Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 49

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

(continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Bernier

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

(continued)

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Fraser

D. Ashton

J. Rustad

E. Ross

D. Barnett

P. Milobar

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. K. Chen

L. Larson

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Transportation. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. After that, if we get through that,

then we’ll also call Children and Families.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

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

(continued).

J. Sturdy: The question we were canvassing prior to lunch was the issue of

the Kicking Horse, which I think we all understand is a highly complex

and difficult project that will take place. I think the minister

mentioned construction in 2019 and completion in 2024.

Is that timeline changed at all, or is this the same timeline that

has been proposed for some time now?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s the same timeline.

J. Sturdy: In the mandate letter, it does suggest that the minister is

instructed to accelerate this project. How do we square that same

timeline with the commitment to accelerate?

Hon. C. Trevena: The mandate letter is to accelerate the Highway 1 upgrades to the

Alberta border. It’s a commitment that we are very determined to make

sure happens. That means looking at what we already have and making sure

that the projects on the table can move forward as expeditiously as

possible, as well as bringing in new projects.

I’ve travelled the highway many times, and most recently a few

weeks ago, going through it with ministry staff, looking at what the

existing projects are and what’s been happening, literally, from Kicking

Horse. We did it east to west, from Kicking Horse to Kamloops, looking

at what is planned, what has happened and areas that we could be

expediting — so bringing in new sections of the highway to be

working.

At the moment, apart from the Kicking Horse Canyon, much of the

work has been on the western

section of the corridor. So it’s how we can

bring the two sections together — working from east to west as well as

working from west to east.

Also, ministry staff are looking very clearly at which sections.

All the engineering work, where engineering work has been done in some

sections that aren’t yet on the list — how we can bring that knowledge

forward.

There’s a huge amount of work coming from the ministry looking at

the highway corridor as a whole and how we can, literally, move along

what we’ve got. We were talking about the Chase project before lunch,

and the Kicking Horse project. So these are ones that we have set

timelines on, but we do want to bring more projects into this to

accelerate it.

J. Sturdy: Has the minister, at this point, identified any sections that the

ministry would think they could accelerate?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. One of the reasons that I went on the

trip with ministry staff was to look at the whole highway and to see,

just from the politician’s point of view, what pieces of highway look

good and what doesn’t look good. It’s very different from the engineer’s

point of view, obviously, and we all have our own

interpretation of

which piece of highway could be fixed really easily and which piece of

highway must be really difficult.

It’s very interesting to actually have that conversation, over the

two days on the road with staff — going through, literally, with a map

and cross-sections, both in community and out of community — about the

potentials and the difficulties. I have talked a lot, particularly on

the eastern section. One of my focuses has been on that Golden to

Revelstoke area, because that’s where we see a huge number of accidents.

That’s where you hear people in Golden and in Revelstoke always talking

about…. Both communities know the danger of that piece of highway, that

people die on that highway. That is really what is literally driving the

need to improve it.

The reasons we’re doing this work are for safety, for commerce and

for ensuring that we get that really good corridor between B.C. and the

rest of Canada and make sure that we’re doing it right. I don’t have

specific sections yet which we would be highlighting as new sections. We

did announce one project a few weeks ago, the Donald to Forde section.

As mentioned earlier on, we had the discussion about the area around

Chase, and there will be one going out soon on that section.

We will be working very closely on trying to find the specific

sections of highway so that we can ensure that we really do get the

project moving, because this is a commitment. It is a way of making sure

that highway is safe, making sure that highway is really up to the

standards that the Trans-Canada should be, that our main artery should

be.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Does the minister have any estimates of

timelines when she may be able to identify areas for

acceleration?

Hon. C. Trevena: The trip was very much a first blush for me as the minister to

have a look at it from the ministerial point of view. I have done it as

the spokesperson — to go through and to have a look at it as

spokesperson — and, obviously, done it personally, to go through the

highway.

The timeline for specific projects and when we’re going to be

announcing them is as we get them ready. The plan is in place that we

are working on. We’re working through that. New projects, as we identify

them, as we pull them up, as we see whether they are going to be really

feasible, we’ll be announcing them at that time.

[1:45 p.m.]

We’re also, obviously, engaging both local governments and the

federal government — local governments because of the impact. We’re

engaging the First Nations all along the corridor. We’ve got good

relations with First Nations, so engaging with First Nations, and

obviously engaging with the federal government, too, reminding them that

it is the Trans-Canada Highway and that it would be nice to get a little

bit of support there too.

We are working on a lot of different levels at the moment to

ensure that this very important part of my mandate letter is fulfilled

in a timely way. I mean, it’s not going to be something that would be

completed in three or four years. We know how long this goes on for. We

talked about 11 kilometres, earlier today, that’s going to be finalized

in about 2022, and that’s that one section.

At the same time, we have the commitment to accelerate it. That’s

why I’m looking at other projects that we can bring on board, working

with ministry staff, making sure that we are looking at the corridor as

a whole and looking at those places where we can really make a

difference — reduce the accident rate, make the highway safer and make

it a highway that people really feel comfortable to drive on without the

worries that I think a lot of people have.

I’m sure the member has talked to people who drive along that

corridor. People do not like it. We get people driving from Salmon Arm

to Calgary or wherever. People are not happy driving it. We want to make

sure that it is a highway of high quality, high standard, that is safe

and does open B.C., allow B.C. to remain open, to the rest of

Canada.

J. Sturdy: I certainly understand that. I think we all feel the same way. We

all want a safe, efficient highway system. But the mandate letter is

quite specific about accelerating the four-laning of Highway 1 to the

Alberta border.

I’m trying to better understand how that would happen and how we

measure that. How do we determine, at the end of the day, that the

minister is successful in achieving that condition of her mandate

letter? Is there anything that the minister could provide to us that

could help us better understand how we judge her on this

commitment?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I said, we are looking at the projects that are on the table

now and looking at new projects with the lens of the acceptability of

the highway, the driveability of the highway and the safety of the

highway.

The previous Minister of Transportation asked some questions — I

think that it was the previous minister; it might have been yourself,

Member — about the Chase section, the four-laning of the Trans-Canada.

There’s been a long history of commitment to four-laning of the

Trans-Canada. It was, I believe, from Cache Creek to Alberta. There’s

the four-laning that we’ve had recently. But we need to make that

commitment that we will be making an investment in all aspects of

it.

I’m not going to say we will finish it in X number of years. What

I am saying is that we are going to be looking at projects, how we can

fast-track some of the projects that have already been identified and

that we already have the preliminary designs on, how we can fast-track

those and how we can work on new projects. Whether it is to deal with

the safety issue…. Say there is a certain

section of the highway, Golden

to Revelstoke — whether there are big safety concerns.

So whether we’re looking at the safety aspect of it, to bring

those on board, or whether we’re looking at the commercial aspect, where

we are ensuring that we’ve got safer passing for trucks on some of the

mountains, we’re going to be looking right across this, because it is a

matter of bringing that highway up to conditions that everybody would be

expecting to be driving in the 21st century.

You see other sections of the Trans-Canada in other parts of the

country. Admittedly, our geography works against us, but it’s because of

that geography that we have to make that investment and make that

commitment. We’ve got to make sure that people driving that corridor,

whether it is the trucker coming from Calgary to the port or the

tourists in their RV, can drive it safely and can drive it without

hindrance. The best way to do that is to make an investment and make a

commitment to fast-tracking the four-laning. So that’s what we’re going

to be doing.

We started day one, July 18, when I was sworn into government.

This was in my mandate letter. It will continue to be a priority as long

as I’m the Minister of Transportation, and it will continue to be a

priority as long as this government is in power.

J. Sturdy: I’m not feeling any closer to understanding how we can judge

here.

We understand that the consultations necessary with the First

Nations take the time that they take. The design and tender periods,

again, don’t tend to be rushed. They are pretty standard, in many

respects, depending on the complexity of the project.

[1:55 p.m.]

The construction periods would tend to be difficult to accelerate.

I can’t imagine how, in the Kicking Horse, you’d add more trucks or more

equipment, given the physical constraints there. I take it, then, that

really, the only way that you would be able to accelerate would be to

add additional projects that were not already on the books — or advance

those timelines that are already proposed to an earlier timeline. At

this point, have there been any projects that have either been

prioritized that weren’t planned for already or that have been

advanced?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I can hear his frustration. I apologize if this is

frustrating, but it’s very important that we get it right. We are

talking about Highway 1. We’re talking about the Trans-Canada. We’re

talking about our main artery, our link to the rest of Canada. It’s for

use by everybody, and that’s why we want to get it right.

As I say, I went out on the highway with staff recently. We looked

at all the existing projects. We looked at the highway, with

geotechnical engineers and others, to see what areas they were

suggesting we could start looking at for planning. As the member knows

from previous discussions, we are always talking with First Nations

about including them. We are talking with communities.

We are looking at how we can work on the existing projects, making

sure that they come up and get moved on as quickly as possible, as well

as bringing new projects in. I’ve got the priority, as I say, of that

area between Golden and Revelstoke, where there are a number of

accidents. The member can talk to his colleague from Columbia

River–Revelstoke and others about the impact that that

section of

highway has on the two communities of Golden and Revelstoke. It’s huge.

It really is a big concern. There are other sections that likewise have

a big impact.

That’s why staff have gone out with me. I was working with them.

They’re going to be drawing up the list of those projects that we’ve got

underway, those that are in planning, those that could be brought up to

the next level, ready to start working on, and we’ll be working through

them.

[2:00 p.m.]

It’s there in my mandate letter, to accelerate the four-laning of

the Trans-Canada from Kamloops to the Alberta border. We will be doing

it. I’ll be making sure it’s one of my….

I know the member was very briefly minister and got a mandate

letter. When you get that mandate letter, you look at it seriously, that

those are your priorities. The member asked me yesterday when we were

starting this debate: what would be my top three? These are my

priorities — what is in front of me: that acceleration and making sure

that we are building on the projects that are already there, working on

getting those through, as well as bringing new ones into the stream and

pushing ahead with this.

We will ensure that we are actually very serious about this and

not just doing, sort of, some of the more visible sections. We want to

do as much as we can as quickly as we can, without shortchanging people

as well.

That’s the other thing. If we’re building a highway, it is a big

investment. I’m not being trivial here, and I’m not trying to belittle

it. It’s a huge investment to be investing in this highway. We want to

make sure that we get it right, and that we’re building a highway that

will last and won’t just deteriorate. There are a lot of different

things that we’re looking at. But on the question of accelerating: we

will be accelerating it.

We’re looking at the existing projects. We’ll be bringing in new

projects, and the member will see that there will be a lot of work

happening along Highway 1 in the next three years.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I understand that there is a certain

degree of uncertainty at this point, and we’ll be looking to the

minister in the future for some more concrete response in terms of

commitments.

When those are made or as they are made, recognizing that

accelerating projects…. Bringing more equipment on to that project or

trying to make it happen faster has implications. It clearly can have

implications in quality, although one would hope…. I think we all

recognize that something that we would strive to avoid is quality

concerns around accelerated construction. I guess the other piece to

this was adding new projects that weren’t otherwise or previously

identified and on the workplan.

