Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 97

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

SeaBus service

B. Ma

Health and Home Care Society and respite centres

R. Sultan

Ocean Networks Canada and tsunami response

J. Rice

Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society

J. Martin

Raise Your Hands Against Racism campaign by Spice

Radio

R. Singh

Canadian Federation of Independent Business

C. Oakes

Oral Questions

Impact of employer health tax on agriculture industry

I. Paton

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on non-profit agencies

J. Rustad

Hon. C. James

Government handling of Indigenous child welfare case

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Impact of employer health tax on seniors care facilities

J. Isaacs

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

T. Stone

Hon. C. James

M. Stilwell

Impact of employer health tax on municipal budgets

S. Gibson

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on tourism industry

D. Clovechok

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on municipal budgets

T. Shypitka

Hon. C. James

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. C. Trevena

T. Shypitka

D. Barnett

J. Sturdy

M. Hunt

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

Hon. L. Popham

J. Thornthwaite

D. Barnett

J. Tegart

I. Paton

P. Milobar

C. Oakes

M. Bernier

D. Davies

B. Stewart

Estimates: Ministry of Education

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

18:37:38, J. Sturdy, "of" added in "In terms of fuel taxes"

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: It’s a real honour today to introduce Cameron Eby, who’s the new

president of the Ambulance Paramedic of B.C. It won’t surprise anybody in

our little corner of the Legislature that, given his name and so on, he’s

young and talented and bright. But I can assure all members of the House

that he’s also no relation to the Attorney General.

Here with Cameron meeting with members of the Legislature today is

Sophia Parkinson, who’s also a member of the executive of the Ambulance

Paramedics, CUPE Local 873. I’d like everyone in the House to say

welcome.

N. Letnick: It gives me great honour to welcome Ryan Donn. Ryan is a city

councillor from the city of Kelowna. He is following me today with his

camera, doing a little piece for his Facebook site on a day in the life of

an MLA. Have your best smiles on. Please make Ryan feel welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon are the managing

directors of B.C.’s overseas network of trade and investment representative

offices. B.C.’s network of overseas offices provides an important link

between B.C. companies and institutions and their foreign counterparts,

facilitating trade deals and investment attraction vital to the health of

B.C.’s economy, probably no more important than in these turbulent days of

our trade relations with our neighbour to the south.

Please join me in welcoming, from our East Asia region, managing

director Avi Salsberg, covering Japan; managing director Luke Shim, covering

Korea; managing director Cathy Yao, based in Guangzhou, covering south and

west China; managing director Kevin Tsui, based in Beijing, covering north

and east China; and director Vivian Xie; based in Shanghai.

From our ASEAN offices, managing director Eva Yazon, based in Manila,

covering the Philippines and Vietnam; managing director Vira Soekardiman,

based in Jakarta, covering Indonesia and Thailand; and managing director

Michael Nicholas, based in Singapore — that’s a new office just opened —

covering Singapore and Malaysia.

From the U.S.A., managing director Will Fox; from Europe, managing

director Rupert Potter; and from India, managing director Rooma

Bussi.

They are visiting British Columbia this week to meet with key

stakeholders, travel to some of B.C.’s regions and advance the trade and

investment priorities of British Columbia in international markets. Please

join me in making them feel very, very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I have two special guests in the gallery today. First off, someone

who’s been here before. My mother, Patricia Homewood, is here from the

riding of the member for Chilliwack-Kent. Joining her today is my youngest

niece, Gabrielle. Gabby had her tour today, took a look at the chamber and

said it reminded her of the Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets, so perhaps this

afternoon we can unlock some of those. Please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to take the opportunity of the leadership of the ambulance

paramedics being in the gallery today to ask this House to join me in

extending to them, and asking them to extend to all of their members, the

heartfelt thanks of the people of British Columbia and of this House. The

ambulance paramedics go above and beyond every single day — and especially

today, this year, in the context of the worst public health emergency in

decades. They are saving lives every single day.

I know that every member of this House will join me in extending a

heartfelt thanks to the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia.

Hon. C. James: I’m very pleased today to welcome two members of the board of

directors of the First Nations Financial Management Board, known as the

FMB.

Mr. Harold Calla is FMB’s executive chair. In 2008, Harold, who is a

member of the Squamish Nation, was honoured by the Certified General

Accountants Association of Canada as one of the top 100 CGAs who have made a

significant difference in our entire country over the last 100 years. Mr.

Brian Titus is the acting chief operating officer of the FMB and also serves

as vice-chair of the board of directors.

The FMB, which has its head office in West Vancouver, works with as

many as 220 First Nations across Canada to help them implement the financial

management tools to create greater accountability, and encourages economic

development and job creation opportunities. Would the House please make

these two individuals very welcome.

B. Stewart: I rise today with the recognition that the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology just said about the East Asian managing directors that are here

in the chamber today. I had the good fortune of serving with them for over

three years in Asia, and I’m glad to see that the government has seen fit to

continue to expand and invest there, being that over 40 percent of Canada’s

trade and 30 percent of British Columbia’s trade is in East Asia.

I just want to welcome some absolutely amazing people that work for

British Columbia — Avi Salsberg in Tokyo; Luke Shim in Seoul; Cathy Yao in

Guangzhou; Kevin Tsui in Beijing; Vivian Xie, who’s in Shanghai; Eva Yazon,

who’s in Manila; Vira Soekardiman, who’s in Jakarta; Michael Nicholas, who’s

opened the new office in Singapore; Will Fox in California, outside of San

Francisco; and Rooma Bussi, who’s in India. I want to have the chamber

welcome them. I know that we can count on them to continue to grow British

Columbia’s exports.

R. Leonard: I rise today to welcome a third Eby in the House. For those who might

not know, Kitchener-Waterloo once was called Ebytown. My husband, Ron Eby,

is in the House today for the first time. I just want to acknowledge

that.

We talk about the person behind the politician. For 40 years now, this

man has opened doors for me. He has given me the support that I need to be

out in the community doing the things that I do. It’s a family affair that

we’re involved with, making B.C. a better place. Please may the House join

me in welcoming my husband, Ron Eby.

D. Routley: I’d like to welcome two guests from Chemainus — Arlene Robinson and

her son, Christopher Robinson. Arlene is a very youthful and energetic

80-year-old volunteer in Chemainus, a fantastic energy source for the entire

community. Arlene just keeps on going and making the community better every

day.

She’s from Flin Flon. Go, Bombers. At five years old, she came out to

the coast. She was a realtor. She’s had seven kids in her family. She was a

founding member of the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation here in

B.C., along with my recently passed away constituency assistant. She was

active in 4-H and Girl Guides. Her son, Christopher, was a business manager

with CUPE 4163 at UVic.

[1:45 p.m.]

They run a program called Cowichan Neighbourhood House. This has

several programs — a healthy food program, a family resource centre program

and a youth program. There are over 8,000 volunteer hours put into the

community through this organization, and thousands and thousands of pounds

of food. They’re connected to a zero-waste program, collecting food from

grocery stores and gleaning. They make a fantastic, positive impact in our

community.

I would like the House to help me thank them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

Mr. Speaker: Did you wish to make remarks with that?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I do, hon. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 7, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2018. This bill amends the following statutes: the Crown

Proceeding Act, the

Interpretation Act, the Ministry of Provincial

Secretary and Government Services Act, the Cooperative Association Act,

the Building Act and the Fire Services Act.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the house after today.

Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SEABUS SERVICE

B. Ma: For those who live, work and play on the North Shore, the SeaBus

is a critical piece of public infrastructure that many thousands of

people rely on, day in and day out. It is one of the late Premier Dave

Barrett’s great initiatives. With a plan approved in 1974, the first

SeaBus crossing set sail at 6:15 a.m. on June 17, 1977, and has since

carried millions of people across the Burrard Inlet. There were 5.8

million of those boardings in 2017 alone.

The importance of the SeaBus to the North Shore cannot be

overstated. At peak times, it carries nearly as many passengers as buses

do over both the Second Narrows Bridge and Lions Gate Bridge combined.

It is also an absolutely beautiful trip for occasional riders and an

excellent napping opportunity for regular commuters.

For years, I too napped on the SeaBus twice a day, as my part of

my commute from the North Shore to YVR airport. Today, it continues to

be my primary mode of travel to downtown Vancouver for meetings and

events. It’s reliable — maybe the most reliable method of motorized

transportation available to North Vancouverites.

While a vehicle trip over one of our two bridges can take two to

four times longer during peak hours compared to off-peak hours, the

SeaBus always crosses the Burrard Inlet in a cool 12 minutes. Between 6

a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays, a SeaBus departs from each terminal every

15 minutes, with service continuing at longer intervals until 1:30 a.m.

The trips are on time over 98 percent of the time.

With stats like those, it’s no wonder we’re investing in a

brand-new vessel to further increase frequency to every ten minutes

during peak periods — coming soon to a SeaBus terminal near you, in

HEALTH AND HOME CARE SOCIETY

AND RESPITE

CENTRES

R. Sultan: The Health and Home Care Society of B.C., formerly known as the

Victorian Order of Nurses, founded in 1898, has operated a respite

centre in Vancouver since 2002. Under the leadership of Inge

Schamborzki, it hopes to build a second, larger centre in North

Vancouver. This is all about looking after the old folks. We’d like to

believe government will look after us all when we’re old and grey, but

that’s a tad optimistic.

[1:50 p.m.]

Now, 93 percent of seniors live independently. Most rely on

themselves or on partners, children or friends — caregivers. Thank God

for caregivers. The issue is, we’re living longer, which brings

complications. Can’t drive a car, run out of pills, broken hips,

dementia — the list goes on. Unless somebody watches over some seniors

24-7, they might just wander off and never be seen again.

But 24-7 caregivers also want a life of their own. At least, they

want a break. Parents get babysitters, summer camp and sleepovers. What

caregivers should get is called respite. Without respite, you get

burnout and maybe even eventual strikes.

Respite is the provision of short-term care in a specialized

facility outside the home where a senior can live, from overnight to a

month or two, giving temporary relief to their caregivers. It’s

important. Dr. Schamborzki’s North Vancouver project should be

replicated right across the province. We need a lot more respite centres

in B.C.

OCEAN NETWORKS CANADA

AND TSUNAMI

RESPONSE

J. Rice: It was the science fiction writer H.P. Lovecraft who once noted

that “the ocean is more ancient than the mountains and freighted with

the memories and dreams of time.” The oceans surrounding our own

coastline not only contain memories of bygone geological eras but also

hold clues to our collective future and, more specifically, our

vulnerability to catastrophic earthquakes and the threat of

tsunamis.

Ocean Networks Canada is located at the University of Victoria,

where it has developed and manages a collection of observatories that

run up and down the coast — some far out at sea, others hugging the

shoreline. These nodes collect long-term and real-time data that reveal

insights into the complex physical, chemical, biological and geological

processes underpinning our planet, revelations that were not possible

until recently.

We all know that B.C. is seismically active. Indeed, some of the

world’s highest-magnitude earthquakes have taken place just off our

shores. With a string of sensors and a team of scientists at the ready,

Ocean Networks Canada has been working closely with the province.

