Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 8, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 234

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Andy Calitz

E. Ross

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Joe Enook

L. Reid

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Nils Jensen

A. Weaver

Hon. R. Fleming

M. Stilwell

Ministerial Statements

Green Shirt Day and organ donor awareness

Hon. K. Conroy

G. Kyllo

S. Furstenau

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Early Childhood Educators of B.C.

R. Singh

Joanna Wardley and Heart of Richmond AIDS Society

L. Reid

Volunteer firefighters in Courtenay-Comox area

R. Leonard

Richmond Centre for Disability

J. Yap

Emergency service dispatchers

J. Rice

Contributions of volunteers

C. Oakes

Oral Questions

Tax policies and gas prices

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Access to family physicians and physician payment models

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Funding for community social services organizations and worker wages

S. Bond

Hon. S. Simpson

J. Martin

T. Stone

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

L. Throness

S. Gibson

I. Paton

T. Redies

J. Thornthwaite

R. Sultan

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology (continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

G. Kyllo

J. Johal

S. Bond

D. Barnett

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

ANDY CALITZ

E. Ross: I rise today to make an announcement.

As chief councillor, the only times I’d meet with LNG Canada CEO

Andy Calitz were when something was going terribly great or something

was going terribly wrong. We’d always come up with a solution. That’s

full credit to Andy Calitz.

In 2016, two weeks before it was made public, Andy requested a

private meeting with me, where he told me LNG Canada would not be taking

their FID. He knew how devastating this would be to my council and my

community, and he showed it by breaking down and crying right in front

of me. He promised not to give up. He lived up to his word, and today

B.C. is now celebrating its first major LNG export facility.

Today LNG Canada announced the planned transition of the role of

current CEO Andy Calitz to incoming CEO Peter Zebedee, effective July 1,

Andy Calitz is a class act. He’s a gentleman. Would the House

please join me in thanking Andy Calitz for his six years of hard work in

bringing an LNG FID to B.C.

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: When we have a medical emergency, we call someone. We think it’s the

ambulance, but actually before it gets to the ambulance, it gets to the

ambulance dispatchers. This week we’re celebrating ambulance dispatchers

week. I know I’ve used it — both sides, calling for them and being the

recipient of their service. I’m sure everyone in this House has had an

experience with ambulance dispatchers and the benefit that they give

us.

Would the House please make welcome all the ambulance dispatchers

throughout British Columbia and those that are here in the

precinct.

Hon. J. Sims: Today we are recognizing Green Shirt Day in honour of Logan Boulet,

whose selfless choice to become an organ donor saved six lives. I would like

to recognize several volunteers with B.C. Transplant who have personal

experience with organ donation: Stephen Farmer, liver recipient; Glenda

Beecham, liver recipient; Erika Cancluza, whose friend is a double-lung

recipient; Lisa Mackey, heart recipient; Leanne Appleton, provincial

executive director, B.C. Transplant.

I would also like to recognize Natalie Williams, a liver transplant

recipient who so eloquently spoke at our Service B.C. Victoria office this

morning about the generous gift of life she received. Natalie is living life

to the fullest. She’s studying at Camosun College and aspires to be a nurse.

She won three gold medals in the 2018 Canadian Transplant Games, in road

biking and swimming. She’s a whitewater rafter and is training for a

triathlon this summer.

I would like to recognize all the amazing Service B.C. staff from

across the province for their work in registering 85,000 people to become

organ donors.

I encourage all those listening today and all those sitting in this

House to follow in Logan’s footsteps and register to become an organ donor.

May I ask all those here to make these folks most welcome.

S. Furstenau: In the gallery today is Dr. Katie McIntyre and her parents, Tom and

Annie, who are visiting from Ontario. Dr. McIntyre is a Victoria GP and a

labour and delivery doctor. Could the House please make them feel welcome

and thank Dr. McIntyre for her service, especially to Victoria’s moms and

babes.

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery is my cousin David Busch; his partner, Sophie; and

their ten-month-old baby, Layla. David is Nisga’a and Gitxsan on his mom’s

side and German and Scottish on his dad’s side. He’s a graduate with a

bachelor of arts in psychology from Vancouver Island University. He’s a part

of the Indigenous youth internship program. We know that all members of this

side of the chamber recognize the value and importance of the Indigenous

youth internship program.

I want to quote what he’d like to do in the future. David hopes to one

day be in a position where he can have a positive and long-lasting impact on

the health and wellness of Indigenous people. Currently he’s doing his

practicum with youth forensics with the Ministry of Children and

Families.

Would the House please join me in welcoming David and his

family.

[1:40 p.m.]

Tributes

JOE ENOOK

L. Reid: Joe Enook, the Speaker of Nunavut’s Legislative Assembly and

longtime MLA, has died at the age of 61. He became the MLA for Tununiq

after winning a by-election in 2011, and he was re-elected twice. He is

remembered by his colleagues and friends for his dedication to putting

the needs of his constituents above all else.

I would ask the House to join with me in extending condolences to

his friends and family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: I want to welcome to this House Alex Arnicans. I first met Alex when

he was in high school, and he started to come to my office as a volunteer. I

was always amazed by his commitment and his work ethic and his passion for

getting to know about public policy.

He was volunteering with me, as I said, when I was a Member of

Parliament. What I always remember is, on a snow day, him getting to my

office on his bike through the snow and then staying quite late, even though

I kept telling him he could go — “No, no,” he said, “I’ve got to stay till

the end” — and then riding his bike home. He is now a student at the

University of Victoria, where he is studying economics and public

administration.

Would the House please help me welcome Alex to the House

today.

D. Barnett: In the House today, I have two very wonderful people from the Cariboo,

Pat and Lee Granberg. They were here today, and we met with the Minister of

Agriculture over some of the salmon issues. Hopefully, in the

not-too-distant future, Pat and Lee, who have a great idea on how to save

and rebuild our salmon stocks, will have their dream come to fruition.

Please welcome Pat and Lee.

J. Rice: This week is Emergency Service Dispatchers and 911 Awareness

Week.

On behalf of the Minister of Health and myself, I’d like to welcome

Leslie White, director of strategic policy and planning for B.C. emergency

health services; Brad Mitchell, director of emergency dispatch operations,

B.C. emergency health services; Neil Lilley, senior provincial executive

director of patient care, communications and planning from emergency health

services; Scott Mackinnon, manager of Vancouver Island dispatch operations;

charge dispatcher for Vancouver Island dispatch operations, Mark McArthur;

and Meagan Hougard, Dustin Griffiths and Ellen Cheetley, all from B.C.

emergency health services. Would the House please make them feel

welcome.

S. Gibson: I know all MLAs are incredibly thankful for their constituency staff,

our assistants who daily meet with residents and help them navigate through

myriad government agencies and ministries. They organize our schedules and

ably represent us when we’re here in Victoria doing the people’s

business.

Today it saddens me to announce the retirement of my constituency

assistant, Jean Hooge, who has provided incredible service since the very

beginning, in 2013. Ironically, even though I had taught human resources

management at the local university, I never interviewed her, never asked her

for a resumé or a letter of application. I just knew she would be perfect

for the job. Jean had retired from being a pastor at a large Abbotsford

church, and this experience proved to be ideal for the challenges of serving

as a constituency assistant.

Jean and her husband, Al, are here with us in the gallery today.

Please welcome her and wish her well as she embarks on the next adventure of

her life. I will miss her.

A. Kang: I have a few friends in the gallery here today. They are the Global

Federation of Chinese Business Women Association of B.C. They’re actively

involved in local charity activities and, most importantly, in supporting

women in leadership positions and training young women to be in leadership

positions.

Today I would like to introduce, here with us, Jessica Chen, who is

the president; Angel Lee, who is the recording secretary; as well as Amy

Huang, Leslie Hsieh and Judy Liao, all three who are directors. Would the

House please join me in welcoming my friends to the Legislature.

Tributes

NILS JENSEN

A. Weaver: I rise today profoundly saddened by the news of the passing of

Nils Jensen on Sunday, April 7, after a short battle with cancer. Nils

left us far too young at the age of 69 years.

[1:45 p.m.]

Nils made significant contributions to our community in so many

ways. He served four terms on Oak Bay council, two of them as mayor. He

was always driven by the best interests of his community and served us

with dignity and commitment.

I was honoured to have the opportunity to get to know Nils well

over these past few years. I’ve always held him in high esteem. I

enjoyed his sense of humour and positive outlook on the world. I’ll

sorely miss our annual lawn bowling challenge, which he beat me at year

after year, as we opened Carnarvon Park’s Oak Bay Lawn Bowling Club.

I’ll also miss handing out candy with him at the Oak Bay Tea Party, when

every year we would run out, and we would have to borrow from

him.

Nils loved Oak Bay and brought great energy to his political and

community life. He also worked on critical infrastructure projects for

the region during his tenure as the chair of the capital regional

district and head of the regional water supply commission. Under his

visionary leadership, the Sooke reservoir was raised. Nils understood

that Victoria actually had a water availability crisis emerging and

showed the leadership required to ensure fresh drinking water for the

region was available for generations to come.

Nils was highly educated, with degrees in mechanical engineering

and law degrees from Osgoode Hall and the London School of Economics.

Nils had a long and distinguished career as a defence lawyer and Crown

prosecutor for the province of British Columbia.

Nils leaves his wife, Jean, and two sons, Nicholas and Stewart.

Our hearts go out to his family for the loss of their beloved husband

and father. Our community has lost a great leader, one who has left us

far too soon, and I have lost a close personal friend.

A memorial service will be held on Thursday, April 11 at 2 p.m. at

the Oak Bay High School community theatre for Nils Jensen.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’d like to follow the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, on behalf

of the government of British Columbia, to also ask members in the House

today to join people in the capital regional district and around British

Columbia in honouring the legacy of Nils Jensen a day after he passed —

a brief but brave fight — from cancer.

Many of us will know Nils Jensen, on all sides of this House, as

the dedicated mayor of Oak Bay and a long-serving local government

official here and as the chair of the capital regional district. Our

thoughts, indeed, go out to his wife, Jean, and his sons, Stewart and

Nicholas.

As was noted, Nils was a dedicated provincial servant, but he was

also a man who was very committed to public service throughout his

political career in this region. He was respected by community members

and politicians of all stripes.

Nils was also very proud of his Danish heritage. He cited it as a

source of, in his words, “genetic pragmatism,” in terms of his

leadership style and his civic-mindedness. He actually arrived in Canada

Danish.

Obviously, he left a deep legacy in his community and was very,

very successful throughout his life. He knew his community well, in

large part because he knocked on every door in Oak Bay. Literally, every

person that moved into Oak Bay was visited by the mayor with a personal

welcome package to his municipality.

He was a humble guy. He was humorous. He was a happy person. He

was very down-to-earth. That’s all the more remarkable given how

incredibly accomplished he was. He did hold a significant amount of

higher education, as was noted — an engineering degree and law degrees

from Osgoode Hall and the London School of Economics. He served his

province as a defence lawyer and Crown prosecutor, and for many, many

years, he taught law at the University of Victoria.

Nils was very, very proud of Oak Bay’s parks and recreation

opportunities. He made sure that the new high school in Oak Bay was the

community hub in that neighbourhood for kids and adults of all ages. It

seems unthinkable that just a year ago, around this time of year, the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I were opening yet another season of

Carnarvon Park Little League, and he was throwing out the first pitch

there. He will certainly be missed on those kinds of occasions

throughout his community.

