Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 96

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)

T. Shypitka

Hon. C. Trevena

D. Clovechok

N. Letnick

J. Rustad

J. Tegart

T. Redies

C. Oakes

J. Isaacs

M. de Jong

S. Bond

B. Stewart

P. Milobar

T. Stone

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

D. Barnett

T. Shypitka

S. Gibson

E. Ross

A. Olsen

R. Sultan

J. Thornthwaite

L. Throness

17:08:39, S. Bond, “I” changed to “The”

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Trevena: In this House, it will be the estimates for the Ministry of

Transportation. In the Douglas Fir Room, it’s the estimates for the Ministry of

Agriculture.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

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

(continued) .

T. Shypitka: I want to circle back a little bit to highway maintenance again,

specifically to my region, region 11, in the East Kootenays. I wanted to

examine some of the comments that were made on oversight. The minister

made a comment that oversight needs to be improved. I think that was the

actual quote. She also has made mention that standards need to be

increased as well.

I want to go back to that just for a second to understand fully

where the minister is going as far as the contractor is concerned. Is it

oversight or is it standards that need to be addressed, or is it

both?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member for this. I look forward to having a full

discussion later this week on this. We’re going to be continuing the

conversation later this week.

We are working on how we can work with contractors and how we can

make sure that our oversight is very rigorous for our contractors, both

in the member’s area as well as the whole province. I’ve said a number

of times that this is something that is a priority for me. The standards

that we have are the ones that his colleague the member for

Kamloops–South Thompson read out and are the ones that his current

contractor is working to.

These are the standards that we’re working on. They’re standards

that the contractor is meeting, according to the metrics that the member

himself read out. So we are making sure that those standards are met and

that, where possible, we exceed them. We want to make sure that safety

on our highways is…. Well, it is paramount, and we want to make sure

that it happens.

T. Shypitka: To the minister again. She made comment just now that she wants to

make sure oversight is rigorous. I believe it’s the word she

used.

Would it be a valid question to ask the minister if an independent

audit would be a good way of making sure that the oversight is rigorous

and that the oversight is being conducted properly? That would be my

first question, I guess. I’ve got another follow-up to that. The

question is: would an independent auditor be a reasonable measure to

ensure that oversight is being performed rigorously?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, it’s rigorous oversight. We’re hoping that we’re going

to make it more rigorous. What happens at the moment is that their local

staff members of the Ministry of Transportation do training so that they

can go and audit another area. They have got oversight in doing audits

in their own area, but they also do a five-day training so that they can

go and audit in another area and have that oversight.

When they go into another area…. For instance, somebody from,

let’s say, the Island comes into the member’s area to do an audit, which

is approximately five days of auditing the maintenance contractors’

work. It happens every year. That person has had, themselves, thorough

training in the auditing process. They are not briefed on anything about

that maintenance contract or the history of that contractor. They come

in, and they do the audit independently.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister tell me, then…? When was the last time an

independent or a ministerial audit was done to the Kootenay East region,

service area 11?

Hon. C. Trevena: An audit was conducted last month, and I was right. It was by

somebody from Vancouver Island.

T. Shypitka: We’ve talked about standards being raised. We heard from the

former minister a few minutes ago, talking about some of those standards

that were going to be put in place — all good stuff, really good stuff.

However, service area 11 just tendered a couple of years ago. They’re

not back up till 2024, so they’re essentially being left out of the loop

of some of these new standards that are coming forward. Is

there…?

I see the minister shaking her head. My question to her would be:

is there an avenue? Is there a hope that service area 11 would be

elevated to those new standards through the contract that they have

right now? I know that the former minister actually mentioned about $180

million left in the kitty from some of the stuff they worked on last

time with the contracts. Maybe some of that money could be used, be

dumped into the contractors’ contract to bring those standards back

up.

It’s just, basically, a simple question. Is there hope for service

area 11 to be elevated in the standards?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The standards of the contract in the member’s area are very close

to the standards that are going to be in the rest of the province and

that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson read out. It was seen as a

pilot area for those standards.

There are very minor differences between those and what the rest

of the province has. If there is any feeling that the rest of the

province is getting much better treatment or that the standards are that

much higher, it is something that staff will look at, about how to make

them match. But at the moment, it’s so close that it’s hard to see where

the differences are. There is a bit of a difference, but it’s not

significant.

T. Shypitka: So the standards have been raised, but they’re a non-issue. This

is what I’m hearing. They’re significant but not really. The question

is: can service area 11 be raised to the standards that are being

implemented for the rest of the province? That’s as simple as it

gets.

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s as simple as the answers I gave — that the standards in

service area 11 were seen as a pilot for the rest of the province. The

member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who read off all the new standards,

read off pretty well what service area 11 already has.

It’s not that service area 11 is being badly done by in this. It

is obviously a concern, right across the province, about the standards,

but the standards that the member’s riding already has are what the rest

of the province will be getting under the new standards. If there is any

difference, according to staff, it’s a minor difference. It is a

difference that we will be trying to reconcile through enforcement,

through monitoring, to make sure that service area 11 is getting the

same treatment that the rest of the province is getting.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions here today, and

I look forward to some of the answers.

Just to say thank you to the staff that are here today. They’re

certainly the knowledge behind all of this, and I appreciate them. Also,

I just want to do a quick shout-out to Ron Sharp and the MOTI crew back

in the area. They are phenomenal people — they really, really are — and

very responsive, and they’re doing a great job. I know he’s monitoring

this. I’m assuming he’s on his device. Hopefully, he hears that we do

appreciate all the work that he and his staff do.

[1:50 p.m.]

To the minister: when the estimates started yesterday, you made a

statement, and it’s that word again that I’ve got to tackle a little bit

here. When it comes to the Trans-Canada Highway, we’re all aware, where

I live, that the highway runs through it. It’s a big deal. You used that

word yesterday again: “accelerate.” When I look at the budget, I don’t

see any new money in that budget, and I don’t see any new timelines in

that budget.

To the minister: can you explain to us what “accelerate” actually

means? Right now it just seems that it’s kind of like status

quo.

Hon. C. Trevena: We have invested $191 million more in this project over the three

years than the previous government did.

D. Clovechok: Just to clarify, then: the timelines are exactly the same as they

have been? So 2019 for a start date would be the timeline

there?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, which project is he talking about? We’re talking

about it. Just to help him along, the previous government looked, as we

perceived it, to be dealing with it too slowly and pretty well, as we

saw it, in talking to engineering staff — not necessarily now — going

from west to east.

The acceleration is moving from east to west. So we’re adding

projects there. We’ll get the details of those for the member if he

wishes. But I just wanted to know what 2019 one he was referring to

specifically.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that question. That’s my bad. I should have been

more clear on that. That’d be the Kicking Horse Canyon.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. Yes, the Kicking Horse is on the same

timeline. Procurement will start in the fall of this year, construction

starting next year and anticipated completion in 2024.

As I say, the acceleration, because this is on the same timeline,

is using the other projects in the member’s own riding, where we know

that there are, as he has said many times, very nasty incidents….

Everybody knows somebody who has died on that highway. That was a real

concern to our government.

We know that this is a hugely important highway for the people of

B.C. It’s obviously hugely important for his constituents, but for the

whole of the province, it is our link from Alberta to the coast. That’s

why we want to accelerate the work.

That’s why we’re looking specifically at areas between Golden and

Revelstoke, around that area — how we can make sure that that

section is

as safe as possible. I know that every time I’ve come to visit the

member’s riding, I hear stories about people who know someone who has

lost someone on that highway. Nobody should be living in that sort of

scenario.

D. Clovechok: Just to clarify, then, the Kicking Horse Canyon piece of the

highway will not be accelerated — from what I’ve just understood you to

say, Minister. What parts between Golden and, basically, Sicamous will

be accelerated, then, in the course of time?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we can quibble about whether the Kicking Horse is

accelerated or not accelerated. It’s a massive project. It’s on

schedule.

What is very exciting…. I’m very proud of our government for

taking this on. It’s something that I think really needs doing, and I

think the member should be in accord with us. It is the improvement of

that highway at a faster rate. At the previous government’s rate, it was

going to take…. I think it was estimated at more than 100 years to

eventually four-lane from Kamloops to the Alberta border. We, obviously,

don’t think that’s rational.

We’re looking at a number of additional projects. We’re working

with the federal government on up to nine projects, which are in

addition to all the ones that have already been announced and were

already in planning. So we’re looking at getting up to nine projects

with the assistance of federal government funding.

Obviously, because we’re looking for federal government funding,

we can’t enumerate which of the projects they are, but I give the member

every assurance that this is something that we are absolutely and

completely committed to. This is why the Premier put it in my mandate

letter, and this is why we’re working extremely hard. I think that it’s

one of these that is not and should not be a partisan issue. It is about

talking about safety on our highways, the free movement of people and

goods and, particularly in this section, safety in the member’s riding

and for all the travelling public.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The nine projects that

you’re mentioning — are those inside Columbia

River–Revelstoke?

