Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 30, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 47

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Overdose deaths in Abbotsford

Hon. J. Darcy

Introductions by Members

Statements

Anniversary of MLA for Vancouver–West End

Hon. S. Fraser

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Film and television industry

S. Chandra Herbert

Delta Hospital Auxiliary Society

I. Paton

Run for Delta fundraiser and Ahmadiyya Muslim community

R. Kahlon

Small business award recipients in Williams Lake area

D. Barnett

B.C. Labour Heritage Centre and collective bargaining rights for

teachers

J. Routledge

Barry Hastings and Royal Canadian Marine Search and

Rescue

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Salaries for Premier’s office staff

T. Redies

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Wildfires and reimbursements to emergency vendors

D. Barnett

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Stone

Agricultural Land Commission applications and role of Agriculture

Minister

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

Agriculture Ministry and responsibility for aquaculture

P. Milobar

Hon. L. Popham

Tabling Documents

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, annual report,

2016-17

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2016

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

J. Thornthwaite

M. Polak

S. Gibson

L. Throness

M. Lee

S. Bond

M. Morris

J. Rustad

D. Barnett

C. Oakes

J. Isaacs

M. Hunt

D. Davies

D. Clovechok

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology

(continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

S. Thomson

T. Wat

J. Johal

A. Olsen

G. Kyllo

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

Hon. S. Fraser

D. Ashton

E. Ross

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2017

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I have two introductions today. The first is someone who works in the

film industry and who worked very, very hard to get me on as an extra in the

last Star Trek film that was being produced in Vancouver. I came

this close to getting on, but I got a note from this individual. I’ll

paraphrase for members in the House. I was advised that they were looking

for a younger demographic and that, consequently, the costumes were of a

particular size. Now, what that means, for those who need a translation, is

that I was too old and too fat. But, ladies and gentlemen, Dusty Kelly is

here. Would you please make her very, very welcome.

The second introduction is someone who really doesn’t need any

introduction. He’s a captain of industry. He’s someone who has been working

in the private sector, growing the economy, doing great things for British

Columbians. He also happened to sit here, interestingly enough, about 20-odd

years ago. He is now working with Jimmy Pattison Industries. He’s the

president, CEO and COO of the largest privately held company in British

Columbia. Would the House please welcome Glen Clark.

[1:35 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of honour and pleasure today to introduce

someone from my community who’s noted, in her own right. Wendy Booth is in

the gallery today. She’s my RDEK rep, regional district of East Kootenay.

She’s also the president of UBCM.

We’re also related, Wendy and I. She is my neighbour. We’re related,

not through marriage or anything but by dogs. Her black Lab is my Lab’s pup.

My Lab that I have right now is her mom, so we get to see each other every

day. We walk our dogs together every day. I’d ask the House to make her feel

very welcome.

Statements

OVERDOSE DEATHS IN ABBOTSFORD

Hon. J. Darcy: I rise today to acknowledge the tragedy that happened over the

weekend in Abbotsford and to express to the families of the three men

and two women who died of overdose the deepest condolences on behalf of

this House, and also to express our profound thanks to the first

responders who have been living through and continuing with their

courageous work on the front lines of the greatest public health

emergency that we’ve experienced in this province in decades. We owe an

enormous debt of gratitude to them.

I think the deaths of five people in the space of just nine hours

in one community underlines the seriousness of this crisis and how it

affects people from all walks of life and in every corner of this

province. I think it underlines for all of us the importance of the

decisions our government has taken to escalate our response to this

crisis. For every single one of us, as leaders in our community and

leaders in this province, it’s also a time for us to be speaking out, to

overcome the stigma and to affirm, on both sides of this House, that we

need to get to a place where we treat every single person who’s living

with addictions with the same dignity and respect and offer the same

quality of care as people who are living with any other kind of

illness.

I’d ask everyone in this House to join me in extending our deepest

sympathies to the families and the friends and the loved ones who died

by overdose in Abbotsford this past weekend.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I will make five introductions. Visiting us today is a very special

guest from India, Dr. Harshindar Kaur, who’s a renowned social activist and

champion of human rights. She has delivered talks at international levels,

including at a human rights conference in Geneva and the Berkeley

university. She is supporting the education expenses of 368 underprivileged

girls.

She has also written a number of books. One of her books has made the

basis of a national film. We call it Tamanna . She has also done an

exceptional job of promoting the Punjabi language in India and also at the

international level. She’s truly a human rights hero and a champion of human

rights in India.

She’s also accompanied by four exceptional individuals. We have Kuldip

Singh, a well-known radio host and Radio 1550 AM host. We have Gurlal Singh.

He’s the editor of Punjabi Tribune , a newspaper published from the

city of Surrey. We also have Rajinder Pundaya, an NDP life member and also a

social activist. He also writes a regular column in Sach Di Awaz .

We have a good friend and renowned writer and social activist and a very

exceptional individual and human being.

I ask the House to please give them a warm Canadian

welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

J. Yap: In the gallery with us for question period is a long-time Richmond

resident and, for many years, a Steveston resident, my riding. Dr. Jay

Robinson is the president of the chiropractors of British Columbia and

today, during the lunch hour, hosted members from both sides of the House to

give us an update on the issues facing the profession of chiropractic. He’s

here to watch proceedings, and I’d ask the House to please give a warm

welcome to Dr. Jay Robinson.

T. Shypitka: Being from the far southeast corner of B.C., I don’t get much of an

opportunity to welcome many people from my riding, but I’m happy to do so

today. I would like to welcome a man who doesn’t really need much of an

introduction, but I will anyways because he deserves it. He’s a former

cabinet minister from many ministries — most notably, our former Minister of

Energy and Mines. He’s also, most likely, the best MLA Kootenay East has

ever seen. His hard work and advocacy for our remote region have really put

us on the map, and he’s provided us with provincial recognition for what

Kootenay East does for the rest of the province.

For me, his mentorship has been invaluable, and I thank him for it.

His decision to leave public life was disappointing to my side of the House,

and I’m sure it was of great relief to those on the other side. I don’t see

him in the House right now, but I know he’s lurking around here somewhere.

Would the House please recognize and welcome Mr. Bill Bennett.

Hon. L. Beare: Joining us today in the gallery are members of the Motion Picture

Production Industry Association. I’m very happy to welcome Peter Leitch, the

president of North Shore Studios; Peter Mitchell, the president of Vancouver

Film Studios; and, apparently, the very famous Dusty Kelly, from IATSE. The

MPPIA is a non-profit organization established in 2002, and their vision is

to grow, diversify and promote a thriving and sustainable motion picture

industry in B.C.

The members of the MPPIA are here today to speak with members of the

government to make sure that good jobs are available for people throughout

the province in film and television. I ask this House to please give them a

warm welcome.

S. Bond: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two gentlemen that are in the

gallery. Normally, they wouldn’t be sitting in the gallery. In the past,

they’ve been busy working in offices here, when we were in government. Every

member of this House knows how absolutely critical it is to have great

staff. They arrive early in the morning and stay late at night. They help us

work our way through tough issues and help us clean up after question

period, and all the things that have to be taken care of.

It was a real pleasure to work with both of these young men. A number

of members on this side have worked with them, and I just know how much we

want to welcome them back to visit us today. Please join me in welcoming

Suneil Karod and Raz Diacu, who are here, seeing what it’s like to be in the

gallery instead of in the office watching TV during question

period.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to join with the Premier and the minister in

welcoming friends from the film and TV industry. In addition to those

already introduced, I would like to welcome Phil Klapwyk, with IATSE 891;

Liz Shorten, with the Canadian media producers association; the fabulous

Louise Mangan; Rob Simmons, with Atomic Cartoons; Jenny Rodgers, with the

Moving Picture Company; Don Thompson, who needs no introduction; Kendrie

Upton, with the Directors Guild of Canada; Danielle Campeau, who’s here with

Kendrie; Suzanne Thompson, with Encore Vancouver. There’s Peter Leitch, of

course, with MPPIA, and Dusty Kelly, for the third time.

Please make them feel very welcome. We’re so grateful for their

work.

G. Kyllo: We’re joined today by my high school sweetheart and, as of October 22,

my lovely wife, Georgina, for 29 years. Would the House please make her feel

very welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the mayor of one of British

Columbia’s most beautiful communities, Oak Bay. Nils Jensen is in the

gallery. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be joined by four friends here today in the

gallery. We have Gina Pinanget, a veteran with the Canadian Armed Forces.

Stationed at the Canadian Forces base in Esquimalt, she was active in the

Armed Forces, co-chairing the visible minority group at CFB Esquimalt, as

well as on the National Defence Visible Minority Advisory Group.

[1:45 p.m.]

We have her mother, nanay , Rufina Pinanget. She’s a retired

elementary teacher — 36 years teaching in the Philippines — and here now in

Victoria.

As well, Cerelina Malinab, my friend. She works at the Craigdarroch

Care Home — also a very good cook. And our friend Luz Santos, who worked at

the Hart House for 20 years and is very active with the Sampaguita Dancers

at the Bayanihan Centre.

I ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I have the great

privilege of working very closely with local governments right across the

province. Today we do have in the House the mayor of one of the most

wonderful communities around. They’re all wonderful communities to

me.

We have Mayor Nils Jensen here, who works very tirelessly on behalf of

his community. He’s also an enthusiastic member of the UBCM and has brought

very important resolutions that affect the entire province forward. I’d like

to thank the mayor for his tireless efforts, particularly around local

government campaign finance reforms.

We also have in the House with us today Wendy Booth, who is the UBCM

president. She’s also a director of the regional district of East Kootenay.

Wendy has a tremendous passion for all things local government and makes it

tremendously possible for us to work together as partners in the matters

that affect our daily lives.

I would like the House to please make them feel very

welcome.

Statements

ANNIVERSARY OF

MLA FOR VANCOUVER–WEST

END

Hon. S. Fraser: I know all of us feel incredibly honoured and privileged and daunted

to be sitting in this place as MLAs, representing one of 87 different

constituencies, and I know none of us take that for granted. One of the

reasons for our introduction period here is also to recognize the

significant anniversaries.

Nine years ago today there was a by-election in Vancouver–West End. My

good friend and seatmate was elected to serve in this place nine years ago.

Will everyone in this House please join me in making him feel very, very

welcome.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: Also in the gallery today is my representative in the Discovery

Islands. Some people who worked in local government may know him. Jim Abram

is in the gallery observing question period today.

L. Krog: I think it’s only appropriate, given the importance of the forest

industry in British Columbia, that…. I don’t think anyone has introduced

Rick Jeffery, who is here today — Mr. Spokesperson for the forest industry.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LOCAL ELECTIONS

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to introduce Bill 15, Local Elections Campaign

Financing Amendment Act, 2017.

This bill proposes amendments to the Local Elections Campaign

Financing Act to further support fair election campaigns that are free

of the influence of wealthy donors and are accessible to everyone. Our

government has already taken action to get big money out of politics at

the provincial level. With this bill, our government will reform local

election campaign financing in time for the 2018 general local

elections.