Indeed, I think it’s worth repeating again that among his many

legacies in Oak Bay and in this region, one of the things he was able to

solve was, indeed, getting around a protracted debate around raising the

Sooke reservoir. He has literally ensured, through his leadership, that

for 50 to 100 years from now a clean drinking water supply is secured

and protected in a watershed here that we own, in public

hands.

I think Nils should also be congratulated. I know he worked with

the previous government and the federal government to make sure that the

practice of dumping billions of litres of untreated sewage into our

ocean each and every day has been addressed. If it were not for his

leadership, I don’t think we could say that today.

[1:50 p.m.]

Again, on behalf of all members of the House and the province of

British Columbia, I would ask members to spare a thought for the

contributions of Nils Jensen and send our condolences to his

family.

M. Stilwell: I’d like to take this time to mirror the comments from both the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head as well as the Minister of Education.

It’s with great sadness that we say goodbye to Nils Jensen, a man who,

amongst many things, left a very permanent mark here in the southern end

of Vancouver Island.

Nils was one of those local politicians who just got it. He

understood how his actions could create a better community. His career,

from 22 years on the Oak Bay city council, to the mayor for eight years,

to being the former chairman of the greater Victoria school board and

his involvement as the chair of the capital regional district allowed

him to create those changes for his communities.

He oversaw countless decisions that have made Oak Bay and Victoria

such a thriving and beautiful space to live, work and play in. His love

of community was absolutely visible in the direction of his work. Nils

was a staunch advocate for his community. He was easy to talk to. He was

always open for interviews. He was warm and welcoming — truly a soul

that will be missed.

I know personally, when I was first elected, he was somebody who

reached out to me and always checked in on me and made sure he took the

time to connect and see how I was doing. It’s something I’ll truly

miss.

So it is with great admiration, sadness and the utmost respect

that we say goodbye to one of Vancouver Island’s greatest

politicians.

Ministerial Statements

GREEN SHIRT DAY

AND ORGAN DONOR

AWARENESS

Hon. K. Conroy: Yesterday, April 7, had been declared Green Shirt Day in honour of

the Logan Boulet effect in support of organ donor awareness and

registration right across Canada. On April 6, last year, Canadians were

heartbroken to hear the news of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash. Of the

29 passengers, 16 lost their lives, and 13 will all bear physical and

emotional scars for their lives. The day after the crash, on April 7,

Humboldt Broncos defenseman Logan Boulet died of his

injuries.

His parents, Bernadine and Toby Boulet, in this time of such

personal tragedy, thought of others and donated his organs so that six

lives could live on. They did this because Logan had told his parents he

had registered to be an organ donor and that he was inspired by his

coach and mentor, Ric Suggitt. Ric had died in 2017 and was also an

organ donor.

What happened following this selfless act of the Boulet family is

nothing less than miraculous and became known across Canada as the Logan

Boulet effect. As news spread of the organ donation by this young hockey

player, over 100,000 people registered to become organ donors in the

days and weeks that followed. To date, this is the largest number of

Canadians registered to become organ donors in Canadian history due to

one event, one person.

Green Shirt Day hopes to honour, remember and recognize all the

victims and families of that fatal crash and to continue Logan’s legacy

by inspiring Canadians to talk to their families and register as organ

donors. In Canada, almost 90 percent of Canadians say they support organ

donation, but only 23 percent have registered their intent to donate.

Currently there are 680 people in B.C. alone waiting for a life-saving

transplant.

If you aren’t a registered donor, it’s a very simple procedure to

do. Just go to the B.C. Transplant website, click “Register to donate,”

enter your personal health number, and you can find out if you’re

already registered or not or if you need to be. Be sure to tell your

family of your wishes. You can also go to any Service B.C. office in the

province and sign up in person, a simple procedure that can save so many

lives and a wonderful way to honour Logan Boulet’s legacy and all those

who lost their lives in that tragic accident.

G. Kyllo: This weekend the entire nation marked the one-year anniversary of

the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus crash. Sixteen people, many of them

young hockey players with bright futures ahead of them, died in that

collision, and 13 others were injured. The incident not only shook the

town of Humboldt, Saskatchewan. It touched each and every one of us all

across Canada.

From those horrific circumstances came one bright light, one

individual. His name: Logan Boulet. At the young age of 21, Logan had

already registered himself as an organ donor. That selfless act meant

that in his untimely death on that tragic day, he gave the gift of life

to six others.

[1:55 p.m.]

What happened next has become known as the Logan Boulet effect. As

news spread about Logan’s heroic organ donation, more than 100,000

people registered their decision to become organ donors in the days and

weeks that followed. To date, this remains the single largest number of

Canadians registering to become organ donors in Canadian history due to

a single event. One person: Logan Boulet.

That is why people across Canada have recognized and taken

part in

Green Shirt Day. It not only acknowledges the victims of this terrible

crash and the families who continue to grieve and struggle today, but it

also inspires people across the country to discuss this important issue

of organ donation with their families and to register as organ

donors.

Anyone may register, regardless of their medical condition or age.

I encourage all members of this House and all British Columbians to take

action and to register with B.C. Transplant at

register.transplant.bc.ca. On this inaugural Green Shirt Day, on behalf

of the B.C. Liberal caucus, we send our heartfelt sympathies and

condolences to the victims, the families and the communities of

Humboldt.

S. Furstenau: I rise to echo the statements of the Minister of Children and

Family Development and the member for Shuswap.

One of the most heartwarming parts of the human condition is that

even in the tragedy of death, there can be the opportunity for life. In

these times of tragedy, as we saw a year ago in Humboldt, we can find

solace in selflessness. We can know that when death knocks on the door,

expected or not, we can serve someone in need with the most valuable

gift someone could ever give, which is life.

Yesterday was Green Shirt Day. It is a day in honour of Logan

Boulet, aimed at inspiring Canadians to register as organ donors. Logan

was a Humboldt Bronco who passed away after the fatal crash in 2018. His

decision to become an organ donor saved six lives, and he also inspired

hundreds of thousands of others to sign up as donors. Indeed, yesterday

morning, upon hearing the reflections on CBC about Green Shirt Day, my

husband and I both went on line and registered ourselves as

donors.

British Columbians have the highest rate of participation for

organ donation in the country. Over 1.4 million people in B.C. are

registered as organ donors. Despite this fact, 29 people died in 2017

while waiting for a transplant in B.C. One organ donor can save up to

eight lives. This means that from one death, eight lives can continue.

Anyone, regardless of gender, religion, age or medical history, can

register, and — I can attest to it — it takes less than two

minutes.

I encourage everyone on this day to register for organ donation in

memory of the lives lost in Humboldt.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to welcome the students from one of the best schools

in Surrey. The name of the school is Cornerstone Montessori School. Visiting

us today are 25 grade 4 students accompanied by nine teachers and parents.

We also have a second group coming: 22 grade 7 students accompanied by eight

teachers and the parents. The trip is organized by Jenny Petropoulous. I

would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS OF B.C.

R. Singh: Today I stand in the House to congratulate an organization on

their 50th anniversary, an organization which is working tirelessly to

achieve their original vision of giving a voice to the people who care

for B.C. children and pushing for our child care professionals to

receive the recognition they deserve for the valuable work they do. I am

talking about the Early Childhood Educators of British

Columbia.

Since being founded in 1969 as the British Columbia Preschool

Teachers Association, when a group of preschool teachers and child care

professionals came together to build supports for the sector, early

childhood educators have become the heart of B.C.’s child care system.

The organization has grown its membership from just over 100 in its

first year to more than 1,000 now.

Hannah Polowy, the second president of the Early Childhood

Educators of B.C., said that the people that work with young children

are teaching every minute they are with children. Whether it’s helping

children to develop their language skills, encouraging them to learn

through play or introducing young minds to the wonder of nature, ECEs

play a vital role in nurturing our future generations, inspiring them to

dream big and make a mark on the world.

[2:00 p.m.]

We acknowledge and are grateful for the incredible support that

the organization provides to the ECEs. Their support helps their members

give their very best to B.C. children and raise this province as an

example of delivery and support of quality child care. Many

jurisdictions are looking closely at what we are doing here in B.C.

within the realm of child care.

I ask all present to join me in celebrating the immense work that

Early Childhood Educators of B.C. does and to congratulate them on their

50th anniversary.

JOANNA WARDLEY AND

HEART OF RICHMOND AIDS SOCIETY

L. Reid: Joanna Wardley, founder of the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society, has

passed away at the age of 80. Wardley’s experience caring for her son

Steve, who died from AIDS in 1991, led her to vow that she would do

something about AIDS when she retired. True to her word, Wardley retired

early and went on to found the Heart of Richmond in 1997, which supports

those living with HIV and AIDS.

She and her husband, Brian Wardley, were also instrumental in

establishing the Gilwest Clinic in Richmond Hospital, which provides

testing, treatment and counselling. When it opened in 1999, it meant

patients who may have been in poor health no longer had to travel to

Vancouver.

Richmond News , back in the day, interviewed Joanna

Wardley. She said: “Thank heavens for family and friends, because there

were absolutely no services in Richmond at that time.” That’s why this

couple formed a group to share information, support each other and

liaise with health agencies in Richmond to improve awareness. That was

in the year 1997. Brian said he’s proud of the work that Heart of

Richmond AIDS Society and the Gilwest Clinic do for the community, and

he’s glad the advancement in treatment is carrying on.

Following Joanna’s death earlier this month, people have reached

out to Brian, expressing their condolences and saying what Joanna meant

to them. One woman who works at Richmond Hospital said she credits Brian

and Joanna with changing attitudes in Richmond. Another recalled how she

laughed and cried together with Joanna many, many times. Simply said,

she was very friendly and willing to help.

Joanna was diagnosed with ovarian cancer two years ago and died on

March 11 of this year. A celebration of life was held in March, and I

was honoured to be in attendance. She was a Richmond

treasure.

Rest in peace, my friend.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

IN COURTENAY-COMOX

AREA

R. Leonard: A rash of fires in Courtenay recently destroyed or severely

damaged a number of businesses and homes and a hostel. And a man was

discovered in the Courtenay River last month, reminding us of another

tragedy at the same place a few years ago, when a mother drowned, but

whose baby was rescued by Courtenay’s firefighters.

Courtenay, Comox and Oyster River fire departments operate with

large crews of volunteer firefighters, displaying an incredible

community pride and saving communities three times the cost of a paid

fire department. Most fire departments in B.C. are volunteer-based. In

some cases, they’re paid on call or when they are called out.

In one recent fire, 22 Courtenay volunteers arrived on scene in

just seven minutes. They receive professional training, and today more

firefighters are staying, as many jobs that keep them in the Comox

Valley allow them to continue to be firefighters there. Lane MacDonald

sets a high bar, though, with 55 years of volunteer service. Recruitment

is a little harder in bedroom communities because of the need for timely

responses.

A regional FireFit competition hosted by Courtenay on May 11 will

see volunteers from all walks of life, including 20 percent women on

Courtenay’s team, vying to be the fastest, strongest and best.

Full-service training makes for safe volunteers who are effective in

fighting outdoor fires as well as structural fires. Comox is training up

larger numbers to fight wildfires, as the past unusually dry months

reveal that even the Wet Coast is at greater risk.

There is another safety factor. Courtenay’s fire chief recognizes

firsthand the value of the presumption of PTSD for first responders.

