Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 225

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

D. Davies

M. Bernier

D. Barnett

S. Bond

P. Milobar

N. Letnick

D. Clovechok

G. Kyllo

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

S. Thomson

B. Stewart

D. Barnett

D. Davies

S. Bond

L. Throness

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2019

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

of Transportation. In

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

on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural

Development.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Isaacs in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

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

(continued) .

Hon. C. Trevena: I think that I did introduce staff earlier. But just because we

are starting again, we have…. I believe it’s the same: Grant Main, my

deputy; Nancy Bain, assistant deputy minister for finance; Kevin

Richter, associate deputy minister overseeing highways; Mike Lorimer,

executive director, southern Interior region; Ian Pilkington, executive

director, maintenance renewal.

With that, I hand it over to my opposition critic.

J. Sturdy: We had one last question for you with regard to the issue of

maintenance contracts and the public concern or the public interest in

these contracts. I wondered if there is a telephone number or —

actually, I guess maybe even more broadly — suggestions from the

minister that we can provide to our constituents when they have concerns

about what they see as maintenance shortcomings. How should they report

those?

Hon. C. Trevena: There are lots of ways for people to get in touch. And yes, people

should get in touch, because otherwise…. While we do have, as I say,

very rigorous oversight, it’s good to raise concerns, and then we can

also evaluate from that. There are a number of ways. The contractor

themselves is supposed to have a 24-hour access point. That is both a

phone number that they would have as well as an email

address.

[1:40 p.m.]

I know that, for instance, Main Road has taken over the central

and north Island, and they’ve been very quick to put out — and regularly

contact them. I would hope that other maintenance contractors are doing

the same, to be able to raise people’s awareness of how to contact them.

So that’s one way.

The other way is through the ministry’s own website. If you don’t

know your contractor’s number, if you haven’t got it to hand, on Drive

B.C. — on the front page, two-thirds of the way down, towards the bottom

— there’s “Report a highway problem.” That is another access. That would

also give you all of the maintenance contractors.

B.C. account on both Twitter and Facebook. Likewise, TranBC, Twitter and

Facebook, which are monitored and which will be picked up if there’s a

problem.

Finally, I’d say that most people, particularly in rural

communities, know where their ministry office is and to be in touch with

the ministry office if you can’t get any satisfaction or can’t reach the

contractor for any reason. The system is set up that the contractor is

point of contact for these and then, say, follow through with the

ministry if that isn’t succeeding.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for taking questions today. A couple of

questions, certainly, around Peace River North and the riding. I’ve got

about four questions but not all necessarily about the Peace

River.

A number of years ago, I think somewhere in the ’90s, there was a

big program put in place: paving all the resource roads. A number of

resource roads were paved. I think it was formerly the NDP government

that started that process. A lot of input and work by the former MLA for

my riding, Richard Neufeld. Of course now, fast forward, and here we are

about 25 years later. These roads are falling apart,

nonetheless.

Of course, we still recognize the impact that the resource

industry — from oil and gas, agriculture, to forestry, mining — plays in

the economy, but these roads are starting to go in dire straits right

now. So I guess just looking…. Generally speaking, when we look at the

district funding for North Peace, it hasn’t really changed. The annual

funding hasn’t really changed much since the ’90s.

My question to you. Can we expect a bump in that funding in the

near future so we can start planning for improving the resource roads,

as well as a number of other roads? I think I mentioned it when you

spoke, the last one, that little blip of estimates a few weeks back.

Even just accessing some of our neighbouring communities, like the

community of Baldonnel…. As they start getting soft roads right now,

buses won’t be able to pick up children. Emergency response vehicles

won’t be able go out. I’m just looking for a commitment that there is

some sort of a process being reviewed to give a bump in the district

funding.

The Chair: Members, the Minister of Citizens’ Services would like to seek

leave to make an introduction.

Hon. J. Sims: I would like to seek leave to speak from a seat other than my own

and to also introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a great delight for me today to welcome into this House Jazz

Grewal, a constituent of mine, accompanied by Pardeep Dhillon, Mandeep

Dhillon, Harkirat Dhillon and Parneet Dhillon.

They have come to our beautiful capital of British Columbia, Victoria,

because they have guests with them from India, from Jalandhar. They’re from

a place not too far away from where I was born. So they brought a little bit

of India into our Legislature today. That is Robin Sangha, Sukhman Sangha,

Ramandeep Sangha and Sukhvinder Sangha. Two of the young people are high

school students and elementary, from India. Two of them are from here, and

of course, it being spring break, they are able to come and see how our

Legislature works. They’ve been on a tour. They’re going to be heading over

to the museum.

Please help me to welcome them all to our beautiful British

Columbia.

[1:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question.

There’s no question that the Peace is a unique area — the way that

the roads are, the geography, the geology. It has a lot of need, and

yes, we do have what’s described as side-road programs. We’ve put

together what had been the oil and gas roads and the side-road program,

but it’s not diminishing the amount that’s going in, so we’re still

committed to that.

I was up in the member’s constituency. It doesn’t feel that long

ago, but it was, I think, last spring. So it’s quite some time ago now.

I saw for myself what the member lives with and what his constituents

live with. It was brought home to me, say, that unique

nature.

I also met with the rural road task force earlier. I think it was

last month now. Staff continue to work with them just to identify what

the needs are and what we can do as a government to ensure that we are

investing wisely in the region and making sure that the needs of all the

communities are being met. We are investing in the roads, as

necessary.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad you mentioned the rural road task

force. That was actually one of my next points.

Of course, I’ve worked with Jackie Kjos quite a bit over time, and

I know that the invitation has been sent out to you to come up. We’ll

organize a very detailed tour and flights and everything else that I

think the committee has already got organized to really give you a scope

of what we face up here as challenges.

I just want to make sure I heard it right. There is analysis being

done on the roads, and then they’ll be looking at funding. Is that what

I got out of it, moving forward, and does that mean, then, there will be

a bump in addition to the amount that’s been in place for a long

time?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: What we’re doing is I’ve met with the rural roads task force.

Staff have met with the rural roads task force. Staff continue to meet.

And yes, I look forward to a visit there. The rural roads task force

said that I should come up in June this time to get a better picture of

it — I think it was March last time — get a sense. I know that as a

visitor, I will not get the full sense anyway.

We are having these discussions with the rural roads task force

just to really understand what the priorities are, what is needed. I

know that the member feels that it’s been a long time. We’re a new

government, so it’s been a long time for other governments too. We do

want to make sure that we understand the priorities. The member is also

aware that it’s, obviously, very costly to work in the Peace region

because of geotechnical issues and everything else.

So really understand what the priorities are and what the capacity

is, and this will feed into our decision-making process and our

continuing budgeting process.

D. Davies: In June, you might actually be able to get out onto most of the

roads. They should mostly be dried out by then. Okay, maybe not all of

them.

I certainly appreciate the comment regarding working with the

rural roads task force. There’s a lot of knowledge that sits around that

committee, and I look forward to hearing some positive things in the

relationship, working through them as well. So thank you.

Another question I have…. I probably should have let my college

from Peace River South maybe ask this, because it really impacts his

area in certain aspects. I understand there is something being reviewed

on the commercial vehicle chain-up legislation, or how that’s going to

be looking.

Right now South Taylor Hill, throughout the winter, I’m not sure….

I’d have to take my shoes off to count the number of times we have

spin-outs with commercial vehicles. The hill is shut down for the better

part of a morning or an afternoon, and it literally shuts everything

down up in the northeast. At worst-case scenario, the operator of that

commercial vehicle might walk away with a $121 fine or

thereabouts.

It just seems like there’s something missing in that piece and how

those are dealt with. I’m wondering if the ministry has that on their

radar, to be looking at some bigger bite.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: At the end of last year, we announced much stricter chain-up

requirements. Previously, commercial vehicles were allowed socks instead

of chains. For heavy industrial vehicles, that was removed. Now you are

not allowed to use that. You must use chains. There’s a better

definition of chains, much more specificity — on the axle so that they

are chained effectively and efficiently.

We’re also doing some education on it. Just if the member is

interested, I can run through that the previous regulations required

vehicles over 27,000 kilos to carry and use traction devices, with only

one wheel needing chains during winter conditions and mandatory

chain-ups.

The new, more encompassing enhancements clarify requirements for

commercial vehicles over 5,000 kilograms. So buses or five-tonne trucks

up to…. Those vehicles that weigh less than 11,794 kilograms must use

chains on a minimum of two tires and can use steel chains, cable chains,

automatic chains, socks or wheel sanders. Those that are heavier than

that must use steel chains. The number of tires needing chains ranges

from a minimum of two tires for vehicles without a trailer to six tires

on some of the larger configurations.

The South Taylor Hill. I’m very aware of what the member says, of

being able to count the number of times it has been blocked — and having

to take his socks off. That number…. The member doesn’t need to show us.

But because of the South Taylor….

[2:00 p.m.]

We have actually been using our new chain-up regulations this year

as a chance for education — to ensure that the trucking industry

understands this and that those who are heavy haulers do understand

this.

We’re looking at other means, obviously. The member talks about

the low level of fine. I’m very aware of that. We are looking at that

schedule, as well, and how that’s going to impact it. This first year we

wanted to make sure that people knew the changes, were prepared and were

doing it. It’s been, really, a focus on education.

Like the Coquihalla, the South Taylor Hill has special oversight,

I’d say. There have to be tow trucks positioned in the event of a storm,

so that it can be cleared as quickly as possible. There is an enhanced

level of service with additional plowing required at certain…. I can

find the specifics, what would provoke the extra plowing and that, but

it does have a lot of oversight to make sure that it’s kept as free as

possible.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that. I’m not going to ask a question,

but I will just kind of end on a statement before I move on to my next

question.

I certainly understand that there have been changes in the policy.

My question was more around, I think, the enforcement piece and the

fines. It seems nothing when someone blocks off an entire highway and

cuts off the whole north for the better part of a day — a $121 fine —

when they knowingly went past a sign that said to chain up. I’m glad

that that is on your radar and that it will be reviewed. It may tie in a

little bit with my next piece, which is around the CVSE, the commercial

vehicle safety folks.

I travel quite a bit up in the north between Fort St. John and

Fort Nelson, the better part of 400-and-some kilometres. When we get up

there, there are lots of safety issues oftentimes, whether it be people

speeding or not driving to the road conditions. Part of the issue is

that there is no enforcement on that piece.

The enforcement I do see, though…. Often when I drive up there, I

do see the CVSE folks out on that highway. I’ve had discussions with a

number of people in that world, and I’ve asked…. People are driving way

beyond what they should be, yet there doesn’t seem to be enforcement.

It’s kind of out of the realm of their responsibility. I mean, I think

it has to be a blatant safety issue for that time before they can

engage.

My question is kind of broader, in the aspect of…. Is the ministry

looking at enhancing…? I know the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta

have reviewed their commercial vehicle safety people and broadened their

terms of reference, I guess, to allow for enforcement of the Motor

Vehicle Act across the board, enforcing safety and such for everybody on

the highways. I’m thinking that that would be something great,

especially when we’re talking rural and more remote areas. Is that on

the ministry’s radar for the near future?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’ve had a quick switch of staff, as we’ve moved to CVSE

questions. We have Cole Delisle, the acting director of CVSE, here on my

far left.

