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 2:36 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $28,526,258,000 (continued).

J. Rustad: I appreciate coming in, and I appreciate your bringing staff in. There are a number of questions that I want to be able to touch on. I’m going to try to go through these as quickly as possible, for the benefit of all the people here in the rest of the process.

We started off last Thursday talking about Fort St. James hospital and construction. I wonder if the minister could confirm the budget and timeline associated with opening the hospital, as well as the schedule of opening the hospital and whether it’ll be open all at once, or whether it plans to be opened over phases. If it is opened over phases, what are those phases in the opening of that hospital?

Hon. A. Dix: To give a sense of where we are, of course, construction is underway — the member will know that — and the project is going well. The expectation is that the transferring to the new building, which is ultimately when the most important change will occur, will happen around October 1, 2024. The construction will be substantially finished prior to that. Then there will continue to be work on the hospital after that time, but the expectation is that patients will be moving in, in the fall of 2024.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for the answer. The reason I’m asking particularly about a phased opening of the hospital is that the hospital is significantly larger than the current hospital, and the community is extremely short of health professionals working in the community. The current emergency room is often on diversion.

Once again, perhaps I could ask the minister for some details of much and what portions of the hospital will be open and over what time frame, for the remaining pieces that are planned to be completed in construction and that will be open.

Hon. A. Dix: I expect, as I say, that the transitioning will occur between approximately October 1 and the end of 2024. That’s when you’ll see the transitioning of patients — in that period.

J. Rustad: That talks about the opening and the movement of existing patients in there. As the minister is well aware, there are additional beds, particularly around long-term care and other capacities, within the hospital. The concern by myself and the community is the lack of staffing to be able to open that hospital over the period of time associated, going forward.

Perhaps another way to ask the same question is: what is the ministry staffing plan to be able to hire the professionals needed to be able to have the hospital opened? Or is it planned just to use locums and bring other people in from other communities?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The member will get, from estimates — I won’t go through it in detail — the health human resources plan of the government. He’ll get that from estimates.

From the previous announcements, of course, which are publicly available, he’ll know that B.C. has been leading Canada in terms of the recruitment of health professionals. He’ll know that last year we added between 6 and 7 percent registered nurses in our province and between 8 and 9 percent LPNs, which are both critical parts of the Stuart Lake project, when our neighbouring province of Alberta actually lost nurses in that period. We led Canada, again, in the recruitment of registered nurses in that time.

He’ll know, as well, that in the North — in addition to the issues around the health human resources plan, in the new payment model for doctors — there are supports for rural doctors, and there’s support for rural nursing in all of the provisions of the agreement we just signed with the BCNU. The allied health recruitment plan is very important in every community, including Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and across the North.

All of those matters are in place, including, the member will know, the addition of what is called the health care assistant program, or HCAP — from which Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and other regions have benefited. I’m happy to go and provide that information to the member, in detail, about what has occurred.

In addition to that, some specific actions have been taken with respect to four items that positively affect health recruitment in the North and are targeted in the North. First, the travel resource pool, which we spoke about last week. Just to give a sense of the benefits from that pool to date, in Fort St. James, that was 1,184 hours.

The travel resource pool was designed to support the very health challenges that he refers to. That has continued in this year. We’ve seen the same pattern in this year. Indeed, it has increased the effectiveness of the travel resource pool and its application in Fort St. James. In January, it was 222 hours; in February, 305. You can see that we’re almost halfway, in two months, from that program that was put in place not that long ago.

In addition to that, we have a housing approach which supports the recruitment of workers. It’s a housing pilot. It has been expanded. It’s in our health human resources plan; it’s action No. 42. That includes, in Fort St. James — we will go through the other communities, but we’re talking about Fort St. James — 12 units.

Through the health care assistant program, we’ve seen the addition of health care assistants at Stuart Lake, at various facilities in long-term care as well, and in home health in his community.

Finally, there’s significant action with respect to physician recruitment, such that, starting in March 2023, two new PRA-BC doctors — the member will be aware of this — are coming to Fort St. James.

You can see these measures and the significant efforts that are being made on internationally educated nurses, the increasing of nursing spaces, including and especially in the North, the increasing number of allied health professionals and health sciences professionals and the health care assistant program. All of those are part of a health human resources plan that will address issues in Fort St. James and everywhere else. That is, obviously, a high priority for us. We’ve hired, as well, two specialized staff to support recruitment as we make the transition to the new hospital.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that answer. Maybe I could just ask one last question on the hospital. I know I can get the budget associated with it from Northern Health. So I won’t ask the minister for the exact numbers on that.

Could the minister confirm the hospital will be fully opened, when it is available, in that transition, in the fall of 2024, or whether there’ll be parts of that hospital which won’t be open? If that’s the case, over what period of time will they be able to be fully opened and, I guess I could say, fully staffed?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The member was asking for the budget of the hospital. Sorry, he asked that in the previous question. It’s $158 million, and the provincial share is $142 million. That’s in the blue book, and that reflects the support. It’s not the case everywhere, of course — that share. But it was our view, and I believe it was the member’s view, that we needed to get this hospital built and that we needed to reflect the taxation capacity of the region. So that was an unusual step.

I’d just say, of that, the actuals, at this point — we’re in the building stage — spent on the hospital to date…. This was as of a couple of months ago; it was $56 million. So we’re well on the way to having it built.

I’ll take him through the details of what we see. The earthwork, the foundations, have been completed. The structural steel is underway. The building is substantially watertight, starting in November 2023. The building’s substantial completion is September 2024.

Then the patients transitioning to the new building across the site is October to end of December 2024. There is other activity and other building actions to finish the project that will take place in 2025. The moving of the patients is generally seen as the key moment, and it will be in Fort St. James. I’m sure there’ll be an opportunity for all of us to celebrate together.

J. Rustad: I wanted to make sure the minister knows I’m very appreciative of the hospital being built. Triple the cost of what it was in Burns Lake only that many years ago, but I guess that’s the cost of doing business.

Anyway, I do want to move on to another issue. I talked a couple of years ago — maybe it was last year, maybe it was a couple years ago — to the minister about the clinic in Vanderhoof. It’s a clinic where the building is failing. We talked about moving that clinic or creating a new clinic that Northern Health was going to build, which would be a joint-service clinic as opposed to a private clinic for the doctors to be able to service from.

Speaking with some of the doctors over the last little while, they haven’t heard anything on the clinic, so I thought I would ask the question, for the minister, of what the plan is associated with that clinic in Vanderhoof and where things are planned to be going here in the coming years.

Hon. A. Dix: I think the doctors in Vanderhoof should expect to hear soon from us. The final business plan — there was some back and forth — was submitted at the end of last year, the beginning of this year, and we are expecting to proceed.

These projects themselves…. The member talked about $40 million. This project isn’t that much, but it’s tens of millions of dollars. As the member would expect, it’s an important project that will benefit, both in the present and into the future, the people in Vanderhoof and in the whole region. So it’s been a very positive process, and we proceed. I think we’re very close to making a final decision, and then he’ll be amongst the first to know.

J. Rustad: So I assume I can contact the doctors and let them know to expect some good news this year, at some point, when the minister has an opportunity. I welcome the minister to come up. If he wants, we’ll do a little barbecue or something up there, when he’s up.

That’s good news for the community. Obviously, that’s something that’s been in the works for a number of years now. So I’m happy to hear that is on its way. The minister, unfortunately, can’t announce it today, which would be an odd place to be able to announce a project like that, obviously, in estimates, but it’s close enough, in terms of the process.

Okay, I want to move on, as well, to talk about a few other things — in particular, ask the minister about this. I know the official opposition Health critic asked a little bit about this, but I’m curious about the vaccination program and the status, particularly on third dose and fourth dose, as the percentage of people in British Columbia that have received the third and forth dose, or even beyond that.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Provincewide, there has been in B.C. — it should be said, and I’m sure the member would agree with this — an exceptional success of our public health care system, both in the way of the sheer numbers and volume of doses administered in a short period of time but also in the way in which people have been engaged.

People routinely…. In fact, this spring about 1.5 million people are in the categories who are eligible — everyone can get a further vaccine — and encouraged to get a vaccine. It continues to be a very significant program.

In the most recent numbers I have, which are from last Friday, the previous day, 10,827 doses were administered provincewide, which shows the continuing strength of the program. In total, 14,430,996 doses had been administered as of end of day, April 27, of which 4,619,380 were first doses; 4,462,725 were second doses — by definition, that would be less; 2,996,979 were third doses; 1,745,299 were fourth doses; and 556,071 were fifth doses.

J. Rustad: Doing the rough math from what the minister has said, about 50 percent of the population has received a third dose, or a little above that.

The minister is shaking his head. So perhaps he can give that as a percentage of the population that has received a third dose and a fourth dose.

Hon. A. Dix: For third doses, it’s approximately 58 percent.

J. Rustad: I seem to recall that that’s the number that I saw back a few months ago when I looked on the website. That sounds about right.

I had also seen on that site that only about 38 percent or thereabouts, in northern B.C., had taken up a third dose. I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm that, as well as the percentage of health care workers that have received a third dose — if that’s similar to the general population.

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, current health care workers in the public health system are at 100 percent. If you want to go through the types of health care workers, we can do it however one wants — by bargaining association, by class of workers. It’s more than 99 percent of registered nurses, more than 99 percent of LPNs, more than 99 percent of health sciences professionals, more than 99 percent of doctors, more than 99.7 percent of resident doctors, more than 99 percent of ambulance paramedics.

Essentially, in the health care system, when we look at people who are excluded, who are not able to receive — who chose not to be vaccinated — that number is under 1 percent overall.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I do recognize that is in terms of the first and second dose. I was asking about the third dose and whether or not the health care professionals are at a similar rate to what it is in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, the two doses are what are required to be fully vaccinated under the order. As Dr Henry reminds me, there is significant protection for health care workers with the full primary series, which is the two doses, plus other hybrid immunity that follows with that.

That provides very significant protection. It allows us, for example — although there’s always criticism of these things, and we’ve had this discussion — to take the actions that Dr Henry took with respect to provincial health orders a few weeks ago. That is to reduce provincial health orders, for example, to visitors in long-term care and the proof of vaccination requirement for visitors of long-term care, and other steps, including a lot of the other measures we’re taking, designed to address where we are at this point in the pandemic.

You can do that when 100 percent of health care workers are vaccinated. That’s what’s happened in B.C. We’re the only jurisdiction in the country where it happened. Even though many called for it in other places, we were the only jurisdiction that had it. I hear sometimes that people say: “Well, others have moved back or rehired.” Others didn’t put those rules and that requirement in place at all.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the answer from the minister. He didn’t answer the question, though, which was the number or percentage of health care workers that have received a third dose. I would be very interested in knowing that uptake in terms of a third dose and/or a fourth dose.

If the minister doesn’t have that information available, I guess I could ask: is that information being tracked, and is there someplace where I’d be able to access that information?

Hon. A. Dix: We don’t have that information at the moment. The member did ask about the Northern Health Authority on third doses. In Northern Health overall, the number was 41 percent third doses. I think he had said 37 or 38; it’s 41 percent third doses.

Obviously, it’s different in different communities. The Burns Lake North health area is 45 percent; the Burns Lake South is 37 percent. There is, I would say, in a general sense, greater variation across the North. In rural communities around Fort St. James, it’s much higher than the rural communities around Vanderhoof. But that’s just in the nature of the numbers, and those numbers have been available for some time.

J. Rustad: Could the minister commit to getting me those numbers associated with the third and fourth dose associated with people working in the health care system, if he doesn’t have it available today?