Today both he, with his support dog Gunny, and his crew are more open in

dealing with their own trauma.

Next time you see a firefighter, please say thank you.

[2:05 p.m.]

RICHMOND CENTRE FOR DISABILITY

J. Yap: On March 22, I had the privilege of attending the Richmond Centre

for Disability’s, RCD’s, launch event for their supercyber project. This

event was held in the centre’s new location at Lansdowne mall, which has

been the home for RCD since January of this year.

Moving to Lansdowne was the result of the joint efforts of

members, volunteers, donors and community partners. I want to thank all

of them for their support in providing such consistent and stable

services in Richmond.

One of the innovative uses of this new space is the Supercyber

Room, where supercomputers and assistive technologies are showcased. The

programs offered by RCD are important steps in the centre’s efforts to

help people with disabilities gain valuable skills, learn college-level

credit courses and help create jobs and other social benefits for the

vulnerable population.

Supercyber is just one of the services that RCD offers. The centre

financial literacy and public speaking, which allow people with

disabilities to further participate in our community. The friendly

environment, life skills training and recreational activities provided

by the centre have created opportunities to help people and families in

need.

There is much more we can do to promote the rights and well-being

of persons with disabilities in all spheres of society and development.

To help them meet their goals and reach their full potential, RCD has a

great record of doing more.

I ask that this House join me in thanking the chair of RCD, Alan

Hill; executive director, Ella Huang; and the team at Richmond Centre

for Disability for all their great work in providing important services

for some of Richmond’s most vulnerable community members and making

Richmond an inclusive place to live in.

EMERGENCY SERVICE DISPATCHERS

J. Rice: This week we celebrate Emergency Service Dispatchers and 911

Awareness Week in British Columbia. We are recognizing the vital role

B.C. emergency health services call takers and dispatchers play in

providing interfacility and emergency medical care to British

Columbians.

B.C. emergency health services, emergency medical dispatchers and

call takers are knowledgable and highly trained. They work closely with

partner agencies such as police, fire, search and rescue and Coast

Guard. They ensure that British Columbians have access to timely and

effective emergency health care. Working in three dispatch centres in

B.C. — Victoria, Vancouver and Kamloops — they also work closely with

B.C. patient transfer services to coordinate all interagency patient

transfers throughout the province.

Call takers and dispatchers at three centres receive an average of

1,700 requests for emergency response every day. That’s a medical call

nearly every minute of every day in B.C. The B.C. emergency health

services, emergency medical dispatchers and call takers have my, and

government’s, utmost respect and admiration. Working behind the scenes

24-7, 365 days a year, they are on the front lines of emergency health

care and are the first point of contact for people in a time of crisis,

yet they are often overlooked in the media and in the public

eye.

Emergency medical dispatchers and call takers work under extreme

amounts of pressure. They must quickly decode information provided by

often highly emotional and distressed callers, determine the patient’s

level of illness or injury and make rapid-fire decisions in order to

send the appropriate level of medical response. They are the calm,

reassuring voice on the line when a frantic parent’s six-month-old

infant has stopped breathing, a bystander has witnessed a terrible car

crash or a loved one has overdosed. They guide callers through

performing CPR, relieving airway obstructions and delivering

babies.

They help to save lives, and we are grateful for them.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS

C. Oakes: It is with a great deal of enthusiasm that I rise in the House

today to speak to the incredible work that volunteers do in this

province. There are 1.5 million volunteers in British Columbia who

devote 114 million hours a year, making a difference in their

communities both locally and broadly.

April 7 to 13 marks National Volunteer Week. This week is an

opportunity to recognize the selfless and generous contributions made by

British Columbians through voluntary work. The theme this year is “The

volunteer factor — lifting communities.”

[2:10 p.m.]

In my eyes, the volunteer factor is the dedication that so many

British Columbians demonstrate to causes that are so important to them,

without any expectation of recognition or compensation. I would also

like to express my particular admiration for the vitally important work

done by volunteer fire departments and first responders. Their tireless

efforts in responding to fires, fire prevention, training, education and

FireSmart in communities across this province are invaluable.

Forest fire season is already underway. In my riding, over this

past weekend, we have already experienced several fires. Thank you to

the firefighters for your response. For our search and rescue

volunteers, it is having that local volunteer you know and you trust

answering the call and supporting you at a very difficult

time.

This week I encourage all British Columbians to thank the

volunteers in their communities. Their altruistic spirit and passion are

certainly lifting our communities and leaving this world a much better

place.

Oral Questions

TAX POLICIES AND GAS PRICES

A. Wilkinson: Of course, we now know that British Columbia has the distinction

of having the highest gasoline prices in North America. This Premier has

the dubious distinction of presiding over the highest gasoline taxes in

North America.

Last Thursday the Premier was very generous. He said to British

Columbians: “We’re going to monitor it and make sure. If we’re in a

position to provide relief, we’ll do that. We’ll see how it goes through

the summer.” Prices are now at record highs yet again today. Thirty-five

cents a litre of that price comes straight out of the provincial

government. Of course, the Premier can, with a flick of a wrist, change

this. All he needs to do is sign a document.

The obvious question. He’s promised relief six months from now.

What will be the trigger price to generate some relief for British

Columbians? How high does it have to go, Premier, before you

act?

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s great to have a question from the leader of the market forces

party about market forces. As the member will know…. I could read out

the quotes back to him, but he knows. He’s said it. It’s part of his

value base that the market is independent. It’s invisible with a hand

that moves it around in the best interest of people, until

today.

Here we now have the member who raised taxes by 15 cents on the

travelling public saying to the leader of the party who just raised it

by a penny last week that somehow it’s our responsibility over here to

take action. We will take action should the gouging persist through the

summer.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, do you want an answer, or do you just want to dial it up to

Spinal Tap at 11, like you did last week and the week before

that?

I said last week that we would monitor gas prices through the

summer. If they continue to be well above the correlation between the

price of a barrel of crude and the refining margins that are completely

out of whack, we’ll see what we can do to address that for the

travelling public.

In the meantime, we’re building transit. We’re putting people out

of their cars into public transit so they can move around and save money

and do what’s right for climate action.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Now we see the Premier dodging and weaving because he’s decided

that, once again, the petroleum companies are gouging,

whereas last week

he said that there’ve been numerous studies done on price-fixing or

gouging and there’s been no evidence of that, according to the

Premier.

Premier, 35 cents in every litre goes straight into your Finance

Minister’s pocket. You have the choice of when to cap the price. Why

don’t you tell British Columbians at what price you’ll actually cap the

taxes and provide some relief? Stop playing this game of flipping

around, saying which petroleum company is gouging and then changing your

mind, saying: “Just kidding.” How high does the price have to go,

Premier, before you give us a break?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: It is getting into the Easter season, so conversions on the road

to Damascus will be more common as we go by. Last week we heard from the

Liberal opposition that they cared about the social service sector for

the first time in a decade and a half. Now the party of market forces is

saying that market forces should be disregarded and that we should take

action on the taxes that they raised over 15 years in

government.

What I said, and I’ll say it again for the member’s

clarity….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Horgan: On April 1, gas taxes in British Columbia rose one penny. Two days

later prices at the pump went up 12 cents. I don’t think it takes a

rocket scientist or a B.C. Liberal to figure out it’s not taxes. It’s

money going to refining capacity elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier’s crusade against reality continues. The price

is up, Premier. You’ve said you’ll give relief. When will you give

relief?

Let’s keep it in focus here. The Premier’s own staff, in sworn

evidence before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, say all other

sources of refined fuels available to British Columbia are more

expensive than shipments through the Trans Mountain pipeline — the same

pipeline the Premier wants to obstruct. Five million British Columbians

waiting for fuel deliveries, and where does half the crude go to? It

goes to his buddy in Washington state for refining.

Premier, we know you’re eager to get on your feet and explain why

you send our crude to Washington state instead of refining it here. We

know you’re eager to explain why you’re jacking up prices by keeping

their taxes high. We know you’re keen to explain why the taxes are going

up again on July 1 for the transit tax.

Premier, maybe just one simple answer to all these questions.

What’s the dollar figure on gasoline where you’ll finally provide some

relief?

Hon. J. Horgan: This must be the member for Richmond-Queensborough’s solution. Jam

47 questions together, chuck it at the wall, and maybe, just maybe,

someone will pay attention to what we’re saying over here.

Maybe.

I’ll say to the member again…. And again, although I’m surprised —

a member of the bar and an Attorney General for a week and a half — that

he would read selectively from judgments or rulings or submissions in

courts outside of British Columbia….

Let’s go back to the reality that the member talked about. B.C.

Liberals increased gas taxes by 15 cents a litre. New

Democrats…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …raised gas taxes by two cents a litre, and we’re driving every

single incremental penny from that into transit for people in British

Columbia.

What did they do? When they were in power, they said: “Maybe we

will have transit, if the people in the region vote in favour of it.” So

what did we get for five years? No transit. We changed that. One penny

is going directly into SkyTrain….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s going directly into buses. It’s going directly into the

people of British Columbia’s transportation needs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Member, I should remind you that if you’re not going to be

listening to the response to the question, you will not be allowed a

supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Well, you’re not listening.

Member, proceed.

P. Milobar: So you’d like me to proceed, then? Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

With the confusion of the variety of answers coming today, I’m

sure if we give it to the end of the week, we’ll somehow have the

government mixing up fuel types and reasons for the increased costs, and

it will be because it’s very expensive to drill 300 kilometres under the

surface to get the oil.

[2:20 p.m.]

Let’s get this straight, though. In one breath, this Premier

promises, in his own words, to provide relief — the Premier’s own words.

Then he says, “We’ll see how it goes through the summer,” knowing full

well that he’s going to increase gas taxes again on July 1 for a large

portion of the province.

Again, with this unbelievable hypocrisy coming from the Premier,

when will he give a straight answer? He controls, directly, 35 cents a

litre. When is he going to do something about it?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m pleased to see the member opposite is wearing a green shirt

today, but unfortunately, listening to him, it’s clear that’s about as

close as we can expect the member to get to taking anything resembling

climate action for British Columbia.

Our government understands and appreciates the deep frustrations

people feel when they see gas prices shooting up, even while the price

of oil stays flat. We appreciate the frustration British Columbians feel

because we share it, when we add one penny of carbon tax to the price of

gas and the price of gas shoots up by five to ten cents.

The explanation for that should be obvious to the members

opposite, but perhaps it isn’t. What should be obvious is that Navius

Research conducted a study, and they found that since 2008 the margins

for refineries in British Columbia doubled, between 2008 and 2015, to

the point where they were almost double the margins in the rest of

Canada. But that shouldn’t be a surprise to the members opposite,

because Navius first reported that to the former government in

I didn’t see them talking about margins or cost to consumers then,

and I don’t hear them, really, talking about them now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Let’s be really clear, though. B.C. has the highest gas prices in

North America. B.C. today has the highest gas taxes in North America,

and this government directly controls those gas taxes. This Premier

won’t do anything about that, apparently.

All the way one year ago — one whole year ago, such a long time

ago — this is what the Premier had to say. “We are monitoring gas

prices, and we will take steps if necessary.” Now, I know that might

sound a little familiar to what was just said a few days ago, because

one year later the Premier said pretty much the same thing. Now the

Premier says: “The answer remains the same. We’re monitoring

this.”

This hypocrisy is a complete joke. When will the Premier do

something about it other than just monitoring gas prices?