I’d just like to clarify for the member. The member seems to be

talking about our commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch

stopping private vehicles, like a Camaro that’s racing down the highway

where there’s not much RCMP coverage. Our CVSE is focused on the 110,000

commercial vehicles operating in British Columbia, and those are

anything that’s over 5,000 kilos. They are also very busy looking

after…. There are 33,000 carriers in B.C.

Unlike Alberta, where you have sheriffs doing some of what for us

is RCMP work or police work in speed control, and — as the member

mentioned — Saskatchewan having more broad responsibility for the motor

vehicle act there, our CVSE is going to be continuing to focus on

commercial vehicles. For the maintenance of speed control and safe

driving of personal vehicles, of non-commercial vehicles, we will be

leaving that to the RCMP.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. You did answer the question, then. I was asking

if there was a plan, and it doesn’t sound like there is. Maybe it’s

something to stick into the back pocket there for the future because,

again, I think it might be a viable thing to look at some of these other

models when it comes to rural peace officer assistance, I guess, or

whatever that looks like. I’ll leave that with you.

One final question. Last year when I spoke during estimates, I had

mentioned the got-to-go side porta-potty pullout pieces on the Alaska

Highway. I’m happy to say that, since last year’s estimates, there has

been a partnership between the province of British Columbia and the

federal government, as well as Northern Rockies regional municipality.

There is now a nice pullout at mile 200 of the Alaska Highway —

beautiful toilets. It’s a wonderful thing.

Of course, this was kind of all put together as a one-time. I’m

asking and wondering if the ministry has a plan to continue to put in a

little bit of funding — we’re talking not a lot — to help with the

maintenance. Of course, it’s in the province of British Columbia on a

federal piece of highway within the regional municipality district, so

it’s a really bizarre circumstance. I think if we get some commitment

from the province and others, we can keep this great thing going for the

travellers — which are a lot of British Columbians that use the highway

— keep them safe, up on their feet every now and again, and have a place

to go to the bathroom.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m glad the member and his constituents are happy with this. As

the member said himself, it’s this very weird structure. It’s the

federal jurisdiction for the highway, and it’s in the province, and

they’ve got their Rocky Mountain regional district. So we’ll engage the

federal government to try to ensure that there is ongoing maintenance,

because you don’t want to have a great rest area that is left to

neglect.

We will work with the federal government and the regional district

to try to ensure that it continues being looked after.

M. Bernier: I’m not sure the minister is…. I know I gave the minister a

heads-up on a few things, but we’ll have some questions. You’ll be happy

to know I won’t be talking about porta-potties or toilets like the….

Because this is Transportation estimates.

With that aside, just a couple of quick questions. Can the

minister give an update, please. I’ve brought it up now for a couple of

years. Of course, it’s in the phase…. We’ve talked a little bit about

the South Taylor Hill. I know the ministry was working on it. But I’ve

also heard, as recently as two weeks ago, from the federal government

that they’ve committed to their share for the funding in the South Peace

for this project.

Can the minister let me know if she can say if that’s true or not,

first of all, and where we’re at in the planning stage? As of a year

ago, I thought we were going last fall to procurement or costing after

the geotechnical work was done. So can I get an update on where we’re

at, please.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I thank him for the question. I know that there is

an anticipation for action soon on this. The member is, I think, more

aware than I am, as it’s his constituency. He lives and sees

it.

We’re dealing with variables of the geotechnology of the Peace

Valley. It’s complex. I’ve got to say that this was brought to a head

again with the Old Fort slide. We could see the huge complexity of the

area.

We are very aware of the need for work on the hill. We want to

make sure that whatever we do lasts — really lasts. We are continuing

the engineering, because we want to get this right. So it’s a continuing

effort to ensure that we get the engineering right with the geotech

issues that the Old Fort slide, last year, which shocked everybody, has

highlighted again.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s comments. Obviously, I completely

understand how difficult it is in that area when it comes to building

road networks, whether it’s on our hard surface or our back roads. Can I

at least, at the very minimum, take from that answer…? Probably just a

quick yes or no. I just want to make sure I’m right. Is it still within

the budget, then, of the ministry that they’re moving

forward?

I understand she’s saying it takes a little longer. That’s fine.

But is it still, obviously, within the budget that we’re moving forward

with the project, that nothing’s been stalled on the project design and

trying to get it to completion?

Hon. C. Trevena: There is money in the budget, and we are working on engineering on

the hill.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer, and I understand how the code works on

all of this. I won’t dive in any further and put the minister on the

spot, but obviously, she recognizes, especially if there’s federal

funding attached, that there can be some timelines that we want to try

to achieve in order to make that happen.

[2:20 p.m.]

Just one other question. I know we have lots of people who want to

ask specific to their riding. For me, a concern that I heard is around

the funding that we have right now within the ministry — of the Peace

River South for the Ministry of Transportation.

Actually, I should have started at the outset by thanking the

minister’s staff. I do that every year. As she knows, there’s amazing

staff that work — not only the staff that we have here today but the

staff I have here in my region and Scott Maxwell up in Prince George,

great staff who have always been very open to taking phone calls and

emails to share advice where they’re able. That really helps, at the

local level, defuse some of the angst from the public. From this

ministry’s standpoint, they’ve always been very excellent at that, and I

think it goes a long way where possible.

Are the rural roads and just the main roads in our area…? We used

to, every single year in my riding, have a new capital project. We’d

have one in design, going through geotechnical, and the next year we’d

be going to funding, and the next year we’d actually be going to

procurement and build. It’s been about two and a half years now since

we’ve had any projects of substance on the Alaska Highway or in my

region, Peace River North or Peace River South, to the best of my

knowledge. When I asked a question, I was told that it appears that our

funding has been cut dramatically for capital improvements and projects

in the South Peace.

Can the minister maybe look at a bit of an update on a dollar

amount for me, if she can get that? If the staff has it, great. If not,

she can get back to me.

We used to average anywhere in the vicinity of $45 million to $55

million a year in my riding. I have heard rumours — and I’m qualifying

that as rumours — that it could be as low as $25 million, thus there are

a lot of projects that might not be considered or are being pushed off.

And further four-laning on one of the deadliest highways in the province

has come to a standstill.

I’m just wanting to make sure I address the fact that that work

needs to continue. We have had, I believe…. I almost have to take my

shoes off to count, as well, how many fatalities we’ve had in the last

12 months in my riding on the main highway network, and a lot of that

could’ve possibly been avoided. Sometimes it’s driver’s error and

sometimes climate. I’m not going to dive into causes of accidents.

That’s not fair to anyone. But it does concern me if I hear that the

budget might be being reduced for capital projects.

Can the minister maybe today or get back to me on which future

projects — at the very least, though, if the budget’s been cut in my

area?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to assure the member that there is significant investment

in his constituency still. Some is in response to the storm of almost

three years ago now, to make sure that the rehabilitation’s gone there

and other work that’s going on.

Among the projects that are going to be started or completed this

year, the Bowlder Creek Bridge and the Eighth Street Bridge are just two

of a number. But we will follow up with the member with more details as

we can put together a more comprehensive list for the member,

okay?

D. Barnett: First, Minister, I want to reiterate what my colleagues said about

the staff in the Ministry of Transportation. They are some of the best,

most cooperative. They keep us informed and sincerely appreciate the

great work they do.

I have a couple of questions regarding rural British Columbia

roads. One is the Cariboo connector. I see in the budget the only thing

in there for the Cariboo connector in my riding is the Lexington Highway

97 project at the Williams Lake Indian Band, which has been ongoing for

five years, and that will be completed this year. Also the project on

the other side of Williams Lake, the Carson Toop project, which was

started under the previous government that will also be finished this

year.

Are there any other projects throughout my riding for improvements

to the Cariboo connector that are in the planning stage? There was one

before, when we were government, at the Knife Creek Road. Is that

project still being planned and being proposed? I see nothing in the

budget for it.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. I think the member is well

aware that almost half a billion dollars has been invested in Highway

97, the Cariboo connector, in the last number of years. A significant

amount of money has gone into it, and the member is right that the two

final phases of phase 2 are in construction and due to be complete this

summer, which is Carson Drive to Toop and Williams Lake to

Lexington.

That will mean that more than about 50 percent of the highway is

three or four lanes, which is significant and will, no question, add to

the safety of the highway. As I say repeatedly, safety is an absolute

priority for myself and for the ministry. So when we’re saying that, it

is important.

We are continuing to invest in the corridor. We are working on

planning studies around Quesnel. We are looking at areas north and south

of the member’s constituency, I have to say. But we are also looking at

leveraging federal dollars. The federal government has a significant

amount of money that we are looking at leveraging, and we want to take

full advantage of the various infrastructure investment funds that they

are offering at the moment and looking at how best to use

those.

D. Barnett: Yes, Minister. The past government invested many dollars in the

corridor and made it much safer. I would like to see it continue

on.

My one question, though, that you didn’t answer, if you could

please. Is the Knife Creek road planning process on Highway 97 still in

progress, or has that been put aside?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is aware, we’re talking about the corridor here, so

we take a corridor perspective. I cited projects both north and south of

the member’s riding and completing those projects in the member’s

riding. But because we’re taking a corridor approach, we have deferred

work on that, looking at other priorities in the corridor.

D. Barnett: A couple of more questions. Highway 20 over the last, well, ten

years…. Previous to last year, there was approximately $17 million put

on Highway 20, a corridor that is very important, from Williams Lake to

Bella Coola. It had $17 million, by the last government, put into

upgrading. There still is more work needed on the corridor, Highway 20.

Is there money in the budget this year to continue upgrading Highway

20?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: yes, we hoped that Highway 20 would be much busier

this year, and hopefully, there will be a ferry operating that will

mean, at least, that the tourist traffic can get from Bella Bella up

through the valley and up to the member’s constituency.

There are going to be some safety improvements this year. Every

year, throughout the year, the staff do road assessment on what is

needed. They go out in the spring, and they’ll go out again later in the

year and be looking at what is needed. We haven’t got specific projects.

They’re going to be looking at what’s needed when the spring comes.

There will be work done on it — rehabilitation as well as safety

work.

D. Barnett: We did have an economic development stra­tegy when we were

in government. In this economic strategy, there were components of every

ministry, and one of them was Transportation. Within that component, we

focused on a lot of capital for rural roads.

Could you please tell me what kind of capital is in the budget

this year for rural roads within my riding? We need a lot of rural roads

repaved — subdivisions, 108, Horse Lake area and places like that. So

could the minister please tell me what kind of funding is in there for

capital maintenance on rural roads?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is aware that we have the budget for side

roads. That includes the oil and gas roads. The side roads budget is

$110 million. That’s for the province. Obviously, across the province,

we look at priorities for major capital expenditure.

I’ve been in the member’s position of sitting in opposition for

many years, asking the Minister of Transportation for dollar figures for

my riding, and got incredibly frustrated when the minister did what I’m

going to give you. But the real answer is that to break down exactly the

dollar figure is almost impossible.

There is capital investment throughout the member’s riding as well

as nearby ridings. We’ve already talked about the ones that are

finishing this year, the major ones for Carson Drive to Toop and

Williams Lake to Lexington. There is also money being invested in

bridges, in safety work, some in rehabilitation. So right across the

riding, there will be money invested.

The ministry is assessing, all the time, what needs to be invested

to keep our highway infrastructure operating. I think the member will be

very pleased when she sees the roads improved, including Highway 20.

We’re making sure that B.C. Ferries actually gets running on

there.

D. Barnett: I have one last question. Yes, it’s very exciting that the ferry

that I worked so hard for will finally become a reality this year. I’m

very pleased that it’s finally going to be a reality, and I look forward

to it, as do my constituents.

The last question I have is regarding fires in 2017. We had major

fires throughout the riding, throughout the region. Basically, many

roads are now crumbling. They, of course, are rural roads, not major

highways.

When my constituents have an issue…. I’ve got two or three of them

now where there’s actual flooding. Roads are closed. A year ago they had

problems. Letters were sent off. Messages were sent off. Of course, all

we hear back is that we’re in the planning stages to fix

these.

I have a couple of areas where there are roads that ranchers’

fields, because of the flooding that’s coming down over the highways….

One rancher’s field was destroyed in the spring, and we can’t seem to

get any response from anybody for this issue.

My question is: is this the responsibility of FLNRO or the

Ministry of Transportation? We would just like a direction, because we

get sent from A to B. All we want to do is fix these so that people can

get on with their lives.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I know the member is very concerned about this, as we all are.

What we’ve seen over the last couple of years, with the devastating

fires, really has fundamentally changed both the landscape and the way

that we have to deal with it. So when the member’s talking about

crumbling, I know. It’s just an absolute inability for the earth to

absorb the water.

There’s responsibility both for my ministry and for the Ministry

of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. If there’s a fire on

Crown land, it’s the Ministry of Forests that has to stabilize the

slope.

Our ministry is looking at the infrastructure — the culverts and,

obviously, the roads — and making sure that when we are fixing them,

either before or, now, after events, we’re building in that resiliency

to climate change. So bigger culverts, bigger ditches — making sure

there is that ability to both deal with the problem that has arisen and

start to try to predict the future, with the mindset that what we’ve

seen for the last two years could very well be what we’re going to see

for the coming years too.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity. I want to thank the critic for

allowing us to take the time to focus on our regions. I’m going to

start, a little bit, with where the minister left off, with commenting

on the fact that it’s really difficult to tell us whether there’s more

money or how the money is allocated in particular constituencies. So

maybe I’ll make it more broad.

I want to start by recognizing the Ministry of Transportation

staff in the northern region — the Prince George office and elsewhere.

They do an exceptional job. They are incredibly collaborative to work

with, and they care a lot about the work that they do. Since being

elected many years ago, I have appreciated the work that the ministry

and the team does.

[2:55 p.m.]

Can the minister tell me whether the investment in the northern

region, then, will be increased? When we look at budget investment, will

the budget be static, or will there be an increase in the northern

region this year?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s question, the reason we are sort of working back

there is that the money is usually done by corridor. We have a very

stable and consistent commitment to rehab work, side road work. We’re

continuing to invest in certain projects, and we are investing about….

Just sort of doing the rough check at the moment, working on various

pieces that we’re looking at.

As a quick response, so the member doesn’t sit here all afternoon

waiting as we add it all up together, we’re looking at about $150

million.

S. Bond: Respecting the fact that there are a lot of members that want to

ask questions, I’m happy to receive an update on the specifics. I’d like

to see the year-over-year change, whether it’s up or down. Usually the

ministry is very helpful in laying out what their workplan is, and I

know that they can’t do that until they get their budget allocations, so

I’m happy to not have us spend a lot of time doing math in the back

there. If the ministry and the minister could send that information,

that would be helpful.

I do want to press upon the minister, though, the fact that

northern roads matter. When we are shipping goods and people are using

them — and I know the minister is aware of that — we need to make sure

that there’s adequate and stable funding. In fact, northern British

Columbia drives the economy of British Columbia, and we need to make

sure that industrial traffic, in particular, is recognized.

On that note, I’d like to ask a specific question. I know that

there will be a detailed workplan provided in the region. I have

received, and I’m sure the minister probably has as well, a lot of

concern about Highway 16 east, from Prince George moving through to

Vanderhoof and beyond.

[3:05 p.m.]

As the minister can imagine, there is significant heavy truck

traffic, and what’s happened is the roads are deeply rutted. There is

rutting along those corridors. In the winter, what happens is they fill

up with ice and snow, even when you’re clearing the roads. I received,

more than ever this year, concerns.

It’s certainly not because of lack of effort by the maintenance

contractors or by staff. We need to deal with that rutting situation.

I’m just going to ask now whether or not anyone on the minister’s team

can tell me whether that’s going to be considered in this year’s

workplan.

If we don’t have the answer, I’m happy to hear back. But I want to

impress upon the minister that that has been a significant concern

expressed mostly by residents with families who are travelling up and

down that highway. It’s making it, from my perspective, a safety

concern.

Maybe just a relatively quick answer. Do we know if it’s in the

workplan? If not, I’m hoping the minister will take that back to the

ministry and get some sense of what’s happening there.

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s understanding on getting information

back to her. I’m very cognizant of the importance of roads in the north

and roads around the province — the importance of investing in northern

roads.

The question of rutting, again, is a question I have myself, many

times, from my own constituency, where the heavy trucks using our

highways have created rutting. It creates a safety risk. For the

member’s constituency, it’s ice and snow. For my constituency, it’s

water and hydroplaning. It’s a serious issue.

The member will be pleased to know that we will be doing some work

to address the rutting on Highway 16. We will be able to work with the

member to tell her when it’s planned and the extent of the work that’s

going to be coming up.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister. I really appreciate that

answer. It will be good to know where exactly. There have been extensive

investments made in intersections prior to where the rutting now exists.

Again, it’s Highway 16, moving to the west from Prince George out toward

Vanderhoof. I’m sure my colleague would express the same concern, so

thank you for that. I look forward to the specifics.

The next issue we’ll be dealing with is all the people complaining

about having to wait while the highway repair work is done. First they

want it fixed, and then when you get it fixed, there’s a big problem

with that too.

If the minister could just give me an update on Cariboo connector

projects within the northern region. Obviously, significantly, again,

our government made a commitment to do major improvements on that

highway. A lot of work has been done. I just want reassurance from the

minister that that project and a number of projects along that corridor

are continuing.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, the member’s colleague from Cariboo South was

asking similar questions a few minutes ago. My response was that the

previous government did invest about half a billion dollars in the

corridor, bringing it up to three or four lanes for about 50 percent of

the corridor, which has been significant for safety.

We are continuing to do engineering work along the corridor. We

are looking at a corridor-wide approach from, basically, north to south.

I have raised with the member some of her concerns about ones that she

felt were going to be there and ones which aren’t. But we are doing a

corridor-wide approach, looking for federal funding — how we can best

use the various pots that the federal government have to ensure we

continue work where it is needed.

There has been — I think the member is well aware, having being

part of that government — significant investment over a number of years

in the road, making it much safer.

S. Bond: Well, I’m encouraged by that, I think. I am a bit concerned when

we suggest we’re going to look for federal money. The investment along

that corridor needs to continue.

We, earlier in this discussion, talked about a number of…. So

industrial traffic in particular, but also commuters who use that

section of the highway. If we’re going to get to the gateway, it’s

actually the way you get there, through that corridor, when you’re

looking at trade and commerce in British Columbia. Again, I’m sure, when

I’m given the opportunity to look at the workplan for the region, I will

certainly take a look at ongoing work on the Cariboo

connector.

I want to shift slightly to winter maintenance standards. I am

wondering. I don’t know if the minister knows or not, but I do have a

portion of Highway 5 in my riding. She may well be aware that the

TransCanada Yellowhead Highway Association did write to the minister

about their concerns. I think the biggest concern they had was ensuring

that there are consistent standards along Highway 16 and Highway

I’m sure my colleague from Kamloops may well have been interested,

because we share that particular highway in our two ridings. I’m

wondering if the minister could just let me know, acknowledge that she

has received the letter and that the resolution that was provided to her

by the TransCanada Yellowhead Highway Association is being considered by

the ministry.

[3:15 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies to the member. We’ve just been trying to track down the

letter. We’ve been reading it and looking at the import of it. We are

responding to it. We were just working on the response to it now. We

were, as I say, just trying to track it down.

I think the member is aware that the area, as I understand it…. I

don’t want to go too far down this road, because we are still working on

the response, but the designation of all the route was to a class A, a

number of years ago. We have two service contracts overlapping this, one

of which…. We have the new contract, which has higher specifications.

The other is still the existing contract with the existing

specifications.

Suffice it to say, we have the letter. We will be responding to

it. We’re taking it very seriously. We will be participating in the

Yellowhead Highway Association meeting. And we’ll ensure that the member

gets a copy of the response too.

S. Bond: I appreciate that answer. I know that the association will as

well.

That is an issue because, obviously, Highway 16 is a class A

highway now. It does have higher maintenance standards, which we are

grateful for and thankful that we worked hard to make that happen. I

think some consistency there is the concern.

On that note, I wondered if, very quickly, the minister could just

give me an update on the renewal of maintenance contracts in the Robson

Valley region. There are two contractors. I believe one of the contracts

may have been complete. One might be further down in the timeline. It

might be a little bit later.

If I could have a quick reassurance that those contracts…. I

believe one has been finalized, but I want to be sure that the

maintenance standards have been conveyed and are, certainly, part of the

procurement process to make sure…That is a class A highway, Highway 16,

and we want to be sure that those standards are being met. If the

minister could just give me a quick update on the contract renewal

process.

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just finishing the evaluation on the maintenance contract

right in the member’s constituency — in Fort George, service area 19.

It’s still, as I say, under evaluation. They will start work in late

spring, June. They will have all-new specifications. The higher

standards that we’ve been bringing in, it would be maintaining, with a

class A system.

[3:25 p.m.]

The other maintenance contractor, or service area, in the member’s

riding, Robson, is the outlier. There are two sort of outliers from the

general renewals. That won’t be coming up until 2021.

S. Bond: Thank you. I thought that was the case. I appreciate that,

Minister, and the assurance about the standards along that particular

highway.

I just have two others. I know there’s an anxious lineup behind

me. So I just want to…. The minister will not be surprised to have me

bring this up again, and I’m going to continue to be persistent. I know

that she was very responsive. I believe a sign was put up at the Dunster

turnoff to the incredible community of Dunster. Many people will not

know where that is, but it’s beautiful.

Again, the issue for the residents there and for people along that

highway is that when you are attempting to make a turn, either a

left-hand or a right-hand turn, into Dunster, there is a lot of

industrial traffic coming behind you, and there is nowhere to go. So I

just want to raise that concern once again. I believe a sign was erected

along that part of the corridor, but I did want to just raise that with

the minister and let her know that that remains a concern for the

residents of the Robson Valley region. There’s a fair bit of traffic in

and out of Dunster. It’s an incredibly beautiful part of British

Columbia.

My last question is related to airports, and I just wanted to be

sure that we are on the record. I know that the Prince George Airport

Authority is always looking at their opportunity to enhance services

there. I do want to recognize — I think it’s now public — that the CEO

there is going to be retiring, John Gibson. I did want to recognize him

for the great work that he’s done at the Prince George

Airport.

I know that in the case of both Prince George and Valemount….

Valemount has, obviously, an airstrip. I know that in both of these

communities, the airport is a critical part of an economic strategy, and

I know the minister knows that. When we’re thinking about our

destination resort in Valemount, it’s really important that there is

more access for planes to arrive, bringing visitors to that resort,

potentially.

I just wanted to confirm that there are still funding avenues for

airport improvements and bring to the minister’s attention, obviously,

the interest in continuing expansion at Prince George but also at

Valemount. So just, perhaps, a quick update on what funds are available,

making sure that those two communities are noted.

With that…. I’ll wait for the response, but I do want to thank the

minister and her staff for the hard work that is done. I appreciate the

information that’s been provided and that which will come to me at a

later date.

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We were just checking on applications. The application deadline

for next year’s funding was this past February, and we’re going to be

announcing in early spring.

To give the member confidence, yes, we are continuing with the air

access program, and they anticipate a number of projects that have come

forward. We know that it’s a very good way of ensuring that small

airstrips can have the funding they need. As the member is very well

aware, this is the sort of funding they need and can’t achieve any other

way. So we’re continuing with the program. The projects — we anticipate

that the ones in the member’s riding have applied, and we’ll be

announcing in April, May time. Okay? I thank the member for her

questions.

P. Milobar: Just a couple of questions for the minister today. A lot of them

interconnect with my colleague before, from the Prince George area, in

terms of the Highway 5 corridor.

I guess just one question to start things off, though. Could the

minister confirm how many federal or municipal dollars are going into

the Pattullo Bridge replacement?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The bridge is listed on page 48 of the budget and fiscal plan,

which I’m sure the member has in front of him. It is $1.377 billion for

the bridge. It is a provincial project. It is being funded solely by the

province. There is no federal and no municipal funding for

it.

P. Milobar: That’s what I was assuming the answer was going to be, but I

wanted to confirm it.

The reason I asked that is because it was a little disconcerting

to hear that for projects in the northern region of the province —

projects along Highway 97 corridor; projects along 16; projects, I’m

assuming, along 5; projects along 24; all the interconnecting highway

networks, the A-level highway system that we do have in British Columbia

— any future work, it sounded like, was going to be reliant on trying to

somehow leverage federal dollars for non-federal highways. Yet there was

no problem reprioritizing spending to take over a municipal bridge,

which was supposed to be replaced with TransLink through the

municipalities, and throw that 100 percent on to the provincial

government.

I guess that’s the backdrop that I’m asking these next questions

on around Highway 5, because I do hope the answer back will not be,

“Well, we need to wait for federal dollars,” because that does not seem

to be the case anywhere else. My understanding is if it’s the

Trans-Canada Highway, it’s much easier to have that conversation with

the federal government, and understandably. There’s a whole lot of

provincial highways across every province in this country. If the

province started to fund every highway project, it would be an

insurmountable hill for them.

With that in mind, in the Highway 5 corridor, specifically

running…. My riding runs from Kamloops to Albreda. Then the member from

Prince George who spoke before me, her riding takes off from there and

goes right up to the Alberta border. There has been a lot of concern

around safety recently, in this winter. I know the minister is aware of

it. I believe the conversation in my community’s folklore, or whatever

you may like to call it, was that the minister actually drove the

highway shortly after we had those couple of cars and trucks go off the

highway down towards the river.

Over the years, there’s been a very methodical and systematic

approach to straightening out problem corners, adding passing lanes in.

We’re not talking about long, long stretches. We’re talking about two

kilometers at a time or one corner at a time. There seemed to be a very

methodical progression of targeting the worst areas first and moving

through that.

I think everyone in that valley, from Kamloops to the Alberta

border, is pragmatic enough to understand that it’s not going to happen

all at once. But there seemed to be comfort that the projects were

slowly moving forward and that year over year, as one project was being

finished, there were other projects already on the books and other

projects being engineered and moving forward and being

designed.

It’s a critical transportation corridor. It has the CN mainline

running down. Obviously, it’s a major connection point for highway

traffic and commercial truck traffic from Edmonton down to the Vancouver

ports. It’s only getting busier. In summertime, the volume of RVs on

that corridor is phenomenal. That’s tourists that aren’t 100 percent

sure where they’re going mixing with fast-moving freight, mixing with

locals that are also moving at a high rate of speed. It’s a very

dangerous combination, let alone in the wintertime when the roads are

slick.

The most particular one I can think of is the Darfield passing

lanes. As they have been hitting completion, there’s no sense in the

valley…. Certainly, I’m unaware of….

[3:40 p.m.]

Hopefully, the minister can point to in this budget or in the next

two years’ worth of planning where the dollars are and what projects are

actually being contemplated and the timeline that those projects will

see advancement around those things — like very targeted passing lanes

being added, very targeted corners being straightened out between

Kamloops and the Alberta border but, more particularly, really, from

Barriere north, and actually, it’s starting to get from Clearwater

north.

There was very good progression starting to happen, but certainly,

about the midway point from Barriere and Clearwater north, there does

not seem to be a plan moving forward. Is there still a plan to try and

address these corners, or is it going to be a wait-and-see three years

from now?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member is concerned about us going for federal dollars. We

want to maximize the federal government’s generosity in anything capital

that we can.

[3:45 p.m.]

We continue to work with the federal government to use all their

funds available and any funds that they are thinking about developing to

ensure that our highway infrastructure is working very well across the

province.

On the specific corridor in the member’s constituency that he’s

concerned about from Tête Jaune to Kamloops — the Highway 16 to Kamloops

section, Highway 5 — we are conducting a corridor assessment so that we

know what the whole corridor needs, so that we can understand what the

next suite of work is going to be. We’re not just doing what we did and

leaving it.

We’re looking at, obviously, safety issues and capital spend. We

are doing, this year, a number of safety improvements. We are also

working on a resurfacing project. And we’re in advanced planning on

passing lanes.

P. Milobar: Well, I wonder if I could get an update, then, on where those

safety improvements are — and the style of them. I’m not going to hold

you to the exact 0.2 kilometre

section of the road. But it’s just so the

general public and the people in that area have a rough idea where these

safety improvements are going to be coming, by some sort of geographic

marker point along the way, and what the timeline is for this review —

so that people know when the review will not only be done but when they

can expect to see the follow-through from that review moving

forward.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. The corridor

review is an engineering review. We should be done by the end of the

year. It is, obviously, high-level. It’s looking at the whole corridor —

where, literally, the need is across the whole corridor — making

priorities from the whole corridor. It will help us identify areas to

focus upon.

[3:50 p.m.]

In the meantime, we are also working on detailed planning for

safety improvements in a number of locations. They won’t all be worked

upon but so we’ve got options here for short-term safety improvement.

These are primarily guardrails, but we’re looking at other safety

improvements too. We will be engaging with stakeholders as we move on

with this project.

Highway 5 is a concern, as the member well knows. It is a route

that links Alberta into B.C. and into Kamloops, which is important. So

it is a corridor that we are focusing upon.

P. Milobar: Just one more

section I would like to ask some questions of the

minister on. I don’t expect her to necessarily know this road.

Certainly, her staff should, I would expect. I know I’ve met with the

local staff several times on this. It comes up a couple of times every

year. They’ve always been great to work with, by the way. They always

answer questions and get back to constituents in a timely fashion, in

terms of the transportation staff in that region.

It’s the Dunn Lake Road, which is, actually, essentially almost

like a back road. It connects Clearwater all the way around to Barriere.

Why it’s significant is that, especially in a corridor that from 2003 on

has lived very much with the worry around wildfires, it sometimes turns

into the only access point in and out of that corridor, to continue on.

So there’s that life, safety worry and concern people have, which is

very understandable. It does have a connection that comes down to Little

Fort, for the Little Fort ferry, which would then open you up to Highway

24 to get into the Cariboo, as well.

There are several sections on it where there is some significant

sloughing and problems. The ministry has been looking at this over the

last few years. We’re hoping that there’s a fix and a solution. One of

the larger sloughs is actually more on the Barriere end of it where the

Simpcw First Nation has its main offices. There are children on school

buses that drive down into Barriere and who are having to go over this

continually eroding and worrisome sloughing that is happening. It’s a

fairly long drop down to the river on the other side of this

slough.

It is compounded by the fact that the CN main line runs between

the toe of the hill and the river, so if this does let go and it has not

been remediated properly in the meantime, it will have severe

consequences, not just if there’s a train there, obviously. Even without

a train, the blockage and the interruption to commodity goods in this

province and this country would be severely impacted by that. I

recognize that would be the rail concern, however, it is a significant

amount of work on the uphill side that needs to be done. This is why I’m

assuming and hoping that it is on the minister’s radar.

This is not going to be an inexpensive fix for the two sections of

this road that have the biggest problems. I’m wondering what engineering

has been done and if there are any dollars set aside this year and in

the next two years’ budgets to properly address these sections on this

road and to make sure that those sloughing areas are handled before we

see the washouts like we’ve seen in other sections, especially heading

towards Pemberton and other areas like that.

We all know how expensive it gets to do the repair and then what

the first fix would have been. I’m just wondering what type of advanced

work has been done and if there’s any timeline to actually, then, carry

the work out.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Potentially an easy answer to part of the question for the member

is that one of the sections the member is talking about…. Staff believe

that it’s a municipal road. They’re ready to follow up on that, and

we’ll follow up on that.

On the other, it’s much more complicated. We are monitoring the

sloughing, seeing how it is moving. It’s very slow-moving at the moment.

We are doing engineering work there to see what will be done. We’re

also, obviously, working with the Simpcw First Nation. We’ve got very

good relations with the Simpcw First Nation, which is, obviously, very

important.

This is a priority for us. It is very much on our radar. It,

obviously, is expensive. But when we get the engineering work complete,

when we’ve finished working through issues with the Simpcw First Nation

and work on the next stages, we will be moving ahead with fixing the

problem.

P. Milobar: Just one quick clarification. It’s not even a question. It’s just

to make sure, and I’ll turn the floor over to my colleague.

There is, on Dunn Lake, the

section that is a little more

municipal — and a question mark around that — down in the Clearwater

end. The

section I was talking about with the other sloughing is more, I

guess, just north of where the Little Fort ferry comes up and

interconnects with Dunn Lake Road. It narrows down to almost a single

lane now. There’s a hillside there that’s sloughing coming down. That’s

the other provincial

section I was talking about, just to

clarify.

Yeah. They were nodding their heads. That’s good, as long as they

know. I’ll turn it over to my colleague now.

The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and her staff for addressing just a

couple of questions. The first one actually has to do with a couple of,

if not more, young people that we have in the gallery. I see we have a

few young people in the gallery. They’ll really appreciate this one, I

hope.

As the minister knows, there are certain rules as to what you can

and cannot use on public roadways in British Columbia. I’ve spoken

recently with the mayors of Kelowna and the district of lake Country

about this. I’ve also spoken to the former Minister of Transportation a

couple of years ago. So this might be an opportunity for the minister to

do something that I wasn’t able to do before. Hopefully the answer is

yes.

What, in particular, I’m looking for is an opportunity to work

with Deb Bowman, an ADM of the minister — I believe she’s somewhere

listening to this conversation — to look at allowing, in a pilot area,

maybe my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country, the use of electric scooters,

electric hoverboards and electric Airwheels so we can try to see if they

can actually work on perhaps bicycle paths or areas that we would

determine together between the district of Lake Country, the city of

Kelowna and, of course, the ministry to come up with a system that would

be safe, of course — safety is a priority — but that also allows for, as

the mayor of Kelowna says, alternative ways to get around.

I believe the technology has way outpaced the policies in this

case. Yes, you can use a bicycle on bicycle paths, and yes, you can use

an electric bicycle on bicycle paths. But there are opportunities, I

believe, if you look around the world, for alternatives such as electric

unicycles, Airwheels, hoverboards or electric scooters that I believe,

and many people believe, would be able to be used safely on public

streets and public roads.

Since the province controls what can be used on public roads in

municipalities, the province needs to work on a solution to this. So I’m

asking the minister if it would be possible for her to direct her staff

basically to work with me and the mayors of Kelowna and the district of

Lake Country to work out a pilot for the use of Airwheels, electric

hoverboards and electric scooters on a trial basis in our

area.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question and for taking us away from

rural roads and pavements for a little bit into one of my one of my

favourite subjects, which is active transportation. I’m sure the member

is well aware that we’ve been taking a lead on an active transportation

strategy. I think it’s something that you’re seeing in other provinces.

It has been very eagerly embraced here in B.C. over these last few

months since we’ve been starting up as part of CleanBC.

I think the member is most likely aware that we have had a series

of very successful consultations, successful fora. We were in Surrey and

Vancouver. The closest to the member’s riding was in Penticton back in

the beginning of March. We’ve also been in Courtenay. I was at the

Courtenay meeting. It was very interesting to see how many people with

very different approaches are looking at active transportation. I think

the member most likely heard the piece in the House this morning from

the MLA for Vancouver–West End talking about that. He’s been doing a lot

of the outreach on active transportation.

As we look at what active transportation means for different

communities and as we move on with our active transportation strategy,

which will be complete later this spring, the different opportunities,

different

interpretations…. As the MLA said during his remarks, and I

agree with him, whether it is snowshoeing and skiing or bicycling or

e-biking or electric scooter or…. As the member himself has said, you

look up to the younger audience — the electric hoverboards and other

devices. At a certain age, you used to look at the newer devices and

think: “That was in Back to the Future , wasn’t it?”

We’re looking at all different sorts and how they can be

integrated into our planning and into community planning to ensure that

we, as a province, have very literally a healthy approach to active

transportation. We’re using the opportunities as well, provided by our

CleanBC strategy, to ensure that we are embracing lots of different

opportunities to get people out of their cars, both in and out of

communities, and travel without having to turn on a combustion engine

and give people a greater choice.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I agree. This fits

perfectly with the CleanBC opportunity. I was very interested in hearing

about the active transportation move. Yes, it came to

Penticton.

From what I heard this morning, it sounded more like it would be

non-motorized transportation — walking, biking, those kinds of things.

This is the first time that I’ve heard, so I apologize if I haven’t been

paying attention, that the active transportation phenomena would also

include these motorized modes of transportation, electric.

[4:20 p.m.]

Could the minister please just confirm for me, again, that when

the government’s looking at the full range of active transportation,

that includes electric modes of transportation, such as Airwheels —

which, by the way, is an electric unicycle, which I’ve seen people use

quite a bit in Europe but haven’t seen here yet — electric hoverboards

and electric scooters, which, again, I’ve seen used quite a lot. I think

it actually fits into the active, because you have to be in good shape

to be using these things, and you’re not always sitting on

them.

I want to make sure that that’s pretty clear to our communities,

because I know the city of Kelowna is currently reviewing a staff

proposal to ask the minister to look at this particular issue. In my

discussions with the mayor of Kelowna, they’re keen to look at this as

an option, and so is the mayor of Lake Country.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Member. To continue the member’s question, we were just

going back and realized we did get a letter from the member for

Kelowna–Lake Country, as well his colleagues for Kelowna-Mission and

Kelowna West. I got a letter at the end of last year about this subject

— I know that the member is a strong advocate of it — and

responded.

Talking about our move towards active transportation, now we are

more formalizing a strategy. As I say, we’ve got these fora. We have

on-line engagement. I think the MLA for Vancouver–West End mentioned it,

but I will repeat it. It is on engage.gov.bc.ca/activetransportation. I

would encourage the member and his constituents and others to go on line

to participate in that way.

There are a number of questions about what active transportation

means. For some people, it means getting on a bike or snowshoeing or

whatever. For others, it does mean an Airwheel or other things. It’s

trying to get people out of their cars, moving more. Electric scooters,

the little ones like the scooter that you used to use as a kid —

electric. They, too, are. I know people who have used them. There are

certain communities now that, instead of having the bike rental or the

electric bike rental, are going with electric scooter rental. There are

lots of different approaches.

I do really encourage full participation in the discussion,

because we want to make sure that we are being inclusive in this. We

want to be really developing a strategy that works for all of B.C. and

works at creating that sense of what active transportation

is.

As I say, we do have the on-line engagement. That’s going up until

the middle of April, so still got about two, three weeks to get ideas on

line. Then we’re also going to be talking about it at the local

government area associations as well. So for the member and his

municipalities, it will be the Southern Interior Local Government

Association. Is that the one that the member goes to? His municipality

will also have that opportunity. But we’re looking for input from around

the province — individuals, organizations, communities — to get that

really, I think, very exciting way of collaborating on what we can do to

get people out of their cars and moving more.

[4:25 p.m.]

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that invitation to make sure that

everyone that has an opportunity to participate in the survey does so

over the next few weeks, before it’s over. I will be on Facebook and

Twitter and Instagram as soon as possible to make sure that all people

of all ages that have an interest in active transportation — that’s not

just bicycles — get involved.

The technology is there. It’s safe. It’s proven. We just need to

look at how we can apply it to British Columbia. These bike lanes should

be available for these kinds of modes of movement. You would get a lot

of cars off the roads. You would take a lot of GHGs out of the air, and

you actually make people healthier because, while yes, you can get a

scooter that’s electrified, probably a lot of the time you’re pushing it

or getting on or off it. I think it actually would work well.

The other piece is, yes, there are some places that are looking to

a business opportunity, to rent out scooters as a fleet, just like they

do for electric bicycles. I would suggest that while that might be, of

course, one possible use, we shouldn’t restrict it to fleets. We should

allow individuals, private owners, to use their private electric mode of

transportation the same way as you would allow a fleet. I don’t believe

they should limit it just to fleets. It should be open to

anybody.

These pieces of equipment are actually not that expensive. When

you look at an electric bicycle, you might be looking at maybe $2,000,

$3,000. When you look at an Airwheel, you’re looking at $500. One

Airwheel is about $500. You would be allowing people of marginal income

to be able to get around a community very quickly and very safely, all

within one charge. So I think it would work extremely well.

I actually looked at the Airwheel versus the hoverboard. The

Airwheel takes a little more time to learn how to use. But once you

learn how to use it, if I can make a plug for it…. The tires are bigger,

so you can actually go over bumps a lot easier and, in my case, safer. I

don’t want to break any limbs trying to learn how to use these

things.

Having said that, I will do my share to make sure that the public

is aware of the invitation by the minister and that this is not just for

bicycles or other non-motorized modes of transportation. This can be

small, motorized transportation, through these electric

options.

A more typical question, not to do with active transportation —

actually, the opposite of active — is bottlenecks at intersections. The

minister is quite aware of the number one priority in my riding right

now for intersection improvements. That is the intersection of Glenmore

Road, Beaver Lake Road and Highway 97 in the district of Lake Country

and in the city of Kelowna. Actually, the city of Kelowna moves right

into that space. It’s part of the solution. So is the district of Lake

Country part of the solution.

It’s important that we continue with the good work that has been

done so far by the ministry. The ministry, I believe, has provided a

design award to Urban Systems on that particular intersection, which is

critical for our community in the district of Lake Country, because of

the long, long bottlenecks that we see in that area.

Of course, what you have when you have a long, long bottleneck, is

you have people trying to circumvent that, and those kinds of actions

can be very dangerous — when people try to find their way to the front

of the line or whatever, if they’ve been waiting a long time. So there

is a solution. I’m sure Urban Systems will find some options, and then

I’ll go back to the public in terms of an open house, looking for input

from the public.

My question to the minister is not going to be how much money does

she have in her budget to fund the solution. I think we’ll talk about

that at another time. The mayors of Kelowna and the district of Lake

Country will probably bring that up at UBCM.

My question is two-part. One is when does the minister anticipate

the design work to be complete and available to the public in its final,

approved form, and before that, when is the next open house going to be

set for our communities so that they can see what the design options

are?

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to round off the last conversation about active

transportation. Apparently, ministry staff are meeting with the city of

Kelowna on this issue on the fourth of April.

I’m very glad that I’ve seen now what the electric unicycle looks

like, because I had an image of the classic circus unicycle being

electrified. I thank the member for raising this, and now I know what

I’ve been seeing on the roads. I’ve seen them on the public roads as

well. It’s one of the things that we will be addressing, obviously,

through the active transportation.

To move on, onto the pavement, the intersection that the member is

talking about has been identified as a priority for the corridor. At the

moment, there’s a planning study underway, which is assessing the

current conditions and looking at what the future conditions might be

there and how it would all work out. As a result of that, we’ll be able

to set priorities for what to do next. On the intersection, as I say,

it’s definitely a priority for the corridor, and we’ll be starting

public engagement in late spring.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the information on the active

transportation and to the staff for showing you a picture of the

Airwheel — and other competitive products, I’m sure.

On the issue of timing, late spring for a public engagement sounds

great. Given the expertise that surrounds the ministry, including her

own, is there any estimate as to how long the complete project of

planning — not shovels in the ground but planning — would take, so that

we would have an idea as to when all that process would be

over?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: There is quite an aggressive timeline. They’re looking at a year

to a year and a half of planning in getting there, so end of summer

2020. I said that’s a couple years away, but I realize that now we’re in

2019, so about a year and a half.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My last ask — and then

we’ll pass it on to my colleague — is: when they do organize the open

house, if it’d be possible to organize it when the MLA is actually in

the area, that would be great, as opposed to being stuck here in

Victoria.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we all wish that the rest of the world could be organized

against the

schedule of our commitment to this place for six months of

the year, day in, day out. We will make a note of that. I appreciate the

comments from the member. Thank you.

D. Clovechok: To the minister, I always appreciate the opportunity to stand here

and talk about her passion and my passion: the Trans-Canada Highway. I

want to thank the previous member for speaking. In our caucus, his

nickname is George Jetson. We all remember that cartoon.

Okay. Moving on, I do want to talk a little bit about the

Trans-Canada Highway and the Kicking Horse development, not so much on

the development itself but on some of the unforeseen consequences that

are going to present themselves. Before I do that, I just want to

recognize and thank Ron Sharp and all of his staff in the Kootenays for

the amazing work that they do. They’re truly professionals, and any

chance I get to say that out loud, I do so, because they are just that

good.

Recently we’ve heard that there are likely going to be significant

closures of the Trans-Canada Highway during construction in 2020. That’s

understandable. It’s got to happen, but the consequences that come with

that and the situations that present because of that are going to be

interesting. It’s hard to forecast them, I know, but I do have some

questions and some thoughts that I’d like to hear some answers

for.

Let’s just start. We know about closures in the area, as well,

through avalanches and accidents and the rerouting of that traffic

through Highways 93 and 95 through Kootenay Park, which is part of my

riding — nobody lives there, but it’s still part of my riding — down

through Radium and then through Edgewater, Spillimacheen, Parson,

Nicholson and right through to Golden. There are significant impacts

that these communities already experience with minor closures that are a

day or maybe two days in length, at very best, and the increase of

traffic.

Knowing that we have some benchmarks of traffic issues that have

resulted because of closures, does the ministry have any plan for doing

any sort of a traffic analysis prior to those closures happening, so

that those communities can have a better understanding of what is

actually coming their way? We don’t know how long, I’m assuming, these

closures are going to be, but they could be significantly long, which

increases that traffic. I’m wondering if there’s anything going to be

done around there to better understand the impacts that that’ll

have.

[4:40 p.m.]

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

hearing so often people acknowledging the staff. The ministry staff

right across the province are terrific. I know that the member

recognizes it. Every member who stands up recognizes it. I’ll use a

couple of minutes of members’ time to say that we are extraordinarily

fortunate as a province to have the ministry staff that we do

have.

They are extraordinarily dedicated, extraordinarily hard-working.

In the member’s riding, where you have real weather, out dealing at all

times in all conditions and always acting as professionals. I think we

see that right across the province.

To take the member’s question, the traffic analysis is happening

right now. It’s something we’re very cognizant of. There is analysis of

all the options — what it’s going to look like if it’s closed, if it’s

not closed, rerouting. There’s a very thorough traffic analysis going on

at the moment.

We’re also working with the community liaison committee about what

people living, working, and the communities around feel about the

different options. It’s something we are actively engaged upon, looking

and saying…. There has been no decision made about any specific approach

and any specific way of working. This is something that is being

analyzed as we speak.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I know the calls that we’ve been getting from

these communities…. They will be pleased to hear that.

[4:45 p.m.]

I also want to recognize that I’ve spoken to the mayors, and they

appreciate the consultations that are ongoing right now. So that’s great

to know.

The question I would have, just very quickly, is: what is the

timeline on the committee’s data-collecting? When might that be out, so

I can share that with my constituents?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. As I say, the traffic analysis is

happening right now and looking at all the options. Involved in or

included in the discussion, as I mentioned, is the community liaison

committee, which the member knows includes the community of Golden as

well as emergency services and the chamber and, at times, Radium Hot

Springs as well as Parks Canada.

When the analysis is done, there will be a public open house,

which will allow for greater discussion. That is anticipated to be in a

couple of months. We’re moving on quite well here, so it will be in a

couple of months.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I know that the smaller communities between

Radium and Golden sincerely appreciate that input, because there is a

big concern. We’ve been hearing about it already, and it hasn’t even

started yet. So that’s great.

Let’s just go really quickly to Radium Hot Springs. We all know,

during the summer months, especially the May long weekend and any long

weekends, of the traffic jams that occur coming down the hill out of the

park from Radium. I have to say that the ministry staff has done a

phenomenal job with flaggers there. It’s helped an enormous

amount.

I certainly don’t want to speak for the ministry staff or Mr.

Richter over there, but I think we all know that the roundabout is the

only real solution for that. We’re excited about that. Lights don’t make

sense there.

I guess my question around the roundabout is: given the traffic

storm that we know is going to be coming and occurring in a very short

period of time, will the building of that roundabout be expedited, using

your terms, to prepare for that traffic so that that can be funneled in

a different way? I hope, I really hope, that some federal money will be

put towards that roundabout, because this is part of their issue, even

though it’s not on the Trans-Canada. They should be bearing

responsibility for that. So will that be expedited so it could be

completed prior to the traffic storm that’s coming our way?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I know the intersection. We do recognize that it is a

critical part of a traffic management plan, so we’re working on what we

can do, working on a business case for options there.

We have made a commitment to the mayor, approaching the federal

government for dollars. As I have been saying to others of your

colleagues, we want to maximize the availability of federal dollars on

all projects, but on this, obviously, particularly. It’s going to be of

great assistance.

We are moving ahead with this. But while it’s part of the bigger

whole with what’s happening at Kicking Horse, it’s a stand-alone

project. We have to deal with it as a stand-alone project, as well as

being well aware that it is going to be impacted by the Kicking Horse

work.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I appreciate it. From that answer, I’m going

to just assume, which you should never do in this business, that it will

be top-notch and top of the shelf when we’re looking at it. Without

that, I think we’re going to be in big trouble. No question in my mind,

given what we already know. So we’ll just leave that for now.

My next question. As we know, as we’ve seen, when the traffic is

rerouted through the park, down through Radium and then through 93 and

95 through to Golden, it’s heavy. There’s a lot of traffic. Many of the

concerns of my constituents — this is a technical question that I think

we can probably answer very quickly and easily — are that, in many spots

on that highway, it’s very narrow, with very, very narrow shoulders.

People are riding bikes and all sorts of things in the summertime along

those routes.

Is the ministry confident that this highway will have the capacity

and the capability to carry that amount of traffic, which will be daily

and an onslaught tsunami, almost, in many cases?

Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, safety is number one. We want to make sure that people

using our highways are safe. What the member is asking is part of the

work that we’re doing right now in analyzing traffic, trying to estimate

volumes and what is going to happen if scenario A is in place, what’s

going to happen if scenario B is in place. But safety has to come first,

and we’re working with that in mind.

D. Clovechok: I look forward to seeing that report once it’s available, because

safety is paramount, needless to say.

Let’s talk a little bit about safety then. We know that the

rerouting of that traffic off the Trans-Canada Highway between the

Castle Mountain junction, either way, and the Alberta-B.C. border is

patrolled not only by the RCMP but also by the sheriff’s department in

Alberta until they get to the border in British Columbia. With that

traffic being rerouted through the national park, which is in British

Columbia and which is the territory of the local detachment in the

Columbia Valley and the East Kootenay traffic service out of Cranbrook,

there will be increased demand on their services, and also on the CVSE’s

as well.

My question would be, then…. From the turn-off at the Castle

junction, down through Radium and through to Golden, we’re going to see

those increases of traffic, with traffic issues. Are we going to be

seeing any extra support for the CVSE and any extra support for the

detachments in Invermere and Golden for additional members during these

closures to patrol and make sure that it’s safe?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: This goes back to some of the original question. We need to get

the analysis done. We need to know what the traffic is going to be. Some

of this has also come out at the community liaison meetings. As I say,

emergency services are part of the community liaison groups, so they’re

well aware of it.

RCMP will be, necessarily, deciding whether to look at staffing. I

think that they…. We are engaging with them about whether there would

need to be more. But I think, in the end, it’s going to be an RCMP

judgment. They’re going to see. They’re already engaged in that

community discussion. They can see what’s happening and will decide. We

have the ability to increase the number of CVSE along the corridor and

in the area. Again, we’ll be doing so as needed.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. That’s reassuring, because I’ve seen the

stress that it puts on our local detachments when that happens through

other closures. I know that the impact is there, and it takes away from

their policing services that are needed in other places within the

valley. That’s really good to hear, and I’m glad that’s

happening.

Just really quickly. I know that I’ve only got a couple more

left.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: That’s right. Just a couple more left.

I know that this project crosses, with the Kicking Horse and the

closures, interministry. This potentially has a huge tourism impact on

our valley, and we are a tourism valley. On one sense, you’re going to

have more traffic coming through Radium and then down through that

corridor, which is a good thing for tourism, but it’s also a bad thing

in many ways. Because of the traffic, people may not even

come.

The question is easy: is your ministry working with the Tourism

Ministry to look at any tourism strategy or any tourism impact ideas

within your overall plan that you’re looking at right now?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, we’re talking, actually, with the tourism and economic

development bodies of the region — so Columbia-Shuswap, East Kootenay

regional development and, obviously, in Golden. We’re looking at that

focus. When we’re talking about closure, we are looking at doing the

closures, when the closures will be necessary, during the shoulder

season so it will have less of an impact on tourism.

It’s a big driver. We’re talking about Highway 1. We’re working on

Highway 1. We want to make sure people come through. I understand it’s

obviously going to be important to get tourists off the main highway.

But tourists have that, “We’ll pick up our RV in Calgary, and we’re

going to end up in Vancouver or on Vancouver Island or wherever else it

is,” and they’re going to have their route in mind. That’s why we’re

looking at when there are as few tourists around as possible.

D. Clovechok: Again, this is good news. The only problem is people might be

rerouting down through the Crows Nest and then up the other way. That’s

the biggest concern around that traffic. So it’s an issue for that. But

thank you very much. Again, that’s part of your plan.

Last question that I have, and then there’ll be a final comment.

We all know about the Golden bridge in Golden. It’s 1954, I think, or

something like that. It’s been there for a long time. The access, either

north or south — it’s the only bridge across the Kicking Horse

River.

[5:05 p.m.]

With that extreme amount of traffic that’s going on there, you run

the risk of accidents, you run the risk of environmental spills with the

big tankers and everything else. Big issue. I’m assuming that part of

your overall plan and strategy is how you can the traffic, because it’s

a hard right turn over that bridge going west, and it’s a hard left turn

going over that bridge going north and south. So I’m assuming that

that’s part of your strategy, and those are the conversations that

you’re having around this and that there will be a strategy around that

bridge, because it poses a real potential problem.

I’m done.

Hon. C. Trevena: The critic will like this. The answer is yes.

D. Clovechok: If we could expedite the replacement of that bridge — Mr. Richter,

by the time that that happens — we would really be so appreciative of

that. I know you’re going to be on that tomorrow. In any event, I just

want to thank the minister for the time here.

One last point that I want to make. It’s an interministerial

thing. There is a 24-hour zebra mussel checking station in the Kicking

Horse that will be shut down when the closures occur. You don’t need to

answer this. We’re just hoping that that 24-hour station, when the road

is closed, can be rerouted back into the Kootenays — i.e., Radium — to

have a 24-hour station. We’ll need to have…. Those vehicles that are

coming through will need to be checked. That’s my hope.

With that, I’ll take my chair. Thank you very much.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to give the member assurances. We will obviously

work with the Ministry of Environment on that. It’s very important that

we keep zebra mussels out.

I thank the member for his questions.

G. Kyllo: It’s always an honour to stand in this House and ask a few

questions on behalf of the hard-working constituents of Shuswap. I’d

like to give thanks to the Transportation critic, my colleague, the

member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

I just have a series of questions, first around Highway 1, then a

few questions on some minor routes and then also on some side-road

projects.

First off, I’m just wondering if the minister can provide us a bit

of an update on the timing of the Salmon Arm west project. I am aware

and familiar that the tender closed for the preloading October 26, I

believe, of last year, and that work, I believe, is now underway. But if

she could just provide me with a timeline on the other construction

components of that Salmon Arm west project — for phases 1, 2 and 3 — and

how that lines up with the original timeline for the project when it was

initially announced back in 2016.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. As the member indicates,

there are three segments on the project: from IR 3 to First Avenue,

First Avenue to 10 Avenue and then 10 Avenue to 10 Street. As the member

is aware, part of the IR 3 to First Avenue is largely in First Nations’

territory, Neskonlith territory. The second section, 10 Avenue to 10

Street, overlaps quite substantially some of Adams Lake Band.

Instead of west to east or east to west, we are working on this

from the middle out. We will be starting this year on the First Avenue

to 10 Avenue section. As the member mentioned, we’ve got preload there.

It has taken quite a long time to settle, and as the member is most

likely aware, getting the preload settled is important for the long-term

stability of the highway. You can see problems when the preload hasn’t

settled in certain highways in our province, so we want to make sure

that is right.

The member asked when it was originally going to be tendered. It

was going to be back in 2016. Now we’re obviously three years on. The

reason for that is that we have been working on all these sections,

looking as a whole — working with the Indigenous communities, with the

Neskonlith and Adams Lake Bands, to make sure that all their needs and

their concerns are dealt with. We’re obviously dealing as well with the

community of Salmon Arm.

There is always — as the member is very aware, living in and

representing the area — the need to ensure that we have full

consultation and full engagement with the First Nations. That has led to

this…. I’m not going say it’s not a significant delay. We do need to get

it right, so we are still working on engineering work on the other two

sections, but this middle

section is what we are going to be moving on

first.

[5:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that. What I was looking for specifically

is…. The existing contract has now been let for just the preloading.

Obviously, there are a lot of additional contracts that will be let out

for phases 1, 2 and 3. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide

a timeline for the commencement of the further construction on phase 1

and completion of phase 1, and then the commencement of construction and

completion for phases 2 and 3.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to correct the record. I was talking about preload

before. We’re doing preload this spring. I did, actually…. Maybe the

member misheard. We’re preloading this spring. As I mentioned before,

we’re aiming to go to tender this fall. The other two phases — we’re

still doing the engineering, and there are ongoing negotiations with the

First Nations. We want to make sure, as I say, that they are comfortable

with what we’re doing, clearly, going through territory that is

traditionally theirs.

We want to make sure that we get this right. That is what has

caused some delay for the other two sections.

[5:20 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: What I’m hearing is that there are no commencement dates

anticipated at this point in time for phases 2 or 3.

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, we are working diligently with the First Nations. We’re

doing engineering work at the moment. We are looking for spring 2021 to

be working on phases 2 and 3. If we’re looking at segments, it’s

segments 1 and 3, but it will be the next stages. We’re starting on the

second segment, the middle section, this fall — aiming for this

fall.

G. Kyllo: I’m a little confused, and I just wonder if the minister might be

able to just provide a bit more clarification.

We know that the preloading contract has been let for phase 1,

which is a centre section. That preload is happening now, this spring.

The minister, if I heard correctly, indicated that the construction for

phase 1 will be tendered this coming fall. My understanding, I guess, if

it’s going to be tendered this fall, is that the works would happen over

the next couple of years on that particular section.

With respect to phases 2 and 3, is there any date anticipated at

this point in time for a commencement of construction?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. To repeat my previous answer, spring 2021 for the second two

phases.

G. Kyllo: Okay, well, that’s great. When I hear the minister indicate the

spring of 2021, would that be for the commencement of construction on

phases 2 and 3 or just for tendering documents to go out?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is for tender, but we have ambitious end dates, so I’ll

confirm with my staff that we’re okay on the end dates. But yes, it’s

for tender for spring 2021.

G. Kyllo: We’re now in 2019. We’re anticipating tender documents. This is a

project that was announced and fully funded in the spring of 2016. We’re

indicating, or I’m hearing from the minister today, that tendering for

phases 2 and 3 will not commence or even go out for the tendering

process until two years forward from now.

I’m just wondering if the minister can share with me how that

squares with her mandate letter and previous commitments that the

minister has made to myself and to elected officials in this community

of Salmon Arm for expediting the four-laning of the Trans-Canada

Highway. We have heard today that tendering documents for phases 2 and 3

of the Salmon Arm west project will not happen now until the spring of

2021, five years after the actual announcement date for the

project.

I just wonder if the minister could maybe, I guess, share a bit of

information on her beliefs on how that fits expediting.

Hon. C. Trevena: Absolutely. I think the member is incorrect in one of his dates.

The first section, from IR3 to First Avenue, was going to be tendered in

2020. That’s the date that I have. It was already not going to be

tendered till next year, the original schedule.

As I have mentioned before, we are absolutely committed to making

sure that we have good relations with the Indigenous communities whose

land we are working within. We have to make sure that the negotiations

with the Indigenous communities are complete. We have, obviously, all of

the archeological issues and everything else to deal with, so we need to

make sure that we are not running roughshod over other communities,

making sure that everyone is on board, and frankly, Member, that takes

time. It’s not something that we can set a clock on.

[5:25 p.m.]

My mandate letter is, yes, to accelerate the Trans-Canada Highway.

This is not all of the Trans-Canada High­way. It’s a project that

we are working on, and we are working as hard as we can, given the fact

that we have a framework here already.

We are also working at the same time on other sections of the

Trans-Canada Highway. We’re working on four-laning other sections at the

same time as working through the very important issues that we have — to

ensure that we can build this in the traditional territory of the

Neskonlith and the traditional territory of the Adams Lake band. For us,

this is a priority.

Safety is also a priority, and that’s why, while we face delays in

certain sections, we are not neglecting other sections of the

Trans-Canada Highway.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to provide any determination on when she

believes that the completion of phases 2 and 3 would actually

occur?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are anticipating that they would be complete by

G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you very much. With the anticipated delay in

construction, if I could ask, are there sufficient funds and latitude in

the existing construction budget to accommodate the increased costs that

will be associated with the delay in the initial construction

timing?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, we are obviously working with the existing budget

until engineering work is complete and work with First Nations is

complete. It would be unwise to change that.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I would just like to clarify for the member. I’ve been talking

about engagement and talking about First Nations and the importance of

working well with them, but the member well knows that we’re actually

talking about going through reserves here on the second two phases: on

segment 1, IR#3 to 1st Avenue, and then segment 3, 10th Avenue to 10th

Street. So the west of the project and the east of the project — it is

going through reserve.

I talk about engagement. It isn’t engagement; it’s negotiation.

This is their land. It is very significant to be working through that,

and if you’re negotiating, you’ve got to definitely get it right. If

you’re engaging, you’ve got to get it right. But if you’re negotiating….

It is land issues. It takes a very long while. I’m sure the member, if

he talked to his colleague, the former minister, who is well aware of

this too…. It is something that is ongoing. You do need to get it

right.

He was asking about acceleration. I’ve got to say I’m very

pleased. He can check on the government website, on the Ministry of

Transportation website, that we have actually announced today, jointly

with the federal government, upgrading 4.4 kilometres of the

Trans-Canada near the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke’s

constituency, working all around the Quartz Creek Bridge. We’re working

on 4.4 kilometres of highway there. This will include $49.9 million of

federal funding for the project.

The

part in the member’s constituency is going slower than anybody

would really hope, but we do need to get it right. We are working,

negotiating with the Neskonlith and with the Adams Lake band. We do need

to get this right.

There is work happening on other parts of the Trans-Canada. We are

making sure that we are pushing ahead with this. It is important that we

do it. But it’s also very important, as I’m sure the member is aware,

that we get it right with the people whose land it was long before we

punched in a highway.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for the response. With respect to First Nations, I fully

appreciate the need and the requirement for adequate consultation with

First Nations. I have been in contact with the First Nations, primarily

the Neskonlith that are largely going to be impacted with phase 1 and

phase 3. Chief Judy Wilson has indicated that she certainly would

appreciate and welcome a direct meeting with the minister and some

direct engagement around that consultation piece.

If I can just clarify, what I’m hearing is that there has been no

increase in the original budget that was initially anticipated and set

out in 2016. So it is fully hoped, I guess, within the ministry, that

they’ll be able to meet all of the design requirements and be able to

deliver phases 1, 2 and 3 of Salmon Arm west within the existing budget,

without any changes in the scope of works.

A further question to that would be: is the minister able to share

with us the impacts of the CBA requirement? Through the minister’s own

admission, it was indicated that the CBA requirement will escalate or

increase the cost of delivering these projects to British

Columbians.

[5:35 p.m.]

If the minister is able to provide any indication of whether the

anticipated budget that was set out in 2016…. Is that going to increase

to offset the additional costs associated with her government’s decision

to move forward on CBAs?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, as the member quite rightly notes, this is going to be a

community benefits agreement project. I think it’s very exciting that we

are looking at the whole Trans-Canada Highway four-laning to be a part

of a community benefits agreement.

I think that the member is aware, or should be aware, of the real

skills shortage we have in B.C. We’re looking at using some of our major

infrastructure projects to deal with the skills shortage to ensure that

we get people trained in a variety of trades.

Many heavy equipment operators can be trained and can work on this

project. It’s great apprenticeships and apprenticeship opportunities for

women, for Indigenous people — we’re talking about Indigenous

communities — for people who don’t usually get the opportunity to work

on these projects.

It’s also a great opportunity to have local hires. It’s one of the

parts of community benefit agreements — that we are hiring locally as

much as possible. So all the benefits…. It’s not just that the area

through Salmon Arm and beyond will get improved highway and safer

highway and improved connections, but you get that benefit ongoing to

the community with the training, with the local procurement, and so on.

This is a great opportunity. I’m really pleased that we are moving ahead

with CBA.

The member asked about the budget. The budget is the budget. We

are doing the engineering work. We do have the negotiations, not

consultation. We do have negotiations with Indigenous communities. I’ve

talked to Chief Wilson about this, and I’ve talked about meeting with

her. So we do have negotiations ongoing, and CBA is one of the

considerations in our analysis as we go forward.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that response. I understand that the budget has not

increased. We know that the construction timelines have extended past

what was initially anticipated when the project was announced in 2016.

We all know that prices go up, that this project will incur additional

costs on account of the changes in construction timelines.

We also know — again, by the ministry’s own admission — that the

CBA requirement will add additional costs to projects. So I just want to

have a confirmation, if I could, that the budget that was established in

2016 is sufficient to take into consideration the escalated costs due to

the delay in construction timing and the additional costs associated

with the CBA and that we are not going to see an erosion or scaling back

of the project in order to fit the project that was announced in 2016 in

order to meet the budget that was established three years

ago.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member, and I do repeat my previous answer. The budget

is the budget. We are still doing engineering work, and we are still in

negotiations with the Indigenous communities. Until the negotiations are

complete and the engineering is complete, it would be foolish to

speculate what may or may not happen.

We are still committed to making sure we move on with this. As I

say, we are still looking at engineering, and we’re still in

negotiations.

G. Kyllo: I think what I will do is…. I’d like to ask a few questions and

provide the minister an opportunity, if she wanted, to provide me a

response back in writing.

I had some questions similar to the questions I posed around the

Salmon Arm west project. The Bruhn Bridge replacement project in

Sicamous — just asking if the ministry could provide us with an

estimated timeline both for commencement of construction and completion

on that project.

As well, there’s some determination currently being undertaken for

the Balmoral intersection that’s adjacent to the community of Blind Bay.

A couple of options were put on the table. The local residents are very

concerned about the impact on access, egress, into their community. The

more expensive option is certainly the one that the local community is

pushing for. Again, would the minister be able to provide a bit of an

update on where that is at?

As well, the community of Sorrento has had some significant

challenges in and around some debris flows on Newsome Creek, which is

having a significant impact on a number of residential subdivisions. The

current Newsome Creek exits underneath Trans-Canada Highway 1. It

actually exits all the way down into Shuswap Lake. The current culvert,

it’s my understanding, is inadequate to deal with the actual water

flows, and the velocity of the water exiting underneath the highway is

causing some pretty significant and severe erosion in and around the

subdivision area.

There was a plan in place, my understanding is, for the

replacement of that culvert under Highway 1. My other question would be

if the ministry could provide an update on if and when that culvert

would be replaced, as well as some of the additional culverts that are

required to be upgraded in sizing in some of the side roads up and above

the Newsome Creek area. There’s a significant amount of water flow

that’s coming down, and residents are very concerned about the potential

impact on further erosion and threatening the residential

community.

[5:45 p.m.]

On minor routes, there has been a lot of discussion in past years

about upgrading on Mabel Lake Road. Just wondering, again, if the

minister could provide an update on where Mabel Lake is, as far as a

priority with respect to side-road paving in the Shuswap

area.

I also have concerns from folks living in Seymour Arm. Seymour Arm

is a very small community — one access road in and out. It’s currently a

forest service road. Residents have been asking for a number of years

for consideration that the ministry look at taking over that road.

Again, if the ministry could provide a bit of an update on

that.

Obviously, lots of concerns around side-road paving, specifically

in the Blind Bay area. Again, if the ministry can provide a bit of an

update on what the side-road paving plan is for this current

fiscal.

I do have one question, actually, to ask on behalf of the member

for Kelowna West, and this has to do with Westside Road. The last phase

of Westside Road, my understanding, has been fully designed. It is ready

to go. The member for Kelowna West is actually asking if he could be

provided an update on when the construction would be undertaken for that

last and final phase. Just for the minister’s note, Westside Road was

identified as one of the worst roads in B.C. a number of years ago. So

it’s just for the last and final phase of that project.

With that, I’ll take my seat and turn it back over to our

critic.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his questions, and I thank him for his

indulgence. We will get back to him in writing. Thank you for doing

that. We’ll wait until we get Hansard so we can go through and

make sure we get it all right. Appreciate that.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 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., April 1.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

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

(continued) .

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to thank the staff associated with this softwood

lumber file that are here to support the questions that we’re going to

be receiving on this particular topic.

J. Rustad: I look forward to our afternoon going through stuff. There’s

actually one question — it was one that I missed on caribou — that I’m

just going to put out. If the minister has an answer, great. If not, if

he could get back to me at the end of estimates, that would be great as

well.

When we were talking about caribou, I asked a question with regard

to the impact on trappers, guides, forestry, mining, oil and gas — these

types of tenures. I believe that the minister had mentioned that he felt

there wasn’t. I think the word was there wasn’t. Some of the categories

there weren’t impacts on. I wasn’t sure if it was guides and trappers

that there wouldn’t be an impact on, but I think the minister had said

that. The minister can maybe clarify.

The reason I ask is…. Sometime ago a trapper up in the area

received a letter which discussed the potential loss of a trapline due

to a transfer to a First Nation. He felt that it was associated with the

caribou and with the agreement that’s coming forward.

I realize those staff probably aren’t here or available at the

moment. If the minister could perhaps just commit to looking into this:

whether any letters have gone out to stakeholders, trappers in

particular, with regard to any potential agreements in the northeast

around caribou, notifying that there may be a change to their

tenure.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I commit to providing a response to that once we get the

appropriate staff back from the outer rooms to this room. Once that

staff member comes back, I’ll provide an answer.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that. Like I say, it’s not a rush. It’s

something if we get to…. We’ll be in estimates here for a little while

longer yet, so we don’t have to worry about running people back and

forth.

Back to softwood lumber. Just before the break, the minister had

talked about a $1.5 million budget being spent this year. I’m assuming

that ministerial staff are part of that $1.5 million budget. The

minister can correct that if it’s not the case. The minister mentioned

that they’re waiting on the appeal. They’re waiting on the various legal

or litigation processes that are unwinding.

Has the minister been engaged at all recently with Ottawa, with

regard to B.C.’s position and any engagement that may have followed from

that through to the United States?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I haven’t engaged directly with Ottawa recently, although we have

Jennifer Burleigh here, who’s our director of trade and export policy.

She’s, in a general way, been in coordination with Ottawa around our

litigation strategy and our litigation initiatives. We’re taking a lead

within our ministry on the litigation file.

I would also suggest that the member address the kind of question

he posed to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology when those

estimates arise.

J. Rustad: I do understand that the trade file is under a different ministry.

However, softwood is…. British Columbia represents about half of all

exports to the United States. It’s obviously a very critical component

to this policy and approaches within the ministry that I’m sure the

ministry must be leading, with regards to engagement.

Recently I saw an

article in the BNN. I believe it was Minister

Freeland who went down to Washington to discuss issues of the

replacement for NAFTA as well as the tariffs on steel and aluminum and

softwood lumber.

My question to the minister is: was the minister or ministry staff

engaged with Minister Freeland about what position she was talking about

and engaging at those levels in Washington? What positioning did British

Columbia play with regards to how the federal government presented that

issue in Washington?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The Premier has engaged with the Prime Minister on this file. In

fact, I believe they have recently spoken. Our role, through staff, is

that we supply information through JTT to the Premier’s office for those

kinds of discussions, so we’re having direct input to the federal Prime

Minister through our Premier.

J. Rustad: Could the minister provide to this House or this committee any

briefing notes or positions that FLNRO would have instructed to the

Ministry of Jobs and to the Premier with regards to communications on

softwood lumber for this recent trip to Washington?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There was no recent trip to Washington. I said that the Premier,

as I understand it, had a conversation recently with the Prime

Minister.

[1:45 p.m.]

The member might be referring to the May 7 trip that our staff

will be taking to attend the NAFTA appeal of the ITC finding of injury.

It would not be wise to release briefing notes, considering we’re in the

midst of litigation procedures. I know that the member is sensitive to

that, and we don’t want to divulge any kind of information that would

alert the people who don’t want us to succeed to our legal

strategies.

J. Rustad: I completely agree that we want to be able to be successful,

obviously, in our negotiations and our litigation on softwood

lumber.

Could the minister confirm that, with the recent trip by federal

minister Freeland to Washington, there was briefing material created

for, I’m assuming, the Premier or others to have made contact with the

federal government to make sure they reinforce B.C.’s position with

regards to any sorts of discussions that would have gone on between the

federal government and Washington?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, there are no discussions going on with negotiations, because

neither party has the incentive to return to the negotiating table. We

need to get a negotiated settlement from achieving success in the

appeals.

As far as Minister Freeland is concerned, there’s no question that

she knows the B.C. position, through information and contact we’ve had

previously, and that she knows our input into the federal litigation

strategy. It’s the federal government that’s undertaking litigation, but

we supply our information to them on that, and our

perspective.

If the member is talking about other trade matters that Minister

Freeland might have been going on a recent trip to Washington about,

then I suggest the best person, the best place, to ask that question to

is the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

S. Thomson: I just want to ask a question following up on the engagement

theme. I know that it’s not negotiations going on, as the minister

noted, and it’s in litigation, but one of the key ongoing strategies in

terms of continuing to build support for Canada’s position and,

ultimately, a deal at some point, or one that may come out of

litigation, is to continue to build support in the U.S. for Canada’s

position — engagement with homebuilders associations, with key

influencers and decision-makers in the U.S.

Can the minister advise of what actions, what steps, he has taken

or the ministry may have taken in that regard, in continuing to keep

those lines of communication and engagement going? Has he engaged

directly with industry in those efforts? Have there been any specific

initiatives the minister has undertaken to continue to build those

relationships and continue to make that argument on behalf of B.C.

producers and Canada?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have been working on a couple of fronts. As I mentioned

earlier, the May 7 trip to Washington that staff will be taking is an

opportunity. As we speak now, we’re working with the embassy. We’re in

the process of setting up meetings through the embassy with people who

can support our case, our litigation and also communicate the impacts of

the tariffs to the consumers in the United States.

We will also be meeting with the National Association of Home

Builders during that May 7 trip. We’ve been working with them in

creating a communications strategy on Capitol Hill. We began that back

in 2017, especially from the aspect of…. The tariffs were opening the

door to offshore imports of lumber into the United States. So it was

being characterized as: why aren’t you buying wood from Canada instead

of buying wood from Russia?

We’re going to re-engage with the National Association of Home

Builders, who’ve also made the case that the tariffs have increased the

cost of a house in the United States in bringing it right to the

consumer level.

We’ve also been supportive of the National Association of Home

Builders’ efforts to be a friend of the court in the ITC appeal that

will be heard in May. And we found out that they have now been accepted

by the appeal panel to be seen as a friend of the court, so they’ll be

able to present information and support. Essentially, they’ll be

supporting our position that injury has not occurred, and they’ll be

supportive of our overall position.

S. Thomson: Thanks for that information. I think the question, maybe just a

little bit more directly…. That talked about some forward initiatives

that are coming — referenced May and the meetings coming up.

[1:55 p.m.]

I was asking a little bit more specifically…. We’ve had a year,

essentially, since the last estimates — so whether the minister can

advise that there are any direct initiatives that have been taken in

that time period by the minister or the ministry over that time frame.

The minister had mentioned earlier that there really hasn’t been any

direct engagement at the federal level, and the focus has been on the

litigation rather than the negotiation.

In continuing to build the case, just seeking information around

whether any specific initiatives that he can point to, any direct

engagements, particularly with the interests in the U.S. that are

critical to helping make the overall argument that these tariffs are

unjustified, not based on the realities in the market and all of those

kinds of things. There was lots of work underway in that area, and I’m

just wondering if the minister, over the last year, can point to any

specific steps that have been taken.

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things I can point to in response to the question. In

June of 2018, we, as in the government, hosted state legislators from

both the Republican and Democratic parties that were handpicked by

Canada’s embassy in Washington as rising leaders. For part of their two

days in B.C., they toured mills, and our staff discussed the negative

impacts of various trade disputes on both sides of the border. That was

an initiative to ensure that the