Hon. A. Dix: We’ll provide him with the information we have. The purpose of that full tracking I referred to, by type of health care worker, was to put in place the vaccine requirement for health care workers, which involved the primary two-dose series. That was the purpose of that detailed review and that detailed information, which, obviously, we went through with health care workers and with health care professionals. So that was put in place.

In addition, there’s information that was released, I be­lieve in May of 2022, with respect to health care professionals who might be inside or outside the public health care system. Some of those health professionals who aren’t in public health care were significantly below that 99 percent. That information is also available, and we’d be happy to share that with the hon. member.

[3:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I don’t want to keep asking the same question, and I’m sure the Chair would call me if I kept asking the same question, so I guess, unless the minister says otherwise, I can assume that that information is either not being tracked or not available in terms of the percentage of health care workers that have received a third dose.

Maybe I can move on a little bit. Associated with that, the first series of the two vaccines was about two years ago. Does the minister have any reports or any sort of analysis that talks about the effectiveness of vaccine and how it wanes over time, particularly over the last two years?

Hon. A. Dix: In order to save time, Dr. Henry answered that question in detail recently, in fact, when she presented data on those very questions. I’d be happy to share that with the hon. member.

J. Rustad: The reason for asking that question, particularly around the science around that, is that the federal minister — as I’m sure the minister knows when I asked during question period back a few weeks ago — has stated that the primary series does wane over time. The effectiveness wanes over time. So it’s important to understand that effectiveness of the primary series of vaccinations associated with the people being protected within our health care system.

The minister has said on many occasions that the number one concern about our health care system is to make sure that it keeps people safe and to make sure that people that are vaccinated have the effectiveness of that.

Since these vaccines do wane…. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be, certainly, a need to ask people to get a third shot or a fourth shot or a fifth shot in terms of boosters. There obviously is some degradation of the protection associated with it. So it’s important to actually ask that question associated with what the minister has said in terms of keeping people in the health care system protected.

Maybe I’ll just wrap that one up. The minister has committed to getting me what Dr. Bonnie Henry has said. Maybe I can just confirm: does that include any sort of reports or analysis, both from within British Columbia as well as internationally, associated with the degradation of those vaccines over time?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, not only is British Columbia at the forefront of international research, but the BCCDC and the provincial health officer are at the forefront of knowledge of research on all of these questions around the world.

What you have with the primary series, and this is largely the case also with other forms of protection from the COVID-19 pandemic, is a very high level of protection for health care workers. And while it’s true…. I don’t believe that the member is advocating for a new vaccine mandate for a third dose. He may be. I don’t think that’s what he’s advocating for.

I would say that if you look at people who are 100 percent vaccinated, first and second dose, their level of vaccination on the third dose is very high. I can tell you that the health care workers who advocated for this change, who have got themselves vaccinated — more than 99 percent when we did track it and who are now 100 percent vaccinated — are committed to vaccination.

We’re committed to continuing to provide patients in acute care and patients in long-term care the protection they need to be as safe as possible. We make them safer by having vaccinated health care workers, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.

It’s, finally, a provincial health order. I know people often ask me the question and want me to…. I want to be very clear that I support Dr. Henry fully, as Minister of Health, in this regard. But it’s a provincial health order.

If the suggestion is that politicians should start overruling provincial health officers or overruling provincial health orders, remember that this is a democratic process, because we gave that responsibility to the provincial health officer by order of this Legislature. We had a debate around these acts in the 1990s, when this current act was put in place, and in the noughts, when the previous government was in place.

This is how we do it in British Columbia. Other jurisdictions haven’t supported their provincial health officers. Other jurisdictions haven’t had, I think, the overall excellent response to the COVID-19 pandemic that we’ve had in B.C.

I continue to support the provincial health order and the provincial health officer in this respect, and I don’t expect to see any change in the vaccine requirement for health care workers in the public health care system in the foreseeable future.

[3:05 p.m.]

J. Rustad: The minister is correct: I’m not advocating for additional shots. What I am wondering is what the minister has stated in terms of keeping people in the health care system protected. I’m just curious about how that effectiveness of the first two-dose series does wane over time, in terms of it. Clearly if, after two years, it has waned significantly, then that protective level is not there in terms of it, which, once again, is why the minister advocates for a third and fourth dose.

I want to move on a little bit. There has been a number of peer-reviewed studies now around natural immunity from people that have had COVID and the effectiveness of that being very high. So if the goal in terms of protecting people that are working in the health care system, protecting patients coming in, potentially at risk from COVID….

With natural immunity being so high, whether or not the minister is considering looking at natural immunity as one of the factors to help protect people, or whether it is just solely about the vaccine.

Hon. A. Dix: Dr. Henry reviewed these issues in detail a number of weeks ago, as she has throughout the pandemic. All of those factors are under consideration and are always under consideration to assess the level of protection that people have in the community.

I would say this. There really isn’t…. I know people want to have a debate about vaccines. There really isn’t a debate about vaccines. In this world, they save millions of lives. In B.C., we had one of the most effective vaccine programs anywhere in the world, and that saved an unnameable number of lives of the people all of us represent in the Legislature. We put forward and put in place a plan to ensure that people were vaccinated and protected, and the basis of that plan was to do the most vulnerable first. That continues, to this day, to be the plan.

The people who are most vulnerable and most in need of a spring booster are getting invited and are taking us up on that spring booster. It was 10,000 last Thursday. I think that the debate in the province, broadly, is the 95 percent who got their first dose and the 5 percent who didn’t. I’m respectful of everybody and how everyone acts in the province. I respect everybody’s decision, and I have, as people will know, never required or suggested, for example, mandatory vaccination.

In 2019, we had a debate about vaccination. There was a debate about vaccination with respect to measles at that time. What did we do? There were 29 cases of measles in 2019, and that seems very few. If your child is going to school, and you’re in that category of people, it’s significant. We didn’t put in place a mandatory requirement to have the measles vaccine in order to go to school, but we did put in place a mandatory reporting of that so that everyone will be safe in case of an outbreak. Obviously, if there is an outbreak, then people would be excluded from school for a period of time.

I strongly believe that how you address that situation with respect to vaccination is you make it as open and as available as possible, and that’s what we did. At that time, 38,000 children under the age of 18 got vaccinated with the measles shot. The largest share of those were 15, 16, 17 and 18, who, because they had their own choices to make at that time, which they may not have had at the original time, chose to get vaccinated against the measles.

The value of vaccination, the millions of lives saved…. The lives saved, we can’t fully estimate it precisely, but tens of thousands of lives saved in B.C. The fact that we were able to return to other activities. All of that was due to vaccination. People who had their primary series do have strong protection, but we strongly encourage people to get their booster shots. That’s what we’re doing, and we’re continuing to do it.

The place where they get the highest level of vaccination is amongst health care workers and health care professionals. That may have something to do with the knowledge of health care workers and health care professionals of the impact of COVID-19.

[3:10 p.m.]

I would say finally that we went through a period in the COVID-19 pandemic in the late summer and fall of 2021 that nobody who represents the Northern Health Authority will ever forget. So 160-odd people in critical care, the vast majority of them unvaccinated, were flown from the Northern Health Authority to the south to get critical care in our hospitals.

I think that reminds us of the value of vaccination and also what our public health care system does, which is to treat and to care for everybody, to respect and to provide care for everybody. That’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Yes, there’s a significant level of protection. Dr. Henry has gone over that in detail. Yes, we’re going to continue to make sure health care workers have their primary series vaccines against the COVID-19 virus because it has such a significant effect on the safety of everyone and because vaccines allow us to do what we all want to do, which is, to the maximum extent possible, in a worldwide pandemic, return to all of those activities that bring joy to your life.

J. Rustad: I’m certainly not advocating against vaccines. In fact, I got myself vaccinated for pretty much everything. I get the flu vaccine every year, for example.

What I was asking the minister about was natural im­munity. The reason why I’m asking, particularly, about natural immunity is…. We’ve got a health care shortage of professional staff. There are people that could be added into the system that have had COVID and that have a natural immunity, an immunity, according to several studies now that have been peer-reviewed, that is stronger than what you could, potentially, get from a vaccine. These are individuals that we could potentially hire in the system, which is why I’m asking the question.

I have a shortage of staff. The minister went through, at great length, all the steps he has taken to hire staff around the province. But there’s, obviously, still a shortage. When there are people who are eligible to potentially work in the system who have natural immunity…. Hence why I’m asking the question about natural immunity and the ability, hopefully, to be able to hire some of these individuals back into the system.

I don’t think the minister is too keen on wanting to answer anything more about that, without going beyond the simple question that I’ve asked. I also recognize that we’re eating into the estimates time for the next ministry.

I don’t think I’m going to get an answer any more than what I’ve already gotten. So perhaps I’ll move on to the next part that I want to do, which is the statistics that are being kept around COVID, particularly around mortality rates and these types of things.

I wonder if the minister could confirm what the overall mortality rate of COVID has been in the province in terms of the number of people affected versus the number of people who have passed with COVID or because of COVID, whichever way the minister wants to put it, and how that compares to other jurisdictions, both in Canada and outside of Canada.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Those documents are published on a routine basis. What I’ll endeavour to do, not sometime in the future but this afternoon, is get that information for the hon. member, but it’s routinely reported on publicly.

I do think the point about health care professionals, in response to his previous point that B.C. is the one jurisdiction in Canada that has a vaccine requirement…. Since we put it in place, this comparison to two of the other large jurisdictions that are Alberta and Ontario, who are in some ways the most comparable jurisdictions…. We increased the number of nurses last year by 6.7 percent. They lost 0.7 percent of their nurses in Alberta — no vaccine requirement. They gained only 1 percent of nursing in Ontario.

What it demonstrates as to the LPN numbers and the other numbers is the success of recruitment and the fact, I would say — although I don’t know if it would be fair to link that — that in B.C., we’ve had such a team approach to responding to all of these questions.

But I’d be happy to get…. We have all this information. They’re regularly published in the public realm. We just don’t have the document in front of us now, but I’m happy to share that with the hon. member.

J. Rustad: Thank you. I appreciate that, and I’ll look for that information later this afternoon.

The reason for asking that question is, of course, when the pandemic first started, there were a lot of projections, a lot of concerns that the mortality rate from the pandemic could be in the 3 to 4 percent range of people that contracted it. Obviously, it’s worked out to be much less than that, thankfully. It’s much lower than that.

The last number I had seen from international numbers — which is why I was wondering what’s happening in B.C., because I haven’t seen the numbers here in B.C. — was that it was around 0.2 percent. The annual flu runs around 0.16 percent. I did notice in looking at the CDC numbers back a couple of years ago, or a year ago I guess it was, when they came out with the number of people that had passed from flu, it had basically dropped off to zero during that period of time with the pandemic.

I’m wondering whether we’re seeing the same change or whether or not…. What’s the shift in terms of the numbers between COVID and the flu over this past year, coming into this year, whether or not we’re seeing things normalized when the flu is coming back or whether COVID is still predominant, and how things have changed as well as how that compares with other jurisdictions? That is why I was looking for the numbers.

Hon. A. Dix: One of the things I’m most proud of in B.C. is the response to the flu last year. We had much higher levels of flu vaccination than we’ve ever had before. This may reflect a change.

Actually, you could see it. The member will recall, at the beginning of December, that we had an earlier peak of the flu season, which was greatly and positively affected by the very significant increase in vaccination against the flu that occurred. In fact, about 225,000 more people were vaccinated against the flu this year in B.C. than at any time in the history of the province.