Can the minister speak to any estimated cost implications of

accelerating projects or adding projects to her budget? Where is she

anticipating additional budget resources in future years?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think that we may be speaking a little bit at cross-purposes

here. I’m not sure. But we’re talking about not necessarily compressing

the timeline on individual projects, of sort of rushing through a

project to get it done. Bearing in mind there are often very real

reasons why a project is going to take so much time…. It’s not just from

the engineering work on but weather and geography and everything else.

Then, there are the unknown issues which can come up, whether it is an

environmental issue or, at times, an Indigenous archeological concern or

something like that, that will obviously impact the individual

project.

We are talking about, when we’re talking about accelerating…. It’s

accelerating the program, accelerating the whole four-laning of the

Trans-Canada. It’s not individual projects, but it’s bringing more on

board, bringing more on stream. Ministry staff do give me assurances

that there is capacity with industry to do this, to make sure that we

can be bringing more on stream.

When you do, as the member I’m sure is aware, there are often

efficiencies. If you have more projects going at the same time, there

are economies of scale. There are ways of getting, really, literally

more bang for your buck, so you’ve got more projects working at the same

time in an area. So there is that.

Because you’re accelerating the program, it doesn’t mean an added

cost to any individual projects. You’re not compressing the timeline on

that project. You are moving projects on, either concurrently or

consecutively, but bringing more of them on.

We’re talking about the length of the Trans-Canada. Instead of

project A finishing and project B starting and so on, you’re doing A, B

and C, G, H and whatever, all the way through the corridor. That’s how

I’d like to see it happen. I would to see it move as fast as we possibly

can, but without cutting corners.

Again, we have very serious issues. One is that we are building

our main artery. Two, we’ve got issues that we’ve got to make sure it is

going to be safe, that the design work does suit the needs and that

we’re not making shortcuts in our acceleration — shortcuts that will, in

the end, cost the province — but that we are actually investing properly

in this really major project for B.C.

J. Sturdy: I guess I’m not…. I can’t imagine how we can move forward, add

projects, and not add budget. I think the question I asked earlier was:

do you anticipate additional budget resources for the addition of

projects which weren’t otherwise on the workplan?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, we are obviously talking about the September update

at the moment, which is a consistent line. Looking to the future, we are

looking at projects. We are doing the costings for them, and that will

be reflected in future budgets.

As we move on with the acceleration, we’ll be looking at the

budget line as we get the costing for the projects, both the existing

projects and whether they’ve gone up in costs — which, as people know,

happens — and for the new projects that we want to bring on line. We’ll

be looking at that, and that will be a matter for future budgets, which

I look forward to talking to the member about maybe next

spring.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for allowing additional people,

obviously, to come forward with regional questions. Let me start, first

of all, by acknowledging and thanking not only the minister — and

congratulating her — but her staff.

I think a lot of other colleagues have stood up as well and said

how appreciative we are, especially within the Ministry of

Transportation. The relationship that we have on the ground with our

staff…. I look at Scott Maxwell, the regional manager in Prince George,

and all the staff I have up in my area. The relationship over my dozen

years in politics has been incredible. Because of that, it makes it a

lot easier when it comes to estimates for me to bring forward questions

such as this.

I have a couple of things I want to bring forward. First off is….

I understand the timelines that it takes to go through everything from

the engineering to the geotechnical to the drafting to the costing. I

appreciate that. But there’s also the understanding in the regions,

especially in ours, with the amount of activity in the oil and gas

sector that we have right now — making sure that we have the continued

commitments within government for the ongoing work that needs to be

done.

The two — and they’re tied together — that I’ll ask…. Maybe I’ll

lump them into one question for the minister to make it easier. One is

the South Taylor Hill, and the minister will probably be aware of this

one. We just did, very successfully, I would say, after years of trying

to work with the federal government…. We had some cost-sharing that took

place to have four-laning for the lower section.

It’s my understanding that we have some possible commitment from

the federal government to partner with us for the second phase to

complete that project. I just want to find out from the minister, if I

can, first of all, on the South Taylor, if and when we’re going to be

starting to see that.

[2:15 p.m.]

I understand on the ground there might be a little bit of work,

but of course, the people in the area, specifically our truck drivers in

the area, need to know that that’s going be done and done properly.

There were some challenges with one corner that was done many years back

where the grade was not done properly. It was on a corner. It went to a

10 percent grade, so of course, every truck spins out on there in the

wintertime. It needs to be adjusted and fixed, and hopefully, that will

be part of the either the second or third phase.

The South Taylor Hill is part of, as the minister would know, the

Alaska Highway — the commitment from the past government that was

working toward four-laning from the Alberta border to Fort St. John and

possibly beyond, because of the oil and gas activity.

Just to remind the minister…. It’s one of those topics I almost

hate to bring up. The reason why we looked at it is because it is so

unsafe. The amount of fatalities that we have on that highway, annually,

is unforgiveable in a lot of ways, and we need to be continuing to make

those investments.

The reason why I bring that up is we’ve just finished another

project of four-laning on the Alaska Highway. The public in the Peace

region has been used to seeing, as one project was being finished, the

next section…. Of course, we understand it’s not going to be

start-to-end four-laning and that there are areas identified, for safety

reasons, that are prioritized, and then those ones are moved

forward.

I was just wondering if you can give me the timeline, then, on

South Taylor Hill, if we’re still working with the federal government

for that next phase? And when will we see the next announcement for the

next section, however large or small that will be, for four-laning on

the Alaska Highway between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John? We’re used to

seeing a next phase starting every year, and so far, we haven’t seen

anything.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I’m aware of the South Taylor Hill. I’m sorry. The staff here

have obviously got a lot of knowledge. I don’t know the area as well as

I know some areas of the province, and I apologize for that. Staff do

know it very well, and as you know, your local staff are very much on

top of this.

The tendering for part of the road — the midsection, from what has

just been completed up to, effectively, the bottom of the start of the

hill — is going to be in 2018, so it will be starting next

year.

There are, as I’m sure the member is well aware, huge geotechnical

issues all the way through there. That’s really what’s slowing the work

down on the…. Obviously, I understand the real concern of the hill and

the grade.

[2:25 p.m.]

Planning work is happening there. Engineering work is happening

there. That won’t be in the scope of this work starting in 2018, but

ministry engineers and staff are looking at the plans of how to move on

with it and how to do it. As the member says, you don’t want the record

of accidents. You do want to be dealing with this.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that. If she could maybe just follow

up with the other part of my question, which was just around the Alaska

Highway in general, because, as I was mentioning, of course, we’ve been

accustomed to, after the last commitment, seeing at least a few

kilometres of either passing lane or four-laning done every year,

understanding that we can’t four-lane the whole thing all at

once.

The public is just wondering when or where they’ll see that next

phase, because we’ve gone through, now, a summer of no announcements. We

were told that this fall there might be some more, and we’re just kind

of curious if that’s true or what’s happening.

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand the member’s desire to see the continued moving as

we’re pushing along with the four-laning. At the moment, it’s in the

planning stage. There is going to be continuing planning towards Dawson

Creek and planning the other side of Taylor Hill towards Fort St. John.

That’s what the ministry is working on at the moment — to get in a

position where we can be ready to move, if possible, in the near

future.

J. Sturdy: A few more of these local issues, if I might. Mile 28 Level Rail

Crossing on Highway 16, the only level crossing between Alberta and

Prince Rupert. I trust the minister has…. I don’t know if she had an

opportunity this year to do that drive. It’s an amazing drive along the

Skeena there, but this is a problematic crossing. I understand that it

was due for construction tender this winter, according to the ministry’s

website, planned to be finished by the spring of 2020.

Could we understand the status of that tender at this

point?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m sure the member has done that drive himself. It is

spectacular. I’ve done it a number of times, and I never lose the awe of

driving along the Skeena. Either whether you’re going west or you’re

going east, it’s still a monumental drive.

On the specifics of that grade crossing, yes, we are continuing

with it. It’s going to go out for tender this winter. Work is intended

to start spring next year. It’s anticipated it’ll take three years for

construction, so it will be complete in 2020. Hopefully, it’ll make

things that bit safer along that road. Obviously, as the member knows,

it’s a beautiful road, but at times can feel not the safest of highways.

You’ve got the change in climate from the Pacific right to the Interior,

when you get to Terrace, so you’ve got all of that as well.

But on that specific question, it should be complete, with the

target to finish it in 2020.

J. Sturdy: That’s great news. Thank you to the minister. We want to do all we

can to avoid people racing trains, as well, don’t we?

Moving on to the North Shore. I know it was canvassed to some

degree yesterday, but I did want to just get a sense of the status of

the Highway 1 lower Lynn interchange. It was funded at almost $200

million, including $66 million from the federal government. If we could

get a bit of a status update on where that project is at. Is it on time?

Is it planned to be completed for next fall, as was planned

for?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I could hear, from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, her

concerns. As I mentioned at that time, I’ll be working with my colleague

for North Vancouver–Lonsdale on the issue, the whole congestion issue of

the North Shore. Obviously, it’s extremely frustrating, but we are

hoping that the work that is being done will alleviate some of that

congestion.

There are four phases of the project. We’re aiming to have them

all complete by 2021. The first, which is under construction and is due

to be completed by next year, is the Mountain Highway interchange. That

is, as I say, under construction and should be completed on

schedule by

next year.

[2:40 p.m.]

Then it’s being done sequentially, so the Keith interchange is

being designed at the moment. There will then be public input into next

year. That should be ready to go when the preceding one finishes. So

when that completes in 2018, the next

section should start. Again in

sequence, Dollarton will be the next one. That will, hopefully, be

coming in on stream just as the previous one completes. Then finally,

it’s the Lynn bridges that will be dealt with.

Obviously, there’s a lot of work with the Squamish First Nation to

make sure that this is done appropriately and that there is full

involvement with them; also, people involved with it — necessarily,

TransLink because of the location. So TransLink is involved. Local

government on the North Shore are also involved, and the cycling

community.

As I’m sure the member knows, there’s a very active cycling

community both in the North Shore and across the Lower Mainland. I’m

sure he is on their email lists, as am I, and gets all the information

about what they’re doing — last week’s Bike to Work Week and all the

other successful initiatives. We want to make sure that we integrate the

cycling community in our developments anywhere where we’re working. But

when you’re talking about a congested area like the Lower Mainland, we

want to make sure that alternative modes of transportation are

considered as well.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I would hope that she would find

opportunity to work with all of us who represent the North Shore — West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky, West Vancouver–Capilano, North Vancouver…. Oh, and

the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast also, because I think the

ministry is planning on building a bridge over there. Isn’t that right,

Member?

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: Just so I’m clear, we’re talking about the right…. Just if I could

summarize here. The functional design for the Keith Road interchange was

planned to be finished this year. This is what I have here, and then, I

guess, construction next year. The construction of the Mountain Highway

interchange — complete next year. And the Lynn Creek connectivity

functional design was planned to be completed this year. Could I get the

minister to correct me on any of those timelines? Happy to repeat if I

need to.