Hon. J. Horgan: I remember just a year ago, they were still on that side of the

House. Here it is, a year later, and they’re still on that side of the

House. Their lack of sincerity on this issue has remained the same as

well. I think that at some point in their time on that side of the

House, they need to come to terms with the fact that they disregarded

the public. They didn’t take evidence. They didn’t take action when they

had an opportunity.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Only now that they have the luxury of sitting in opposition do

they care about the issues that they ignored for 15 years.

We’ve been working very hard to make life more affordable for

British Columbians, like doing away with the unfair tolls that they put

in place for people that live in one part of British Columbia, like

eliminating medical services pre­miums that they doubled while

they were on watch over here.

I appreciate it’s difficult work being in opposition, but

consistency is not one of their problems.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS AND

PHYSICIAN PAYMENT

MODELS

A. Olsen: At some point, I guess we’ll get back to addressing global

warming.

As I’ve shared with the minister, I’ve been receiving a constant

flow of advocacy from my constituents about the very real cost the

crisis in primary care delivery is having on their health and

well-being. There are between 10,000 to 14,000 people currently

unattached to a primary care provider on the Saanich Peninsula. In other

words, about 30 percent of my constituents on the peninsula don’t have a

family doctor.

[2:25 p.m.]

While the doctor shortage is a crisis in my riding, there is

another problem lurking just under the surface. We know that 40 percent

of the physicians in B.C. are over the age of 55, with the average age

of retirement being 65. So this has the potential to get much worse. A

CHEK News story last week highlighted that the Yates

Integrated Health Clinic, which services almost all of downtown, is

expected to close this summer — thousands more without a family

doctor.

In the end, government policy incentivizes doctors away from

family practice. My question is to the Minister of Health. We need to

change the incentives to make becoming a family doctor more appealing.

What is the minister doing to address this challenge?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for his question.

The member will know that when I became Minister of Health, about

18 percent of British Columbians were without a family practice doctor

or nurse practitioner. The member is correct that many doctors are also

preparing to retire. In British Columbia, we’re 12th of 13 Canadian

jurisdictions in the use of nurse practitioners.

So what have we done? Working with divisions of family practice

across British Columbia, the Premier and I announced a primary care plan

that I think starts to address this situation. We’re establishing

primary care networks around British Columbia, which, working with

divisions of family practice, will establish team-based care across the

province and improve services for people, who are in our mind’s

eye.

We’re establishing urgent primary care centres — seven so far,

with more to come. We’re establishing and sup­port­ing new

community health centres, including many in the member’s constituency,

who we’re supporting right now with direct supports. To support all of

those initiatives, we’ll be hiring 200 new family practice doctors, 200

new nurse practitioners and 50 new clinical pharmacists to support these

networks.

In direct response to the exact question the member raises, they

will be paid by alternate payment methods. And 85 percent of resident

doctors in a recent survey in B.C., from UBC, said they wanted to see

alternate payment methods in primary care. In direct response to that,

all 200 positions will have alternate pay methods, which we hope will

support family practice medicine in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: I’d like to thank the minister for taking the time with me last

week to discuss the issue on the Saanich Peninsula and to canvass as

many issues as you can on health care in a very short period of

time.

I’m glad that the minister raises the issue around the 200

salaried doctors and nurse practitioners. I think how family practice

doctors are remunerated — in fact, how many health care practitioners

are remunerated — is an important part of solving this issue. Last week

I asked about an issue in the social care sector where you have two

different payment standards for people doing essentially the same

work.

To the point of the alternative payment program, I’d like to get

the minister’s response to whether or not he feels that the APP system

and doctors getting paid under that model working alongside doctors that

are in fee-for-service is also creating the same effect — it’s about the

question that I asked last week — and if he’s going to include family

practitioners already practising under the APP model.

Hon. A. Dix: I think there’s some good news, although I think these are

significant challenges. I think many British Columbians who are in need

of family practice doctors — many British Columbians, many women who are

seeking support in pre- and post-natal care, many frail seniors, many

people addressing mental health and addictions — understand the real

vulnerability of not having a family practice doctor or nurse

practitioner.

There is some good news. In terms of the 200 family practice

doctors and 200 nurse practitioners, we’ve had 727 expressions of

interest so far. We’re established and have signed with local divisions

of family practice — in other words, local divisions of family doctors —

18 primary care networks already, seven new urgent primary care centres,

three new community health centres. We’re working hard in the member’s

constituency to establish one there.

[2:30 p.m.]

The thing we have to do, in cooperation, I think, with divisions

of family practice, with communities, with nurse practitioners, with

other health professionals and with skilled health workers, is work

together to solve this problem. We’re doing that step by step, community

by community. I’m very optimistic and proud of the progress made so far,

but we’ve got a lot more work to do.

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

S. Bond: Last week the Premier said: “Whether it be low-wage redress,

whether it be equal pay for equal work, those issues are alive to me.”

Let’s be clear. The responsibility for this discriminatory low-wage

redress policy rests squarely with the Premier.

He has a chance today, since he has confirmed he is “alive” to the

issue. He can stand up and direct his ministers to fix this mess. Will

the Premier end the discriminatory policy and ensure that non-union

workers working right alongside union workers get the same wage for

doing exactly the same work?

Hon. S. Simpson: The member will know this. Demands in the service-provision

sector, the non-profit service providers, continue to grow. They grew

over the years of the previous government, and they continue to grow. We

have thousands of contracts and agencies. We have tens of thousands of

workers in that sector who are delivering essential services across the

sector.

Unfortunately, they have received little attention. That’s what we

inherited. That’s what we inherited in July of 2017. That attention….

It’s on financial matters. It’s on matters of governance. It’s in an

array of areas.

We are working with that sector. We are working closely with them.

We’ve been working with them since 2017. We will continue to work with

them to address an array of issues and begin to address the questions

around certainty, sustainability, efficiency and effectiveness for that

sector as we work collaboratively to meet the needs of the people who

they serve and who the government serves.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: For four days now, this minister has said the same thing. There is

absolutely nothing he can say that legitimizes paying one group of

workers less for the same kind of work — nothing. It is the Premier who

is denying equal pay for equal work through this discriminatory low-wage

redress policy.

Let’s hear the words of Karyn Santiago with Communitas Supportive

Care Society. She calls the Premier’s decision “ideologically driven,

putting politics before people and inconsistent with the platform that

this provincial government campaigned on.” Well, apparently the Premier

broke yet another promise that he campaigned on. It’s time for him to do

the right thing.

Again, to the Premier, will he stand up today and end a

discriminatory policy that sees one group of workers getting a lower

raise than another group of workers doing exactly the same

job?

Hon. S. Simpson: Let’s remember: the other side is the side that tore up collective

agreements. The other side is the side that, in fact, allowed contracts

to be ripped up, that diminished the value of workers in community

health.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. S. Simpson: The litany of unfair treatment of the service providers by that

side is 16 years long. It’s 16 years long.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Simpson: If I sat on that side, I’d be wanting to say “never mind the last

16 years” too.

The issue is this….

Interjections.

[2:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: I have answered last week, and I will answer the same way this

week. The important question here is building a system that works for

non-profit contract service providers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: Building a system that engages them in discussion about how we

move forward and making that system work, first and foremost, for the

thousands and thousands of people who receive services from those

organizations, receive services from government. We are committed to

that. We are doing that work. And we’ll continue to do it regardless of

the failing efforts of political opportunism on the other

side.

J. Martin: You know, hon. Speaker, when our former colleague and good friend,

our brother Bill Routley, retired, a lot of us were wondering who was

going to step up and ascend to the chair of bullhorn-in-residence, but I

think maybe that question has been answered.

Still, it’s quite amusing, from my vantage point, watching the

minister channel his inner George Orwell. All workers are equal, but

some workers are more equal than others.

Here’s the situation. Non-unionized workers are excluded from

public projects. Now we have farmers not even being considered persons

on their own property, and we can add workers and non-union agencies to

the list of non-persons.

What we have is blatant discrimination. Unlike a lot of the files

on the Premier’s desk, this one’s an easy fix. End the discrimination

today.

Hon. S. Simpson: I think I should take that as a compliment, comparing me to Bill

Routley. But I’d have to say to the member over there, for his comment,

that the volume goes up to get over the din of caterwauling and that

from the other side.

Getting back to the question, though, this is about building this

sector. It is thousands of contracts that are held. It’s contracts to

deliver services for people who are in need, a whole array of need. It’s

about making those contracts work. It’s about making them efficient,

effective and sustainable. That’s the work we’re doing. We’re doing it

in collaboration with the sector. We’re not delivering ultimatums and

telling them what to do. We’re delivering it in collaboration. We will

continue to do that. We will build the strongest sector we can build. I

look forward to that work for many years to come on this side of the

House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: We’re already experiencing a disgraceful situation where you can’t

work on a public project unless you join one of the 19 approved NDP

unions. Now we have a situation in the public sector where social

service workers are being denied equal pay for equal work. Think about

it. Being denied equal pay for equal work.

You think about the legacy of the NDP and everything that they’ve

stood for and spoken up for over the decades, and now they are defending

unequal pay for equal work. It is an absolute disgrace, and it’s a shame

on their legacy. You can’t get any more blatant than discriminating

against workers working side by side. Some are being paid $4 an hour

less than others for doing exactly the same job.

Once again, this is an easy fix, and it can be corrected here and

now. End the discrimination.

Hon. S. Simpson: The member will know that in bargaining this year, across the

board, everybody in the public sector got 6 percent over three years: 2,

2 and 2.

[2:40 p.m.]

The member will also know…. I know he’s a bit of an historian. I

know that he follows history. So the member will also know about the

cuts that happened under the previous government. The member will know

about the $22 million of cuts to Community Living B.C. The member will

know about group homes that closed under the previous government. The

member will know that investments in services and people were cut and

slashed year after year after year under that government, when they were

government.

That’s what this is truly about. It’s about building and fixing

the services for the hundreds of thousands of people who need our help.

That’s our commitment. We’re doing it, and we’re doing it in

collaboration and cooperation with the tens of thousands of good service

providers out there working for non-profits. I look forward to

continuing that work.

T. Stone: Despite the minister’s rhetoric today and last week, I think

what’s most telling is the fact that the Premier of British Columbia is

not standing up today and responding to these very important questions

about two workers, one being paid more than the other for doing the same

job, which is called discrimination.

This is a Premier who has taken to a whole new level making an art

form of picking winners and losers in this province. Forcing

construction workers to join unions against their will — that’s the

Premier’s decision. Changing the definition of farmers so they’re no

longer considered persons. And now saying to non-unionized social

service workers: “Your work is not as valuable as your unionized

colleagues.” That’s discrimination.

But don’t take my word for it. Sandra Jorant is impacted by the

Premier’s discrimination. Here’s what she has to say, and I hope the

Premier will respond to this: “Our son is non-verbal, and at 30 years of

age, he is developmentally only a child. The compensation paid to his

support staff should not depend on whether they are employed by a union

or non-union employer. They provide the same service.”

A very simple question, one final opportunity today for the

Premier of British Columbia to stand up and answer this question. Why

has the Premier determined that the non-union social service workers

providing support to Sandra’s son…? Why are these workers undeserving of

the same wages as their unionized counterparts?