What is true…. There are different respiratory illnesses, and in fact, we saw the impact of RSV on some parts of the population. The flu does affect different portions of the population differently. Obviously, it has a greater effect and has had a great effect…. I shouldn’t say a greater effect, but it’s had a significant effect on young children and our older citizens in a way that it has a different configuration of impact within its impact.

[3:20 p.m.]

We did see less flu in 2020, and we did see less flu in 2021 because all the measures that we took against COVID 19 also positively affect the flu — the limitations on social gatherings and other activities that were taken.

I think, and I’m optimistic because of the response to the flu this past year in B.C., that we’ll continue to see high rates of vaccination against the flu. I’ll be advocating for that and a major effort to get people vaccinated against COVID-19 as we enter respiratory illness season this fall. There’s a major effort now focused on 1.5 million people — those who are clinically vulnerable, those who are Indigenous, those who are above certain ages. So that’s significant as well.

The COVID-19 pandemic obviously affected us in ways that the regular flu season did not, and it has done that over a period of time. The one thing that changed that trajectory was vaccination, and that’s why B.C. having the strongest vaccination program in the country and B.C. being the only one with vaccine requirements for health care workers is such an advantage to British Columbia.

You can see that in the impact of the pandemic. Without that, you ended up taking, of course, more other measures in order to reduce the spread of COVID-19 at a time when there was not vaccination and protection. We saw the trajectory and the impact of the vaccine affect different people at different times.

I told the member about the impact of the delta variant on unvaccinated populations in B.C., which was profound. We see that. If the member is interested, and continues to be interested, in the issue of immunity, what’s clear is that natural immunity wanes way faster than natural immunity plus, obviously, immunization. That’s one of the many, many reasons why immunization is so valuable.

So I would say that our response to the COVID-19 pandemic in B.C. was significant and important. It’s reflected in long-term care. It was reflected in the fact that we kept schools open more than other jurisdictions, which is a real tribute to our teachers and our students and our parents in B.C., who understood the value of having children in school.

It’s why, when temporary foreign workers were coming to B.C. to work, principally in agriculture and seasonal programs…. It’s why the fact that British Columbia…. This was, I think, unanimously supported in the Legislature. I recall the support of the opposition Health critic at the time. It’s why the decision to quarantine people as they came in provided protection for everybody who worked in agriculture in our province.

We took steps, always focused on the most vulnerable, and they had, I think, very positive overall effects — not just on people in B.C., not just on the health outcomes of people in B.C., not just the impact of COVID-19 in B.C. but on overall health measures in B.C. and the quality of life in our province.

J. Rustad: I look forward to seeing those statistics from the CDC, as the minister has committed to getting.

One of the things I have noticed, particularly in other jurisdictions, is there has been a lot of tracking in terms of injuries or other issues that, potentially, are related to the vaccine and people receiving the vaccine. So I’m curious whether or not, in British Columbia, we collect that data associated with any potential injuries associated with vaccinations — vaccinations to COVID-19, in particular — and, if they are tracking that information, where I could access that information associated with any potential injuries.

One of the questions I get frequently from people around the province is about these reports that have been done in other jurisdictions. They say: “Well, what’s happening in B.C.?” And I say: “Well, I don’t know.”

So I thought this was an opportunity to ask the minister whether or not these sorts of things are being tracked, whether or not there are reports that can be accessed so that, quite frankly, I can answer these questions when I get asked these questions from other people.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I was trying to find the exact webpage reference. We track what are called AEFIs — adverse events from vaccination. We’ve tracked them from the beginning of the pandemic. They’ve been publicly available from the beginning of the pandemic. They’re publicly available now. We publish them monthly now, because obviously, month to month, they wouldn’t change significantly.

That information has been available since we started immunizing people against COVID-19. I’m happy to share the link with the hon. member.

J. Rustad: I apologize. I just haven’t been able to comb through data that the CDC puts out there, so I look forward to seeing that information. It’s one of those things…. When you keep reading these reports coming from other jurisdictions and when people keep coming and asking me questions about it, I’d love to have that place where you can go. So I thank the minister for providing me with that link on that information.

I want to move on to another topic, which is disturbing. Across Canada, back two years ago, I think, there were some 13,560, give or take, people who passed while waiting for diagnostic services and surgery. Statistically, as by B.C.’s population, that would be about six people a day in B.C., just under, that would pass while waiting for these.

Last year the statistics I saw across Canada were about 12,400, give or take. However, I haven’t been able to find the information in British Columbia and, in particular, information broken down by health authority in British Columbia, if it’s available.

I’m curious if the minister has that information available and where I can find that information, beyond going through a freedom-of-information request.

Hon. A. Dix: On surgery completion, the member will know that from 2018…. Then in May of 2020, we announced our surgical renewal program. He’ll know the number of people waiting for surgeries was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. He’ll know that we did defer and delay tens of thousands of surgeries in March 2020, and we did it at other times in the pandemic as well, and that 99 percent of those surgeries have been completed.

We are setting record numbers of surgeries week into week, which we provide, and we regularly report on the success of the surgical renewal commitment. So I think it’s fair to say that we’re making progress, and, still, lots of people are waiting too long for surgeries.

We have, for example, on hip replacements, surgeries on the 90th percentile, which is an important measure, because it was a focus of surgical renewal to focus on long-waiters for surgery and to reduce those numbers. We’re leading the country in MRIs, and no area has more positively been affected by this than the Northern Health Authority.

Under the time of the previous government, prior to my becoming Minister of Health, the Northern Health Authority, I think, had the least number of diagnostic exams for MRIs per capita, per 1,000 population — it was 22 at the time — of any health authority in the country.

We have more than doubled that number. We’re now in line with the other jurisdictions in the country, and we’re making progress as a province. We did 174,000 MRIs in B.C. in 2016-17, the last year under the previous administration. We did 300,000 MRIs in 2021-22, which was in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic that affected things such as hospital care.

[3:30 p.m.]

The issues are different for what I call urgent and non-urgent surgeries. Urgent surgeries always continued throughout the pandemic, at all times, surgeries that were required on an urgent basis. It was non-urgent surgeries that were delayed.

This is important for such a statistic. I don’t believe it’s a statistic we would keep, if only because if you were on the wait-list for, say, cataract surgery and you were to pass away while waiting for that surgery, it’s not necessarily linked to the failure to have a non-urgent appointment.

What we’re attempting to do, what we significantly do during the pandemic, and what I get reports on every week, is to provide urgent surgeries — which are, by definition, needed, essentially, right away — and urgent and emergent surgeries. Those were never deferred at any time in the pandemic and wouldn’t be deferred now. That’s a number that stays fairly constant.

If you think that we do, and have been doing, approximately 7,300 surgeries a week, the number that is variable, the number that has increased in the last few years, has been of the non-urgent surgeries. The number that didn’t increase, or that stayed fairly stable, is of the urgent surgeries.

The issue of mortality doesn’t affect what we know, which is that when people wait, for example, for a knee replacement surgery, the longer the wait, the worse the recovery and the worse the outcome is. That’s why we want to reduce surgical wait times.

The issue is not quality of life, or of life itself, in a surgical process. The priority to reduce surgical wait times is always there. We’ve been doing that in B.C., and the results, relative to other jurisdictions in the country and in North America, have been very good, but we’re driving to make them better.

J. Rustad: It’s an interesting answer from the minister. It seemed to indicate that they don’t keep that information. I might be wrong about that, in terms of how I understood the minister’s response. There was an FOI request that came out — I think it was 2021 or 2020, somewhere in there — which showed, for example, that in Fraser Health, I think, 344 people on a waiting list had passed.

The information is there somewhere. It was only accessible through freedom of information. I’m wondering if the minister can commit to providing information associated with people on wait-lists who passed waiting for diagnostic or surgical procedures. It’s a measure that other jurisdictions are keeping, and it’s a measure that’s important to know.

For example, we keep track of people passing from opioid overdoses, and quite frankly, the same number of people are dying from this. Now, they’re different categories, different issues. So it’s important to know that. When you have between five and six people passing every day in British Columbia while on wait-lists, it’s important to understand.

Once again, if I could just ask the minister, is there a way to be able to access that data? Or is it required to have to go through freedom of information to be able to access that?

Hon. A. Dix: I’d just say that I think we manage wait-lists. So we know that in a given period, there may be some people on wait-lists who subsequently choose not to follow through on the surgery. We know that. We also know when people pass away. We do track all of that information in our work.

That’s just to say that there is, and I’ll be sharing this with the hon. member, a detailed report — which is, as I say, updated now monthly, but it has been updated weekly in the last year, and more than that — on adverse events following immunizations. If people are looking to google that, that would be AEFI. There is a British Columbia report that is available on the BCCDC website, and I’m happy to provide that to the hon. member.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the information associated, particularly with the vaccination. If I could just ask the minister to clarify, in terms of the number of people passing while on surgical or diagnostic wait-lists, whether that information is publicly available or whether that’s required through an FOI.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I think I said it, but I just want to say that it is not the same thing tracking someone who dies from an overdose as someone who dies and is on the wait-list for surgery. It is not the same data. It is not comparable. In the case of an overdose death, the overdose effectively causes the death. That is not the case for surgeries.

What we have done, and what we’re doing a better job of, is cleaning up surgical wait-lists. That data work was a significant and important part of the surgical renewal commitment so that we would get people access on wait-lists. Many people who are waiting for surgery for a period of time may pass away in that period, but that doesn’t suggest causality between the two.

If you’re waiting for a knee replacement surgery, and you pass away for other reasons, which is a tragic thing, especially if you’re waiting for some time…. It’s why we want people to live their lives to the fullest. That’s not causality in the same way as suggesting the numbers of people waiting for surgery are somehow the same as overdoses.

The overdose public health emergency is a terrible thing that requires all of our joint commitment. Because it’s a terrible thing that requires all of our joint commitment, it can’t be relativized through other issues.

J. Rustad: I’m not sure if the minister was uncertain about the question I asked or just doesn’t want to provide the information. I’ll just give the minister one more opportunity, in terms of people passing on a wait-list for diagnostic services or surgeries, whether or not that is information that can be made publicly available or whether that has to be discovered through a freedom-of-information request.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I presume what would have to happen — and there would have to be some purpose to it, I suppose — would be to track vital statistics data against surgical wait-lists. What we’ve sought to do is to clean up surgical wait-lists both by increasing the number of surgeries but also by ensuring and addressing potential issues of duplication and problems with the lists. That’s part of what the surgical renewal is all about.

I don’t think the FOI request makes much difference, but certainly, if the member is asking for a detailed response, I’d be happy to provide one by letter.

J. Rustad: Like I said earlier, other jurisdictions are tracking this information, and it’s important information to know. It’s why, for example, I have the information associated with what’s happened across Canada, with Health Canada providing information.

The reason for asking these questions, of course, is be­cause wait times have increased. I’ll just give you one example from my riding, an individual who required a heart Holter monitor. Back a decade ago, that used to be two days. Now they’re being asked six weeks.

I asked Northern Health why that wait time is six weeks, and they said: “Well, it’s improved dramatically. It used to be ten weeks.” But the reality is that it’s up significantly from where it was a number of years ago, in terms of it. That’s just the reality, and it’s information that the health authority is providing me.

It’s important to know. I mean, when you have got…. There are lots of people, and your questions in question period about a number of things — the time it takes for people, for example, with cancer to get through the process and treatment….

[3:40 p.m.]

A friend of mine had a brain tumour and required attention and just could not get through, could not get through. It was getting worse and worse. He was at risk of losing his eyesight. Finally, the doctor who was dealing with him appears to have just said: “Go and wait in the specialist’s office in Vancouver.”

