Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 224

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

Tributes

Ian Christison

E. Ross

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. A. Dix

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Gardom Lake Park Society

G. Kyllo

Trulsen family

B. D’Eith

Devji family contributions to dementia care and Delta community

I. Paton

SAIL seniors wellness program in Burnaby

J. Routledge

Ocean acidity and extinction of marine species

A. Weaver

Public engagement on active transportation

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Relocation of land title records and First Nations consultation

T. Stone

Hon. D. Donaldson

P. Milobar

Ride-sharing services and response to committee recommendations

A. Olsen

Hon. C. Trevena

Ride-sharing services and driver licensing

A. Olsen

Hon. C. Trevena

Relocation of land title records and First Nations consultation

M. Polak

Hon. D. Donaldson

M. de Jong

E. Ross

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

D. Barnett

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: This morning members on both sides of the House had the opportunity to

meet with representatives from Biosimilars Canada, in particular their

president, Jim Keon, who made an outstanding presentation. I’d like everyone

in the House to make Mr. Keon and his team welcome.

Tributes

IAN CHRISTISON

E. Ross: I first met Ian Christison during the 2017 election campaign. He

was the owner of Daybreak Farms in Terrace, which produces eggs for a

large portion of northern B.C. He was one of the first enthusiastic

supporters of my campaign, but he never talked politics. We talked more

about common interests and our histories, and he turned out to be a very

good friend.

I didn’t know it at the time, but Ian was suffering from a

terminal disease, an illness, but he never even talked about that. It

wasn’t until the later stages of this illness that I found out about it.

He passed away this past year, and he is sorely missed by everybody that

ever met him, because he was a kind soul.

His daughter Kieran is here today in the gallery, joining us

today. Kieran now represents a third generation of egg producers. She’s

representing Daybreak Farms, and more importantly, she’s continuing her

father’s legacy. Would the House please welcome Kieran Christison to the

House.

Introductions by Members

T. Redies: I have a number of introductions to make today. I don’t usually get so

many people coming from my riding, so I’ll try and get through it as quickly

as I can.

We have in the House today the Forte family: parents Sara and David

Forte and their children Ruby, Rocco and Bruno. I want to really give a

shout-out to Ruby, Rocco and Bruno because they were instrumental in helping

make sure that the communities of Surrey and White Rock did amazingly well

on the Coldest Night of the Year. We raised $106,000 as a

community.

Rocco, particularly, did a lot of presentations at his school,

Semiahmoo Trail. He raised $2,500 for the Coldest Night of the Year. So we

either have a major philanthropist or marketer, or both, in our midst, but I

want to really congratulate Rocco, Ruby and Bruno and the Forte family for

raising their children to think about philanthropy at a very early age.

Would the House please make them welcome.

I can’t see him yet, but I think he should be here at some point too.

I’d like to introduce another constituent of mine, Josh Hornak, who is a

fourth-year political science student at the University of Victoria. This is

a very, very smart young man who is looking to pursue a career in law at

some point, but I also think he may have a really bright future in politics.

I wish the House would help make him welcome as well.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have some friends in the gallery with us today. The Judd family is

here. We’ve got Ann and Stephen, who are some of the most fabulous parents I

think I have ever met to the wonderful and fabulous Benjamin and

Christopher. I have to say they’re my favourite gingers in the world. They

fill a grandma-in-waiting’s heart when I see posts on Instagram or Facebook

about what these children are doing and how they are grabbing life by the

horns and living it to its fullest.

I’m not as fortunate as the member from the Shuswap. I’m not a

grandmother yet. But I take great pride in watching how they grow and how my

friends Ann and Steven are raising their boys. I’d like the House to please

welcome them here in the Legislature.

J. Tegart: My guests Donna and Jim Walch from Clinton so enjoyed their visit

yesterday that they’re back with us today. Today is their 60th wedding

anniversary, and where else would you want to spend your anniversary but

with all of us?

On behalf of the House, happy anniversary, and welcome

back.

[10:10 a.m.]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, if you believe my version of events, the date was yesterday. If

you believe his version of events, the date is tomorrow. So I’ve decided to

settle on today to wish a very happy anniversary to my husband, Romi. It’s

been 19 great years since we first met, nine years since we got married, as

when we met it wasn’t legal for us to get married.

I want to wish him an incredibly happy anniversary away from me. It’s

the best thing — no, just kidding. It’ll be great to get home to be with him

tonight and with our son. A very happy anniversary to my husband.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Ari Aubuchon, who’s up in the gallery

today. Ari is a grade 11 student at Brentwood School, and he’s shadowing me

today. He’s from San Francisco, but as his last name might give away, he has

a grandfather from Quebec. He’s at Brentwood in his first year. Ari is an

avid tennis player, and he’s had a longtime interest in politics. He’s in

Mark Wismer’s politics class, and I’m delighted to have him here today. Will

the House please make him feel welcome.

S. Bond: It’s not often that we get to welcome friends from Prince George, but

when they’re here, we want to make sure they get a very warm

welcome.

We’re delighted today to have here Sherry McKay and Larry Milley. I

want the House to know that they’re the kinds of people that make Prince

George a very special place. They give consistently of their time. They

support the Royal Canadian Legion and veterans. Both of them were engaged in

making sure that wildfire evacuees were cared for in our community. Larry,

in particular, is an amazing cook and chef. I worked under his tutelage when

we were serving meals to wildfire evacuees. He commanded the kitchen, let me

tell you, and told us what to chop and how to get the job done.

They are incredible people. We’re very honoured to have them here

today. I’m glad they’re here, because it means they’re actually taking a few

minutes for themselves instead of pouring themselves into our community as

they always do. Please join me in making Sherry and Larry very welcome to

the Legislature today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I don’t often get family in the House, so it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to introduce two of my nine grandchildren, fondly called No. 4 and

No. 5. Ryen and Aydenn Batchelor are the daughter and son of my daughter

Sasha.

I wanted to publicly thank them for the many, many hours they’ve

helped granny in parades and campaigns, because as with anybody who has kids

involved in a political life, these two have been involved since a very

young age — Ryen is now 13, and Aydenn is 12 — and they have been helping me

out. I think part of the way we, as politicians, get to be involved with our

family is that they get to come and help us at events. I want to thank them,

and I’m going pay them back by taking them for lunch today.

Please join me in making them welcome.

J. Yap: In the gallery this morning to observe proceedings is my constituency

assistant, Paige Robertson. She’s been here in the gallery before, but she’s

here today to join us for question period and to have lunch and some

meetings.

Paige has been my constituency assistant since the very beginning,

when I was first elected. She also served as CA to my predecessor, Geoff

Plant. After all of these years of service, Paige has made the decision to

spend more time with family and her grandchildren, to pursue her hobbies and

to enjoy life. She will be retiring.

I don’t need to tell any member in this House of the importance of a

great CA. I know all members probably value the contributions of their

constituency assistants to their presence in their constituencies. For my

part, Paige has been amazing as my voice, my presence, my support — and as

the person that constituents know is a go-to person when I’m not

there.

We will be missing her; constituents in Richmond-Steveston will be

missing her. But I know that she’ll be going off into a new

chapter of life,

which we wish will be filled with happiness, good health and

cheer.

[10:15 a.m.]

Hopefully — well, I’m quite confident — she’ll continue to be a

presence in the Richmond and Steveston community and not be a stranger.

Would the House please join me in saying a big thank-you for her years of

public service as constituency assistant in Richmond-Steveston and wish her

a happy retirement — Paige Robertson.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019, be

introduced and read for a first time now.