Through the Union of B.C. Municipalities, we have heard ideas from

community leaders throughout B.C. about how we can level the playing

field for local candidates in our province. Taking action to reform

campaign financing in local elections reflects what we have heard from

the public and local governments, including through the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, which has endorsed resolutions in favour of banning

union and corporate donations and establishing contribution

limits.

These proposed amendments to the local election financing act for

the 2018 general local elections will prohibit organizations such as

unions, corporations and individuals who are not B.C. residents from

providing contributions to candidates, elector organizations and

third-party advertisers and will establish an annual limit on an

individual’s contributions to a candidate campaign, as well as a limit

on an individual’s contributions to an elector organization campaign,

which includes all of its endorsed candidates. For the 2018 local

elections, the limit will be $1,200.

[1:50 p.m.]

These changes generally follow the approach of the proposed

provincial Election Amendment Act with some differences to account for

the unique nature of local election campaign financing issues. Notably,

the proposed amendments do not include any form of public financing or

income tax credits, as public financing does not currently exist at the

local level.

The amendments will also make a minor change to the definition of

a third-party advertiser to ensure that those who engage in small-scale

advertising and political self-expression are not caught by the Local

Elections (Campaign Financing) Act. Third-party advertisers must

register with Elections B.C. and record and disclose information about

contributions and expenditures related to election advertising. This

amendment is intended to help ensure that people who put up homemade

signs, for example, are not considered a third-party advertiser and are,

therefore, not subject to these rules.

To help local voters and candidates adapt to these changes, this

legislation establishes transitional rules that will help guide campaign

participants, third-party advertisers and the public between the old

rules and these new rules. These new rules will be made retroactively

effective to the first day after first reading to prevent prohibited

contributions from being made between the time that the legislation is

publicly introduced and royal assent.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith

Bill 15, intituled Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act,

2017, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move first reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act 2017,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: With the introduction of Bill 15, I wish to inform the House that

that will be the last piece of legislation that the government intends

to table this session.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

S. Chandra Herbert: The clock was counting down. The crowd was going wild. Would our

team sink the final basket and win the championship? We were so close.

Our star set up at the three-point line and was getting ready to shoot.

Would he make it? Just as he was about to release the ball — chaos. The

JumboTron exploded. The crowd went crazy. And then: “Cut. Okay, places

everyone. We’re going to run that again.”

It was just another day in the life of the film and TV industry in

B.C. I was in high school, performing as an extra, now known as a

background performer. The exploding JumboTron was going to be added

afterwards in post-production.

What doesn’t need any movie magic is the truly explosive growth of

B.C.’s film and TV industry. Since the early 1990s, the industry has

grown and grown and grown some more. We’ve just seen Vancouver Island’s

first purpose-built studio open up in Oceanside. New studios seem to be

sprouting up like mushrooms in Vancouver, Maple Ridge, Langley and the

Okanagan, and the list goes on.

Now, how does B.C. do it? Simply put: great, innovative producers

and studios; incredibly active, innovative union crews; amazing

locations; consistent support from the B.C. and local governments; and

citizens that want it all to succeed. Why do we want it to succeed?

Well, you can’t shy away from $2.6 billion in revenue or the 42,000

knowledge-based, direct jobs that also pay really well.

Where are we going in the future? Incredible growth in the post

sector, virtual reality, three dimensions — the sky is really the limit

for film and TV in this province. I know that so many of us are so

grateful to have those jobs in our community.

We still have work to do to grow the domestic sector, and I’m

going to keep pushing on that side. We’ve got to train more workers and

add even more value by including our writers in our film tax credits as

well. But we’ll get there. This is an optimistic industry, and there’s

nothing but optimism ahead for it here in British Columbia.

DELTA HOSPITAL AUXILIARY SOCIETY

I. Paton: When we think about the great work that takes place in our local

hospitals, we tend to reflect on patient care and the medical

professionals who administer it. But quietly supporting them is a

special group of volunteers whose work benefits the entire community in

Delta.

[1:55 p.m.]

In Delta, that group is the Delta Hospital Auxiliary Society,

which has been a leader in supporting health care for our local

residents since 1969. Yes, although our Delta Hospital was not completed

until 1979, it was in 1969 that the hospital auxiliary was first

formed.

I’m proud to say that my own father and mother were original

drivers of getting this hospital built in our community of Delta. My

mother, Marge Paton, is an original member of the Delta Hospital

Auxiliary, and at age 90, she continues to drive eight kilometres from

her farm into Ladner village to volunteer at the thrift shop two days a

week.

Our hospital auxiliary proudly boasts over 400 volunteers who log

in over 60,000 volunteer hours per year. Many of these volunteers work

at the local thrift shop. The thrift shop operates in the heart of

Ladner village and is one of the four commercial enterprises owned by

the auxiliary society, including the Delta Lifeline, the Dogwood Gift

Shop and the Courtyard Café at the hospital.

The proceeds from the auxiliary’s enterprises, some $22 million so

far, support state-of-the-art equipment, services and programs at our

local hospital. This hard-working society is also contributing $2.4

million towards the current expansion project of the new Peter C. Toigo

diagnostic building at our Delta Hospital. This building attached to

Delta Hospital will double the diagnostic services and allow for 32,000

more patient visits each year. The auxiliary also provides bursaries to

students who are entering the health care field and to hospital staff

members who are upgrading their skills.

I invite all members to join me in thanking the Delta Hospital

Auxiliary Society for nearly 50 years of outstanding service to our

community.

RUN FOR DELTA FUNDRAISER AND

AHMADIYYA MUSLIM

COMMUNITY

R. Kahlon: On Sunday, October 29, it was my honour to join the member for

Delta South to participate in the Run for Delta that was hosted by the

Ahmadiyya Community. Hundreds of runners gathered to participate in the

first Run for Delta. The proceeds raised went to the Delta Hospital

Foundation and the Surrey Food Bank.

Runners registered for the one- and five-kilometre runs. I

registered for the one-kilometre run but entered the wrong line and

ended up having to run 5 kilometres. A special thank-you the imam of

Ahmadiyya mosque, Tariq Azeem, for giving me the confidence to

complete.

It is my honour to share with this House that the community raised

$15,000 for the Delta Hospital Foundation and an additional $5,000 for

the Surrey Food Bank.

Ahmadiyya Community is a dynamic, fast-growing international

revival of Islam. Founded in 1889, it spans over 200 countries, with

membership exceeding tens of millions. The Ahmadiyya movement, a branch

of Islam, was founded over 100 years ago, originating with the teachings

of an Indian villager, Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad, and is renowned today for

promoting a peaceful coexistence with people of all faiths and cultures.

Over a century ago, their leader declared that an aggressive jihad by

the sword has no place in Islam. In its place, he taught his followers

to wage a bloodless, intellectual jihad of the pen to defend

Islam.

Delta is fortunate to be the home of the largest mosque in B.C.

This community is leading the way in interfaith dialogue, often hosting

open houses with leaders of all faiths to find common ground and greater

understanding of each other. I want to thank the community for all their

work this weekend. I’m so proud to say that their efforts have made

Delta a more inclusive and tolerant community.

SMALL BUSINESS AWARD RECIPIENTS

IN WILLIAMS LAKE

AREA

D. Barnett: It is vital to recognize the role that private sector business

plays in building this province. The private sector provides the jobs

that put food on our tables, and it generates the tax revenues that

governments of all stripes and all levels depend on. In fact, most of

the private sector in British Columbia is comprised of small

business.

What makes a business successful? Many things but most important

are business attitude, product, price and, of course, community

involvement. We are talking about the small business owners and their

employees that donate their precious time and money to support local

hockey teams, coach little league and soccer and volunteer for local

fire departments and search and rescue.

October is the month that we recognize the contribution of the

private sector in small business to our province. Just a few weeks ago I

had the opportunity to take

part in the Williams Lake and District

Chamber of Commerce Excellence Awards. Once again, the Elks Hall was

decorated with flair. We had great food provided and wonderful people to

recognize and celebrate.

[2:00 p.m.]

For the record, I would like to name this year’s winners: Greatest

Improvement, Walk-Rite Shoes; Newsmaker, Kayla Moleschi; Tourism

Excellence, Guide to Williams Lake, Tribune newspaper;

Not-For-Profit, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Williams Lake; The Hugo

Stahl Memorial, LeRae Haynes; Home Based Business, Creatively Courtney;

Customer Service, South Broadway Liquor Store; and Business of the Year,

Margetts Meats.

Congratulations to the winners and the nominees in Williams Lake

and the district. Your businesses are what make our communities great

places to live, work and play.

B.C. LABOUR HERITAGE CENTRE

AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

RIGHTS FOR TEACHERS

J. Routledge: The B.C. Labour Heritage Centre preserves documents and presents

the rich history of working people in British Columbia. This afternoon,

together with the New Westminster Teachers Union, the B.C. Labour

Heritage Centre will unveil a bronze plaque, the fifth in a series that

documents milestones in the achievement of full collective bargaining

rights for B.C. teachers.

On February 14, 1921, teachers in New Westminster announced that

they would not be reporting for work the following Monday unless the

school board agreed to meet and negotiate an incremental pay grid. The

board refused and defended their right to unilaterally determine wages.

The school board threatened to fire teachers unless they returned to

work.

After one week, striking teachers remained strong. Pressure from

parents, businesses and the public convinced the school board to

negotiate. In the end, they agreed to binding arbitration if a

negotiated settlement couldn’t be reached. The following year, when the

school board was up for re-election, a majority of trustees sympathetic

to teachers were elected.

Strengthened by the support of teachers locals across B.C. and

Canada, the five-day walkout of 1921 led to more salary increases in the

ensuing years. As well, the school board agreed to recognize the

association as a legitimate bargaining agent for teachers in the

district. Eighty-four remarkable teachers had taken an important

stand.

Please join me in congratulating the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre,

the New Westminster Teachers Union and the B.C. Retired Teachers

Association in today’s celebration.

BARRY HASTINGS AND ROYAL

CANADIAN MARINE SEARCH AND

RESCUE

J. Yap: We all owe a debt of gratitude to our first responders, who go

above and beyond to rescue and treat those in need of medical attention.

In my riding, when incidents happen on our local waters, we are lucky to

have the men and women of Richmond’s Royal Canadian Marine Search and

Rescue close by.

One member in particular is being recognized for his many

contributions both on and off the water. Barry Hastings, a well-known

figure in the Richmond community, was recently recognized for his 35

years of service. While his peers describe him as a humble man who

doesn’t like being recognized for his efforts, the Royal Canadian Marine

Search and Rescue has decided to bestow a very special and very public

honour upon him. They’ve decided to name a rescue boat after

him.

The B.R. Hastings will head out to do the type of work

Hastings has done for more than three decades — searching, rescuing and

caring for people he has usually never met before. That’s the type of

guy Barry Hastings is. He has selflessly dedicated so many years to

helping others, and this rescue boat will carry that spirit

forward.