Emergency management B.C. has invested $5 million into ONC to develop an

earthquake early-warning system for the Cascadia subduction zone. The

aim? To deliver notifications directly to key governmental agencies and

from there on to the people of British Columbia.

Ready next year, the new system features a collection of seismic

and positional sensors offshore and off Vancouver Island, enhanced

alerting and analysis, improved integration and data-sharing with

existing systems and regular testing. Ocean Networks Canada also assists

the government with the mapping of tsunami inundation zones, which helps

communities determine their tsunami evacuation routes and design safer

neighbourhoods.

The government of B.C. supports the work of partners such as Ocean

Networks Canada as part of its commitment to arm the citizens of this

province with the information they require to prepare for, mitigate and

recover from catastrophic events. It is partnerships such as this with

Ocean Networks Canada that will help us move into a safer and more

resilient future.

CHILLIWACK BOWLS OF HOPE SOCIETY

J. Martin: It gives me great pleasure to enlighten the House today about one

of my very favourite organizations. Since 2005, the Chilliwack Bowls of

Hope Society has operated the feed the children program through the

efforts of community-based volunteers and offenders, with the support

and cooperation of the Chilliwack Community Correctional

Centre.

This program currently provides soup and other hot lunch items,

along with milk and fruit, to 21 schools in the Chilliwack school

district. Through donations from business, community partners and the

public, over 750 children in need receive over 14,600 hot lunches per

month during the school year.

The feed the children program is making a significant difference

in the Chilliwack community. The research is clear: increasing the

amount of nourishment that a child receives improves their cognitive

understanding and, particularly, their speed and accuracy of information

retrieval in working memory. This results in higher academic results and

correlates to improvements in behaviour and decreasing classroom

disruptions, benefiting all students and teachers.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’m proud to say that one of my constituency assistants, Hank

Pilotte, has been actively involved as a director in this outstanding

organization for five years. Another CA of mine, Montana Armstrong, has

had the pleasure of recently volunteering, delivering soup directly to

the schools.

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to all the community

partners, staff and many volunteers who work together to make this

program such a success and ensure that no child in Chilliwack goes

hungry.

I would ask the House to please join me in congratulating the

Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society, just one more reason that Chilliwack

punches above its weight.

RAISE YOUR HANDS AGAINST RACISM

CAMPAIGN BY SPICE

RADIO

R. Singh: Over the past weekend, Spice Radio organized a wonderful event to

mark their fourth annual Raise Your Hands Against Racism campaign in

Vancouver and Surrey.

The Order of B.C. recipient and Spice Radio CEO Shushma Datt had

started this initiative in 2015 on the birth anniversary of Martin

Luther King Jr. This campaign is the fusion of a fight against racism,

and Holi, a great Hindu festival of colours. Through this campaign, Datt

and her team encourage people to follow the spirit behind Holi and to

bury prejudices, like those who throw colours on each other on the

occasion to become one.

As part of this initiative, people who had assembled in Vancouver

and Surrey on Saturday, March 3, were asked to dip their hands in colour

and leave their handprints on a white paper, along with a statement

against racism. It was amazing to see how this event brought everyone

together. The event was started with a traditional song by Indigenous

activist Cecilia Point from the Musqueam band.

On this occasion, three individuals were honoured by Spice Radio

for standing up against racism and Islamophobia. Among them were Georgia

Straight editor Charlie Smith and anti-racism educator Alan Dutton. Both

of these individuals have faced racist backlash for standing up for the

rights of visible minorities. Besides, UBC professor Sunera Thobani was

honoured for raising a voice against Islamophobia.

It is important to mention that the very first annual award was

presented by the organizers to an RCMP officer and now WorkSafe B.C.

director, Baltej Singh Dhillon, who had to fight for the right to wear a

turban at a workplace.

I believe Shushma Datt deserves appreciation for standing for an

inclusive society and for making all of us understand the real

significance of Holi, which also marks the victory of good over evil,

the triumph of social justice and the right to one’s religious

beliefs.

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF

INDEPENDENT

BUSINESS

C. Oakes: British Columbia has long been working to be the most

business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. In 2015, we expanded that goal

to be the most business-friendly jurisdiction in North America. The

organization that has been driving this initiative in holding

governments accountable across the country is the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business.

The CFIB is a champion for the small business sector and advocates

for tens of thousands of entrepreneurs, who drive the economy. CFIB

vice-president Richard Truscott reminds us that red tape is a huge

hidden tax on all Canadians, but it’s small businesses that feel the

most pain. Small businesses experience red-tape frustration through

unnecessary, outdated regulation; confusing language; and rules that

just don’t make sense.

One of the strengths of the CFIB is their ability to survey their

membership and get real-time data on how small business is actually

doing. It’s surprising to learn that small businesses with fewer than

five employees are the hardest hit by red tape, costing them as much as

$6,744 per employee to comply with rules and regulations.

[2:00 p.m.]

The first Wednesday of March marks Red Tape Reduction Day in

British Columbia. More than just a day of observance, Red Tape Reduction

Day requires the government, by law, to produce an annual report on how

its efforts support a more efficient and effective government by

reviewing rules, regulations and policies that affect British

Columbians. Whether it’s social ministries or economic ministries, there

are efforts that can be made across government to support everyday

people to access government services.

Thank you, CFIB, for your leadership. The benchmarks you’ve set

out will be sure to keep us on a path to achieving the most

business-friendly jurisdiction in North America. I look forward to

reading the government’s report when it’s delivered today.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON AGRICULTURE

INDUSTRY

I. Paton: Farming is a major employer in our province, with many family

farms that operate with low margins and high payrolls. The new employer

health tax could have a significant negative impact on this industry.

Surely the Minister of Agriculture has done this assessment and is aware

of the impacts.

To the Minister of Agriculture, will she release this analysis so

British Columbians can learn how many agriculture jobs are at

risk?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the opportunity to get up and say again how proud I

am that we are eliminating MSP premiums by January 1, 2020. Supporting

individuals, including businesses and individual workers, by eliminating

those premiums will save individuals up to $900 a year and will save

families up to $1,800 a year. A good investment.

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

I. Paton: Ray and his brother Ron are fourth-generation Delta farmers from

Westcoast Vegetables right in Ladner, my hometown. They have done the

math. To quote Ray: “For our business, this new tax is almost $100,000

per year and will only go up as wages go up each year.” Greenhouse

growers like Ray and Ron never paid MSP.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture, will she come to Delta

and explain to Ray and Ron if they should increase prices to consumers

or lay off staff?

Hon. C. James: I’d remind the member again that if the individual businesses have

a payroll of under $500,000, they, in fact, won’t be paying the payroll

tax. If they have a payroll between $500,000 and $1.5 million, they’ll

be paying a portion of the employers health tax. Above $1.5 million,

they will be paying the employers health tax. We believe that will

provide the opportunity for us to continue to provide good, quality

health care for all British Columbians and make sure we’re getting rid

of a regressive tax in British Columbia.

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

I. Paton: Apparently, the Minister of Agriculture believes that profit

margins on B.C. farms are widening, that the costs of production are

remaining static and that the farmers can quite easily handle increases

in minimum wage, carbon tax and employer health tax. The viability of

these farmers is threatened, and they deserve better than the evasive

and completely dismissive response that I’ve gotten.

I’ll quote Ray again. “If this continues, the industry will slowly

leave the province.”

My question again to the Minister of Agriculture: will she stand

up, come to Delta to look these B.C. farmers in the eye and explain the

impact of this new NDP tax grab?

Hon. C. James: I’d just remind the member — and I’m sure it’ll be a benefit to

this business and to other businesses across the province — that we have

lowered the small business tax rate to the second lowest in the country,

2.5 percent to 2 percent. We are also eliminating PST on electricity to

support all businesses in British Columbia.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON NON-PROFIT

AGENCIES

J. Rustad: B.C. friendship centres provide essential services for nearly 70

percent of the Indigenous population in urban B.C. With 203 employees,

the Prince George Friendship Centre faces a tax increase of over

$190,000 because of the new NDP employer health tax.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations, what step will the

minister take to keep B.C. friendship centres whole, or will he force

them to cut services?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I see the member conveniently left out the fact that we gave an

increase in the budget to friendship centres, for the first time in this

province, in Budget 2018. We also provided support to the Moose Hide

Campaign, long term, so that they didn’t have to go month to month and

wonder where their funding was going to come from. I’m very proud of the

initiatives we’ve put in place in the budget to support friendship

centres and the incredible work they do around our province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: While the minister may give with one hand and take away with the

other, the reality is there are 25 B.C. friendship centres across the

province that deserve a clear answer. Every dollar these non-profits

have should go to the work that they do in the community and not to the

new NDP replacement tax.

In order to pay this new replacement tax, does the minister think

it’s fair for the B.C. friendship centres to have to reduce

services?

Hon. C. James: I’ll say again that organizations and groups, many of them that

are not-for-profits and others, have been paying medical services

premiums for their employees. That, in fact, has been something they

have provided.

They will save 50 percent on those medical services premiums on

January 1 this year for the entire year. Those are additional dollars

that can go into programming. In the second year, they will be paying

the employers health tax and 50 percent of the MSP. In year 3, we will

be completely eliminating the MSP, which will save groups,

organizations, businesses, families and individuals dollars in this

province.

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

INDIGENOUS CHILD WELFARE

CASE

S. Furstenau: The horrors of the residential school era and the Sixties Scoop

repeat themselves every day in this province, systematically, one

apprehension at a time. A case currently before the courts has become a

symbol for how the racist, paternalistic system functions and is seen as

a litmus test of whether this government can live up to their promises

to do better.

A mother from the Huu-ay-aht First Nation has taken the province

to the B.C. Supreme Court in an attempt to get more access to her baby,

her first child — taken from her, for no direct reason, when the infant

was three days old and still in hospital. The Supreme Court ruled that

the Ministry of Children and Families must provide the mother with daily

access to her baby girl to breastfeed. But the ministry’s lawyers were

back in court yesterday, trying to further limit this mother’s and

infant’s time together.

The minister says her goal is to keep Indigenous children in their

own homes and communities and out of care. Can the minister please

explain how this case reflects the ministry’s so-called commitment to

keep First Nations families together and to protect the mother-child

bond?

Hon. K. Conroy: The overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care is

unacceptable, and it needs to change. For too long, there have been

systemic, wide assumptions and practices that have failed Indigenous

children and their families.

I thank the member for raising this and for meeting with me on

numerous occasions. I know the member is well aware that I can’t speak

to specifics of the case because of the Child, Family and Community

Service Act. However, I think the safety and well-being of children in

our province — and reducing the number of Indigenous children in care —

are priorities that we both share. We are working with our Indigenous

partners in B.C. to change how we deliver services, to keep children and

families together, and to ensure that their cultures and traditions are

still with them.

Since last year, the number of Indigenous children in care has

been reduced by 100 kids. Those kids are no longer in care. We’ve also

increased the rate of Indigenous family representation, meaning that

fewer kids are coming into care. We are making progress, but I think

that it’s still too slow. There’s so much more we can do. This is why we

need to redouble our efforts, and we need to seek ways to ensure that we

are working with our Indigenous partners.