Hon. C. Trevena: Those are between Golden and Sicamous, but these are in addition

to the ones that we were already working on.

D. Clovechok: To move on from that, then. The minister is very much aware of,

unfortunately, the lives that have been lost between Golden and,

basically, Three Valley Gap over this last winter.

It’s been unprecedented — the amount of snow that has happened in

the winter events that have been there. Revelstoke is an incredibly, as

you know…. It’s probably the most unique community in British Columbia

when it comes to these winter events. The highway runs through it. It

gets closed down at Three Valley Gap. It gets closed down, heaven only

knows where, in Rogers Pass, and everything starts to stack

up.

In Revelstoke, kids can’t get to school because their buses can’t

get across the roads. People can’t get to their medical appointments.

People can’t get to work because of all this stacked-up traffic. To the

minister, I just recently sent a letter to your office outlining some of

these concerns — communication, lack of flagging. To the credit of the

MOTI staff, they have been very open and are working on this.

My question around this is for the city of Revelstoke. I’m

wondering when I might be able to get a reply to that letter. In that

letter, there was a request for myself; yourself, the minister; and the

mayor of Revelstoke to sit down and have a good, long conversation about

this, because I do agree there needs to be a non-partisan approach to

this. People are dying, and we need to fix this.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies if we haven’t responded to the letter yet. I know how

frustrating it is, but as the member for Kamloops–South Thompson will

attest, there is a lot of correspondence that comes in. I know this is

very important, and I’d be happy to sit down with the member, like I’m

sitting down with his colleague from the East Kootenays later this week,

to talk about these issues. As he well knows, I met with the mayor of

Revelstoke to talk about this.

We are investing in the area because we do know the importance of

the area and the importance to the community. We have put in $6 million

worth of remote avalanche control on the highway. It’s one of the things

that we’re doing which should make things that bit safer

there.

We are working on some simple things like changing the signal

timing. We’re working very closely with first responders. One of the

reasons that we want to accelerate the work is to make it safer as we

move along. We’re working…. One of the projects that we’re going ahead

with is Illecillewaet, where we’re going to be looking at where there’ll

be more space for staging for commercial vehicles, which will get them

out of the community. It’ll be safer.

It’s how we can move vehicles through the corridor, as well as,

obviously, ensuring that the corridor is that much safer. It’s also how

we can get vehicles out of the community and get them into safe places,

how we can really deal with that whole area. As I say, it really is

vital for the member’s constituency but, also, for the safety of people

across B.C. and for commercial traffic.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for the answer. I’ll get my people to talk to your

people, and we’ll set up a meeting. That’s what we’ll do

there.

Just moving along very quickly, then — Three Valley Gap. You did

mention the extra avalanche control towers there. I think that was an

initiative that was already in place when you took the reins of

government.

I just would like to find out very quickly from the minister: what

measures have you now decided on to prevent the rock falls? You know

that Shannon…. I spoke to the Premier, actually, in his estimates last

year. He said he was going to give this his own personal priority. Well,

nothing has really happened there yet, with the exception of the

avalanche control.

As far as the rock falls go, what’s the plan there, and when is

that plan going to be implemented? When can we actually tell people that

they don’t have to try to speed through there so that they don’t get

wiped out?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. Obviously, because of the topography,

it’s something that we’re very conscious of. It’s going to be difficult

to fix, so we’re looking at doing a pilot remediation this summer, which

would be fencing. It’s a pilot because we need to make sure it works

because it’s such a sheer section. It’s got to be able to withstand,

through the winter, any avalanche blasting that happens. So we’ll be

putting fencing up in one

section this summer and see how it works

through the winter. Hopefully, it will work, and then we can proceed

through.

I know it’s slow, but we don’t want to be investing a ton of money

in something that isn’t going to work and that has to be redone. So

we’re going to work in one section, see how it works and then move

on.

D. Clovechok: Thanks for that answer.

Moving along from Three Valley Gap. Highway 23 south from

Revelstoke to the ferry, heading over to Nelson. Because of these winter

events, Revelstoke, with Highway 1 being closed down…. All resources go

to Highway 1, yet Highway 23, which is a class B highway, doesn’t get

the maintenance.

What the problem is, is that people who get stuck in Revelstoke

will take that highway, go to the ferry, go across the Salmo pass,

trying to find a way around it, because you don’t know how long you’re

going to be stuck there.

I guess my question to the minister is: do you have any plans to

try to help mitigate the snow problem on that road? Logging trucks have

struggled this winter, getting down to the ferries. We’ve had lots of

accidents because of the heavy snow, and they just haven’t been able to

clear it to the specs of a class B highway.

Are there any potential solutions that you could offer as to: when

these winter events happen, can we somehow apply a different measure to

Highway 23 south to make sure it’s still safe, because of the increased

load of traffic?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for that. Obviously, it’s a very long diversion if

people are wanting to avoid the route we were just talking about. It’s a

beautiful route in the summer but really, obviously, very hard in the

winter.

The member is quite right. The classification is lower

classification for the road. The maintenance crews are working at a

different standard because it is a lower classification. But I’ll talk

to my staff and see what we can do in those weather events where we know

that people are going to be diverting around, what we can do with

resources. Obviously, people have got to be really determined to go

around, to actually take that road, but we’ll have a look and see what

we can do.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for looking into that.

Just one last, quick question for you. In the Columbia Valley last

year, we lost Greyhound service to our community. The Columbia Valley

Chamber kind of helped pick up the ball a little bit. We got a private

sector bus involved in it.

Many of our constituents in the Columbia Valley have to go to

Calgary for medical appointments. Calgary is closer than Kelowna, and

their doctors send them to Calgary for those medical appointments. Now

there’s no particular way for them to get there. So transportation in

rural British Columbia is a huge issue. You’re from there, too, so you

understand that.

I guess my question is: is there money available in your budget

for the Columbia Valley to look at continuance of some sort of a

transportation mode that they’ve already got in place, in partnership

with the private sector? Are there dollars available to help support and

develop new transportation opportunities for our constituents in what is

a remote, rural area?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member. I’m, obviously, very aware of the loss of

Greyhound service right across the province. The member’s constituents

lost it earlier. My own constituents lost it earlier too. We had a

private sector company that came in and took over the routes.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s something that we’re very worried about right across this

province now. We’ve lost Greyhound service or are losing it at the end

of May — Greyhound service in the north, much reduced in the Interior. I

know this is a problem for many people.

I am committed to making sure that we have safe, accessible ground

transportation for those who have no other options. I’m happy to work

with the member. I’ll talk to his organization, although as I understand

it, he’s talking about a bus route that goes over to Calgary. Then there

is the interprovincial jurisdiction, which does slightly complicate

matters, because when we’re looking within our own jurisdiction, we can

put a real focus on it. When it goes over to Calgary, it might be a bit

more difficult.

Again, I’m happy to sit down and talk with the member about ways

that we can work together to ensure that people have safe

transportation.

D. Clovechok: I just want to say thank you for your time today, and I look

forward to setting up the meeting.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and her staff for being here for

estimates. As you know, Minister, the Central Okanagan is a fast-growing

place in British Columbia and in Canada and, indeed, year over year,

marks one of the fastest-growing communities.

My first question to the minister has to do with public transit.

Is there any money in the budget? If there is, to what extent does the

government plan on increasing access to public transit services for the

Central Okanagan?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the question, Member. B.C. Transit is a

real joy. It’s wonderful to have such a unique organization. There’s

nothing quite like it anywhere else in the country, and I think we

should be very proud of the work it does. I know that the mayor of

Kelowna is a very avid transit proponent, so it’s good to see that there

is a real commitment from the member’s own communities to invest in

transit.

At the moment, Transit is working on its transit future plan of

the area, which is a 25-year vision, so it’s really looking at the long

term. That’s what we have got to be doing when we’re looking at

transit.

I know that in Kelowna, you’ve got the new highway, the new bus

lanes there, which will really encourage people to use transit. In fact,

you’ve got the bus coming from Vernon right the way through. It makes

the corridor transit friendly. I was at the opening of the transit

exchange at UBC Okanagan last year, where, again, you’ve got…. It’s not

just the fact that you’ve got an exchange there, encouraging people to

use transit, but getting young people to use transit and that they

continue to use transit. I think it’s very dynamic. I think that you are

in a transit-friendly hub.

We are working on the transit future plan with the community about

just what that vision for the future is. In addition, there are 5,000

extra hours scheduled for Kelowna in the coming year, and a further

2,750 hours for Lake Country. So there’s a significant increase in the

amount of transit that’s going to be available for the member’s riding,

and it’s a riding obviously committed to transit, which is great to

see.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and her staff for the answer. I’m

actually looking for broader for the Okanagan — so West Kelowna,

Peachland, towards Vernon. But I’ll get that answer another time, since

I have limited time to ask questions, if that’s okay.