Greg Miller, chair of the RCMSAR board of governors, has worked

with Hastings for 23 years. He says the gesture was an important way of

recognizing Barry and showing his family how much his contributions are

valued by the search and rescue team and, indeed, the entire

community.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in commending

Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue and congratulating and thanking

Barry Hastings for 35 years of service to our community.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

SALARIES FOR PREMIER’S OFFICE STAFF

T. Redies: On October 17, we saw the Premier play fast and loose with some

facts. He was asked about his jobs plan program for friends and insiders

and the theme of ever-increasing costs to taxpayers. The Premier was

adamant. He said: “There were no compensation increases for any staff

that were hired. The people that took the positions that used to be

occupied by the B.C. Liberals are being paid the same today as they were

six months ago.”

Well, the Premier knows that that is not true. The director of

operations in the previous government had an $85,000 salary. The

director of operations for this government, on the other hand, got a

nice entry-level gig starting at $125,000. Now, I know the Premier’s not

bad at math, but just to help him out, that’s a $40,000 difference and

47 percent higher than the previous occupant of the job.

To the Premier, can he explain to British Columbians why his

supporters, his insiders, require substantially more money to do the

same job?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. I’m sure she’ll understand

that the priorities of the new incoming government were quite different

from the priorities of the previous government. So the operations of the

Premier’s office, which now is located in Victoria, the seat of

government, rather than in Vancouver, means a different job description

and different responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: The Premier’s answer was very interesting. On October 17, however,

he was very clear: “There were no compensation increases for any staff.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. But it doesn’t seem to be that way with

this Premier. He says one thing and does another — broken promises and

fast and loose with the facts.

We know he has a hard time making decisions, but in this case, he

was rather decisive. But don’t take my word for it. No, let’s hear what

the Premier had to say in 2013. He said: “To give massive increases to

political insiders is just plain wrong.” But this doesn’t jive with his

current actions. The previous communications director made $105,000, and

now the current occupant is starting out at $125,000.

So it begs the question: why did he tell British Columbians he was

not paying his staff any more than the last government when it was

clearly not the case?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the member might not understand. She’s new to the House.

October 17 is this month, not last month. I’ll start with that, and then

I’ll carry on a little bit further. When we…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, thank you. Members, we shall hear the

response.

Hon. J. Horgan: …formed a government on July 18, I visited the cabinet offices in

Vancouver. There was a football field full of empty desks where Liberal

insiders used to be, and that was because the government of British

Columbia was being run out of the Premier’s office in Vancouver. We

changed that. The seat of government is Victoria, and we changed job

descriptions to be commensurate with the work being done here in

Victoria.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a second

supplemental.

[2:10 p.m.]

T. Redies: Now the process of answering questions seems to also be a problem

for this Premier. Frankly, his replies are really quite surprising. The

Premier is dripping with hypocrisy on this file. On the one hand, he

criticizes, and on the other, he waves his pen and signs the OIC to give

his friends and insiders substantive pay raises.

But this isn’t new for this Premier. He’s broken his promises on

ride-sharing. He’s broken his promise on taxpayer-funded political

parties. He’s coughed up $1 million of taxpayers money to fund his

partnership with the Greens. He certainly seems to have trouble keeping

his promises, and he certainly seems to be very cavalier with the

taxpayer’s money.

Once again, to the Premier, how can he justify to British

Columbians paying substantially more to his friends and insiders for

doing the same job?

Hon. J. Horgan: I look forward to the member coming to budget estimates for the

Premier’s office. I’ll go

chapter and verse through the differences

between a government that was run out of Vancouver and a government run

out of Victoria.

On the question of what we’ve done….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: What we’ve done is we’ve eliminated tolls on the Port Mann and the

Golden Ears bridges. We’ve done away with tuition fees on adult basic

and hope in their lives, rather than the despair on that side of the

House. We’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in public

education. We’ve hired thousands of teachers.

That’s what the public is caring about, not the blathering on that

side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we have the next question, if I may remind you,

kindly, one of the things that has been brought to my attention is that

people in the gallery and people at home have some difficulty hearing

when someone is speaking. If we could be mindful of that if someone is

speaking. Appreciate the enthusiasm, but let’s just be mindful that we

want people to hear the questions and the answers. Thank you.

S. Bond: To the Premier, it’s not about where the staff is located; it’s

what they’re being paid. Fortunately, there is no shortage of quotes

from this Premier on the topic of staff wages. Here’s what he said in

2013: “There is no chance that I’m supporting a pay raise for political

hacks.” Well, it turns out he’s fine with it as long as they’re his

political hacks.

Not only did the Premier’s communications director and his

director of operations get an increase; apparently, the Premier didn’t

stop there. He approved increases for the ministerial assistant in

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations, who got a 38 percent

increase. The ministerial assistants in the Ministries of Jobs and

Finance each received a 20 percent pay hike.

On October 17 in this House, the Premier assured members that

salaries would remain the same as they were when staffed by the previous

government, yet now that doesn’t appear to be the case. The Premier said

one thing and apparently did something else.

British Columbians have a right to know exactly how their

hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. So to the Premier, not about

where the staff is located. Can the Premier explain how he said one

thing in the Legislature about how his government would manage staffing

costs, only to find that his actions are completely contrary to that

statement?

Hon. J. Horgan: Just for the math over there, Ben Chin made $175,000 a year, and

the director of communications in my office is making $120,000. That

seems to be less.

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

supplementary.

[2:15 p.m.]

S. Bond: Well, the Premier was adamant four years ago. “We would not have

given raises to people, absolutely not,” is what he said. That sounds

definitive to me. Can’t get much clearer than that. But I don’t know how

it explains the increased spending in the Premier’s office. Despite the

note that just came in, it’s gone up this year.

Now, no one is questioning the need for the government to have

staff, but what is in question — to the Premier — is his very definitive

statement that: “There were no compensation increases for any staff that

were hired. The people that took the positions that used to be occupied

by the B.C. Liberals are being paid the same today as they were six

months ago.”

The Premier’s words directly contradict his actions. My question

to the Premier: is he prepared today to stand in this House and explain

why, when he said on numerous occasions and couldn’t have been more

clear about zero increases to any staff, in fact there were wage

increases to a number of staff in his office and elsewhere across

government?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, apples and oranges. In 2013, the government was re-elected,

and they gave raises to people that were doing one thing on the day

before the election and the same thing the day after.

I don’t know how long it’s going to take to sink in on that side,

but the election resulted in you moving over there and us moving over

here. We had to repopulate every single office. One of the ministers

went into his office, and there wasn’t a piece of paper in the photocopy

machine. There were two packs of soy sauce and some

chopsticks.

WILDFIRES AND REIMBURSEMENTS

TO EMERGENCY

VENDORS

D. Barnett: The people of the Cariboo are beyond frustrated. Everyone in this

House knows how hard the Cariboo was hit by fires this summer. The state

of emergency ended on September 15, over six weeks ago. That’s three

payroll periods.

Small businesses all over the region are writing to me, desperate

because they have run out of operating capital and can’t make payroll.

Why is that? Because they went to the wall to fight the fire, expecting

the Minister of Forests would pay them for services provided. One

company alone is still owed over $232,000.

To the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, when will

these good people finally get paid?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Payments that are due to people have been flowing to businesses as

they are being processed and as they are being submitted. That has been

taking place since this fire season started. If the member has examples

of a case where payment has not been made, please bring it to our

attention, the specifics, and we will ensure that it has been

resolved.

The fact of the matter is that hundreds of millions of dollars

have already flowed out of government to contractors to ensure that they

are paid. In fact, there were individuals on the ground, in camps,

processing those claims as they were being put forward. So if the member

has a specific case, please bring it forward, and we will see that it is

dealt with.

D. Barnett: This is a serious matter.

An Hon. Member: So do your job.

D. Barnett: I have done my job. My staff have brought many of these cases

forward.

This company is right on the edge. To add insult to injury, they

have received a demand notice on their bank account for unpaid PST. Let

me repeat that so it sinks in. On one hand, the provincial government

isn’t paying all its bills. On the other hand, they freeze a small

business owner’s personal tax account for overdue sales tax.

These people stayed and fought the fires as long as they could.

They worked under great stress to protect their communities. This

government is refusing to pay what’s owed with one hand and demanding

payment with the other.

[2:20 p.m.]

The minister has an obligation to see that this is dealt with. Can

he tell the service providers who stepped up in the Interior when they

will be fully paid, so they can get on with their lives?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I’ve told the member, claims are processed when they’re coming

in. Additional staff have been hired both in the Ministry of Forests and

in the Ministry of Public Safety, emergency services branch, to deal

with claims. We’ve had individuals on the ground during the entire fire

season processing those claims in camps, dealing with them as they’re in

place.

Government has a responsibility to pay its bills, and those bills

will be paid. The member also has a responsibility. On Thursday last

week, the member and two of her colleagues had an hour and a half long

briefing session with staff in my ministry, where she raised concerns

about issues relating to specific constituents. I see the member is

nodding her head. Well, she has a responsibility because at that

meeting, she committed to ensuring that our ministry staff, the deputy

ministers, were given the names of these individuals so the ministry

could reach out and help them.

I can tell this House…. When ministry staff ask for the names of

the individuals who are having problems so that we can reach out and

help them directly, there is an onus on that member to provide that

information so that we can help the individuals. I can tell that member

that, as of two o’clock this afternoon, the names of those constituents

requiring help had not been forthcoming. If the member will bring those

names to us, we will be able to get on it right away, as opposed to just

saying there’s a general problem.

T. Stone: If the minister and his colleagues worked 10 percent of the effort

that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has worked, people would be paid

by now. Members of the official opposition have been criss-crossing the

highways of the Cariboo-Chilcotin for months now, meeting with

constituents, trying to address the concerns of small businesses and

folks up and down the roads of the Cariboo. It’s the government that’s

missing in action.

On September 15, the minister knows well that the state of

emergency related to the wildfires was lifted. Constituents across B.C.

were hopeful that this would mark an end to their troubles. Now,

unfortunately, this has not been the case. The government made

commitments to area residents during the summer. Government said to

British Columbians: “If you step up and provide services to help those

in need, you will be reimbursed for those services.” The government did

not say, at that same point, that it would take months for the

reimbursement of the cost of those services.

To the minister responsible for emergency management, why is it

that British Columbians who stepped up to help during this summer’s

wildfires are still waiting to be paid for the services that they

provided?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I’ve just told the previous member on the previous question,

the government has been ensuring that companies are paid those bills as

those invoices come in and are processed. Every single one of them is

examined to see that they meet the criteria for payment. All bills are

being paid, as this member knows from when they have been raised in the

House before.

Here’s the issue, hon. Member. When members stand and say there is

a problem, they have yet to come forward with the specific names of the

industry or the company so that we can ensure that they are helped. In

fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We shall hear the response.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are thousands of invoices. The member met with staff last

Thursday and committed to putting forward names of cases that she had

raised. At that time, when she was asked about those names, she refused

to provide the names of those individuals who were having

problems.

[2:25 p.m.]