[2:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: A briefing paper released yesterday by West Coast LEAF legal

association highlights how the ministry is failing to meet their legal

obligations under

section 2 of the Child, Family and Community Service

Act, which states: “If, with available support services, a family can

provide a safe and nurturing environment for a child, support services

should be provided.” This government is neglecting the preventative,

supportive

section of the act and, as a result, is overusing the child

apprehension section, especially in First Nations

communities.

Less than 8 percent of all Canadian children under 14 are

Indigenous, but they comprise nearly 65 percent of all children in

foster care in British Columbia.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development, what specific

direction is the minister prepared to give to her ministry staff right

now that indicates her commitment to preserving families, in particular

where the maternal bond and the right of an infant to breastfeed are at

risk?

Hon. K. Conroy: I, too, agree that we need to work with Ottawa to ensure that

there is funding in place for all Indigenous people in this province and

that the kids will benefit from that. Again, that is why we need to

redouble our efforts in working with our Indigenous partners.

Sometimes individual cases can teach us how to do things better,

and sometimes each case is unique. As I said, I can’t speak to those

cases, but I know there are many people that are working together in

this province to balance the need for keeping kids safe and keeping kids

and their families together, especially when it comes to

newborns.

The decision to remove a child is never taken lightly, and it is

made to reduce a risk to a child. Whenever possible, we try to keep the

family together.

Interjections.

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

Hon. K. Conroy: We also try to place the child with extended family or people who

know the child and can provide safety and security. Whenever there is

more than one nation involved, we work to ensure both nations are

involved in the decisions that are going to be particularly beneficial

to the child.

I also know these decisions and this work is difficult for social

workers. I’ve heard from many social workers who are frustrated with the

system. We need to ensure there are supports and tools in place so that

we can work to change the system with our Indigenous

partners.

This means looking at policies and legislation that are in place.

This is difficult work, but we are committed to it. We are committed to

making the changes that need to be made.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SENIORS CARE

FACILITIES

J. Isaacs: The NDP’s new employer health tax will have a significant negative

impact on seniors care homes in our province. According to Daniel

Fontaine, CEO of B.C. Care Providers, care homes face an unexpected,

ongoing net tax increase of up to $150,000.

To the Minister of Health, is there money in his budget to cover

this increased replacement tax for B.C. care providers, yes or

no?

Hon. C. James: I’d like to know where every one of those members on the other

side was when the MSP premiums were doubled in this province. When

families, when individuals, when not-for-profits, when other

organizations were struggling, there was absolute silence from the other

side about any of those issues.

We, in fact, are getting rid of that regressive tax. The employers

will be able to save the 50 percent as of now, January 1. Those are

dollars that they get to keep in their budgets. In the second year, they

will pay the employers tax and the MSP, 50 percent, and in the third

year, there is an elimination of the MSP, saving them those dollars. We

think that’s a fair system, supports health care and, most importantly,

supports families and individuals in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

J. Isaacs: We’re talking about net effect. I think B.C. care providers

understand the impacts of this higher replacement tax a lot differently

than the minister does. To quote Daniel Fontaine: “Many of our members

are concerned that they will be facing significant new costs related to

the employers health tax and are unsure where the funding will come from

to pay for it.”

This is a simple question for the Minister of Health. Is there

money in the budget to pay for this significant new cost, yes or

no?

Hon. C. James: I am very proud to talk about our investments for seniors that are

in Budget 2018. We are investing in seniors care. We, in fact, are

increasing the support time for seniors by increasing the amount of

resources. We are supporting home care, as well, for seniors, as well as

mental health supports. We are investing in seniors in this province, in

this budget, in this year.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

T. Stone: Nature’s Fare Markets up in Kamloops is proudly celebrating its

25th anniversary. This is a business that actually employees 450 people

in communities all across this province — in Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna,

West Kelowna, Penticton, Langley and White Rock. This family-run

business will have to pay an additional $2 million a year due to the

NDP’s replacement tax.

Will the Minister of Finance explain to this organic foods

business why her ill-conceived replacement tax is being imposed on them

with absolutely no consultation?

Hon. C. James: A $1.3 billion loss in ICBC. That’s the issue that we have to deal

with. I’m sure the member would like me to forget to raise that every

time he stands up, but the taxpayers aren’t going to forget that,

because it has an impact on the budget this year and next year and the

year after — because of the mess they left.

Getting rid of the MSP, supporting families and individuals will

put more money in their pockets and will support small businesses in

those communities as the money is spent in the communities.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: What an absolutely dismissive response to a legitimate concern

that a small business that employs 450 British Columbians is concerned

about — an additional $2 million hit to their bottom line because of

this government’s tax.

According to Michael Sherwood: “To put this tax in perspective, we

will be lucky to survive to our 30th year in business.” This

hard-working small business deserves respect, and they deserve an actual

answer from this minister.

When will the minister admit that she was wrong? When will she

scrap this new replacement tax, a tax that will have a devastating

impact on small businesses and the B.C. economy?

Hon. C. James: We are dealing with the devastation of the impact of that member

and the other side of the House when it comes to our budget, and that’s

a reality for British Columbians.

Let’s look at the employers tax. Eighty-five percent of businesses

will not pay the employers health tax — 85 percent — and 5 percent of

businesses will pay the full amount of tax. We believe that that’s a

fair approach to get rid of a regressive tax — to support families, to

support individuals and to support health care in British

Columbia.

M. Stilwell: The Milner Group is a local construction company in my community

that feels like it is being punished with the new employer health tax.

The net cost of the new employer health tax is over $55,000. Does the

Finance Minister think that this construction company should increase

prices to the consumers or lay off the hard-working staff?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As other provinces have done — in fact, as every other province

has done — we are eliminating MSP premiums. Every other province across

this country. As other provinces have done, we are bringing in an

employers health tax.

We have the lowest employers health tax rate in the country. We

are supporting small businesses by making sure that those with payrolls

under $500,000 will not be paying the employers health tax. Other

businesses will contribute toward health care and the important services

that all British Columbians rely on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: I think the House needs to be clear that we’re not eliminating

MSP. You’re replacing MSP with the new health care payroll

tax.

The minister shouldn’t be so dismissive with her responses of

local businesses that are the job creators in our communities. They have

true concerns. I know the NDP might like to look down on these kind of

jobs, but we’re talking about a local construction company that employs

dozens of workers.

Again, will the minister address how she thinks local businesses

like this should address the additional $55,000 increase to their net

bottom line? Should they raise their prices or lay off their

hard-working staff?

Hon. C. James: On behalf of the government, the directions we are taking to

support businesses in British Columbia include our historic investments

in housing and in child care, which will support investments.

We are investing $15.8 billion in capital projects like schools

and hospitals and roads, creating good jobs and supporting business and

a strong economy in British Columbia. We are eliminating PST on

electricity, we are reducing small business taxes, we are continuing to

ensure that we have a growing economy, and we are ensuring that that

prosperity is shared with all British Columbians.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON MUNICIPAL

BUDGETS

S. Gibson: In 2019, the NDP’s employer health tax will cost the city of

Abbotsford an additional $1.7 million.

Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs explain to my constituents

why they’ll have to pay higher property taxes to replace the

MSP?

Hon. C. James: I would suggest that the member talk to his constituents about the

$900 and the $1,800 that they’re going to save when MSP premiums are

eliminated in British Columbia.

We have given a year’s implementation. We are continuing

discussions. We know that families are going to be saving those

resources in their communities, spending those dollars in small

businesses and supporting our economy to continue to grow in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Abbotsford-Mission on a supplemental.

S. Gibson: The district of Mission, also in my riding, will be hit hard as

well, with a $356,000 employer health tax bill. Residents will pay more

in property taxes because of this new NDP replacement tax. But the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission has been silent.

Again to the minister, does she think it’s fair to force residents

of Mission to pay higher property taxes?

Hon. C. James: What is fair is supporting families and supporting individuals

with money in their pockets by 2020. What is fair is getting rid of

tolls on bridges so the people in that member’s community can travel

without paying the toll — a fair process, like the rest of British

Columbia. What is fair is putting a major investment into child care and

into housing, which will help all the families all across this

province.

[2:25 p.m.]

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON TOURISM

INDUSTRY

D. Clovechok: Steve Paccagnan is the president and CEO of Panorama Mountain

Village, a world-class ski resort right in my riding and in the

Kootenays. Like so many, Steve has just recently discovered that he will

be hit with an additional $160,000 worth of tax from this new employer

health tax. On top of this, of course, the arbitrary change that came

from the change in Family Day also hurts skiing and tourism in my

riding.

The question to the Minister of Tourism, which I’m going to direct

now to the Minister of Finance, because I’m kind of getting the sense

that is who’s going to be answering this question…. In order to pay the

additional $160,000, to the Minister of Tourism, can you tell Steve

whether he should raise prices or just start laying off

people?

Hon. C. James: Again, I would say to the member, as I said to the previous

member, that people having more money in their pockets is an opportunity

to spend money in places like the business that the member is talking

about.

A savings to businesses who have been paying MSP, and to families,

of 50 percent January 1 of this year; a complete elimination of the MSP

premiums, supporting small businesses; the lowest employers health tax

rate in this country; and supporting health care spending — we think

that’s support for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

D. Clovechok: It’s hard to imagine support of British Columbians when they’re

going to lose their jobs. Let me just quote from Steve Paccagnan here:

“We are faced with looking at our head count and potential job

reductions as a result of our added taxes by ‘our provincial

government.’” That seems pretty clear to me. A major social and economic

contributor to my region is being forced to look at job reductions

because of the actions of the NDP.

Again, my question is to the Tourism Minister, vis-à-vis the

Finance Minister. Will they both come to the Kootenays and meet with

employers and workers in the tourism industry whose livelihoods are

being threatened by this tax?

Hon. C. James: I would once again suggest to the member that he talk to the

business about the reduction in small business tax that benefits that

business and all businesses across British Columbia. I would remind the

member that in the budget, in 2019, we completely eliminate PST on

electricity, supporting businesses all across British

Columbia.

And one of the biggest areas that we heard from businesses in

British Columbia was to make investments in housing and child care. We

are doing that to support a growing economy in our province.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON MUNICIPAL

BUDGETS

T. Shypitka: The NDP is about to claw back MSP savings announced by the

previous B.C. Liberal government. Plus they’re going to charge the city

of Cranbrook tens of thousands of dollars more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Shypitka: The new employer health tax will cost Cranbrook $240,000

annually.

Question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: should residents in

Cranbrook be forced to pay more property taxes to replace the

MSP?

Hon. C. James: I would remind the member…. Perhaps he didn’t read the budget from

the previous members across the way when they were government, but in

fact, they were proposing only eliminating part of MSP and only on

partial British Columbians. It was impossible to implement the direction

the previous government proposed that they were going to move on. We

took real action, and we’re eliminating 50 percent on MSP premiums for

all British Columbians. It is in fact a move that British Columbians

have been calling for.