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to again make sure that we’re talking about this same things

— and yes, there are a number of members from the North Shore, although

sometimes I think of the member more as sort of Sea to Sky and

Pemberton-based, even with a touch of the islands, with

Bowen.

[2:45 p.m.]

The first phase is the Mountain Highway interchange, which will be

completed next year. That’s on schedule. Then the next one is the Keith

Road–Mount Seymour interchange and the Lynn bridges. They’re being

tendered at the same time. That will be next year, and the intention is

for them to be complete in 2020 — so two years on that one. The

engineering work is going on at the moment on those, and then there will

be open houses and public consultation on those.

Then the final phase, if you’re putting the Lynn bridges in with

phase 2, is the Dollarton one, Dollarton–Main Street, which will be

completed by spring 2021. Obviously, the tendering will be a couple of

years prior to that — engineering work, a couple of years prior to that

— so it can move sequentially.

J. Sturdy: My riding, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, just so you know, starts at

29th Street in West Vancouver, so it’s about a quarter or a third of

West Vancouver.

I want to also provide acknowledgment to the member opposite — I

should have probably consulted him, actually — for Powell River–Sunshine

Coast, because he did remind me of something, and that is the Sunshine

Coast fixed-link assessment. I wondered — again, thank you, to the

member — when we would expect to see that assessment being made

public.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I’m glad he remembered this very pressing issue. At

the moment, the report has been completed. It is with staff who are

reviewing it. I am anticipating seeing a copy by the end of next month,

and after that, obviously, we’ll be talking more widely about whether

any of the initiatives in that report are going to be followed up or

not. I know that my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast is

anticipating it as eagerly as the member himself. And I apologize for

getting his constituency wrong.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. Can I take it, then, that we will see a

public presentation or public access to that report in — would it be

fair to say — January, February?

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is lobbying with me to

have it produced earlier.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. We’re still in October, so when I’m talking

about the end of next month, we’re talking about the end of November.

I’m hoping that we’ll be able to be discussing it more widely before

Christmas — that it will be out there. I think everybody wants to see

what is involved, but staff are doing due diligence.

[2:50 p.m.]

I know that there’s some frustration about what it’s going to be

saying or why it’s taking so long to find out what it’s saying. But

staff are doing due diligence to make sure that everything is correct

before we go more public with it.

J. Sturdy: One last local issue here in the Lower Mainland — Highway 7

improvement project is expected to be finished for next winter. Is that

on time and on budget?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’ve got a few pieces of highway improvement on Highway 7. I just

wanted to clarify which the member was talking about. We’ve got the

section from Nelson to Silverdale. We’ve got the

section around Harris

Road, and we’ve got the Haney Bypass. If the member could just clarify

whether there’s any one

section or if it’s the package he wants, the

information. The big picture? Got you.

The first one. I’ll start on the Nelson-to-Silverdale section. It

was delayed. It is the four-laning. Very necessary safety improvements

are being planned. The four-laning through here was an issue. As the

member is aware, every year there are certain fish windows that have to

be worked around. The fish window for this year was missed. Really, as

the member is aware, if you are working around streams and fish habitat,

you’ve got to be very, very cautious if there are specific times when

you can be working so you don’t destroy the habitat.

Having missed this year’s fish window, if we were starting later

in the year, it would cause real problems when you’ve got the high-water

season. So it was decided to delay it. However, it will still be

finishing.

It’s starting now, in the summer of 2018, which is obviously later

than had been anticipated when it was announced March 2017. It is a bit

later than anticipated. But it will be still completed in 2019, despite

the late start.

[3:00 p.m.]

The other two pieces that are going to be done are…. In Pitt

Meadows, the extension of the right-turn lane, from Allan Way to Harris

Road, to allow commercial vehicles to get on to Highway 7 from Allan

Way. It’s an acceleration-deceleration lane. That is going ahead. That’s

going to be starting in 2018.

The Haney Bypass in Maple Ridge. There are intersection

improvements which are also going to be happening. They should all be

finished about the same time, in 2019.

M. Lee: I’d like to just continue the discussion that we’ve been having

through estimates regarding a new way of looking at the bidding process.

Certainly today, in the answer to the questions that we were asking in

the House, the Premier continued to talk about community benefit

arrangements as another way of looking at best bids.

I’d like to ask, first of all, in terms of the apprenticeship

aspect of this. There’s been a desire to build capacity there. What is

the capacity, from the ministry’s point of view, that’s needed for this

province in the area of apprentices for Transportation?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased that the member has brought this up again,

because the community benefits agreement’s policy, I think, as the

Premier was saying during question period, really is very exciting.

There’s so much that we can be doing for the whole province and our

communities via any of our infrastructure projects. Whether it’s in

transportation, health, education, we are investing not just in the

physical fabric of our communities and our society but in the fabric of

our people, making sure that we are truly investing in our

people.

As the member knows, in transportation there are many, many trades

that are involved in road-building and construction, in work, whether it

is carpenters, machinists, heavy-equipment operators — all of which we

can be working on apprenticeships. It is absolutely full of

opportunity.

We can be bringing more and more young people into the field and

all the people who want to retrain. The apprenticeship system is not

always just for young people. We’re looking at how we can engage people,

employ people, make sure that people get high-quality education and get

a qualification that is recognized and renowned. We have a good, quality

apprenticeship. That is one of the things that we can be extraordinarily

proud of.

We spend hundreds of millions of dollars around the province in

this ministry. It’s not just in the Lower Mainland; it is right around

the province. Having a community benefits agreement approach, ensuring

that we are using local procurement, local businesses and building into

the apprenticeship system, I think, will be a fantastic

advantage.

The member’s colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, when we

were talking in estimates earlier on today, was talking, as somebody who

had been working in community colleges for many years, about how

important he saw this approach to be. I think that across the province,

people will be seeing it, embracing it and looking at it as a real way

forward.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. Obviously, I’m raising this again today

in the context of estimates because, as we’re hearing from our

colleagues, including my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, there

is a shared concern that we have in this House in terms of the number of

projects that this province needs to build and the acceleration that the

government would like to put towards it.

I appreciate that in government we have trade-offs. We have things

that we need to put priority on. I’ll just ask one more time. In terms

of the apprentice area, I appreciate that we need to continue to find

opportunities for young people and to retrain others who are not so

young anymore, but what is the need in terms of looking

forward?

[3:10 p.m.]

I know that the B.C. Fed has had a goal of 25 percent

apprenticeships, for example, on job sites. Is that a measure that we’re

looking at? What’s the particular target that government sees? I mean,

how many apprentice positions are going to be needed on these projects

in Transportation?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara. I appreciate the

question. It is something that, as I mentioned yesterday, the policy is

still being developed on. As the member is new to the chamber, I’m sure

he’s learning quickly that policy is never written on the back of a

napkin. It is something that is done thoughtfully and working for the

best interests of the whole of the province.

My ministry is working with the Ministry of Advanced Education to

ensure that we will be developing the framework so we can implement a

policy that brings apprentices right to the level of any infrastructure

construction that we’re doing — whether it’s in my ministry or whether

it’s in the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education, as the main

industries that have infrastructure.

In both our ministerial responsibilities, there is that

commitment. The Minister of Advanced Education, I know, is equally

committed to implementing effective apprenticeships for all

government-funded infrastructure projects, as are we. We’re going to be

together on how we make sure that we get those skilled trades both in

the classroom and out on the job sites and working on the specifics of

the policy for the percentage of the apprenticeships.

We’ll also be working on policy on looking for local sourcing.

We’ll be working on the policy for Indigenous involvement. We’ll be

looking at the policy, really, to ensure that all the communities

benefit, that it’s not just one area that benefits but that we get

communities really getting the full benefit of any construction that we

are doing in the province.

M. Lee: My last question on this particular point is just in terms of the

nature of the organizations that do apprenticeship training. This

wouldn’t suggest…. Nonetheless, I appreciate the policies are under

development, but just to get a sense of the indication of where this may

be headed…. Apprentices will be able to find their roles in these

companies, regardless of whether they’re union or non-union positions.

Is that correct?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a very interesting question from the member. I think that any

business in British Columbia, or any organization looking at this new

policy of a community benefits agreement, would be welcoming the

opportunity to hire apprenticeships and to train our new workforce. I

think this is the really great encouragement of this policy — that we

will be encouraging businesses to take on apprenticeships and that we

will be having the space in our colleges to ensure that apprentices can

be trained. As I say, the Minister of Advanced Education is obviously

working closely on the file, and I’m sure that this is a subject you’ll

be bringing up in that minister’s estimates also.

M. Lee: So I think I heard that there wasn’t going to be a preference for

a union versus a non-union company in this hiring practice. But just in

terms of the local company focus as well, what does that mix currently

look like for companies that are bidding on transportation contracts? Is

there an issuant, in the sense that we don’t have enough local companies

doing that?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member will agree that we want to really maximize the

benefits for British Columbia when we are doing infrastructure projects,

when we’re doing any capital construction, that it’s B.C. that gets the

benefits and that B.C.’s people get the benefits.

I think this is something that is fundamental to any person who is

in government in British Columbia, that it is British Columbia and

British Columbia’s people and the people who will be growing with

British Columbia that really get that benefit when we are investing

large amounts of money in our capital projects. The community benefits

agreement will allow us to do that.

I’ve got to say that it is also part of my mandate letter to be

encouraging this. I’ll just quote. I know that the member for West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky very generously quoted much of my mandate letter

into the record yesterday. But I will just add a

section of it. One of

our key commitments is “to build a strong, sustainable, innovative

economy that works for everyone.” We want to “create good-paying jobs in

every corner of the province and ensure that people from every

background have the opportunity to reach their full

potential.”

[3:20 p.m.]

I can think of no better way in my ministry, working on community

benefits agreements, to ensure that the reach of government in our

infrastructure and our investment in our communities reaches every

corner of the province. I would expect the member for Vancouver-Langara,

although he’s from the Lower Mainland, would also welcome that and would

welcome that sort of investment right across the province.

M. Lee: Well, since you mentioned your mandate letter, I actually

wondered…. Another question that I was just going to ask was just

whether you would see this implementation of the best-bid policy or the

community benefits policy to be a new priority to be added to your

mandate. Or do you see that as just being something that truly affects

what you just quoted from your mandate letter?

Hon. C. Trevena: I would say that it’s built into the very philosophy of what we

are doing as government, and it is absolutely built into what I as a

minister should be doing when I’m working on developing projects, when

we’re working at investing in our province.

As I have repeated, there is no better investment in our province,

when we’re looking at the capital investment in our transportation

infrastructure — that we have the ability to reach every corner of this

province, bring well-paid, family-supporting jobs to every corner of

this province and make sure that we can ensure that our communities can

be vibrant.

As I say, I know the member is from the Lower Mainland, but this

is a real need right across the province, across rural areas. Whether

they be rural areas on the Island or rural areas in the Interior or in

the Kootenays, we need to make sure that we are getting people trained,

getting vibrant communities right across the province.

I think that this approach really underpins the requests or the

demands within my mandate letter, and I would expect that every member

of this House will be as excited to see it roll out as we are on this

side of the House.