My next question has to do with the medians between Peachland, all

the way up to Vernon. The previous government did a really good job of

putting new medians along the highway. Just one stretch of highway is

left, and I’m bringing it to the minister’s attention because we had

many fatalities along that highway before the median went in place. But

we have one stretch that’s still not divided. The highway is divided,

but there’s no median in place. That’s a part between Kelowna and Lake

Country.

I was just wondering if she and her staff had any idea as to when

we’ll see that stretch of highway have concrete barriers in place like

the rest of the highway.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m sorry. Because we’re in the big House, it’s a bit harder to

switch staff in and out. I have failed to introduce — but I’m sure he’ll

be coming back in — Silas Brownsey, who is the ADM responsible for

transit. We now have Patrick Livolsi here, the ADM for infrastructure,

and Manuel Achadinha, who is the CEO of B.C. Transit. As members are

asking questions, it does mean a turnaround. Kevin Richter, the ADM for

highways, is now back. There is a bit of a fluid thing, of staff. So

apologies.

We’ve got a bit more of an answer on the member’s question about

transit, making the most of the head of B.C. Transit being here. There

are a further 250 hours for West Kelowna, which includes Peachland, and

3,500 hours for Vernon, but that might be a bit far north for the

member, for that.

[2:30 p.m.]

On the medians, we’re still doing…. The Central Okanagan planning

study is still underway, so we’re looking at planning and engineering

for other works and looking at the median itself.

N. Letnick: My last question has to do with the planning study the minister

has talked about. I just noticed on the website that the latest posting

there was March of last year, 2017. It went through phase 2,

part 1,

according to the schedule, and phase 2,

part 2 is recommendations to go

back to the public.

It’s been a year. My question is: when does the minister plan to

continue with the study, or is the study stopped now with the new

government?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The reason why I ask is that one of the big priorities for the

area…. We have Highway 97 six-laning, which is moving forward. It’s

almost completed, which is great. However, the big bottleneck for safety

as well as movement is access across the highway at Beaver Lake Road.

Maybe the minister would have seen it when she visited UBC

Okanagan.

That is a very high priority. Because of the highway right now,

it’s even worse, because a lot of people are taking Glenmore Road to get

access to Lake Country, and that’s becoming a bottleneck, especially

during the summer. I imagine it will get a little better once the

six-laning is complete, but it still will revert back to a very

difficult access point.

I know that the district of Lake Country, as well as the city of

Kelowna, as well as the ministry have been looking at different options

to replace that intersection at Beaver Lake Road and Highway 97, but

every time I ask about it, I get the answer, “Well, it’s under review

under the Central Okanagan planning study,” which has now been in hiatus

for a year since the last time it was reported out.

I guess I’m asking the minister: can we continue with the work of

the planning study, get it done and go to the public? We’ve had

thousands of people who’ve contributed comments on it. It would be nice

to get it moving to the next step. If we’re not going to do it, if the

minister is shelving the planning study, then can we move forward on the

other priorities, like the intersection, without waiting for a planning

study that’s not going anywhere?

Hon. C. Trevena: A very, very good question. The Central Okanagan planning study is

on hold. It’s on hold at the request of the city of Kelowna, who are

doing their own work on studying traffic and doing their own studies.

It’s on hold at their request. There will be public consultation,

hopefully, later this year, when Kelowna has done the work that it wants

to do. But rather than duplicate that and carry on, Kelowna requested

that the province hold back on continuing the Central Okanagan planning

study.

N. Letnick: I appreciate that the city of Kelowna asked the minister to put it

on hold, and the minister has chosen to put it on hold. Did the minister

consult with the mayors of the district of Lake Country, of West Kelowna

and all of the other cities up and down the Okanagan that are impacted

by this delay?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apparently, there is still work going on. Going out to

consultation will be later this year. It is not as intensive work as has

been going on in the past, because of Kelowna’s work.

All elected officials throughout the Okanagan and planning

officials all sit at the same table. The acronym for the planning table

is called STPCO. I imagine it’s Planning Central Okanagan. All the

mayors are at that table and are all in agreement with the way

forward.

It’s nothing that has been imposed from anywhere. It is by

consensus that everybody wants to work for the smoothest planning and

the smoothest transit for people possible. So it’s a coordinated

thing.

J. Rustad: I’ve got a couple of questions to ask, but I’m going to try to

condense them, if I can. In particular, I want to ask about the budget

for highway improvements, side-road improvements for my riding and work

that is proposed to be done here in this next year along the Highway 16

Corridor and the associated ridings.

Specifically to that, it’s what the overall budget would be —

whether or not within that budget the work to expand the passing lane on

the Cluculz Lake hill on Highway 16 is scheduled for this fiscal year or

not.

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we’ve had a change of staff here. Now we have Scott

Maxwell, who I’m sure the member knows, as a regional director of…. He

deals with the north. He’s very, very good at dealing with the north.

I’m sure the member knows him very well.

[2:40 p.m.]

To give the member the assurance, the Cluculz Lake hill is in

design. There was a public open house a couple of weeks ago. It had a

positive response. It’s part of a package, as I’m sure the member knows,

of five passing lanes and an intersection along the highway.

As for the side roads, there is no change in side roads. We’ll be

assessing the work that goes on, and we are still working, investing in

our side roads. Earlier on in these estimates, I was talking to his

colleagues. As a rural member, I’m very well aware of the need to be

investing in our side roads and not to neglect them. We need to invest

in our numbered highways, obviously, but we also need to be ensuring

that our side roads are maintained and looked after. There is no change

in the plans for side roads.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. I just am curious, though. Maybe you

don’t have the number on hand, but if you could perhaps get me the

number, in terms of what the spend within the Nechako Lakes riding is.

Over the last 15 or 16 years, it has been anywhere between $10 million

and $16 million a year that has spent annually on road improvements,

resurfacing, passing lanes, safety improvements, side roads, etc. I’m

just trying to gauge as to whether or not that same level of spending

will be happening. If you can get me some information on that, it would

be great.

I want to move on to the next question, though. Specifically,

north of Fort St. James there’s a highway, which is called the North

Road. It goes between Fort St. James and Germansen Landing. It’s a

gravel road. It is part of the Ministry of Transportation’s inventory.

There is a proposal that has been moved forward between Transportation

and FLNRORD to look at turning that road from a Ministry of

Transportation road to a forest service road. There are, of course,

communities — Germansen Landing, Pinchi Lake — and others along the way.

People have expressed concern around it.

What I’m wondering…. You may not have this information at hand. I

get that this is a very specific case, so I’m happy to receive this

information in writing, if that would be beneficial to the

minister.

Who, within the ministry, did the assessment on the road that

suggested that what is known as the Germansen Landing Road or North Road

could actually be turned into a forest service road? What was the

process that went into making the decision to be able to engage in the

consultation? What is the process of consultation that will be

undertaken as part of it? How will safety concerns be addressed for the

residents that live up through that area, if it were to become a forest

service road, as opposed to a transportation road?

Then the last piece of that question. I’m glad when I’m able to

get this on Hansard so that you can go back and pull it up in

terms of being able to have the response. If it does end up becoming a

forest service road, once the large volume of harvesting that is

proposed for the next ten to 20 years takes place, whether or not the

road would be turned back to being a Ministry of Transportation

responsibility so that the road and maintenance would be assured — and

standards for the residents up there, of course, in terms of it being

plowed and maintained and safety conditions.

That’s a lot associated with North Road. Like I say, if you’ve got

a quick answer, it would be great, but I’m happy to take a written

response.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member wrote to me — I appreciate this — last year about this

issue, and I did respond. Things have, obviously, moved a little bit

since then. It’s clearly a concern for him and the

communities.

The ministry, at the moment, is staying neutral. It is our

road.

Canfor is out doing public consultations. They’re the ones who are

driving this, really. Excuse the analogy. They are the ones who are

pushing it, and it’s up to them to have full consultations and then come

to the ministry and, basically, argue their case — that they have

complete buy-in, if that is the way they’re going to move forward. Then

it’s up to the ministry to decide what to do. They are, at the moment,

having their consultations. I understand they’re talking to

stakeholders. They’re talking to First Nations. They’re talking to

community members about that.

If it were to become a forest service road, that’s quite easy. The

standards for a forest service road are a lot less than for a highway,

but it does mean that you don’t get CVSE. CVSE doesn’t work on a

highway. That, obviously, would have an impact for residents as well as

the logging trucks going on it.

If Canfor is successful in its public discussions, and it

convinces the ministry that this is a good thing to do and the road then

becomes a forest service road, it is up to Canfor or whomever Canfor is

at that stage…. They’re talking a number of years hence. If Canfor is

still Canfor, fine. But who knows what forest company it might be by

then? It’s up to them to return the road in highway condition at the end

of its use. If it’s using it for a set limit of time…. Let’s say for 15

years of heavy logging. At the end of 15 years, it’s up to Canfor to

turn it back into a highway-standard road.

If the member wants anything more, we do have the question on

Hansard . We’re happy to give more answers to that, but

that’s where we are at the moment. If he wants answers by letter or

further discussion here, I’m happy to do either.