He went down there, and within a few days, he was able to actually get in to see a specialist. The specialist saw him and said: “Thank you for…. Glad you got in. We’ve got to get you into surgery right away.” He went in. Within a week, he was in having brain surgery in the hospital and getting dealt with. It has been a great outcome for him. The surgeon did a great job. He has recovered, and he’s doing well.

The challenge is getting through these wait-lists and getting through the process. That’s why it’s important to know. It’s a measure. It may be, unfortunately, a tragic measure, but it’s a measure in terms of how we are performing in the health care system, in terms of people having to wait for diagnostic services and surgery, and how that compares to other jurisdictions and the process.

Maybe I’ll just ask another question associated with this, which is the average wait time associated with orthopedic surgery for hip and knee replacements, for example. It’s something I know the minister has talked about a number of times in terms of improvement. I’m just wondering, in terms of the wait times, what it was pre pandemic versus what it is today. It’s just one more example….

The reason I’m asking, particularly, about this case is…. A friend of mine tragically passed away a number of years ago now. She was waiting for a hip replacement. It was quite severe. She couldn’t get comfortable. She couldn’t sleep. It was really a challenge for her. She was travelling to Vancouver for meetings, and because she couldn’t sleep, she fell asleep at the wheel and tragically died in a car accident. These sorts of things are a reality of what’s happening.

I know our health care system is trying to do the best it can. Keeping track of this information is one way to be able to understand where we’re at and where we need to be able to have some focus.

As I mentioned…. If that information is not available or not publicly available, it’s fine. We’ll have to do it through a freedom-of-information request. But if the minister could, perhaps, indicate where we’re at with, for example, hip and knee replacements pre pandemic versus today.

Hon. A. Dix: A couple of things. The member referred to Health Canada data. Health Canada gets data from us. When the Conference Board, or others, does estimates of such things…. They’re estimates. It’s based on an analysis. It’s not data. I think the member understands that. In any event, what we’ve seen is a significant improvement in health outcomes relative to other jurisdictions, even during this period of pandemic.

In terms of orthopedics, in his health authority, what you’re seeing is an improvement in the overall number of surgeries completed. That improvement is about 5 percent over the period. We, obviously, made very significant progress in ’17-18 and ’18-19, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We’ve been recovering from the delays in non-urgent surgeries since then.

If you’re looking at the overall operating room hours in Northern Health for orthopedics, that number in the most recent period compared to 2016-17 is approximately a 13 percent increase, which is a pretty significant increase in the hours and the operations. We do have an aging population. So we’re going to see that against the demand.

The CIHI report, which compares, based on all of the specific data…. Again, it’s from the provincial government. It’s not like Health Canada is providing data that we’re not. There isn’t….

That data shows, of course, on hip replacements, as she mentions, B.C. leading the country, in the 90th percentile, and being second in the country with respect to hip and knee surgeries, within the clinical benchmarks, and the second lowest overall wait times for orthopedic surgeries.

All of that is available. Happy to share that information with the hon. member.

[3:45 p.m.]

What it says is that the investment in hip and knee replacement surgery in B.C. and the performance of British Columbia relative to other jurisdictions during the COVID-19 pandemic has been significant and, we believe, based on all of that investment. What were they? About 70 new medical device reprocessing technicians; about 900 new nurses trained as surgical nurses, which is important; I think close to 100 new anesthesiologists.

All of those have had a positive effect on outcomes. I believe this year, if we get a year clear of significant delays…. I mean, there will inevitably be some delay of surgeries during a period of respiratory illness. But without that, we are really going to have the system going at a high pace this year — record numbers of surgeries every single week in the 2023 calendar year.

J. Rustad: Maybe then, just for clarity, and I’m happy that these surgeries are increasing, perhaps the minister could just confirm what the estimated average wait time is between the first visit with an orthopedic surgeon, in terms of consultation, and actually getting the surgery for a knee or hip replacement, for both pre-pandemic and post-pandemic.

Hon. A. Dix: As we have for…. Really, since the beginning of such statistics over multiple governments and multiple decades, we don’t do that measure. The measure of wait time is from the time when the surgeon decides the surgery is to take place to the time the surgery takes place.

J. Rustad: The reason for asking is I was talking with a doctor about this very issue because of the tragedy, of course, that happened to a friend of mine. I was curious about it, and what the doctor had said was that pre-pandemic, the wait time between that first consultation and the decision to go forward with a surgery to actually getting the surgery was about six months, and it’s about a year now, in terms of the time. So it would be great if the minister could maybe look into that information.

Obviously, the minister seems to be a little surprised at hearing that information. I do know that the Doctors of B.C. have also been engaged with the ministry about this problem, about the time delays between getting the diagnosis, visiting and actually getting the surgery.

So I’m just curious, in terms of the recommendations of the Doctors of B.C., what steps has the ministry taken to try to fulfil those recommendations from the Doctors of B.C. to be able to reduce that gap that has been increasing now since pre-pandemic?

Hon. A. Dix: We had an extensive discussion on this question — it’s sometimes called Wait One — with the member for Prince George–Valemount early in the week or last week, and I’d refer the member to those answers.

I would say this, because we’re talking about orthopedics. A variety of measures across the health care system, about 100 measures, have been put in place since surgical renewal came into place to improve in different health authorities. And this is just for orthopedics. I’m happy to provide this.

[3:50 p.m.]

In the Interior Health Authority, the expansion of ORs at Royal Inland; increased supports at Cariboo Memorial; increased ortho day cases at Queen Victoria; regional OR times at Kelowna General Hospital; additional OR times at Kelowna General Hospital — these are all for orthopedics — work underway to support the orthopedics working group.

In Fraser Health, resource allocation methodology at all surgical sites; the hiring of a new spine surgeon; the hiring of a new ortho trauma surgeon to expedite care for amputations, traumatic fractures and hip fractures. Those are the urgent surgeries as opposed to what are frequently non-urgent surgeries but still significant surgeries in the system.

Surgeons receiving time at another site; the hiring of new pediatric ortho surgeons; the cast clinic and education of LPNs to support pediatric orthos; orthopedic surgeries in and out of the OR.

In Northern Health, the prioritizing of day-surgery cases for ortho at UHNBC, important for the member’s constituents.

The same-day discharge program in the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

Numerous procedures in the PHSA and in Vancouver Coastal Health.

In short, 100 different measures to support the surgical renewal commitment.

In addition to that, finally, we are working closely on what’s called Wait One and measures. We can address those issues with the Doctors of B.C. I think our collaboration over the last year on issues of family care and on issues of specialist care has been exceptional. We’re continuing to do the work to improve outcomes for people.

You can’t have a better measure of improvement in outcome than setting records for surgeries every single week.

J. Rustad: That didn’t really answer the question, and I did listen to the conversation between the minister and the member for Prince George–Valemount over the last week of estimates. But I still asked the question, because it was still uncertain.

I don’t want to carry on too much longer in terms of this process, but there are a couple of other topics I just want to quickly touch on, if I may. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm that British Columbia currently has a two-tiered health care system.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, what I would say is that in significant areas — in particular, the government that the member was a member of and a supporter of — particularly on diagnostic care, this has been a significant change.

When we talk about 174,000 MRI exams going to 300,000, what was happening across that system was that people were being encouraged to pay for their own MRIs and then get ahead on the public wait list, right? That isn’t happening in B.C. when you have 300,000. We dramatically responded to this. How did we do it? By improving care in the public system. On surgeries, how did we do it? A hundred actions in the public system.

With respect to the care that we provide for people across the system, we have consistently supported the public system and its response to people based on need. We have in B.C., and we’re under, the legislation of the Medicare Protection Act, the legislation of the Canada Health Act, which is obviously federal legislation. We follow that legislation. When it’s required, in particular, the Medical Services Commission takes action based on that legislation.

For medically necessary care, what we aspire to is to ensure that people get care based on need. The dramatic improvements that have been made across the board and the rolling back of privatizations of the system demonstrate our commitment to a public health care system that we can all be proud of.

J. Rustad: One thing about politics is that you can give these answers, which are vague and carry off but don’t really answer the question.

The reality is that in British Columbia, if you are a prisoner, if you are on WCB, if you are a judge, if you are a politician, you can access health care that may not be accessible to other people in British Columbia, through clinics, through a process. This was a system that was set up under the NDP back in the 1990s and has carried forward ever since, in terms of procedures.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, not obviously all procedures, but there is a challenge or, I guess, an issue in terms of health care that could be available that is not necessarily available to the general public. Judges, for example, have access to that type of a service.

This is why I’m asking the question of the minister about there being a two-tiered system in British Columbia currently. Obviously, it’s not something, but it has been something that has been in place for many decades — particularly, like I say, for those under workers compensation, injured workers, in terms of getting them treatment, getting them off the system, getting them out of that and back into the work environment.

The minister decided not to answer that question the first time around. I’m not sure if he wants to answer this time around. It looks like he does want to answer the question. So perhaps I’ll give him another opportunity to answer what I’ve just said.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I gave a detailed answer, in my view, which is that I don’t believe in two-tier health care. I believe in measures that ensure the equality of everybody who enters the system.

I don’t know what the member is talking about in terms of judges. I don’t know what he’s talking about in terms of politicians. I can tell him…. As he knows, I have type 1 diabetes. I have no preferred access to health care, and I don’t think he does either. I think contributing to those myths does nothing for the work we have to do together.

Equally, with respect to prisoners, there’s one person in Fraser Health, in the first cohort, cohort 1, of delays that we made in the COVID-19 pandemic. There is one person still on that wait-list. It’s a prisoner; the individual is still in jail. Prisoners don’t have preferred access to health care. To suggest they do is, I think, to play to or to provoke a myth which is nothing and has no basis in reality. It has no basis in reality.

People who are in jail are in jail because they’ve gone through the criminal justice system, and they’re in jail. But the suggestion — look at health outcomes — that somehow they’re getting preferred access to health care is just not true. It is just not true.

It is true that we have a WorkSafe system in B.C. that everyone in the system has the same access to, with respect to workplace injuries. That is true, but it is not two-tiered care. It’s a public health care system, and it’s why it’s specifically addressed in the Canada Health Act, an act I support, and the Medicare Protection Act, an act that I support and every member of the Legislature supported the last time it was voted on, including the hon. member.

What I’d say is this about all of it — that we do have to address, in a society such as this that has real inequality, the social determinants of health. It is not unequal, for example, to give preferred access to vaccinations to people who are clinically vulnerable. That’s health care based on need. That’s what I believe in, and that’s what I believe in delivering in our province.

Creating myths or the suggestion that some people will get preferred access over other people is not what we’re about in Canada. That’s not what we’re about in British Columbia, and it’s not what we’re going to be about. We’re going to continue to take action to support and protect public health care, to ensure that people who work for the public health care system are fairly remunerated, to make sure that people have access to care.

[4:00 p.m.]

Sometimes it’s the case that we don’t get people access to care in time, and they’re on wait-lists. I believe in reducing wait-lists. Sometimes people are on wait-lists for long-term care. But I’m not going to…. I think that to believe or to put forward the idea that there’s some myth out there….

What we have to do is improve public health care. That’s what I believe the Ministry of Health is about, what the health authorities are about, what I’m about, but what a lot of other people are about as well, and that we have to make it better.

You don’t have to raise those issues with me. I deal with them every day. But to suggest that there’s some preferred access to the public health care system — that’s just not correct. I don’t agree.

