good. This could be something where we could bring a degree of enforcement and examination of why this highway is having some safety concerns that the member has raised today. It also may give us an opportunity for, and should be scoped to include, an examination of the improvements we have made. Are they working? Have they contributed to safety? What recommendations may flow out of that to do additional work?
M. Lee: I just had a follow-on question — actually, two — in reference to the Taylor Bridge replacement.
In response to the member for Peace River South, the minister noted the recent inspection, including with the snooper truck. I wanted to ask the minister, in terms of his reference to the escalating maintenance costs, first, what is the ministry’s estimation of those maintenance costs on an annual basis?
Secondly, we recognize, and I appreciate that the minister said, that the outcome of the study was that the condition of the bridge continues to be safe. We know, of course, as the members for Peace River North and South recognize, that the urgency rating has been four out of five for the actual bridge — the steel grid deck, the localized corrosion issues, including with the catwalk deterioration of the bridge itself.
Is there any updated assessment by the ministry, in view of that inspection, most recently, as to the timeline for the need to replace the bridge in terms of its longevity?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.
It’s not, perhaps, the escalating maintenance costs that will inform the case between rehabilitation of the bridge or a full replacement. It’s $1 million a year, as I mentioned in response to an earlier question. It is escalating a bit every year. It’s more the amount of interruption required to perform the maintenance. There are about 100 occasions per year where single alternating traffic is required while welding crews get on to fix the decking. That is done in consideration of scheduling around the least disruptive times, so it’s typically night welding that occurs.
It’s not necessarily an escalation of maintenance costs that I think is what will add value, perhaps, when you get to a business case on rehab versus replacement. But there is an inconvenience factor there, to be sure.
M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response. The second part of my question was relating to whether there’s a further assessment in terms of timeline — longevity of the bridge itself.
Hon. R. Fleming: Yeah, I meant to add that. The snooper truck analysis isn’t available yet, but it did spend a week there. It looked at the bridge. It kind of identifies where the welding priority areas need to be, so it informs maintenance as well as looks at lifespan remaining on the asset.
As I mentioned to the member for Peace River North, we have begun engineering work. We’re consulting the public as well as stakeholder groups. We began talking to First Nations about a potential project. That opportunity for public input, as well as continuing to work with local government, will begin this summer, so fairly quickly. We’ll keep the member apprised of that so that he can let his constituents know of that input opportunity. It will run through the fall.
M. Lee: I just ask if the minister, as a follow-up to both the members for Peace River South and North, could share any further information that the ministry is able to in terms of that further inspection report in terms of the state of the bridge. I think that would be very well received by those members and myself as well.
I just want to now turn this over to the member for Delta South. He has a particular document that he’d like to share with the minister — I just table that through you — relating to the Highway 17 and 52nd Street pedestrian overpass.
I. Paton: Thank you to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara for letting me ask a few questions related to my riding.
To the minister: on the document that I passed over to you…. This is something I’ve brought up for several years, since the Tsawwassen First Nation’s mall was built. If you observe the photograph of the mall actually being built, across the side of Highway 17 is a bus stop, which now is there for shoppers and employees of the mall to be able to go across Highway 17 to catch a bus to go back to Surrey or Vancouver or Coquitlam or wherever they happen to be from.
Highway 17, before the mall was built, hon. Minister, was five lanes in width. It is now nine lanes in width after the expansion and widening of Highway 17. It also used to be 35 metres in width at Highway 17 and 52nd Street, and it is now, I believe, 60 metres in width. The document is on the back.
I don’t need a verbal answer. I would like a written answer to this question, if you would. Would the province of B.C., in conjunction and cooperation with Tsawwassen First Nation, be working alongside to develop a plan on how to best put the safety of my constituents first and construct a pedestrian overpass at Highway 17 and 52nd Street in Delta South? Of course, I need not mention the amount of traffic that attends this mall now and the amount of traffic that is racing to get to the B.C. Ferries terminal.
I think it’s very important that we look at this width of Highway 17 and similar examples of highway widths throughout B.C. that are much less in width that do have pedestrian overpasses.