J. Tegart: The Highway 99 ten-mile slide project is incredibly important to

the Xaxli’p Indian band and the people of Lillooet. This slide area is

continuously moving and has caused extended closures to Highway 99. It

appears that this project has been pushed out another year.

Can the minister indicate when the project will be completed so I

can share that with my concerned constituents?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. The question…. I can sense her frustration and

the frustration of her constituents.

It was supposed to start last year. Unfortunately, the reason it’s

not happening is there are geotechnical problems. Engineers are working

to solve those problems. They can’t get on with the work until those

problems are solved.

Meantime, we’re carrying on talking with the First Nations,

ensuring we’ve got full agreement with them. We’re hoping that those

geotechnical problems will be solved to allow a start later this

year.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I am just going to make a statement on

behalf of my constituents because I have to leave right away.

[2:55 p.m.]

We are the gateway to the interior of British Columbia. We host,

in Fraser-Nicola, Highway 1, Highway 5, Highway 3 and Highway 99. When

we’re closed, the province is closed. I’ve heard, from constituents who

drive all of those highways, concerns about road maintenance, safety and

winter conditions.

I just want to be on the record to ensure that the minister knows

that these are areas of concern in my riding, and they continue to be

areas of concern. If there’s anything that the minister can do to

address those concerns, we would welcome that. Thank you very much for

your time today.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to thank the member for her advocacy for her

community. Obviously, we’ll work as hard as we can to make sure we

understand. You are the gateway, so we want to make sure that we have

safe roads and that our system works for everyone. So I thank the member

for her advocacy.

T. Redies: Minister, you may remember that in October, myself and the member

for Surrey South and the member for Surrey-Panorama attended your

offices to talk about the problem with respect to the BNSF rail lines

that are going through White Rock and South Surrey, heavily populated

areas — rail lines that have increased from two trains to 24 trains a

day, carrying heavy oil, hydrogenous ammonia and other caustic chemicals

through heavily populated areas.

At the time, we asked for the ministry’s help in working with the

cities of White Rock and South Surrey to fund a feasibility study to

look at moving these rail tracks. I asked the Premier in estimates and

in a personal meeting to help with this, because this is a severe risk

to our community. The Premier offered to help and said he would help in

this, but then in January the ministry indicated to the cities that

there would be no funding for this feasibility study.

On what basis was that decision made? Why is the ministry prepared

to take significant risk with the people who live in the ridings of

White Rock and South Surrey?

[3:00 p.m. - 3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. Obviously, with the issue of

the mudslides, this has really heightened awareness and heightened

concern for the member, for the community. I have talked with the mayor

of White Rock the other day when UBCM was in town. We had a conversation

about this. When I was in Ottawa just at the end of January, I did raise

this with Minister Garneau. It was on the top of my priorities to ensure

that we got the federal government’s engagement on it.

It is something that, obviously, we are concerned about. It isn’t

provincial jurisdiction, and that’s one of the issues that we’re trying

to basically square the circle, because railroads are federal

jurisdiction. That’s why I did go and have this conversation with

Minister Garneau, to really get them to engage on this. I think that

there does seem to be some engagement from them, but I’m not going to

speak on behalf of the federal government.

We will be looking at things in light of safety as well. So we are

aware of that. Having seen what’s happened with the mudslides, we’re

concerned about that and still, though, urging very strongly that we get

the federal government to play its full part.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I am glad that she has spoken

with the mayor of White Rock and that she has finally spoken with her

counterpart at the federal level. We have been having conversations with

our federal counterparts for many months now. I think there is a

willingness to participate.

I get the fact that the minister is indicating that this is

federal jurisdiction. But as I said in my letter to the Premier in

January, the Premier and the government are responsible for the safety

of all British Columbians. So I don’t think they can sit on the

sidelines and pretend that this is a federal matter, not a provincial

matter.

It’s absolutely important, imperative that the provincial

government takes action with the feds and the cities to start a process

whereby we can get some mitigation happening for the residents of White

Rock–South Surrey. We do not want — I’m sure every member in this House

does not want — to have a Lac-Mégantic happen in the city of White Rock

or South Surrey.

I have a letter here from the Premier asking that the minister

work directly with me on this issue. This was dated February 6. We’ve

been trying to get a meeting but have had no such luck. So can I assume

now that we will be able to have a sit-down conversation about the

go-forward, because as of yet, we have not had any response from your

office?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re not ignoring safety for the people of B.C. This is something

that our government is obviously very well aware of and myself as the

minister am very well aware of. We know that there is an issue of safety

on the line.

The railroads are federal jurisdiction, and that’s where we have

the federal responsibilities. The management of the railroads, the

operation of the railroads…. This is a federal jurisdiction. That’s why

I talked to Minister Garneau, to get him to engage. However, we are not

ignoring the safety of the people of British Columbia.

I’m not sure about the meetings with the member. I know that there

was a request for a meeting. I’m meeting other members of the opposition

on a regular basis. So if that member wants to have a meeting with me, I

am sure we will facilitate that.

Also, like every other member of the House, I’m available during

House duty time. So feel free at any stage to come over and have a chat.

We can have a conversation informally in that way. We can have a

conversation more formally. But I think that your colleagues have found

me most open. I’m always willing to have conversations, because we’ve

got to work together. But in no way are we undermining the safety of

people in British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Redies: Thank you to the minister for her answer. The ball is in her

ministry’s court to come back to us with a date that she can meet with

us again. I will take it from the minister that she will instruct her

people to set a date. I know she’s very busy, and it’s not very easy to

catch her in the House. This is a very important issue that we need to

keep on top of.

My final question, I guess, is: given all of the situation that

has happened with this government and the Kinder Morgan pipeline, is

there any concern that the federal government may not be willing to

participate in helping us with the BNSF rail line because B.C. is being

difficult with Kinder Morgan?

Hon. C. Trevena: No.

C. Oakes: In March of 2017, we announced the third phase of the Cariboo

connector, and I know a lot of contractors, First Nations, are waiting

for that to be tendered. Can the minister kindly update us on where the

tendering is for Highway 97 south, near the ?Esdilagh Reserve, south of

Fort Alexandria — if that money is in the capital budget? And when can

we expect the project to move forward?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, could she just repeat that section, the specific

section, so we can double-check on that.

C. Oakes: It is Cariboo connector, phase 3 — $200 million that was

announced. It is specifically Highway 97 south, and it’s the ?Esdilagh

Reserve, so it’s south of Fort Alexandria.

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we’ve had a switch around for support staff. We did have

Deborah Bowman, the assistant deputy minister responsible for policy

development, in. We’re now back with our highways team, whom I have

introduced before. But just to keep people afresh and make sure that

they know which of their excellent public servants are working on trying

to find the answers for some of these specific and quite detailed

questions. Obviously, we don’t have them all on the top of our

heads.

This

section of highway that the member has asked about. Yes, it….

The reason we had to double-check it is that it’s not one that was

imminent. It is still in the planning stage. Because it’s going through

First Nations land, we’re working very closely with them, understanding

from them their needs and the impact it’s going to have for

them.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’ve got to say that our government committed to the United

Nations declaration of the rights of Indigenous people and Truth and

Reconciliation. We want to make sure that we’re working closely and

ensuring that those fundamental principles embody everything we

do.

This ministry — and I think the member for Kamloops–South Thompson

would attest to it — has had longtime, long-standing good work with

First Nations. But we’ve got to make sure that both the work the

ministry is doing and has been doing, as well as our commitments to

UNDRIP and commitments to reconciliation, are fully met.

When we’re doing the planning for the highway, we want to work

with community, and we have to make sure, because this is going through

a First Nation reserve, that the First Nation’s needs are fully

understood and that they are also understanding the needs of the

province.

C. Oakes: I am speaking on behalf of the ?Esdilagh First Nations, who came

to me with significant concerns about the delays that they now

understand are happening with this project because of the planning. They

had intended to have several development projects moving forward in

alignment with this very critical piece of infrastructure. This will

have a significant impact on First Nations in my community, and it will

have the impact around the Cariboo connector.

My next question. Our region has been significantly impacted by

the wildfires, and we have several side roads that have been

significantly damaged as a result of the wildfires, particularly Spokin

Lake, Horsefly and West Fraser Road. I noticed that there has been a

change in the side-road program. We are having difficulty between FLNRO

and MOTI ministries, each suggesting that it’s the other’s

responsibility. I’m bringing it forward just with the fact that we have

unsafe roads, and it is a public safety concern.

To the minister: I hope you can be an advocate and a champion for

side roads that have been decimated by the wildfires.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member and her response to the answer for the first

question, there never was actually a date for this work to start. We are

still in negotiation on acquiring the reserve land. We are obviously

committed to working closely with the First Nations. But there is

obviously some misapprehension on the member’s part or maybe some of her

constituents’ part. We haven’t actually set a date for the work to

start, and we are still in the process of acquiring land.