J. Rustad: I’m not suggesting there’s preferred access to the public system. What I am suggesting is that during the nineties, particularly to deal with issues of injured workers, there was a system set up. It’s why the False Creek medical thing was up and running. It’s why there are many other places around the province that were set up: to be able to address issues that came up.

Obviously, there was a court case more recently, but that particular centre has had judges, has had injured workers, has had others that have paid for services at that particular centre. It’s a policy approach that WCB has used in the past, of course, to try to get injured workers back to work as soon as possible and get them off of insurance claims.

That’s why I’m asking around it. It’s not an issue of me going and paying for access or somebody else paying for access to the public health care system. It’s a separate system that is set up and in place, which can be accessible by certain groups and certain categories of individuals. But like I say, I don’t want to waste too much more time going after it.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The minister would like to give a response to that? Okay.

Hon. A. Dix: The hon. member raises the False Creek Surgical Centre. When I became Minister of Health, we changed the rules for private clinics, which we still use within the public health care system.

You’re on the public wait-list. There’s a whole bunch of private clinics that are used by us, and roughly…. The majority of them these days are ophthalmological surgeries, but they’re public system, and we use them because it’s an efficient way to deliver services. In the case of the Prince George Surgery Centre, which is nearby the hon. member, we recently took that over, because that was the best thing to do for the public.

He talks about the False Creek Surgical Centre. False Creek Surgical Centre was the only surgical centre in British Columbia that said: “We won’t follow the Medicare Protection Act.” You know what happened? Well, I cancelled their contract. That’s what happened. Then they were sold, and then they said they would follow the law, and then they got their contract back.

The people who go there under that contract are people who go there on the public wait-list. People may argue…. I know some people…. Sometimes I get criticized for this. People say: “Well, you shouldn’t use all the resources of the public health care system to get people off surgical wait-lists.” I think that as long as people are following the rules, then we should do that.

We’ve reduced that number. We purchased the centres on Vancouver Island. We’ve purchased the centre in Prince George. Those numbers will be coming down.

I think with respect to eye surgery, there’s been…. The whole procedure, the whole nature of eye surgery has changed. In our time, when the hon. member and I have been members of the Legislature, it has changed. It’s now more efficient and quicker, and we have ways of addressing that. But as long as it’s in the public system, I see no problem in doing everything we can to get people their cataract surgery as soon as possible.

On False Creek, they have to follow the law. They didn’t follow the law, and they were out. They did follow the law, and they were in. That’s as it should be.

J. Rustad: I just want to ask one or two additional questions, moving on to the topic of Bill 36. The minister, I believe, is in the process of going through and writing regulations for Bill 36. There has obviously been a significant amount of concern that has been raised around Bill 36, from last fall, which is the health professions act or whichever it’s called. I can’t remember the exact name at this time.

There has been a group of doctors that have circulated a rather lengthy questionnaire associated with what’s going on with Bill 36. I know that a number of doctors have sent that to the minister and to the ministry.

[4:05 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister can commit to reviewing those questions that have been brought in from doctors and other health care workers around Bill 36 and be able to provide a response to those questions — whether the minister can commit to providing that.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, if people have sent me questions, I’ll no doubt respond.

I would say this about Bill 36. This was a bill that re­ceived substantial consultation up to the time it was passed, and is receiving it now. Since receiving royal assent, the Ministry of Health has held 40 consultation sessions with external and internal stakeholders, including the Doctors of B.C. We’re actively consulting with them.

What’s happening is that we’re reducing the number of health regulators. It had been going up and up, and first Minister Lake and then I myself have taken actions to reduce that. We were at 24; we’re now at 15, which I think is good. There’s going to be a movement to six regulators.

This doesn’t address doctors, who will continue to have the College of Physicians and Surgeons, although it has taken on the podiatric surgeons within its college. So that was a reduction of one college.

That consultation continues with the health regulators, with Doctors of B.C., with Health Association, a variety of kind, and others. We’re continuing that process of consultation. If people send me a letter, I’ll respond.

J. Rustad: Well, I know that these doctors have sent this information to the minister, requesting a response, because they’ve cc’d me in terms of the emails. It’s rather a lengthy question, so I didn’t expect the minister to have responded immediately. If the minister hasn’t seen that email come in — and it’s possible that it hasn’t come in — I’d be happy to print off a copy or forward it directly to the minister.

It’s only the first part of a group of questions. I think it was some 38 pages. So it’s obviously very lengthy. These doctors have taken a great deal of time to go into the details on Bill 36. They have been engaging with Doctors of B.C., and they’re going to be doing more engagement associated with Doctors of B.C. and with other doctors around the province.

The one thing that seems to be in common with the vast majority — particular doctors, but other health care workers — is that they’re unaware of what’s actually happening with Bill 36. So there’s quite a conversation that’s going on. The colleges have not disseminated a great deal of information down to the members.

These doctors had some concerns, and they were hoping to get answers. I can make sure that that information gets provided to the minister directly, if the minister would like, and I’m once again just asking if the minister can commit to being able to provide answers to the questions that have been raised by doctors and other health care professionals associated with Bill 36.

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, doctors and health professionals, thousands of them, were engaged in the consultation on Bill 36.

There was the Harry Cayton report. There was an all-party committee that, ultimately, in a double process, made recommendations about what the bill should look at. There was extensive consultation with First Nations and others as well on the provisions of the bill. We had a long debate — I won’t get back into that here — 47½ hours, the second-longest debate in this century, in this Legislature, on a piece of legislation.

We’re now proceeding to bring the bill into force, a process because…. We’re creating both the occupations part of the act — which doesn’t affect, I think, the group of people he’s talking about — and the health professions part of the act. We have had a Health Professions Act, and, yes, there is a lot of misinformation around that act out there. So we’ve been, obviously, endeavouring to respond to that misinformation on a regular basis. Lots of myths put forward, a significant number of them about the issue of vaccinations.

In any event, we’re continuing now with the required consultations to bring the bill into force. We’ve had, as I noted, 40 consultation sessions. We’ll have more.

I’ve received, as the member will know, a fair amount of correspondence on Bill 36, and we endeavour to respond, often with public information. Sometimes they’re chain-produced letters, and other times they are not. But I’m happy to respond to that.

We do most of our engagement with the professions, obviously, through the professional organizations — it’s the simplest and most efficient way — as we have been from the beginning. But this has been the most consulted piece of legislation, and it will continue to be as we bring it into force.

[4:10 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I will provide that email, from the doctors that have been in contact with me, to the minister. With regard to the response, I know the minister will likely pass it on to staff, and they will go through it. They’ve got lots of good professionals in the Ministry of Health that will be able to help with providing answers for the doctors.

I’m just wondering if I can also get a commitment from the minister to copy me on the response that would be forthcoming to the doctors as I forward this information to the minister.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m happy to copy the hon. member on a response to a letter that he hasn’t shared with me yet, and I look forward to that. I look forward to that process.

We are engaged in an extensive consultation process on this legislation. I’m sure that when the member shares this piece of correspondence on it, I’ll look at it with interest.

J. Rustad: I actually think this has been sent about 20 or 30 times to the minister, from various doctors, but I’ll make sure it gets directly printed off if need be, as well, to the minister, although I’m sure he would prefer the electronic form for being able to pass to staff.

With that, I just want to thank the minister and staff in terms of the extra time. I know it wasn’t anticipated and everybody is busy, so I just really appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask these questions.

Vote 32: ministry operations, $28,526,258,000 — approved.

The Chair: This committee stands in recess as we change ministries.

The committee recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order, meeting today to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,013,019,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just that once again, we’re here to do the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. To my hon. colleague across the way, the critic, I look forward to the discussion and the questions. Staff are here. Let’s get on with things.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

M. Morris: I know it’s great to see staff here again.

Just for your information, I mean to talk a little bit about your new assistant deputy minister position and what that position is all about.

We’re going to talk a little bit more about Surrey. We’re going to talk about your new public safety plan, where the members are going to be going. We’re going to talk a little bit about prolific offenders; First Nations policing, which is part of your overall plan as well; cannabis sales on First Nations reserves; your community-industry response group.

Interjection.

M. Morris: The C-IRG. That’s going to entail quite a few questions there. That should entail most of the time.Then at the end, I’ve got some questions on the coroner, respecting some of the services the coroner has, and there’ll be some questions on corrections as well. Not very many; just a few. That’s the general agenda that we have.

The minister recently added a new assistant deputy minister, heading up the public safety transformation task force, from what I understand. Can the minister tell us about the transformation task force, the terms of reference and the scope of what this transformation looks like?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Megan Harris is the new assistant deputy minister, ADM, and her role will be very much an oversight role in the transformation that we’re trying to put in terms of the ministry.

A number of the initiatives are underway — for example, the work around the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, next generation 911, the safer communities action plan, the continued recommendations out of the Cullen commission. The idea is to bring them all together, as opposed to one-offing things, so that they’re being dealt with in a comprehensive plan. It will be her job to oversee that.

M. Morris: There are a lot of things going on, of course, but you also have a big staff over there and a number of people that are looking into all these things. Is she the only new hire, and is coordinating all of these new initiatives, or are there additional staff that she or the ministry has brought on board to look after this and execute it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Megan’s is the only executive position that has been made, and then additional staff, in the ministry already, will move to be under her direction to deal with the work she’s overseeing.

M. Morris: So no new additional staff. Megan is the only addition to the ministry to oversee these various programs.

There was a briefing note that went out to the minister last fall, talking about an impact assessment, as part of phase 1, to look at a transition to a provincial police force. I’m just wondering if the minister can give me an outline of what this looks like and how far down the road this has gone.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. As I’ve talked about in the past, we’re looking at the approach — in dealing with the all-party committee on a phased approach. There is money in the budget to do that. That’s the money that the member is referring to. I think I’ve said in the House that there will be legislation coming later in the fall — that’s the plan — dealing with phase 1 recommendations. That’s very much focused on governance and oversight.

I would say, at this point, in terms of a potential provincial police force, it would be at extremely early, early stages. That’s not even…. I would not even say that that is something you are going to see in phase 1. That really is down the road, but the money is there to do the work that’s required under the committee’s report and the recommendations on how we move forward in reforming the Police Act.

M. Morris: I guess it did pique my curiosity. It is an enormous topic that has been examined by various contracts across the country. I’m just curious as to where…. It said phase 1 and provincial policing within this phase 1. What has been done, to date, with respect to chasing down this provincial policing initiative or strategy?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. At this point, really, all that has been done is kind of setting up to do information-gathering. I mean, that’s how early, in terms of where things are in regards to that recommendation. The report itself said that if the province were to go down that path, it would be many, many parliaments. So it’s at a very preliminary stage.

M. Morris: We will be looking at some of these initiatives that you mentioned. The safer communities — we’ll examine that in a little more detail. The 911 upgrade we examined during the supplementary estimates.

I’m just wondering where we are with all the recommendations from the Cullen commission. I know there have been some things implemented. What things are left to implement here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the recommendations that apply to this ministry, I think two of the critical ones….

One has been completed, which is the unexplained wealth orders. The other one is the information-sharing. We have ongoing work with the federal government on that. They are a key player with regards to that.

M. Morris: I’ll have a few questions on information-sharing further on, as we go there. Is the minister speaking now in terms of information-sharing with agencies like FINTRAC and other federal government agencies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

M. Morris: When this new transformation task force…. Will there be regular updates, which are provided publicly, to let the public know where this transformation sits, where phase 1 is? How many phases are there? Do we have a phase 2, a phase 3? What’s the overall projection for this?

[S. Chant in the chair.]