Hon. S. Simpson: What I would say to that member over there is he might recall

that…. You know, what I’m proud of is that I was able to stand with the

Premier a couple of weeks ago…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: …to announce that we had increased the rates for home-share

providers by 15 percent. They deliver services exactly to the

people….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Simpson: That’s after they had not got a raise in over a decade under the

bunch over there.

The members over there talk about discrimination. Let’s talk about

discrimination.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: I might remind the members here…. I think I might have referenced

this last week. I’m not sure. The Caledon Institute of Social Policy —

what did they say when they talked about that group over

there?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please, we shall hear the response. Thank

you.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: What did they say when they talked about their time in government?

“The government’s social program agenda can be summed up as restricted

eligibility; income-testing; rate cuts; off-loading to families and

community; user fees; withdrawal of home support services; cuts to

long-term care beds, hospitals and hospital beds; school closures;

program cuts to communities in crisis; cuts to child care; tuition

increases; and cuts to legal aid, victim services and programs for

at-risk youth.”

That’s discrimination against vulnerable British Columbians. You

should be ashamed.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry

of Transportation and Infrastructure. In

section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call

continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and

Technology.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $925,616,000

(continued) .

J. Sturdy: Nice to see you, Minister and staff, again, back in the House

here.

I think we just want to try and wrap up a little bit here with the

rural highway piece. Just a few sort of general questions. I understand

that historically, the projects, in terms of side road rehabilitation….

The metrics on it were the number of projects or kilometres covered in a

given year. The minister indicated that that was going to change to an

as-needed basis versus the 30 projects or 500 kilometres per year of

side road rehabilitation.

[2:50 p.m.]

The minister is looking quizzically at me, so perhaps she’s not

familiar with those metrics. Fundamentally, I suppose, how many projects

or kilometres were covered in side road rehabilitation improvements in

the ’18-19 fiscal?

Hon. C. Trevena: Under the former government’s plans — obviously, we’ve developed

our own plans; we’re not following the former government’s plans,

because we are a new government — there was the aim of doing

approximately 500 kilometres of highway. In the last year, we completed

741 kilometres of highway.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. Could the minister break that

down into various regions? I think there are four highway regions in the

province. Could you break that 741 kilometres down into where that took

place?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s safe to say that in every region of the province there was

investment in side roads. If the member does want a breakdown, we can

get back to him in writing.

J. Sturdy: Yes. That’d be great if we could be provided with the number of

side roads, specifically, that were resurfaced in what regions in the

province.

The 741, to follow up — was that side road rehabilitation, or did

that include provincial highways?

Hon. C. Trevena: It was all side roads.

J. Sturdy: How many kilometres of provincial highways were

resurfaced?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Under the rehab category, there are 514 kilometres. That’s 1,310

lane-kilometres. That is just rehab. That’s not any other works that

we’re doing. Major projects aren’t rehab, but road building, highway

building, obviously would extend that.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister provide us with the same breakdown, in terms of

regions, where those 1,310 lane-kilometres ended up happening? Did that

include concessions — for example, the Sea to Sky Highway?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we will provide the member that information. We’re just

going through it, whether there might be some on Sea to Sky. We’ll

provide the member that information in writing.

J. Sturdy: Would the minister also provide us with the value of those 1,310

kilometres, in terms of the cost to the taxpayer for how much it costs

to resurface that number of kilometres?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s $146 million.

J. Sturdy: I take it that the $146 million would not include concession

resurfacing.

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s correct.

J. Sturdy: How does that compare with the number of kilometres resurfaced in

the previous year? What’s the forecast for this year?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Bearing in mind the time constraint we have, I just wanted to let

the member know that we’re still trying to track down that number but,

again, letting him know that we are at the moment doing our spring

assessment for what rehabilitation and repair work needs doing. There’ll

be a list compiled. When we have that list, obviously, funding is

allocated to it, but the funding is consistent with previous years.

There’s absolutely no reduction in funding.

J. Sturdy: Okay. So it will be consistent — ’17-18, ’18-19, ’19-20 — in terms

of the budget of $146 million that will be expended? Is that what I’m

hearing the minister saying — give or take? Then what I’d be really

interested in is how that relates to kilometres resurfaced — how it

relates to the amount of money we’re spending versus the amount of

kilometres covered.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, the dollar figure is consistent. As he’s very well

aware, B.C. is a very vast and diverse province. I’m not going to

specify the kilometres. If you’re doing work on one of the arterial

roads in the Lower Mainland or you’re working on Highway 37, it’s

different as to the amount of work that you can do. As I mentioned in my

previous answer, we are doing our spring assessment at the moment. We’ll

have a list compiled, which we can later on share with the

member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. I’ll look forward to receiving

that.

Last year the minister mentioned that there were 2,900 structures,

including bridges, culverts, retaining walls, etc., which the government

inspects on an annual basis — which is a significant number, certainly.

I see that in the highways maintenance

section of the ministry website,

it references 2,800. Is that just an oversight, or are there some pieces

of that infrastructure that are inspected and managed by somebody

else?

Hon. C. Trevena: Well spotted. There are 2,933 bridges, culverts and structures

inspected annually. We still stick by that figure. However, the 2,800

number doesn’t include the concessionary ones. As the member is well

aware, there are lots of bridges, retaining walls and everything along

the Sea to Sky and other concessionary pieces of highway.

J. Sturdy: Yeah, I suspected something along those lines.

Last year with regard to fires, the minister noted: “When there is

a fire, this impacts the soil. It impacts the stability, and it changes

the land. There is a potential for more erosion. We want to be able to

go in there and make real repairs rather than…patch it up and have

problems in the future. We’re working with our colleagues in other

ministries to ensure those repairs, but we are very conscious of the

impacts that the fires have had, and we’ll be working to try to mitigate

them into the spring.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Given that set of circumstances and another issue last summer,

could the minister let the House know what specific steps, what actual

steps have been taken by her ministry? What cross-ministry discussions

and actions have taken place to mitigate such erosion

occurrences?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s following up a little bit on our discussion of last week, I

believe, on building resilience into the infrastructure. That has become

a priority for the ministry. This is now really a standard of building

bigger and better, preparing for the likely climate change, the culverts

and so on.

There are a couple of things that we’re doing specifically. We are

doing a lot of active monitoring. We are, then, doing extra work on

clearing culverts, making sure that areas are free of debris. There’s a

lot of work being done there. There is working with other ministries,

such as Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development, on making sure that the high-priority areas are…. I was

going to say protected. But we are working in conjunction with them,

whether it is on clearing culverts or ditch clearing or revegetating

slopes where there has been a fire or, again, a flood, because we,

obviously, also know the problems of slides.

[3:15 p.m.]

We are also working with the federal government, through the DFA,

for mitigation work. So the federal government will give a certain

amount of dollars, a certain percentage of dollars, to look at how we

can mitigate and prevent future problems. We are maximizing that

availability too, to ensure that we are looking to the future

there.

J. Sturdy: Is there an actual budget that has been allocated for this type of

work, for the issue of extra cleaning, for reveg or for whatever else —

cooperation, identifying high-priority areas, this sort of thing? Is

there any actual budget associated with that?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I explained to the member for Cariboo North last week — she was

asking about the fires and culvert replacement, and so on — it is

impossible to put a dollar figure on this, because it comes from a

number of different budget lines. Some comes from maintenance. Some

comes from rehabilitation. Some comes from side roads. There are also

the federal dollars that we get.

It isn’t a specific amount allocated to climate change resiliency.

It is pulled together from our other budgets when we know that we need

to do the work, whether it’s done through rehab or through the

maintenance contractor or whatever it is. It’s built into the

budgets.

We are looking at all our work now through a climate change lens,

with the need to build resilient infrastructure. It is just part of our

general thinking as a ministry.

J. Sturdy: Okay. I guess we had expected that there was going to be an

allocation towards the issue of mitigation and prevention and the

impacts of climate change versus trying to cobble things together within

existing budgets. But we’ll move on.

Just one question specific to my region in terms of highways. We

have a road in the north part of my region called the Highline Road.

Would the minister let me know if there’s an actual technical

classification, or is there a number? I understand there’s a road

classification matrix. I wonder if the minister could make that

available to me, and could the minister identify what the Highline Road

is classified as?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d first off like to disagree with the member. We don’t cobble

together spending on climate change resilience. This is something that’s

very important to the ministry. We’ve seen devastating floods,

devastating forest fires. We make sure that there are dollars on hand to

deal with that resiliency when we’re rebuilding.

To the member’s question about the Highline Road: basically, with

47,000 kilometres of highway, each road and each

section of the road is

classed on a usage and volume basis. We can get back to the member about

the specific classification on that specific piece of highway, but it is

classed on the use of the road and the volume of use of the

road.

J. Sturdy: The ministry doesn’t have the current classification on hand. Is

that what I’m hearing?

Hon. C. Trevena: Right at this moment, no, the staff do not have it. That is to

say, we have 47,000 kilometres of highway, and different sections of the

different 47,000 kilometres have different classifications. We’re not

able to say what Highline Road is classified as right at this moment,

but we can get back to the member and let him know.

J. Sturdy: Thank you. I’d certainly appreciate that.

[3:25 p.m.]

In terms of resiliency and cobbling together, one would imagine

that if it were a real focus, then there would be a focused budget.

Otherwise, it comes from here and there and in bits and pieces. I think

we all understand what the definition is there.

The Highline is a MOTI responsibility, but there are many other

communities across the province that are very much reliant on the road

system — often FLNR roads, as I’m sure the minister is well

aware.

I could use an area in my region that is perhaps emblematic of it,

a road called the In-SHUCK-ch Forest Service Road. There are three First

Nations communities — Samahquam, Skatin and Tipella — that are reliant

on that road. There’s Blackwater Road, there’s Miller Bench Road, and

there’s Squamish Valley Road. All of these are FLNR roads that all have

significant populations adjacent to them.

My understanding, and I’d love to hear the specifics if the

minister has them available, is that the contribution that MOTI makes to

the maintenance of those roads — somewhere between 150 and 200

kilometres of road, some of which have contractors or prime tenure

holders, and some that don’t — is about $85,000.

As I think the minister well understands, the standards to which

industrial users use these roads are not the standards which communities

feel are needed. In fact, in one case, the In-SHUCK-ch Forest Service

Road, we’ve got a First Nation running a school bus all year round on

that road and relying on snow clearing, dust control and

grading.

I think the minister would understand that $85,000 in that kind of

situation is not a particularly significant amount. I guess I’m not

looking for an answer here, so much as more generally: is the ministry

in discussions with FLNR and others to look for solutions to some of

these remote communities and the challenges that these communities face,

recognizing that the interests of those communities are not well served,

exclusively by the resource tenure holder?

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. You’ve got everybody talking about this

“cobbling together” piece, where everybody is really concerned that

that’s what the member takes away from it, when we actually do take a

comprehensive look in our planning when we’re doing any work — and

looking provincewide.

It really is building this into everything that we’re doing, as I

mentioned. Whether it’s rehabilitation or expansion, we are considering

climate change. It wouldn’t be appropriate to have a separate pot that

just says: “That will deal with climate change.” It is in everything. I

think it is in everything that a lot of people are looking at. The

analogy that’s given is if you are doing a seismic upgrade for a school,

you’re also doing…. You may be building new. You may be building extra

classrooms or what have you, but this is built in.