MSP premiums will be eliminated on January 1, 2020. The

elimination of MSP premiums is the largest middle-class tax cut in the

history of British Columbia, saving up to $900 per individual and up to

$1,800 for families every single year. It eliminates a regressive tax

and makes life more affordable for people living in Prince George and

Surrey, Terrace and Oliver, Vancouver and Revelstoke, Comox and Pitt

Meadows, and everywhere else.

This bill marks one of the final steps for the elimination of MSP

premiums. It removes the

section relating to MSP premiums and premium

assistance from the Medicare Protection Act. Bill 20 ensures that MSP

beneficiaries are not required to pay any new premiums for periods of

MSP enrolment after January 1, 2020. It also amends provisions that give

authority to the Medical Services Commission, the nine-member board that

manages MSP on behalf of the provincial government.

After years of MSP premium increases, our government is proud to

be acting to end this regressive tax on behalf of individuals and

families. The Premier said in the election campaign that we would

eliminate MSP premiums, and the Minister of Finance and the government

have delivered — promise made, promise kept. This makes life more

affordable for middle-income families in particular. It’s good for the

economy, for economic growth, for job creation everywhere in

B.C.

I ask all members of the House to support Bill 20, and I’m

honoured to move first reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 20, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, be placed

on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill 20, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019, 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)

GARDOM LAKE PARK SOCIETY

G. Kyllo: I rise today to pay tribute to a fantastic organization in my

riding of Shuswap, the Gardom Lake Park Society. For more than two

decades, this community association has done an amazing job of managing

Gardom Lake Regional Park, located between Salmon Arm and

Enderby.

This 40-acre family-friendly park is a gem of the community. It’s

a popular fishing and recreational destination with visitors throughout

the year. The Gardom Lake Park Society has not only successfully

maintained the park, keeping it clean, tidy and welcoming; they’ve also

made a significant number of improvements through the years.

It is responsible for making a number of significant

infrastructure improvements, using yearly grants from the

Columbia-Shuswap regional district. It has added new walking trails,

stairs, picnic tables, benches, floats, a swimming platform, accessible

washrooms, a diving platform and a wharf. Much of the work was completed

by volunteers, which helped keep costs down. Unfortunately, while the

society is eager to continue its great work, its future remains

uncertain. The community association is currently awaiting information

with regards to its ten-year renewal and is hoping for a positive

outcome so that it can continue to serve our community.

As MLA for Shuswap, I’m among the many members of our community

who support these great stewards of Gardom Lake. When an organization

has worked so hard for decades to improve the park experience for locals

and visitors alike, it’s important that the lines of communication

remain open. It’s just a respectful thing to do.

[10:20 a.m.]

It’s my hope that the Gardom Lake community association will soon

get the answer it seeks so that it can continue serving the community

for many more years to come.

TRULSEN FAMILY

B. D’Eith: Sometimes in our position as MLAs, we have the privilege of

meeting some families with extraordinary stories, and I believe the

Trulsens are certainly one of these families. On October 4, 2018, Noah

Trulsen passed away after a tragic accident while playing a men’s

recreational hockey game. Noah, only 22, left behind two brothers —

Nick, 25, and Matthew, 19 — and his father and mother, Rick and

Lorraine. After his death, tributes poured in, including from his

favourite player, Kevin Bieksa, and his favourite artist, Lights. A

memorial scholarship was set up in his honour, which has grown to over

$20,000, with contributions including the Ridge Meadows Flames Junior B

team.

The Trulsen family is a very well-known hockey family in Maple

Ridge, and I certainly remember the gentle giant Noah during his years

that I coached hockey with the Ridge Meadows Minor Hockey Association.

In fact, Noah’s brothers are also hockey players, and Matthew Trulsen

showed great courage by suiting up in net with the Junior B Mission City

Outlaws just days after his older brother Noah passed away. Matthew

played through the season despite the death of his older brother.

Matthew, now playing for the Port Moody Panthers, was recently named the

Pacific Junior Hockey League’s most inspirational player of the year.

Well deserved.

Now, I met Lorraine, Noah’s mom, a few days ago to celebrate the

official start of a new innovative child care investment for the

Heritage Park Childcare Centre in Mission. While this was an incredible

story for the community, I was greatly moved by Lorraine’s commitment as

director to make this transformative child care project happen, even

though all of the hard work required for this happened mere weeks after

her son passed away. It took an amazing amount of commitment to the

Mission families for Lorraine to make this program happen.

The Trulsen family, who went through a terrible loss, have shown

amazing resilience and commitment to their communities and to the people

who count on them in a very, very difficult period in their lives. To

me, that is true heroism.

DEVJI FAMILY CONTRIBUTIONS TO

DEMENTIA CARE AND DELTA

COMMUNITY

I. Paton: I’m continually impressed by the contributions of the many

talented people in South Delta. For decades, Jane Devji and her husband,

Amin, have enriched the lives of seniors and, in particular, those

living with dementia.

Jane took a big risk after graduating from secondary school,

leaving her small town in Mwanza, Tanzania, to study registered nursing

at the Aga Khan Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. She graduated in 1964 and

found steady work in Nairobi. Due to tensions unfolding in nearby

Uganda, the family immigrated to the U.K. and then to Canada. One year

later, in 1976, Jane and her husband, Amin, purchased the Ladner Private

Hospital.

Jane wasn’t satisfied with the facility as it stood and dedicated

herself to renovating and enriching the space to provide the utmost care

to all who lived there. That work continued in 2006 when they opened the

Delta View Life Enrichment Centre, a 212-bed complex care facility in my

little town of east Delta.

Jane is internationally regarded for her work to discard

traditional physical restraints and prioritized freedom of movement for

patients. She also premiered the “Hugs, not drugs” philosophy for

dementia and residential care. The result is a holistic approach to care

that benefits its recipients as well as society as a whole. A great

measure of one’s success is to see their work emulated elsewhere, and

Jane’s innovative strategies have been adopted by care homes across

B.C.

Jane and Amin’s work has left a lasting mark on the city of Delta

and the province. They embody the values of compassion, inclusion and

innovation. Jane and Amin and their two sons, Aly and Salim, also

stepped up as huge community supporters with endless annual celebrations

at their facility for Christmas, Canada Day and community leaders

luncheons. These folks are extremely proud Canadians.

On a closing note, as neighbours and good friends, the Devjis

built their magnificent facility. In it, they built a spiritual quiet

chapel, and they named it after my father, with his photo on the chapel

door.

I ask all members of the House to join me and, indeed, everyone in

Delta in wishing Jane and Amin Devji well in their

retirement.

[10:25 a.m.]

SAIL SENIORS WELLNESS

PROGRAM IN

BURNABY

J. Routledge: Last week I stopped into the seniors wellness program at the

Confederation Community Centre. It’s called SAIL. SAIL stands for

Seniors Active in Living. It runs every Tuesday from 9:30 to 11:30

a.m.

I arrived in the middle of a flamenco class. That’s right,

flamenco. A group of 20 seniors were sitting in a circle clapping and

stomping to a rhythm set by the instructor and the music. This is very

good for maintaining brain complexity, explained Lulu Chavez, the

beloved SAIL coordinator. Another week the group activity might be tai

chi or a presentation on independent living.

At the back of the room, five or six retired practitioners were

offering gentle chair massage, working flexibility back into arthritic

fingers and easing tense necks and shoulders. As one volunteer told me,

many who come to SAIL are widowed and live alone. This is the only time

they feel the touch of another human being. In fact, they told me about

Doris, who is a vital part of the program because she gives free

hugs.

I also dropped in to the blood pressure room, where retired Dr.