I would say again: come forward with a commitment and provide

those names so that we can ensure that those issues are dealt with. The

reality is this. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars paid

out without a problem or an issue. If in this case there is an issue,

then bring forward the name of the individual, and we’ll see that it’s

resolved.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: The fact of the matter is the member for Cariboo North, the member

for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the member for Prince George–Valemount, the

member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for Fraser-Nicola have

all brought forward cases of small businesses who have not been paid.

The have all brought forward cases of suppliers and contractors in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin who have not been paid yet. These organizations are

struggling. The government needs to step up and needs to start to pay

their bills.

Previously, we have highlighted a number of small businesses,

suppliers and many others who are waiting to be paid. Unfortunately, it

appears that the same applies to the Good Samaritans who also stepped

up. In Prince George, in Kamloops and in other communities, folks were

asked to step up to take in billets and provide shelter for those who

were in need, and thousands did. Thousands stepped up and opened up

their houses.

In one specific example, there was a couple in Kamloops. They

happen to be seniors. They were among those who volunteered. They had

three guests and their dogs for almost two weeks. They went above and

beyond, cooking and cleaning for their guests, opening up their house

and their yard. These are retirees living on fixed incomes. They thought

they were doing a good deed. They did not expect they would be out of

pocket. They submitted their invoices back in mid-August. They still

haven’t been paid, and to add insult to injury, they were told on an

answering machine that it could take up to another 14 weeks. That’s

unacceptable.

Thousands of caring British Columbians have stood up, and they did

good for their fellow British Columbians in their greatest need. When

will this government step up and do good by these Good Samaritans and

pay their bills?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, yes, thousands of British Columbians stepped up and helped

during this unprecedented fire season throughout the province of British

Columbia.

We put in place, as part of that, considerable effort in ensuring

that individuals received more, in terms of help, than they’ve ever

received before under that previous government. We ensured that people

who were evacuated didn’t just receive the $600 that the government

announced but that they received the $600 for every two weeks they were

out under evacuation. That was a significant improvement. This

government also put in place the $1,500 available for small business —

again, something that they didn’t do.

I’ll tell you something else. When we took over, halfway through

this fire season, and took a look at the system that was in place, a

paper-based system that had not changed in 16 years, we knew there had

to be changes made. We ensured that we hired more staff to ensure that

contractors were paid, that they were based in the camps, in the fire

areas that were taking place. When there were concerns, amongst the

hundreds of millions of dollars that were put in place…. We ensured that

those issues were resolved.

Again, what we’ve seen from this opposition is…. They come to a

ministry office, they get a briefing, and it doesn’t matter what is

said. In fact, it’s really simple. I see the member nodding her head.

You committed on Thursday to bring forward the names of those people who

are having problems, and that has not happened. If you really cared

about the province, you would do that so we could help them

immediately.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

APPLICATIONS AND ROLE OF

AGRICULTURE MINISTER

I. Paton: I must say that I find it troubling — I’m actually finding it

somewhat exhausting — that day after day, we come to this House and deal

with another controversy with the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister

of Agriculture has repeatedly interfered with the independent

Agricultural Land Commission.

In 2012, she wanted land removed in her community for the purpose

of a subdivision.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We shall hear the question.

I. Paton: In 2015, she attempted to interfere to accelerate the timing of a

decision. Now the pattern continues as minister, with comments about an

application by Abbotsford council that is currently before the

commission. She made it clear to the Abbotsford News that the

proposal doesn’t fit the commission’s mandate. The words of a minister

have power. The commission that is supposed make the decision ultimately

reports to her. What does she expect them to think?

The question to the minister: does she not realize that she has

undermined the perception that the commission will make a fair,

impartial and independent decision in the Abbotsford

application?

Hon. L. Popham: I absolutely have confidence that the commission will make an

independent decision.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: It seems that the minister once again fails to recognize that

words have power. She told the Vancouver Sun : “ALC is supposed

to be independent,” but that the application is “very worrisome. My

expectation of the ALC is to uphold the mandate.”

Well, she already told the Abbotsford News …

Interjections.

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

I. Paton: …that the application doesn’t fit the mandate. The minister’s

comments leave no doubt what outcome she wants. Does she not understand

that this is interference?

My question to the minister is: will she retract her statements

about the application in Abbotsford, or does she truly see nothing wrong

with prejudging the outcome of a quasi-judicial process?

Hon. L. Popham: I expect the ALC to uphold its mandate.

AGRICULTURE MINISTRY AND

RESPONSIBILITY FOR

AQUACULTURE

P. Milobar: The Sunshine Coast is always such an entertaining part of the

province.

The Minister of Agriculture seems to refuse to come clean on her

agenda in regards to aquaculture. She sends a threatening letter to a

law-abiding business and intimidates them. She deliberately leaves a

false impression from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Why is all of that?

Well, it’s because she supports the protesters opposed to fish farming.

She is recently in a photo, hugging the protesters — a photo very

similar to the one from 2011, when she was an activist, not a member,

nor a minister.

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: This minister needs to recognize that she’s a minister of the

Crown now. She is not an activist. Clearly, the Premier has demonstrated

by his actions of last Wednesday that he has a lack of confidence in

this minister being in charge of aquaculture. Will the minister confirm

that she is no longer in charge of the aquaculture file in British

Columbia?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I can confirm to the member that I am the Minister of

Agriculture, and that includes aquaculture. For eight years as an MLA, I

effectively did my job, and I think that’s what’s intimidating to this

member.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the Public Guardian and Trustee of

British Columbia annual report for 2016-17. I also have the honour to

present the 2016 annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

Hon. K. Conroy: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to introduce Carolyn Tuckwell, who is the president and CEO

of the South Coast B.C. Boys and Girls Club, and Diane Entwistle, the

executive director for the Okanagan Boys and Girls Club. Before question

period, the Minister of State for Child Care and myself had the opportunity

to meet with them and hear about the great work that the Boys and Girls Club

is doing in the province. Would you all please join me in making them very

welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

In Committee A, I call continued estimates on the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and

Technology.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $843,545,000 .

Hon. C. Trevena: If I might say a few words before we start the afternoon of

intense investigation into ministry procedures. I just really wanted to

say how honoured I am to be here as the Minister of Transportation. I

was the spokesperson for four years and learned a lot about the

ministry, but actually working as the minister is a real

privilege.

I’d like to introduce the ministry staff who are here at the

moment. I have with me Grant Main, my deputy minister; Nancy Bain,

assistant deputy minister of finance and management services; Kevin

Richter, the assistant deputy minister for highways; and Mike Lorimer,

executive director for highways. There’s going to be bit of a

flow-through. We are in just this small place for staff, so there’s

going to be a bit of a change-around, if the people will bear with me as

we go through that.

It is a dedicated team that works for everyone in British Columbia

for the highways system and for our transportation and infrastructure.

I’ve had a real opportunity, in the first few months of my being the

minister, to go out and meet with staff.

I haven’t been to every ministry office — I still have a few to

check off — but it’s great to go out, meet people and see their real

dedication to their work and to the province, people who are absolutely

committed to delivering not just the safe highways but the big projects

as well. It’s really great to see. At the end of the day, everyone is

working together for a British Columbia that is going to be good for

everyone and works in everybody’s interests.

Our government has made a commitment to make life more affordable

for British Columbians, delivering services that people can count on and

building a strong and innovative economy that works for everyone. I

think that there are most likely going to be some questions about one of

my first acts as a minister. I was very proud to stand with the Premier

when tolls were removed from the Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges to

really make life more affordable and ensure that people could be working

and business could flow more easily. That was really a very visible way

of how our commitments can be delivered in the Ministry of

Transportation.

I’m sure there are going to be lots opportunities to explore other

ways when the member from West Vancouver — I will remember your riding

in a moment — when the critic actually gets up and starts asking

questions.

It is a large and complex ministry. The operating budget is large,

and the capital budget is even larger, so I’m anticipating a good couple

of days of questions. I hope it is as amicable as estimates usually is —

that we can actually get some answers that the critic has.

With that, I’m happy to take members’ questions.

J. Sturdy: I would like to congratulate the minister on her appointment. I

know she was a longtime critic. I expect that that’s exactly the role

that she was seeking, so I congratulate her on her appointment. Thank

you for your opening remarks.

I would like to also thank some of the staff that we have

certainly worked with in the past. I see Deputy Minister Main over there

as well as Deputy Minister Richter and others — some names that have

been important and remain important. It was nice to see that the Premier

chose to keep, essentially, the team intact. I think that speaks volumes

for the quality of the people that we have working in government, be it

Assistant Deputy Minister Silas Brownsey, Assistant Deputy Minister

Turner, Assistant Deputy Minister Livolsi — who I don’t see here, but

I’m sure we will see at some point — Assistant Deputy Minister Nancy

Bain and Assistant Deputy Minister Deborah Bowman.

[2:45 p.m.]

As I say, it is nice to see these familiar faces and acknowledge

the hard-working men and women, not just here in the ministry offices of

British Columbia, but certainly my experience around the province is

that the staff that we have been working with at a constituency level

have been and remain excellent to work with.

As the member will know, this is my first time in the critic role

for Transportation and my first time engaging in the estimates process

through the ministry. I share with the minister an earnest recognition

of the significance and importance of this ministry and this

file.

As you know, the previous government had one of the most robust

transportation programs in the country, investing over $17 billion in

this province’s transportation and infrastructure since 2001. Major

projects like the Evergreen Line expansion from Burnaby to Coquitlam,

the widening of Highway 97 in Kelowna, the widening of Highway 1, the

new 216th Street interchange in Langley and the McKenzie interchange

that we see under construction right here in Victoria are all at various

levels of completion.

Increased service levels on several coastal B.C. Ferries routes,

which I’m sure we’ll be canvassing. One of them is in my riding — Bowen

Island — as a matter of fact. As well, the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast, I think, should have some positive things to say

there. A renewal of the B.C. Ferries fleet with three new natural gas

Salish-class ferries. There’s the Baynes Sound connector cable ferry and

the new Northern Sea Wolf , which will be in the summer of next

year, running between Port Hardy and Bella Coola.

These transportation and infrastructure investments and

achievements speak to the proud record and the good work on this file,

and I hope, under this government, that good work will continue. I guess

we’ll be canvassing whether there will be additional political

reprioritizations, as we have seen over the last couple of weeks with

tolls and that sort of thing.

I’ve read the minister’s mandate letter and look forward to

discussing that mandate letter at length and the approaches this

government will be taking to what it recognizes as the top

transportation priorities and implications of investment

priorities.

Specifically, just to review for the people at home…. Its

commitment to address the infrastructure needs of rural and urban

British Columbia under the government’s comprehensive capital

infrastructure plan.

The elimination of tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges

and its implications for the Pattullo. Its commitment to accelerate

Highway 1 upgrades to the Alberta border. A commitment to secure federal

funding for the Pattullo Bridge.

Replacement and rapid transit in Metro Vancouver and Surrey as

part of implementing the mayors’ ten-year plan. Its commitment to fund

transit improvements across the province, including HandyDART

services.

Its commitment to freeze and reduce B.C. Ferries fares and

reinstate the seniors weekday 100 percent discount. Its commitment to

ensuring that B.C. Ferries procurement practices for new ferries provide

a safe and competitive bidding process that is open to B.C.

shipyards.