As for the side roads — absolutely. Side roads, as I’ve been

mentioning to her colleagues in the opposition, are a priority. It’s

extraordinarily difficult for her in a constituency which went straight

from fire season to winter. We weren’t able to get in there and fix up

the side roads and put the emphasis on the side roads that was needed.

We have got riprap there to help to protect the roads against the

freshet. As soon as possible, we’ll be out assessing where we can

work.

[3:20 p.m.]

We’re working closely with FLNRO — excuse the acronym, Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — on the roads.

Obviously, when there is a fire, this impacts the soil. It impacts the

stability, and it changes the land. There is a potential for more

erosion. We want to be able to go in there and make real repairs rather

than go in and patch it up and have problems in the future.

We’re working closely with our colleagues in other ministries to

ensure those repairs, but we are very conscious of the impact that the

fires have had, and we’ll be working to try to mitigate them into the

spring.

C. Oakes: Back in 2015, the former Liberal government announced a study

about the Highway 97 Quesnel transportation plan. That has now been

completed. We had 850 people at a public open house two weeks ago. Is it

in the capital plan to support what has been identified in the Highway

97 Quesnel transportation plan?

Maybe just a final comment. I was incredibly disappointed, as this

process moved through the technical-operational in the fall, to be the

only elected official in the region who, all of a sudden, became

uninvited. I don’t think that is a good way to gather information when

all other levels of elected officials are invited and, in fact, the

provincial representative is unelected.

To the minister: can you provide an update on where we’re at

around funding for the Highway 97 Quesnel transportation

plan?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that there was a very successful open house in Quesnel,

hosted by the Ministry of Transportation, after the failure when there

was a big dump of snow last month. We had one, I think, a couple of

weeks ago, where about 900 people turned up for this. There’s obviously

huge interest in the member’s community to make sure that this is

effective and that it works. I’m very eager to see how we can move

forward and make sure that we do make improvements on Highway 97. I

think that the sign of about 900 people turning up for an open house

shows that there is a really engaged community there.

Looking at the open house, the areas that were looked at, it was

all of the work. Whether it’s Front Street, Racing Road, and the

north-south interconnector, I think that it was all up for

discussion.

[3:25 p.m.]

Where we are at the moment is Front Street with signal

improvements and the other work happening there — junction improvements,

signal improvements. That’ll be happening this year. Staff are looking

at the business cases for the subsequent projects.

We know that 97 going straight through the community has been both

a boon and a problem for the community. I think that we will be working

closely with the community. There is big engagement, lots of advocacy

for improvements in the community, and we’ll carry on working with

Quesnel.

The Chair: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

J. Isaacs: Chair, thank you for the opportunity.

Minister, we spoke during the last estimates regarding the

Brunette interchange, and at that time, I reminded you of the previous

discussion that we had at UBCM with the Coquitlam mayor and some of the

Coquitlam councillors. We confirmed that this interchange is the last

part of the Port Mann/Highway 1 project that needed to be done in order

to complete that project once and for all.

Minister, you agreed that the Brunette interchange is important to

complete. You also recognized that it’s a key part of the infrastructure

that’s needed to get goods moving in and out of the area.

There were three options on the table and a fourth option, which

was from Coquitlam and New West, which had come in late. The fourth

option was being assessed. At the time, Minister, you advised that there

would be a further meeting later in the week that would take place

between the ministry staff and the municipal staff, as well as

TransLink, to discuss this.

So two questions, please. Would the minister advise if the

discussion did take place, and if so, what was the outcome? A second

question is: has there been any decision by the ministry as to which

option will move forward?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: There was a meeting in February, and another one in April is

planned. There was a meeting in February. Another one is planned in

April, and in May, there is going to be a workshop which will bring

together our staff, TransLink staff and municipalities, New Westminster

and Coquitlam, to work through some of the ideas.

[3:30 p.m.]

In the meantime, ministry staff are reviewing the fourth option,

because we want to make sure that we fully understand the implications

of it and that we do the full due diligence. As the member knows, it is

a big project. It’s very important to the communities and to the region

to get it right. So we’re looking at that.

We’re hoping that…. We have the problem.… I think people in the

House are aware that you want to move on with things, but you also don’t

want to get caught out. We have the municipal elections in the fall.

It’s likely we won’t be going out for public consultation until after

the municipal elections, but we’d be looking to be doing public

consultations later in the autumn or into the new year.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for the answer, Minister. At the time of our discussion,

the Pattullo Bridge replacement was not on the table. In light of this

sudden Pattullo Bridge replacement announcement, can the minister

confirm that the Brunette interchange will not get pushed down the

road?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. I understand her advocating for her

community.

The Pattullo Bridge replacement wasn’t actually a sudden one. It’s

been on the books for the communities for at least eight years — 2008.

So for almost ten years, it’s been on the books. There’s really been a

push to get this done. It’s been there as part of the Metro Vancouver….

The mayors’ vision…. They really wanted to see this happening. I know

that for the member’s community, it might feel like it could go one way

or the other, but this was clearly a priority for many, and that’s what

we are committing to.

We have many infrastructure projects in the province that need

dealing with. We will be looking at them and seeing what we can do and

when we can do them. We have a commitment to investing in our

infrastructure, to rebuilding our infrastructure, whether it is in the

Lower Mainland or, as we were talking to the member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke about earlier on, in the east of the province. We have

to invest in our infrastructure right around the province.

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Minister, for that. Again, I will advocate for

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and the Brunette interchange. That’s also a

longtime project to come to conclusion, and this is the final stage to

finish that project. So I would say it’s just as important as the

Pattullo Bridge.

M. de Jong: I heard, in an earlier exchange, the minister express her concerns

regarding the shipment of hazardous or potentially hazardous material

through the corridor into White Rock. It prompted me to think about

another situation that I’m sure the minister has at some point turned

her mind to.

I’ll describe it this way, in a personal way, although it reveals

itself in different ways elsewhere in the province, all the way along a

very lengthy national rail corridor.

I live in a place called Matsqui Prairie. The CN main line

operates about 50 feet from my living room in my farmhouse. Over the

past number of years, you can really track the evolution of our economy.

What I have noticed is that the trains carrying petroleum products, in

particular bitumen, have been increasing dramatically, and the trains

that used to be a kilometre long are now, arguably, twice as long, and

they come by with much greater frequency than was once the case. In

fact, I was showing a colleague a video I took a month or so

ago….

Is that something that…? Insofar as mine is a microcosm of what we

see…. The member from Kamloops has those trains go right through the

downtown core — also the member for Chilliwack, if they were here. That

traffic, and the shipment of that product via rail, is increasing

dramatically. I say that on the basis of firsthand, daily observations.

Is the minister concerned about that?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. It’s always interesting to see how

rail lines grow, and trains grow exponentially, through the

years.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Trevena: The trains grow. The member is quite right. It’s the trains that

grow, and you see them grow longer and longer and get higher, carrying

the grain and other products to the port. We actually see a lot of

activity on our rail lines, which, as the member is well aware, are

federally regulated.

As I mentioned to the member for Surrey–White Rock, this is one of

the issues that we face when we’re talking about rail. It is a federal

regulation. It comes under federal jurisdiction. I have talked to

Minister Garneau about the specifics of the BNSF and the application for

the funds to have a study to relocate the rails. That is the engagement

we’ve had there.

On the greater picture of what is being carried on the tracks that

go through B.C., as I say, it is a federal responsibility. The federal

government is, at the moment, reviewing the Railway Safety Act. As a

province, we are participating in that review and stating what our views

are on the Railway Safety Act.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister repeating her earlier statement

regarding the jurisdictional authority of the federal government. Maybe

to forgo any confusion or ambiguity, are there any regulatory

instruments, any at all, available to the Minister of Transportation or

the provincial government in general to regulate the volume of bitumen

that’s carried on federally regulated rail lines like the Canadian

National line that I’ve been talking about?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. It provoked quite an interesting

discussion here.

Commodities that are moving on federally regulated tracks come

under federal legislation. Ministry staff, going through this, are not

aware of any way, through the Ministry of Transportation, that that

could be restricted. It is under goods being transported on federal

tracks, federal jurisdiction.

M. de Jong: Does the minister accept my proposition as factual — that the

volume of bitumen being transported on federally regulated rail lines

has increased significantly?

Hon. C. Trevena: We don’t have those figures. We can try and track them down for

the member, but we don’t have those figures at hand.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I won’t expect the minister to have them at her fingertips. May I

ask, however: does the ministry track the volume of bitumen being

transported? Again, my question is, in general terms: is the ministry

and the minister aware that the volume has been increasing

significantly?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, thanking him again for the question. We are trying

to find the answer for the member. In the interest of time…. I know that

we only have a limited amount of time in this estimates briefing, and I

wondered if we wanted to come back to this later and if the critic wants

to move on, because we don’t have that information at the

moment.

M. de Jong: I’ve tried to be fair to the minister. I haven’t asked for

specific numbers. I have asked: in general, is the minister and the

ministry aware that the volume of bitumen being transported by rail

within British Columbia is on the increase? I’m not asking for the

specific numbers at this stage. I should think that the minister does

have that information available to her.