A further question, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes, Member.
I. Paton: Moving on to a subject that I’m sure people will realize I’m rather passionate about, the George Massey Tunnel replacement.
Minister, I’m not surprised to once again see that there was zero funding for this replacement project in the recent budget. I do recognize that there was notional funding and that the government has invested about $45 million in maintenance work, including upgrades to lighting in the George Massey Tunnel.
My constituents have waited far too long and are demanding, of course, a replacement. Despite promising to deliver a business case and a plan by late last year…. Let’s step back and realize it’s been almost four years, coming up in September, since the government killed the bridge plan that was already in place, with money already being spent to build a new bridge. They’re eagerly awaiting the minister’s announcement, which was supposed to be in the early, early part of this new year, on a business case for replacing the George Massey Tunnel.
Two or three questions here. When will this business case be released? How much money is being set aside for replacement costs? Most importantly, what is the province’s preferred option? Is it a bridge, or is it a tunnel?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. I had a feeling he might pop up and ask this question.
There’s lots there, and there are some things I just can’t say. I think he’ll respect that, when you have a business case, and you’re working with local governments and First Nations governments on some of the key findings of a very wide-ranging, technical business case, and also working with our counterparts in the federal government towards a successful contribution agreement, things like cost and preferred option…. I’m just not going to go there today, because those are decisions that will be publicly announced at the appropriate time.
I would, though, draw his attention that the Massey project is in the budget. It is in the service plan. It is in the transportation investment plan table. There are some footnotes there, and it’s included under the “Transportation and trade network reliability” category. So there is funding there and, indeed, in the life of this service plan, significant pre-works investments are part of that budgeted area.
I. Paton: Thank you to the minister. Not really what we wanted to hear. We’ve been waiting months upon months upon months for this business plan to come forward. Why are we still waiting?
My question. I think I have about five minutes left. I’ll try and throw two questions together at once. First of all, has the business plan already been provided to our Delta MP, Carla Qualtrough? And if it were to be a tunnel, have all the consultations been completed with First Nations to get their approval or disapproval of whether it should be a tunnel or a bridge?
Hon. R. Fleming: As the member, I think, knows, we had a task force looking at Massey crossing, and it included all of the things that he would expect to be under consideration around two different types of options for the crossing. It included high-level technical information on engineering on both options. It included environmental analysis of what either option would incur.
We’ve had First Nations governments at the table, rights holders at the table, as well as local governments. They’ve been doing that work on a confidential basis with us. We’ve shared information. We’ve shared key findings of the business case. The federal government — various departments of the federal government — have a copy of the business case. We did not give it to MPs individually, but I can tell him that we have kept in touch with senior government MPs that are part of the government caucus, including the MP in his area, Ms. Qualtrough. She’s been very, very helpful and very interested in assisting us.
We’re very much looking forward to a positive commitment from the federal government on what we think is a key piece of economic as well as transportation infrastructure, quite frankly, given its importance to our trade networks, for replacement of a crossing that was originally built in 1959. We’re in active discussions across governments with the federal government, because we think that that partnership is warranted.
We’ve certainly seen other trade corridor partnerships in other provinces in the country, and we think it’s an equity issue, but it’s also something that’s very important to the federal government too. They will reap the same dividends we will by having a better crossing solution over the decades ahead. We look forward to a positive partnership being able to be announced. I can promise the member that he’ll be invited to any public announcements in the future. I appreciate his passion and advocacy on this.
The years 2019 and 2020, though, when we did this technical review that led to the business case, were ones, just to confirm, where we worked very closely with Indigenous rights holders and local governments right alongside the panel of experts that were engaged on the business case development.
I. Paton: One last quick question, hopefully.
It is my understanding that the government has commissioned a company to do consultation, a report, on the safety issues of the George Massey Tunnel as it stands now — whether it can withstand a seismic event of 7.0 or possibly more. Has this report been completed, and if so, when will the results of this safety report on the George Massey Tunnel be released?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I think what he is referring to is that, as part of the business case review, we did a condition assessment. It involved lots of things that you would do on an infrastructure asset like this — sampling, coring. That is tied up, though, in the business case.