Hidi and a team of retired nurses are on hand to monitor blood pressure.

They ask questions like “Did you have breakfast today?” to ascertain if

one is taking care of themselves. They keep report cards to track blood

pressure, pulse and weight. They note what medication is being taken and

if one is living alone. If they have concerns, they’ll encourage the

senior to see their doctor. All of this is available for a suggested

donation of $2.

SAIL has been running non-stop for more than 26 years, serving an

average of 40 participants a week. I first became aware of SAIL in 2013,

when funding was cut and the program was in danger of

closing.

I thank Mulberry PARC and Burnaby Hospital Foundation for stepping

in to keep it open, and I thank the coordinator, the city of Burnaby

staff and the 25 volunteers who so generously share their time and

expertise to keep our seniors healthy and active. SAIL is a vital part

of our community.

OCEAN ACIDITY AND

EXTINCTION OF MARINE

SPECIES

A. Weaver: Since the beginning of the Paleozoic, there have been six great

extinctions. The first occurred 440 million years ago, and 80 to 85

percent of known marine species were wiped out. And 360 million years

ago, 80 to 85 percent of known marine species were once more

obliterated.

At the boundary of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, 251 million years

ago, 70 percent of all land species and 96 percent of all marine species

were eradicated. At the boundary between the Jurassic and Triassic, some

200 million to 210 million years ago, 80 percent of marine species and

many of the land vertebrates perished, including most

amphibians.

In the fifth, known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary or K-T event, 75

percent of world species, including the dinosaurs, were wiped

out.

The sixth and greatest extinction event in the history of the

earth is occurring as I speak. This extinction event is unique in that

it is a direct consequence of human activity.

In all cases, marine extinctions and increases in ocean acidity go

hand in hand. Whether it be flood basalt eruptions spewing enormous

quantities of carbon dioxide and sulfates into the atmosphere for

hundreds of thousands of years, a global sulphate dust cloud formed when

a meteor landed in a gypsum deposit in the Yucatán Peninsula or carbon

dioxide released by humans in the combustion of fossil fuels, the

effects are identical. Eventually the ocean, slowly but surely, draws

down the resulting carbon dioxide levels or, more rapidly, the sulphur

levels, increasing the acidity of the surface waters.

When ocean surface acidity increases, creatures find it more and

more difficult to create their calcium carbonate shells. In fact, their

shells start to dissolve.

It took at least two million years before coral started to

reappear and about ten million years for their genetic diversity to

become re-established after the K-T extinction event. Children born

today will be the last generation to witness the majestic beauty of

coral reef biodiversity, for the world’s coral reef systems are on the

fast track to global extinction. We know that by the time the warming

reaches 2 degrees later this century, 99 percent of all the world’s

coral reef species will be extinct. You can take that one to the bank,

hon. Speaker.

In the words of Greta Thunberg, “Our civilization is being

sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to

continue making enormous amounts of money. It is the sufferings of the

many which pay for the luxuries of a few. You say you love your children

above all else, yet you are stealing their future in front of their very

eyes.”

[10:30 a.m.]

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON

ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION

S. Chandra Herbert: Friends say that if they come for a visit, they always know they

have to wear good shoes, as inevitably, I will want to take them on an

incredibly long walk, in their words. I love being active, and I love

getting out on foot or riding my bike. In high school, I was the team

lead for our bike-to-work team, and I’ve tried to do the same here at

the Legislature. I volunteered with the city’s bicycle advisory

committee years later. Today I’m proud to be able to work with the

Ministry of Transportation to advise them on the development of a new

active transportation strategy for B.C., one long, long

overdue.

We get the best ideas when our communities are involved. During

the strategy creation, we’re asking communities: how important is active

transportation in your community? What are the barriers to active

transportation? What opportunities do you see to increase it? How can

provinces, communities, organizations and individuals work together to

advance active transportation throughout B.C.?

Already we’ve met with people who care about safe streets,

accessible paths, physical health, fighting climate change and reducing

emissions, people who want to cut congestion, folks who just enjoy the

power of their own body to get around. Whether it’s cycling,

skateboarding, rolling a wheelchair, walking, pushing a stroller,

jogging, skiing or snowshoeing to work — I met a fellow in Prince George

who told me about it — I’m only just starting to work on the many ways

that British Columbians are getting active to get where they need to

go.

Consultations have been held throughout the province, and over the

next three months, we’re meeting with local governments, Indigenous

leadership, transportation engineers — more and more. But really, it’s

the people of B.C. who will find a way to make active transportation

more possible. So if you’re interested and if you have ideas, go to

engage.gov.bc.ca/activetransportation or email

activetransportation@gov.bc.ca to share your words.

Talk to your MLAs. Cycle into their offices and tell them: “We

need to make cycling, walking and all the other means of active

transportation safer.” Because people want to be active when they get

around, and too often, they just feel it’s not quite safe enough to do

so. So let’s get at it. Let’s get active.

Oral Questions

RELOCATION OF LAND TITLE RECORDS

AND FIRST NATIONS

CONSULTATION

T. Stone: The Kamloops land titles office supports one-quarter of the

province — a huge land mass from Hope to the Alberta border, Williams

Lake to the U.S. border. Now, $1.7 million was spent recently to upgrade

that office by installing state-of-the-art climate control technology

and security to best protect these historical records in Kamloops.

Despite that, the NDP government is allowing these historic paper-based

records to be relocated from Kamloops to Victoria. Everyone impacted by

this decision has been blindsided, most notably First

Nations.

My question to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations is this. Why is the minister allowing these critical

historical records to be moved when there’s been no engagement, no

consultation and, especially, none of the above with First

Nations?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I think the member needs a little bit of education around

the Land Title and Survey Authority offices. The Land Title and Survey

Authority offices work and operate independently of government as a

publicly accountable statutory corporation.

In fact, the land title office — those services used to be part of

government up until the last government privatized these functions. So

the member is incorrect in asserting that this government has the

authority to dictate to the Land Title and Survey Authority offices how

they operate. It was set up as an independent authority by the previous

government.

Now, the member knows that the Land Title and Survey Authority

offices have written to him, have explained this through their

operations. They’ll be moving the hard-copy historical records to a

vault in Victoria that is better equipped to conserve them in a

climate-controlled environment.

[10:35 a.m.]

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Like the climate-controlled environment that the government spent

$1.7 million on in the Kamloops office? A good spot to protect those

records.

Mr. Speaker, the relocation of these critical, original,

paper-based records will result in direct and indirect job losses in

Kamloops. But what’s most unacceptable about this decision is that there

hasn’t been any engagement with First Nations, and First Nations are

furious with this minister’s arrogance and his failure to

consult.

Now let me just, for the purposes of the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: Here’s what Chief Judy Wilson of the Neskonlith te Secwépemc

Nation had to say about this decision: “Arbitrarily removing and

relocating important historic records that bear weight on and inform

land title, specific and comprehensive claims research is detrimental.

With no consultation or dialogue with First Nations, this move by your

government will create injurious barriers to accessing justice and to

the reconciliation B.C. purportedly holds in such high

regard.”

Again to the minister responsible, what does the minister have to

say in response to Chief Wilson, and will the minister commit today to

reversing this decision?

Hon. D. Donaldson: If the member over there hadn’t been part of a government that

privatized these services, we’d have much more control over

them.

I’d say to the member: look in the mirror first before you ask

questions like that around First Nations.

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Donaldson: Now in addition, hon. Speaker, the LTSA — the Land, Title and

Survey Authority — wrote to the member from Kamloops and the other

member from Kamloops on March 19 stating that there are no changes in

planned jobs to Kamloops. The member brought that up in his

question.