M. Lee: I appreciate the comment. Certainly, with my work experience for

20 years in this province before coming to this House, with companies in

the forestry, mining and energy sectors all over this province, I

understand the importance of the infrastructure and the need to

encourage and continue training.

Can I ask, in terms of the current arrangement, TILMA, with the

province of Alberta…. How will this province meet its agreement with

that province for free movement of services, goods and employees across

our mutual border? How will this square with that agreement?

[3:25 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the estimates debate.

As we’ve mentioned in the past and I’m happy to talk about, the

policy is still, obviously, being developed. We are fully aware of our

agreements, both interprovincial, like the Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement, and other agreements. As the policy is developed for

the best interests of British Columbia and investing in the best

interests of British Columbia, this is something that will be looked at

— how to make sure that we are able to have that investment in, as I

say, the best interests of our province.

We are, obviously, very mindful of all our various interprovincial

and international agreements. That will be taken into account as we

develop the policy.

M. Lee: I thank you for that response. I just wanted to come back to

community benefits. What was mentioned, both yesterday and today, and

also in response to these sets of questions, is just how this government

sees community benefits — not only just apprentices, local

companies.

There are other considerations and benefits for local communities

to come from this new policy of bidding. Those would include…. I’d like

the minister just to comment a little more on the other potential

categories that will be considered in this early stage of policy

development. It would include First Nations, women — so gender

requirements, presumably. What are the other categories of community

benefits that this government would see being part of this

policy?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I’m glad he is interested in the community benefit

agreements, as are we, and I’m hoping that he’s going to be a strong

advocate for them. It really does give the opportunity, as we are

discussing, to invest in our communities no matter where they are, no

matter where the infrastructure projects — whether it’s a hospital or a

school or, in my case, highways and bridges — are being

built.

While the policy is still being developed and the details will be

forthcoming in the coming weeks and months as we progress, I think it’s

pretty safe to say that when we’re looking at what is going to benefit

the communities, we’re obviously looking at involving First Nations

there. As the member is well aware, we are fully committed to the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and implementing that,

so any community benefit agreement, I’m sure, will be reflecting that.

That is, again, underpinning this government’s approach for the future

of B.C. We think it is fundamental to be working in

partnership.

There will also, obviously, be…. We’re likely to have…. I say

“obviously be.” This is a policy under development, so I’m not going to

prejudge what the specifics will be, but I’m expecting that there will

be reference to under-represented groups, to equity-seeking groups, to

women. Again, this is a shopping list for a policy that has not yet been

developed. These are some of the things that I would hope would be

there, but I am not saying that they are going to be there.

We’re going to be looking at, I would anticipate, local

procurement wherever possible — that we’re investing locally, that we

are looking at local companies for supplying and that we are, obviously,

looking at hiring locally.

Then the member said that we’ve been talking about

apprenticeships. It’s not just the people who are being trained as

apprentices. This obviously has an impact on our post-secondary sector

and our local community colleges and other institutions and the benefits

they will have from having the increased commitment in training — in

training apprentices and in training others who are going to be working

on these projects.

I think that when we’re looking at it…. As I say, this is a policy

in development. It is a policy that will be coming forward from working,

as I say, with the Ministry of Advanced Education, our ministry and

others. I’m sure the Ministry of Finance will be involved in it too. But

it is something that is being developed. Without wanting to belittle it,

I think that we’re all going to have some patience on just exactly what

those specific benefits are going to be while that’s

developed.

The final point I have on this, which I think is important to say,

is that you’re going to see different needs in different areas. I mean,

what is necessary, for instance, in my constituency may have a different

translation in a different constituency. What we’re talking about in a

certain area may have a different

interpretation. But I think that the

policy is going to be fully fleshed out over the coming weeks and

months. At that time, we’ll all be very eager, I think, and I’m hoping

that the member opposite embraces it as much as the critic for

Transportation and becomes a strong advocate for it.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for walking through that. Just as a

point of reference, in the meantime, for those of us on this side of the

House to understand, while the government does its work: are there

particular models that the government sees in other jurisdictions in

this world for this sort of community benefit arrangement that they see

as particularly successful, that they would model this arrangement

after? Or are there other studies that they’ve looked at that would

support the approach that they’re taking?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is something that we believe in — that we should be investing

locally and should be ensuring that all our communities across B.C. get

the best benefit and really do, as they say, get the best bang for the

buck. The money that we’re investing in B.C. stays in B.C., is invested

locally in B.C., and ensures that we are investing in our people,

because they are the best investment we can have. If we’re not investing

in people, we are letting our whole province down.

How other jurisdictions work in similar veins will be, obviously,

something that we’ll be looking at when we’re developing the policy.

It’s not something we’re going to be doing a cut and paste of from

another jurisdiction, but looking at how other jurisdictions work will

be something that we are doing as the policy develops.

With that, Mr. Chair, could we take a five-minute

recess?

The Chair: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

M. Lee: Just to bring these sets of questions to a conclusion, I have a

few more on this area, if I may. Just before the break, we were talking

about the determination of community benefits. The minister made a

comment regarding how, in some cases, community benefits will be defined

specific to the community, depending on which community we’re talking

about — presumably a rural community or an urban community or some other

community in this province. That may change how community benefits may

be defined on a particular project.

My first question is: who makes that determination? Is that the

community itself or the government? Secondly, what other considerations

could the community also take into account — issues, of course, as we

talk about on this side of the House, regarding congestion and

safety?

Hon. C. Trevena: I really do appreciate the member’s enthusiasm about this, and I’m

really glad that he is asking so many questions about it. It’s great to

have boosters on all sides of the House to make sure that this is really

an effective policy.

As I mentioned to the member and the member is very well aware, it

is a policy that is under development. The examples I gave were ideas

that I had but were not written into policy. They are not guarantees

that this is necessarily the way forward. This, I believe, is a

dialogue. I appreciate the member’s ideas that he’s putting forward.

Whether he thinks that congestion or safety or other issues should be

brought forward as part of a community benefit approach is something

that I’m sure that those sitting down, working out the policy will take

into account.

M. Lee: Thank you for the response. I just wanted to then ask — since

we’ve had this further discussion today, and I appreciate the time we’ve

spent on this — with the continued status of the early stage of this

policy development by the government, how will this affect, if at all,

the current contract awards by the Ministry of

Transportation?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. Unlike the previous government, this

government is not one that tears up contracts. It’s a government that

respects what we have in place, and it’s not going to just go and tear

up contracts as the previous government did.

This is a policy that we are evolving. It’s something that we

believe in. It’s something that we do think will be of benefit for all

of British Columbia, that we’re going to be investing in all parts of

our province — physically, in the infrastructure that we’re building;

logistically, we’re going to be reaching all parts of our province; and

we’re going to actually be investing in the people of our province, who

are really the most important part of our province.

M. Lee: Obviously, we can have a discussion, as we could have yesterday,

about what a fair wage is. We won’t get into what commitments a

government makes and what commitments a government backs away from, like

this current government.

Having said that, I want to ask, then…. That suggests that there

is no change to current government contracts the ministry has entered

into by nature of this new bid policy.

Secondly, then, in terms of new contract awards, the system that

will be utilized by the Ministry of Transportation is the current

system, which presumably does not include best bid community benefit

considerations. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Trevena: Without belabouring the point, I know the member wants to get down

to the real details, and I’m sure that when we are working on the real

details, he’ll be really happy to see them and be, as I say, boosting

them. I know that he is running for the leadership of his party, and it

would be great to see him embrace this policy as part of his leadership

campaign. I look forward to that.

In the meantime, it is, as I have mentioned several times, the

answer to several questions: a policy in development. We will be working

on it. It is part of the mandate letter for the Minister of Jobs, Trade

and Technology. It is going to be involving the Minister for Advanced

Education. It’s going to be involving this ministry. It’s going to be

involving, I’m sure, the Ministry of Finance.

The Premier has said very clearly that this is the way that this

government is going to be moving forward. I think it’s extraordinarily

exciting that we can be investing across the province, and I’m very

pleased that the member opposite, as a leadership candidate, is so

interested and I hope will embrace the policy in his

campaign.

M. Lee: I must say that any reference to leadership activities, I think,

is separate and outside this House. I’m standing here as the member

representing Vancouver-Langara, a member of the B.C. Liberal caucus, and

I just want to get an understanding as to how this process is going to

work for this province.

As we go forward here, we have a number of projects, of course,

that are on the books — what we’ve been spending the last day and a half

on discussing in this House. I’m concerned, as well as all my colleagues

in this B.C. Liberal caucus, as to the amount of delay that this new

process is going to introduce to this contract-award process.

We have a situation now, since last Friday when the Premier made

his comments and today in the House. We have uncertainty as to how

contracts will be awarded and how they’ll be evaluated. What measures,

what criteria, best bids and community benefits are to be adhered to,

what are they supposed to meet? I’m hearing weeks and months, I

understand that.

[4:00 p.m.]

In the meantime, presumably, any contract that is being considered

will be under the current rules, which don’t include those

considerations. Going forward, as bidders look at their bid materials

and put in the kind of cost that individual companies did on the George

Massey Tunnel replacement project, for example — sunk costs these firms

put into place…. They will not recover millions and millions of

dollars.

I think this government needs to take its role seriously. All I’m

asking at this point, then, is: what is the timing expectation on the

implementation of these new rules? When can we expect that new bidders

will understand when the rules will be in place and what they need to

adhere to and mean?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. I can understand his concerns, but it is going

to be a cross-government developmental policy. It will obviously take

some time to get in place. We have a ministry that is working and will

continue to work in the coming weeks and months, as the policies

develop, but as the policies develop, the ministry has a job to do and

will continue doing its job.

M. Lee: Thank you very much. That completes my questions.

J. Sturdy: Just one more question along these lines. For instance, if we’re

talking about a number of contracts that need to be tendered right now

and that will be out there for proponents to look at and bid on, would

the minister’s advice be to those proponents that they should move ahead

and submit bids based on the criteria they have been used to providing

with those bids? Or should they be, in fact, considering the suggestion

that best bid will be adopted in an incremental way or that there’ll be

some sort of definition? Do they have to pay attention to it right now?

Or do they carry on with the same process, the same approach that they

have been using for the last number of years?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Procurement is done by the public service. They will continue to

do procurement in their professional way, as the public service works in

a professional way, and they will work under the direction of whatever

policy is in place at the time.

J. Sturdy: Well, let’s take the opportunity to move on to B.C. Ferries, if we

might. I know that this is one of the minister’s passions. She has been

very vocal on this subject for quite a number of years.

If I might start out by…. I’m led to understand that at the

Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities conference this

spring, the now Premier said — this is a paraphrase, but I understand

it’s a pretty accurate one — “If we are elected, the first thing I will

do is throw out the Coastal Ferry Act.” Is that in fact the case? Is

that the intention of government?

Hon. C. Trevena: Just before I answer the member’s question, we’ve had a change in

staff, as a new subject comes up. I’d just like to introduce again

Deborah Bowman, assistant deputy minister on policy branch, and Kirk

Handrahan, who is the executive director for the marine branch as well

as having a number of other portfolios.