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand that the member isn’t being awkward or asking

specifically hard questions. It’s a question that we are trying to make

sure that we answer correctly for the member. We don’t want to come in

and say…. If I said, you know, off the top, “Oh, I think this” or “Oh, I

think that,” it would be unfortunate.

I think we want to get the correct answer. That’s the joy of

estimates. We have a number of hours where we can go through issues. If

the member is patient, we will find the answer and either relate it to

him later this afternoon when we’re back in estimates or in writing for

him.

M. de Jong: Maybe I can come back to the question that I think I asked off the

top, which doesn’t require any research whatsoever. Is the minister

concerned about the transportation of bitumen by rail within the

province of British Columbia?

[3:50 p.m.]

She is the member of a government that has expressed ample

concerns about the transportation of that product. Is she concerned

about its transportation via rail link?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think this is more appropriate as a question for the Minister of

Environment, when he comes up for his estimates. He can proceed with

that line of questioning when it comes to the Ministry of Environment’s

estimates.

M. de Jong: Well, let me, then, ask a question that does…. I would argue that

seeking a response from the Minister of Transportation about her views

on the transportation of goods within the province is entirely

appropriate. I think, quite frankly, that the minister is trying to

sidestep the issue. This is the Minister of Transportation, and I have

asked a question about the transportation of goods within British

Columbia. The minister is saying that she doesn’t want to or feels

incapable or is unwilling to answer? That’s extraordinary.

I’m actually going to give the minister one more chance, because

I’m sure that upon reflection she would not want British Columbians to

be left with the impression that their Minister of Transportation is

unwilling to proffer her views on the transportation of goods within

British Columbia.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve tried to be as clear with the member as possible on this. I

think that we are talking about a federally regulated system. The line

is federally regulated. I’m not in a position to talk yes or no, whether

the federal government should be allowing certain products on the line.

There is a federal regulation.

We are working with the federal government to make sure that the

safety is improved on our rail lines. We are participating in the

Railway Safety Act. But as I say, it’s a question, perhaps, that needs

directing — whether it’s to the federal minister about how it is

covered, whether it is, as I say, for specific goods, to the Minister of

Agriculture for the transfer of lentils or the Minister of Mines for the

transfer of minerals. But we are working under federal jurisdiction when

it comes to this. I’m not going to say that one thing is good and one

thing isn’t good. But it’s a federal jurisdiction.

With that, may we take a five- to ten-minute recess? Is that

okay?

The Chair: This House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

M. de Jong: When we left off, I had asked the minister whether she professed

any concerns about the transportation of bitumen through the province of

British Columbia. I think her answer — or, I guess, more accurately,

non-answer — will attract some attention. So I want to make sure, to be

fair to her, that when I and others subsequently characterize that

answer, we do so accurately.

What I heard was the minister saying that she did not want to

render an opinion or a view on a federally regulated activity, an

exclusively federally regulated activity — to wit, the interprovincial

transportation of bitumen products. That’s what I thought I heard the

minister say. I don’t think it’s a valid or strong answer, but if that

is her answer, I want to give her an opportunity to verify that and

confirm it.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member for Abbotsford West, as the minister, I want this to

be clear because I know this is a very sensitive issue. I want the

member to feel comfortable with what I am saying. As the Minister of

Transportation, I am pretty well agnostic about what is transported on

federally regulated lines.

However, like any British Columbian — and part of a government

that is concerned about our environment — I am, of course…. If there is

any accident that impacted…. The member talks about the rail line going

right by his house. The member for Surrey–White Rock talks about the

rail line going through White Rock and the concerns of that.

Like any British Columbian, I’m concerned about safety. If there

were to be any spill of any commodity, it would be an issue that we’d

all be working on. The responsibility would be for emergency management

B.C., if the worst-case scenario. It would be with the Ministry of

Environment, and we’d all be working on that. But as I said earlier, it

is a federally regulated system, and we are working as best we can with

the federal government for safety on those lines.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Right. So this won’t surprise the minister. We have been talking

about the interprovincial transportation of bitumen via rail line, which

the minister points out — repeatedly and, I believe, accurately — is a

federally regulated activity. The term she used just a moment ago was

“agnostic.” I could substitute the word “pipeline” for “rail line.” I’m

not sure the minister would apply the same term. Maybe she would. I’ll

sit down and find out.

Hon. C. Trevena: If we’re talking pipelines, the member would be in the Ministry of

Environment’s estimates, not the Minister of Transportation’s

estimates.

M. de Jong: I thought that the minister would point that out. But it is

helpful to know that she is apparently agnostic.

Does she, as Transportation Minister, recognizing that bitumen

products are transported not just on federally regulated rail lines in

B.C. but, also, on lines that fall within the jurisdiction of the

province, profess a preference or — well, let me start — a concern with

increased shipments of bitumen products on provincially regulated

lines?

Hon. C. Trevena: At this moment, I would like to introduce Gord Westlake, who is

the CEO of B.C. Rail. We’re having a very interesting discussion about

whether there is any bitumen transport on any B.C.-regulated lines,

provincially regulated lines. We can’t work out anywhere where this

would be. If the member has more information that he might want to share

with us….

[4:20 p.m.]

We haven’t been able to track that one down in the limited time

that we obviously have in estimates. I’m happy to come back to the

member with an answer to this and other questions as time goes on.

Otherwise, we can carry on having the conversation now.

M. de Jong: Maybe our time would be better spent by pursuing the determinative

issue here.

I think what we’ve learned over the course of the last few minutes

is that the minister would have the House and the people of B.C. believe

that as minister, she is, to use her term, agnostic about the

transportation of bitumen by rail in British Columbia and presumably

agnostic about the prospects for that increasing.

The other thing we have learned, I think, via the minister’s own

answers — I do want the minister to correct me if I am incorrect or if I

am putting words in her mouth, because this is important — is that there

is nothing she or the provincial government can do to limit the volume

of bitumen that is transported through British Columbia on federally

regulated rail lines. That’s what I think I’ve heard.

If that is incorrect, and the minister believes there is something

— there is a regulatory function for her or the Crown in Right of the

Province of British Columbia — now is the time for her to say

it.

Hon. C. Trevena: As the Minister of Transportation, we have been having a lot of

discussions here with the senior executives of Transportation. The

ministry is not aware of any way in our regulatory framework in which we

could limit the transfer. It’s a federal jurisdiction, and we are

working within that framework.

[4:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: It follows, then, simply to test that proposition — which I’m not

arguing with, by the way.

Were the Canadian National Railway or, I suppose, the CP, for that

matter — although I think it’s more prevalent on the Canadian National,

by virtue of the direction they travel in or the volume of trains

carrying bitumen through Kamloops, Blue River and along that to Mount

Robson, the small towns along the line into the Fraser Canyon…? Were

they to decide to increase that from present numbers, to double the

number of trains or double the length of the trains, although that would

be hard, given their length today…? I simply want to confirm what the

minister is saying — that the province would have no means whatsoever,

through any kind of a regulatory process, to stop that from

happening.

Hon. C. Trevena: The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s regulatory

framework, as far as we’re aware, does not allow us to do anything. I

would suggest to the member that he canvass further with other

ministries, the Ministry of Environment and others. Within the Ministry

of Transportation and Infrastructure’s regulatory framework, we are not

aware of anything that we could do.

M. de Jong: Again, to complete the thought, therefore, with respect to the

authority of the Transportation Ministry…. Absent some other

intervention on the part of the provincial Crown or government, the

prospect of a dramatically increased volume of bitumen travelling, for

example, through the Fraser Canyon on federally regulated rail lines is

a distinct possibility.

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not going to speculate about what may or may not happen on

rail lines that are not within our jurisdiction. As I say, I’m not going

to go down that line.

M. de Jong: I’m not asking the minister to but simply to confirm…. I think she

said this a moment ago, but I want to be crystal-clear. There isn’t a

thing that the Ministry of Transportation could do to limit the volume

of bitumen travelling on those federally regulated lines through the

Fraser Canyon.

Hon. C. Trevena: I repeat what I’ve said before to the member. Within the Ministry

of Transportation, we are not aware…. Given that these questions are new

to us at the moment, we’re discussing these now and trying to find

answers as we talk. In the Ministry of Transportation, we are not aware

that there is anything, within our regulatory framework, that we could

do.

We obviously will work with other ministries in government. I

suggest that the member uses this…. This is, I think, the third set of

estimates that has been up. I would encourage the member to go and take

the questions to the Ministry of Environment’s estimates and to other

ministries’ estimates about what can be done — even the Solicitor

General, for emergency management, if he’s very concerned.

M. de Jong: Well, if it’s any consolation to the minister, I was in cabinets

long enough to know when a minister is trying to pass the issue off to

another branch of government. Don’t worry. There are members of the

opposition who will be very happy — if not me, others — to pursue the

matter with some of the minister’s colleagues.