It is irresponsible for the member to fearmonger amongst staff

from the LTSA that there will be job losses. Can you imagine what that

feels like when the member from Kamloops and the other member from

Kamloops go to the media and go to other people within Kamloops to

fearmonger that jobs will be lost? They received a letter March 19 from

the LTSA saying that there would be no job losses, so to fearmonger is a

shameful, shameful behaviour.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a second

supplemental.

T. Stone: It’s shameful that the minister would suggest that anyone on this

side of the House, let alone the chiefs around British Columbia, would

be fearmongering on this particular issue.

Now, the facts are very, very clear. One, these records belong to

the province of British Columbia. Two, the Land Title Act deems the

minister that I have been posing these questions to as the minister

responsible. Three — news flash — First Nations want to deal on a

government-to-government basis in this province.

Mr. Speaker, one year ago in this House the minister actually had

this to say: “When it comes to First Nations consultation where my

ministry has jurisdiction…embarking on deep consultation with First

Nations.” And this minister has made an art form of talking about the

importance of engagement and talking about the importance of

consultation. Yet when it comes to this decision, to move these

historical records, the minister has done exactly the opposite, and

First Nations are rightfully outraged.

Talk about missing the mark. Millions of dollars wasted, jobs

lost, historical documents at risk, but worst of all, a failure to

engage with First Nations in British Columbia.

Again, I will ask the minister, one more time. Will the minister

live up to his rhetoric about the importance of consulting with First

Nations and actually do it, will he take responsibility for this mess,

and will he immediately reverse this terrible decision?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the crocodile tears coming from the members of the

opposition are awfully hard to take. They privatize a service, and then

they attack the service that they privatized. It’s quite unbelievable,

quite two-faced.

Now, if the member had bothered to read the information that he

and the other member from Kamloops received from the LTSA, he would know

that the LTSA has stated that historic searches can still be conducted

from Kamloops when the records are relocated to Victoria. The process

would be the same as conducting an historic search from Kamloops today

for a title in Victoria or New Westminster. Records can be ordered

directly through the LTSA or via the scan-on-demand service.

The people of Kamloops…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: …deserve better than the misinformation that’s being spread by the

two members from Kamloops.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Getting back to question period, the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson.

P. Milobar: With the handling of this file and others, I think it shouldn’t be

called question period anymore. Maybe amateur hour would be a little

more….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Thank you.

P. Milobar: If only the cabinet and the rest of the NDP had actually talked to

their throne speech, they might have realized that there were words in

there about the importance of UNDRIP. They seem to have totally ignored

it. There’ve been absolutely no consultations with First Nations, and

they are furious about this. The NDP can laugh it off all they want.

They are being very dismissive to the chiefs in our area and over a

quarter of this province, and that is totally unacceptable.

I have a letter here addressed to the minister from Chief Michael

LeBourdais of the Whispering Pines–Clinton Indian band. It reads: “These

records are as much our records as they are the Crown’s. This is a

direct and material breach of your legal duty to consult and accommodate

our interests in the records. We demand that any records be moved

immediately, returned and the process of removal ceased.” And to the

minister’s answer around electronic scans, this is what the Chief also

had to say: “If copies are adequate, you keep the copies; we will keep

the originals.”

Again, when will not only the minister start showing some respect

for First Nations, but when will this Premier and the rest of the NDP

cabinet start showing some respect towards First Nations, end all this

users office and reverse this decision immediately?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, it’s a bit much to hear this newfound concern for First

Nations from the opposition. For 16 years, they denied aboriginal title

existed in B.C. So let’s….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

If I could just take a break and just pass notice to the children

in the gallery: please do not try this at home. This is not acceptable

behaviour anywhere.

Minister.

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: For 16 years, they denied aboriginal title existed in this

province. It took the Tsilhqot’in to go to court — fought by this

government — to prove that aboriginal title exists on parcels of land in

this country, in this province.

Let’s go through a little history. The LTSA is an arm’s-length

body from government, formed by them in 2005. So the misinformation

being spread by the two members from Kamloops is really a disservice to

the people of Kamloops.

The member talks about Aboriginal interests. Well, he has no

credibility — absolutely no credibility. He was spreading misinformation

after he received the letter from the LTSA about job losses. That lack

of credibility spreads to the question that he just asked.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: It’s so disappointing that the minister doesn’t even understand

the legislation he’s responsible for. Talk about misleading. The

legislation very clearly says that if there are no permanent records in

the office, you cannot call yourself a land title office. Therefore, it

is closing.

Let’s look at credibility here. I’ll stand on my track record of

18 years of working with these elected officials in my area, as an

elected official myself.

Let’s hear from another chief from the area. Let’s hear from the

Chief of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, Rosanne Casimir, and what she has

to say about this move. Maybe they just don’t understand their rights

and title either, according to the minister. I quote: “There has been no

consultation and no referral, not even a referral requesting our input.”

It goes on to say: “What does that say about respectful relationships,

reconciliation and working together?”

Before I ask the minister the question, I’ll remind him what he’s

had to say about this. “Governments have a duty to ensure that First

Nations consultation takes place” — the minister’s own words.

When will the minister actually do his job and start consulting

with First Nations on something as fundamental as the records for their

traditional and territorial areas?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, it’s a pity that the member does not do any research. If he

had done some research, he would have been able to find…. I’m reading

from information provided by the LTSA that’s publicly available. We

acquired this from the LTSA, just the way the member could have if he

had actually bothered to do some research. What they address under

“rumours”: there will be no downsizing or permanently closing of the

Kamloops office — directly in contradiction to what the member just

said.

As far as the relationship with First Nations, we’ve just signed

an historic agreement with the Secwépemc last week. The Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation did that. I also want to point

out that under the previous government, the local First Nations started

legal court action to prove Aboriginal title. That was the legacy of

that government.

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES AND RESPONSE

TO COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Olsen: Over the past eight months, I’ve worked closely with eight of my

colleagues from this House. We spent an incredible amount of time

together on a committee to hear witnesses and to debate amongst

ourselves the recommendations that we brought forward earlier this week.

They’re strong recommendations. They could bring ride-hailing to British

Columbia. They show that a committee system where politicians cooperate

can actually work. But then the minister, after less than 45 minutes,

categorically dismissed the recommendations that were put forward on

licensing.

minutes of hope on ride-hailing, and then the minister spoke. This is

not the action of someone who has taken the time to carefully consider

the constructed recommendations, informed by expert testimony — a task

that we were given as a committee. It’s not the action of someone who is

open to hearing a discussion about the best way to achieve a safe

regime. Forty-five minutes is not enough time to put together the

communications notes on a decision that was made well in

advance.

[10:50 a.m.]

I worked with the minister on this important bill, so I’m asking

the Minister of Transportation: was there any point to the work that our

committee did on hearing from experts on how to ensure safety and on

what licensing made sense, or had she made her decision before the

committee had even started meeting?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for his question. I’d also like to

thank the member for his hard work on this file. He has been a leader on

this. There’s no question.

When we brought legislation to this House — which the opposition,

when they were in government, failed to do — we were able to work with

the Third Party to make sure that there’s going to be flexibility as we

bring app-based ride-hailing into this province. I thank the member for

the amendment that he brought to the floor of the House for that

legislation. It will help.

The committee had a very important role to play. I followed the

hearings closely. There’s no question. I also heard from hundreds of

British Columbians and stakeholders throughout the province. As the

member knows, the report indicates there were a number of experts who

spoke to the committee and advocated for the class 4 licence. We were

listening to this as the committee was having its hearings. I think

everyone knows that we have Hansard . We can follow the

committee as it is having its hearings.