Leaving our province as the only province with a regressive tax —

whether you made $60,000 or you made $600,000, you paid the same amount

in MSP. That’s what’s not fair, Member. That’s why we’re making the

changes. That’s why we’re bringing in the employers health tax, and

that’s why we’re supporting funding for health care.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East on a supplemental.

T. Shypitka: I’d like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for expanding her

parliamentary portfolio. It looks like she’s got Tourism, Agriculture

and Municipal Affairs here, wrapped up under one blanket there — the

talking head of all the other side.

Cranbrook will pay more, a lot more, under the B.C. NDP’s new

employer health tax. This is a tax on everyone that will force

communities like Cranbrook to raise property taxes.

Once again, will the minister explain to my constituents why they

have to pay increased property taxes for the new higher NDP replacement

tax?

Hon. C. James: Well, only the members on the other side would look at a $900

savings for individuals, an $1,800 savings for families and suggest that

somehow that’s an increase. I really don’t understand how the member can

even suggest that.

We are making life more affordable for families, we are improving

services that people count on, and we are supporting building a strong,

sustainable economy with jobs in every corner of British Columbia.

That’s what our budget is about, and that’s why we’re so proud to be

government.

[End of question period.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery, although they left just before the end of

question period, were 28 members of the ministry’s land remediation section.

They’re hard-working. They do important work for British Columbians. They’re

still in the precinct. I’m happy they were able to observe one of the finest

question period performances we’ve ever witnessed in this Legislature. Would

the House please join me in making them very, very welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

of Transportation. In Committee A, Douglas Fir, I call continued estimates

debate for the Ministry of Agriculture.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $890,092,000

(continued) .

The Chair: The member for….

T. Stone: Kamloops–South Thompson.

Interjection.

T. Stone: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go, Kamloops, go.

This Kamloopsian has a question. I just wanted to ask a couple

quick questions. I say “quick.” They will be quick. I know I have a bit

of a track record of quick questions being maybe a bit

longer.

I want to ask about the four-laning east of Kamloops. I just want

some clarity on what the current timelines are for construction to begin

and construction to be finished on the three sections of the four-laning

project immediately east of Kamloops. It’s the next three sections that

are contiguous to the four-laning that’s been done to this

point.

This was a $199 million project that has been previously

announced. All the funding is in place. Two of the three sections

involve federal funding, as the minister knows well. We talked about

this in the estimates last fall. The middle

section will go to tender

first, and then it would be followed, I believe, by the easternmost

section and then the westernmost section.

Could the minister please provide current timetables for me as to,

again, when construction will start on each of these three sections and

when the construction is anticipated to be completed for each of these

three sections?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much to the member for his question. As the member

knows, there has been quite a lot of work going on in this area, and our

government is committed to making sure that it proceeds apace and that

we are working right the way through the whole Highway 1 corridor to the

Alberta border.

On the specific areas that he was asking for, about Chase, there

are three sections, as the member said. The first one which is happening

is Chase to Chase West. I think the member is aware that there has been

a lot of interest in the community about how it’s going to impact their

community, so the ministry staff have been working diligently with the

community to try and get the solutions that work specifically for the

community and responding to needs.

There was an open house, and as a result of the open house there

are some modifications being done to that. But we’re also still

discussing some questions with First Nations. We’re finalizing with

First Nations. But the target is that it will go to tender this summer

and be complete by 2020 — so within two years.

The second

section that the member was interested in is the Chase

West to Jade section. It’s basically running a progressive project, so

that will go to tender as the other one is completing — that’s 2020 —

with the completion date of that

section by about 2022.

The third stage is the Hoffmann’s Bluff to Chase. That’s a little

more complex. We’re working closely with the First Nations, obviously,

because this whole

section goes through Neskonlith territory and we want

to make sure that everything is in place for the First Nations on this

section of highway.

T. Stone: Just so I’m clear…. I appreciate the minister’s response there.

The first section, which is the Chase to Chase West, would appear to

still be on track to be completed by 2020. I believe that was the

original time frame, so that’s good.

[2:45 p.m.]

The second section, which is the Chase Creek to Jade Mountain, if

I heard the minister correctly, is to be completed in 2022, which I

believe is one year later than it was originally supposed to be. And

then the third and final section. I’m not sure if I…. Perhaps she did

mention a date, and I didn’t catch it.

Could she just confirm that I got the first two dates right? And

then the third section, which is the Hoffman’s to Chase Creek — what is

the anticipated completion date for that section?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, just for clarification

for him: as the member is aware, we are talking about three sections of

highway that are contiguous. It’s a bit confusing, because phase 1 is

the one that’s in the middle, phase 2 is the one that is on the east,

and phase 3 is the one that is on the west of the highway. However, it

is being looked at as a package.

There has been a lot of community consultation and stakeholder

engagement in phase 1. As I say, we have been having open houses. That

centre section. That redesign has meant that there have to be changes in

design to phase 2, because it all fits together. There is also still

work happening — some technical engineering work, as well as working

with First Nations — on stage 2.

While we are anticipating finishing, as I said, in 2022, we are

hoping that we’ll be able to catch up time as we get on with the

project, because we’re looking at it as one project.

The third phase. We are working very closely, obviously, with the

First Nations. Until we have agreement with the First Nations…. We don’t

want to presuppose what the agreement would be and set deadlines on

those discussions or on the outcome. But we are looking at this as one

piece of the highway project, so working as fast as possible on it

all.

The thing is that we do need to get it…. We’re doing this

significant work, as the member is very well aware, right across the

highway from the east coming to the west and ending in Kamloops. It’s

very significant work. We are working a lot, obviously, with First

Nations. We want to work in partnership with First Nations. We have a

lot of geotechnical issues. We have to make sure that this is being done

right. We will work to ensure that that is being done right. It’s a

major investment for the whole of the province.

T. Stone: I understand, then, that the middle

section — 2020, it should be

completed. The easternmost section, which will go second, still has some

detailed engineering underway and some final design changes based on

feedback from stakeholders. The new completion date or target date at

this point is 2022. Then the westernmost section, which is the

section

that I think entirely goes through the Neskonlith Indian reserve, may be

longer than that.

I guess I’m still looking for…. When that project was announced,

and they were announced as a package — I was the minister who announced

it — it was in the summer of 2015. At that time, and up until, I think,

recently, the expectation or the understanding was that we were on a

track for that westernmost

section to be completed by 2021 or

What I’m hearing is that due to the engagement and the

consultations, which I absolutely understand and agree are very

important and often can’t be rushed in order to get them right…. Those

discussions with the Neskonlith First Nation — and, beyond the band

council, with all the locatees, as well, that have to sign off through

this

section 55 process — could take some time.

Can she give me a new date as to what that projected completion

date now is that the ministry is working towards for that third and

final section?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: If the member is looking for dates, we are targeting completion by

2023. But as the member is well aware, that is contingent on

section 35

transfers.

The Neskonlith First Nation is working on its land use plan.

There’ll have to be land transfers from the reserve. They have to,

obviously, engage Ottawa in this, so there is still a lot of work to be

done, sensitively, in partnership — and, as I say, to do it

right.

T. Stone: I appreciate the minister’s response. I did ask this exact

question in October of 2017, so last October. It was in the context of

ongoing discussions with Neskonlith and locatees, and so forth. I did

ask if the minister was anticipating that the 2022 date for this segment

in question was in jeopardy in any way. Her exact words were: “…there is

no anticipation at this moment that there would be any delay in the 2022

completion of the project.”

What I’m hearing today is that since October there have obviously

been some additional concerns or considerations with First Nations that

have caused the ministry to reconfigure its

schedule or projected

completion date for this particular

section by a full year, pushing it

out to 2023.

So two final questions. The first one…. Again, this is the last

piece specific to these three projects and, in fact, it’s in relation to

the middle section. There has been a tremendous amount of concern

expressed by the village of Chase in their discussions with the ministry

specifically related to access in and out of their community. I would

hope that the minister would agree with me that when you do these big

four-lane projects, one of the intended outcomes is to actually

facilitate better access in and out of communities, not make access

worse.

The village of Chase and the council in particular — but the

public, also, in a number of public meetings that have been held — have

expressed a significant amount of concern that access will actually be

compromised as a result of that middle section. The original plan was to

have a full interchange, first, at Coburn. That was then changed, to put

a full interchange at Brooke.

There was some talk, originally, of there being some additional

access, westbound access at Shuswap, and now that appears to be in

jeopardy. At least, that’s the understanding in the village of Chase.

There has also been some talk about, potentially, some additional

westbound access on the west of town but, again, no confirmation from

the ministry that that will be worked into the final design.

Then I did ask the minister last October about emergency access,

so if there wasn’t the ability to have a full interchange at Brooke and

Coburn, if there could at least….

[3:00 p.m.]

If Brooke was the decision of the ministry, then the village was

very, very interested in exploring whether or not some form of emergency

access could be provided at Coburn, recognizing that the first

responders, and paramedics in particular, are based right down by

Coburn. In order to more rapidly respond — as they often do, on the

Trans-Canada Highway — to any incidents that happen east of the village,

emergency access at Coburn would be very beneficial to not just those in

the community but to any travellers on the Trans-Canada

Highway.

Could the minister indicate, in terms of the final work that’s

underway with respect to the design and engineering on this middle

section, and in respect of the access concerns that have been raised by

the village of Chase: what are her thoughts? What are the minister’s

thoughts around the village of Chase’s concerns, which have been

expressed in a number of mediums, as to where the ministry is going to

land on the access — which they would like to see improved, not

compromised, as a result of this project — in and out of the village of

Chase?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s first point, and his concerns about the work on

section 3 of the four-laning, the Hoffman’s Bluff section, as a former

minister, he should be very well aware of how long it sometimes does

take when you want to work to ensure that all parties are fully engaged.

Specifically, when you’re talking to First Nations, and you’re taking a

piece of road directly through their reserve, it is a very sensitive

negotiation. As a former minister, it’s not something…. He must be very

well aware of facing these sorts of concerns himself. I’m surprised that

he’s surprised.

Likewise, the discussions about Chase and what’s been happening at

Chase. I know that the village has been very concerned. These

discussions have been going on for more than two years — how the access

will work. It overlaps our both holding this honoured office, so that

has been going on for some time.

What we’re getting down to — it seems that the village is

accepting of this and the emergency responders are accepting of this —

is a full interchange at Brook and emergency vehicle access at

Coburn.

As I’m sure the member is well aware, the ministry staff have

regular meetings with the village on this. They’re going to be meeting

again in a couple of weeks to work through it. One of the reasons that

things have taken time is…. As I say, this started two years ago, but

the village has been wanting to make sure that its voice has been well

heard. I hope that it has been, and I think that we’re getting to a

stage where we really can move on with this design.

T. Stone: Well, I will pass along, for the minister’s information, that as

of yesterday, in speaking with the mayor of Chase, they’re not 100

percent satisfied that the final design is moving in a direction that is

going to work for them. That is what it is. I do know that the ministry

staff have been working very, very hard on the ground out of the

Kamloops office. I certainly appreciate that. I know the village does

very much as well.