Its commitment to create a fair approach to and implement

ride-sharing, interestingly.

Moreover, while reading the mandate letter, I was also struck by

this particular passage: “British Columbians expect our government to

work together to advance the public good. This means seeking out,

fostering and advancing good ideas regardless of which side of the House

they come from.” I’m certainly looking forward to seeing some evidence

of that.

So far, while we have much more important work to be done on this

file and with British Columbians counting on this government to best

serve their transportation needs, I look forward to hearing from the

transportation infrastructure in the province of British

Columbia.

Interestingly, we did hear today that this is the last piece of

legislation that the government intends to introduce in this session.

Could the minister perhaps talk a little bit about what she would

anticipate seeing, going forward, in terms of legislative changes?

Recognizing that not right now, but do you have plans for legislative

changes coming forward in the next sitting?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his introduction and for his first

question. The reason we were sort of sitting and having a chat there was

that we were a bit puzzled by the question, about what we anticipate for

legislation — I’m assuming for anticipated legislation from my ministry.

It’s really hard to speculate on what we are going to be bringing

forward, if we’ll be bringing forward legislation at all.

I think the member has read my mandate letter and has refreshed

himself on my mandate letter. The Premier has directed me to look at a

number of areas — whether it is building the infrastructure that we need

to keep our rural economies vibrant and to increase the ability for

people to move through our urban networks; whether it is investing in

transit, both regular transit or handyDART; whether it is dealing with

B.C. Ferries and how to ensure that people can really maximize the use

of our coastal highway. These are the areas that I will be focusing on

in the coming four years, the mandate of our government, unless the

Premier says that I should be looking at other things. These are the

areas that he’s highlighted.

I’ve obviously got the questions of tolls. We’ve been dealing with

that, and I’m sure there’ll be questions about that. The question about

ride-share — we’ve started that process. I’m sure there’ll be further

detailed questions about that. And the questions of the major pieces of

infrastructure and our relationship with the federal government — I’m

sure the member will be having questions about that too.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for the response. I take it that

there’ll be a

schedule of changes or amendments going forward. I guess

we’ll come back and pursue that a little bit later.

What about the Motor Vehicle Act? Are there any anticipated

changes to the Motor Vehicle Act that are imminent?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is aware, nothing has been brought forward to the

moment. I’m not going to speculate on what may or may not be addressed

in the future. I think it’s something that, as we develop the

transportation strategy…. Obviously, with just 100 days under the

government’s belt, we haven’t got everything wrapped up and sealed and

ready to present as a complete package yet. But as we move forward,

there may or may not be legislation brought to this chamber.

J. Sturdy: Okay. As a critic for quite a number of years, and certainly had

solid and strong thoughts on a variety of different areas, I wonder if

you’ve…. Other than your mandate letter, have you spent any time

developing your own list of priorities? What would be your top three

priorities as minister in your new role? Recognizing that you have been

critical of the previous ministers for a number of years, one would

imagine you have had some time to think about what your priorities are.

Maybe you could let us know what those might be.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. It’s interesting when asked to specify just

what would be my top three. I feel very privileged in having the mandate

letter from the Premier, which really does enumerate…. It’s not a whole

host, but it’s a very focused number of areas for myself and the

ministry team and staff to be working on. I wouldn’t like to have to say

which are those would be my top three. They all bring different

challenges, different levels of engagement, different levels of demand.

They are very different.

That’s one of the wonderful things about this ministry, as I think

the critic will learn as he gets his feet under the table and really

starts to get hold of it. There are lot of different areas that one can

focus on, whether it is…. I know that the member has a very particular

interest for certain things in his own constituency, whether it’s the

links for the whole Pemberton down to Squamish and down into Vancouver —

that whole corridor. I know he has also talked about Bowen Island,

whether it’s these sorts of areas.

I think it’s something that you — I say “you” generally — or

whoever is dealing transportation can find engagement in any of them. I

say that I wouldn’t like to have to pick and choose out of what would be

the top three of my mandate letter. I think that they’re all very

engaging, all very, very important for the people of British Columbia. I

really do look forward to be able to start tackling…. Well, I have

started tackling some of them with my team but to continue working on

them and developing them.

J. Sturdy: Okay. Perhaps we can talk, then, about the structure of your

ministry. Outside of the minister’s mandate letter, you don’t have your

own personal priorities for a change to the ministry or a change to

direction. Are you planning any changes to the structure of the ministry

in and of itself — in terms of deputies, in terms of the internal

structure of the ministry, in terms of the number of FTEs for the

ministry, for example? Are there any changes that you’re

proposing?

Hon. C. Trevena: If I might ask the critic: the structure of the ministry in what

way? How the senior staff, the executive, is structured? How the hiring

is structured? I’m a little bit confused there.

J. Sturdy: To the minister, do you propose any changes to the reporting

structure of the ministry, for example?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re having a quick conversation. We’re still trying to work out

just what the member is getting at.

I have my mandate letter, and obviously, there are areas in the

mandate letter that we are working on immediately and some that will be

evolving over the coming months.

Whether we’re going to be hiring more FTEs or changing the

structure…. That really is something that the public service looks

after, not the ministry. We don’t want political interference in the

administration of a ministry.

J. Sturdy: We did hear reference from the Premier earlier on today about a

movement of the administration of the Premier’s office from Vancouver to

Victoria.

Is there any reflection of that type of movement in terms of the

leadership in MOTI and where people are located? Are people going to be

moving back here onto the Island, or is everything essentially going to

stay the same?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just trying to get to the bottom of the question. So the

February budget included emergency management, and there were 155 people

from emergency management that are no longer with the ministry. They

moved out in July when there was the reorganization. Emergency

management went to the PSSG, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General. The whole emergency management team was moved. The ministry

also had oversight for ICBC and PavCo, and those also went in the July

2018 reorganization.

J. Sturdy: Okay. So generally speaking then, other than those fundamental

changes to ministerial responsibilities, the structure would remain

essentially the same and the personnel would be located in essentially

the same place. I’ll take that as fundamentally the answer.

Recognizing that the minister lives in rural British Columbia, as

do I, and understands that there are often challenges in communicating

priorities or in ensuring that there is an understanding of some of the

difficulties or desires or objectives of community members. It is, as we

know, a big province and a big place. Does the minister have any

thoughts on how that process or how that accountability to the community

can be enhanced or supported? So that people understand when there are

issues — be it snow clearing or potholes or community concerns about

speed limits, about visibility or about no posts, which are always a

favourite subject….

Does the minister have any thoughts on how that communication

between the communities and the ministry — recognizing this comes back

to ministerial decision-making, be it at a regional or at a provincial

level — can be improved?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I’m glad that the member acknowledges that I, too, am a rural

MLA. It’s a great privilege to represent a large rural riding and to

engage…. One of the things I find really fascinating and very

comforting, in many ways, is how the Ministry of Transportation is out

in all the regions. It’s often the only…. For many people, it’s the face

of government in rural areas.

But just to understand…. And I might be giving an answer that the

member hasn’t asked. If I give this answer and it’s not what the member

was looking for, please forgive me, and ask me again. We’ve got all

afternoon and all of tomorrow.

As a rural MLA, if there is a problem with the highways — whether

it’s the potholes not being filled or the snow not being cleared or

whatever it is — the MLA, or sometimes it does go to a regional

director…. People will get in touch with you, and you’ll get in touch

with the local ministry office and usually sort it out. Occasionally, if

you’ve got good relationships, you’ll be talking to the maintenance

operator of that area and give them a call. Again, I know that the

member as a rural member will know the different maintenance people

responsible for the different neighbourhoods and be able to give them a

call and say, “What time are you going to get the plows out?” or

whatever it is.

I think there’s always that possibility, as the elected official

in a rural area, to have both the contact with the ministry staff

regionally, and often the maintenance contractors, and get things

happening that way. I hope that’s what the member was asking. If it’s

not, please feel free to ask me the question in another way, and we’ll

try to get to the answer.

J. Sturdy: Well, it is always a challenge to make sure that there’s that

direct communication — that we don’t necessarily have to go through an

MLA’s office to pass things on, to note things. I do recognize that

generally speaking, the communication with ministry staff and the public

has been quite positive and responsive, so I don’t want to suggest that

it’s not. But I just wondered if there were ways, if the minister had

some suggestion, in terms of how that could be further improved, because

there’s always an opportunity to do things better.

Perhaps I’ll move on to the infrastructure needs of rural and

urban British Columbia. I think the minister’s mandate letter says:

“Lead planning to address the infrastructure needs of rural and urban

British Columbia under the government’s comprehensive capital

infrastructure plan to build a Better B.C.”

To the minister: what would those infrastructure priorities be for

urban British Columbia? Or perhaps you could start with rural British

Columbia, because we were just on rural British Columbia. What would

those priorities be for rural British Columbia, and then, perhaps, what

would they be for urban British Columbia?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Well, I think that the member has seen the transportation

investment plan in the service plan, which does reflect, I think, a very

healthy investment in our infrastructure across the province that will

be built upon in the coming four years.

There is no question that we are committed to doing that. In fact,

between the February budget and the August budget, there was an extra

$100 million invested in our transportation investment plan.

I think that the member can just see the commitment that we have

to — and in my mandate letter saying that we’re going to be — investing

in rural British Columbia and rural British Columbia infrastructure. One

of the very highlighted parts of that — and this is not the only

investment that there will be — is accelerating the four-laning of the

Trans-Canada to the Alberta border, which is obviously a massive

investment in rural British Columbia.

We’re also looking at investing across the province. There’s no

question that that investment will continue in the coming four

years.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. We will, I think, over the course of the

next hour and a half or so, have some of our local MLAs. They’re going

to want to dive a little deeper into what those priorities

are.

At this point, I’d like to pass that floor on, because one of

those urban priorities, I think, is going to be questioned

here.

J. Thornthwaite: To the minister, my questions are specific to the North Shore,

recognized as one of the most congested areas in the region.

My first question is: will the $198 million Highway 1 four-phase

lower Lynn interchange project at the north end of the Iron Workers

Memorial Bridge — the one that our government approved, along with the

district of North Vancouver and the federal government be completed as

planned? And are there any plans to widen Highway 1 from Lynn Valley to

Lonsdale?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the question. I’ve been working closely

also with the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale on this, who’s also —

I know the member has been working with it too — very concerned about

the congestion right the way through the North Shore. It is a serious

problem, very clearly.

Yes, we are working on four phases. There is federal funding

there. The first phase, as I’m sure the member is aware, is under

construction. The second phase is in engineering work. On the third

phase, there is planning going on. On the bridge, the fourth phase, it’s

engineering work as well.

J. Thornthwaite: The second part of my question was: is there any plan to widen the

road from Lynn Valley to Lonsdale?

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, there aren’t plans to do that work, but the

ministry staff — as you’re very well aware, one relies very heavily on

the professional engineers in these sorts of situations — are estimating

that the improvements done here should ease the congestion. I think that

what we’ll see is, if the congestion does ease…. I know that the member

has also been working, again with my colleague from North

Vancouver–Lonsdale, and is very concerned about how to get more public

transportation through the North Shore.