Among them, there was a number of communities that said they

wanted to keep the class 4 licence. The seniors advocate wanted to keep

the class 4 licence. The Vancouver police department wanted to keep the

class 4 licence. If I might just quote, the Vancouver police department

said: “I think you’re inviting people to be on the road more, which is

what we’re doing by allowing them to be a TNS driver. We do need to

ensure that the people that do that are the best drivers, people with a

limited number of violations, people who have gone the extra step to

take the extra road test so we can be sure that they are a good

driver.”

Safety remains paramount to this government. We are bringing

app-based ride-hailing to B.C. this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

AND DRIVER

LICENSING

A. Olsen: It was the job of that committee to hear the testimony and to

provide feedback and recommendations based on that, to have that

discussion, to analyze that work. But this is actually not a debate

about safety. Every member of this House is committed to ensuring a safe

regime is in place that ride-hailing must operate within.

What concerns me is that what the minister is proposing may very

well be a structural barrier that will prevent ride-hailing from coming

to British Columbia. The committee has heard again and again that we can

achieve high safety standards in British Columbia, the high safety

standards British Columbians demand, without using a class 4 licence. A

class 4 licence is just one tool.

Instead we should establish limits on the vehicles that can be

used. We could require drivers to have perfect driving records. We could

enforce limits on the age of drivers. We could do all of these things

that set a clear set of standards that ensures only drivers that have no

history or a likelihood of accidents can be ride-hailing drivers. There

are a lot of options. So let’s do away with the notion that this has

anything to do with safety.

I want a safe regime as much as the minister. I don’t think that

that has to come at the cost of ride-hailing to British

Columbia.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. There is

nothing in a class 4 licence that can’t be accomplished through other

means. Why is the door closed on this decision? Why is the only pathway

for the minister one that may present an unsurpassable barrier for

ride-hailing companies in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are not alone in having a class 4 licence for app-based

ride-hailing. We see it work in Alberta. We see it in New York City. We

see it in Chicago. It has a higher level. Ontario is looking at a higher

level after accidents. Safety has to be number one.

[10:55 a.m.]

Class 4 allows people to have an extra driving test. It allows

medical checks to make sure that you are physically able to drive and

that there are no risks. It makes sure that you have the mechanical

availability…. Mr. Speaker, it adds that extra level of

safety.

We have to remember that it’s the drivers who want to be safe, the

passengers who want to be safe and every other road user we want to be

safe. If somebody is earning their income by driving a vehicle, carrying

passengers, we want to make sure that we have a safe regime.

I’ve got to ask everyone in this House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: I have to ask everyone in this House: would you allow your

15-year-old daughter to go in a car where you did not trust that driver

to be safe? We’ve got to make sure safety is paramount, and that’s why

we’re sticking with a class 4.

RELOCATION OF LAND TITLE RECORDS

AND FIRST NATIONS

CONSULTATION

M. Polak: I will note first of all that the Minister of Forests thankfully

did correct himself and say that the land titles office is an

arm’s-length agency, but it is an agency of government.

It sounds as though he has not spoken with the chiefs. What I

would like to clarify…. I think I heard this from the minister, but

perhaps he could stand here and be clear: is it the minister’s view that

the Crown has no obligation to consult on this matter?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The Land Title and Survey Authority was set up by the previous

government in 2005, at arm’s length to government. We have the ability

to appoint board members on to that authority. We don’t have the ability

to appoint all the board members. It’s an independent organization, so

they operate under an operating agreement. But they’re arm’s length and

have the ability to make decisions, as it was set up by the previous

government.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Opposition on a supplemental.

M. Polak: The question I’m asking, while it has great significance, is

actually a fairly simple question. It’s actually a fairly simple

question that the minister has chosen not to answer, but I think it’s

one he needs to.

Is it his position…? He’s obviously been briefed on the matter.

He’s aware of the matter. He must have a position. Is it the minister’s

position — is it his view — that the Crown has no obligation to consult

on this matter?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, this is not a question of whether the Crown has an

obligation. This is an independent authority set up by the previous

government. But yes, we’ll look into whether the Land Title and Survey

Authority should be consulting on this matter.

M. de Jong: The minister has had a lot to say in the past about both the

Crown’s obligation to consult and his desire to fulfil that

obligation.

The question is a simple one. In this instance, involving a Crown

agency, is it his view that the Crown has an obligation to consult for a

change of this sort, and is it his argument that the Crown has

discharged that obligation?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I said I would look into it, and that’s what I’ll do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member for Abbotsford West, proceed, when you feel it’s right to

do so.

M. de Jong: The minister just spent 28 minutes ridiculing and lecturing people

for raising a legitimate question, lecturing and ridiculing chiefs who

have posed the question and a concern about whether or not the

government and the minister are discharging their obligations. In the

29th minute, he says: “I’ll look into it.”

[11:00 a.m.]

The question is very straightforward. Surely almost two years into

assuming his duties, the minister is in a position to understand and

answer conclusively whether or not, with regard to a change of this sort

involving a Crown agency, there is an obligation by the Crown to

consult. Has he fulfilled that obligation?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I did not ridicule chiefs. That’s a mischaracterization.

What ridicules chiefs is denying…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: …Aboriginal title, spending millions of dollars fighting the

Tsilhqot’in in courts, which these members did while they were in

government. What also ridicules chiefs is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: …holding a celebration…. What also ridicules chiefs….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Maybe they just don’t want to hear the answer. Thank you, hon.

Speaker.

What also ridicules chiefs is a decision by the former leader to

hold a yoga session on National Aboriginal Day. There’s another example

of ridiculing chiefs.

The actual Land Title and Survey Authority was set up by the

previous government. The membership and responsibilities were enacted

through legislation by the previous side. We’ll be taking a look. I

already said we’ll look to whether there are obligations to consult by

this independent authority.

E. Ross: It’s very misleading to say that this side of the House didn’t

have respect for Aboriginal consultations and accommodations when over

500 agreements were signed with First Nations in the last 16 years. LNG

would not have been possible without some of these agreements. It was

done on the principle of consultation and accommodation that’s rooted in

rights and title case law.

My question to the minister is: if there is some question of

whether or not there is a responsibility of the arm’s-length entity that

took these records out of the location and brought them to Victoria, did

the Crown delegate this responsibility, and if so, if the Crown did

delegate, did at least the minister make notice to the First Nation in

question of this delegation of responsibility on the rights of First

Nations people?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the previous government privatized this function, set up the

LTSA. They should know better than anybody the legislation that’s

involved. What we’ll do is look into the matter.

I want to say that in the 20 months that we’ve been in government,

we’ve done more than they did in 16 years to defend the rights of

Aboriginal people in this province.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Ministry of Transportation. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on

the estimates for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations

and Rural Development.

[11:05 a.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 11:06 a.m.

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

(continued) .

The Chair: Members. Members, the question period is over. Thank

you.

J. Sturdy: First of all, thank you to the minister. I see her staff are here.

I wonder if she could provide us some clarity on the commitments that

were made a couple of weeks ago with regard to follow-ups.

Hon. C. Trevena: Before we start, I would like to introduce staff who are here.

There will be a moving feast as we go through the day. We have, on my

left, Grant Main, deputy minister; Nancy Bain, the assistant deputy

minister responsible for all the financials. Behind me is Kevin Richter,

associate deputy minister. Mike Lorimer is the regional person for all

of the southern Interior, and Amanda Farrell is the CEO of TI

Corp.

To answer the member’s question, we are still getting together all

the information. We’ll pass it on to him as soon as we have it

collated.