I am going to take issue…. I’ve tried to be fair. My purpose here

today was simply to elicit some information from the minister about what

she and the government believe their role is. But to describe the issue

of transportation of bitumen as a new issue? The fact that I may have

differing views on some of this is fine. The minister and the government

are entitled to their views. But the question of transporting a certain

product through British Columbia would hardly be new.

I would say this. We get to the crux of the matter here. The

minister must surely be aware, given what she has said, given what she

has confirmed today, that the delays associated with the Kinder Morgan

pipeline inevitably create a pressure that will lead to increased

volumes of bitumen being transported on federally regulated

lines.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now, I’m going to stop there and ask for the minister to at least

indicate to British Columbians that she understands and accepts that

point. In a circumstance where there are two ways to transport a product

interprovincially, if one of those ways is limited and the second option

is available — and that second option exists, notwithstanding the views

of the Ministry of Transportation — inevitably, volumes will gravitate

to that second option. I presume the minister is prepared to at least

agree to that proposition.

Hon. C. Trevena: When I described this as new, I was talking about it in the

context of these estimates. We are talking, primarily, about the

Ministry of Transportation’s estimates. The federal regulation of rail

lines is not really part of the ministry. We work with the higher level

of government to deal with this, but this is not something that is core

to the Ministry of Transportation. It’s core to the federal Ministry of

Transport. So I would suggest that the member take some of his questions

to the federal minister, rather than expect instantaneous answers from

this side of the House.

I would say that I am not going to speculate on what a corporation

decides to do, anywhere in this country or in neighbouring provinces,

about how they transfer goods.

It would be foolish to stand here and say anything is inevitable,

Member. I am not going to speculate. I’ve given the member my answer, to

the best of my ability, but I am not going to go down a path of

speculation. [Applause.]

M. de Jong: Well, notwithstanding that overwhelming applause from her

colleagues, I’m not….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Oh, settle down. Settle down.

I understand, sometimes, these inconvenient questions. I’m not

asking the minister to speculate. I’m asking her, as Transportation

Minister, charged with the task of overseeing transportation

policy….

By the way, I am grateful to the minister for the exchange today.

She put it on the record, in ways that, quite frankly, colleagues of

hers have been unwilling to do. I’m grateful for that. She has made

clear the limited — or, in her case, non-existent — jurisdictional

authority that she and the Crown in right of the Ministry of

Transportation have in this matter.

I’m not asking her to speculate, as Transportation Minister. The

department, I know, tracks these matters. I would have thought, given

her abiding interest…. I don’t actually believe that she’s agnostic on

the issue. That’s the term she used, and I suspect that it’ll come up

again and again in the future. I don’t think she’s agnostic. I think she

has an abiding interest in this. I think she knows that volumes have

already increased. She reads the same newspapers I do. If she isn’t

aware of that, she should be, as Transportation Minister, at a minimum

on an issue that has been so central and that her government has made so

central.

I think British Columbians will draw their own conclusions about a

minister who stands in the House and, on the one hand, says, “We have no

authority to regulate a particular form of transportation in the

province,” and then asks those same people to believe…. “But I’m not

going to speculate when the evidence is clear that the volume of bitumen

that will shift to rail traffic….”

Some people might think that’s a preferable way to do it. I mean,

I can ask the Transportation Minister that. Maybe I should. As

Transportation Minister, does she think transporting bitumen via rail is

a safer way to do it than through a pipeline in the ground? She’s the

Transportation Minister; I’m not. I don’t think she’s going to answer. I

don’t think she’s going to want to say that. I think she’s going to

leave it to the people in towns like Kamloops and others up and down

that line. I think her government has staked out a position on this

matter, and they don’t want people to know what’s already taking place

in terms of the increased volumes that are being transported on

rail.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’ll let people draw their own conclusions from the exchange. As I

say, I am grateful to the minister for having made clear here, and I

think she has, that there is nothing within her legislative

constitutional authority that can reverse that trend, which — I think

it’s clear — is going to accelerate in the absence of an alternative

that she and her colleagues seem bent on delaying even

further.

For those people and families and communities that live along

those rail lines and who are aware of the inherent dangers associated

with that, never mind the dangers associated with a derailment through

an environmentally sensitive area like the Fraser Canyon, they’ll draw

their own conclusions.

I’ll thank the minister for at least being candid about the

jurisdictional authorities. Hopefully, some of her colleagues will take

their lead from the Minister of Transportation and be equally candid in

ways that they have not been. I thank the minister for the time

today.

S. Bond: I’m almost feeling like I’m interrupting a fantastic dialogue and

debate here, but I will interject with some questions of my

own.

I want to begin by recognizing the men and women who work on

highways across British Columbia. Certainly, in my part of the province,

we still have a very large deposit of snow. There have been challenging

road conditions. There have been surprising winter storms — all of those

things. I just want to say a special thank-you to the crews who work

very hard to keep us safe — those of us, particularly in my region, who

live in rural parts of the province. Maybe I’ll start there.

Can the minister tell me…? We certainly were very pleased when our

government designated Highway 16 a class A highway. It requires a

significant set of standards to be in place. Can the minister just

remind me about how those standards are monitored and if that is taking

place along the Highway 16 corridor?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I agree with her — the hard work of the crews

around the province. It has been a particularly hard winter. We’ve been

discussing this throughout the estimates process.

[4:45 p.m.]

Yes, Highway 16, as the member is well aware, as is Highway 97 in

the north now…. Both are class A highways. The difference is that it

increases the patrol time on the highways, it reduces the time that is

expected for snow clearance, and it limits the maximum accumulation of

snow on the highway. All of this, obviously, as the member is well

aware, will make things safer for drivers on these highways.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. The question was, actually: how is the

success of the contractor managed against standards? In other words, are

they meeting the standards that are expected? If they are…. I have no

reason to believe they’re not. In fact, I’ve seen some fantastic and

amazing work done during very difficult winter conditions.

I think British Columbians want to be reassured that when you

create a class A highway, there are certain expectations that exceed

what they were previously. The question is: is that monitored, and how

is that reported out?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, apologies. I missed the other part of the question

the first time around.

The maintenance contractor is meeting the specifications set out.

As the member, having been in this role herself, is well aware, I’m

sure, there are several ways that this is done. Staff monitor what is

happening. They go out during events, when it’s snowing — they go out in

the bad weather too — to make sure that there is compliance.

In addition to that, there are regional audits which happen, to

double-check that the contractor is doing the work. In any given service

area, there are 32 audits per season. In the member’s area that she’s

been looking at in her constituency, they are at about 25, which is on

track to get enough audits done through the season. Throughout the

north, there are, within a year, about 3,000 audits done to ensure that

there is compliance of the contracts.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that clarification. I

certainly recognize the good work that is done by the Ministry of

Transportation office in our region as well. They’re always very

cooperative and helpful, so I want to recognize them today as

well.

I want to move on to the Cariboo connector, obviously an important

project from my perspective. We’ve had a member prior to me ask a

specific question.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’d like to ask a more broad-based question. I guess I want to ask

that question in the context of a little bit of disappointment. I

certainly know that budget speeches can’t talk about everybody, but when

we look at the heading in the budget speech, the 2018 budget, the

headline is: “Supporting economic growth: transportation and

agriculture.” I looked there optimistically, hoping to see some

recognition that, actually, the majority of wealth and economic strength

is part of northern B.C. Part of the need is to be able to move goods

and people, and investing in that part of the province is

critical.

It was, actually, disappointing, as someone who lives in that part

of the province, to look at a

section that talks about supporting

economic growth, the vast majority of which takes place where I live,

and there’s not one word about rural British Columbia, rural roads or

anything. It talks about B.C. Ferries. It talks about freezing fares. It

talks about the Pattullo Bridge, the Fraser River and a number of other

things.

I would really appreciate it if the minister could outline for me

the current status of the Cariboo connector. An additional $200 million

was announced in phase 3. One question was asked about it today, and it

was all about planning.

What projects have been identified to look at the $200 million

announcement that was made? I’m assuming those projects will continue to

be tendered. And I would like to know whether there’s been contemplation

of a phase 4.

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is, basically, well aware, there are three projects

still ongoing. That’s Stone Creek to Williams Road, Williams Lake I.R.

to Lexington and Carson to Toop. Let’s see. We’ve got another 10.6

kilometres of four-laning there. About $30 million is being spent on

them this year.

The next stage is…. I’m sure the member will not be happy with

this, but they are in planning. They are in development. We’re looking

to see the ones that are going to be the best to move on

with.

I hear what the member says about the needs of rural B.C. and the

needs for good infrastructure in rural B.C.

[4:55 p.m.]

As a representative of rural B.C. myself, I’m very aware that we

need to have good links, whether it is highways or other forms of

transportation, to ensure that we can not just move our people but move

our goods and really ensure that there is the connection there, because

we do need to allow the growth of all our rural communities. So we are

looking at the next stage, and we are planning on where we’ll go

next.