The results of those studies will be included when we make a public release around a preferred option and a project cost estimate and all those sorts of things that were the key areas of investigation around the business case process.
The Chair: Members, we’re going to take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 5:46 p.m. to 5:55 p.m.
[M. Dykeman in the chair.]
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister and his staff.
A big thank you to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara for giving me the opportunity to speak and ask a couple of questions. I’m going to put this all in one package here and then move on to my next colleague, because I do understand we’re pressed for time.
Minister, I am hoping, in the very near future — I just want to table this now — that we can meet on a couple of issues with my colleague from Surrey South and, obviously, my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, specifically on interchanges on 32 Avenue out Highway 99, 32 Avenue with 152 Street and a couple of interchanges on 24 Avenue. Obviously, there is a lot of growth in those areas right now. There are some significant transportation needs that, I think, need to be addressed and that I’m sure your staff and, obviously, the Minister of State for Infrastructure are probably very well aware of.
Also, too, the other item is just expanded transit service to some of those growth areas that we haven’t seen for a number of years. We’ve got a lot of young families that have moved in there. We do need some increased transportation needs there in terms of public transit.
I’ll table that. I’m hoping we can schedule a briefing with the folks that I mentioned. I will leave it to your office to follow up. I will make myself available at any time that’s convenient.
My question, though, is just to follow up on my colleague’s comments regarding the Massey replacement. The previous Transportation Minister did comment that a future George Massey Tunnel replacement project would not be compatible with rapid transit. Are these comments reflective of the minister’s current position?
I do understand that we are…. I hope we’re progressing on this important project, which I know my colleagues and I have spoken often about. Just in terms of…. If you’re able to speak on how rapid transit would fit in with a replacement, I would appreciate that.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. There were three questions in there. We’ll address the request made around intersections with his colleague, the MLA for Surrey South. I think I heard him say that he’d like to have an opportunity to meet outside the estimates process on that. We’ll set something up with him, and he can rope in his colleague, the member for Surrey South, on that, if it’s sufficient at this time to commit to that.
The other question was around expanded transit service — his view on insufficient transit in the growth areas that he represents. I don’t want to punt this off, but I will just direct him to the minister for climate change and climate action, who is the Minister Responsible for TransLink, who can speak to service issues around expanded service opportunities or requests. Our ministry deals with the capital side of TransLink, building infrastructure with them. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy would be the appropriate place for him to go in that regard.
Then finally, on Massey. Rapid transit was indeed an active area of consideration and analysis with the business case development. I have spoken to his colleague about how those details are confidential at this time because we are arriving at funding decisions and attempting to secure a federal partnership.
What I can say is that rapid transit was very much part of the business case analysis, along with active transportation. Certainly, the interest in the project from local mayors and Indigenous governments was pointing out that the existing crossing does not have pedestrian or cycling connections. Having an active transportation component was also part of that analysis.
M. Lee: I know the minister knows that the member for Surrey–White Rock that he mentioned is the member for Surrey South. Just in terms of the organization of the briefings, relating to the matters that the member for Surrey–White Rock outlined, I certainly would appreciate if the member for Surrey South could be included, and myself as critic.
Just in terms of the second question about rapid transit, though, or an inclusion of that, obviously the challenge for us on this side of the floor is the three ministers responsible and the integration of that. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll have a little time at the end, in the afternoon, to address some of those integration issues between the Minister Responsible for TransLink, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, just in terms of how that all works together. It is just really one person pointing to the next.
I certainly had a bit of time with the minister responsible for TransLink. We have some topics that we can come onto in terms of Broadway subway. But certainly, the question from the member for Surrey–White Rock is just indicative of the multiple hats and the divided responsibilities in dealing with the three ministers and the challenge of that for ourselves as we work through this.