J. Sturdy: Just for clarity from the minister. We had some questions around….

These were questions around transit — in particular, around where fuel

taxes are collected. There was some response or some suggestion it might

be through the Ministry of Finance. Is this something that is going to

take much longer to figure out?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are working on it, and we’ll get the responses to the member as

soon as we can.

J. Sturdy: I will, if I might, provide a little bit of feedback on the

previous debate, specifically with regard to West Vancouver–Sea to Sky,

with the Sea to Sky regional transit service initiative.

[11:10 a.m.]

Certainly our local governments in that area are very interested

in this particular file and did review our discussions here, our debate

here, previously and did forward me a note from the regional group that

is looking to work with the province to put a regional transit service

in place.

If I might just read into the record some of their questions,

perhaps the minister can…. Whether she wants to answer them directly or

take them on notice, I think it’s important that she understand their

concern. So if I might, this is a quote:

“By the end of November 2018, the ministry had in its hands a

funding model proposed for regional transit service in the Sea to Sky

corridor, a resolution from the B.C. Transit board of directors

approving, in principle, the regional transit commission and the names

of those nominated to the commission by the participating member

governments in that commission.

“Our goal was to have a regional transit system in place by

September 2019, so that the gap left by Greyhound may help alleviate

some of the congestion on the highway, reduce GHG emissions from

single-use vehicles and connect people to employment, medical

appointments, family and recreation opportunities.”

Then it goes on to make some other comments, but ultimately had

some questions:

“What is the government’s timeline? What is their engagement plan?

Local government wants to be part of the conversation, part of the

ministry’s due diligence, not left in an information vacuum. We want

solutions too, and we want them to be sustainable. We don’t think the

government is doing anything nefarious” — which was a reference, I

think, the minister made, and I would agree with that — “but we would

appreciate an opportunity to work with the minister and her staff to

review the proposed model, understand their concerns and work with them

on solutions, as we understand this could be a model for other areas of

the province.”

I ask the minister if she has any response to any of those

questions and concerns.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. I know he had a guest in the

House, I think it was yesterday, from his constituency, who is also

engaged in this issue. I don’t know if she was here hoping to be here

for the question today.

I’m aware of, I guess, the frustrations from the community and

from the member himself. It’s a slow process. We are working through the

process. Still got a commitment to make this work for the region. As we

move on, we will obviously be engaging with community to ensure their

full involvement as well. It’s just that we are working through the

process to get this happening.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister, although I’m not sure that that answer

will be fulsome enough to provide some confidence to local government

that they will be part of the solution. I think they very much would

like to be in this discussion and create a service that ultimately

reflects the needs of that Sea to Sky community.

[11:15 a.m.]

I’ll just ask one more question with regard to this. Can the

minister provide us with a commitment to, at the very least, getting the

commission members appointed in short order and not sometime in the

fall? I just don’t think that would work.

Hon. C. Trevena: We are really moving as fast as we can on this. Again, I recognize

the frustration of the members who want to be on the commission, who

would like to be on the commission. But I’d like to say to the member….

As I say, we’re working as fast as possible. Hopefully, we’re not

talking about fall appointments to the commission or anything like that,

as he indicated. We do really want to make sure this happens.

I think that the member is aware, though…. It’s a different form

of public transit. We’ve got different models all around the province,

and the Sea to Sky corridor one is yet another one. We’ve got our

inter-community ones — whether it’s in Victoria or Campbell River or any

community where you’ve got B.C. Transit operating. We do have a couple

of longer-distance ones — the Cowichan Valley to Victoria one. There is

now a link in the Okanagan. So you can get from Vernon basically down to

Penticton using B.C. Transit. Each is a different model, and this,

again, is a different model. So we’re working through that.

Our government has a real commitment to affordable and safe public

ground transportation. We’re working very hard to ensure that we deal

with — we were discussing them the last time we were here — those gaps

in service from where Greyhound pulled out. We’re wanting to make sure

that the many people who don’t have access to any other transportation

do have access to safe public transportation.

We instituted B.C. Bus North, the B.C. Transit service in the

northern part of B.C. from Prince George north. That, again, is a

different sort of service.

The Highway 16 Corridor. After much lobbying by the member for

North Coast, we finally persuaded the former government to actually get

going with it. That is yet another form of transit.

While we are looking at all these different models — we also have

the Sea to Sky, a different model again — it doesn’t lessen our

commitment. We are completely committed to this. We are completely

committed to all the other forms. It’s just to say that there are lots

of different forms of ensuring that we get people moving safely on

ground transportation through B.C. Transit and through other

services.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for that answer and for the recognition that one size

will not fit all and that each area has its own challenges.

[11:20 a.m.]

I think that speaks to the need for local government and for the

participants in that service to be engaged from day one in the

development and creation of a service that they are going to contribute

to significantly and that will have a major influence in the evolution

of their communities and the functioning of their communities. I think

it’s really important that these members are brought into play, are

appointed and are really able to fully function and fully contribute so

that we end up with a service that really serves those people, as

opposed to having it imposed on them at a later time.

I’ll leave it at that. I think I’ve belaboured it enough for now.

But don’t think that that will be the last time that we talk about it.

I’m sure you’re not naive to that.

If we can move on, just so the minister and her staff are aware, I

think what we’re intending to do is start with rural highways — I think

that was passed on — with the general idea that we’ll start up in the

north and move our way south. I know I have quite a number of MLAs who

would very much like to ask specific questions, and I’ll certainly

provide that opportunity to them.

To begin with, I think we all understand…. I think it’s 47,000

kilometres of highways, maybe 48,000 kilometres of provincial highways.

Somewhere in that neighbourhood. Certainly, residents right around the

whole province rely on that infrastructure in a very significant way. It

really is what connects British Columbia together.

The capital aspect of things is important, and we will talk about

that. But to begin with, the maintenance side of the equation is

something that constituents and residents and business and visitors, for

that matter, feel and understand on a daily basis. I know the minister,

living up on the north Island, understands that, and I certainly do as

well. I have my own personal experience around some of the changes that

have taken place recently and the maintenance contractor rollovers and

that sort of thing. We’ll maybe talk about that later.

I wonder at this point if the minister could give us an overview

of the maintenance contracts in British Columbia just in terms of where

they stand at this particular time, how many have changed over and how

many actual maintenance contracts there are that cover the whole

province.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for this question. It’s important to sort

of break it down. As the member quite rightly says, this is something

that everyone who travels around our highways is really aware of — how

the maintenance contracts work and whether the new ones are or aren’t

perceived to be working. I know that last year in estimates, we had a

lot of discussion about a couple of the contracts, particularly in the

East Kootenay.

There are, in total, 28 maintenance contracts around the province.

Out of those, there were 26 that were being renewed. The two that

weren’t were the East Kootenay ones and Robson-McBride area. Those two

had been renewed earlier on.

Of the 26 that are being renewed at the moment, 12 have already

been awarded. There are ten which are in the final stage of being

reviewed. So it’s just making sure that everything is going to be okay

with them. We anticipate sort of end of May time, we should be

announcing which those are.

There are four others which have been put on B.C. Bid, and that

closed last week. So we’re talking out later this spring to get those

through the whole procurement process, until we’re announcing those.

That makes the 26 which are in this round of renewals.

J. Sturdy: How are they coming in, in terms of budget? Are they coming in

with any expectations? What does that look like?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: they are coming in within budget at the moment. The

bids are coming in within budget. We’re obviously not going to be

announcing the value, because we are still in the procurement process.

We’ve got a number outstanding, so we’re doing that. We have included

higher specifications this year, particularly on winter maintenance. So

that is being factored in.