I would like to ask if the minister would be willing to meet with

the village of Chase, with the mayor and council. She has met them. She

met them at the UBCM last September. There was a commitment coming out

of that meeting that she would stop in Chase on her way through, and I

think the minister was unable to. I think it would go a long way if the

minister would be willing to accept an invitation.

The mayor said to me yesterday: “If you could please ask the

minister again, we’d be more than willing to come down to Victoria and

meet with her in her Victoria Legislature office during session.” So if

I could perhaps leave that with you, and if you could take that up, I

think that would go a long way.

The final piece that I just wanted to touch on was this. We talked

a bit yesterday — the minister and a few of my colleagues — about what

acceleration meant in terms of the Trans-Canada Highway. The main reason

I’m trying to understand the new completion dates for the sections east

of Kamloops is because I understand the complexities with locatees and

negotiations with First Nations, and I certainly get that part of

it.

We’ve heard that the Hoffmann’s Bluff to Chase Creek

section is

being…. Delayed is probably not necessarily exactly the accurate term,

but the completion date is one year later than it was when the project

was originally announced.

We know that there are some other sections. Salmon Arm west is a

year later than originally announced, in terms of its completion date.

When we canvassed the minister on the Kicking Horse phase 4 project, she

actually confirmed that the project was on schedule, which is good. But

nowhere in there are we seeing where the acceleration is taking place,

as per the minister’s commitments.

I’m just wondering if she could take one more shot at helping us

understand on this side. We’re certainly not seeing it in the form of

completion dates being brought forward. If anything, completion dates of

previously announced projects are being pushed out. We haven’t heard any

new projects being announced that perhaps could represent acceleration.

Could the minister please take one more opportunity to explain to us

what she means when she talks about accelerating projects on the

Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think what the members opposite haven’t quite grasped on, when

we’re talking about accelerating, is that it’s not just accelerating or

working on the specific projects that have already been announced and

looking at that as the benchmark; it’s the number of projects, and it’s

investment in these projects.

As I had mentioned yesterday, we’re working not just west to east

but east to west. I was mentioning to the member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke the work that we’re doing there and the plans that we

have there.

We have a number more projects that are now in the planning stage

that were not in the planning stage before that we will be working

towards. We are investing almost half a billion dollars extra in this

current three-year plan than was invested previously, which will allow

us to work more on more projects.

So where the previous government seemed to be working on the

west-to-east part, we are working very significantly on the

east-to-west. And the acceleration means not just the projects that have

already been announced by a previous government but new projects that

we’ll be announcing in the coming months, which will accelerate, because

there will be many more projects happening along the whole of the

corridor, not just those that were previously announced.

[3:15 p.m.]

T. Stone: To the minister, thank you for your response. I understand, then,

that we should and British Columbians should anticipate a number of net

new projects to be announced in the forthcoming months. If indeed that’s

the case, that’s good news. That will be good news for all of our

constituents through the Trans-Canada part of our province.

Final two pieces. One, I just want to make sure I heard correctly

in her last response. Did she say a net additional $500 million over

three years? If she could say yes or no to that. Then the last thing —

because they will crucify me if I don’t ask this of you — if you could

just please commit, on the record, to meeting with the mayor and council

in the village of Chase at your earliest opportunity, that would be

much, much appreciated.

Thanks again for answering the questions, and thanks to your

staff, as always, for the great work that they do.

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies to the member. Of course I’ll meet with the mayor in the

village. I apologize to them for not having been able to stop on my way

through. I do regret that.

Yes, to clarify, it is almost a half-billion in total. It’s $191

million of new money that we’re talking about. But we are

looking….

Interjection.

Hon. C. Trevena: Over three years — $191 million net new over three years. We are

absolutely committed to this. It is something that I’ll continue to

fight for.

We’re also hoping to leverage some federal funds for this. It is

important. This corridor is important. When we’re talking about

accelerating, as I say, we’re talking about new projects and increasing

the pace of the projects.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for giving me some time. A few questions — a

couple of brief ones, just some follow-up from yesterday.

Yesterday the minister was talking about the new contract that was

at service area 11, most notably the East Kootenay Mainroad’s contract,

and the new minor differences that are coming out in some of the new

regulation. I don’t want to take up any real time here, but I was just

wondering if the minister would be receptive to sending me a report on

the differences between the two contracts so I can get back to my

constituents and let them know what the differences are and what they

could maybe expect on an upgrade of that contract — just a report on

that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. What we were just talking

about…. Maybe what would be very helpful would be if the regional

director came out to meet with the member in his constituency office and

go through the standards in the service contract. We did mention

yesterday that his region was the pilot and that the new service

contract is very similar. There are only a couple very small differences

in the new service contracts that are being tendered starting now. So he

was the test case.

As I say, if the regional director can come out, talk with you….

Maybe you want to go out on the road with him, so the member can best

explain his concerns and staff can show exactly what is happening on the

ground — if that would perhaps help solve some of these

issues.

We can send the difference, but the member will see only a very

slight difference between what he’s already seeing in the standards in

the current contract and what are going to be in the new standards for

the rest of the province. They are minor changes.

T. Shypitka: That would be great, just a report on the differences. There are

standards in our contract now. There are proposed standards that are

maybe being implemented. I would just like to show something on paper to

my constituents — what those differences are. So if the minister would

be cool with that, then that would be great for my constituents. She’s

nodding, so that’s a yes.

Another thing that was brought up yesterday was on an internal

audit that was done recently in the service area 11. I believe it was a

group from the Island or from the Lower Mainland somewhere. I would just

like to ask the minister about the results of the audit — how she felt

the audit went, if it was it a passing grade and they were comfortable

with how the regional area is conducting their oversight — and if I

could possibly get a copy of that audit.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. The auditors have done their

fieldwork. But there is now due diligence being done to make sure that

it’s been done properly. It’s just to check that everything across the

province is being viewed with the same lens — that you’re not being

unfair there. So the results aren’t complete. We’re just doing, I guess,

what would be sort of…. It’s called a consistency review within the

ministry, but it is essentially quality control.

[3:25 p.m.]

When it is public, obviously, when it’s complete, I’ll be happy to

share it with the member. It isn’t complete yet. Perhaps when he meets

with the regional director, when the regional director comes to visit,

they can talk about the audit at that time. By then, hopefully, we’ll

have it complete.

T. Shypitka: Any idea of when the review would be completed? Is this going

across the board right now, I guess, across the province?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The audit process, as we were talking of yesterday, is very

comprehensive. There is the provincial level. Those are the people in

the member’s constituency who have come from the Island. Then there’s

the local level — local staff keeping an eye on and monitoring what is

happening. Then there are the stakeholders. As I mentioned, I’m sure

that the member got approached — local elected officials, emergency

services and others who are using the roads a lot and aware, and who

interact with a lot of people. It is very comprehensive.

The consistency report will not be actually finalized and shared

within the ministry until May. However, the preliminary results will be

ready somewhat sooner.

As I say, the regional director, if he comes out — possibly when

we are having a break from the legislative session — will be able to

share with the member the preliminary results, which obviously will have

relevance because we’re still in winter. By May, even in the East

Kootenays, spring is starting. We’ve already got spring here in

Victoria. I know that there is that sense that we need to be able to

deal with it right now and that we need to have answers right

now.

[3:30 p.m.]

If I can offer, in a couple of weeks, a meeting with the regional

director, they’ll be able to have a conversation about the preliminary

results of the audit.

T. Shypitka: I’ll still be, probably, building snow forts with my kids in May

up in the East Kootenays there. We have a long winter season. Okay,

well, thank you very much for that.

A final question. Comprehensive, you were saying, about these

internal reports. Very timely — they take a little bit of time to do.

Some will argue that internal audits are perhaps a little biased — i.e.,

government within government doing these internal audits. Is the

minister receptive to the idea of an independent audit to look after

oversight, to ensure that the contractors are doing their job, to ensure

that everything is working properly, in an arm’s-length fashion, away

from government? It’s so that there are no biases. You know, it’s just

better oversight on the whole process.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s specific question: we have a system in place which

is conducted by professional civil servants, public servants. People who

work for the ministry, who’ve got no axe to grind, are coming out and

doing independent oversight of operations within the ministry. That goes

both down to the ground and up through to the executive.

I think it is a very good way of operating. We have the checks and

balances, we have the local teams working, and we have the independent

teams working. As I say, we have a professional civil service who do

this.

I know that I’m meeting with the member tomorrow, and we’ll be

able to have much more conversation about this, but the member obviously

needs to get things on the record to take home. I look forward to that

meeting. I understand that we have more than 1,000 monitoring records we

can share with him if he so chooses.

I’d just like to acknowledge, really, that it has been a hard

winter. Our staff worked above and beyond. There was one of our staff

who was monitoring, an operations manager in the East Kootenay region,

who was out at four on a Saturday morning — unpaid, four kids at home in

bed — to check on what the maintenance contractor was doing. The

maintenance contractor doesn’t know that anyone is out there. He was up

at four in the morning because he knew it was important to make sure

that the roads were being cleared and that the area was safe. He felt it

was his job to check on what the maintenance contractor was doing —

without pay, just doing it. It’s because people care about their jobs. I

have trust in that.

As a minister, I also am very aware that we’ve had a lot of

questions about highway maintenance in the member’s own constituency and

around the province, this winter in particular, but over many months. I

have asked staff to make sure that we are doing beyond due diligence,

that we are making sure that those maintenance contractors are working,

really, to the very depths of their contract and that everything that we

have been asking them to do is being done, that no corners are

cut.

Our highways are vital for all of us, and safety on our highways.

Whether it is brushing — as the member for Prince George–Valemount

mentioned yesterday — or snow clearance and ice that the member has

concerns about, we need to make sure that that’s happening. Our staff on

the ground are dedicated, hard-working professionals who care about the

communities they live in.

T. Shypitka: I guess what I’m hearing is that the minister is satisfied with

the oversight that’s being provided right now at the ministry and that

she will not entertain the idea or the notion of an independent

audit.

I’ll tell you the issue and the problem that I have, and maybe

this might make a little bit more sense. Service area 11, or the East

Kootenay Mainroad contract, just came up recently and was renewed to

some different standards. The minister said here that those standards in

that contract are quite similar to, perhaps, the ones that are also

being brought forward, meaning that the standards in Kootenay East are

pretty much what the new standards will be.

Now, the ministry has given our contractor a 95 percent

performance rating, meaning that 95 percent of the time, they meet or

exceed standards. Yet the constituents aren’t happy. Is the contractor

not doing their job? They must be doing their job, if the minister is

satisfied with the oversight and that standards are raised to the level

that they will be reflected throughout B.C., with minor

differences.

[3:40 p.m.]

Will new standards have to be put in place? I say that it’s better

for everyone if we cleared the air, had an independent audit so that

everybody understands what’s going on, and there are no questions at the

end of the day. I’ve got, quite honestly, people yelling about

privatization versus putting it back in-house. That’s expensive, and

maybe we don’t want to go there. I don’t know. Maybe we do. It’s up to

the minister on those decisions.