Hopefully, with a combination of increased public transportation

as well as this work that’s happening on this area, the traffic will

start to be able to flow more easily and people will be able to get to

and fro more easily.

J. Thornthwaite: My second question is about the Lions Gate Bridge. Is the Lions

Gate Bridge still scheduled to be closed to vehicle traffic by 2030? If

no, what is the

schedule and timeline to make sure it’s seismically safe

for years beyond? Are there any plans to expand it? If yes, what are the

minister’s plans for the vehicle traffic that currently goes over that

bridge?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I apologize to the member for the slow response, but we’ve just

been puzzling about this. The puzzle was that the staff and myself had

never heard of any plans to close the Lions Gate Bridge by any date, if

at all. It has been rehabilitated, it’s had its seismic upgrade, it’s

had its joints fixed and its asphalt redone, and it’s looking in good

shape.

Just to let the member know, all of our bridges get inspected

annually. The Lions Gate is no exception, and it passes its annual

inspection every year. It’s in good shape. It’s unlikely to be expanded.

The structure would not allow for an expansion of the bridge

deck.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

My third question is: will the minister consider any changes to

the Motor Vehicle Act to allow quicker cleanup of minor accidents —

i.e., fender-benders — as recommended by both North Vancouver

municipalities and as also brought up at the UBCM convention

recently?

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s an interesting issue. I know I heard about it during UBCM

and before UBCM.

It isn’t actually the Minister of Transportation’s responsibility.

It’s the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, so I suggest

asking him in his estimates about that. But it’s something that I know

is being well discussed and well aired, and I’m sure that he’s got very

strong views on it.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much. I wasn’t too sure where that was, so we’ll

direct our questions in that direction.

My last question is also about the Motor Vehicle Act. Currently,

there is no law at the moment in British Columbia to govern the safe

passing distance of cyclists by automobiles. I understand Ontario just

made it the law that the motorist must leave a minimum of one metre of

distance when passing a cyclist, while increasing fines for dooring a

cyclist to $300. Is there any interest in making those changes in

British Columbia’s Motor Vehicle Act, similar to Ontario’s?

[3:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a group of cyclists talking about what other jurisdictions do

and how you can stay safe on a bicycle and how we can make sure that

safety is paramount for cyclists and that vulnerable road users are

protected.

We look at what other jurisdictions are doing for their

legislation. Obviously, we’ll monitor what they’re doing, see how

effective it is and also again work with the Solicitor General because

of the whole enforcement issue of the police, making sure that, if

you’re a cyclist and you are doored, drivers are reported — likewise,

the monitoring of how far people are passing. We’ll work with the RCMP

to make sure that vulnerable road users are best protected.

M. Polak: First, I want to thank the minister for meeting with my Langley

township mayor to discuss some of Langley’s priorities. I want to ask

about just one of those. On March 28, 2017, government committed $113

million for phase 2 of the Trans-Canada six-laning Fraser Valley

project. The project is part of the province’s ten-year transportation

plan that includes six-laning from 216th to 264th.

Design work was to begin this fall. Now that we are close to the

end of October, I just wanted to know if that design work has begun as

originally planned.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for her question. The member is

obviously very conversant with this portfolio as well.

We are in the planning stage. I think that the member is aware

that when the announcement was made on funding back in March, the

federal funding still hadn’t been secured, so we’re in the planning

stage of it.

S. Gibson: Further to the question from my colleague from Langley, a little

more elaboration is what we’re pursuing today.

The project had a number of dimensions to it. As the MLA for

Abbotsford-Mission, of course it’s of particular interest to my

constituents. So I’ll go through some of those points here today. Thank

you, Minister, for investigating these.

Eight kilometres of six-laning between 216th and 264th. I think

the minister was aware that was an announcement by the previous

government — definitely a problematic area. If you speak with people,

commuters especially, from that region, you’ll know it’s an onerous

area.

Replacement of the 232nd interchange. It’s certainly

obsolete.

Replacement of the Glover Road overpass. That one we know has been

a problem. In fact, it’s quite low, and I know that your staff will be

able to brief you, Minister, on the challenges of the height of that

overpass.

Removal and construction of a new CP Rail crossing. I’ve certainly

been advised that that’s a significant expense, but one that is going to

be required at some point, given the need that we have to widen

there.

Building a new commercial truck parking facility on Highway 17

under the Port Mann Bridge. That’s one of the dimensions that was

discussed.

[3:40 p.m.]

Have any of these items been removed from the scope of the

project? The question really is, in that enumeration that I have

provided today, have any of these been removed? That would be good for

us to know in the valley.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for Abbotsford-Mission for the question. I

know it’s significant. I’m sure other members are going to be asking

similar questions.

It is still in the planning stage so nothing has been removed from

the scope. I was out that way myself on Friday and was very well aware

of the congestion. It can build up very quickly going out along the

valley. So it’s still there in the planning stage.

L. Throness: I just wanted to add a couple of anecdotes, coming from

Chilliwack.

The problem with the No. 1 is very much an economic problem. There

is a flour mill in Chilliwack called Rogers flour. It is doubling in

size. A manager from there approached me and said that they are doubling

the number of trucks that they will have on the freeway — 20 new trucks.

He said: “Please get the road widened.” I said: “We’re working on that.”

He said: “Please get the road widened.” I said: “We’re working on that.”

He did that, like, five times in a row. He was extremely emphatic. So it

is very much an economic consideration for the entire Lower

Mainland.

In terms of safety, this is a real safety issue as well. I came

home on Thursday night to Chilliwack at ten o’clock at night, and there

were kilometres of backups. There was a semi in the median. How it got

there, I don’t know, but the police weren’t even there yet. I just

missed the accident by minutes myself. So it is very much a safety

consideration.

I would just continue to impress upon the minister the importance

of this to the entire Fraser Valley and hundreds of thousands of

residents. Of course, there’s a quality of life issue too. I guess the

question would be: would she approach the Minister of Finance about

including this in the February budget?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member for Chilliwack-Kent, thank you for your question and

for your impassioned economic argument — the Rogers flour

mill.

We are obviously engaging. This is a big issue for people in the

valley. I’m very aware of that. I’ve heard from a number of people about

their concerns about it. We are engaging with the federal government for

infrastructure funding for the valley, for the Lower Mainland and for

the whole of the province. We’ve got a big province, we’ve got a lot of

problems, and we’re trying to get the dollars where we can.

[3:45 p.m.]

S. Gibson: Thank you for your response. I guess a summative question is

really this one: does the ministry remain committed to the long-term

plan to six-lane Highway 1 to Whatcom Road? That’s really the summative

question. I think it really summarizes, to a large extent, many of the

queries that you have been receiving today, Madam Minister. That would

be the question that I think would be important to hear from you

today.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very well aware of the importance of that corridor for people,

for businesses, for the Lower Mainland. Likewise, the whole of Highway 1

is our major link between the port, which is fundamentally important for

our economic development in B.C., right through to the rest of the

country. We’re absolutely committed to making sure that we are investing

wisely in getting both people and goods moving safely and freely across

the province.

M. Lee: On Friday, the Premier said in an address to the Union Renewal

Conference that “winning bids on government contracts would no longer be

subject to low bid; they would be subject to best bids” and that “the

government would impose rules around local hiring and supply, as well as

new rules around apprentices.”

Minister, my question is how did the Premier’s statements affect

the contracting process for the Transportation Ministry? And has the

Premier given you any direction on this?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for Vancouver-Langara for the

question.

We always want to make sure that we have a good quality of bids.

There’s no question about that. We’re talking about the infrastructure

of our province, and what we want to make sure is that we do get

apprentices training up right the way through a project, if that’s

possible. If it’s short term, obviously not. But we need to get

apprentices involved. We need to make sure that there are, where

possible, women hired and that we do use local firms because all of this

is investing in our future.

One of the great things about looking at transportation, highways

and infrastructure is you’re investing in the physical future of the

province. The approach of a best bid on a project will be investing in

the tangential future of the province, investing in the people and the

local economies, to make sure that we’ve got the strength going forward

to really make B.C. the best possible place it can be, both economically

as well as physically.

M. Lee: Just so I can clarify that…. Thank you for the answer. Could you

just spell out for me, then…? What are the criteria for a best

bid?

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re still going to be working, as a ministry, with the Premier’s

office to develop the criteria — just what it’s going to mean going

forward.

[3:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you for that response.

To the minister: would your ministry be working with quite a bit

of direction, then, from the Premier’s office on this, in terms of

defining what a best bid is?

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to clarify. We are still in the early stages of this. It’s

something that everyone will be working on. We want to make that

investment in the province by investing in our people and in our local

businesses so that we can get not just the best physical outcomes in

high-quality infrastructure but also high-quality, well-trained people

who are well engaged in their careers.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response, again. I will just take from that

response that it is a work-in-progress. It is the initial phase, and the

Premier, given that he was the one who made the first comment on this,

to my knowledge, is quite involved with this direction, in terms of this

change to go from low bid to best bid.

As others have said in this House…. I am a new member to this

Legislature, so forgive me for this question. Let me just ask…. I

presume, then, in terms of the Ministry of Transportation, that this is

a change in policy in terms of how contracts are awarded for this

government. As other members in this House have stood up just now to ask

about the state of the projects in their ridings…. I appreciate that the

government has a tremendous amount of priorities in front of

it.

This is a change, though. I wonder whether the government has done

any assessment as to the increased costs that will result from this

investment in the people of this province, rather than the

infrastructure of this province, which is the mandate of this

ministry.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Just again to the member, it’s obviously still, as I say, early

stages. We are committed to ensuring that we’re not just investing

physically in the infrastructure of our province but that we’re

investing in our people. If we don’t invest in our people, we are left

with a very poor province. Unless we make sure that we’re getting

apprentices working and building up that system, and unless we make sure

that we are keeping local businesses at work, we’re going to be

shortchanging our province.

As I say, it’s still early days. We are working on it. As it moves

forward, I’m sure the member will be having more questions, but that’s

where we are at the moment.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. I have just two other questions on this part of

it.

In terms of the process that you’re embarking on with the

Premier’s office, what expected timing would there be? I know, of

course, that with the number of projects that are on the books to be

planned out at various phases, presumably, all the engineering firms and

the other bidders need to know the criteria on which these bids are

being evaluated and awarded. So this change will lead to further

uncertainty, I presume, in terms of how the bidders need to work through

their bids. That would be my first question.

The second question would be: given the nature of the change, what

consultation do you envision to be done? I expect that since last

Friday…. Perhaps there has been consultation before the announcement

last Friday. But if there hasn’t been, what sort of consultation would

there be? Both timing and consultation are my question here.