I did want to note that there has also been a budget lift for this

section in our budget. There’s an extra $13 million provincewide for

highway maintenance because, obviously, it’s so important.

J. Sturdy: With regard to the 12 that have been awarded, are any of those

contractors based outside of British Columbia?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s never quite as simple as it looks, is it. As the member knows

from his own riding, where there is Miller Capilano…. One part of the

company is a B.C. company, and one

part is an Ontario

company.

All the companies who hold maintenance contracts are registered in

Canada, so they have Canadian offices. Miller Capilano is Ontario. Lakes

District was bought out by an Alberta company.

All of the companies are registered in Canada. When there is a

transfer of a contract, it tends to be that the…. Because there are

collective agreements in nearly all the contracts, the collective

agreement means that the hourly workers are the same. It’s still your

same local workers. It might be different for some of the executive,

obviously, but they are all Canadian companies.

J. Sturdy: Is it true that one of the contractor companies — I think it was

out of the Shuswap — was a company based out of India?

Hon. C. Trevena: The Shuswap one is Acciona, which is based out of Spain, but it is

a Canadian-registered office that we’re working with.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for that clarification. What is the methodology for

monitoring performance of the contractors?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I forgot to introduce the person who is extraordinarily important

for this conversation, Ian Pilkington, the director of highway

maintenance renewal. He’s also, at the moment, the acting assistant

deputy minister of highway services. He has been helping sort through

this one.

The way that the scrutiny works — and there is a lot of scrutiny —

is there are 150 operation staff, around the province, who are really

monitoring what is happening on our highways with road maintenance. This

is everything from whether the patching is being done correctly and the

quality of asphalt is right or the quality of concrete is right to

whether the abrasive on the highways is being put on in a timely manner.

And the questions that we all get as MLAs in our constituency offices

about winter maintenance — they’re out checking on that very

routinely.

Obviously, they interact with the maintenance contractors. So they

are providing reports, both if they’re in compliance — we have

compliance standards — and also if they’re not in compliance, and how to

correct their record. There is also an audit system, where we have

regional audits of the contracts. I don’t know if the member himself has

ever been asked this, but as an MLA, I have been asked to comment on the

performance of the contractor. There is a ministry-specific audit of

contractors, so there are various levels at which the contractors are

scrutinized right from literally out on the road through to the paper

audit as well.

J. Sturdy: Well, it sounds rather casual in some respects. If it’s 150 MOTI

staff who are, obviously, not all working at the same time…. They’re

supposed to be monitoring the maintenance performance on 47,000

kilometres of highway and 28 different contracts. Is there a formal way

that they grapple with those maintenance standards? Do they actually go

measure aggregate? How do we know if it’s timely or not?

I guess, secondarily to that, should we, as MLAs, be encouraging

our local governments or other community organizations, who are

continuously expressing concern about the maintenance performance, to

understand what those performance standards are and

reporting?

I say this because, in my personal situation, just this winter, we

had a scenario with a snowstorm and a maintenance contractor who didn’t

have any actual aggregate to put on the road and then, subsequent to

that, had a pothole that was so big that it actually blew up somebody’s

tire. I kept driving around it because I knew that it was going to cause

damage to my own vehicle. And I thought: “Should I be phoning this in?”

But frankly, it’s on Highway 99, and you’d think that the maintenance

contractor would have seen it.

[11:45 a.m.]

Anyway, while I’ve learned that I should, obviously, be much more

aggressive in reporting everything that I see, should we expand that to

all of the public? And how do we make sure that they are held to a

standard that they need to be held to?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I apologize if I gave the impression that this was a very informal

approach. It isn’t.

We’re just talking. The reason we’re taking so long is we’re just

trying to find out how many pages the maintenance specs are — everybody

behind me is working on this — but they’re thick; there are a lot of

specs that are being dealt with.

The performance measures that the maintenance contracts have are

very, very specific. From response times to the issue of a pothole or

snow accumulation and snow clearance, everything that they do has very

prescriptive requirements. It is not a casual approach. We’re very aware

of the need to do this properly and in the same way right across the

province, whether it’s requirements for patrol periods or so on, both

for maintenance staff and for our own staff who are out on the road.

This is going to get even more comprehensive with the new specifications

in the new contracts, where there is now a technical ability to monitor

the contractor in real time. As I say, it’s very specific.

As well as the audits, we apparently have 14,000 monitoring

records that come in. There are 500 local audits and then 28 regional

audits. These are, again, substantive. We’re talking about a week’s

amount of work. They are both paper audits and on the ground. It’s

really making sure that the maintenance contractor is doing the job that

they are being paid by contract to do. As I mentioned before, and I’m

sure the member is aware, there are also the stakeholder engagements —

the ability to get feedback, from local government, provincial

representatives and others, about the state of the roads.

The ministry takes this very, very seriously. We look at it very

much as — and it is — the front end. It’s what everybody does either

complain about, or they may love it. They may complain about it, but

it’s public money being paid to private companies to be looking after

our highways. We want to make sure that they are doing everything that

they can to make sure our highways are safe, are clean, are working to

the standard that British Columbians expect.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Trevena moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $508,192,000

(continued) .

Hon. D. Donaldson: With that, I’ll be willing to take questions from the

critic.

[11:15 a.m.]

J. Rustad: I’m pleased that the minister can be willing to take questions.

That’s good. The estimates process, of course, is an interesting one. We

didn’t quite finish up with wildlife yesterday. We finished up pretty

much on the caribou issue. I wanted to ask a few questions around

wildlife. Then we’ll move into forestry-related questions — not that

wildlife isn’t forestry-related.

We talked about the budget for wildlife, particularly for caribou.

I think the minister said, at the opening remarks yesterday, the budget

for wildlife management was $36 million across government plus an

additional $10 million that was being spent on caribou

recovery.

Could the minister perhaps provide some details in terms of the

overall budget spending on wildlife issues in B.C., outside of caribou

management?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As I read into the record yesterday, within the ministry, there’s

$23 million spent on wildlife management. That’s $23 million in

staffing.

In addition, there’s $2.6 million within the ministry spent on

inventory and monitoring work related to wildlife, $3.1 million in this

coming budget on habitat and species-at-risk work and $1.2 million on

moose research and inventory work.

As well, this is the government contribution in the upcoming

budget to these line items. Through partnerships, we’re also able to

garner external funding to support program delivery from organizations

such as the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and also university

research work.

J. Rustad: The budget from, I think, last year had a $14 million allocation,

which was engagement and developing a new wildlife model. I think, if

I’m correct, if we’re into year two — year one, I think, was $1 million;

year two was $3 million — is that money included in the budget that the

minister has just outlined?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the member is correct that we were able to secure, in the

previous budget, a $14 million uplift over three years to improve

wildlife management and habitat conservation. So yes, this current year

was $1 million funding. In this coming budget, that will be increased by

$2 million, so it will be a $3 million spend. And then the final year is

a $10 million spend.

Of that $3 million for the coming budget year, $1.2 million is on

staffing; $250,000 on direct engagement with stakeholders to improve the

wildlife management and habitat conservation model; and the remainder is

delivery of the program — increased inventory work, for instance — that

will help support the delivery of a new model.

J. Rustad: I had asked the minister whether that was part of the wildlife

spending that he outlined before. He’s nodding his head that it

is.

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s not part.

J. Rustad: It’s not part? So that’s separate. Okay. That’s good to

know.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just did a head nod, but just, as part of the record, it’s not

part of the $23 million I alluded to earlier.

The Chair: Hansard doesn’t use emojis.