To answer the member’s previous question about the Highline Road,

it is a 6D. That is not a shoe size; it is a road. On the forest service

road, I understand the member’s concern about communities at the end. I,

in my constituency, have Indigenous communities and other communities

living on forest service roads and expecting the same quality of roads

that everybody else has. But they are forest service roads. They are

maintained by Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Our ministry does invest $900,000 across the province in forest

service roads. Whether it’s in the member’s constituency…. I know in my

constituency…. I know that the member for Mid-Island–Pacific Rim has

some communities on forest service roads. I think right across the

province, there are communities, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous,

along forest service roads, most of whom feel that they are not getting

the quality of road that they would like to have. It is a Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development issue, so I

would suggest that the member also canvass this in the estimates of

FLNRORD.

J. Sturdy: Okay. Well, $900,000 for…. I think there’s something in the

neighbourhood of 1 million kilometres of FLNR roads. But that wasn’t

really the question. The question was: has the ministry been in

discussion with FLNR or other agencies as to how to better service these

communities? Or is the minister suggesting that the responsibility for

community access, now that the name has changed from FLNR to FLNRORD —

that that responsibility is now the responsibility of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development?

[3:35 p.m.]

To say it again, is the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure in discussions with the other ministries about how these

communities can be better served?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. We’re often in discussion.

I’m sure the member is aware for his own roads. I know that for

the roads in my constituency, there are road-user meetings bringing

together the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, often the licensee

and the communities and the Indigenous communities.

I know that is how it works in my constituency. I see it work in

other constituencies in other parts of the province. It’s a constant

conversation. We do invest in those roads, but they are the ultimate

responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.

J. Sturdy: In our case, of the Sea to Sky, where we’re looking at 150-plus

kilometres of roads to communities that these communities rely on, does

the minister feel that $85,000 is an adequate contribution?

Hon. C. Trevena: I spent many years in opposition asking the Minister of Forests

pretty well exactly what the member is asking me about the standard of

forest service roads serving communities, and frustrated because…. You

have a number of communities with people who are living there. Is there

any access? You’ve got emergency services using it. You’ve got school

buses using the roads.

There is that expectation from people that they want to be on a

Ministry of Transportation standard, which, as we know, is a high

standard, wider roads. You don’t get the off-road logging trucks and

other vehicles on Ministry of Transportation roads. So I can understand

the member’s frustration. These roads are built because they are

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operation roads. They

are built to that standard.

We are working as a ministry to improve the standard with the

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. This is

something that we are very cognizant about — that we do need to bring

both ministries together to find out how the Ministry of Forests can

potentially improve the standard when there are communities there, but

also being cognizant that they are roads that were built for industrial

use, for logging use primarily.

So it continues. Contributing to these roads is important for us.

There are communities there. But we also have to look at the whole

province and the needs of the whole province. We continue to contribute

to Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development in

their roads, but this is something that we have to weigh against other

investments.

[3:40 p.m.]

L. Throness: I have a few questions about my riding, and I’m sure the minister

will be able to help. Maybe she has travelled on Highway 9, the

Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge, which is an aging bridge. A couple of years ago

there was an announcement that there would be seismic upgrades to that

bridge of about $36 million. Really, nothing much has been done

yet.

About 7,000 people live north of that bridge, and there is a lot

of tourist and business traffic on that road. So it’s very important to

them, because one lane will be blocked off for a period of two to three

years. This is going to be a huge imposition on all those who live north

of the bridge. So their MLA is very concerned about it.

I’m wondering, instead of asking questions today — specific,

factual questions like cost, timeline, public consultations, results of

engineering studies, which have been ongoing, and work — could the

minister commit her staff to give me a transparent briefing of these

issues on the bridge?

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to clarify for the member, there has been a contract awarded

for the seismic work on the bridge. That is getting underway pretty well

immediately. That’s a $2.6 million contract that, as I say, has been

awarded, and that’s going to be upgrading the piers on the bridge. I

know there is some discussion about a second phase.

Yes, ministry staff can give the member a briefing.

L. Throness: I would also ask the same about a roundabout just south of the

Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge. It was an early roundabout and really made that

corner, which is a very dangerous intersection, much safer. But it has

become too small. It’s inadequate for the traffic volume.

There are no appropriate places for large trucks to park. They’re

parking everywhere. It’s a chaotic situation and an unsafe

situation.

I’m wondering what the minister’s plans are to upgrade the

roundabout and to deal with associated parking issues. Perhaps this

could also be left to a briefing from staff, but I’m concerned about

that roundabout.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Staff are aware of the problems that the member has raised. They

are looking at them, and if it’s fine with member, it can be part of the

briefing — looking at the bridge and the roundabout. But staff are well

aware of the concerns.

L. Throness: Just one final question for the minister. The No. 1 is becoming

potholed in a number of places on the No. 1 Highway between Chilliwack

and the Mt. Lehman Road exit in Abbotsford. I would remind the minister

that there are 19 million trips on this westbound portion of the

highway, and it is becoming a safety issue where people swerve to avoid

them. When will the ministry be doing some upgrades and improvements to

this part of the highway?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re obviously very well aware that this is a heavily travelled

corridor. Maintenance staff have been looking. We’re doing assessments

of the level of potholes. I hear the member’s concerns. There are no

safety issues. He can be guaranteed that there no safety issues, but

there will be some significant patching work done to ensure that there

is a smoother and, as they say in this ministry, more efficient ride

through that section.

S. Gibson: A privilege to be here today. I think we all, as representatives

here of our constituents, advance causes or things that are troubling to

the folks that live in our ridings. I know the minister will not be

surprised that I bring up the widening of Highway 1. It’s been a lament

that she has heard a number of times.

People approach me in the community, and I guess they’re

bewildered because they don’t really understand the criteria involved

with regard to widening and not widening. Clearly, it’s a safety issue.

If the minister has had the opportunity to go out to the highway,

through Langley and Abbotsford in particular, she’ll notice

extraordinary bottlenecks that are frustrating for travellers, expensive

for commuters and irri­tating for truckers. I’m wondering what

criteria might be involved.

As she will know, the previous government had plans in place,

working with the federal government for funding and with the township of

Langley in particular, but the whole enterprise seems to have ground to

a halt — very frustrating for local people who have to leave the

community and commute far distances along Highway 1. So my request is

for maybe just a bit of an update on the criteria. What can local

residents in Langley and Abbotsford expect in order that we might

expedite this highly congested Trans-Canada Highway through our

province?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member asked about criteria and what sort of criteria we use

when we’re assessing where work is going to be. There is, obviously, a

limited number of dollars available. The public purse isn’t

never-ending. We have a lot of different priorities that we are looking

at as a government. But the criteria when we’re looking at our

highways…. Safety is, obviously, the first and foremost. Anything that

we do on our highways, we’ve got to put safety as the number one. That

goes without saying.

We also look, when we’re looking at whether or not we’re going to

be expanding highways and working on highways, at mobility — people’s

ability to move. It’s not just people in single-occupancy vehicles but

buses and every other vehicle. Also important, obviously, is the

commercial sector — that trucks can go. That is an issue.

I think part of that is traffic volume. I hear, obviously, and I’m

very aware of the whole of Highway 1, basically out towards Chilliwack.

I often hear from people concerned about this. So there is

that.

We also look at greenhouse gas impacts. As I mentioned to the

critic, everything we’re doing has a lens. We have to in this ministry,

which is, sadly, such a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. We have

a climate change lens and a greenhouse gas emissions lens when we are

looking at our highway system and our investments in transportation

through B.C.

As the member is aware, we are working at present on part of the

Trans-Canada, on 202 to 216th. We’re working on that project, and we are

in discussions with the federal government about the

corridor.

S. Gibson: I appreciate the minister using the word “safety” in her remarks

in response to my earlier queries. Clearly, safety is a concern when

it’s brought to my attention by travellers who go along that route

virtually every day.

[3:55 p.m.]

The minister will also know that there are bottlenecks there,

which are safety factors where, especially in the wintertime, you’ll

suddenly get a cluster of cars and rear-enders. It’s my understanding

that safety issues have reached your desk, and there are some issues

that are worthy of canvassing.

I think the other point I would like to make — and I appreciate

this opportunity to speak today to this and ask the query — is that

there are no alternatives to Highway 1. If you put on the traffic

channel…. If you’re going into town or following that route into the

Metro, there are no alternatives.

If somebody finds themselves in an accident, which is

fre­quent along the highway…. The minister can get that

information with ease from her staff. If there is an accident or

bottleneck at 264th or 232nd, there’s no alternative. The cars just sit

there, congested, polluting the air. Of course, trucks delivering —

perhaps they have refrigerated goods — make it really

problematic.

The 216th interchange, as the minister will know, is proceeding.

It’s coming along well. However, that creates additional problems

because the cars are now dumped onto Highway 1 in east-to-west

direction, creating even more problems on the artery, which was built in

1962 for traffic for that era and which, of course, is vastly out of

date.

The question that I would like to ask, on behalf of my

constituents and also those in Langley township, is: when would the

minister feel that that study would be completed? As you’ve mentioned,

there is some studying going on. Likely, at least the bottlenecks on

Highway 1 would be addressed, particularly at 264th and 200th, where the

bottlenecks are the most problematic. The request is: when could those

bottlenecks be addressed in preparation for rebuilding the entire

highway between 208th and Whatcom?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think on one of the things that the member is frustrated about —

the lack of options — I’d say that there are two alternatives to Highway

1. They’re not perfect. There’s Highway 7. We are working, reinvesting

in Highway 7, at the moment, on four-laning much of Highway 7. That is

underway. Also, around Langley, there’s, obviously, Highway

[4:00 p.m.]

For the ministry, one of the things is to ensure that people are

aware of potential problems and options that are available to them in

any part of our road network. We’ve got the dynamic messaging system.

That’s the big boards over the highway which will tell drivers where

there may or may not be problems and inform drivers of alternatives and

alternative routes.

to check the mobile Drive B.C. on their phone as they are driving. But

and directs people to alternate routes.

The member cites 200 Street, congestion there. The work that is

being done on 216 at the moment should be dealing with that sort of

congestion.

S. Gibson: I just want to thank the minister. Thank you for your interest in

our area. Traffic circulation on Highway 1 is critical, and I want to

thank you for anything you can do to improve the situation on Highway 1,

particularly in Langley township and in Abbotsford.

I. Paton: To the Transportation Minister: I’m actually not going to talk

about what you think I’m going to talk about. Shocking.

Interjections.

I. Paton: I might fit it in.

Going back a few years was the building of the treaty at

Tsawwassen First Nation and the building of this massive mall,

Tsawwassen Mills, Tsawwassen commons. And then Tsawwassen Springs is

across the street. Before the mall actually went ahead and got built,

they decided they needed to do some major upgrades to Highway

Originally, Highway 17 at 52nd Street in Tsawwassen was 35 metres

in width. At the end of the renovations, it became 60 metres in width.

It went from five lanes to nine lanes in width. It takes — it’s been

timed — an average person approximately 60 seconds to cross from

Tsawwassen Mills across the street, nine lanes of traffic, to the other

side to catch buses to go back to Richmond or Vancouver or Surrey,

wherever.

Could I ask the Minister of Transportation if there is the

possibility of an overhead pedestrian walkway to take place at that

intersection of Highway 17 and 52nd Street in Tsawwassen?

One other thing I’ll add to this is, just for information, there

are several pedestrian overpasses as examples. Such as, Highway 17A and

Ladner Trunk Road is nine lanes, which has a pedestrian overpass for

bicycles and wheelchairs. Upper Levels Highway, West Vancouver, five

lanes wide, has a pedestrian overpass. Lougheed Highway at Dewdney Trunk

Road in Coquitlam is only five lanes in width. However, they have a

pedestrian overpass for bicycles and, I believe, for wheelchairs or

scooters. Lougheed Highway at Shaughnessy Street in Port Coquitlam is

seven lanes wide. They have a pedestrian overpass.

As I drive from Swartz Bay to downtown Victoria, I see endless

pedestrian overpasses on the Pat Bay Highway — endless. I’m thinking

that there are so many of them, why can’t we see one in Tsawwassen,

going from the Tsawwassen mall across the street at Highway 17 and 52nd

Street?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Member, the engineers and staff have done a number of traffic

counts and pedestrian counts in the area and would like to assure the

member that that is a safe crossing. It may be frustrating to time it

for the minute, but it is something that has been revisited a number of

times to make sure that it is safe. This is not new for us. We’re aware

of it, but I definitely want to tell the member that it is a safe

crossing.

If we were to build a pedestrian overpass, it is typically done

through a cost-share arrangement. We have ministry staff who have talked

to the municipality of Delta about this, also reaching out to Tsawwassen

First Nation to talk about it. It would be something that would be

cost-shared. There would be the discussion of the precise location of

it.

This is something that ministry is exploring with Delta, with

Tsawwassen First Nation. But, just to assure the member’s constituents

and other people who are using that crossing to get to the buses, it is,

according to our engineering staff, safe at the moment.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. My next question does move on to the George

Massey Tunnel replacement.

I think I’d like to take credit for the 600,000 tonnes of sand

terminology, because I actually went to a good friend of mine in the

trucking industry that I went to school with that was part of the

project. I said: “Could you estimate how much sand is actually piled up

on the side of Highway 99?” He got together with some of his trucking

buddies and came up with the figure of 600,000 tonnes. I think that’s

where it, basically, came from.

The question I’m asking doesn’t really need an answer right at the

moment. I have the farming community in Delta, which is currently

planting cranberries. Traditionally, cranberries were planted in peat,

and then they felt that sawdust was a good medium to plant cranberries

in. But now they all want to plant cranberries in sand. They’re asking:

if and when the sand is going to be removed, could that sand be made

available to local farmers for cranberry planting?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Cranberries or using it for golfing? Unfortunately, it has

actually been identified. It will be used on ministry projects. One of

the ones that it will be used on is Highway 91/17. The preload has

actually settled. I know that sometimes there has been such a rush to

build that the preload hasn’t settled. In this case, the preload has

settled, and it will be very valuable for other ministry

projects.

I. Paton: I’ll throw, perhaps, two questions in one. Question 1 is: what is

the timeline for removing all the sand on the side of Highway 99, on the

Richmond side and the Delta-Surrey side?

For question 2, I’ll move on to something a little bit different.

The former government’s Massey Tunnel replacement plan included plans

for improvements to the 17A interchange, including a new bus stop.

Currently, workers transiting to Tilbury Island, our big industrial area

in Delta, from north of the Fraser have to take the bus all the way into

Ladner and then all the way back up to River Road, adding at least 20

minutes to their daily commute. Will the $40 million temporary upgrades

to the Massey Tunnel include a new bus stop at Highway 17A interchange

to assist the many Tilbury workers struggling to commute to work from

north of the Fraser every day?

Hon. C. Trevena: For the preload to be removed, we’re looking at possibly this fall

— hopefully, no later than next spring — to stay well settled. As far as

the member’s question about transit, transit options are being looked at

as part of the improvements, in discussions, obviously, with community

and with TransLink about the improvements to transit in the

area.

I. Paton: Again, maybe I’ll throw a quick question in with the next one.

When the Transportation Minister says, “In the next spring,” I’m

thinking spring of 2020, not this current spring.

Hon. C. Trevena: For the project, if it’s 91/17, it will be removed…. We’re hoping

for this fall. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be removed through the winter; it

would be removed in the spring. But we’re anticipating that it will be

this fall.

I. Paton: I guess the shortened question would be: will the new replacement

of the George Massey Tunnel contain plans to…?

[4:15 p.m.]

Sorry. Has any thought been given to extending the Canada Line or

putting rapid transit into the new crossing as a component of the

replacement in the future?

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is well aware, in the report that Mr. Cowdell

produced, he cited the very ade­quate levels of transit and that

the proposed ten-lane bridge, at that time, was overbuilding

transit.

The rapid bus is very popular and very successful at the moment,

but that doesn’t preclude the fact that the question of transit is very

much a part of the conversation when we’re looking at what the

replacement will be. Obviously, we want to get people out of their cars

and into transit as much as possible, for so many reasons —

environmental as well as just the health and well-being of

people.

We are talking — in the present discussions that are going

forward, as well as continued discussions with TransLink. This is very

much part of the conversation on the replacement.

I. Paton: My final question would be this. Already the George Massey Tunnel

is the worst traffic bottleneck in B.C. It is very difficult for

businesses to move goods and workers across the region as a result of

this. If the Port of Vancouver’s Roberts Bank terminal 2 project moves

forward, we could see hundreds of thousands of extra trucks on Delta

roads within ten years. On the current timeline, there will be no Massey

Tunnel replacement until at least 2030.

Do the potential disastrous effects of congestion or the potential

closure of the tunnel due to an earthquake worry the

minister?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Looking at the area south of the Fraser, I think the member is

aware that, looking at it as a whole, yes, there is…. I understand

peoples’ frustration about the Massey, but we are making safety

improvements at the Massey. We already have the seismic warning system

built into the tunnel. In the worst-case scenario of an earthquake, that

would prevent traffic going into the tunnel in the event of a seismic

event.

As I say, we look at the area as a whole. The member knows it very

well. We’ve got the Alex Fraser Bridge there as another alternative, and

we’ve been doing upgrades there. There is also the work that we’re doing

on the 91/17. That will ease traffic there. We’ve removed the last

signal on the 91/17, which has eased traffic. It is, in many ways, sort

of a balancing act of trying to get traffic moving in different ways —

through different corridors, through different highways and across

either the Massey or Alex Fraser.

We used — I think successfully, but we continue to streamline the

use — the dynamic messaging system that I was talking about earlier,

which gives people early warning of where routes are clogged, where

there could be potential problems, to give drivers the opportunity to

choose which route to take as quickly as possible. We obviously have,

also, mobile apps to do that. We continue to work, again, with TransLink

to coordinate the different options.

Safety is number one. As the minister, I have to put safety number

one and look at things through that lens. But I also look at things

regionally, and we are trying to alleviate traffic congestion as a

region as well as in the specific area.

T. Redies: I’m really surprised that my colleague from south Delta didn’t ask

a question that I feel now very compelled to ask, being from South

Surrey–White Rock, on behalf of my constituents of south Delta and North

Delta, who, every day, are experiencing significant traffic jams at the

George Massey. Frankly, the upgrades to the Alex Fraser are not going to

help that significantly, particularly when you look at the building that

is happening out in the South Surrey area.

The obvious question is…. To the minister: you’ve had the report

since last summer. When we saw you in Surrey, you said you were

undertaking consultations. When will the citizens of South Surrey, White

Rock, North Delta and south Delta learn about what the solution is for

the George Massey Tunnel?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We are right on schedule. In December, when I released the very,

very comprehensive and very useful report from Mr. Cowdell on the

overplanned and overbuilt bridge, one of the things we said was that

there was going to be consulting with communities and with Metro board —

with individual communities, including the member’s own, with White Rock

and with Surrey as well as with Delta. This has been going underway,

with finalizing this month, as was explained back in December, and

that’s to get, really, to the fundamental options.

We will be starting our safety improvements in the area in the

summer, and by this fall, we’ll have a shortlist of crossing options.

I’m anticipating that that will be a short shortlist. I think everybody

has had enough of talking about it, and they want to move on with it. We

will have the business case, the long-term solution, by fall 2020, as

was said in the news release back in December when we issued the, I

think, very good analysis by Mr. Cowdell. I’m sure the member has read

it and has appreciated it.

T. Redies: Thank you for the answer. I can tell you that the citizens south

of the Fraser who have to use Highway 99 will be very glad to see what

the government is putting forward, because these are the people whose

lives are affected on this every day.

I’d like to change tack now and talk about another subject that’s

very important to my community. Of course, I’ve been speaking with the

minister about this for, probably, at least 18 months, I think — that

is, the increasing number of trains carrying hazardous chemicals through

the cities of White Rock and South Surrey along the BNSF

line.

This is an issue of high risk to our community. We have many

mudslides annually during the winter rainy season. We’ve had many

undesirable emergencies or UDEs, far more than is normal for a rail line

of this distance. Worse, and most concerning, we’ve had 20 people die on

this line, including three people in the last five years — in

particular, a young man who was 15 years old who lost his life on the

rail line last summer.

Minister, as you know, the cities of White Rock and Surrey — and

I’ve confirmed this with the current mayors, the new mayors — want to

complete a feasibility study to look at the long-term options of moving

the BNSF tracks. They’ve asked the federal and provincial governments to

put up $300,000 each to support that study, but despite all the issues

the communities are facing, and the risks, the province has not provided

funding. Even funding under the emergency preparedness program was

turned down.

[4:30 p.m.]

Minister, can you explain to me and my constituents why the

Ministry of Transportation cannot find $300,000 to support the cities of

Surrey and White Rock to ensure the safety of their citizens?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is well aware — we have met quite a lot and

canvassed it quite a lot — and as the previous government indicated to

the previous member from White Rock when they were in government, this

is federal jurisdiction. It was federal jurisdiction under the former

government, and it still is federal jurisdiction.

I know that the federal government held a working session. The

member was there. It was to talk to MPs, First Nations, local MLAs and

the community about safety. I believe that the member participated in

that.

As I understand it, the federal government isn’t interested in

being involved with this. We look at it very much as a federal

government approach. There are various actions that came out of that

meeting for the city of Surrey, for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Railway and for the member and her federal MPs to have a look

at.

[4:35 p.m.]

Really, it is…. I come back to the view of this government and, as

I understand it, the former government — that it is a federal

issue.

The member asked about emergency preparedness and the fact that

there is no money available for that. That is a local government ask.

Our ministry has worked very hard with the local governments in the

area, preparing submissions for the federal government. If the local

governments haven’t had a positive response, it is an issue to take up

with the local governments — so the city of White Rock, the city of

Surrey — to be taking those on.

I understand that there’s going to be a tabletop exercise this

spring, if it has not already happened, about the area adjacent to the

tracks on the Nicomekl River and Mud Bay. I know that this continues to

be a discussion between Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Surrey and,

obviously, White Rock. That is where the situation is at the

moment.

With that, Mr. Chair, if I might beg a five-or-so-minute recess,

I’d appreciate it.

The Chair: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Redies: To the minister: thank you for the previous answer. You referenced

the federal jurisdiction, the meeting with Transport Canada and a bunch

of stakeholders last summer. I will ask you some questions with respect

to those comments.

First, I actually want to ask the minister…. It is my

understanding — and I have the former Minister of Transportation sitting

right in front of me — that the $300,000 that was requested by the

cities of Surrey and White Rock was actually agreed to and approved. I

believe there are some people behind you that know that.

My question is: did you revoke it and, if you did, for what

reason?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson might remember that it was

contingent on the federal government agreeing to put in money for this,

and the federal government will not put money into this. So it was not a

question of whether this government revoked it. The former government

didn’t actually put the money in.