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to make sure, so we’re clear…. In terms of the phased approach, that’s very much in terms of the special committee’s report, in terms of how we’re dealing with those recommendations — when I talked about the legislation earlier.

In terms of my new ADM’s work, that’s just getting started at this point. She’s just getting…. It’s not, at this point, this phase, that phase, that phase. She’s starting, just getting everything together in terms of: “Okay, here’s what we’re dealing with, and how is the best way to proceed forward?” So an understanding of all the different component pieces and how we deal with them.

M. Morris: Does she have a timeline? Is there a set number of goals she needs to meet over the course of the next year or two?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The new ADM is doing that work right now, in terms of pulling together what the strategy is going to look like, and is developing a framework in terms of what the timelines will be, because these are a series of complex issues, and we want to make sure the work complements each of the areas which she’s overseeing. She will be developing that strategy and those timelines on how to make that all work.

M. Morris: Will that…? Transparency is a big issue, particularly with provincial policing and many of the other issues here. Is there a plan in place to make sure there are regular updates for the public and the various agencies like the RCMP, municipal departments and anybody else that’s engaged in this entire exercise?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Already the meetings have started, with the chiefs of police meeting monthly, local government meeting monthly, and also Indigenous partners, in terms of the co-development that’s taking place. So there is that communication the member is wanting to make sure it takes place.

M. Morris: Is it the ADM who will be travelling around the province and meeting with these agencies, or is it staff that’s going to be meeting with these agencies and reporting back to the ADM? How engaged will she become?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, she will be out and about in the province.

M. Morris: Interesting project. There’s a lot to that. I’ll be looking forward to seeing this progress and what kinds of transitions our province and provincial policing will take the form of.

I want to turn now to probably your favourite subject of recent days — Surrey and the policing there. Your recommendation for the Surrey police transition, which is contrary to the decision of the mayor…. I’ve sat in your chair before, and I am somewhat familiar with the legislation and whatnot.

The decision is the decision of the mayor, with respect to what the city council wants to do. They can have their own police force. They can contract with another existing police force, or they can contract with the RCMP, which is a significant decision. I’m curious to hear from the minister.

[4:35 p.m.]

You’ve made a nebulous decision, I guess, with respect to recommending that Surrey move forward with the Surrey police service, but it’s still up to the mayor. I just wonder if the minister can elaborate a little bit on that.

I might…. Well not, “I might.” I will be going into depth into some of his rationale as to what has supported this decision that he’s made.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know, as the member knows, that I don’t have the authority to direct the city of Surrey to choose a particular police force. They have that ability. The member also knows I have a responsibility that, if they want to change their police force, there is a plan in place that allows that to happen — one that ensures public safety, safe and effective policing in that particular community.

So when a request like that comes in, the work and the analysis are done within my ministry by the director of police services, who prepares a report that comes back to me. It’s on that basis…. I think this is a key point. I have to approve or not approve a plan based on the analysis that was brought forward. The recommendation is not to approve that plan.

At the same time, I can say two things. I can say there is a path that you can take in a particular direction or, if you wish to continue what you’re doing, there are a series of conditions that are binding and not negotiable that would have to be met for that path to be successful.

M. Morris: You know, when I look at Surrey…. I’ve sat patiently watching this whole transition roll out over the years. I read the initial report recommending the transition, which was woefully missing a lot of information.

Then of course, there was a follow-up report that again, in my humble opinion, was also lacking a lot of the metrics and detail required to make a solid decision. I perhaps would have made a different decision, but nonetheless, we’re moving down this road.

[4:40 p.m.]

The transition hasn’t happened yet. I look at Surrey, and I look at their caseload. I look at the service that the police in Surrey have been providing to date and the investigative work that they do. The caseload per officer in Surrey currently sits at around 47, which is way under the average.

Is the minister concerned about the level of policing that Surrey is providing? It’s got a relatively low crime rate, low caseload, in comparison to other municipal jurisdictions. It’s a little above the average for the independent police forces. Is the minister concerned about the level of service that the Surrey police, including the Surrey police and the RCMP, have been providing to the citizens of Surrey up until today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. This isn’t about a failure of policing by either the Surrey Police Service or the RCMP. In fact, both pro­vide good service.

In fact, the reality right now is, in terms of the day-to-day operations, about 50 percent. If you are calling for a police response, about half the response is provided by the Surrey Police Service, and half the response is provided by the RCMP. This is the issue about the transition, not whether one police service is better than the other police service. They’re both good police services.

M. Morris: So the minister is not concerned about the level of police service that’s currently being provided by both forces working in there? I’m trying to get at the reasons why the minister has made the recommendation to the mayor that they stick with the Surrey Police Service.

The level of service is good. The crime rate is down, basically. The criminal caseload per police officer is under the average. I think Surrey is getting good value for money, and they have been for years, based on the amount of service that they have there.

I’m just trying to find out where the minister’s concern lies right now so that I can dig a little bit deeper in there and maybe find out and make it clear to us exactly what the underlying causes are for this determination.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If we go back to the beginning, in 2018, the city of Surrey unanimously voted to go to the Surrey Police Service. In 2020, they received approval to do the transition. In 2022, they then said: “No, we want to go back.”

[4:45 p.m.]

In that meantime, 390 Surrey Police Service personnel had been hired. At the same time, now they want to go back, and they have to now fill at least 161 positions. The question becomes: where do those positions come from? Neither Surrey Police Service nor the RCMP can, at the current time, function independently of each other.

There needs to be a plan in place that would address all of those issues and situations. That’s where, within my ministry, the analysis of what needs to happen to make something successful, or to not work, in providing public safety, needs to be analyzed. That’s why I got the report back that I did, with the recommendation that’s in place.

M. Morris: I will get into the staffing numbers here shortly, but there’s nothing in the Police Act like: “This is a transition in progress.” It hasn’t become a complete transition yet. It’s in progress.

There’s nothing in the Police Act that prevents the mayor and council from changing their minds, that I can see, provided that they still provide an adequate and effective level of policing that suits the minister’s requirements. Is that right?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be: correct. What has to happen is that there be a plan in place that shows that the transition would be not only safe and effective, in terms of policing in Surrey, but also in terms of the rest of the province.

E. Sturko: Has the minister or this government re­ceived any correspondence — whether email, written letter, phone call, telegram, birthday card — anything from, maybe, the commissioner of the RCMP or from the federal government or the Minister of Public Safety Canada that would indicate there would be a problem and that they wouldn’t be able to help the Surrey RCMP to fill the 161 positions, or any other positions across British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll answer the member’s question this way: when the city of Surrey indicated that they wanted to transition back to the RCMP, the RCMP had to give us a plan on how they would do that.

[4:50 p.m.]

Part and parcel of that plan, the critical component, is how they would re-staff. In that, for example, was pulling resources from other areas. That’s part of their proposal.

We do the analysis within the ministry, the director of police services, who are all experts in policing, on whether that plan can provide effective public safety in terms of a transition.

E. Sturko: I’ll ask again, just yes or no. I’d like an answer and to know if this government received any correspondence from the commissioner of the RCMP, or high levels of the RCMP, indicating whether or not they would be able to meet the shortfall of members in Surrey and across the province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. She’s referring to a letter from Commissioner Lucki, who said…. I’ll just paraphrase the letter. It was that they would be able to do it. The reality is….

That assessment on the ability to do that is based on the information that the RCMP supply us, not just a letter from the commissioner but the actual numbers, the actual details, the actual work in terms of looking at all kinds of things, such as the number of positions in the province, issues with detachments. When we have, as part of the communication, the situation that we may well be taking from other areas, then….

That’s the work that was done by the ministry. It was found, in terms of public safety in Surrey and prov­incewide, that there were shortfalls, and that’s reflected in the report.

E. Sturko: How many SPS members are former RCMP officers? Was there any indication by those who are serving in the Surrey Police Service at this time…? How many of those would transition back to RCMP should the transition be halted and the police jurisdiction continue to be Surrey RCMP?

Hon. M. Farnworth: About a third are former RCMP officers. That was part of the RCMP’s strategy, in terms of restaffing. They expected a number of them to come back to the RCMP. Unfortunately, that’s not able to be validated.

At that time, there was no concrete number from the RCMP, other than they anticipated X number would come back, of that third.

E. Sturko: Going back in time, in my MLA time ma­chine, and looking at the approval of this policing transition, which happened after the 2018 election in Surrey, in my community….

The police plan was based on a lot of assumptions. Some of those assumptions actually referred to the number of RCMP officers who might patch over to the Surrey Police Service. With those assumptions, a police plan was ap­proved that now we know has challenges in recruiting, that many people in the community are unhappy with, that is resulting in a huge expenditure of tax dollars, which, even with $150 million over five years from this government, still defers a large 15 to 20 percent tax hike for Surrey residents.

[4:55 p.m.]

I am wondering if the minister can explain why…. Those assumptions were approved when this police plan was approved for Surrey four years ago. The, perhaps, assumption or the information provided by the RCMP as to how many people would patch over and return to RCMP duty…. How come that’s not being considered a valid part of the plan?

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to the decision to…. They want to go back to the RCMP, and then they come back. The RCMP, the city and the Surrey Police Service have to show me, as Solicitor General, and my director of police services that they have an effective plan in order to do a transition, either way.

That’s why, on the analysis of both plans from the RCMP and the Surrey Police Service, both were found lacking, and that’s why conditions were placed on both of them. So regardless of what Surrey would like to do, each of those plans has conditions on it to ensure that they will, at the end of the day, provide safe and effective policing during a transition period. That’s the key, whether it’s for the RCMP or whether it’s for the Surrey Police Service.

In the case of the RCMP, there are seven conditions. In the case of the Surrey police service, there are three conditions. They’re based on the information that’s provided to us by the RCMP, by the city of Surrey and by the Surrey Police Service, and the analysis of the work that’s done within my ministry on those plans that we received and the information that we received in response to the questions that we had.

E. Sturko: I thank the minister for that answer. I’m thinking that likely the ministry is hesitant, partly, about the staffing plan forwarded by the RCMP because they’re concerned that it may cause some disruption in other detachments, perhaps. It’s curious to me. The RCMP would be looking to fill about 161 positions, the minister said, but the Surrey Police Service still has approximately 500 places to fill.

In addition to that, their contract stipulates that they ride in two-person cars, meaning that technically, they would be half the number of cars, just with twice the bodies in them. And if they wanted to keep the same amount of cars in my city, to patrol my neighbourhood, they would actually have to probably recruit twice as many, meaning they’re probably about 1,000 people behind in recruiting.

Can the minister explain how 161 people — potentially new recruits to the RCMP, RCMP officers from out of province or perhaps even SPS members patching over to join the Surrey RCMP — would be more disruptive to policing in our province than trying to find more than 500 members to fill those positions in the SPS?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The reality is there are 1,500 RCMP vacancies in this province, both hard vacancies and soft vacancies. We received a plan that, in essence, prioritizes Surrey over those. We have made a historic investment in this province of $230 million to fill the provincial vacancies.

The plan that was presented prioritized Surrey over those vacancies. Those include specialty teams, for ex­ample. They include teams such as the integrated child exploitation team. They include traffic safety teams and the real need in terms of rural communities and small communities. It also included moving resources from other communities, even on a temporary basis, into Surrey.

At the same time, you’ve got communities wanting to get RCMP officers to make up for retirements, to deal with the growth that they’ve got in their communities — all of those things coming together. The plan that we examined clearly shows that there’s a significant impact from those pressures, as well, in terms of trying to fill the recruits. The plan is not what was needed in terms of the province, public safety as a whole, including Surrey.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Just to get into the weeds a little bit, maybe the minister would please talk a little bit about where the SPS is going to get more than 500 people. What if people like to prioritize their lives, like to prioritize where they want to go? What if we end up having a bunch of individuals coming from the RCMP in rural areas and joining the SPS? Will that still not create an unstable environment?

Furthermore, will that still not create a challenge in terms of making sure that safety…? In much the same regard as the concerns being brought forward now, would that not be exacerbating the problem? It’s actually much more people, more than 500 people needing to come from not only the RCMP, out-of-province police forces and new recruits but also from other Metro Vancouver police forces. So is it not a bigger disruption, in the mind of this minister, than 161 people?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, but I want to make this observation. You can put scenario type, scenario type, scenario…. The reality is you can’t look at them individually; you have to look in the global context. That’s how my ministry has approached the issue of the transition, looking at all the different scenarios that can take place that the member has been trying to describe.

[5:05 p.m.]

At the same time, the ministry has also put in place not just recommendations but conditions to ensure that that does not take place, that you have an orderly transition. That’s why it was said that the Surrey Police Service transition plan was not complete, or it was optimistic. The same with the RCMP approach, far too optimistic.

The work done in my ministry in analyzing that, looking at all the potential different scenarios you could have, comes up with a recommendation based on what conditions should be in place for the Surrey Police Service — as well as for the RCMP, to transition that way — to ensure that we have safe, effective public safety policing, not only in Surrey but for the rest of the province.

E. Sturko: I’m not trying to make up a make-believe scenario. The scenario is we’re looking for the SPS to be recruiting likely somewhere between 500 and 1,000 more members to make sure that Surrey has the same amount of cars on the street as currently are patrolling my city.

In 2015, there was a significant uptick in gang vio­lence in our town. In response to that, one of the large recommendations was to have an influx of new officers brought in by the RCMP. At the time, Mayor Dianne Watts and the Solicitor General at the time approved a plan that would bring 100 new police officers to Surrey. In fact, they were delivered. That promise was made, and it was a promise kept.

So why is it that this minister now chooses to not believe the commissioner of the RCMP when she writes that she will be able to fulfil those member requirements in this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. We received a letter from Commissioner Lucki saying that: “Hey, we think we can do it.” Okay, send us your plan on how we’re going to do it. The RCMP sent us the plan on how they’re going to do it, and it became pretty clear that it does not meet the needs of the province in terms of Surrey and public safety in the province as a whole.

M. Morris: I understand getting that big-picture view when you’re trying to formulate the plan. There is always risk management when you’re looking at implementing these plans.

I’ve been in HR management before and sat in your chair and looked at a lot of these different issues. You have to give some credence to the commissioner’s letter saying: “We’ll do that.”

What I’m getting, though, is the minister and his staff are concerned that perhaps the commissioner’s priorities don’t align with the provincial priorities. I’m extremely familiar with the rural policing in British Columbia and the vacancies we have endured, and I appreciate the minister’s direction in addressing core policing functions and whatnot that have been woefully understaffed for years in many locations.

[5:10 p.m.]

When we have a situation in transition like this, if the RCMP have committed to providing so many resources and we might have to delay putting some into some of these provincial…. We’ll get into your plans for the rural areas and these specialized units, coming down the road here.

Is the minister taking that into consideration right now? Or is he firm on the fact that: “I don’t care what your priorities are. RCMP for filling the vacancies. These are what ours are. They need to be committed, and there’s no leeway here for us”?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The reality is that there are provincial priorities, and I understand the letter from the federal commissioner saying: “We think we can do this.” The RCMP submitted their plan. We did an analysis based not just in terms of the impact in terms of Surrey and the restaffing in Surrey but also in the rest of the province, and that rural and specialty team priorities are important. They are a priority for us. I know that they have been for the member as well.

That investment of $230 million for the provincial policing line deals with the pressures that I know the member faced when he was minister. At every UBCM, at every First Nations leadership gathering, the issues around core policing around small communities, the communities under 5,000, is an issue that is very important.

In the analysis, you’re looking at trying to balance the different priorities in terms of the resources that are available, the human resources that are available. That’s why, in the analysis that was done on the plan submitted to us, in terms of the RCMP’s plans in regard to Surrey….

Relocating resources, for example, even short term — all of those things weigh into the final report and the recommendation. All of those priorities are important, and at the end of the day, the plan that was submitted was found not to be the right plan in terms of Surrey and the rest of the province.

That’s why not only was the recommendation put forward in the way it was, with conditions going to the Surrey police service, but also with conditions going back to the RCMP — the conditions in place to make any transition, to ensure that there is public safety for not only Surrey but the rest of the province.

M. Morris: Looking at Surrey, with 800 and whatever the number is for uniformed members there or for police, authorized police presence….

[5:15 p.m.]

Surrey also gets a benefit from the integrated homicide unit from CFSEU. They do a lot of work in the Surrey area as well — the full-time ERT and some of these other integrated units that really have an impact on what happens in Surrey as well.

With those resources…. Those resources are in place regardless of whether that transition goes either way, from what I understand. So there’s already a substantial safety net, I guess, in Surrey for the serious crime, for traffic, for a lot of those integrated units that do their work. I’m sure that is a consideration.

The numbers that we’re looking at for this transition are for the calls for service — the general-duty cop that’s out on the street answering all the calls for service. That is going to be ameliorated through whatever they have to do to get the job done in a day-to-day basis.

I’m looking at the criminal caseload per member in Surrey, at 47, which is under the average for large municipal detachments, and the work that they do. It doesn’t present to me like there is a risk factor there — that we can’t allow some risk management in providing the resources for that particular detachment over the next year or two, when we face that. So looking at that as a consideration.

The other consideration I’m wondering if the minister can expand upon is: what is the capacity of the Justice Institute to bring cadets on board and to bring them up to the point where they are deployable for the city of Surrey? If we’re comparing what the RCMP can do, let’s compare what we can do internally within British Columbia as well.

What is the capacity there? How many cadets can they get? Where are those cadets going to come from? Is that going to impact the other independent forces, the ten other forces in B.C.? What is their attrition rate? How many cadets are we going to need to put through the JI every year to satisfy the attrition rates of those independent forces and add to Surrey as well? A number of questions there, all in one.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I want to make, again, two observations.

[5:20 p.m.]

First, in terms of the planning for the transition, it’s not just for now, but it is for over the course of the transition, and that’s the analysis that was done within the ministry. So when saying the transition to the Surrey Police Service, for example, was optimistic on their time frame, all of those things are…. That risk is analyzed, and the question is determining what is acceptable risk. That’s why you’re saying: “Look, this is what you’re saying. No, we don’t think that’s going to work. It’s going to be longer.”

We’ve been working with the Justice Institute. They have been preparing for recruits going through Surrey. That’s why, for example, they have increased the number of spaces from 144 to 192. We continue to work with them.

We worked with the chiefs of police on the issue of recruiting and their issues around municipal forces to make sure that they are not impacted to a negative extent. That’s why there are conditions on the Surrey Police Service, the transition to the Surrey Police Service, in the same way that there are conditions in terms of the transition to the RCMP.

M. Morris: A couple of questions. One is: what is the timeline the minister is looking at for this transition, regardless of which force is making these transitions?

I’m curious — 192 that the JI has increased their capacity to accommodate. What is the attrition rate for the ten independent forces in B.C. right now? What is the expected vacancy rate that we’re going to be looking at to fill for them, plus any increases that the independents want to add to their forces over the same period that this transition is going to take place? How many recruits would be left over for Surrey PD if that was the direction that they were going?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll deal with the timeline question first. The conditions that I have put on both potential avenues will obviously change the timelines of the plans that they have submitted, that we’re working with.

[5:25 p.m.]

Those timelines will change, and then what the new timelines are will obviously be determined by discussions with police in terms of the plans that were submitted and in terms of how long that transition is going to take. So it’ll be discussions with the police that will actually determine how long the transition will take.

In terms of the Justice Institute, this is not a new issue for them. This is something that they have been working on and planning on since, in 2020, the transition was approved. They have actually been working on that basis, and it actually had been a smooth transition plan until Surrey, of course, decided: “Well, now we want to go back.”

They’ve done that work by working with the Chiefs of Police, in terms of what they need in each year, how they look in terms of what their attrition rate is, for example, and have expanded the classes to accommodate that need accordingly.

So, you know, this is not something like: “Oh my god, Surrey said they want to go back, and now we’ve got a real problem.” It’s like: “No, that work had been underway for some time, in conjunction with the Chiefs of Police, to deal with those needs and ensuring that those needs are just as important.” That’s, again, why conditions were placed on the transition to the Surrey Police Service as well.

M. Morris: I’m still…. You know, 192 is significant for B.C., but it’s not significant in the scheme of things, when we’re looking at the big picture like you’re talking about.

I’m still curious as to what the attrition rate is with the independents in British Columbia that rely on the JI for cadets and, in addition, any increases that their respective police departments want. I’m looking for the numbers here over the next year one, year two, year three. What is left over for the Surrey PD in year one, year two, year three to satisfy the minister’s staffing requirements there?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question, and I’ll just state again that the reality is that this is not new for the Justice Institute. This is something they have been planning for in terms of working with the Chiefs of Police, working with the police boards in terms of what the pressures are, what they need — how many recruits, cadets they need in a particular year, not just this year but going forward. They’ve expanded the classes accordingly.

The real issue, in many ways, is the reversal and its impact on the Justice Institute, because they’ve expanded classes, expanded capacity in response to the deci­sion that was made to move to the Surrey Police Service. So it’s the reversal that is, in many ways, likely to have more of an impact.

That being said, again, the role in terms of the conditions that have been applied is ensuring that whichever route is taken, you have the human resources there and the capacity to ensure, during the transition, that there is safe and effective public safety, I repeat, in Surrey, but also the rest of the province.

[5:30 p.m.]

M. Morris: Okay. I’m sure the independents are faced with the same issues that the RCMP is faced with across Canada, let alone British Columbia, in attracting the number of applicants that can be vetted and go through the process to be ready to go into either the JI or the RCMP Depot academy.

I’m sure if the JI temporarily has to slow down as a result of whatever decision is taken here, there are still going to be a number of applicants that will have the opportunity to, perhaps, look at Regina, and take their training there, and come back to Surrey or wherever the place might be. So I don’t see that as a real detriment.

Just looking here, according to the report that was released on Friday, government has conducted a multi-year analysis of policing vacancies over the past five years, 2018 to 2022. What does the analysis show about the increase in vacancies? What was the annual rate of increase on your provincial line, municipal line, RCMP and federal policing and the independents in there as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: To the hon. member, in terms of the vacancies and the percentage, hard and soft, in the three business lines that occur within the province, the federal policing over the last five years has averaged about 33 percent. The provincial policing service was also now at about 22.5 percent, in 2022. The municipal RCMP vacancy rate was 18.4 percent in 2022.

M. Morris: I just go back to a response that the minister provided in question period today, just about the redaction in the report and whatnot.

The Globe and Mail recently reported on the RCMP vacancies in B.C. and nationally and had the numbers and whatnot in there. Would those numbers be the same as the numbers that have been redacted, that the RCMP have been providing?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don’t know what the source of the information from the Globe and Mail report is. What I can tell you: the numbers in our analysis are based on the five-year numbers that we’ve received from the RCMP.

M. Morris: The numbers, as I understand it, were numbers given by the RCMP to the federal government that ended up being released to the media through that source, that channel there. So I’m assuming that they’re probably pretty close to what may have been redacted in the report.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I wouldn’t necessarily want to make that assumption.

E. Sturko: The average cost per capita for independent forces is $448. The average RCMP municipal force over 15,000 is $289. Was the $150 million, which was earmarked to assist with the Surrey police transition, done in anticipation of a significant tax increase for Surrey residents?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I have said publicly, we are committed to sitting down with the city of Surrey on the issue. The numbers that I have used as an example are based on numbers provided by the city of Surrey.

E. Sturko: Was the $150 million that was earmarked to assist with the Surrey police transition approved by the Treasury Board?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. First off, I do not, and no minister ever will, talk about the deliberations that take place at Treasury Board.

Second, and most importantly, what I have repeatedly said is that we will talk to the city about the additional costs they indicated they would have to bear in going to the transition to the Surrey Police Service. The number I said as an example was based on their numbers, which were verified by Deloitte.

E. Sturko: If the minister could please explain: what type of cost-benefit analysis was conducted to determine the expenditure of $150 million from the public purse for the transition?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, the member is talking about a number that has yet to be determined. What I’ve said is that we look forward to having the discussions with the city of Surrey, in terms of their costs.

[5:40 p.m.]

The number that the member is referring to, as I said, is an example based on the costs, which are the city of Surrey’s own numbers.

E. Sturko: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Like a lot of people in the public, I don’t have all the access to the information, obviously, with the talks that are transpiring between my community and the ministry. But I think a lot of people in this province, after watching the news, watching the minister speaking, listening to him on the radio over the last number of days, may also have believed that the city was being offered $150 million by this government in order to help with the Surrey policing transition.

Like the minister just said, these were numbers that were derived based on the city’s numbers that were confirmed by Deloitte, and the minister now plans to meet with the city to talk about maybe offsetting some of those costs.

Why would the minister make an announcement, which included providing funding upwards of what could possibly be $150 million to the community of Surrey, before that number was negotiated with the city?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll frame it this way. First off, this decision by the city to want to transition back is unprecedented in this province. We know it has an impact, and at the same time, the city has indicated they’re concerned about the increase in taxes, for example. That’s why they took the money that was earmarked.

The province gave the $1 billion to local governments, of which I think Surrey received about $90 million for infrastructure, and they were concerned that they were going to have to pay. They used that to lower what would have been a significant tax increase. Then, in terms of the plan and the analysis, it’s like: “No, this is not going to work. If you want to go forward with the Surrey Police Service, here are conditions on it. As we said, we think that’s the best route for you.”

We are prepared to assist with those costs, and we look forward to sitting down with Surrey, working with them in partnership on those costs, so that the costs of that are not borne by the residential taxpayers or the business taxpayers.

We think, given the nature of the issue that we’re dealing with, that that was an appropriate path forward, as well. To give an indication that we had their cost numbers validated — the $30 million a year — we said: “Look, we’re prepared to talk with you about that.”

[5:45 p.m.]

I gave an example as a clear indication that the province takes this issue seriously, that we take this issue of public safety seriously, and that we want to move forward with the city of Surrey.

E. Sturko: I thank the minister for his answer. I’m happy to hear that the ministry acknowledges and has now said that they validated those numbers the city had presented. That’s very good. Now we have some clarity, perhaps, on what the costs are, going forward, of the policing transitions, especially when citizens want to be able to understand the actual impact it’s going to have on all of our pocketbooks.

I would like to see if there can possibly be more clarity from the minister on what the province is offering — because, a while back, the minister clearly stated that there would be no money for the policing transition for Surrey. We’re hearing a number, which is now apparently arbitrary, of $150 million potentially being given to the city of Surrey.

How are the city, the mayor and council supposed to make a decision without even knowing the true amount of money that is being presented and offered by this province to offset the cost? It’s just a simple question. How much money is this ministry going to provide to the city of Surrey to offset the costs of staying with SPS?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question, and I’ll make the following observations. The clarity around the costs is not something new to these estimates. In fact, it was announced on Friday in the press conference that the $30 million had been…. Deloitte had confirmed those numbers provided by the city of Surrey. That’s nothing new here today. That has been out there.

What’s also important is that we’re not going to go into the city of Surrey and say: “Oh, here it is. Take it or leave it.” We want to work with them on what they’ve identified as their numbers. My ministry will sit down with the city of Surrey, go through the report and the new information that they need in their decision-making process. We’ve made it clear that we want to work with them on those costs, so that there’s not a burden on the Surrey residential or business taxpayers.

We’re looking forward to those discussions. My ministry is reaching out to the city of Surrey for those to take place.

E. Sturko: To confirm the willingness of this ministry to work with my city…. Is the minister willing to confirm, then, that it could very likely cost provincial taxpayers, out of the provincial taxpayers’ budget, more than $150 million to go forward with this transition and that the province is actually willing to continue to financially backstop this project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. This is about public safety in Surrey and in the province as a whole. In the report, we made the recommendation.

[5:50 p.m.]

A key part of that is a willingness on the part of the province to engage with the city of Surrey on their additional costs — which they indicated, between the SPS and the RCMP, as being about $30 million. Those discussions will take place with the city of Surrey, and my ministry is looking forward to engaging in those discussions.

E. Sturko: Can the minister explain the rationale be­hind paying the cost for the community of Surrey, the transition, for just five years? Why not two years? Or why not ten years? Why not indefinitely?

We’re talking about $30 million of increased costs per year. If we’re talking about providing $150 million, over five years, then taxpayers are actually going to have a $30 million increased tax burden, just with this limited number of people currently recruited in the plan, to SPS. What analysis led to picking five years?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. This is estimates. This isn’t a negotiation with the city of Surrey.

We will be sitting down with the city of Surrey, as I’ve indicated, to talk about the cost pressures they are facing. That was an example, based on their numbers…. We’ll have those discussions with the city of Surrey to determine what financial support will come from the province.

The Chair: Member, I’ll just get you to remember that we are working on Vote 42 at this point, please. Estimates. Thank you.

E. Sturko: Yes, hon. Chair. This is money from the pol­ice budget, from the Public Safety budget — $150 million. So where’s the money coming from?

Well, I’ll skip on to my next question, though. This has to do with the way that the ministry is making decisions for public safety in the province of British Columbia, which does fall under this ministry and would be a part of this budget.

Regardless of the $150 million having to still go through that process in the treasury, I want to remind the minister that this, of course, isn’t a negotiation between the city of Surrey, when I’m standing here, and the ministry, but I do represent the taxpayers of British Columbia — especially those taxpayers of Surrey. I think they still would have a number of questions about the impacts of the decisions being made, under Public Safety and this minister, about the safety and policing in my city.

Can he please give some more clarity about what he anticipates will happen after the five years and the proposed supplement to the budget for the SPS?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The answer I will give will be the same as I gave a few moments ago: we will have those discussions with the city of Surrey. They have indicated what they believe their costs are.

[5:55 p.m.]

As I said, we want to be partners with them, sit down and discuss those costs and ensure that the city of Surrey…. We recognize the impact of that, and we want to help them with that. That’s why we have reached out to the city of Surrey. I look forward to the discussions taking place with my staff and the city.

E. Sturko: No money has been approved, despite being announced, to give to the city of Surrey for the ongoing policing transition.

Can the minister please explain why he put in a provision that Surrey…? If they choose the RCMP, they can’t poach members from other RCMP detachments. But if they choose SPS, there is no such protection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There’s nothing stopping the RCMP from hiring from the Surrey Police Service. They just can’t prioritize over other RCMP priorities. They can’t prioritize Surrey over other RCMP areas.

Transferring someone from Prince George, for example, into Surrey or from the provincial business line, for which we’re funding the 277 officers, and hiring them…. They can’t then go and take them and move them into Surrey. But if they want to hire someone from the Surrey Police Service, they’re quite able to do that.

E. Sturko: Actually, I’ll just clarify my question. That wasn’t quite the question I was asking.

Surrey RCMP is not able to prioritize, as the minister…. I believe his explanation was that they wouldn’t be able to bring a member from Prince George down to Surrey to fill those vacancies.

[6:00 p.m.]

What happens if the Surrey Police Service…? What if they start recruiting and they start taking people away from our rural areas and start poaching members from the RCMP? Will that not create instability to an even greater extent than what would be caused by a member leaving the northern district, being backfilled by another incoming recruit and coming down to Surrey?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We already have a condition in place to make sure that that is not a problem, and it is moderated and overseen by the director of police services.

E. Sturko: Can the minister please provide clarity on what that stipulation is?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to the member’s question, the way it’s seen is that the provincial oversight of the Surrey Police Service hiring plan is aligned with guidance provided by the director to ensure that the stability of policing is maintained in the city, the region and across the province.

E. Sturko: But how does the plan ensure…? People have free will, obviously. When they’re police officers, they might want to come over to the Surrey Police Service. So how does that guideline actually ensure that people are not leaving other police services, leaving their cupboards bare, including in harder-to-staff parts of our province, so that they fled over to SPS?

Five hundred members. That’s a lot of people, a lot more than 161. So how is that guideline that was just read by the minister…? How does that actually ensure that we don’t leave the cupboards bare in any other police force within British Columbia, including the RCMP?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll just remind the member that I outlined what the condition is that’s in place.

In terms of how we ensure that, it’s monitored by the director of police services on a bi-monthly basis. That is what has been taking place since the transition has started. It has been proven to be effective and to work, and that is the approach that we’ve taken and that we will continue to do. Sometimes it’ll be…. We want to make sure that there’s not that impact, as I outlined in the point to the member.

E. Sturko: What are they monitoring? What if, in a blitz of recruiting, 100 people leave the VPD? What will the Minister of Public Safety do then? What is the monitoring?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make three points. One, we’ve got the condition in place. Two, we’ve got the monitoring plan that’s been in place, that’s been taking place, as I said, bi-monthly. Three, we are in constant communication with chiefs of police and understanding what’s happening in each of their departments. That’s what’s been going since the transition started, and that’s what would continue with the transition, going forward.

E. Sturko: Was the minister aware, or anyone in the ministry aware, of the SPS severance provision prior to it becoming public earlier this year?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am not aware. Also, I would add this: that’s not something we would participate in. Those salary terms and conditions are something between the police board and the employees, the same as it is for any other police bargaining unit.

E. Sturko: When did the ministry become aware of the severance package for the Surrey Police Service?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We received it in Surrey’s first submission to us, in December.

E. Sturko: Just going back to the recruiting and stability of policing, particularly in the Lower Mainland region but, of course, across British Columbia. The mayor of Surrey — after her election, she asked the Surrey police chief to please halt recruiting, in consideration with a lot of the costs associated with continuing to grow both the Surrey Police Service and keep up with the costs of policing in Surrey.

If recruiting did destabilize another police service in the Lower Mainland, does the minister or the ministry have the authority to halt recruiting?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It’s not the general practice of the Solicitor General to do what the member was asking.

[6:15 p.m.]

Rather, in this particular situation, given the size and the complexity and the scope involved in the transition of Surrey, it was recognized, right from the very beginning, that one of the critical elements was not to destabilize policing, either in the city of Surrey or, in fact, in the rest of the region and the province.

That’s why work took place very early on with chiefs of police. That’s why there’s a tripartite agreement in there. That’s why the monitoring has taken place. All of those things have been in place. Those are things that will continue. That’s why it’s spelled out in the conditions in terms of continuing with the Surrey Police Service. Again, that’s also why those conditions are there in terms of the other pathway with the RCMP. That’s what I can let the member know.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Health and report progress on the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.