I’d like to just follow on, on the George Massey tunnel replacement. With all of the evaluation of the business case, which I appreciate the minister is referring to, as received in December 2020…. It’s been over six months now. On all the considerations at play and at stake with the stakeholders, including the Tsawwassen First Nation and the federal government and the mayors, of course, is the timeline expected for completion of this replacement still 2035, or is it earlier or later than 2035?
Hon. R. Fleming: Again, part of the business case is around timeline, scope, preferred crossing option and budget. Those are all the sorts of details that will be announced when it is going to be made public.
Also, just to go back to the rapid transit analysis that was part of the business case, I do want to let the member for Surrey–White Rock know, as well as the critic, that we worked side by side in conjunction with TransLink on their Transportation 2050. They were very much a part of that, and Metro Vancouver.
I would also just add, if it’s confusing about which minister is responsible for which, that TransLink is an independent transit authority. Of course, it works closely on its operations, but it has devolved revenues that used to be provincial, and it’s been that way since at least 1998 or ’99.
B.C. Transit remains in my ministry. It’s a Crown corporation and has always traditionally been inside the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. It certainly does not create anything within government, other than an all-of-government approach.
When it comes to TransLink, we have assumed, as the member knows, 40 percent responsibility on capital costs for major TransLink projects. That’s an increase from where it was before we assumed government, when it was 33 percent.
We’ll continue to work, from my ministry, on the investment side when it comes to major projects. We’ll get to Broadway subway later in the estimates, but that’s an example of the coordination of our ministry with TransLink and with the federal government on making significant capital investments like that.
G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to canvass a number of questions of the minister. So thank you very much to my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara.
I’m just going to start with a couple of quick questions with respect to my riding of Shuswap before I move on to a series of questions with respect to the community benefit agreements.
I was speaking just recently with the Chief, Kúkpi7 Christian, of Splatsin First Nation in Enderby. He has some questions with respect to the intersection of Highway 97A and Canyon Road. This is an area or an intersection that has been a significant concern to Splatsin First Nation for going on 30 years. I’m just wondering if the minister might be able to provide a bit of an update on the status of any planned improvements for this specific intersection.
I know that Kúkpi7 Christian would certainly appreciate the opportunity to have an in-person meeting with the Ministry of Transportation where they can, I guess, maybe better articulate their concerns and then look towards the opportunity for some intersection upgrades in that particular area.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. On the intersection upgrades that he raised on Highway 97 at Canyon Road, we have completed the planning work now. It was planning not just on the intersection that he raised but the corridor between Enderby and Armstrong.
We are planning to meet with the Splatsin very shortly. We’ve met with them throughout the planning process, virtually, as things were done. We are going to engage with them on the next phase, now that the planning is completed, which is moving on to the engineering studies and the engineering considerations for the intersection and for the corridor.
G. Kyllo: Thank you very much to the minister. I certainly appreciate that. I know that’ll be very welcome news to the Splatsin First Nation. I certainly would welcome the opportunity, when those meetings do take place…. If there’d be an opportunity for me to participate in those meetings, I’d certainly appreciate that.
The second question that I have to raise actually was brought to my attention also by Kúkwpi7 Christian. It has to do with the five Secwépemc bands, or the Lakes Division. This has to do with some of the previous highway expansion work that happened on three different phases, phases 1 through 3, of the Kicking Horse Canyon, as well as the Donald Bridge replacement and four-laning project.
I do appreciate that there are a number of bands, including both Splatsin and Adams Lake, that have a significant interest in trying to have a meeting and sit down with the ministry to talk about the opportunities for reconciliation or redress with respect to those projects that were completed previously. I just wonder if the minister might be able to provide me with some form of an update on what the status might be of any further meetings and the opportunity to have a look at further reconciliation on previously built projects by the Ministry of Transportation.
Further to that, would those negotiations or discussions be undertaken directly with the Ministry of Transportation, or would there be another ministry that would have responsibility for taking the lead on projects that were built previously?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question — a two-parter there, I think.
The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure would be available to meet with the nations. We’re a deep partner in an all-government approach on reconciliation and have used our entire infrastructure program and worked under UNDRIP and under a commitment to reconciliation, looking for opportunities for Indigenous People and, of course, consulting with Indigenous right holders on all our major projects. That’s forward-looking as well as current in this budget.
In terms of past government projects that may have had an impact on First Nations, where the issue is not reconciliation but redress, the member should have discussions with his constituents, the First Nations, about approaching the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, if that’s something that he is a part of, working with those First Nations currently.
G. Kyllo: Okay. I certainly appreciate that. Just so I’m 100 percent clear, any redress with respect to reconciliation or compensation for projects that were previously completed, which would include phases 1 through 3 of Kicking Horse Canyon and the Donald Bridge project…. Any further dialogue or conversations would not be with the Ministry of Transportation. But those Lakes Divisions of the Secwépemc People should be directed to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Fleming: Yes. To confirm to the member, for completed projects in the past where our ministry would have done Indigenous engagement and consultation on those projects before they were initiated but are now completed projects, if the issue is redress, those nations should pursue those conversations with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister. I certainly appreciate that additional clarity.
At this juncture, I am going to move on with respect to a series of questions, largely around some of the horizontal infrastructure projects in the province, namely four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway. These projects that are currently underway and some of the additional cost increases that we have seen are largely, I believe, attributable to, in part, the community benefits agreements.
With respect to that line of questioning, that topic, can the minister confirm, by project, how many kilometres of four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway have been completed in each of the last four years? And just as a further clarity on that, any of the work that was undertaken in the federal parks does not need to be included in this. I’m just looking for some information on how much four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway has been completed in each of the last four years.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.
Let me do some math here on kilometres completed over the past four years. We’ve got about 28½ kilometres. We’re on track this year. We have six projects now under construction currently that are part of the four-laning to Alberta investment. In the service plan, under consideration, just for the member’s benefit, there are 14 kilometres of additional four-laning promised — committed to, I should say.
Just by way of a bit of commentary too, we’re into some of the tougher areas of the four-laning project to Alberta. These are much more geotechnically complex. To give the member an idea, because of the elevation and the tight constraints and the slopes and the amount of blasting, for example, on Kicking Horse Canyon phase 4 — the cost there, about 120 kilometres to build…. Construction-wise, you’re getting into rapid transit prices per kilometre, if you will.
Also, in some of the lowland areas — the Chase, the Salmon Arm elements of the overall program for four-laning — archaeological complexity is part of the scenario. This is referred to by First Nations as the cradle of their community. There are significant village sites and archaeologically significant consideration that goes into those projects and a higher cost, again.
About $60 million per kilometre now is the average for the entire Alberta four-laning program. That’s gone up because we’ve saved the toughest parts for last, and we’re also working in, as I mentioned, an area of much higher overall complexity, including the archaeological sensitivity of some of the areas that we’re now doing construction work on.
G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate that information.
What I was actually looking for…. The minister, I appreciate, is kind of pressed for time. So maybe if I could just get a couple questions on the record. I’m certainly happy to take the information tomorrow, if the minister might be able to provide that to us.
I was looking for the total number of kilometres of four-laning that was completed in each of the last four calendar years. I’m assuming that’s probably something that the ministry would actually keep track and record of.
In addition to the total kilometres of four-laning that was completed on the Trans-Canada Highway in each of the last four years, if the minister could also identify and share with this committee the total project length of any additional kilometres that were announced. So not projects completed but separately — new projects that were announced in each of the last four calendar years that were actually funded and announced.
I’m just wondering if the minister could comment if he’s able or willing to provide us that information as a follow-up tomorrow.
Hon. R. Fleming: Quite a bit of information there that is under request. We have taken a number of the member’s questions on notice, if you will, to commit to get them comprehensive information. I think we have a good understanding of what the member is after. So we’ll commit to get them comprehensive information. I think we have a good understanding of what the member is after. So we’ll commit to similarly providing him a document that has the facts and the information that he’s looking for.
G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate that.