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, to the member, the Premier has made this commitment. It is

something that we believe in. It is policy work that will be done over

the coming days, weeks and months. It’s always evolving. I’m sure…. The

member here is new to this House, but he’ll learn that policy does

evolve, in both the short term and long term. It is a commitment that we

have made to ensuring that our infrastructure is not just that physical

infrastructure. It’s the infrastructure in the human capital which is so

very important for a healthy society.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. It was good to see the former Premier

of our province here in the House today, Premier Glen Clark. I remember

I was back in law school back in the day, here in Victoria, at UVic, ’93

to ’96. Back in that day, of course, there was the Island Highway

project. My sense of this…. I know it’s early days still, but this is

what I would like to ask about.

With the Premier’s comments last Friday, it sounds a bit like

we’re going back to the days where there might be project labour

agreements that are being brought into place. Of course, with that

project that I’m referring to, there were tremendous cost overruns and

increased costs, to the point where the scope of the project was

narrowed. There were fewer interchanges that ended up being built than

were at first planned, and this project was delayed by two

years.

[4:05 p.m.]

Now, I understand, from what I’m hearing in the House today, that

there are other considerations for this government. But I would be

concerned about whether these are the kinds of arrangements that are

being brought into play.

My question to the minister is: is this the case? Is it the

intention of this government to bring back that sort of project labour

agreement for transportation projects?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think what the member should realize is that when we’re looking

at transportation — and I take this very seriously — we don’t want to

just be investing in that physical infrastructure. We do need to be

investing in people. We do need to be investing and maximizing our

investment. That means ensuring that we do train people, that we do

employ apprenticeships and that we do employ the broadest

section of

people — that we can have that local hire. So we do get literally that

return that benefits the province immediately and long term.

It’s a valued investment. There is no question about that. And we

will be working on the policy, as I said in my previous answer, in the

coming days and weeks ahead.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: My final question then on this set of questions is: as you work on

this policy, will that include a fair wage policy element to it, in

terms of ensuring that all contractors are being paid union-equivalent

wages?

Hon. C. Trevena: Everybody expects a fair wage for their labour. I think that

there’s no person who wouldn’t expect that. Particularly working in

building our province, you’d expect a fair wage.

We can have a long debate about what the definition of a fair wage

is and who would set a fair wage, but I don’t think that is the purpose

of these estimates. So I don’t think it would be particularly valuable

for us to get into that debate. I think that if you’re employing people

and people are working in any project, whatever you’re doing…. In any

employment, you deserve a fair wage.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Just to follow up a little bit more, does the minister have some

sort of metrics? How will you forecast or plan for what you’re willing

to reduce? Is there a metric around how many kilometres of road you’re

going to do versus wage cost?

I just don’t really understand how you come up with a best bid.

What are the weightings of the various components here, and what

provides value to the province? How do you determine what is valuable to

the province? There must be some metrics associated with

this.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned to the member for Vancouver-Langara, it is still

early days in this. The policy is still, obviously, being defined and

will evolve over the coming days and weeks and months.

It is something that this government is committed to, to make sure

that we are investing in our human capital as well as our physical

capital. We can have a very rich province filled with fantastic

infrastructure, but without investing in our people, I think that it’s a

great loss.

We can have a province where we have used a lot of people who are

not from B.C. That would be a loss when we could be investing in —

whether it’s the apprenticeships or local businesses — whatever it is

that will really build up our province.

Looking at it in — I hate to use the cliché — the holistic way….

Let’s look at our province as a whole. We’re committed to building our

province and making our province a strong economic place for everyone,

and this is one avenue to do so.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you to the minister and her

staff.

I represent an incredible part of British Columbia — very proud to

live there, love where I live. But obviously, transportation and

infrastructure investments make a big difference where we live. Changes

can impact the people of the central Interior.

I wanted to begin my questions…. I do appreciate the minister has

been very collaborative in talking about an issue that matters to both

of us. I’m wondering if the minister has any further updates on the

Greyhound file. Knowing that there are significant challenges…. I know

the minister met with us, sent a letter very promptly to the federal

government and also looked at the possibility of public hearings so that

people could have their say. So we certainly appreciated the minister’s

discussion about the Greyhound matter. I’m wondering if there are any

updates that the minister could provide to my colleagues and

me.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It is a very serious issue, and it’s something that, I think,

impacts all rural MLAs where Greyhound is operating. It’s very

concerning. I speak to, also, the members for the Highway 3 corridor,

who are equally concerned about what has been happening.

The public comment period has now closed, and the comments have

been sent to Greyhound to respond to. It’s the way — the member, I’m

sure, remembers from her time in this chair…. The applicant has time to

respond. Greyhound has until the sixth of November to respond. Then the

response and the comments will be sent to the panel, to the Passenger

Transportation Board. It will be up to the panel to determine if there

should be public hearings.

To say it’s something that I think galvanized people…. It would be

safe to say it did galvanize people across the province and beyond, as

the member knows.

I thank her for sharing the information she was getting. While we

can’t get involved, obviously, in an independent board, it brought home

many stories. Some of the information that the member shared with me,

I’ve heard in my own communities when Greyhound has been pulling

out.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult at times. We have to be hands off

and let the Passenger Transportation Board do its job, but things are

moving.

S. Bond: I appreciate knowing the time frame, and I think we can only be

hopeful that there is a positive outcome. I do think, though, that as we

discussed in our prior meetings, should there be a different outcome

than we would hope that we will be having to look at how we provide

options for people who are vulnerable, in particular, and rely on some

form of public transportation or services throughout those

regions.

I’m going to quickly…. I know my colleagues — there’s a long

lineup. I want to move on to two highway-related issues. I want to ask

about the Cariboo connecter. No one will be surprised that I ask that

question. I have followed that project since the day we announced

it.

There has been significant investment — I believe we’re probably

getting close to half a billion dollars, over a number of years — to

improve the highway corridor. It’s obviously very busy with commercial

traffic and, also, residential traffic.

I’m wondering if the minister can confirm for me that there will

be continued work on the Cariboo connector.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: One of the benefits we had of not being immediately in session

after we took office was the ability to actually get out on the

highway.

One of the areas I went was actually because of the fires. It was

supposed to be from Kamloops up to Prince George. It ended up from

Kelowna to Prince George, 97, looking at the various projects that were

underway and stopping at a number of those on the Cariboo connector —

really amazing work that’s being done up there.

We have three underway at the moment from south to north. Williams

Lake to Lexington, where one of the things that was pointed out was a

snake hibernaculum was moved. They had to move a whole load of snakes

from one area to another — great environmental work. Then Carson to Toop

and Stone Creek to Williams Lake, which is the one between Prince George

and Quesnel where they’re going along right by the side of the river and

doing amazing construction by the side of the river.

Those three are under construction at the moment, and there are

seven other sections that are in planning at the moment.

S. Bond: In essence, I believe that before the election a third phase was

announced for the Cariboo connector. Are those projects the ones that

would have been captured in the financial announcement that was made

around the Cariboo connector?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the seven that are in the planning are phase 3.

S. Bond: Just continuing on the highway issue. My riding is very large

geographically, small in population but large geography. I wanted to ask

about Highway 5.

[4:30 p.m.]

Highway 5 is obviously a critical route, and even more so, it will

be as we see the development of the Valemount Glacier development

project, which is proceeding in the next number of years, we

hope.

I’m wondering. I know that there was a significant concern

expressed, by constituents and travelers alike, about the need for

additional passing lanes. Government did respond to that, and there were

passing lanes added. I’m wondering, when it comes to Highway 5, if there

is a continued look at that highway from a safety perspective and

looking at whether or not there may be additional investments — in

particular, in passing lanes.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. I’d say she knows the file

well and knows that for everyone working in the ministry, safety is

vital. You talk about the big projects, but highway safety underlines

everything that is being done. I think this is outside the member’s

constituency, but the Darfield area is under construction. Work is being

done there, and engineering work is being done on the Clearwater

interchange.

[4:35 p.m.]

There is a lot of planning being done to identify other potential

passing lanes along the highway. As I say, there is the real

understanding that highway safety for commercial as well as private use

is what underpins the fabric of our system.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for the response that there’s certainly

going to be an ongoing look at Highway 5. We know that it will very

likely see increased traffic when the Valemount Glacier development

moves forward.

On that note, I wanted to speak about small regional airports for

a moment — tying all of these pieces together. Obviously, our hope would

be that as Valemount Glacier moves forward, in terms of that project now

being finalized with investments…. The Valemount village council and

others firmly want to see additional investment in small regional

airports. The ability to have guests who are going to come and ski in

some of the most amazing terrain in the world…. We want to be sure that

there is an option for them to utilize small aircraft. Certainly, the

program that has funded small regional airports has been very

successful.

Mainly, today, just a confirmation from the minister that

Valemount and small regional airports will continue to be a part of the

granting program that the ministry offers.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Valemount has actually had, two years running, assistance from the

air access program. The air access program is going to be continuing. It

comes under the transportation investment plan, under the “other”

transportation items. I know it’s well used by small airports around the

province. Oftentimes, it’s not much money that goes into it, but it

makes a huge difference to access.

We were talking about Greyhound just a few moments ago. I know not

everybody can fly in, but if you do have an airstrip or a small airfield

or a small airport that people can use as well — anything that makes our

large rural ridings accessible is very important. We’ll be continuing

the investment there.

S. Bond: That’s really great news.

I just want to end my questions. I know that my colleagues need to

get their questions asked.

I just want to express our gratitude for the fantastic staff that

work in this ministry and who work regularly with local MLAs to work

through the programs on the ground. It is very constructive. I want to

urge the minister to allow and encourage those briefings of local MLAs

to continue. They’re very important. This isn’t a partisan issue. We

just want to know that our roads are being taken care of. I do want to

thank the staff. I know that they’re fantastic in our region and across

the province.

Thank you to the minister for her answers, and I certainly hope we

can continue to count on those briefings in our local

constituencies.

Hon. A. Dix: Just briefly to explain to the House, there’s a change in

estimates in the other House, which means we have to rise briefly here.

Then we’ll return immediately, report progress and ask leave to sit

again. That will be the motion, and then we’ll be back here in a very

brief period of time when the Speaker comes and we propose the next

estimate.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I wanted to call the estimates in the

other place, in Committee A, of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation and, in this place, the Ministry of

Transportation.

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 4:45 p.m.

Hon. A. Dix: I propose, while the minister and her staff return, that we take a

two-minute recess.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:46 p.m. to 4:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $843,545,000

(continued).

M. Morris: Just carrying on. My colleague from Prince George–Valemount asked

a few questions that were also pertinent to my riding. Greyhound is a

very important issue up there, and I’m glad to see that there’s some

action being taken there.

Highway 97 north is a major linkage for the province. It links the

northwest part of the province to the northeast part of the province.

There have been a couple of significant bottlenecks in that highway over

the years. We fixed one, with the Salmon River Bridge. We’ve got a new

bridge there that allows us to carry those wide, heavy loads back and

forth.

[4:50 p.m.]

One of the last impediments, the last bottleneck in this highway,

is the Parsnip River Bridge. It has received some structural damage over

the years, from overheight loads, oversized loads, which has cost some

money to repair. The alignment of the highway also presents some

challenges at that particular juncture. That bridge is an old bridge,

it’s a low bridge, and it’s narrow. So the wide loads and the heavy

loads that we require in today’s industry can’t make it across there. A

lot of the transportation companies have to reroute and go through

Alberta to get up into the northern part of B.C. In some cases, that has

added $20,000 or $30,000 to the cost of shipping some of these unique

structures up there.