I think it would be an easier play to do an independent audit to

see where we sit as far as oversight is concerned within the

ministry.

Hon. C. Trevena: I find it very interesting that the member for Kootenay East is

talking about bringing the contracting back into government.

I would like to also remind the member that we are working with

the standards that were actually introduced when that member wasn’t in

the government but the opposition was the government. These are

standards that were brought in under the previous government, and they

were acceptable to the previous government. It was a contract that was

renewed under the previous government.

I am very aware that in the member’s constituency, in the East

Kootenay region, there has been a huge amount of concern this winter and

in previous seasons about the way that those standards have been

maintained. I know that around the province, there is concern about how

contractors maintain the standards.

That’s why I, as the minister, as one of my first acts…. I have a

lot of first acts, but you come here with a lot of ideas and a lot of

concerns when you become a minister. One of the issues for highways…. My

concern — having been the shadow minister, the critic, and also

representing a rural area — was road and highway maintenance.

There is extra oversight now. I think that we want to see what

comes out of this review that has been going on. I have been asking

staff to make sure that there is that extra oversight, and I want to see

how this plays out.

Maybe somewhere down the road, having an independent audit, going

to the Auditor General — who did actually do a review of the maintenance

contracts back in 2011…. That may, down the road, be something that the

member wants to approach the Auditor General on.

At the moment, I want to see how things play out. We have a system

in place. We have diligent public servants who are trying to make that

system work — diligent and, at times, very under-resourced. We have

extra money going into our budget. For the first time in 16 years, there

is more money going into the Ministry of Transportation’s budget. Still,

like most ministries of this government, it has been starved for 16

years.

[3:45 p.m.]

It is trying to build up. We have hard-working people, like the

operations manager who is willing to go out at four in the morning to

make sure that the maintenance contracts work. At the moment, I’m

satisfied with that. I will continue to monitor. I look forward to the

reports coming in, and I look forward to sharing them with the member. I

look forward to continuing this conversation tomorrow, when we’re off

the record, because I know he’s got many more ideas and many more

issues.

D. Barnett: First, Minister, I would just like to say that the staff of the

Cariboo region with the Ministry of Transportation are some of the best

staff in British Columbia. I have, certainly, nothing but the highest

regard and the highest respect for the staff in the region.

Secondly, our maintenance contractor does a great job. I’m sure

you get complaints, but you know, it is winter. People that move to

rural British Columbia from the Lower Mainland don’t understand that

when the snow comes down, you buy good tires, you drive a little slower,

and you respect the roads a little better. When I hear, from time to

time, the continuous complaints about contractors…. I’ve lived there for

50 years, and I can tell you, Minister, that they do a good job. If you

don’t want to live in rural British Columbia, where it snows, then I

suggest you don’t.

I would like to say that we’ve got some great projects that our

government put in place in my riding. One is a partnership with the

Williams Lake Indian Band on Highway 97, a $47 million project that’s

been ongoing for two years. It has been a project that has really and

truly helped our communities, and it has brought some really good

economic benefits to the Williams Lake Indian Band. I sincerely hope

that these partnerships carry on.

The project will be finished, hopefully, in 2018, and we have

another project — the contract was signed in June of last year — on the

north end of Williams Lake. Again, it is a great project, and I look

forward to completion of these projects.

A couple of the questions I have…. As you know, I am very

passionate about rural British Columbia. We had a great rural strategy

put in place, with commitments in there for highways, for $133 million

over the next three years for the Cariboo connector. Will the Cariboo

connector be receiving these funds, and will the Cariboo connector

continue on with improvements?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the questions from the member. I also acknowledge,

living in rural B.C., that even though we don’t get the snow, we’re also

very well aware of our maintenance contractors and those who keep our

highways clear and our roads operating. Rural B.C. is a place that one

is proud of living in and representing. So it’s not just north of Hope,

but it’s right across the Island and up the coast too.

I’m really proud that this budget, Budget 2018, has the most

dollars for this ministry over three years in more than 16 years — an

increase. The budget this year is increasing by $46½ million. It’s a

significant increase throughout the province that we’re

seeing.

We are absolutely ensuring that we continue planning on projects

through the Cariboo. We are going to be completing, most likely…. And I

say “most likely.” We are planning to complete, this year, the

section

on the Cariboo connector from Williams Lake to Lexington as well as the

Stone Creek to Williams Road, and we are continuing the Carson to

Toop.

I’d just like to acknowledge the excellent relationship that the

ministry has with Williams Lake Indian Band on the highway projects and

throughout. The ministry works extraordinarily closely with First

Nations. Obviously, when you’re working through First Nations land,

there are very close negotiations, discussions and work that has to go

on. Beyond that, the ministry is, I think, extraordinarily progressive

in its approach to working with First Nations. I’m looking forward to

seeing how that expands over the coming number of years too.

D. Barnett: My question is: is there still going to be $133 million in the

three-year budget to continue on the Cariboo connector from Cache Creek

to Prince George?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, 50 percent of the Cariboo connector is now

multi-lanes — outside of three or four lanes. There’s been a significant

amount of work that has gone into it.

We are looking…. As I say, we’re continuing to plan on other

projects. We, in fact, had a very successful open house a couple of

weeks ago in Quesnel to look at what could be done in that section,

where 900 people came. There’s obviously a great appetite in that

community for work.

We have in our budget line $686 million for the province. We are

working our priorities, but I can assure the member that we are still

planning projects on the Cariboo connector.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for handling all those questions from

individual MLAs. I think it highlights how important it is to

individuals, and to rural British Columbia especially, where

transportation projects and connections really do make a big difference

to individual communities. So thank you for that.

Before we left off earlier yesterday, we touched on the ten-year

transportation plan and the 12 priorities of the transportation plan.

The minister mentioned that there was going to be a change or that we

should expect a change in those priorities. I wonder if the minister is

intending to roll out a new ten-year plan and if she could expand on

what those changes in priorities may be.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. Bringing us back to this, I’ve got to say that

having been in the opposition for a number of years, it was always very

satisfying to come to Transportation estimates and ask about your

specific piece of highway or your specific ferry route or whatever it

was, to be able to tell a community that you have actually been really

addressing it with the minister, so I quite understand the interest and

the engagement from members of the opposition in this.

We are a new government. We obviously have different priorities

from the former government. I think it’s very clear in my mandate

letter. My mandate letter is different from the mandate letter which the

previous Minister of Transportation under the former government

had.

[4:05 p.m.]

That really is the focus through which I am working and I’m

directing staff to work. As well as ensuring that we are underpinning

everything with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples

and the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,

we’ve got the accelerated four-laning of the Trans-Canada, focusing on

rural B.C. and how we can make sure that we create the infrastructure

for rural B.C. We’re looking at B.C. Ferries and looking at

transit.

I think some of that’s reflected in the transportation investments

that are in the service plan. It is a different framing from the

previous government. We are making significant investments in transit. I

have a belief that we really do need to green our transportation sector.

We are one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, so we really do

need to be looking at that.

We also have, as I say, this year — I’m extraordinarily proud of

this — the most dollars that have gone into the service plan, in a

three-year service plan, for 16 years. We are doing a serious investment

in our transit, in our transportation, in our infrastructure, to ensure

that we do rebuild and do build right across the province.

J. Sturdy: Quickly to the minister, then: recognizing that there is going to

be a change in priorities, does the minister expect to be rolling out a

new ten-year plan? It’s so we can get a sense of what that ten-year plan

looks like — what the priorities are and to have them

articulated.

Hon. C. Trevena: My direction at the moment is working through the mandate letter,

working through the priorities that I was given by the Premier as ones

that he saw were the most pressing issues for transportation in British

Columbia. Other issues evolve, come out. There are always the daily

concerns that you’re dealing with.

There are also ideas that come out through discussion. We are

eight months into government and are still working through those. I’m

working with my focus: delivering on the mandate letter which was given

to me by the Premier. In delivering it, I would hope to exceed delivery

and really go beyond that.

Then, as issues evolve and as ideas come, we’ll be working through

those and seeing how those fit into the general strategies of this

government. This government is obviously concerned about ensuring that

we have proper reconciliation, true reconciliation. This government is

concerned about environmental issues. This government is concerned about

ensuring that we have affordability for people. Bearing those precepts

in mind, our reputation and our fundamental belief, we went to the

voters on this back in May, and we have made sure that this is part of

everything we have done and that this completely underlines this Budget

2018, of which we are discussing just one ministry.

I’ve got to say that I didn’t have the opportunity to talk on the

budget. I did regret that, because it’s a budget of which I’m

exceedingly proud. It is a budget that is investing in people, and we

are putting people at the centre of all our work. It’s a budget that is

looking seriously at affordability, and affordability is something that

we’re trying to ingrain in all our work. That’s one of the reasons why

we’re also investing in transit, as well as for the environmental

benefits.

[4:10 p.m.]

It’s a budget that is looking at creating services that people can

count on. Again, my ministry is fundamental to that. Without healthy,

strong infrastructure, people can’t access services, and part of those

services are delivered by my ministry. We have B.C. Transit. We have

sort of the tangential quango of B.C. Ferries. Those services are

delivered by this ministry. We’ve been having much debate about the

service contracts for highway maintenance. Those are services delivered

through my ministry. People have to be able to count on those

services.

We’ve also got to have a strong, sustainable and vibrant economy.

It, again, is fundamental to this ministry. It’s looking at trade and

transportation, looking at our highways, looking at our ferry system,

making sure that we are getting our economy working right across the

province, saying that that works back into the mandate letter. One thing

feeds off another, so back into the mandate letter, where we’re looking

at how we can ensure that we have the infrastructure not just in urban

B.C. but in rural B.C. as well.

J. Sturdy: Well, that was a fairly lengthy response that essentially was no,

I suppose. It’s very difficult to…. The mandate letter — understood — is

a broad-brush approach. It’s a broad brush. It’s logical. It’s

reasonable to put that forward as a mandate. But the minister needs to

be working to some goals, which were articulated in the past under the

ten-year transportation plan, and specific commitments in terms of what

needs to be accomplished and what the government is trying to

accomplish.

I think the people of British Columbia would very much like to

understand what the minister is intending to do, what kind of plan she

would like to see put forward for her term of government. Ultimately, I

know, the ambition is to move beyond this current situation.

I guess it’s a little bit frustrating for me. I would very much

like to see the minister put forward a specific set of proposals. Now,

if she intends to stick with the objectives of the ten-year

transportation plan, fair enough — just let us know that. I think at

this point, I’ll have to delve into some of those plans currently to get

a little more specific.

I think we all understand that improving highway safety is a

priority for all of us. In the ten-year transportation plan, now there’s

$75 million over three years to provide a new road safety improvement

program. Another one: $30 million — I guess that would be $10 million a

year — to improve intersection safety in communities throughout the

province. That’s an issue that’s of particular interest to me, in my

riding.

Could the minister let us know: is there a road safety improvement

program still? Is it essentially at $75 million over three years? Is

there an intersection improvement program? And what would be the budget

associated with that?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I have to remind the member that the previous government’s

ten-year transportation plan came out more than two years into their

mandate. We have been working for eight months, but I’m not going to

continue that debate.