I know that the Premier is also passionate about B.C. Ferries, and

in my mandate letter he gave me very clear instruction on three areas

involving B.C. Ferries. One is the fare-reduction strategy to make sure

that we can reduce fares across the board on the minor routes and the

northern routes, that we freeze fares on the majors and that we bring

back the seniors rate, the free travel for seniors Monday to Thursday.

He also instructed me to have an operational review of B.C. Ferries, as

well as looking at procurement for the building of B.C. Ferries in

B.C.

Those are the commitments that the Premier gave me to fulfil, and

they are ones that I am working on fulfilling along with the other areas

in my mandate letter.

J. Sturdy: Specifically with regard to the Coastal Ferry Act, does the

minister have any intentions around amending or abandoning the Coastal

Ferry Act?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, we are doing an operational review of B.C. Ferries.

There is nothing in my mandate letter about amending the Coastal Ferry

Act nor about the comments that the member made in his first question.

But we will be doing an operational review that will be, I hope,

comprehensive. That will be coming out…. We’re planning to be doing

that, I believe, into the spring.

J. Sturdy: Well, that’s interesting. If I might, I could quote the now

Premier on CFAX saying: “My position is that we should return B.C.

Ferries to its status as a Crown corporation or, in consultation with

coastal communities, particularly those I was talking to over the

weekend, bring it back into the Ministry of Transportation.” This was a

quote on CFAX from the now Premier. Does the minister have any comments

on that position?

Hon. C. Trevena: I again thank the member for the question. I know that if we’re

going back to early spring, the other opposition party, the Green Party,

had it very clear in their party platform that they wanted to bring B.C.

Ferries back as a Crown corporation. Our commitments in our platform

reflect the commitments in my mandate letter — that we want to have an

operational review of B.C. Ferries.

We also want to make B.C. Ferries more affordable for people. It

has become — I think the member is well aware — incredibly expensive for

people to use what they regard as their marine highway. We’ve seen fares

go up by 140 percent on certain routes, and that is absolutely untenable

for people.

You’re looking at the cost of living going up by a few percent,

inflation a very low level. People’s wages aren’t going up by 140

percent. People’s bus tickets aren’t going up by 140 percent. Yet the

cost of using their marine highway, their only access for their

communities and the only access for the business in their communities,

has gone up 140 percent, which is why we have that very firm commitment

to be rolling back the fares by 15 percent as well as freezing the fares

on the major routes.

J. Sturdy: Perhaps the minister might like to enlighten us as to what’s

happening with trends in terms of passenger and car volumes over, say,

the last year or two?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I thank him for the question. It’s always an

interesting discussion for Ferries people about where traffic is and

what’s happening with traffic and what the passenger count is and so

on.

It’s been an interesting more than a decade on B.C. Ferries. We

are still much, much lower in traffic in passenger usage on our routes

than we were back in 2003-2004, 2004-2005. For instance, on the northern

routes…. And I’m sure the member is well aware of the impacts of the

costs on the northern routes and the impacts of the change in

schedule

to the northern routes.

For instance, the passengers travelling on the northern routes

were at a peak in 2004-05, 2005-06, at more than 117,000. Now there are

still only 86,000. That’s over a year. I think people correlate that to

the cost of travelling. I mean, it’s not like the population in Haida

Gwaii has diminished so considerably that they would lose that many

people travelling on B.C. Ferries.

I think we are facing a serious reflection of the cost of ferries,

which is why our government is absolutely committed to reducing fares by

15 percent and bringing back the free seniors travel. Likewise on the

minor routes, we have seen a decrease from the peak of ’04-05 to where

we are now. If you include all the routes, we are still down on what

they were. It was roughly 22 million in ’04-05, and we’re at 21

million.

[4:20 p.m.]

One million people is significant. I think that we are seeing that

this is a reflection of both the cost of ferries as well as the changing

routes. But when you are seeing fares that have gone up by approximately

140 percent, it is really significant. That being said, as people know,

I, too, live on one of the islands, and I’m very well aware, very

cognizant that when you get into the summer season, the peak season, you

get into overloads.

It was very busy on B.C. Ferries through this summer, I think,

partly because of the rate of our dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. I

think also partly because of the wildfires. The forest fire situation in

the Interior brought people to the coast. But also, you see the

reflection when you get into the overloads, the fact that schedules have

been so severely cut. I know there is a real urgency among coastal

communities to see a reinstatement of routes back into the levels they

were before 2013, when the previous government cut them.

To put it short, ferry usage is going up. It is going up. Each

year you see a few more people, but we think that there is a much

greater potential when we do look at ensuring that the fares are

actually affordable rather than the cost that they are at the

moment.

J. Sturdy: My understanding, though, from the annual report this spring was

that they’re at levels not seen since the famed ’90s in terms of the

number of passengers and volume. I was just trying to find the annual

report here in front of me so I could quote it directly to you. I’m sure

I will be able to find it in a minute.

Having understood and experienced the circumstances over the

course of the last months with the Port Mann Bridge toll removal, is the

minister anticipating a similar type of surge in volume when the

proposed 15 percent price reductions come into play? And perhaps the

minister could confirm when those are coming in. I believe it’s April 1,

but maybe a confirmation on that would be great. Is there any forecast

on overloads? And what is anticipated in terms of increased

volumes?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, to the member. I think it’s pretty well inevitable that

there’s going to be an increase in use when we reduce the fares and when

we’re freezing the fares, particularly when we’re reducing the fares,

and we’re bringing back the free seniors rate.

When the seniors rate was removed and the seniors had to start

paying, you saw a 13 percent falloff in seniors using the ferries. These

people are obviously on fixed incomes, who have been using the ferries

to visit grandchildren or family. They just simply found that they

couldn’t afford it.

We’re anticipating that there will be an increase in use, that

suddenly people, whether it’s seniors who will, I think, many of them or

some…. You get into a habit, or you’re looking at wanting to travel on

the weekend. But there’ll be a redirection back to the Monday to

Thursday where they can travel at no charge for themselves. Obviously

there’s still cost to the vehicle but no charge for themselves. That

will, I think, be lightly increased there.

There will be others who will start travelling — those who simply

have found it unaffordable for a long while. And when we’re talking on

the northern routes where the cost is that much more, a 15 percent

reduction is significant. Whether it’s people in Bella Bella or people

in Haida Gwaii who want to travel, it will enable them to travel more

easily. It’s still going to be a very expensive trip, but it will allow

that to happen more easily.

So whether you’re going off to see your kids play in a tournament

somewhere, that’s going to, again, make it more easy. I think that there

will be, initially, an increase in traffic. Obviously, we’re bringing

this in, in April. It’s the start of the busiest season for B.C.

Ferries, so we’re likely going to see an increase in traffic in that

respect too.

It comes down to…. The reason we’re doing it is not whether it is

going to increase the traffic on B.C. Ferries. I find it interesting

that the member recognizes how good B.C. Ferries was in the 90s — that

we had a lot of people travelling on B.C. Ferries.

[4:30 p.m.]

It is a question of affordability. It is absolutely a question,

that when your fares have gone up 140 percent to use your highway to

travel on your transit, which is what B.C. Ferries is…. It’s that hybrid

between a highway and a bus. You have seen those costs go up, and you’ve

seen the services reduced. You feel that you are being sidelined, and

you simply cannot afford to…. It’s an added cost, with hydro going up

and ICBC going up. These things have been going up.

Our commitment, as a government, was to make life more affordable.

In my ministry, this is one very concrete way that we are going to be

making life more affordable — by making sure people living in the

coastal communities have access to their highway. It’ll also be making

it more affordable for businesses. I know that certain businesses have

faced…. We’ve had businesses facing real problems in coastal

communities. Others have seen a dramatic shift.

I use, again, the experience in my own backyard. One of the

businesses on Quadra Island is Walcan Seafood. They had a long-standing

agreement with Grieg Seafood to process the fish from Grieg’s fish farms

on the west coast of the Island. It was a huge budget cost for Grieg to

be using the ferry over from Campbell River to Quadra and then over to

the Lower Mainland. They changed their location for their fish

processing because of the cost. It was one of the main reasons that

Grieg pulled out from their contract there. It was because it was adding

to the cost of their product.

Now, that’s a major player. There are lots of small players, and

there are bigger players who have been facing — for many, many years,

year upon year upon year — cost increases. This is a way of making it

more affordable for families and making the coast a better place to work

for businesses.

I think the member, as a representative of coastal communities, is

well aware of the impact and the concentration of people living in

coastal communities and the importance of B.C. Ferries to those coastal

communities and to our coastal economy.

J. Sturdy: Then is it is fair to say there has been no work done on

forecasting impacts to traffic volumes?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, there has been work done. B.C. Ferries has used its

elasticity modelling to forecast what the increase could be. They’re,

obviously, very conscious of this because this is their business.

They’re estimating that it is going to be a less than 5 percent

increase.

They’re also anticipating a redirection of people using it. It’s

not necessarily that everyone will continue to use it. But the

redirection, as I mentioned…. Seniors will again have the potential to

travel at no cost for four days of the week. It’s anticipated that

they’ll be moving to the…. Some discretionary travel, as B.C. Ferries

likes to put it, will be moving to other days of the week.

I think it’s going to be very exciting to see people actually able

to use their highway system again without feeling they are being

exploited every time they get on it.

[4:35 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Is that public information, the

forecasting in terms of volume increases and their impacts? I take it

they won’t be spread evenly throughout the system. There will likely be

some pinch points. Is the minister aware…? Can she fill us in on

that?

Hon. C. Trevena: The modelling is not published information. It’s part of when B.C.

Ferries is working on the pricing and the price cap model with the

commissioner. This elasticity modelling is part of that. What would be

the impact of a fare going up by X percent or going down by X

percent?

B.C. Ferries reports out publicly, quarterly, on statistics, on

actuals, on how many people are actually on the boats and how many cars

are on the boats — the real day-to-day metrics. This is a modelling that

goes to the commissioner as part of the continuing discussion about

price caps and the fare levels.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think it’s fair to say that there has been…. They’re doing the

modelling. They’re looking at the recent increases, over the last months

and years, and looking at what will happen here and anticipating that

there will be an increase — approximately 5 percent or less.

I think one of the things that the member, I’m sure, is well aware

of — but it’s worth reminding — is that some travel will change. If

we’re thinking about the fact that it’s going to mean all the vessels

will always face overloads…. I think it will average out in different

places. As I mentioned before, some seniors may move to different days

of travelling. Some vessels will obviously get busier, but some other

routes that had faced a real decline might actually start seeing people

using the routes again because they can finally afford it. So a long

answer to a short question.

It is not published information. It is information with the

commissioner. What is published is the actuals on what happens every

quarter: how many are people using the vessels and how many vehicles are

using the vessels and how much money B.C. Ferries has been

making.

The Chair: Members, I would like to remind all members on both sides to

have your electronic devices on mute when you are using them inside

the House, please. Thank you so much.

J. Sturdy: What is the anticipated revenue gap, then, with regard to the

impacts of the fare reduction?

Hon. C. Trevena: Actually, ministry staff are having negotiations with B.C. Ferries

at the moment. Obviously, any changes will be reflected in the contract.

It’s an ongoing discussion.

[4:45 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: So if there is a revenue gap, then, that would typically require

additional taxpayer resources to contribute to make up the gap, in

conjunction with, I suppose, additional reinstated services, if the

minister and the government decide that that’s the direction they want

to go.

Would the minister, then, confirm that if there is a revenue gap,

it will be taxpayer dollars that’ll fill those gaps?

Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, there are discussions going on between the ministry and

B.C. Ferries. I don’t want to prejudice anything that is being talked

about between ministry staff and B.C. Ferries at the moment. As the

member is well aware, there are lots of pieces in play — whether traffic

volumes…. As we’ve been talking about, traffic will be going

up.

What is going to be happening with the fare reduction? I think

that it is something that ministry staff are talking with B.C. Ferries

about. There may or may not be a gap there. But whatever change in the

service fee there is, if there is one — because, as I say, we’re still

in discussions — it will be reflected in the contract.

J. Sturdy: If I might, why only the minor routes? Don’t the people who are on

the majors have the same challenges that the people on the minor routes

do? Why would it only be a fare reduction on the minors?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a valid question, and I thank the member for it. The reason

why we’ve got the minor and the northern routes is because, particularly

for the minor routes, these are people who are using ferries very

regularly, who are living, very often, in smaller communities and face

greater challenges.

For instance, I represent North Island, as the member is well

aware. And we’ve got the Alert Bay–Sointula route out of Port McNeill.

We’ve got people who are living in more remote communities or First

Nations who are living, perhaps, in Alert Bay, who may be unemployed.

There is a greater pressure on people living in the minor route

communities.

[4:50 p.m.]

Likewise, my friend from Powell River–Sunshine Coast would be able

to talk very eloquently about the pressures that his constituents face.

And they, too, will be able to feel this fare relief, as will your

constituents on Bowen Island.

The major routes. There was a sense that while there is,

obviously, very regular use, it is not so much that lifeline for people.

It is oftentimes more the general traffic,

whereas if you are talking

about Denman, Buckley Bay, that is a lifeline — literally. You’ve got

people who need to get to the doctor, need to get to the hospital, and

so on, day in, day out. It was looking at that.

It was also the northern routes. As I say, it’s the minor routes.

We encapsulate it all in the minor routes. It’s those and the northern

routes, because the northern routes have been severely impacted both by

the increased costs and the decreased service.

I’m sure the member has heard — as the spokesperson, as the critic

for the ministry — from the people in Alpha Bay, who have not got

service in the evenings. They’re also facing the huge cost and the

limited ferries from Skidegate to Prince Rupert.

Really, it’s an issue of affordability for those communities, and

those businesses working in those communities, to ensure that their

economy is a boost to the individuals, a boost to the economies in those

communities,

whereas the major routes were seen as more stable. Major

routes often attract many more tourists. They are oftentimes a much more

discretionary use.

J. Sturdy: I think it’s a fairly arbitrary distinction, in that there are

people who are reliant on the majors, as well, that are suffering from

some of the same challenges.

At the risk of being provocative here — not that that’s not our

job — the comment has been made that the ferries are part of the highway

system, like bridges. The comment has also been made that it’s unfair to

punish people for where they live, which was the logic and the rationale

behind the removal of tolls on the bridges over the Fraser

River.

Wouldn’t logic dictate the same sort of policy? We’re punishing

people for living on the other side of a ferry, so why not just

eliminate the ferry fares? It’s a similar type of argument. It just

seems that 15 percent is a fairly arbitrary number that it is being

applied unevenly, and it is not consistent with the overall logic around

punishing people for where they live.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question and the discussion. I’ve got

to say that there’s sort of a bit of a Looking-Glass sense

about this. The member opposite, if I understand him right, is

suggesting that we actually eliminate fares on B.C. Ferries, which I

find a fascinating approach from an opposition member who was part of a

government who created the problem that this side of the House, this

government, is now trying to address by rolling back the

fares.

I would like to remind the member that it was under his

government’s watch that B.C. Ferries, the model that we are discussing

now, was created. We have this very convoluted system where we have the

price-cap model for setting fares under the commissioner’s office. We

have the two-tier boards in B.C. Ferries. We’ve got the arm’s-length

relationship, which is why ministry staff have to sit down in

discussions with B.C. Ferries about changes to fares or changes to the

contract.

This is the beast of what the opposition members in government….

He was there for four years when they were in government and was clearly

supportive of the model, because he was part of that government. To be

now saying that perhaps we should be eliminating fares, I think, is

quite a turnaround. I’d be very interested to know if that is going to

be the new policy of the opposition, the B.C. Liberals. It would be a

complete turnaround.

We have been extremely clear in our approach throughout — when we

were in opposition, when we were campaigning and very much so since

we’ve been in government — that our focus is trying to make life more

affordable for people and to boost our economy in a sustainable way. The

reduction in fares is fundamental to making life more affordable for

people.

[5:00 p.m.]

The member, I know, grew up on the coast. He’s aware of the

differences between the major and the minor routes. We call them that,

the major being, obviously, for those who aren’t aware, the three ferry

routes from the Island that go to the Lower Mainland: Swartz Bay to

Tsawwassen, Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay and Duke Point to Tsawwassen.

Those are the three routes that are the majors.

Duke Point to Tsawwassen was established initially as a route for

commerce, very much a truck route. It has become a more mixed route, but

when it was first established in the 1990s, it was going to be a route

for trucking, and the other two are very much the general

link.

Yes, it is a highway, and yes, we do see the free ferries in the

Interior, and perhaps that’s what the member is thinking of modelling

his ideas on. I’d be very happy to sit down and talk with him about

that, if that’s his suggestion and that’s his idea. I think it would be

very, very interesting to see what ideas he has of making that work,

seeing as it would be a complete change.

The majors, these three ferries, are different from those regular

routes that people are travelling all the time. Whether you are living

in Sointula and teaching in Alert Bay and you are on the ferry the whole

time, whether you are living, as I say, on Hornby Island and you have to

run errands in Courtenay or Comox, you are using the ferry system for

your life. Your businesses are using it to get supplies onto your

islands.

This is literally the highway link, so it is very much the

lifeline for people who are…. It is the roadway. It is the bus. Yes,

sometimes the bus runs empty, and sometimes the bus runs with standing

room only, but you still have the bus going there. It is that

hybrid.

For the northern routes, as I say, it’s some of the areas where

there has been a huge economic downturn, where you have a lot of

poverty, and people have been conversely faced with routes that are much

more expensive and fares that have gone up extraordinarily. So that,

again, is why we’re going to be reducing fares across the board on these

routes, accepting that the major routes are different. They don’t have

that regular daily use. You don’t have the daily commuter.

Even B.C. Ferries acknowledges that. They do promote the major

routes. You get, as has been described, the cruise ship experience on

the major routes. If you use your experience card…. I don’t know whether

the member has an experience card, but the experience card is the

prepaid card, where you put $115 on it, and then it is deducted every

time you buy your ferry ticket, and you get a slight reduction in the

cost of your ferry ticket. You don’t get the benefit of that on the

major routes. So B.C. Ferries themselves acknowledge it is a very

different route system.

There are a number of reasons, but the real fundamental reason is

to make life affordable for people who have not been able to travel with

ease, who have literally had to count the cost, as they’ve been facing

increased costs of living across the board. By reducing the fares by 15

percent…. It isn’t arbitrary. It has been a thoughtful approach to get

to the 15 percent across the board. By bringing back that very, very

important….

I’m sure the member, as the critic and as a constituency MLA,

particularly representing one of the islands — Bowen — has heard very

loud and clear the real urge from the senior population to reinstate the

free ferries.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I’m sure they are asking him to be lobbying myself as minister to

bring it in immediately. I know that I’m hearing that. “Minister, why

aren’t you doing this right now? You should be doing this right now. You

did the tolls right now, so why the wait?”

The wait is…. We are looking at long-term strategies. We are going

to be bringing it. We’re committing to it. In our platform campaign, we

committed that it would be in the spring of the next year, which is

2018, which is when we’re going to bring it in. So we are absolutely

consistent with that.

At the same time as bringing the fares, we are having this

operational review, which I think will be very interesting for many

people. We’re still working.

[5:05 p.m.]

I know the question came up in question period about terms of

reference for reviews. We are working on the operational review, the

scope of it and how it’s going to develop. As I say, it was a campaign

commitment. It was very clearly in my mandate letter. That is something

that we’re also looking forward to getting to.

I do look forward to talking more with the member, who is clearly

in the opposition and has maybe walked not just across the floor to the

opposition but has walked the road to Damascus and sees B.C. Ferries as

we on this side of House have long seen B.C. Ferries.

J. Sturdy: No, I don’t want to give the impression to the minister that I was

advocating for complete fare reductions on B.C. Ferries. I was merely

pointing out the inconsistency of this approach. To say that the

experience card is for daily commuters, yet it’s applicable to the

northern routes, which are hardly daily commutes….

The logic all the way through…. The arbitrary fare reduction had

little consultation with B.C. Ferries or the Ferry Commissioner, I

imagine, in terms of the decision that this was going to happen. It’s

being applied unevenly. It’s disjointed logic, especially with your

other tolling criteria, your tolling logic. They’re creating overload

issues, creating additional demand issues, additional revenue

requirements, additional taxpayer subsidies, targeting constituents that

I’d argue, in some respects have….

I think it would be worth looking at who most needs additional

fare reductions or subsidies. I think it would be easy to argue that

families with children that are in ferry-dependent communities need this

type of approach. But to say that you’re targeting one sector but not

others, where seniors are eligible for this and others are not…. The

logic just is fairly disjointed. It clearly seems to be pretty much

satisfying a political agenda more than anything else.

I’m glad the minister brought up the governance operational

review, what I believe she called it. Could you tell us about timelines,

about budgets, about what the consultation plans are? Who is involved —

stakeholders, First Nations, ferry advisory committees? Perhaps the

minister would like to let us know how this is going to work.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to respond, initially, to the member’s arguments or

comments about disjointed logic. I’ve got to say: this, from a member of

the opposition that was government that brought us the chaos to

communities of B.C. Ferries — the iteration of B.C. Ferries that that

government created — really is quite risible. The cost to our

communities across the coast has been devastating.

The fact that we are actually taking a step to try and make life

more affordable for those many, many people in coastal communities….

They have felt, over the years, that their link to the rest of B.C. and

that their links to their own communities had been cut by the increasing

in fares. It’s just outrageous.

The member travels the ferries. I’m sure he does. I’m sure he’s

gone to many communities, as he was the parliamentary secretary for

ferries, I understand, in the previous government, and he is the

spokesperson, or the critic, for Transportation and ferries. I’m sure he

has gone, like I have done, and talked with ferry advisory committees

and talked with communities about the impact of the high fares on their

communities.

This is why we are looking at reducing the fares on most of the

routes except those three major routes, where we’re freezing the fares.

We are also saying there will be no fare increases on those.

I’m not going to belabour that one. The member did ask me a second

question about part of the mandate letter — the second part of that

point in the mandate letter — which is the comprehensive operating

review.

Again, I’m sure that the member, in his conversations with ferry

advisory committees and others in coastal communities, with their

elected…. I’m sure he sat down with the regional directors from coastal

communities, about the increasing in costs and the problems that their

communities have been facing, and that these issues have come to his

table, these issues that we have heard consistently for the last,

effectively, 15 years since B.C. Ferries was established — and their

impact on communities. There have been a number of reports

written.

What we’re looking at now is finalizing the scope of the report.

But the themes have been consistent from communities and from the issues

of affordability and the issues of service levels.

[5:15 p.m.]

The impact of B.C. Ferries on communities is significant. The

impact of B.C. Ferries on our economy is significant. We are at the

moment finalizing the scope, and we’ll be moving on the review when that

scope has been finalized.

J. Sturdy: Can the minister provide us with some sense of when the terms of

reference for this review will be made public and whether there is any

budget associated with it?

Hon. C. Trevena: When the scope is finalized, we’ll be ready to start on the

review. We want to make sure that the scope is thorough, that we’re

encapsulating the spirit and intent of a comprehensive operating review.

We’ll be moving on it when we have that scope finalized.

J. Sturdy: Will that scope be finalized this year? Or will it be finalized

sometime next year? Could you give us a sense of when we expect to see

that scope?

Hon. C. Trevena: It is a commitment. It’s something, as the critic is aware, for

which I have advocated strongly for many years and continue to advocate

strongly.

It is something that will be happening as soon as I possibly can

make sure that it happens, but I don’t want to be shortchanging the

ferry-dependent communities either. They have been anticipating

something like this for a very long time and have been hoping that there

would be a thorough operational review, which is what we will be

doing.

J. Sturdy: I guess I won’t be getting…. It probably won’t be this year; maybe

not next year. Couldn’t even commit to next year, but anyway, we’ll move

on.

The minister has a long history of suggesting that all ferries in

the B.C. fleet should be built here in British Columbia. Could the

minister let us know how she intends to make that happen?

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Building ferries in B.C. — a number of ways, looking at a number

of things, but obviously, engaging with stakeholders, with those

involved in shipbuilding for various levels and having discussions with

B.C. Ferries. That’s some of it.

I think that you’ve got to recognize the great capacity we have in

B.C. for building vessels, the great opportunity we have. Again, we’ve

been talking about benefits to communities. This would not be

necessarily linked in with that — because we’re talking about B.C.

Ferries, which is its own entity — but as soon as you start building

things like ferries in British Columbia, you are creating the skills and

the jobs. You’re getting a trained workforce.

I mean, we have, over the last number of years, seen a number of

ferries being built in B.C. — the inland ferries. WaterBridge Steel has

built some excellent vessels in Nakusp. They’ve built them right on the

edge of the lake, ready to launch. That has been something which, sadly,

wasn’t celebrated by the previous government, but I think it’s a real

testament to some of the skills that we do have. We have skills on the

coast as well as in the Interior for building ferries.

I think the member is aware that it’s something I have advocated

for a number of years, as opposition, looking at ways we could do it.

Part of the inspiration I got was when I was travelling around

Washington State and seeing Washington State’s absolute commitment to

building its ferries in-state. They have, I think, just one prime

shipyard that is building Washington State Ferries.

In the past, we have looked at ways of building ferries, whether

we are doing the consortia of shipyards or looking at one specific

contract to do it. We’re getting a lot interest from people who are very

excited about this, of seeing that this could be a whole new industry,

of how we can really be pushing the envelope here and making sure that

we are building high-quality vessels in B.C.

It really has rankled people — B.C. Ferries offshoring of the

vessel procurement, the fact that we’ve seen the vessels being built in

Germany, in Poland and now in Romania. A Dutch shipyard is going to be

building vessels in Romania. People really see that that’s a big

problem, that you’ve got the jobs leaving our communities that could be

here if we had been encouraging that shipbuilding industry, which we did

have for a long while. I mean, the Spirits were built here, and they’re

fine vessels. They’re now being shipped over to Europe for their

mid-life — well, almost end-of-life — refit to make them LNG

compatible.

There is the potential here. I won’t say there’s a huge capacity

at the moment, but there is the potential. I think we need to be

exploring those potentials to make sure that we are able to create

opportunity.

As I say, people are still very upset about the offshoring of our

shipbuilding, our ferry-building, and the fact that you’re investing in

the German economy and the German workforce, or you’re investing in the

Polish economy and the Polish workforce. Now we’re investing in the

Romanian economy and the Romanian workforce.

There is a time when we have to stand up and say we should be

investing in our economy, in our workforce, and making sure that we are

for something as integral as building part of our marine highway. We’ve

had this discussion. That network links our communities. We should be

making every effort to be building them in B.C. with the skills that we

have in B.C. to make sure that we have those ferries. They’re fitted out

in the interiors. B.C. Ferries can choose whatever interior it likes

putting in its ferries, but we should really be trying, as best

possible, to be building our ferries here in B.C. rather than having

them offshored.

[5:30 p.m.]

I think that we look at the experience of the inland ferries,

where they are building ferries. We look at the experience of some of

the ferries that were built here. We’ve got B.C. Ferries’ commitment to

doing the upgrading here in B.C., not just its own Deas Dock, but it

uses other shipyards to do some of its refits.

B.C. Ferries acknowledges that there are the skills in B.C. What I

would like to see is that being built on and that we are really helping

evolve a sector that was once vibrant and could well be really vibrant

again. I think that there is a great opportunity.

Conversations have only just started. It is in my mandate letter,

but as the member is aware, out of the items in my mandate letter….

We’ve just been talking about the freezing and reducing of fares, which

will take place next year, the operational review. This is part of my

mandate letter, but we’ve also had other areas in my mandate letter

which have been acted on almost immediately.

This one is one that we are working on. It will, obviously, take

time to come into play. It is a difficult part of my mandate letter but

I think one that the Premier is clearly committed to. The fact that it

is there as a highlight for a Minister of Transportation to be doing

this shows that the Premier is also committed to seeing this. I think

that’s very exciting, and I hope that the opposition will celebrate this

industry in B.C. as much as we will.

J. Sturdy: Actually, the mandate letter says to provide a fair and open

“competitive bidding process that is open to B.C. shipyards.” I don’t

believe that the process was ever closed to B.C. shipyards.

I’d be curious if the minister could tell us how many shipyards in

British Columbia currently exist that were capable of building the

Salish class vessels.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Building vessels in B.C. is, as we’ve just been discussing, a

wonderful opportunity. One of the things that we’re going to be looking

at is finding out from the existing players what the problem has been.

Because I hear from a lot of people on the coast who run shipyards and

work in shipyards that there is an inability to bid on B.C. Ferries

procurement.

One of the reasons being is that… Again, this is what has been

playing out over the last number of years. B.C. Ferries effectively

frowns on the possibility of consortia building ferries — so one

shipyard take a lead, but others come forward to work on building

ferries, which is the way that the ferries were built for many, many

years in British Columbia. It’s a way that I’m sure that the member has

travelled on the Spirit class vessels. It’s the way that those were

built. It’s the way that other ferries have been built.

For many years, it was very effective. B.C. Ferries, in its

present iteration, has not been allowing that sort of bidding process.

So that sort of consortia, that group process to be building B.C.

Ferries, which has limited the number of shipyards available to be

bidding on the ferries that have gone out to tender…. Which is why, in

the end, B.C. Ferries has gone overseas because it has — as is

understood — limited that.

One of the things that I’m hoping to be talking to B.C. Ferries

about is its procurement practise, because it’s fundamental to the

building of vessels in our province and making sure that we have the

maximum possibility for a good, healthy industry that we can have

shipyards bidding on those.

[5:40 p.m.]

It would be wonderful to be in a position today for shipyards to

come together and say: “We could bid on the vessels that are being built

in Romania.” I mean, there are two vessels out of a six-vessel fleet, I

understand from B.C. Ferries. The first two have gone to contract in

Romania, but we’ve got four more. It would be a great position, if we

have got to that situation in B.C. — in discussion with B.C. Ferries, in

discussion with other shipyards — to work out how they can get together

to be bidding on the next four vessels.

I think it’s the hypothetical…. Rather, not the hypothetical; we

have had the industry in the past. We can have the industry in the

future. But at the moment, the structure has been such that we don’t

have the industry at present, and we have not had the industry for the

last 15 or 16 years.

I think that is a major loss for B.C., the B.C. economy and B.C.

Ferries. I think that we need to be having a conversation with the

shipyards and other people who are in the industry to work out how best

they can engage and how best B.C. Ferries can ensure that the system is

open to allow a really healthy development of our industry.

It’s not going to be an overnight panacea. We’re not going to sit

down and suddenly say: “Okay, these ten shipyards are suddenly able to

do build X number of C-class ferries.” We are looking at how we are

going to rebuild an industry we once had but, for the last 15 or 16

years, has been laying in abeyance.

In the last 15 or 16 years, the costs to B.C. have been enormous

in the fact that we’ve had…. Was it five ferries built overseas? And we

bought two ferries from Greece. There has been a huge investment by B.C.

Ferries offshore for our ferry system. What we’d like to see is the

opportunity for B.C. and for our shipyards to be able to invest in the

future of B.C. Ferries by being able to participate in the building of

B.C. Ferries.

It’s not an overnight solution, but in 16 years, the situation

has, really, become dire for many shipyards that could be working very

productively — employing people who are paying taxes in B.C., employing

people who are shopping in B.C., employing people whose kids are going

to school in B.C. and employing people who are paying the exorbitant

ferry fares in B.C. but are investing back in our economy. That’s what

we’d really like to see with this. It’s not going to be an overnight

solution, but we certainly need to be starting on it.

J. Sturdy: My understanding was that Seaspan declined to enter into the

bidding process last time because they didn’t have the time and the

space. It’s not as though companies situated in British Columbia haven’t

been participating. I actually had the privilege of seeing the

Baynes Sound Connector being manufactured in North

Vancouver. So it’s not as though they’re not participating.

Will the minister consider mandating that ferries are built in

British Columbia — directing B.C. Ferries along those lines? How does

she define an open process — the mandate letter again, “open to B.C.

shipyards” — as opposed to where it is now?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s comment, Seaspan pulled out the bid because it was

busy with the federal contracts and the Coast Guard. My argument has

been that other potential opportunities were lost because of the lack of

the ability to work in consortia because of B.C. Ferries procurement

policy.

The member asked whether we would mandate B.C. Ferries to have to

build in B.C. I think my mandate letter is very clear that we would

ensure that their procurement practices “provide for a fair and a

competitive bidding process that is open to B.C. shipyards.”

While I would love to see every single ferry built in B.C. and I

think it would be really beneficial to the province, being realistic….

B.C. Ferries has a plan to build a lot of vessels. I don’t think that

B.C. shipyards are going to be in a position to bid on every single

vessel. But I think that B.C. shipyards — and all B.C. shipyards, not

just the major ones but smaller shipyards — should be in position to

work together to be able to bid on B.C. Ferries procurement.

This is something of working with B.C. Ferries, working with the

shipyards and with others in the marine industry to develop this policy

and develop the ability. I think it’s the way forward. It is definitely

making sure that we are working together for the best interests of B.C.

That’s what this is about. It’s working together for the best interests

of B.C.