T. Redies: I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that, based on

conversations I’ve had with my colleague who was there.

[4:50 p.m.]

Minister, you referenced the issue with respect to federal

jurisdiction, which you’ve mentioned many times in our discussions. The

province and the federal government collaborate on multiple things,

including the airport. It’s my understanding that the province has put

millions of dollars into the airport. That’s federal

jurisdiction.

What we’re asking for is just $300,000 to fund this study. I would

also make mention of the recent announcements, the two announcements, of

the funding of high-speed rail between Washington and B.C. That study, I

presume, is also federal jurisdiction.

Can the minister explain to me why the government is prepared to

fund a study with respect to a high-speed rail line but is not prepared

to put in any money on a study that is really about trying to figure out

a way to ensure the safety of citizens in my constituency?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. I know the member is very

interested in this. In fact, she wrote to the Premier about this, and I

responded. I’m not sure she has received my letter yet. I’m sure she

has. Just to read into the record, she was asking in the letter about an

apparent, as she perceived it, contradiction there. But as I wrote to

her…. Unfortunately, I don’t have a hard copy. So if it’s okay, I’ll

read from an electronic version of it.

“With respect to high-speed rail, Premier Horgan and Washington

state Gov. Jay Inslee signed a memorandum of understanding in October

2018 ‘to act jointly to grow the region’s innovation economy, protect

the environment, combat climate change, promote trade and improve

transportation connectivity.’

“One of the areas of collaboration identified was to examine the

possibility of a new multi-jurisdictional ultra-high-speed rail corridor

authority. Governor Inslee’s budget request of $3.25 million and Premier

Horgan’s recent pledge of $300,000 for this next phase of

ultra-high-speed rail work is consistent with the MOU

commitment.

[4:55 p.m.]

“While the work underway is very preliminary, I understand the

Washington State Department of Transportation has advised that

consideration is not being given to relocating the BNSF rail line as

part of Washington state–led ultra-high-speed rail studies.”

I think the member is well aware that we’re looking at this very

much as an economic generator, working with our neighbours in the south.

The funding has come from the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. It

is something that we continue to be committed to, looking at new and

innovative ways of linking connections and making sure that we get the

corridors working. I’m sure the member for Kamloops–South Thompson also

has some ideas about this.

T. Redies: Minister, I can read your letter. The reason I’m here is because I

still have not got a decent answer from your ministry or, frankly, from

the Premier as to why the Premier could commit B.C. taxpayer dollars to

fund a high-speed rail line when they won’t even look at helping the

citizens of South Surrey and White Rock stay safe.

As I understand it, the number one goal of the ministry is to keep

citizens safe. I should think that it’s the number one goal of the

Premier to make sure that citizens are safe. Here we have the government

funding a pie-in-the-sky high-speed rail line, giving B.C. taxpayer

dollars to Washington state, yet the province won’t support the cities

of White Rock and South Surrey in this venture.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It certainly makes no

sense to my constituents, who see the government as basically telling

the citizens of Surrey and White Rock that they don’t care about the

risks that they’re facing with these hazardous chemicals.

Minister, if something happens on that rail line, which could very

well happen, what are you going to say to my constituents — that it’s

federal jurisdiction? “Sorry, we didn’t fund the $300,000 because we

thought we had a better option with a high-speed rail line”? That is

just not acceptable.

Minister, again, we are facing a potential disaster on that line.

It would be really good if you could come out and talk to the mayors,

walk around the rail line and see some of the challenges we’re having

with mudslides, etc. I think maybe it might help you understand just

some of the concerns that the cities are facing.

My question. I sent an email to you, a number of weeks ago, about

a meeting with the mayors, the new mayors, myself, the Premier and

yourself on this matter. Would you take that meeting?

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to clarify, the member is obviously a strong advocate on this

issue. As I have suggested in the past, it is federal. We need the

federal government at the table for the dollars’

reallocation.

I would suggest, as I have suggested in the past, that the member

talk to her MP, who used to be the MLA for the seat she now holds, and

that he also advocate for the federal government to come to the table.

Until the federal government comes to the table, we as a province cannot

consider it.

T. Redies: Of course we’ve been talking to the MP for this area, who’s very

supportive of the federal government providing funding. I guess, maybe,

just the question to the minister: if the feds put up their part of the

study, will the minister find the $300,000 in her budget to fund this

study?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. If the federal government reconsiders —

it hasn’t indicated that it’d reconsider — we’ll obviously look afresh.

I think the member is also sort of confusing apples and oranges. The

high-speed rail line and the BNSF line are two very different creatures,

as it were.

If the member is lucky with her colleague the MP for the area —

whom we can now name, actually, in this House, Gordie Hogg — and if you

can convince MP Hogg to convince the federal government, in this time

before an election, to suddenly come up with the cash, we obviously will

have a look at it. At the moment, our view is that Transport Canada

hasn’t been interested in this. This is not in our jurisdiction, and

we’re leaving it at that.

T. Redies: Minister, the feds aren’t putting any money into the high-speed

rail, as we understand it at this point in time. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. Trevena: If the member would canvass the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and

Technology. They are the lead on that; we’re not the lead on this. The

member may be upset about that, but we are not the lead on that. It is

Jobs, Trade and Technology.

T. Redies: Well, that’s quite the deferral of an answer. All

right.

My question. The minister referred to the meeting with Transport

Canada last year, at which one of the action items was that there was to

be a disaster drill with BNSF in August. It was cancelled; it didn’t

take place. In the letter that the Minister of Transportation sent to me

with respect to my questions around this, she indicated that there had

been a disaster drill undertaken on the other side of the border in

Washington state, and she seemed to imply that that should be sufficient

for our purposes.

I guess my question is: does the minister actually believe that a

disaster drill undertaken in another jurisdiction with different laws,

different practices and different stakeholders is the same thing to

doing a disaster drill in the city of White Rock and in South

Surrey?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I understand it, BNSF, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Railway, was leading this exercise. They were the lead on this. As I say

to the member many times over, we, as the Ministry of Transportation,

have no jurisdiction over rail. It is a federal jurisdiction.

T. Redies: That is a very insufficient answer, because at the end of the day,

this government is responsible for the safety of British Columbians. The

fact that you can’t even answer a basic question like that without

referring to jurisdiction just shows how you really don’t

care…

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

T. Redies: …about the citizens — how the minister doesn’t care about the

citizens of Surrey or White Rock in this respect.

The minister did not answer my previous question. Would she be

willing to take a meeting with the new mayors of White Rock and South

Surrey with her and her staff and myself on this issue?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m always happy to meet with people.

J. Thornthwaite: Before I get into my couple of questions, I just wanted to

reiterate what my colleague from White Rock had said with regards to the

comments on the high-speed rail to Seattle. I can tell the minister and

reinforce that the folks from North Vancouver — quite frankly, the North

Shore — are just as frustrated as the folks from Surrey that there’s

money going to a study for high-speed rail to Seattle,

whereas the

traffic situation in the North Shore is super intense.

I’m proud that before the last election, I was able to get the

$200 million Lower Lynn interchange project funded, and it’s merrily

going away. In fact, they opened up a lane on the new Mountain Highway

interchange, which was kind of fun, this week. So I’m really pleased

that that’s continuing on. But that’s not a long-term solution.

Everybody knows it’s not a long-term solution.

I’ve got some comparisons for the amount of traffic that goes over

North Shore bridges, and it’s well over twice what has been quoted with

the Massey Tunnel. We have a huge bottleneck there at the foot of The

Cut on the north end of the Iron Workers. Certainly, when we start

talking about high-speed rail to Seattle, it irritates the folks from

the North Shore, because it’s our turn to get some rapid transit on the

North Shore.

Having said that, I’ve got two questions. One of the questions is

about the Iron Workers Bridge. We expect that it’s going to have…. Its

useful life is 65 years. Structurally speaking, as I said, it handles

roughly four times as much traffic as the George Massey. My question is

on behalf of my consti­tuents: what steps is the ministry taking

to replace, expand or supplement the Iron Workers Bridge?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. On the Iron Workers Bridge, we continue to ensure that it’s

in good shape, and it is in good shape. In nearly all our bridges, there

are constant inspections and rehabilitation, but the Iron Workers is in

good shape.

My colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for TransLink, the MLA

for North Vancouver–Lonsdale — I’m not sure if the member is aware of

this — started a process called INSTPP, bringing together the

communities of the North Shore, TransLink and the ministry to the table.

As a result of the work that she was able to do on that, very

successfully, we now are looking at better connections to the North

Shore. Obviously, the Iron Workers is part of this and how to ensure

that the transit options are there, as well as the highway

options.

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, I’m very well familiar with the INSTPP report. I’ve got it

sitting here right in front of me. The majority of my questions on the

INSTPP will be directed to the Minister of Housing, because I know that

it’s under her jurisdiction.

There is a mention on page 4, and I’ll read it to you: “Road

congestion can constrain goods movement leading to significant impacts

to the regional, provincial and national economies. The movement of

goods from the port terminals on the North Shore is primarily by rail,

and forecasted growth for the port will rely on available rail capacity

to minimize impacts to the road network and congestion.”

Then on page 15, there is a discussion on adapting the CN Rail

bridge to include transit, walking and cycling: “The CN Rail bridge

cannot be used for buses or bikes because part of the bridge raises and

lowers to accommodate marine traffic. It is also most often in the

raised position. Future planning to replace the CN Rail bridge should

address the potential for transit and multimodal transportation, in

addition to rail transport requirements.”

It has been suggested by a very prominent professor at SFU, Dr.

Stephan Nieweler, that the best way of getting SkyTrain to the North

Shore is actually on a new CN bridge, so that you could have trucks,

obviously rail, bikes and alternative modes as well as rapid

transit.

My question to the minister is: what plans are there, or what

talks are happening, about the CN Rail bridge with regards to upgrading?

I understand its forecast of life is considerably less than the Iron

Workers Bridge, which, as you said, is in pretty good shape. What about

discussions of getting SkyTrain to the North Shore to connect Phibbs

Exchange to the SkyTrain network via the CN bridge, which will

eventually have to be replaced in the near future as well?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. Yes, the issue of capacity to the North

Shore is obviously a concern. It’s a concern for trade, and it’s a

concern for the port.

I recently did a port tour, looking at all of the various

constraints and trying to get rail over. I know that the port is looking

to the federal government for assistance to maximize it. It is hugely

important, not just for the province but to the whole of Canada, that we

have a healthy port and we have healthy trade networks. I know that they

are working hard on doing that.

I’m not going to satisfy the member, I think, but the CN Rail

bridge is something that is the responsibility and the awareness of CN.

We’ve just been checking back and can come back to the member with a

more detailed answer. But it hasn’t been coming in as a big issue for

us.

Whether it is a big issue for the port, the port hasn’t mentioned

it to myself. When I was meeting with the CEO just about ten days ago,

it wasn’t raised. When we talked about the access to the North Shore, it

wasn’t raised then. My staff haven’t had it flagged for them as a

serious issue. CN hasn’t brought it forward to us as a serious issue,

and they would do if there was something concerning. Maybe they’ve been

talking to the federal government, but it hasn’t been brought forward to

us.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I’m paraphrasing here —

that somebody in your ministry will get back to me about that with more

information. Is that…? I see nods. Okay. That’s grea