J. Rustad: We should modernize Hansard .

What is collected in tags and in various other taxes that are

occurred upon hunters for hunting activity and equipment?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The hunting licence annual revenue is $10 million. There’s also a

surcharge on that hunting licence that goes directly to the Habitat

Conservation Trust Foundation, and that’s another $2.6 million. The

member referenced taxes on equipment. We have no direct revenue from

taxation of equipment that could be used in hunting.

J. Rustad: Is the minister planning — in this fiscal year or as part of the

discussions around this new hunting model that is going out and for

discussion — on looking at the allocation of that funding towards

habitat or towards conservation recovery projects, and is the minister

also looking at any other revenue generating, whether it’s increases to

tags, increases to licences or, potentially, a surplus tax on hunting

and outdoor recreation equipment?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re actively engaged with people who represent hunters, like the

B.C. Wildlife Federation, as well as associations like the Guide

Outfitters Association of B.C., to come up with policy options around

improving the wildlife management in B.C. and improving habitat

conservation. One of the options that’s being discussed is whether to

dedicate money from licences to a program, a new model for

management.

As well, some of the discussions with those groups and others are

around expanding the revenue stream. I know the B.C. Wildlife Federation

has publicly put forward the concept of a taxation model on equipment

use for hunting that could be directed specifically to wildlife

management and habitat conservation and not simply into general revenue.

Another concept that’s being considered is expanding the revenue stream

under the Wildlife Act to include commercial wildlife viewing

operations, as well.

J. Rustad: I’m aware those are conversations that are going on. I guess, at

the end of this year, the $3 million…. We take the jump to $10 million

into the next year’s budget. I’m assuming that will be for

implementation of actions that come out of this process of engagement

that has gone on.

When will the hunters of the province, when will this Legislature

know if the minister is considering the increased fee or increased other

types of revenue sources that could be dedicated towards wildlife or

wildlife management?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As far as how the timeline is going to roll out on this and

whether to dedicate the licence revenue to a new management program,

that kind of information is being deeply discussed with stakeholders.

The

summary of that information will be brought to me by this summer,

and then direction will be issued after that.

I just want to make note that we have increased the amount of time

around how, potentially, a new model could be implemented. In this

budget, we’ve also added the $10 million per year that we see in the

third year — what was previously the third year of this initiative of

2021. We’ve also added the $10 million in ’21-22, as well, so it gives

us some time to work on the new model.

J. Rustad: Through these discussions and the process, I’m sure the minister

must have a timeline as part of these discussions from both last year

and this year. When will stakeholders, when will the public, expect to

see a potential design or a draft of what a new model might be? And

then, of course, will there be an input opportunity, once that goes out

for other people, to be able to engage and provide feedback?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As I said, we’ve been in in-depth discussions with stakeholders.

That information will be summarized and coming to me by this summer. The

intention is to have a strategy paper this fall to take out for broad

public consultation on some of the options that we have settled on as

far as a new model for wildlife management and habitat conservation in

B.C., as far as the revenue streams, especially. So the strategy paper

will be this fall. We anticipate settling on the final decision in

J. Rustad: I just want to try to wrap up, if I can, on wildlife issues. We’ve

obviously seen significant declines in ungulates around the province.

We’ve seen hunts cancelled, particularly for guide-outfitters, etc.

There’s significant impact. We’ve seen, particularly predators, the

numbers growing — in many areas, large packs, etc.,

happening.

What is the ministry’s plan around trying to manage the predator

problem that we have throughout the province — not just associated with

caribou, but around the province? How comprehensive will that plan be

around that as part of a strategy for recovery of ungulates?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The decline of ungulates in certain areas of the province in

certain species is a major concern and is of special interest to me, as

well, considering the area I represent, and I’m sure the area that the

member represents. Driving into Smithers the other day, I saw a moose

that was just white from ticks. These sometimes are a result of actions

that are global, like climate change.

But as far as the predator factor, well, first of all, the hunting

regulations only address surplus. Conservation comes first. That’s how

the hunt numbers are set, as far as tags and the number of a species

that we decide can be removed each year through hunt. We know that in

certain regions of the province, predators are a factor, and a

significant factor.

What we’ve done in some of those areas is relaxed the hunting.

Relaxing — in other words, increasing the hunting season on our

predators. We’ve expanded the collaring of predators, like wolves, and

ungulates so that we can ensure that science-based information is being

used to make those decisions about increasing the hunting of

predators.

Predators are a factor. But as we also well canvassed in the

caribou questions, habitat for ungulates can also be a factor, in that

habitat can relate to moose, deer and, a little less so, I think, to

elk. But moose and deer — definitely habitat is a factor in

numbers.

D. Barnett: Minister, I’d like to go back to the guide-outfitters. As I’ve

asked you in the House twice now, what compensation is going to be given

to the nine guide-outfitters who were given their moose allocation, did

their preparation, got their camps ready, spent their money and then had

to go back to the international community and tell them: “We’re sorry,

you’re not welcome in British Columbia to hunt”?

What compensation will be given to these hunters or these

guide-outfitters who have basically lost their right to grizzly bear

hunt? They’ve lost their moose allocations. They have a great, huge

amount of money invested. Will there be any compensation for these

people?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: What I can tell the member today is that we’re continuing the

conversation with those guide-outfitters who lost moose allocation. We

are going to follow the proper government approval process through

Treasury Board when we bring forward compensation issues or

decisions.

That process will happen in the coming fiscal year, 2019-2020, as

far as the Treasury Board approval process. Also, we’re continuing to

work with guide-outfitters in the sector to diversify their ability to

support their operations.

J. Rustad: There are many other points on wildlife that I would love to go

into around this, but we don’t have time, unfortunately. We’ve got to

move on to some other topics.

At this point, I’d like to switch over and start asking the

minister with regards to softwood lumber and the steps that the ministry

is, I’m sure, working with the Minister of Trade on with regards to the

softwood lumber file. Softwood lumber and the softwood lumber agreement,

or the lack thereof, of course, is putting a tremendous amount of

uncertainty on our mills. The duties are creating a real challenge for

many mills around the province in their operating and their ability to

be able to carry on with operations.

I’ll maybe just start with a general question to the minister

around softwood lumber, in terms of…. Can the minister detail the steps

that are being planned and the budget that’s being planned to be spent

this year with regards to engagement on softwood lumber?

I’ll ask about details in a minute, but let’s look at what the

minister has planned in general and any budget that’s allocated for

dealing with the issue of softwood lumber.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Okay. I’m trying to… There’s a lot going on, on the litigation

front, so I’ll outline the next steps. These aren’t the only steps that,

obviously, will be taking place this year, but I wanted to make sure I

didn’t expend an inordinate amount of time gathering the information so

that the member can ask some more questions.

Right now we’re into litigation. There are no negotiations going

on, and we’re playing the long game in litigation in order to achieve

the levers that we believe we will achieve through litigation to

counteract these unwarranted and unjust tariffs.

The litigation process is being followed through — through our

NAFTA agreements, through WTO and the ITC. The next panel of

significance for us…. The next panel will be May 7 in Washington on its

appeal through NAFTA of the ITC decision on injury. It’s a one-day

hearing. It’s important, because if no injury claim is found during that

panel hearing, then the case for the tariffs goes away.

We will have senior staff…. The deputy minister and senior staff

from the ministry will be in Washington for that panel hearing. They’ll

also be attending meetings at the embassy and, as well, with the

National Association of Home Builders.

As far as the budget for this coming fiscal year to undertake

these kind of activities from our ministry, it’s $1.5

million.

The Chair: Minister, can you note the hour? There you go.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada