Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 232

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

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

A. Olsen

On the amendment

A. Olsen

A. Weaver

S. Furstenau

Hon. C. James

Speaker’s Statement

Rules for third reading debate

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

C. Oakes

T. Stone

D. Clovechok

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

Hon. B. Ralston

B. Stewart

Hon. G. Chow

M. de Jong

C. Oakes

S. Sullivan

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2019

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued third reading debate on Bill 10. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. I would suggest we check quorum

quickly.

I notice that some opposition members are coming in. I believe we now do

have quorum. So I will remove the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Quorum is present.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

A. Olsen: I rise to continue the debate here at third reading on Bill 10. I

recognize that we’ve had a protracted experience here with this

bill.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

It is an important discussion that we’re having in this province

right now and that we’re having in this House on behalf of the people of

this province. I’m speaking today at third reading to ask my colleagues

to reconsider. I voted some dozen times on this bill. That is a unique

situation, in which I and my colleagues from Cowichan Valley and from

Oak Bay–Gordon Head have asked for the members of this place to vote

numerous times on this bill because of the importance of the decision

that we’re making.

During the second reading debate of this, I raised some very

substantive issues around climate change. I discussed the deep concerns

that I have with adding the single largest point of emissions in British

Columbia — or, indeed, in the Canadian context — to a situation in which

we’ve been told, very clearly, we can’t add more emissions. Indeed, we

have to find ways to reverse the situation that we have. We have to find

ways to reduce the amount of emissions.

[1:35 p.m.]

I highlighted the power of our youth with the youth climate

strike. We see, on the very steps of this Legislature and at legislative

and parliament buildings around the world, the youth standing up and

asking their legislators to make different decisions than the decisions

that we have in front of us and that this House collectively, aside from

the three Greens, has made a dozen times now on this bill.

My colleagues moved three amendments at second reading stage of

this debate. We’ve called division at every single

section of this bill.

We’ve been very deliberate in that, because we’re asking our colleagues

in this place to consider the impact that this decision is having. I get

here at third reading, in speaking to the bill that we have in front of

us, and I reflect back on the committee stage of this legislation. I

mentioned this in my comments to the amendment moved by my colleague

from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I’ll talk a little bit more about it

now.

The reality is that as we moved

section by

section through this

bill, the members of the official opposition — some folks that have been

in this place for a very, very long time, extremely skilled legislators

— pulled apart this legislation with the questions they asked in fine

detail, and did an incredible job of highlighting the substantive

challenges this bill has.

That is the role for the committee stage of this bill. It’s the

role of the official opposition to deconstruct the bill we have. We do

this on behalf of British Columbians so that indeed, British Columbians

can be certain about the legislation this House is passing on their

behalf, so that we can be certain about the kind of future this House is

locking in not only for us as current legislators but for future

legislators. The impact of this bill is going to impact the operations

of this place for decades to come — four decades, as has been pointed

out.

I raise my hands to the member for Abbotsford West, the member for

Langley East, the member for Surrey–White Rock and the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head. They’ve done a tremendous job of highlighting the

substantive issues that we’re now faced with voting on here at third

reading, in this bill — the issues that were not responded to clearly in

the responses.

I want to raise my hands for the work that was done. I want to

highlight, very clearly, that going through the papers, going through

the debate that happened here at committee stage, I’m frankly shocked

and disappointed with the quality of the responses that were given to

the questions that were asked around temporary foreign workers — or the

lack of responses given to very substantive questions — about agreements

that may or may not have been signed and suggestions that we have to go

outside of this debate.

We have to go outside of the debate at committee stage into a

different room to find out information that should be forthcoming in

this debate at this time when we’re voting on third reading of this

bill, when we’re taking the time to pass this legislation, so that we

can be certain that the commitments made by this government — the

commitments to meeting climate targets, the commitments to jobs for

British Columbians, the commitments to real partnerships with First

Nations, the commitments to a fair return for British Columbians — these

four conditions pushed forward by this government, will, indeed, at

third reading here of this bill, have been satisfied through this

debate.

I can say I am left with little satisfaction that, to the good

questions that were asked, any answers were given. There were, indeed,

responses, but they left a lot to be desired.

[1:40 p.m.]

We’ve been critical of this legislation, all aspects of this bill,

whether it be the natural gas tax credits, the changes in the

calculations, the cost-of-natural-gas calculations, the administrative

penalties, the natural gas sampling aspects of this bill, all the way

through, which are highlighted in this bill.

We’ve definitely been critical about the decision of government to

proceed with an incentive to attract an industry which is adding 3.5

megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to a climate, to an environment,

that cannot withstand further emissions. Indeed, in order for to us to

be able to live up to our commitments for climate action, we need to be

reducing. From an environmental perspective, there’s very clearly a

challenge. It was highlighted by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who

stood a couple of times during the debate at committee stage — I was

reading through it last night — with respect to the first condition of

meeting our climate targets.

The responses to those questions…. The fact that we have to wait

until June 30 for the Minister of Environment to complete his

consultations with industry, the fact that we have to wait for that time

or we have to canvass those questions with the Minister of Environment

in a different House at a different time at a different

section of the

work that we do this in this place — at budget estimates — is really a

troubling aspect of what’s gone on in this House this week.

The fact is that we have disconnected this information. We’ve

disconnected the information about this bill and the benchmarks that are

being set. I would imagine that probably LNG Canada is quite concerned

about that. But I and my colleagues in the official opposition and my

colleagues here in the B.C. Green caucus are also quite concerned about

the fact that this has been disconnected.

That the information about those consultations, the information

about the clean growth industrial incentives, needs to be canvassed

during budget estimates should be deeply considering for all sides of

this House. All 87 of us in this place should be very concerned that

we’re not being satisfied with those very substantive and, in fact,

important questions as to the aspect of this agreement.

One of the most frustrating parts through the documentation that I

read last night was the interaction around temporary foreign workers —

the documentation that the member for Abbotsford West highlighted and

brought to the awareness of the people of this place. I thank him for

that. We don’t necessarily agree on a lot, but on this, I have to raise

my hands to the work that was done yesterday with respect to finding the

documentation that an agreement was signed that perhaps opens up LNG to

accessing more temporary foreign workers.

Indeed, and I know that my colleague would like to speak to this a

little bit more, we got emails from people who are working in the area

up there, who own companies that are working on LNG. They’re very

concerned that while their people are sitting idle, folks are coming

from all across the province to work up there and getting jobs before

locals. I know that there’s more about that coming.

The fact that we have to go to the Jobs, Trades and Technology

debate on estimates to get information about the temporary foreign

workers contract that potentially the Minister of Jobs, Trades and

Technology signed…. That’s going on in a different room right now,

completely disconnected from the debate around Bill 10. That’s going on

in a different House.

We’ve had deflections on jobs. We had deflections on the clean

growth industrial incentives program. So now what we have in front of us

is Bill 10, which has survived dozens of votes during second reading and

all the way through — stage by stage,

section by

section — at committee

stage. We have a bill that survived all of that with very little

information informing us as to what it is that we’re actually voting

on.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’ve been around the local government tables, now the provincial

government tables, for a decade. There’s nothing that drives me more

crazy than when I’m sitting at these tables looking across at the people

around me and knowing that the homework wasn’t done. And in some cases,

the information was all in front of them. That’s really a frustrating

experience, when everybody around the table had access to all of the

information, yet people were not reading their agendas and reading the

briefings and reading the information.

That’s not the situation we have here. The situation we have here

is that the good work of my colleagues in the official opposition has

been frustrated. The information they tried to seek to get

clarification…. They were told: “In order to get it, you have to leave

this House, go to another House and have a different discussion.” It

won’t be on the record as part of the second reading and committee stage

debates. It’s not, in fact, available to inform us about the decision

that we’re going to be asked to make.

When we had the decision in front of us as to whether or not we

were going to indeed stand and debate at third reading, while we have

stood at every opportunity to oppose this bill, it became very clear to

me that, indeed, yes, it’s necessary to stand at third reading and have

this debate. It’s necessary to challenge the assumptions that have been

made, the statements that have been made that: “Yes, trust us. We’ve met

our climate targets.”

Well, how? We have a CleanBC program that’s got 75 percent of the

way there, meaning 25 percent of it, a quarter of it, is yet to be

identified. So how can we say that we’ve met it? The benchmarks for the

clean growth industrial incentive have not been yet set. We have until

June 30 in order for those to be set. So we’re being asked — members on

all sides of this House — to vote on a bill which, in fact, we don’t

actually have all of the information from.

In some respects, I think that the frustration around the table

when I could identify that my colleagues had not done the homework that

was in front of them…. I can set that aside for this debate. What I

can’t set aside for this debate is that we are about to vote in favour

of a bill — we’re not, but the vast majority of the people of this place

are — in which the information has not been made available.

I ask: how can we possibly turn and say to British

Col­um­bians, “Yes, we’ve done a responsible job,” if, in

fact, we haven’t taken the time to ensure the information is in front…?

That’s the reason why, at this stage, I’m going to be moving a hoist

amendment to this bill: because I believe that, in fact, there is an

opportunity for us to be informed.

I’m going to be moving the hoist amendment, because I think that

we have the opportunity to get the information. We have the opportunity

to be able to ask the questions that need to be asked if there is more

time and to get the answers to the questions that have been asked that

have been left unanswered.

I’m not necessarily even asking that I be satisfied. I’ve got

quite strong opinions about the direction we need to be taking on LNG,

and I know that’s not lost on any of my colleagues in this House. I

recognize I may not be satisfied on this, but I think there are members

of this place that are far from satisfied with the answers they’ve been

given. I ask them to stand with us and take this opportunity to

delete….

I’ll move this amendment:

[That the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 10) intituled

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 be amended by deleting the

word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Please proceed with your remarks on the

amendment.

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: I have had the opportunity to speak a couple of times here at

third reading — to the amendment moved by my colleague from Oak

Bay–Gordon Head and then now to my comments at third reading.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’ve been quite clear that I feel that there have been substantive

questions raised. The challenge that I would like to lay down here, for

all of my colleagues in this place, is if we were to set aside the

politics of this and look at it from just a business perspective, would

we be entering into providing these tax breaks?

I recognize the Minister of Finance has been saying this is a long

conversation that’s been happening. I would like to say that the long

conversation that’s been happening has been outside of this place, for

the most part. It’s only been in the last couple of weeks that the long

conversation has been happening in this place. The people of British

Columbia deserve to have these questions answered on the record, and

they deserve to have these questions answered on the record in light of

the fact that we are committing them to 40 years.

Forty years, four decades. I am 43 years old — I think. I might be

just close to that. I’m wondering: how old am I?

Anyway, the point I’m making is that it’s my lifespan,

essentially. The point I’m making is that it’s my lifespan that we’re

committing to. And a lot has changed in my lifespan. I remember my mom

was debating, as the PAC chair, as to whether or not we should just

agree to the Apple IIe’s that they were offering to our school for

free.

That’s a long, long time ago we were having that debate. A lot has

changed. A lot has happened. Do we really want to be leaving these gaps

open? This is a long conversation. This is a long conversation that

we’ve had.

Indeed, the members across the way in the official opposition

started this conversation a long time ago. The depth of knowledge that

the member for Langley East demonstrated yesterday in his questioning of

the Minister of Finance was substantive. That conversation has been

going on a long time.

I ask the members across the way…. In light of the fact we’ve gone

this distance, in light of the fact we have a final investment decision

that has been made with so many questions left unanswered, I think we

owe it to the corporate interest that’s made this agreement to us that

we seek those answers out and get them, for them and for the people of

British Columbia. Primarily, that’s the most important group I’m

responsible for standing up for, the people of British

Columbia.

I ask the question: what is six months? If in fact this is

everything that it’s been said that it is, then we should pay respect to

the people of British Columbia and seek out that information. And those

questions were good questions. The answers left a lot to be

desired.

For me, I believe there is a really good case to be made here. We

are not going to be able to get the information around the temporary

foreign workers and just exactly how many jobs are going to be British

Columbian jobs, how many jobs are going to be coming from outside this

jurisdiction. Indeed, we’re not going to be able to get the answers

about the clean growth industrial incentive until at least June 30,

2019. Even as long as December 31 was the answer given by the Minister

of Finance. So I think actually there is a very good case to be

made.

This is my last opportunity to speak to this bill, so I’ll just

leave it at this. I place the challenge in front of my colleagues. I

place this challenge in front of them. Do they want to be able to say

that yes, in fact, we have supported a good deal? If so, then we have

the responsibility to make sure that we have all the information to be

able to say that.

The case becomes extremely weakened when the points have been made

that in fact we don’t have all the information, yet we vote for it

anyway. So I ask my colleagues to really deeply take this time to

consider the fact that we have not been given answers to the questions

that we’ve asked and that we have an opportunity right now to take the

six months, to reconsider this in six months and to say: “Yeah, you know

what, member for Saanich North and the Islands, we did get the answers.

You might not like them, but we got the answers.”

[1:55 p.m.]

I think that that’s a worthwhile endeavour, to make sure that for

the next four decades, we’re able to say to the people of British

Columbia: “Yeah, we did the work.” And we didn’t just do the work in the

back rooms here. We did the work where it’s supposed happen — under the

lights, in front of the cameras, on the record, in Hansard so

that you can actually go and see the information. Right now, I’ll tell

you, the information that’s on Hansard …. I would imagine it’s

going to cause British Columbians some deep, deep concern.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this,

and thank you to the members of this House for listening.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak very briefly in support of my colleague’s, the

member for Saanich North and the Islands, hoist amendment on the

bill.

My colleague, I think, has made a very, very compelling case as to

why we need the additional six months’ time to reflect upon it. More so,

I would suggest, members in this House have not received the information

that they need to make a decision. I’ve heard many talk about the

importance of evidence-based decision-making. It’s something that’s

fundamental to who we are as members of the B.C. Green caucus. I’ve

heard others in this place talk about the importance of that. Yet we

know that the information, the evidence on which to make such a

decision, has not been presented to us here in committee

stage.

We know that this bill has three components to it. It has a

component to repeal the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act.

There’s a component to repeal the LNG Income Tax Act. And there was, at

the same time, a component of the bill to retain the tax credit, the

corporate welfare on steroids, that existed within the LNG Income Tax

Act.

We know, in what has got to be described as a bizarre set of

things that have happened here, that we’ve broken precedent in this

place. We’ve broken historical precedent in Westminster parliamentary

democracies during the course of these debates, not once, but twice

during the course of these debates. That, in and of itself, I would

suggest, should give us pause to reflect upon this bill with the

additional time that we would get through this hoist

amendment.

We had an amendment put forward by the B.C. Liberals, an amendment

to quibble about where the deck chairs on the Titanic should be

prior to the Titanic sinking to the bottom of the ocean. We had

an amendment that actually led to a tie vote, 41 to 41. With respect, in

the long, rich tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracies, we

had a precedent set that goes directly against the historic nature of

this building where a Chair votes out of conscience in a partisan manner

with the opposition.

This is outrageous. It’s outrageous, given that we, at the same

time in the U.K., had the ruling set out why the Speaker in the U.K.

ruled with government. That is the role in a Westminster parliamentary

democracy of a Chair, to ensure that the debates flow forward. That was

our first precedent-setting decision — very, very unfortunate. But that

was not the only one.

The second one, too, gives reason to pause as to why we need to

reflect upon this bill for a few more months, because clearly the

process in this place leaves a lot to be desired. That was my colleague

from the Cowichan Valley, who spent many, many hours going through the

media to determine what information was missing, in order to inform

members on the decision that was going to be made today — information

that was not present, not given during committee stage, information that

she took upon herself to find and bring forward. She was shut down at

third reading. The member was told to sit down. Her voice was silenced.

Outrageous.

[2:00 p.m.]

Two times during the course of the last 48 hours — two times we’ve

had such statements. That is why it’s critical for us to reflect upon

this.

With that, I’ll take my place and suggest to members opposite that

this is the time for us to actually reflect upon the implications of

this. I certainly hope we’re joined in voting in support of my member’s

amendment.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the opportunity to support the amendment put forth by

my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, an amendment that

delays this bill by six months.

I would suggest that given the enormity of the decision being made

with this legislation, given the very significant impacts that we are

actually choosing to bring into the entire world with approval and, even

more gallingly, the subsidization of the single largest point source of

emissions in Canada’s history, at a time when, as I was pointing out

this morning, on a daily basis, every single day in the media the news

about the impacts of climate change is getting more frequent and more

alarming….

While we were debating this bill in this House, the first city was

lost to climate change. While we were debating this bill in this House,

scientists came out to identify that we will be seeing far more tropical

infectious diseases in Canada because of the warming. While we were

debating the bill in this House, we learned that Canada will, in fact,

warm at twice the rate as the rest of the world and, in fact, northern

Canada and B.C. even faster than that. While we were debating the bill

in this House, we learned that Canada, overall, is failing to address

climate change while at the same time we are some of the biggest

per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

This absolutely requires a pause. This absolutely requires of us,

all 87 of us, to reflect at length and in depth on the choices that

we’re making in this House, the implications of those choices and the

signals that we are sending to the rest of the world and to future

generations.

If we look even at the four conditions that have been laid out…. A

fair return for the resource. There’s no way of guaranteeing that. How

do we determine a fair return when we’re supposedly in a free market

economy? We’re supposedly supposed to be letting the market determine

what can and cannot be economically viable, yet we choose to insert

ourselves, in the wrong ways, into this.

Respect and make partners of First Nations. Well, while we were

debating this bill, the people up in Wet’suwet’en territory have

announced that they’re going to be building a new camp to be protesting

this. Not protesting; I take that back. They’re going to be building a

new camp to be asserting their territorial rights. That’s happened while

we were debating this bill.

The condition to protect the air, land and water. Well, while we

were debating this bill, we got more information about the impacts of

fracking from the doctors who have been touring this province and

telling us that they are seeing symptoms and conditions up in the area

where there is intense fracking in B.C., symptoms they can’t

explain.

[2:05 p.m.]

Rates of brain cancer, here on Daffodil Day, that far exceed

statistical norms. Respiratory diseases, respiratory conditions, that

they make a connection between flaring of gases and the expansion of

these symptoms. That happened while we were debating this bill. Those

doctors have been sharing their stories.

I think there is only one responsible thing for us to do at this

point. I know we’ve been speaking for days now, the three of us. Our

pleas and our requests and our arguments and everything we’ve brought

forward — it has felt like they’ve fallen on deaf ears, yet we keep

trying.

For us, this is a deeply distressing and sad time. We have this

extraordinary province, these extraordinary potentials. Imagine what we

could do with $6 billion. With the outcomes of those investments, we

could be providing education and training opportunities to fill those

30,000 tech jobs that are unfilled in B.C. right now — jobs that could

contribute to increases in medical technology, maybe jobs that would

eventually be the source of solving cancer.

But we’re not. We’re not going to spend our $6 billion that way.

So it is with a truly heavy heart that I, too, speak to this, which I

think will be for the last time as well. While I recognize that this

vote will likely go the same as every other vote on this bill has gone,

I hope that our words have resonated with some of the members in this

House.

I know that they will be recorded, and we will be looking back at

them. I think what is important for us to communicate at this point is

that this is a sad defeat, but in no way do we give up on what we

believe to be an extraordinary potential and a vision for a different

future for this province that isn’t about dragging us backwards into the

20th century.

On that note, I will hope that there will be members who will vote

with us on this amendment to take six months.

Hon. C. James: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I rise…. I’ll only

speak for a couple of minutes. This amendment is basically the

opportunity to push off for six months, as the previous amendment was,

so I don’t think I need repeat myself. I think we’ve had a thorough

discussion.

I say thank you again to the members who’ve taken

part in the

debate — and certainly my Green colleagues, who have raised their issues

and their concerns. I understand they’re passionate about this issue. I

understand their feelings about the issue. Will we be held accountable

for this decision? No question. It’s why I felt so strongly about the

four conditions we put in place and why I feel so strongly about being

held accountable for those four positions.

We will, as a government, be judged by making sure that we move

ahead with climate action. We will be judged by making sure that we put

in place the good work that hap­pened around CleanBC. We will be

held accountable as a government for ensuring jobs are here for British

Colum­bians. The job strategy, in fact, was released.

I understand the debate that occurred, but in fact, we do have a

job strategy from LNG. We do have a track record around the work that’s

going on for local first — B.C. resi­dents, Canadian

workers.

I think it’s important to note, as well, the work that has been

done with First Nations. I recognize the work that the company has,

still ongoing, with the hereditary chiefs, but there is work, as well,

with the First Nations along the route as well.

[2:10 p.m.]

Again, I come back to the importance of our climate action, so I

will be speaking against the amendment.

Deputy Speaker: The question is the third reading hoist amendment of Bill

Division has been called.

[2:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment “that the motion for

third reading of Bill (No. 10) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019

be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months

hence,’” as put forward by the member for Saanich North and the

Islands.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

NAYS — 76

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Glumac

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Thornthwaite

Paton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Larson

Foster

Speaker’s Statement

RULES FOR THIRD READING DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before proceeding, I would just like to make a

statement here, and that is I wish to state for clarity that the Chair

has been fairly lenient with the third reading debate that took place on

Bill 10 today. As the Deputy Speaker noted earlier, debate at third

reading is not common practice in our House, though it is a decisive

stage in the legislative process, and members are within their right to

speak on debate on a motion for the third reading of a bill and to

propose certain amendments as this stage of a bill’s

consideration.

I wish to affirm that the direction provided by the Deputy Speaker

earlier today was correct. Parliamentary Practice in British

Columbia , fourth edition, states, at page 220: “Debate on third

reading is limited to matters which are contained in the

Bill.”

This is also reinforced in other procedural authorities. Erskine

May’s 24th edition states, at page 595: “Debate on third reading,

however, is more restricted than at the earlier stage, being limited to

the contents of the bill.”

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition,

states, at page 792: “Debate at this stage of the legislative process

focuses on the final form of the bill.”

The Deputy Speaker properly upheld this recognized

practice.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

Hon. C. James: With that, I move third reading of Bill 10.

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

[2:20 p.m.]

Division has been called.

House Leaders, waive the time here?

Interjections.

[2:25 p.m.]

Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and

passed on the following division:

YEAS — 76

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Glumac

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Thornthwaite

Paton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 3

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

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

the Ministry of Transportation.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

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

(continued) .

Hon. C. Trevena: Before we get underway, we had a number of questions in our last

get-together, and our get-together before, that were unanswered. I know

that the critic had asked in our last get-together about whether he was

going to get an answer. So I’d like to read into the record some of the

answers provided and give us the opportunity to follow up.

One was transit-oriented taxes on transportation fuels. It was

from the critic regarding the taxes and levies on transportation fuels

and about the point of collection of these taxes. There is a

comprehensive tax bulletin published by the Ministry of Finance. It is

bulletin MFT-CT 005, just updated on April 1, which outlines the various

tax rates on fuel.

The motor fuel tax is made up — as I say, this is about

transit-oriented taxes — of both provincial and dedicated taxes. The

provincial tax rate varies by region and by type of fuel. The proceeds

for this tax go to general revenue, and the rates are listed in the

bulletin. Dedicated taxes apply in certain regions in the province. They

go to three organizations: the South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority, which is TransLink; the British Columbia

Transit Authority; and the British Columbia Transportation Financing

Authority.

The current tax rates are as follows. South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority, or TransLink, gets 17 cents a litre. British

Columbia Transit Authority, which is assessed in the Victoria regional

transit service area, receives 5.5 cents a litre.

BCTFA, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, receives 6.75

cents a litre. This is charged across the entire province, including the

Sea to Sky region, the critic’s own area. A portion of the 6.75 cents

per litre that goes to the BCTFA is used to fund transit capital across

the province.

In regard to the question about the collection of tax, at the

general level — without getting into the nuances of motor fuel taxation,

which we obviously had a heated debate about earlier on today — security

in the amount of the tax is applied at the time of the first sale of the

fuel in B.C., after it’s manufactured in or imported into the province.

There’s also a tax bulletin for fuel sellers available from the Ministry

of Finance.

I would urge, if the member has any other concerns or questions

regarding motor fuel taxes to direct them to the Minister of Finance

during her estimates debate, which I believe are following ours in this

chamber.

[2:35 p.m.]

Then there was a request from the MLA for Shuswap about the

intercity bus service, the Passenger Transportation Board and Rider

Express. I know there was a lot of concern about that.

I would like to first correct the record regarding my response on

my engagement with the Passenger Transportation Board. At the time, I

said that I had written a letter, that the ministry had written a

letter. That letter was not written, primarily because the Passenger

Transportation Board took very swift action to address the issue without

such a letter. They took the initiative, and the board and the province

issued news releases about the fast-track process, to ensure that

industry and the general public were aware of the new

process.

In terms of the member for Shuswap’s specific questions regarding

Rider Express and the state of the intercity bus operator, I can confirm

that as of April 1, 2019, Rider Express is operating daily between

Vancouver and Kamloops and is providing three round trips a week from

Kamloops to Calgary along Highway 1, as per their licence

requirements.

Rider Express does have an application before the Passenger

Transportation Board to reduce its service, as the member knows. They

have to apply both to have the service and then if they want to reduce

it. As of right now, they are providing the service as outlined in their

licence.

I can share that there have been a few issues with this particular

service provider, including reducing service levels without Passenger

Transportation Board authorization. But this has been rectified after a

verbal order was issued from the Passenger Transportation enforcement

officer late last year.

Finally, a question from the Transportation critic of the Third

Party, for Saanich North and the Islands, regarding Highway 17 and a bus

stop at Mt. Newton Cross Road. The ministry’s transit branch has already

engaged with our highways department on this matter to ensure that

Highway 17 is used to its full potential for all communities along the

corridor and for both automobile and transit users.

There was a question from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke

on options for Golden. I can confirm that depending upon where Golden

residents are wishing to travel, there are two options. One is the

Interior Health bus, which is available to the general public, which

makes a round trip between Golden and Cranbrook along Highway 95 twice a

week. And as of April 1, 2019, Rider Express is providing those three

round trips between Kamloops and Calgary, with a stop in

Golden.

There was a question from the member for Fraser-Nicola, which was

again about transportation options for residents in the Fraser Canyon. I

really appreciate people’s engagement on this. This is very important,

the safe, affordable ground transportation. The member was pointing out

the challenges that rural residents have faced when it comes to

transportation.

There has been another new applicant to the Passenger

Transportation Board to provide service in the Fraser Canyon. On March

27 of this year — so just last week — the Passenger Transportation Board

approved an intercity bus application from Gertzen Ventures to provide

two round trips per week between Prince George and Surrey travelling on

Highway 97 and one through the Fraser Canyon.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin provided a letter of support as

part of the Passenger Transportation Board application, and Gertzen

Ventures now has until April 15 — so just ten days — to obtain a licence

from the Passenger Transportation registrar.

I hope that clarifies some of the questions. If there are any

answers that weren’t given, we will follow up, either in writing or

verbally, at our next session of estimates.

However, just as we start, I’d like to introduce the people who

will be supporting me through this process. On my left is Grant Main,

the Deputy Minister for the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure. On my right is Nancy Bain, assistant deputy minister for

finance. Behind me on my left is Ashok Bhatti, who is the executive

director for the southern region of the ministry. Then on my right is,

first, Mike Lorimer, who is the executive director for the southern

Interior region, and Kevin Richter, who is associate deputy minister

with responsibility for highways.

With that, let’s move on.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for those responses, Minister. Unfortunately, we had a

little emergency over here. We will read through Hansard so

that we make sure we’ve covered all that we need to cover.

Interjection.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Because this is our third day now, I think we might as well extend

it into four or five.

We will continue on here. We had started with northern and

Interior highway issues, mostly focusing on various MLAs and the issues

in their ridings. We will carry on with that, just to let the minister

know in terms of staffing. Then we’ll move into the Metro Vancouver

Highway 1 issues.

I’ll pass it on to my colleague from the Cariboo.

C. Oakes: I raise a question that I’ve canvassed multiple times with this

minister. It’s been a year since West Fraser has faced a significant

landslide as a result of the 2017 Plateau fire. It has been a year. The

communities continue to be travelling a forest service road — the

communities of ?Esdilagh First Nation and Buckridge.

We have over 200 people. We have a doctor. We have care aides. We

have professionals and small business owners that have to travel that

road every single day. Further, we have children that are getting on a

school bus at 6:30 in the morning. They are travelling two hours each

way to attend school.

My question to the minister. The community was advised by the

Ministry of Transportation they would be receiving an update. First,

they were told they would receive an update in September. Then they said

they would get an update in the fall. Then it was delayed to late fall.

Then the community was told by the Ministry of Transportation there

would be an update in December. Then a communiqué went out to the

community, and they were told the Ministry of Transportation would come

out in January. That got moved to the spring.

The community continues to wait. It is appalling that local

Ministry of Transportation staff are required because this minister or

senior officials will not come to the community to answer community

questions. When will the minister follow up, take leadership and come

out and respond to the community’s concerns about when West Fraser Road

will be fixed?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question, and I can quite understand

the member’s frustration and that of her communities. I have had a

number of letters from various people within the communities — the

school district and so on. It is, as the member well knows, a massive

problem and a massive fix. If there has been a lack of communication,

that is unfortunate.

I can tell the member there is going to be a public meeting where

senior staff will be attending on May 1. But just to give the member

some comfort, I did write to her in the beginning of last month about

what is being done on the road. The fact that it is…. As I say, fixing

the main road is a major project. We have the equivalent of…. As the

member I’m sure is well aware, 28 million cubic metres of soil slid. To

put it in perspective, that’s 11,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. I

mean, it’s huge, what has happened.

The detour road, the road that is being used at the

mo­ment…. The member calls it a forest service road. It isn’t a

forest service road. It is a Ministry of Transportation road. I

underline that because there are different standards. Forest service

roads have a very low standard. Ministry of Transportation roads have a

much higher standard. I know that from my own constituency, where I have

Indigenous people and communities with health care needs and schools and

everything else at the end of forest service roads. They are frustrated

because they don’t get the same standard as the ministry

roads.

The roads the member’s constituents are using are ministry roads.

Given that they’re ministry roads, there has been an increased level of

service on those roads. We know children are travelling on them, and we

know this is the only route that is available at the moment. So the

ministry has put in that extra level of both maintenance and upkeep on

them.

I can give the member that assurance, and as we speak…. This isn’t

just waiting for the big fix to happen. We are working. I mean, as we

speak, we’ve got geotechnical engineers working on the slide area,

trying to find the best way forward. It’s a serious issue for the

member’s constituents, and I recognize that.

C. Oakes: I do thank the minister for the information.

I am very pleased to be…. I will be making sure people in my

community understand that on May 1, there will be a community meeting,

and there will be senior-level representatives from the Ministry of

Transportation. I think the greatest frustration is that there was a

commitment to talk to the community, and that just has not happened in a

year or short of a year. That’s the sense…. People need to be planning

for their lives. I understand it’s a difficult project. They just need

to have some answers. So I appreciate that.

I guess the question before that I’d like to bring up…. I raised

in March the concern of the after-effects of what we saw with wildfires

in the 2017 Plateau fire. Then we experienced the floods of 2018, and

then we headed into another wildfire year in the same areas that

continue to be decimated because of soil erosion, because of the

hydrology changes. We had canvassed that at last estimates.

[2:50 p.m.]

When we do not have the resources to address it, we find ourselves

in situations such as West Fraser Road and the significant challenges we

have. I imagine that project is…. I believe it’s at an estimate right

now of about $95 million, so it’s a significant project to fix, and I

understand that.

My question to the minister. One of the challenges that we have

are culverts in the area. Many of our culverts were put in place in the

1960s and 1970s when the land base was significantly different, when the

roads that were put in had different climate challenges than we have

today. In the Cariboo region, we have 7,800 kilometres of roads and

40,000 culverts. What is the budget that currently exists for the

province to be replacing culverts?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. I think that the member,

living in the Cariboo, is very aware that fires have fundamentally

changed our landscape. It’s not just the burn but, as she mentions, the

hydrology. Everything has changed. As a result, we are both responding

and preparing for climate change. So we’re working in a number of

areas.

I’ll be quite frank. It’s impossible to say, “We spend this much

on culverts,” because we’re spending on culverts and rehabilitation

under our side roads. It’s part of our maintenance contract, for

instance. At the moment, maintenance contractors are going out to make

sure that culverts are clear ahead of the fire season, so that becomes

part of it. It’s part of our side-roads budget, and it’s part of our

capital budget. It is spread across the whole ministry.

The ministry is working very much with the awareness of climate

change as a reality and building in resilience into our infrastructure.

In fact, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has been

recognized by the Auditor General as leading on this within government

because of the need, whether it’s to upsize culverts or just fix the

situation before it gets worse. And I think that’s been highlighted over

the last two years.

I’ve got to say: accolades. I know that the member was

disappointed with what she perceived to be a lack of communication from

the ministry on the specifics of the West Fraser Road. Our ministry has

some extraordinary people who work extraordinarily hard. The recently

retired chief engineer, Dirk Nyland, is recognized across Canada for

revising the standards for resilience. The standards that have been

developed by our ministry, by the ministry’s chief engineer, are now

being adopted across the country. So I think that we are doing a lot of

very important work.

Unfortunately, we can’t rip out all the old culverts at once and

put new ones in, but we are working on those four areas to make sure it

happens. We are recognized across Canada for leading the way on climate

change resilience.

T. Stone: I, first, want to just say it’s always great to see the familiar

faces of the hard-working men and women of the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure. I know the minister continues to be

very well served by the professionals in her ministry.

I just have a couple questions on a couple different topics. The

first one relates to passenger commercial bus transportation and service

to and through the village of Chase, in the east end of my constituency.

We are, obviously, very grateful, as I think all MLAs from the Interior

and the north have been, with the enhanced service provision that was

provided as a result of the expeditious granting of licences by the

Passenger Transportation Board in October of 2017. That was very good

news, with Greyhound’s departure.

Insofar as the withdrawal of Greyhound impacted the village of

Chase, it was good news that Rider Express stepped up to the plate and

was granted a licence to provide service from the Alberta border to

Vancouver along Highway 1 and Highway 5.

My understanding is that the grant of the licence, which again was

about five months ago, was for 14 stops from the Alberta border through

to Langley, including the village of Chase. This is a reservation

service that the company has, which is good.

[3:00 p.m.]

They were granted a licence to operate for, I believe, seven days

a week and two departures per day. Unfortunately, only a matter of weeks

ago the village of Chase learned that the operator, Rider Express, had

submitted an application to the passenger transportation folks to amend

the licence, stating low ridership. Unfortunately for the village of

Chase, part of what the company is asking for is the permission to no

longer stop at, I believe, four locations, including Sorrento and the

village of Chase. I believe there may be two other locations in the

Lower Mainland.

Obviously, that’s of grave concern to the village of Chase. As

part of their application for a revision to their licence, they’re also

asking for permission to be able to provide service on other routes in

the area — from, I believe, Kamloops to Vancouver, Kelowna to Vancouver

and Kamloops to Kelowna — though we do note that those routes are well

served at the moment by other operators. I completely understand that

Rider Express probably is looking at higher ridership on some

neighbouring routes and looking for an opportunity to compete there,

potentially, to subsidize less profitable routes where there’s lower

ridership.

The issue that I have with this, on behalf of the people of Chase,

is as follows. The minister can please correct me if I’m wrong, but my

understanding is that a condition of the licence that was originally

granted — one of the conditions — is that the operator has to publicly

advertise their schedule. They have to make sure that the public has

easy access to what the

schedule is. I have been advised by the village

of Chase — the mayor and council as well as citizens at large — that no

one has ever seen any advertising or any publication of the

schedule for

the village of Chase.

If a

schedule had been published somewhere and if people were

seeing that

schedule and were choosing not to use the service, that’s

one thing. I would understand the operator’s desire to no longer be

forced to stop there. But no one has ever seen them stop there. No one

has ever seen a schedule. It’s hard to have sympathy if the operator

isn’t making a good-faith effort to advertise Chase as a stop. So on

behalf of the mayor and council of the village of Chase and on behalf of

the people of Chase, I’m wondering if the minister could offer some

comment.

Is she aware of this application for a revised licence? Can she

indicate whether or not she’s aware of any

schedule that’s been

published? Would she be willing, through her staff, to engage with the

village of Chase to make sure, as part of the Passenger Transportation

Board’s consideration of this application for a revision to the licence,

that, indeed, the concerns of the people that we’re all trying to serve

here with these transportation options — the people of Chase and their

concerns — are heard loud and clear about what’s actually going on in

the village with respect to Rider Express’s service to this

point?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to introduce — I know the member knows her well — Deb

Bowman, assistant deputy minister for policy, who is advising here on

intercity bus.

Yes, Chase is not listed on their

schedule — quite right; nor is

Sorrento. Right at the beginning of my remarks, when I was reading into

the record some of the answers for previous estimates, your colleague

from Shuswap had raised the issue of Rider Express. I mentioned at that

time that they have an application in, to reduce the service.

I think the member knows that the passenger transportation

registrar can review complaints about service to ensure that they are

upholding their licence. When I read into the record at the beginning, I

mentioned the fact that there had been a warning to the company from the

passenger transportation registrar. That was at the end of last year.

The next stage of increasing the pressure on the company would be to

possibly have an administrative penalty.

I can ask my staff to engage with the registrar to follow up on

what has been happening. As the member says, if the company is trying to

have applications on other routes that they may think more profitable,

is neglecting the route that they have their licence for and not even

advertising for two stops that you might have estimated were going to be

there, there is clearly a problem there. I’ll ask my staff to work with

the registrar to find out what can be done.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Stone: Just one quick follow-up on that. Again, I just really want to

underscore, from the perspective of the people who live in the village

of Chase and who are really depending on there being a bus service

comparable to what Greyhound used to provide…. They were very hopeful

that Rider Express would be that company.

Indeed, Rider Express may be a great company. I’ve never used

their service. This is not about whether they’re a good company or a bad

company. I’m not suggesting the minister’s saying that either. But one

of the conditions of licence is that they have to publicly post their

schedule. People have to know that the service exists in order to use

it.

If I’d heard this concern just from one or two people, you might

chock it up to a whole number of things. When you’re hearing it from a

lot of people in the community and then when the mayor and council

actually get exercised about this, as they have, it tends to suggest to

me that there’s probably something to the concern that this company has

not met that condition insofar as posting their

schedule in a manner

that is easily and quickly available to the public.

I would hope, and I would ask, that the minister would ensure in

her direction to staff that that be central to the further engagement

with the company, not just in the consideration of other routes. That’s

a totally separate matter. I really liked the way the minister actually

phrased that a moment ago. Before you’re worrying about adding new

routes, maybe knock it out of the ballpark on the routes that you

already have. Completely agree. Let’s put that over here. The routes

that they have, which go through Chase, we want to make sure are meeting

the needs of the people who live in the communities along that

route.

One last time, if the minister could just confirm for me that

she’ll ask her staff to please engage with the registrar on that, and

please make sure that’s central to the discussion with the company. Yes

or no? And then would the minister be willing to ask someone on her

staff to actually reach out to the village, to the mayor and council —

even a phone call — just to make sure that your staff are able to hear

it in the words of the village of Chase so that those concerns are

adequately incorporated into the consideration of this licence moving

forward?

Hon. C. Trevena: I can give the member confidence that my staff have already got in

touch with the registrar as the member was speaking. Absolutely, we’ll

connect with the village of Chase and follow up. I thank the member for

raising this and bringing it to our attention.

T. Stone: Thank you very much, Minister.

The second issue should be a really quick one. The gentlemen

sitting behind you, both of whom live in Kamloops, travel through the

Valleyview corridor of the great city of Kamloops as often as I do. So

they would be well aware of the increasing congestion that has really

taken hold through the entire corridor — from Valleyview, which is on

the valley base next to the river, right up as you climb out of Kamloops

to what’s called Aberdeen.

That entire

section has an incredible amount of conflicting

traffic movements and a big volume of commercial trucks. The Highway 5

connects there. Highway 5A connects on. There are on-ramps and off-ramps

to get to downtown in different locations — a very, very busy

section of

the Trans-Canada Highway.

My ask is not: when are we going do something about it? My ask is

this. I want to make sure, as we receive concerns from constituents in

our constituency office, that we’re discussing this issue in the context

of facts, what’s actually happening. Could the minister commit to asking

her staff to engage with me on sharing some of the traffic volume

information about what’s actually happening in the corridor?

[3:15 p.m.]

My understanding last year was that there might be some early

consideration being made to a corridor study. Again, just having been

there and done that in your role, I understand that you can’t make

decisions until you really understand the contiguous corridor in

question — what’s happening and what the projections look like. This is

a

section of a corridor that really needs that high-level analysis of

what’s going on today and what those projections look like into the

future.

Could the minister provide some comfort to me that she may be

willing to ensure that the staff are engaged with me and my office and

keep us in the loop on timing and scope and what that corridor analysis

might look like and if, indeed, it’s something that we might expect

could begin to happen sooner rather than later?

Hon. C. Trevena: The good news is that work is already starting. We’re starting to

collect data and considering a corridor study. That is already starting,

getting the data to see how much is needed for a corridor study. As you

mention, two people are Kamloopsians and very acutely aware of the

growing congestion there.

As the member is very well aware, having had this role, once

you’re doing a corridor study, you look at everything: traffic volumes,

intersection improvements, on- and off-ramps. You need to get the

community engagement. This is all something…. We are on the first stages

of getting that traffic data. Obviously the people who live there and

work there see the volumes, so just to ensure that that is right and

worth doing the corridor study.

I understand there is a meeting already scheduled between the

member and the executive director in about three weeks’ time. This is

right in the member’s backyard and obviously sharing information on

issues such as this.

T. Stone: That’s much appreciated. Thank you to the minister.

The last topic that I wanted to touch on is an oldie but a goody.

It’s obviously a pet project. Well, perhaps I’ve been accused of it

being too much of a pet project over the years. The Trans-Canada Highway

four-laning projects east of Kamloops are obviously very important, not

just to Kamloops but to, you know, folks throughout the region. I know

that the minister knows that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Just a few questions. First off, I’m wondering if the minister

could advise whether or not the previously an­nounced project,

which was to be delivered in three different segments, with a price tag

of $199 million…. Is it still the ministry’s plan to deliver this

project in three different segments? If so, could she confirm that the

middle

section will be the first one to go, followed by the easternmost

section and followed by the westernmost

section which, the last time

that we talked about this opportunity for interaction, was the

plan?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. It’s middle, east, west.

T. Stone: Could the minister confirm that the original budget, which was

announced at $199 million for those three segments, is still the budget

that the ministry is working with today?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, this is still the budget that we’re still working with. We

are, obviously, still engaging with communities and First Nations as we

move forward.

T. Stone: Can the minister comment on whether or not there have been any

scope changes to the project over the last year? The last set of maps

that I was privy to about it — it might have been even six months ago or

nine months ago — that the village of Chase had still reflected a full

interchange in and about the Chase Creek area. There was a full-access

interchange at Brooke. There was talk about the potential for an

underpass at Coburn.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know that the former mayor and council and the minister and I

all met at the UBCM last year. That was important to the council. There

was emergency access on and off at Coburn as well, recognizing that

their paramedic station is right there. Then there were to be some

safety and access improvements — not a full interchange but safety and

access improvements — at Mattey’s Road, which is right at the top of

Jade Mountain.

I just want to understand if any of those significant features of

these three segments from Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain, from a scope

perspective, have in any way been modified.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not sure if it’s an advantage or disadvantage talking to my

predecessor about these issues, obviously seeing when this

started.

As the member knows, any major project like this is an evolution.

I think the member is aware that we continue to be in dialogue with both

the community and with First Nations.

[3:30 p.m.]

Everybody wants to deliver the same ends, which is four-laning of

the

section of highway — we want to get four-laning all the way out to

the border but, on this specific project, four-laning this

section of

highway — and ensuring that there is safe access for the community of

Chase. We are continuing to talk, as I say, with the community and with

First Nations. I think that the member is most likely very well aware

from his conversations with the village, that the biggest issue for

Chase on this is that safe access, and we are talking about how we can

make sure that while we’re working on the four-laning, there is safe

access for the village of Chase.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

T. Stone: I would say that with all of the staff that you have, you

definitely have the advantage here, Minister. But they’re all good

people.

I will add that in addition to safe access, the village really

needs access. They’re really concerned about, as most communities are

when there’s a four-laning project that bisects their community….

There’s obviously a tremendous amount of, I think, well-placed concern

and anxiety, to a certain extent, about: “Is this actually going to make

access in and out of our village easier, or is it going to make it more

challenging?”

This is a small village. The minister has been there. It’s

beautiful, nestled on the Shuswap Lake, Little Shuswap. Folks that live

there and small business people that have little businesses there….

People want people to stop off the highway and go in and spend some

money and time and so forth.

I understand what the minister is saying about ongoing discussions

with First Nations. I am in contact with the chiefs involved on a

regular basis as well, as I am with the village and the regional

district.

Is it still the ministry’s intention to have a full-access

interchange, as has always been the plan at the Chase Creek Road, and

another one at Brooke?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I forgot to introduce another excellent ministry staff member, who

is now sitting where Deborah was sitting, on my left. Kevin Volk is the

assistant deputy minister for major projects. I know that he had a

different role when my colleague was in this role.

We know how important this whole project is for the community. The

member was talking about bisecting the community, the concerns about a

community being cut off because of a major highway. Absolutely aware of

that. That’s why we continue to have discussions, both with the village

and with the Indigenous communities — to really understand what is

important to the village and to Indigenous communities, what will be

safe and how we can really make sure that we are providing that safe

access in a way that reflects what the village and what the Indigenous

communities are saying to us. We continue to have meetings with the

village and Indigenous communities about specific aspects of the

project.

T. Stone: The lack of specificity on the question around the full-access

interchange here and there, which, in terms of Chase Creek and Brooke,

have been in the plan for years and which I know were very much the

design preferences of the ministry…. The ministry has been working for

years — going back to my tenure as well — with the village of Chase and

with First Nations. I’m just trying to understand if those full-access

interchanges still feature in the ministry’s preferences that are at the

centre of the discussions that the First Nations and the village of

Chase are having with the ministry.

The interchange at Brooke, in particular, if indeed the middle

section is the first one to be tendered…. If it’s the intention of the

ministry to likely tender that one first, then one would have to

extrapolate from that that the design would be pretty tight at this

point. So certainly, on that project, I would hope the minister would be

able say: “Yeah, it is still our intention. Unless there’s some major

issue that comes from First Nations or the village at this late date, it

is our intention to proceed with a full-access interchange as part of

this middle project at Brooke.”

Again, can the minister illuminate this a bit more for me or

alleviate the concerns that perhaps I’m expressing as to whether or not

full-access interchanges are still the ministry’s preference at Chase

Creek and at Brooke?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It is still the ministry’s preference to do an interchange at

Brooke. It is seen as the safest and best option for the community and

for the highway to move forward. We are obviously still engaging with

the community — when we talk about the community, that’s with the

village — and First Nations about elements at both of the locations. But

it is the ministry’s preference to have that interchange at

Brooke.

T. Stone: Okay. I appreciate that. That will be viewed as good news in the

village of Chase. I do know that there are, I think, lots of concerns

that have been expressed about a few businesses in the area. So I

appreciate the work that the ministry will continue to do to work with

the community and the small business folks, in particular, who would be

most impacted by the final design.

I suspect that the minister’s response will include some variation

of “We’re still talking to the Neskonlith and the other First Nations,

Adams Lake and Little Shuswap,” and so forth. Whether the design is 100

percent exactly what it has been for a number of years or will be

modified a bit, am I safe to assume that it is still the intention of

the ministry, assuming buy-in from First Nations and the village, that

there will be a full-access interchange in and around where the Chase

Creek Road is at the moment?

[3:45 p.m.]

Maybe just to expedite this process a little bit, again, I would

like to ask the minister if the emergency access on and off at Coburn,

which has been a top priority for the village, is still an intended

component of the project, as well as a simple underpass at Coburn that

would go underneath the highway, which would therefore connect both

sides of the village as a result of these improvements?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We are, as the member quite rightly said, continuing to engage

with community and Indigenous communities about Chase Creek.

As far as Coburn is concerned, our engineers are looking at how

best to accommodate emergency access to the highway along that section.

Again, working with the village and Indigenous communities, we are still

looking at how to ensure we get the desired outcome for access through

the underpass or whatever is so desired. We’re still working through

that one. That’s why I prefaced my original remarks with….

As the member is very well aware, it is an evolution. We are

continuing to talk. We do have a new council in place. We haven’t

restarted with the new council, but we are continuing to

talk.

T. Stone: I appreciate that from the minister. What I’ve heard here this

afternoon is it’s still the intention of the ministry to, ideally,

proceed with a full-access interchange at Brooke. Discussions are still

underway with the village insofar as trying to address the village’s

previously stated need for an underpass at Coburn and emergency access

at that location on and off the Trans-Canada. That’s

appreciated.

I guess I want one last time on the scope here to, again, clarify

with the minister that it’s still the ministry’s intention for there to

be a full-access interchange just west of the village, roughly known as

the Chase Creek Road area. If the minister could just address that point

— that that’s still the intention of the ministry, notwithstanding

ongoing engagement that is taking place with First Nations and others —

I would sure appreciate that.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It is our intention to accommodate all movements at Chase Creek

Road. The consultations that I’ve referred to with the village and with

Indigenous communities will flesh that out.

T. Stone: All movements. That’s good. Full access. I appreciate

that.

I had almost forgotten, but I wanted to also ask about the safety

improvements that had been planned for Mattey’s Road. That’s right at

the top of the hill, at the top of Jade Mountain. That would be part of

the segment from Chase West to Jade Mountain. Again, those safety

improvements, that access…. It was not a full movement interchange by

any stretch, but there were to be some safety improvements there in

terms of accessing Mattey’s Road.

Could the minister just confirm that, again, it continues to be

the ministry’s intention for those safety improvements to continue to be

delivered as part of this overall project?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that’s a very busy intersection. I know there’s a logging

company down there. It does remain our intention to have safe access

there.

T. Stone: Okay, that’s good. We’ve covered the scope aspects of this

project. Again, I’m pleased to hear the minister confirm that it remains

the ministry’s intention to deliver on a full-access, full movement

interchange at Brooke as well as at Chase Creek, an underpass at Coburn,

emergency access on and off at Coburn and the Mattey’s Road safety

improvements. That’ll all be good news to folks in the village of

Chase.

I would now quickly like to turn our attention to the timelines.

As the minister knows well, the middle

section originally was intended

to be tender-ready in 2017. The overall project, I believe, if memory

serves me correctly…. I believe that I made the announcement in 2016. It

might have been a bit earlier than that, but I think it was either late

2015 or early 2016. We were working hard to be tender-ready for 2017,

the summer of 2017. Obviously, there was an election, a change of power

and all the rest of it.

[4:00 p.m.]

In previous interactions, the minister had indicated it was her

ministry’s intention to get that tender out for the first segment in

2018. It’s now 2019. Obviously, the folks of Chase and Kamloops and

users of this segment of the Trans-Canada are hoping that this first

tender is going to go out soon.

I’m wondering if the minister could comment on any update that she

might be able to provide insofar as the timing of the first tender

process beginning for this first segment of this piece of

highway.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member knows that it’s a project that he announced. We

want to deliver on it. We know the importance of four-laning the whole

of the Trans-Canada, picking up and moving along with it. We want to get

it right. I think the member is very well aware that there has been a

lot of discussion, a lot of community input. We’ve been negotiating with

Indigenous communities. We do want to ensure that this is right. We are

anticipating tendering it later this year.

T. Stone: The middle section. Government’s intention is to tender it later

this year. Can the minister indicate if she’s shooting for the later

spring? Is it the summer? The third week of October?

Again, in all seriousness, I know she knows how important this

project is. I think folks would really look forward to and really hope

that it’s the government’s intention to get this tender out as soon as

possible this year. Is the minister able to be a bit more specific? Can

we count on a 2019, fall of 2019, tender for the first project? Is that

a reasonable expectation that folks could have with this first

project?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies for the long discussion. We were going through all of

the calendars and trying to ring which date. Well, I was. But staff

really are reluctant to give a precise date because they’re asked about

ongoing discussions with communities, Indigenous peoples. So don’t ring

the calendar. But our intention is no later than this fall. Absolutely

T. Stone: The last aspect of the questions that I have for this project

relates to the community benefits agreement requirement. I’m just

wondering. We know that the minister and the Premier, on the record,

indicate that the four-laning projects for the Trans-Canada Highway,

Kamloops to the Alberta border, will be subject to the community

benefits agreement requirement.

First off, can the minister confirm that, indeed, a community

benefit requirement will be attached to this project that we’re talking

about here today, the Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain Trans-Canada

four-laning?

Secondly, it has been confirmed by the minister and others in

government that the community benefits agreement requirements will add,

likely, around 7 percent of additional costs to the project estimates.

Some have suggested a bit more, but if we go with the 7 percent, then 7

percent on $199 million is not an inconsequential number. So we’ve spent

a fair bit of time here trying to understand mutually…. Has the budget

overall changed for this project? The minister very clearly indicated

no. The $199 million was still in the budget that the ministry is

working with, and that’s great.

[4:10 p.m.]

Then we spent a fair bit of time going through the scope.

Notwithstanding continued engagement with First Nations and local

communities and so forth, the minister has indicated that it very much

continues to be the ministry’s intention to not see any scope reductions

in terms of what has been the ministry’s intentions up to this point

around the full movement interchanges at Brooke and Chase Creek and the

other scope features that we’ve canvassed here today.

I’m just wondering if the minister could, again, confirm that

there’s a CBA requirement attached to this project. Secondly, how will

the ministry incorporate a community benefit agreement that’s

anticipated to add an extra 7 percent of cost to this project if the

project budget isn’t going to change and will remain at $199 million and

if there won’t be any scope changes?

It would seem to me something has to give. Either the budget has

to be lifted a bit or less cost has to be incurred in terms of scope,

yet the minister has confirmed the budget will remain the same and the

scope won’t change.

Could the minister provide some thoughts on those community

benefit agreement questions that I’ve just posed, with respect to this

project?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, our intention is that it will be a CBA project. As was

mentioned, the Premier has made very clear that he would like to see all

of the Trans-Canada four-laning projects be part of a CBA, so that is

our intention.

As a result, we’re doing our due diligence on this. I’m wary about

going into all the different levels of cost because, as the member is

aware, that is going to go out for competitive bid. We are, as I say,

doing due diligence. The budget remains the same, and that due diligence

includes continuing doing some design work, engineering work and making

sure that we are getting this right.

[4:15 p.m.]

The community benefits agreement is, we believe on this side of

the House, a very worthwhile approach. It will benefit people in the

member’s own constituency, because we’re looking at local hires and

local training. If this is a community benefits agreement, as the

intention is, it will be of great benefit to the member’s communities,

as well as to the province as a whole. But we are still working with the

existing budget. We’re still doing due diligence. We’re still

anticipating a full tender.

T. Stone: If I understand the minister correctly, then, she’s suggesting

that it is her ministry’s plan or government’s plan to tender these

projects with the scope that we’ve talked about, ideally, recognizing

that there will be some cost pressure on these projects or at least

added expectations relating to the community benefit requirements, which

will add some additional costs that wouldn’t have been there

otherwise.

Is it the minister’s hope that the tender process will result in

contractors sharpening their pencils to make up the difference, so as

not to result in scope reduction or in the minister having to go back to

Treasury Board for approval for a budget lift? Is that what I’m hearing

— that she’s confident that the tenders will come in for less than what

the ministry has previously projected they would be?

I’ll back up. The context for this is I went through this exercise

over and over and over. I get it. The costs go up and down, particularly

in relation to First Nations engagement and so forth. I understand fully

that whether a four-lane project comes in at $10 million a kilometre or

$12 million a kilometre can depend on a lot of different factors. Even a

hot economy and lots of projects and scarce contractors, as a result,

can lift the price of the bids that come in.

At the end of the day, the ministry, in my experience there, never

put together…. When I was sent out behind a podium and I announced a

project with a dollar value, the ministry was signing off on that number

with a very high level of assurance and some buffer built in, so as not

to find myself or the ministry in a position months or years down the

road of blowing the budget and therefore having to reduce scope or go

back to Treasury Board and ask for more money.

If the scope isn’t going to change and the budget isn’t going to

change, is the minister saying that she’s relying on…? In light of an

added 7 percent cost that’s related to the CBA requirement, is she

saying that she’s counting on the contractors, the folks who bid on

these projects, really sharpening their pencils and putting in proposed

project values that fit within that $199 million?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re taking all this into consideration. There’s absolutely no

question. The advantage of a member having been in this position is that

he knows the hard work that the ministry and the ministry staff do in

preparing project budgets, in getting to that position of putting a

project out to tender — announcing it and putting it out to

tender.

It is very important that we be aware of all contingencies. I

think that the ministry staff — I know that the member opposite supports

me in this — do extraordinary work to get to that position. They are

doing that at the moment. Whether it is, as we were talking earlier,

about engaging with community, engaging with Indigenous communities, it

is all part of getting ready.

We’re doing the due diligence on the technical side, continuing to

work through all the scope and to make sure that it is ready. We do want

to have, obviously, good bids. We would love it if those who want to bid

on it are sharpening their pencils, are aware of this and are ready to

come in with good bids. But this is something that as a ministry, as the

member is well aware, we take into consideration. We anticipate that

everything will be ready, with a budget in place, for full

tender.

T. Stone: Well, I guess we wish the ministry good luck and hope that the

ministry is successful at receiving some pretty spectacular bids on

this, because I just don’t…. I have started and run several businesses.

I’m a former tech CEO. I understand my way around financial statements.

I was the minister for four years. I just don’t see how you can take a

project that four years ago was estimated at $199 million and say that

in today’s dollars….

If you apply even a very modest discount rate to that $199 million

value from four years ago, you’re probably, in today’s dollars, talking

about $220 million. You take that factor, coupled with, likely, a 7

percent cost escalation related to the community benefits requirement

components…. We can agree to disagree on whether that makes sense or

not, but I’m just trying to run the numbers here.

Then you layer on top of that no scope changes from what has been

the ministry’s intentions, for the better part of the last four years,

with respect to this project and say it’s all going to continue to be

delivered within the original budget, 2015 dollars — same budget, no

budget lift, same scope and an added 7 percent cost for the community

benefits.

[4:25 p.m.]

I fail to see how the minister would believe that this is going to

be accomplished simply because she expects good bids, as she said, to

come in from contractors. I will leave it there insofar as my concern

for this project. Obviously, we’ll all be paying very close attention

and hope that if the minister does get…. Maybe I’ll phrase this as a

question.

If the ministry finds itself in a place where, because we’re

talking about a 2015 project estimate budget; because we’re talking

about no changes in the scope and the importance of that for the

community that this project would really impact and serve; because the

minister and her government would likely continue to be committed to the

community benefits requirement component…. If the ministry finds itself

in a place where, because of the added 7 percent costs that the

community benefits agreement will result in on this project, that drives

up the overall project cost beyond the $199 million project

budget….

I would like to know if the minister can assure the people of

Kamloops–South Thompson, and British Columbians generally, that her

choice in those circumstances will not be to reduce the scope of the

project in any way but rather to lift the budget, if necessary, to make

sure that this project is delivered as originally spec’d, to meet the

needs of all of the people that will be depending on the ministry and

the government to actually build the right project that will best suit

the southern Interior and folks who live along the Trans-Canada Highway

east of Kamloops.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I don’t want to speculate about the outcome of this. As I

mentioned in my previous questions, staff are doing due diligence on all

aspects of the project. That means they’re continuing to consult with

the community and with Indigenous groups about the design of it, doing

the technical and the engineering work-ready. Part of the due diligence

is assessing the community benefit aspect. They’re working to the

current budget and doing the due diligence around the current

budget.

I have every faith in the public servants doing the work and doing

that due diligence to make sure that the people of British Columbia get

a project that really reflects what is needed, that meets the

requirements of both the community of Chase, the member’s constituents,

and the people of B.C.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Trans-Canada, as we all know, is an important piece of

highway, and we want to make sure that the four-laning is done and is

done in a way that benefits everyone in B.C. Again, that comes back to

why our government is using, where possible, the community benefits

agreement, because we see that as an added benefit to the people of

B.C.

With that, I’m wondering if we could take a five-minute

break.

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

The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Stone: I just have one final question for the minister that relates to

the Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain Trans-Canada four-laning project,

and that would be this.

I was certainly very proud when I was the minister and we

delivered on the previous segment at Hoffman’s Bluff itself, as well as

Monte Creek to Hoffman’s Bluff. One of the reasons I was really proud of

that project was: my understanding all along was that we always had a

very significant level of Indigenous workforce participation on the

project. I believe — the minister can check with her staff; they will

know for sure, because they always gave me the current number — that we

were often well in excess of 30 percent Indigenous workforce

participation on these segments, which is great.

For the Neskonlith Band, the Adams Lake, Little Shuswap, Kamloops,

Skeetchestn — all of the First Nations in the area — if you wanted to

work on these projects, you were going to be able to get a job. In part,

that was because it was a priority in the ministry, but it was also a

priority for the contractors, who really have developed a culture — the

companies that I have in mind, in particular — of building strong

relationships with Indigenous peoples and First Nation communities to

ensure that those opportunities can be well tapped into by those

Indigenous folks.

[4:45 p.m.]

With that context, and now with a community benefit agreement

requirement wrapped around the project, I’m just wondering if the

minister could address a couple points. What is the ministry’s target

for Indigenous employment on these Trans-Canada projects? There must be

a target. We were somewhere around 30 percent on the previous project,

so I would assume the targets are higher. What is that target? And at

what intervals will the ministry be measuring against that target and

reporting out on the achievement or where the ministry is actually at in

delivering on those targets?

I ask this because it’s been one of the key components of this

community benefit agreement requirement. The minister and the Premier

and others in government have said these community benefit agreements

are needed to really drive more women’s employment, which is great, and

more Indigenous employment — certainly, local employment. Every

contractor will tell you their number one priority is to hire local if

they can, and then you kind of go out from there.

I really want to hone in on the Indigenous peoples aspect of this,

because I think that there’s tremendous opportunity for Indigenous

peoples and the contractors to continue to deliver world-class projects

working in partnership. But in order to do that, you need to have some

targets. So I’m wondering, again, if the minister could advise: as part

of the community benefit agreement requirement, what is the target for

Indigenous employment on the Trans-Canada projects from Kamloops to the

Alberta border?

I’m assuming they’re all going to be bound in one community

benefit agreement. The minister could clarify if I’m wrong on that. What

is the target, and how is the minister going to be measuring against

those targets? And at what intervals will the performance be articulated

or released to the public so that we can measure the success of the

community benefit requirement, insofar as Indigenous employment is

concerned?

With that, I will thank the minister and all of the staff for

their professional courtesy today and a job well done.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to correct the record: as I understand it, there never has

been a target. There has always been a desire to ensure that Indigenous

groups have strong representation, and the high level of workforce, I

think, is to be applauded on the previous project. But there hasn’t

actually been a specific target.

I’ve got to say that our government’s approach…. We have the CBA,

but the CBA is among many other approaches that we have with Indigenous

peoples. We’ve talked very openly about the U.N. declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples, of ensuring that those principles are

embraced by government and the work that we do. Likewise, the

recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ensure

that those are embraced as we work on true reconciliation….

This ministry, as the member is very well aware, has a lot of

direct opportunity of working with Indigenous peoples, and when we do,

it really is terrific. Whether that is…. The relationships are very

different, depending on the project, but there are direct opportunities

for Indigenous groups. There are the benefit agreements. There are

accommodation agreements. There are many different levels, depending on

the Indigenous community, depending on the location, and depending on

what that community wants. On top of this, now we have community

benefits agreements, so it’s yet another level which gives priority to

Indigenous workers. So when we’re talking about the….

I stand up here very regularly and talk about, with great pride,

our community benefits agreement, the fact that we are going to be

dealing with the skills shortage, training people, training women and

other groups that are not regularly represented. The first people at

that table are Indigenous, the First Nation workers. So that is going to

be the first level of hire. This is going to be the first level for when

we’re talking about dealing with that skills shortage, the level of

apprenticeships, and so on.

[4:55 p.m.]

While there has never been a target, I think our approach of

embracing reconciliation, working on that and building in the community

benefits agreement on top of everything else that this ministry has been

doing for many years has been breaking ground and doing it. I think the

member would recognize that — that this ministry has been working with

Indigenous communities for a long while and building in that good

relationship. This is another layer, another step and, I think, really

another benefit for the communities and for the province.

T. Stone: I told you that I would have one more question. The minister is

correct in saying that there was not a target, previously, for

Indigenous employment on, certainly, the Trans-Canada Highway projects

that I’m referring to here. The 30 percent number that I referenced in

my last question was, again, unless I’m corrected…. The people that know

the answer are with you. My understanding is we were around the 30

percent mark most of the time on those projects — 30 percent Indigenous

employment.

That wasn’t a target. That was what we were achieving on an

ongoing basis, which is great. We all agree that that’s good. Continued

work with Indigenous peoples, First Nations communities, to ensure that

every single person in those communities that wants to work on these

projects is given the opportunity to get the training and become engaged

in this work is a good thing.

What I didn’t hear in the minister’s response is that in the

context of a community benefits agreement requirement on these projects,

which have primarily been sold to the people of British Columbia as a

necessity in order to drive more employment opportunities for women and

Indigenous peoples, in part, one would then be led to believe that there

must be targets in order to measure the success. If you’re going to

layer an additional minimum 7 percent cost onto a project, and a large

part of the reason you’re doing that is to drive more employment with

Indigenous peoples and women, surely there must be some targets that the

ministry will be seeking to achieve that will be a part of this

community benefits agreement.

That’s the piece that I didn’t hear in the minister’s last

response. Are there actual targets for Indigenous employment on this

project that will be part of this community benefits agreement? If not,

why not? If yes, what is the ministry’s target for Indigenous employment

related to this particular project? Recognizing, again, that that has

been one of the primary selling points all along that the government has

wanted to point British Columbians to as the reason that these community

benefits agreements are required.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To explain to the member a bit about the CBA hiring process and

the CBAs…. Though, yes, the CBA, obviously, is to ensure that we have

Indigenous people having the opportunity to have training and work, as

well as other equity-seeking groups, it is taking it to the next stage.

It is also dealing with the skills shortage and with apprenticeships.

Through the CBA, we are increasing opportunities.

The hiring process is done to prioritize Indigenous hires. We,

obviously, work with First Nations on the capacity, but we are looking

at how we can increase opportunity. That’s really part of the

CBA.

The hiring process. You have the accommodation agreements, but the

CBA has several levels. The first people to be hired are local First

Nations. So in an example like the member is talking about…. In the

previous project — similar First Nations, the same Indigenous peoples

working on the projects — we would anticipate that they would be hired.

Initially, the hiring process, under the CBA, is, first, qualified First

Nations, then other equity-seeking groups and then other local

people.

If we can’t find enough people through that…. It is a hot market,

and we know there’s a lot of construction happening, including our work

on the Trans-Canada and our work in the Lower Mainland and so on. So if

you can’t find enough people locally, within that 100 kilometre frame,

you go regionally. Again, it’s first regional First Nations, then

equity-seeking groups and then other local people. If that doesn’t fill

the pool — I believe on this project it would — you get to B.C.-wide.

Again, those three tiers.

The purpose of the CBA, as I say, is to ensure that we do maximize

opportunities for First Nations, for women and for other equity-seeking

groups, to deal with the skills shortage and, really, to invest in those

local hires and in First Nations when we are building our

infrastructure. So we’re not just building that infrastructure. We are

building up the capacity of Indigenous peoples throughout

this.

[5:05 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the onset here. When

you first took the floor, Minister, you…. It seems like hours ago. Oh,

it was. You mentioned Rider Express coming through Golden. I’m pleased

to hear that. I’m looking forward to our meeting, which seems to be a

moving target these days, about the north-south thing. We’ll figure it

out, and we’ll get that all sorted as well. Good to hear about Rider

Express, because it will take a little bit of angst away.

I want to talk a little bit, of course, about the Trans-Canada

Highway. It seems that in my riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke, I have

the smallest sections of improvements but the most expensive that go

along with that — from 4.5 kilometres, approximately, in the Kicking

Horse to the one I want to talk about today, which is about 2.5

kilometres. That, of course, is the Illecillewaet section.

Just to start off and kick this off, if the minister wouldn’t mind

confirming that the Illecillewaet brake check and the four-laning

project is proceeding in 2019 and when the start date will likely

occur.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. Yes, good news about Rider Express. It’s

interesting, because we were talking to the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson and concerns about Chase and Sorrento not getting stops. We

looked at the schedule, and they’re not mentioned on the schedule,

whereas Golden is mentioned on the schedule. So added surety there, but

we will follow up for the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

On Illecillewaet. Yes, we received the bids — closed last week. We

have the bids. The ministry staff are doing due diligence on those bids,

and we anticipate a summer start on the project.

D. Clovechok: Well, that’s great news.

Just a quick question on the concept of scope. Has there been any

significant change in the scope of the project? I believe it was going

to go from a five-truck stop to around a 15-truck accommodation there

with acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes associated with that. I

want to check in on that scope. Has that pretty much stayed the same? No

changes?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the scope is the same as that which was tendered. It is

four-laning two kilometres, and then we’re upgrading the brake check at

Illecillewaet, significantly expanding the capacity for commercial

vehicles, which is very important. We hear this a lot from truckers. So

it’s expanding the capacity, and also we’re going to be improving

bathroom facilities and lighting, which, again, is very important for

people who are trucking and need to stop. It’s something that you hear a

lot about. So yup, same scope as in the bid.

[5:10 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: To the minister, thanks. I know the industry will be happy with

that, as well as the folks that travel along the Trans-Canada Highway on

their way to the Shuswap or to the Okanagan for the holidays, so the

trucks can pull off and do what they need to do.

The minister just confirmed that you’ve received the project

tenders. That’s great. I’m wondering if you can confirm for us today

what the value of the low bid for the project was.

Hon. C. Trevena: This is all on B.C. Bid. The low bid comes in at $51.5 million. It

is an unverified bid. As I mentioned in my preceding answer, staff are

doing due diligence on this to go through the bids that have come in —

literally, do the due diligence they do on every bid before it goes out,

when it comes in, to make sure that the people of B.C. are getting real

value for money.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer.

The next question I have…. Will the minister confirm the original

budget for the project that was announced back in the spring of 2017, if

you wouldn’t mind?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member. The budget that was announced with, in fact,

the press release announcing it’s going out to tender is $62.9 million,

of which $15.5 million is coming from the federal government.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer. But I don’t believe that that was —

certainly, correct me if I’m wrong — the announcement that was made in

2017 in Revelstoke by the member for Shuswap, where he announced that it

was a $35 million budget, $19.5 million coming from the province and the

$15.5 million from Canada. So I just wanted to confirm that was the

announcement that was actually made in Revelstoke in 2017, not the

figure that I was just given.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I am advised that in 2015, it was still very early in the process

to be making such announcements, to say what the value would be. After

the an­nounce­ment, we were still doing some engineering

work in the area and a lot of geotechnical work. As the member is aware,

there are a lot of issues that keep geotechs well occupied in his

constituency.

That geotechnical work found there was acid rock, which is very

problematic. So the design had to be modified after the very early

announcement was made. That is why there is a reflection of an increased

provincial budget — early announcement, lots of issues of the

geotechnical problems that needed to be addressed.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that, Minister. I believe I heard the minister say

2015. It was actually 2017. But if I misheard you, then I apologize.

Let’s just go with that number. You’re quite correct. This is a moving

target. There’s no question about that.

Let’s use that original 2017 funding announcement, which was made

by the member for Shuswap on behalf of the then Minister of

Transportation, in his stead. It’s a $35 million budget. I believe you

just said that the total estimated project now is $62.9 million, from

$35 million, which is about a 47 percent price escalation, based upon

acid rock.

I’m wondering why that has gone up as much as it has. Forty-seven

percent is a significant increase. I’m wondering why that is and if this

has anything to do with the CBA agreement. If you could shed some light

on that, we would really appreciate it.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. I beg to differ. I’m with the ministry

staff. The ministry staff know when the initial announcement was made.

They do convince me, and they have even shown me a press release that

says August 1, 2015. But that’s fine. Okay. The member accepts

that.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’ve got to say that because that was early and because there was

further investigation and because geotechnical problems were found that

did require extensive design changes in the project…. There were a suite

of changes, including the need now for walls that hadn’t been there, and

walls that include concrete and steel are expensive. There was a suite

of changes that needed to be made because of the geotechnical work that

was done after the announcement. I mean, that’s really what bumped up

the cost.

We are building CBA into budget pricing. CBA is our preference.

This is something that we were aware of, and we don’t want anyone to be

surprised by the fact that we are looking at as many projects as

possible to be included in the community benefits approach. As I say, it

hires local people. It trains local people. It ensures we’re dealing

with the skills shortage. It ensures that people in Revelstoke will get

the benefits of this project, not just while they’re doing the project

but long term, because there’ll be well-trained skilled labour as well

as skilled tradesmen.

D. Clovechok: Minister, I was wrong once last year. It’s happened to me again

this year. It was 2015. It was my mistake, so I do apologize for that

and recognize that.

Just on the math itself. I accept the answer around the new $62.9

million and the changing landscape on what you’ve just said. I’m just

wondering, though, if you’re on budget…. So $62.9 million…. I’m assuming

that the $15.5 million is still coming from the feds. I’m getting a head

nod, so that’s a good thing. I believe, then, $47.4 million kind of

works out to what the province is doing.

If you could just explain to me, then. Since 2015 to 2019, today,

that’s a significant increase. Where will the province be getting that

money from? It wasn’t initially budgeted for. Is that in the budget this

year?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, it is in this year’s budget, the 2019-20 budget.

D. Clovechok: Let’s talk a little bit about the training and the CBA agreement.

The previous speaker, the former minister, had mentioned that about 30

percent of the working force, the labour force, that were in projects in

British Columbia, especially associated with the Trans-Canada Highway,

were already First Nations employees. They were given the first

opportunity at all levels, skilled or unskilled, and some

training.

I’m wondering if the minister would explain how the CBA agreement

is going to take it…. It’s supposed to enhance and create more jobs and

more opportunities, which is great, especially for the First Nations

communities that I serve. I’m wondering how the CBA…. What strategies

are you going to be putting in place, as an old college guy — the

training and so on? How are you going to increase that number, which was

already 30 percent of the employees?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to give the member some certainty about the budget figures,

it is in the budget and fiscal plan, page 48, bold, because it’s new.

The figure, anticipated total cost, is $63 million. So it’s $62.9

million, rounded up.

What the community benefits agreement does…. We continue to have

accommodation agreements with Indigenous peoples. First Nations will

have accommodation agreements with us, and that’s what we have seen and

used in the past. There has been some Indigenous hire.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

What the community benefits agreement does is two things. It

builds on that, but even more than that, it creates the first

opportunity to Indigenous people.

The first hires at a community benefits agreement project are

Indigenous. If there can’t be enough local Indigenous people, so people

from the Revelstoke area, we go to, then, local equity-seeking groups,

as they’re described — that’s women and other people who don’t

traditionally get work — and then other local hire. If there’s still not

enough of a pool there, it goes to regional — First Nations first, then

equity-seeking groups, then other working people. Then if that isn’t

enough, we go to the B.C.-wide. So it’s spreading the net, and each

time, it is Indigenous people who get the first opportunity.

We’ve had some good success with accommodation agreements, but

this is a much more formalized way of ensuring that we can create

opportunities for Indigenous people in a way that they may not have had

that opportunity before. It’s a way that we will be building not just

the opportunity to work, but there is the opportunity for training, too,

whether it is just general training or red seal training. We want to

build up the number of apprentices, we want to build up the skilled

workforce, and we want to give Indigenous people that opportunity.

That’s why they are first on the list for hires through community

benefit agreement projects.

[5:35 p.m.]

I think it builds on what we as a province are doing with

Indigenous people, with the real need to deal with the issues brought

through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with the

principles of the U.N. declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples,

which are embedded in the work that we’re doing. Every single cabinet

minister has that responsibility in their mandate letter. This is one

way that we are able to truly effect it, by actually having people first

up, first hires, through that formalized community benefits

agreement.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I’m just going to make the assumption that

those first hires will be either status, non-status or Métis. Maybe if

you could answer that just directly.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s Indigenous peoples, non-discriminatory. Indigenous

peoples.

D. Clovechok: I actually agree with you on that, but there is the status. Be it

right or be it wrong, it’s a reasonable question.

Also, I want to talk a little bit about what you just mentioned,

the expansion area. I could talk forever about the training. How are you

going to do that? Who have you talked to? Have you talked to College of

the Rockies? Have you talked to Selkirk? But we’re not going to go

there. Maybe later on next week we can chat about that.

The scope of the hiring that you just mentioned is interesting. If

the work pool is locally not large enough, you expand, and that’s a good

vision. My question, then, would be: would the 100-mile rule apply to

this project? Or 100 kilometres, sorry. I’m still thinking in miles. The

100-kilometre rule.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s the 100-mile diet you’re thinking of. But yeah, the

100-kilometre rule will still operate for this project, from its

location out — Revelstoke, Golden, other way.

D. Clovechok: Just so I’m clear, then, the expansion to a First Nation

Indigenous person in Vancouver…. If that pool is not large enough, they

would be exempt from applying for this position if that

100-kilometre-rule applied.

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned, we start off local — we’re talking a 100-kilometre

range — Indigenous first, equity groups second and general pool of

workforce third. If that doesn’t fill the workforce, we go to a wider

pool, a more regional pool. I know 100 kilometres seems regional but a

broader, maybe a southern B.C. pool that is looking at…. Again, first

call is Indigenous, then women and other equity-seeking groups, and

thirdly, general workforce.

If we still are finding that we are not filling the jobs, we go

B.C.-wide — again, B.C. Indigenous peoples, whether it’s from Port

Hardy, wanting to work out in the Revelstoke area or Fort Nelson. It’s

B.C.-wide Indigenous first, equity-seeking groups, women and others, and

then the general workforce. At each level, from the first 100-kilometre

radius regional level and then the broader B.C. level, Indigenous comes

first in each opportunity.

This is on top of the other opportunities that we’re giving

through accommodation agreements, benefits agreements and other

practices of our ministry when we’re working with Indigenous peoples.

For instance, if we’re doing some archeological work, it’s obviously

hiring Indigenous peoples to do that. That isn’t part of the community

benefits agreement.

That’s one of the real joys about it. It’s on top of that. It’s

doing that training, and I know the Minister of Advanced Education would

be very happy to talk to the member about what the different colleges

are going to be offering and how we’re going to be building up that

apprenticeship and making sure that we get that skill training and

apprentices in place.

[5:40 p.m.]

I know the member is passionate about Selkirk College for right

reasons, so I think that we will….

Interjection.

Hon. C. Trevena: Oh sorry, the College of the Rockies. I apologize.

I’m sure he would have a very good conversation with the Minister

of Advanced Education about how that’s all going to fall into

place.

D. Clovechok: It’s great. I look forward to a conversation with the Advanced Ed

Minister.

Just so I get my head around this 100-kilometre rule. If there’s a

young woman in Vancouver, and the pool’s already been expanded to First

Nations, and so on and so forth…. If that young woman in Vancouver wants

to move to Golden to work on this project, she’s going to be allowed to

do that.

Hon. C. Trevena: First, I’d like to correct the record. I’ve been saying that we do

this locally and then regionally and then B.C. It is actually locally in

100 kilometres, then B.C., then the three western provinces and then

Canada. That’s how it is spread out.

However, for the 100 kilometres, to answer the member’s question….

The person who is wanting to take the job, if they move from Vancouver

to Golden, would have had to live in Golden for six months. There is a

residency requirement of six months to qualify for the 100 kilometres in

that.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer.

Noting the hour, I will move on and come back to this on Monday,

if that’s okay with the minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday

morning.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, TRADE AND

TECHNOLOGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $96,933,000

(continued) .

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: When we last rose, I was in the middle of a response when the bell

rang to draw us to the main chamber to vote. Let me just finish that

answer — perhaps more briefly than my answers have been thus

far.

Just talking about Fujitsu and their decision to locate in British

Columbia. What I was advised is that after an analysis of British

Columbia, British Columbia has competitive business costs compared to a

number of North American jurisdictions; a proximity to Silicon Valley

but still not in the United States, which has certain advantages,

particularly these days; great educational institutions — UBC, BCIT,

Simon Fraser University; and access to great talent and to a company in

which Fujitsu has made a major investment, 1QBit, which is a company

that devises the complicated algorithms for posing questions to quantum

computers.

That decision was made. The company has now moved here, in a very,

as I stressed, unusual move for a Japanese company. That whole division

of their global operation is here in British Columbia. They have hired,

I think, approximately 20 or 25 people, but their estimate is that they

will have 200 people within 18 months. I think that’s tangible evidence

of the value of relations and the opportunity to persuade people — and

companies, particularly — of the value of being in British

Columbia.

B. Stewart: We were talking a bit about free trade agreements, softwood lumber

and the nature of the importance of these trade agreements. We have a

new agreement. It’s my understanding that the CPTPP has now been

approved by the necessary countries. Of course, Canada is a signatory in

approval to that.

Already, Japan is our third-largest export destination, for both

forest products and many others. I’m certainly thrilled that Fujitsu and

1QBit were able to work together. That’s very exciting. We’ve been

seeking this agreement, and it does give us an opportunity to ask the

question about what we are doing to take advantage of that.

Now, I understand that the trade and investment representative’s

office was vacated in August of last year, and the ministry has been, to

my understanding, attempting to fill that position. But what are we

doing to take advantage of what I would consider a first-mover

advantage?

The United States doesn’t have that trade agreement. They’re not a

signatory. It is not a deal with China; it’s with our third- and

fourth-largest trading partners. I think, by your own admission in your

earlier statement, you suggested here that the free trade agreement with

Korea that Canada signed has seen the tariff lines on agrifoods imports,

particularly seafood, drop dramatically, and there’s a real demand for

B.C. fresh seafood.

Of course, this builds on the work that has been in progress for a

long time, through the trade and investment representative in Seoul. The

added incentive now is the free trade deal with Korea. I was in Asia

when that took place. I can tell you, from the statistics — I’m sure you

know them — that the numbers have been dramatic in terms of increases in

reducing those trade barriers.

My question is, again, to the minister. Why, when we have first

mover-advantage on the CPTPP, have we been unable to fill the position?

What are we doing to take advantage of this first-mover advantage while

we have a vacant office?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: First of all, I don’t want to be quarrelsome, but I think the

description of the office as vacant is not an accurate one. There are

five staff there. There is an acting manager and director who has

stepped up to run the office.

In addition, and it is indeed the case, there have been two

separate search processes to identify the right candidate. I think the

member can appreciate that for a market as important as this, the right

candidate is essential. That right candidate, through those two

processes, was not identified, so efforts continue to find the right

person. But the office is active. In addition, the leadership there has

been supplemented by regular visits by senior staff from this side of

the Pacific who have also gone there to supervise and continue the

direction.

I think the member is right. It does present unique opportunities.

In fact, that’s why we were anxious to be there. We’re one of the first,

if not the first provincial government representatives to be in Japan

since the agreement came into effect on December 31.

In my meetings with the Canadian Ambassador to Japan, what he

stressed was that there are the advantages that the member spoke of,

given that if one builds a strong relationship with a customer in Japan,

traditional Japanese loyalty to suppliers might well dictate that if or

when the United States re-enters the market, that customer loyalty would

override any price advantage that an American supplier might offer down

the road.

So that’s why we’re there. We had a series of meetings. Most of

those have been publicly disclosed on Twitter, and they’re available. I

won’t go through all of them, but we did have a fairly robust series of

meetings.

The other thing that I would say in dealing with the member’s

point about a lack of knowledge on the business side here in British

Columbia is that the department is initiating a program of, basically,

business education regionally to companies to be aware of the

opportunities that are presented there, coupled with our other programs

that help people consider exports: export navigator and the TAP

program.

Not only are the basic skills being advanced for companies that

are interested, there’s a sense of real opportunity that is

unprecedented, particularly in the Japanese market. We are moving

undertaken some similar education projects about the advantages from

these new trade deals. So that’s what we’re doing.

B. Stewart: To the minister and his staff, there were a couple of significant

trade barriers that were resolved before CPTPP. One of them was the

access for hothouse peppers, which was done about three years

ago.

[1:45 p.m.]

Then, of course, last year I believe, you were part of the

announcement about access with British Columbia cherries. Can you give

me an update on what…? Because of the unbelievable opportunities with

agrifood and seafood in Japan, without the leadership of the managing

director and knowing who is in place as the acting director, I’m just

wondering: what’s happening on agrifood opportunities in Japan for

British Columbia farmers and ranchers?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m going to ask the Minister of State for Trade to answer the

question.

Hon. G. Chow: I’m very happy to answer the member’s question.

I was one