B.C. Ferries is our marine highway. It is our link. Shipbuilding

has been our forte. It can be our forte again. I think working with

shipyards up and down the coast, whether it’s in Victoria or Prince

Rupert or Campbell River…. Let’s try and get this together so they can

all have an opportunity to bid on the procurement process and new B.C.

ferries.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for that answer, to the minister.

With regard to the capital plan, does the minister anticipate any

significant changes to the capital plan? One project that I’m

particularly interested in, as I sit often under the upper deck of the

Horseshoe Bay terminal…. I understand it needs a very significant

seismic upgrade. Perhaps you could give us an update on changes overall

and, specifically, any questions or any plans with regard to Horseshoe

Bay.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Ferries presents its capital plan before every performance

term to the Ferry Commissioner. It’s an agreement. It’s the process that

happens. It’s not the ministry; it’s B.C. Ferries working with the Ferry

Commissioner. They have their capital plan. It was last filed, I think,

about 2014. The next one will be 2019-2020, when the next performance

term comes up. It’s discrete. It’s between B.C. Ferries and the

commissioner.

J. Sturdy: I take it that between now and then, the minister doesn’t

anticipate any changes to the governance structures with B.C. Ferries

that would take the Ferry Commissioner out.

I understand the Ferry Commissioner was just reappointed for all

of four months. Could the minister perhaps let us know why such a short

appointment?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Macatee has been the Ferry Commissioner for a number of years,

and I’m very pleased that he actually agreed to stay on an extra four

months. His term was extended by the previous government by just four

months earlier in the year. I think that Mr. Macatee, like much of

British Columbia, was expecting that, in May, there would be a very

clear result to the election and that he would be staying till November

to give stability there. Obviously, we had the very prolonged

interregnum between the election and ourselves forming

government.

He was due to step down in November. I’m very pleased that he has

agreed to stay for an extra four months, so it’s basically eight months

beyond when he wanted to step down. It’s not exactly a task that you get

a great deal of thanks for, being the B.C. Ferry Commissioner, but he’s

put a huge amount of effort into it. I think he is very widely respected

by people who are involved with B.C. Ferries, on all sides.

I’m pleased he’s going to be there to help transition in a new

B.C. Ferry Commissioner when we move to the next round of price

caps.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

If I might, perhaps we can move on to our favourite topic of ride

sourcing for the next little while. As we know, there was a commitment

to implement ride sourcing this fall, which changed. The minister

engaged Mr. Hara, an expert on taxis and modernizing passenger-directed

vehicle services.

The first milestone here was November 29, for a progress report,

and then a draft report due on December 31. When will we have the

opportunity to receive an update on either the progress or the draft

report? When will that be made available publicly?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the member is quite correct. Dr. Hara is at the moment doing

his outreach, working with community, working with different

stakeholders, getting information together. He will be presenting a

progress report at the end of November, and he remains on

schedule.

J. Sturdy: The terms of reference in the mandate letter talk about working

with taxi drivers, taxi companies and ride-sharing companies to create a

truly fair approach to ride-sharing in B.C. Sorry. This is in the terms

of reference for the study, I think.

Not included with the stakeholder groups were the ride-sharing

companies. Has the minister since directed Mr. Hara to engage in

discussion with those ride-sourcing companies?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, Dr. Hara is engaging with the taxi industry. He’s going to be

engaging with ride-share. Also, there have been meetings with ourselves

and with ride-share. I think it is moving ahead. Hopefully, it will all

be, as I mentioned in my previous answer, on schedule, and we can move

forward.

[6:05 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: To the minister: you say that “you have met with ride-sourcing

companies. Could the minister let us know who has met? Has the minister

met with some of these sourcing companies? Has staff? Let us know who

has talked to who.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, my staff have met with Uber, and they’ll be meeting with

other ride-share companies as the weeks go ahead.

J. Sturdy: The minister has stated on multiple occasions that ride-sharing

will require six pieces of legislation to be changed, potentially. Could

the minister confirm that and let us know what those pieces of

legislation that require amendment are?

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies for that. We just wanted to make sure that we got all

the relevant acts correct, and we were having a little discussion

there.

[6:10 p.m.]

To make it clear for the member, it isn’t that a number of acts

will have to be changed to bring in ride-share but that, at the moment,

taxis and limousines — the passenger-directed vehicle sector, as it is

known more esoterically; the passengers are actually very cross-sector —

are regulated by six pieces of legislation.

When ride-share is brought into British Columbia, it’s not

necessarily meaning that all these six pieces of legislation will have

to be changed, and I have made it clear in my remarks, I hope.

Obviously, the member didn’t quite pick it up. But there are six pieces

of legislation dealing with the current situation — the current taxi

situation, not ride-share. Obviously we don’t have ride-share here

yet.

Those six pieces of legislation are the Passenger Transportation

Act, 2004; the Commercial Transport Act from 1959; the Motor Vehicle Act

from 1924, which people have reminded others, has been updated in the

1990s; the Local Government Act, 2000; the Insurance (Vehicle) Act of

2007; and the Vancouver Charter of 1953.

As I mentioned to the member, those are relevant to the taxi and

limousine sector at the moment. Whether or not they would need to be

amended for ride-share or whether they need to be updated for refreshing

the taxi and limousine sector is still to be determined.

J. Sturdy: Well, thank you to the minister for that clarification.

I actually do, at this point, want to jump to something else,

because some new information has come to our attention relative to the

Massey Tunnel replacement. The minister was pretty clear today that this

study, assessment, was being figured out — the terms of reference. We

never got a clear answer on that. But we understand today that in fact

the Minister of Transportation confirmed late Tuesday that it has

already hired somebody to conduct the review, and the person has started

examining materials as the government puts finishing touches on terms of

reference.

Could the minister let us know, let the House know, when this

contract was signed, when it was initially approved and who this

consultant is?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, we have not signed a contract with an individual

yet, nor have we finalized terms of reference.

J. Sturdy: This is according to the Vancouver Sun this afternoon.

“The Ministry of Transportation confirmed late Tuesday that it has

already hired an individual to conduct the review, and that the person

has started examining materials as the government puts finishing touches

on terms of reference.” Would the minister say that that is not

accurate?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s quite usual procedure for an individual who is going to be

carrying out a contract such as this to have an initial meeting

necessary for the next steps before finalizing that contract. That’s the

situation we’re in. As I mentioned before, the terms of reference are

being finalized and will be signed off on very shortly.

J. Sturdy: The

article goes on to suggest that the minister intends to brief

Metro mayors before discussing this in the House or tabling the terms of

reference and allowing other members of this Legislature to understand

what is in those terms of reference.

Will the minister commit to tabling those terms of reference

immediately or this week, perhaps, so those of us who are in this

Legislature understand what those terms of reference actually are, prior

to her putting it out to everybody? It’s quite a challenge to see this

type of suggestion. When would we see the terms of reference? And who is

the consultant that is engaged in this contract?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll just answer the question, as a courtesy to the member,

obviously.

I’d just like to note that we did have a change of staff in the

chamber for this discussion. Executive director Lisa Gow is in the

chamber assisting here as well.

As I’ve been very clear, I want to continue having a good

relationship with the mayors in the region to talk about what is

happening. That’s why I will be talking to them about what is

happening.

With that, Madame Chair, noting the hour, I report….

The Chair: Progress.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: No. Report the committee rise and report completion. I’ve heard

it’s completion. We’re completing tonight.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $843,545,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the committee rise, report completion of the estimates

of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and

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 Wednesday

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS

RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $40,890,000

(continued) .

A. Olsen: I just want to follow on some of the narrative that’s being

developed here in estimates around creating certainty and the fear,

really, of uncertainty. I personally think that UNDRIP creates

certainty. From White and Bob all the way through to

Tsilhqot’in , we have these constitutional court cases that

have been building pressure to do something.

As you mentioned yesterday, the courts have been instructional.

“Do something about this at the governance level. Don’t leave it to the

judiciary.”

I come from WSÁNEĆ territory, and we are a Douglas treaty First

Nation. I just want to talk about pre-Confederation treaties and where

your government may, hopefully, take a departure from previous

governments, which have forced the pre-Confederation treaties —

specifically, the Douglas treaties — into continual constitutional

battles in the court system. Maybe you can talk about your ministry’s

approach to the pre-Confederation treaties and, perhaps even

specifically, the Douglas treaties.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you for the question. I recognize the injustice of past

treaties — certainly, the Douglas treaty. I met with many of the nations

as a critic and know that, in many cases, it’s been very difficult for

the nations to actually exercise their treaty rights. Urban sprawl and

other issues in modern history have also exacerbated that

too.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’m committed to breathing energy into negotiations to address

that. Some Douglas treaty nations have indicated — or already have a

history in the treaty process, some outside of the treaty process — to

try to get to reconciliation on this. I have asked staff to open the

conversation up where limits were before so that we can address those

needs and past injustices.

D. Ashton: Mr. Chair, through yourself to the minister: Minister, just before

lunch, a comment was made from you over to myself, I’m assuming, about

fearmongering. I just want to say to the minister that I’m not here to

fearmonger. I’m here to ask questions in estimates. My questions are

based on what we get to read, what we get to see and what has been

published.

I’ve read your engagement letter on numerous occasions. It says

that as part of your commitment, the government will be fully adopting

and implementing the United Nations declaration of rights of Indigenous

people. Yesterday you had stated: “We’ve adopted the UN declaration

without qualification.” Then it says it’s to fully adopt and that

principles are involved and that “certainly, it is my mandate to adopt

the UN declaration.”

Then it said — and I’ll end it: “I…want to reiterate. My mandate

is to fully adopt the UN declaration….” And at the very bottom of that

is: “So all 46 articles are the plan.” My questions are being based on

what I read in the articles, just to ensure that there is some

certainty. The last thing I think anybody wants to do, especially in

government or on our side of the House, is cast uncertainty.

What I’m trying to get are some answers on the direction that

government is going to take in the implementation process and who is

going to be able to decide when issues arise. Is it going to be the

government? Is it going to be bands? Is it going to be the courts again?

That’s just one of my concerns.

My question, again, is: with the implementation of UNDRIP, and

with all the articles being adopted, who will be able to decide, when

there are occurrences of dispute, which I’m quite sure, unfortunately,

will come up?

Hon. S. Fraser: While I appreciate my critic’s qualification of this line of

inquiry, I will go back to my statement that I made just prior to when

we recessed for lunch. There’s a process in place for local governments,

for community members, to inform local government of their opinions on

development that will affect them. It’s known as a public hearing

process. Through that process, developments that are being proposed that

are not in the public interest, as stated by the public, affected by the

community affected. The local government may well stop a project if it’s

a bad project, if it’s not in keeping with community values.

[1:45 p.m.]

When the UN declaration offers a similar set of rights to

Indigenous people, we’ve been spending four or five hours having the

opposition suggest that that’s a problem, that it’s going to bring the

province to a halt, that it’s a veto. Well, what that is, is a double

standard. One standard for First Nations; another one for non–First

Nations — a double standard. There’s another word for double standard. I

won’t use it here, but the opposition members are getting dangerously

close to it. If that’s