The bridge was designed. We had approved it back when we were in

government. The design went through the design phase, and my

understanding was that it was supposed to go to tender this fall. The

construction period up there is limited by the weather, by our winters

and also by the spring freshet. We have to get it at the right

time.

I’m wondering where that project sits. Is it still on the books?

When do you anticipate that it’s going to go to tender and be

built?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to pick up on the comments made by the member for

Prince George–Valemount when she was wrapping up — about the staff, how

excellent they are around the province and how helpful for people,

making sure that there is that continuity in the briefings.

Absolutely, one of the things that I really find healthy about

Transportation is its non-partisan nature. We all want to get good

highways, safe highways built in our province, and we all need to know,

particularly as rural MLAs, what is happening in our constituencies,

whether it’s snow clearance or paving or anything else. Yes, I think we

absolutely need to continue to have that continued conversation

there.

I thank the member for also recognizing the problems with

Greyhound. It is something that a number of us are facing. It is a

priority of mine to try and see how we can make sure that if Greyhound

doesn’t stay, we can work together to find alternatives.

[4:55 p.m.]

To the question about the Parsnip Bridge, yes, it is absolutely on

the books. It was posted on B.C. Bid on the 13th of October. Closing for

the bid will be the 15th of November, so just over two weeks. It’s

anticipated that work will be able to start early next year as soon as

the weather allows it. As the member said, it’s weather-restricted, but

as soon as weather allows it, we’re anticipating that work will be able

to begin up there.

J. Rustad: I want to just quickly canvass a couple of things with the

minister. Along Highway 16, we implemented a transit system to help

people that needed it along that highway — many communities have opted

in; some communities haven’t — with a commitment to funding for future

years so that the system could grow over that period of time.

I’m wondering if the minister, in the budget, is committed to the

continued funding of this and the potential expansion of the Highway 16

transit system.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, we are absolutely committed to continuing with it. It is a

five-year project to have the transit along this highway. In fact, it

has been a real success. People are using it, as was anticipated, and in

some areas, ridership has been double what was anticipated, so B.C.

Transit is now looking at getting bigger buses or other vehicles that

they can use.

[5:00 p.m.]

Obviously, B.C. Transit is one component of it. We’re also looking

at having community vehicles, as well as driver education for people so

they can actually drive community vehicles and other vehicles. As well,

the exterior, as it were — safety part of it, which is to make sure we

have bus shelters, webcams and lighting, and so on, so that if people

are having to wait for a vehicle that they are in as safe an environment

as is possible. But we’re absolutely committed to continue with this

over the coming years.

J. Rustad: The next question I had was actually on Highway 27, which is the

highway north of Vanderhoof through to Fort St. James and beyond. Two

components to this question. First is that the highway alignment near

Fort St. James through the Nak’azdli Whut’en reserve, I believe,

actually, is in a trespass. So I’m just wondering how the ministry plans

to resolve that issue of the trespass with the Nadleh people.

Then the second part of the question is, actually, beyond Fort St.

James where we get into the North Road or what’s known as the North

Road…. I believe it falls under Ministry of Transportation’s needs. It

has heavy industrial use. It is a gravel road. There are many times

throughout the year where there is significant dust issues. The

application of calcium and the application of water onto the road to

extend the life of the calcium sometimes is challenging. The people are

often driving the road in what would be considered whiteout or complete

blind situations with a lot of industrial traffic.

Particularly, there is a significant amount of logging truck

volume that moves through there. I’m wondering what the ministry’s plans

are for improving that particular stretch of road north of Fort St.

James to alleviate that significant risk for public safety.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies for the time, but I was just trying to track down some

of the information, particularly on the dust control issue.

On the tenure question and the Nak’azdli, on the way to Fort. St.

James. The ministry is working to resolve the issue of tenure there, and

we recognize that it is very important that we do try and get this

resolved.

On the dust control. About $1 million a year is spent on that

road, and the amount has increased. I’m not quite sure just what it was

last year, but it was $1 million this last year. But we can find out.

We’re still trying to track down the figures, and we couldn’t quite get

them. But it has increased.

The amount has increased because of the heavy industrial usage of

the road. I’m sure the member knows that when the road is graded, it’s

then treated and compacted to try and keep that dust down. It’s got new

graders on. It has been graded recently because of the rain. So they’re

doing everything to try and maintain the road, and it’s $1 million a

year.

[5:10 p.m.]

D. Barnett: First of all, Minister, I would like to compliment your staff. I

have worked for 28 years through my position as a mayor and now as an

MLA, and the Ministry of Transportation staff has got to be one of the

most encouraging groups and a collaborative group. You are very

fortunate you have such a wonderful bunch of people behind

you.

My first question to you is regarding the Cariboo connecter. I

know my colleague asked a couple of questions. I’m really pleased that

the Carson-Toop project on Highway 97 got signed in June and is moving

forward. The Highway 97 Cariboo connecter project between Lexington Road

and the Williams Lake Indian Band is a massive $47 million project that

is one of the biggest projects I think I’ve seen the ministry do. It’s

moving ahead quite well. My question is: is the planning still underway

for the Highway 97 Knife Creek project?

Hon. C. Trevena: I quite agree. The Ministry of Transportation staff are wonderful.

In your area, around the province — they work so hard on behalf of

everyone. I was saying to the member for Prince George–Valemount that

the Ministry of Transportation is not partisan. They just get out, they

do their work, and they do it really well for everyone. I really

appreciate that.

The Knife Creek

section of the Cariboo connecter is phase 3. It is

in the planning stage. Like everything, we’re looking at safety issues.

That’s why it’s been…. The four-laning is very much for safety. Our

paramount concern around the province, when we’re looking at our highway

construction, is that safety measure.

D. Barnett: That is great. We appreciate that.

The next question I have is on rural roads and our rural strategy

that we put together last spring. I understand it’s not going to be

utilized. We did have a component in there for rural roads capital

upgrades. What is your budget for rural roads capital upgrades in the

next few months?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just trying to work out the question. The member said that

investment in rural roads had been cancelled, she’d heard. I’m not quite

sure where that came from.

We were discussing my mandate letter earlier on, and part of that

is the investment in our rural infrastructure. I, like the member, am a

rural MLA. I’m very aware of the importance of our rural economies and

our rural communities and investing in the infrastructure to make sure

that our rural communities can really thrive, that people can benefit

from it, that businesses can develop and that our industry, on which we

all rely, can grow.

I’m not quite sure where she got the understanding that we’re not

going to be investing in rural roads. We most certainly are. Under the

current budget update, with the provincial transportation investments in

the investment plan, we still have the line items of both side-road

improvements and natural gas upgrades.

We also still have the corridor improvements. We’re talking about

the Cariboo connecter in the member’s own riding and in the member for

Prince George–Valemount’s riding. We are absolutely investing in rural

areas. Obviously, one of the biggest line items that we face is highway

maintenance. Most of that goes into the rural areas.

Finally, in addition, we’ve got the commitment, in my mandate

letter, to be accelerating the four-laning of the Trans-Canada, most of

which is going through vast stretches of rural British

Columbia.

We are absolutely not cutting rural infrastructure funding or

rural road funding. We’ll continue investing in it in the months ahead,

as well as in the years ahead. That’s obviously limited by the

opportunities of the weather. But as we continue, we will absolutely be

investing in rural roads.

D. Barnett: I guess I didn’t explain myself well. I’m not talking about the

corridors. I’m talking about subdivisions in rural British Columbia that

were built 40 years ago that now need some serious upgrading and capital

maintenance. Is that still moving forward, and what dollars do you have

in the budget for that?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Under the transportation investment plan in the budget update of

September, we still have committed $96 million for side roads this year,

working out to $276 million over three years, under the

update.

We know that there’s a problem where we’ve had developers go in

and build subdivisions a number of years ago, and the roads are

deteriorating, and investment is needed. I’m very well aware of the need

for investment in our highway fabric right across the

province.

D. Barnett: To the minister, could she give me an update on the ICBC funding

that is coming through for motorized trails — the funding through the

selling of licence plates for the ORVs and the snowmobiles? Could I get

an update on the funding? Is that funding being directed towards

motorized trails, and is the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations still distributing it through a recreation

program?

Hon. C. Trevena: I would defer that question to the Attorney General, who has taken

over responsibility for ICBC.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. One more question. Is the minister interested

or is it in their mandate letter to expand transit in rural British

Columbia? Many people in my area that live in the South Cariboo would

like to have some kind of transit system. Is there funding for expansion

in rural communities?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Absolutely, we’re committed to transit. It’s in part of my mandate

letter to ensure that we are working with B.C. Transit across the

province. We’re also looking at new ways of doing transit within

communities — getting the appropriate-size bus for the community,

appropriately working with the community for the appropriate number of

routes, and so on.

But looking at some other models…. We have the Highway 16 service,

which is unique but is a B.C. Transit service. It was announced a couple

weeks ago, I think — the B.C. Transit potential for a Sea to Sky route.

I’m sure that the critic will be asking me a lot of questions about that

in the coming hours of these estimates. We are looking at that. We’re

looking at different models, but we’re 100 percent committed.

It works for so many reasons. It works, obviously, for people’s

access and people’s mobility. Particularly in rural areas, when you age

and either you don’t have the physical ability to drive or you are no

longer allowed to drive, you’ve got to make sure that people still can

get around. It really is vital.

We’ve seen the reduction in service. We were having this

discussion earlier about what was happening with Greyhound across the

province, which is, obviously, coach transportation. We have to work

with communities to ensure that people are able to have that freedom of

movement, are able to get around their communities and get beyond their

communities and live very productive, active lives.

Obviously, transit helps us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

It is carbon-friendly. It really is looking towards the future. I think

that’s important for people to remember, not just in urban environments

in cities and towns but in our more rural communities — how we can

integrate that into ways of thinking.

You look at the small communities that have come up with

innovative ideas. Some of the Island communities have come up with their

own transportation systems. Others have adopted transit systems. I think

we can sort of look at different ways of working. But fundamentally,

yes, we’re going to be investing in transit across the

province.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister. What is the uptake in the funding for

that program?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Before I proceed with the member’s answer, I just wanted to

acknowledge that there has been a bit of a change-around in staff.

They’re coming in and out, because we’re in the big House. I didn’t have

the opportunity to introduce before that we have Patrick Livolsi here,

who is the ADM for infrastructure; Silas Brownsey, who is ADM,

partnerships. We’ve also been joined for this question — thanks to the

member’s question — by the CEO of B.C. Transit, Manuel Achadinha. We

have had other people, and I apologize for not having introduced them as

we’ve gone on, but I will do when they come back.

To the member’s question, there was a $4 million lift in B.C.

Transit spending this last year. That will translate into, obviously,

the expansion on Sea to Sky, into general expansion — at 80,000 hours