It’s my understanding that the Illecillewaet four-laning project, which is, I believe, about 46 kilometres east of Revelstoke, was the first project that was actually tendered by the current government under the new community benefits agreement program. I was actually fortunate enough to announce that project back in, I believe it was, the summer of 2015 with then former MP David Wilks.
When the project was initially announced, it was identified as 2.5 kilometres, along with doubling the size of the brake check. The initial budget estimate for that project was $35 million. I appreciate that was eons ago, six years ago.
Can the minister just confirm that that indeed was the first CBA project identified or announced by the current government and what the current budget is for that project, as well as what the length of four-laning is associated with the Illecillewaet four-laning project east of Revelstoke?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.
By way of update on the Illecillewaet four-laning construction, it’s now 60 percent complete. The most recent up-to-date spending figure I have is at the turn of the new year, so at December 31, 2020, approximately $41 million had been spent. That spending includes all preconstruction planning and engineering as well as the construction works. The project is on schedule and on budget, a total of $85 million budget. There’s about $12 million that remains in contingency after the second year of construction.
It is, to confirm, the first project that our government has delivered under the community benefits agreement. Just to refresh him — he’ll know this — construction started in summer 2019. Over the two construction seasons, a total of 120 people have been employed and deployed to the worksite by B.C. Infrastructure. The project, in terms of this construction season, resumed as we anticipated once we confirmed what the weather was looking like. It restarted in April 2021, and the project is scheduled to be completed in the late fall of 2021.
G. Kyllo: Thank you very much for that comprehensive update. I certainly appreciate that.
The minister indicated there were about 120 employees that had been working on this particular project. Does the ministry track the equivalent FTEs that are actually created by these construction projects? If so, is the minister able to share with us what the FTE estimation is for the Illecillewaet project?
Hon. R. Fleming: This would be hard to answer. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure wouldn’t track those kinds of FTEs on this project.
BCIB, working with the contractors on this project, would have some data. They would have, for example, the number of named employees that have worked on the site. They would probably have some data on length of employment with regards to those named employees. I can’t be certain of that. They would have data, though, for certain, on the mix of trades employed, the number of people involved in formal apprenticeship programs, those sorts of things.
I’ll direct the member to BCIB, which, of course, reports to the Ministry of Finance. They may have some data to get to…. I think he’s looking for a blunt number of FTEs. They may be able to come up with something that recognizes the seasonally adjusted nature of the employment on this project, given the construction cycle, but I can’t be absolutely certain. But I would point him in that direction, if that’s information that he’s interested in tracking down and having.
G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate the information that the minister has provided. I did have, actually, a series of questions on BCIB. But as the minister has indicated that that is under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance….
I guess, just on that same vein, does BCIB provide any annualized reporting that is shared with the Ministry of Transportation? I’m just thinking out loud here, but I’m assuming that as BCIB is increasingly involved with the provision of labour for many of these highway construction projects, I would certainly anticipate or assume that the ministry would be quite interested in the statistical data as far as some of the increased hiring for opportunities for women and for Indigenous Peoples. I know that those were measures that were tracked quite rigorously by the Ministry of Transportation on previous construction projects.
Is the minister…? Does he have access or availability or does he track or does the ministry track some of the information that’s reported out through BCIB on the CBA projects that relate to construction projects that are undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. What he should look for is….
BCIB, like other Crowns, publishes an annual report. It will have much, if not all, of the information that I think he is seeking here today. That report is issued around the time that the province’s annual public accounts are published. That opportunity will come in about July or, perhaps, August, this summer. He can look for that report. That might be useful to him.
Internally the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure does receive reporting on CBA projects administered by BCIB. On TI Corp. projects, for example, we receive those reports quarterly. On TCH projects, we receive that monthly. It does include metrics of interest to us in terms of Indigenous workforce participation, other equity-seeking groups, women on site. Hours worked is tracked by BCIB apprentices and workers. So we do, obviously, get fairly regular reporting from BCIB. The public-facing report that they issue comes out annually, and he can look forward to it in July and August.
The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.
Hon. R. Fleming: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:46 p.m.