We have, actually, an unprecedented investment in the Ministry of

Transportation — this budget. It is an extraordinary amount, more than

$4 billion. We haven’t seen that level ever coming into this ministry,

and that will be used across the board, obviously, for highway

maintenance, side roads and all the areas we’ve been discussing, but it

will also include looking at safety. It will include intersections. It

will include the variable speed limits. It will include

guardrails.

[4:20 p.m.]

Safety is fundamental to the work of this ministry. You don’t talk

about highways and you don’t talk about transit or anything else without

building in safety. So we will be ensuring that this is part of

everything we do. We already do ensure that it’s part of everything we

do. It will be part of our continuing investment.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. I suppose I was looking for….

I think it’s important that British Columbians understand what the plan

is. Having a pot of money is one thing. But understanding what the

priorities are and how the minister would intend to allocate those

resources….

What are the priorities? To say safety is a priority — understood.

But there are specifics in those commitments. I was just asking the

minister whether she intends to issue a ten-year plan, whether she

intends to articulate that at all or simply to operate on a “Well, we

have lots of money, and we’re not going to tell you how, necessarily,

we’re going to spend it. We’ll let you know as we spend it….” That’s

what the value of a plan is and the publication of a plan.

Within the safety aspect of things, one of the specifics is around

a commitment to reducing the duration of closures and working with

emergency response agencies in order to minimize those closures. I think

we touched on, a number of other members touched on, the importance and

the challenge associated with these closures, the disruption to people’s

lives, the disruption to communities, to businesses, to

economies.

It’s certainly an important part of consideration and concern in

my riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky when the highway is closed for

six, eight, ten, 12 hours. We recognize that work needs to be done,

certainly. It’s important to understand the pieces that caused or were

inputs into creating an incident — how those could be remedied to make

sure we’re in a position to improve the quality of the road or the

maintenance or whatever the various contributing factors to an incident

were.

I think we all recognize, as well, that the impacts to families of

the people involved in these incidents are dramatic and potentially, in

certain cases, catastrophic. I guess my question to the minister is: is

there a working group, is there a specific initiative to coordinate

these response times of the various agencies and look for ways of

reducing closure times?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to underline that in everything that we do, as I

keep mentioning — and that’s why I need it underline it — safety comes

first. In the first instance, we work to try and prevent incidents

happening, of course. We’ve had long discussions about snow clearance

and other things. We’ve had discussions — not this time but had

discussions in the past — about speed limits and various things that we

all know are safety issues. So our ultimate underlying tenet is safety

first.

Our engineering group works with police and emergency services to

minimize delays. It is ongoing. There is new technology that is starting

to be used, such as drones, to oversee the site where there may have

been an accident.

As I say, I can’t emphasize enough that safety has to come first,

and that is safety also for both the police and emergency services

working at the scene. If there is an accident, the police are there

investigating. That comes first, after people are sure that everybody is

safe and the emergency responders have been and ensured that the scene

is safe.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We really have to be respectful of what is happening on the scene,

and we have to really act appropriately. Everybody gets impatient, stuck

for hours, uncertain of what’s happening, not certain of when the

highway will reopen, because they don’t have cell coverage in that area.

You’re in a place where it’s mountainous, so you can’t check Drive B.C.

and find out what is happening. So you are working somewhat in isolation

in your vehicle.

People get frustrated. But I think everybody also respects that

where there is an incident, there needs to be the appropriate amount of

time to deal with that incident, not just to deal with the incident and

do the investigation but to then make the roads safe for people to

continue using it.

[4:30 p.m.]

I can think of little worse than having an incident and, just an

hour or so later, having another incident because people felt rushed and

felt pressured that the road had to be reopened. I think we have to

deal, number one, with safety.

J. Sturdy: In terms of that investigation, I know that there is a request of

the North Shore municipalities and councils to look at the investigation

procedures and requirements on Highway 1, on the Iron Workers Memorial

Second Narrows Bridge. I believe that the current threshold is if

there’s an assessment of more than $1,000 worth of damage, the police

are required to attend. The municipalities of the North Shore are

recognizing that a small accident — essentially, a $1,000 accident on

Iron Workers — can, at the wrong time of day, create traffic

havoc.

The request is: can that threshold be amended? Would the minister

consider having that threshold amended to allow for the removal of these

vehicles with, essentially, minor damage and allow that closure of a

lane or more than a lane to happen more rapidly and, perhaps in certain

cases, without the attendance of the police?

Hon. C. Trevena: I remember this coming up. It came up around the time of the UBCM.

We’re obviously involved in discussions about it, but I do think it’s a

question for the Solicitor General to take to his estimates.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. We’ll certainly do that, although I

think they’ve passed. Haven’t they? The Solicitor General’s estimates, I

think, are complete.

[4:35 p.m.]

One of the contributing factors in many of these highway incidents

may or may not be the type and quality of the tires on these vehicles.

There has been, certainly in my office, a concern about the various

designations, specifically around M and S versus snowflake. I wonder if

the minister has put any thought into those designations and whether

they, in her mind, are appropriate for interior travel or highway travel

— high mountain road travel.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: A very interesting question. I’ve got to say that I think that one

of the…. The estimates debate when we were discussing policy changes

that were brought in by the previous government, of which the critic was

a member — the changes to using snowflake tires, the snowflake or the

M-and-S tires, with a certain period came in…. The reason we were taking

so long is we were just trying to get the specific date, whether it was

2015 or 2016. I think it was 2016 that the previous government changed

the regulation. So that’s been two, maybe three years since it

changed.

Staff have been monitoring this. We continue to monitor it. I have

talked to many people, and I’m very aware that the one, the mountain

snowflake, is the tire that is appropriate for winter conditions. The

question is that there are people who go from my constituency and go

skiing in Mount Washington maybe once or twice a year, and they get a

whole set of winter tires and never really see snow. That’s what I

believe was the rationale of the previous government, but the member

opposite was a member of that government, so I’m sure he would have been

able to find out the specific rationale.

It is something that we are monitoring because, again, it comes

back to safety. Getting the right tires on your vehicle is

essential.

J. Sturdy: I have been interested in the minister’s thoughts on this. I think

we all recognize some of these challenges — rental cars, for example,

being rented out of Vancouver and used on the Sea to Sky Highway,

hopefully with, at the very least, a minimum requirement or meeting that

minimum threshold necessary to ensure legality.

I suppose this is probably a question for the Solicitor General

again, but perhaps not. I’d certainly like to bring it to the attention

of the minister. I made inquiries with the RCMP in my region as to

whether the type of tires on a vehicle involved in an incident was

recorded. The response I had was no. The question was whether or not the

tire met the legal requirement, not whether it was an M and S or whether

it was a snowflake designation.

I’d suggest to the minister that that’s information that would be

very valuable — recognizing, of course, that there are many, many

contributing factors, potentially, into an incident. But when we look at

the contributing factors identified on some of the ministry’s

documentation, tires are not, I don’t believe, in the top five in terms

of contributing factors. But then I’m not sure that there’s adequate

information there.

So just as a suggestion, I’d suggest to the minister I think it’s

something worth pursuing so we can better understand and make an

informed decision on what tires are appropriate.

[4:45 p.m.]

I do have a question specific to this. Off the ministry website,

it says: “Cities, municipalities and private roads…may have their own

bylaws or rules around the use of winter tires, chains or traction

devices that may differ from provincial highway regulations.” My

question to the minister is: if a municipality wanted to require, for

example, a snowflake designation in travelling through their

municipality, are they able to do that? Are they able to raise the

standard, I guess, in effect?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: You caught everybody into a very interesting discussion here. The

member has got something really going, which is continuing behind me as

I respond to the question to the best of my ability.

So the tire designation is specified under the Motor Vehicle Act.

That says what is a winter tire, the mountain-snowflake, and what is the

M and S. The regulation that we have is posted on a highway, so when you

see, “Beyond this point you must use either between these dates,” that’s

when our enforcement comes. But a municipality or a private road or an

industrial road has the right because they get to set their own bylaws,

obviously.

They can set bylaws which say that you must use X sort of tire at

X time of the year. It would be then up to the municipality, as its own

government, to enforce its bylaw on its roads. Our enforcement on our

roads is set by the signage, and the tires themselves are set by the

Motor Vehicle Act.

Just one of the examples is: you could potentially drive around

Kelowna just on M-and-S tires, but if you’re going up to Big White, you

need to have your snow tires, because that’s where the posting is. This

goes back to the original question of: why not just snow tires for

winter? Because there are those people who aren’t travelling in the snow

much.

But the municipality has the right to designate how it’s going to

work by setting a bylaw. You wouldn’t need it if you were on a private

road, if that private road didn’t say that you needed it. So it may be a

bit more confusing, but it is to clarify that the winter tire regulation

is a regulation for provincially managed and run highways and side

roads.

[4:55 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. Let’s put forward a hypothetical that I’m

not necessarily advocating for but that has been posed as a question to

me. Could, for example, the district of Squamish require a snowflake

designation over a winter period, which would be a higher standard than

the ministry standard, on Highway 99? If they could, what would be

required of them in order to do that?

Hon. C. Trevena: A municipal bylaw cannot supersede a provincial regulation on a

provincially administered highway. So Highway 99. Squamish can say that

Squamish will only accept the winter snowflake tire, but it would not be

able to enforce it on that

section of Highway 99 that goes through the

community.

With that, Member, I don’t know if you would agree to a short

break, just for everything.

Chair, if we might adjourn for a few minutes.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:58 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:09 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I called the estimates of the Ministry of

Education, and in this chamber, I call continued estimates of the

Ministry of Transportation.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 5:11 p.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $890,092,000

(continued) .

J. Sturdy: Contributing to some of these safety issues are some initiatives

that have come into play in the last little while, one of which is the

“Keep right except to pass” initiative, generally speaking, that’s been

implemented around the province. It’s an interesting response that I see

from the minister.

I’m curious as to whether there has been any assessment of the

implementation of that policy, how it is viewed by the ministry and

whether there are any changes anticipated.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the left-lane law. Again, when I was in the member for West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky’s role myself — this is when the previous

government introduced these — I did, at the time, question the fact that

we needed these huge signs around the province because we already had

smaller signs. However, they are in place. It’s the Solicitor General,

again, that would be tracking whether there are people being ticketed or

pulled over for it, because it’s obviously police

enforcement.

It has been in place for just coming on to three years. We haven’t

been tracking. We don’t track the effect of it. It is the Solicitor

General. The signs are in place. We will be keeping up the signs —

anything to encourage good road and driving habits.

J. Sturdy: I suppose I wasn’t thinking so much of the enforcement aspect of

it but the flow of traffic and whether it’s made any difference in terms

of the flow — increased utilization, minimization of interactions. I

think it was well recognized that it’s the impeding traffic and the

impatience that it causes and the differentials of different vehicles’

movements. I wondered how the ministry would assess its effectiveness

or, again, whether there’s any consideration in terms of change of

policy.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: There’s obviously constant monitoring of the highways and how the

highways are operating, how the traffic is moving and where there are,

unfortunately, crashes as well. Some of it is done by the Solicitor

General, because it’s through the police, and some, obviously, through

our ministry, because that’s how we assess on speed limits and highway

improvements.

I mean, there is no plan to change the law, in fact…. I’m not

quite sure I understand the member, but changing the law would mean that

you can pass on the inside. I have no intention of….

Interjection.

Hon. C. Trevena: Implementation. The signs are up. We keep an eye on what is

happening. We obviously are watching what’s happening with the…. We are

working with the Solicitor General. Where there are crashes, we keep an

eye on…. Staff monitor, obviously, the roads and what is happening on

the roads. But the signs are up. It’s an investment that the previous

government chose to make. We will leave those signs up.

J. Sturdy: Another initiative of the previous government was the

variable-speed sign program. I wondered if there is any sense or

understanding of the impact of that program, whether it has in fact made

a difference in terms of safety, recognizing that there are many

variables, again, in terms of weather and volumes and this sort of

thing. Does the minister feel that this program is effective? And does

the minister anticipate any changes to the program or potential

expansion of the program?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, it’s been very successful. We usually analyze after three

years of data. We don’t have three years of data, but all the signs are

that it is working where there is the variable-speed sign and that

traffic will slow down where they see it.

[5:25 p.m.]

In fact, the ministry won a Canada transportation road safety

award last year for using these variable-speed limits. I personally

think that they are great, and I’m encouraging us to use them more. It’s

both for the safety issue of getting traffic to slow down when the road

is not…. Conditions and drivers may not realize that. Also, you can see

it used in other jurisdictions as a way of managing congestion, where

you get the traffic all going at the same speed and you can get the

traffic flowing more smoothly.

So there are lots of different ways of using variable speeds, and

I think that it has been a success on the safety front. We will be

looking at other areas we can use it around the province for both safety

and also to start to explore other areas, such as you see in other

jurisdictions.

J. Sturdy: That’s good news. I have one of those segments in my riding, and I

believe it is very effective. It’s very interesting — the inputs or the

monitoring that it does do to a whole variety of different variables on

the highway, in what goes into making those ultimate

decisions.

The minister’s comments are interesting, and it does lead me into

the next topic of conversation. I would imagine that these highway

segments…. In my case, I believe they’re five or six kilometres on the

Sea to Sky. Could that infrastructure be used for a speed-over-distance

enforcement?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m told that the technology is different to use it for

speed-over-distance. And it’s something that would, because it’s looking

at speed enforcement, again, be with the Solicitor General.

J. Sturdy: As the minister knows, speed-over-distance has been advocated for

on behalf of a number of jurisdictions, including one in my riding. The

village of Lions Bay would very much like to see a trial for

speed-over-distance in that area.

Certainly, I have to give kudos to the mayor, Karl Buhr, who has

been very forward-thinking and progressive in terms of highway safety

with a willingness to look at a variety of technologies and some changes

to improve safety. Without his assistance and the assistance of his

council, I don’t think we would have been as successful in making some

changes to their particular piece of the road.

The minister, then, is suggesting that if communities like the CRD

or Lions Bay are interested in advocating for this, they should direct

their inquiries to the Solicitor General? They wouldn’t require any

changes or amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act under the auspices of the

Minister of Transportation?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, it would be one for the Solicitor General. We would have to

make certain changes to the Motor Vehicle Act, but it would be under the

Solicitor General. The first thing that you’re looking at is the

enforcement, and after that, if that were so agreed, then you’d look at

the consequential changes for changing that regulation.

If the mayor wants to proceed and have further discussions, I

would suggest that the member direct him to the Solicitor

General.

J. Sturdy: I take it that the same would be true of red-light cameras or, I

suppose, photo radar in an intersection, through the red-light

cameras.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, those are all Solicitor General, Attorney General decisions.

They’re on the judicial side of it.

J. Sturdy: Shifting gears slightly, we, on our side of the House, had a

delegation today from the decongestion pricing people. We’ve seen them.

They’ve made presentations to us a couple times, and I understand they

did to government caucus as well.

Does the ministry have…? What part does the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways play in the potential for implementing a

congestion pricing or mobility pricing model in British Columbia, most

likely in Metro Vancouver?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Welcome back, Madame Chair.

I think the member is well aware that it is a project that’s

coming out of the Lower Mainland. It’s through the mayors of the Lower

Mainland and TransLink. It is looking at the Lower Mainland.

Obviously, people are interested in what is going to come, and

like everyone else, I’m very interested in seeing what happens with the

report. Depending on what the report says, we will study it. It is a

Lower Mainland project that is, as I say, being handled through

TransLink. For the moment, there is no involvement for government or for

this ministry.

J. Sturdy: Has the ministry not done any type of assessment on what some of

the regulatory or legislative changes would be required in order to

implement? Or would the ministry just respond at some point in the

future and do an assessment in the future to understand what changes

would need to take place?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s somewhat premature, I think. We don’t know where the report

is going yet. We don’t know the outcome of the report. We’ll obviously

consider what comes out of it and make an assessment at that

time.

At the moment, we’re still letting the commission…. The commission

is doing its work. It’s doing its work independently. It’s doing its

work at the behest of TransLink and the mayors.

[5:35 p.m.]

When it does deliver its report, I think everybody is going to be

reading it with interest. Decisions will be made after the report has

been issued and there’s been time to consider what it is suggesting. But

at the moment, as I think the member is well aware, there are a lot of

different models for road pricing, congestion pricing — whatever else it

is. We want to just let the commission do its work and, after that,

consider what comes from that work.

J. Sturdy: I think that, certainly, the commission has put forward a draft

and, now, their second draft and a set of recommendations. They’re

narrowing it down to either point-to-point or a distance-based

charge.

I think it would be incumbent on the ministry to get prepared for

that recommendation and, certainly, understand in order to be able to

respond in a timely way — and understand what the implications are for

the ministry and the policies around especially Highway 1, Highway 99

and the Lougheed Highway, which, obviously, would need to be part of any

of that consideration.

Essentially, no work, really, has been done from a ministry

perspective on how a congestion pricing model — regardless of whether

it’s point-to-point or distance — would be integrated with the

provincial road network. What are some of the policy considerations?

What are some of the challenges to the whole thing?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, I don’t want to be premature. We wanted to first see

which way the Mayors Council chooses to go. It’s obviously very

contentious, but I think that our government is also being very clear

that we are committed to affordability.

The first major action that I took as minister by the side of the

Premier…. Actually, it was the Premier who took the action. I was by his

side. I think that’s the hierarchy here. But it was the removal of the

tolls on the Golden Ears and the Port Mann bridges. We’ve been very

clear that we have an agenda of affordability. We want to make sure that

life is affordable for people, and that’s why we removed those

tolls.

On the specifics of the commission’s report that will first go to

TransLink and to the Mayors Council, we are looking forward to seeing

what is in that report. But it is, I think, premature to say what we

would or wouldn’t do on any of the suggestions that they are

considering.

J. Sturdy: I wouldn’t dispute that. It is premature to take a position on it.

But certainly, I would hope that the ministry is working on it and

understanding what the implications are so the ministry is able to

respond in a timely way.

Thank you to the minister for introducing the topic of Golden Ears

and Port Mann. I suspect some of this may be diverted off to some other

minister. But I wondered if the minister is able to let us know if the

province has reached a funding agreement with regard to Golden Ears and

making TransLink whole on Golden Ears.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re still in discussions with TransLink about this.

J. Sturdy: Is there any sort of timeline for completing that discussion?

Would it be in place for the next fiscal? Are we anticipating that there

will be an agreement in place — when?

Hon. C. Trevena: Negotiations are ongoing. No question about that. We are working

diligently to find agreement with TransLink. Our commitment was to make

it whole. So we are working, obviously, as hard as we can and as fast as

we can to get some resolution both for TransLink — they want answers —

and for ourselves, to be able to move on. It’s something that is

ongoing.

We don’t want to set a deadline for it, because setting a deadline

for negotiations is the key to ultimate frustration and, I think,

potentially, poor decisions. We’re just going to work with TransLink

until we can come to an agreement that is suitable both for the province

and for TransLink.

J. Sturdy: Is the ministry, is the government, considering taking ownership

of the Golden Ears Bridge?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I really don’t want to speculate on any outcome of negotiations.

We’re still talking to TransLink. They’re talking to us about how we can

deal with money that TransLink no longer gets because it doesn’t have

the tolls. That’s our focus at the moment. We need to get agreement with

that and be able to work with TransLink.

J. Sturdy: I really don’t want to be putting words in the minister’s mouth,

but the minister won’t rule out taking over the ownership of the bridge.

Otherwise, it’s a fairly simple question. The answer would be: “No,

we’re not considering taking ownership.” As the minister won’t rule it

out, I’ll take it that it is an option.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s ongoing negotiations. We’ve been talking to TransLink for

many months. We continue to talk to them. It is negotiations. Our focus

is on how we can make TransLink whole. That’s the resolution that we

intend to get to in a time frame that is as short as

possible.

J. Sturdy: To the minister: will the maintenance contracts for the Golden

Ears Bridge change at all? Who will manage maintenance in the

future?

Hon. C. Trevena: The current agreement is to replace the lost tolls. We are in

discussion with TransLink. TransLink owns the bridge. They are

responsible for the maintenance of the bridge. Our discussions are on

how we can work this one forward. As I say, we have the agreement at the

moment to replace the lost toll revenue to TransLink.

J. Sturdy: If we were to look at the Pattullo Bridge, for example, what would

be…? Perhaps the minister could share with us the plan for ownership of

the Pattullo Bridge and maintenance of the Pattullo Bridge.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very happy to talk about the Pattullo Bridge, a $3.77 billion

investment to replace a bridge that is falling down. We as a province

are building it. When it is built, we will be responsible for its

maintenance, as its owners. Until that bridge is built, the current

bridge will be maintained. It’s still owned by TransLink and will be

maintained by TransLink.

J. Sturdy: What is the anticipated completion date for the new Pattullo

Bridge? When will it be in service?

Hon. C. Trevena: In 2023.

J. Sturdy: Our understanding was that the old bridge was due to come out of

service in 2022. Is that not…? What’s the out-of-service date for the

existing Pattullo Bridge?

Hon. C. Trevena: Madame Chair, in my excitement to talk about the bridge, I

inflated the cost of it. It is not $3 billion; it is $1.377 billion. If

we do say the $3 billion, it means that, you know, it gives us latitude.

However, it’s $1.377 billion.

We are going out for RFQs this spring, RFPs at the end of summer

and start building in 2019. Completion will be in 2023. When it is

complete, the existing Pattullo Bridge will be decommissioned. It won’t

be decommissioned until the new Pattullo is in place.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I think everybody will be relieved to hear

that there won’t be a year gap. There have been concerns expressed

around the capacity of the Pattullo Bridge and the growth of Surrey. I

think 1,000 people a month are added to Surrey. Clearly, there’ll be

additional demand.

It doesn’t look like the capacit