S. Bond: Thank you, Minister. Could the minister be more specific and

identify the timeline at which we would see the next projects of the

Cariboo connector identified?

As the minister would well know, I fully expect snow is probably

going to be there for several more months. We have a very short

construction window, and planning is obviously an essential part of the

process. When does the minister expect to have the next phase of

projects identified?

Hon. C. Trevena: I don’t really want to be presupposing which projects will be

going ahead. As the member knows, having been a minister with this

portfolio, you don’t want to get ahead of yourself. So I’m not going to

be saying which areas, but we are in the planning stage for a number of

areas. We are committed to looking at these.

As I mentioned to the member for Cariboo North, we are looking

at…. We are talking actively with First Nations, where the plans involve

First Nations, but we are looking at a number of different projects in

the area and how we can advance them.

S. Bond: The question was actually more straightforward than that. I wasn’t

asking for specific projects. I was asking: at what time and what

timeline will the minister be able to tell the people of northern

British Columbia which projects? So it is about timing and about moving

from planning to actual construction.

Hon. C. Trevena: When we have things to talk about, we will be announcing them,

Member. At the moment, we’re in the planning stage, and it would be

inappropriate to be saying: “We will be doing this, this year. We’ll be

doing that next year. We’ll be doing that the year after.”

We are working on the planning stage, and we will be announcing as

we get closer to the time and we have something to announce. Obviously,

as the member is well aware, we have quite a lot of sensitive

negotiations when we’re talking about a lot of this work, and we don’t

want to get ahead of ourselves in that.

[5:00 p.m.]

We are working on the planning. If the member would like, I can

let her know ahead of her constituents when we get to the announcement

stage. But we are still on the planning phase.

S. Bond: I can’t imagine that the planning phase would take next year, the

year after that and the year after that. The issue here is making sure

that when we are talking about transportation investments in British

Columbia, it is about the whole province. We’re freezing ferry fares.

We’re doing the Pattullo Bridge. Amazingly, we can get that done within

five years. Here, I’m hearing from the minister that I can’t even be

given a date as to when we might be able to suggest that some specific

projects will move forward.

What is the planning window? As I said, I’m not interested…. I

fully understand the way the ministry operates, which is why I’m a bit

surprised we can’t have at least a window of time in which I can assure

my constituents that the Cariboo connector remains a priority and that

there will be specific, targeted projects announced within the next

year, 18 months. Perhaps we can just narrow it down to a window of

opportunity for announcing something happening.

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand the member’s frustration, having lived for a number

of years with equal frustration about when things were going to be

happening in constituency.

Not to shortchange the member, we are doing the planning. I don’t

want to set specific expectations that this will be ready in one year,

in two years or what have you. We’re working on the planning. We’re

refining projects.

I would anticipate, the way the ministry staff is working…. They

are working very hard around the province. I’m not sure the member was

in the House when we were talking about what’s happening on Highway 1

and what’s happening in other areas, but we are working solidly around

the province. It is not just the Lower Mainland that is getting

investment. I’ve been very clear about that.

As a rural MLA, I want to make sure that rural areas, many of

which have not been getting investment, do get investment, and those

that have been getting investment continue to get the investment,

because we have got to maintain our infrastructure. I would hope that

within 18 months, we’ll have a set of projects that we will be refining

and be moving on.

S. Bond: That will bring little comfort to the people in the region where I

live, but let’s move on. I will certainly, probably for a series of

estimates, be coming back to ask about the Cariboo connector, which is a

pretty important highway corridor for the movement of goods and people

in the province.

Maybe we could speak for just a moment about the investment in

rural roads. Obviously, again, it’s really hard to identify exactly what

is being done. I’d like to ask specifically about things like budgets

for brushing. All of those kinds of things really matter in northern

communities. When you’re driving on long stretches of highway, often

without cell phone coverage, brushing and things like that

matter.

[5:05 p.m.]

Could the minister please update me in terms of the investments

that will be made in my region of the province related to maintenance,

upgrading, brushing, those kinds of things.

Hon. C. Trevena: The investment is the same as last year. Again, I don’t want to

keep harping on the fact that I, too, represent a rural area. Brushing

is one of my bugbears. It’s one that for our communities, where we’ve

got dense forest as well, you’ve got animals jumping out. It really adds

to, very much…. It’s a huge safety issue.

We are investing the same as last year. The maintenance contractor

also gets involved in doing that. There’s money that we are spending

specifically on it, and there will be money that the maintenance

contractor will be investing.

As I mentioned to your colleagues earlier on in this debate, the

side roads are fundamental. The member talks about the Cariboo

connector. I recognize that four lanes are absolutely vital to transfer

goods and services. You can see that anywhere around the province.

That’s why we are looking at Highway 1 and how we can intensify that,

particularly out in the eastern section.

The side roads are the ones that people live on and the ones that

they’re travelling regularly, the ones that you know where every pothole

is, where every crack is. You can see how it’s sinking because it’s on a

former logging road and so on. We are absolutely engaged in ensuring

that we maintain our budget and, where possible, increase our budget

investment in side roads right across the province.

S. Bond: I do appreciate the minister’s familiarity with the issue

regarding brushing. People don’t think that’s a big deal until you

actually live where we live. Then they would realize how important that

is.

The only thing I want to confirm, and then I’ll just move on to

another couple of quick issues, is that the minister would certainly

encourage her regional staff to continue to meet with MLAs to outline

the projects and program that will be in place for the years that lie

ahead. That’s always been an incredibly important part of the

relationship between MLAs, no matter where you sit in this

House.

Could the minister just confirm that she will be encouraging

regional staff to meet with MLAs to outline their spending and project

plans for the year?

Hon. C. Trevena: Having a good relationship with the Ministry of Transportation

office is…. I think the member started on that. I think most members

have talked about this. I know that as a constituency MLA, it’s vital. I

would encourage the conversations to continue, that we carry on and that

elected officials, MLAs, are informed about what’s happening in their

constituencies.

[5:10 p.m.]

S. Bond: Again, recognizing the staff in my region. They’re always very

proactive and incredibly constructive in terms of helping us stay

informed.

I want to ask, just briefly, about the Highway 16 corridor that

goes through Prince George. Obviously, there have been some challenges

there, and there has been some work done jointly between the city of

Prince George and the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure.

A very constricted corridor, with little room, without some

creativity, to sort out what we’re going to do there, because traffic

volume is extremely high. In fact, we’re continuously worried about the

flow of traffic, the number of people and the constriction of that

corridor.

Could the minister just confirm that that work is continuing,

constructively, with the city of Prince George? And if there is any

sense of when there might be some discussion about steps that could be

taken, whether or not there will be some public discussion about that —

basically, the Highway 16 corridor running through the city and the work

that’s being done with the city of Prince George.

Hon. C. Trevena: There has been a joint planning study, as I’m sure the member is

aware, with the city of Prince George, and that is near completion. It’s

looking at both highway and municipal infrastructure. There is

apparently quite a lot of municipal infrastructure, which the city will

have to deal with — obviously, trying to work in partnership. After this

is finished, it will be going to consultation with First Nations and

then public consultation. The hope is that work can actually start later

this year on it.

S. Bond: I appreciate that. That is positive news — a corridor we’re very

concerned about.

I want to quickly ask about two specific files, and then I have

one last issue. I know the critic has been very generous with his time

this afternoon, and I want to recognize my colleagues. There’s a long

lineup.

I sent a letter to the minister in November on behalf of my

constituents in Dunster. A lot of people won’t know where Dunster is,

but it’s an incredible little community off of Highway 16. The concern….

And I share the concern, and I know the minister was very receptive to

the letter that was sent. I just would like a bit of a status update,

whether any work has been done on that.

It’s about a turn lane. There’s a lot of industrial traffic up and

down that corridor. We experienced the same concern at the Ancient

Forest, where lots of people were attempting to turn off the highway,

and you see a semi truck barreling down behind you.

The residents of Dunster are very concerned about the ability to

safely sit and wait to turn off on a major highway corridor. I’m

wondering if the minister could just reassure me that that issue is

being looked at and whether or not there has been any sort of feedback

to the residents of Dunster.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: No community is so small that it doesn’t deserve safety. I

understand the advocacy on behalf of the community.

Ministry engineers have gone to look at the site to try and work

out the different options and start to consider what options could work

for that location. They will be going back. They haven’t set up dates

yet, but they were looking at going back to talk with the community,

likely next month. No dates have been set up for that yet, but they are

going to engage with the community and make sure that that does

happen.

S. Bond: I appreciate that, and I know the residents of Dunster will. I

would certainly appreciate a heads-up when that meeting is going to take

place so that I could at least…. If I’m not there, if I’m here, then

certainly, my staff, who are fantastic, may well be.

I want to raise one other file, and then just a quick conversation

about Greyhound, before I turn it over to my colleagues.

I wanted to bring to the minister’s attention an area, a place,

called Kenneth Creek. Kenneth Creek is home to a salmon run. The reason

I would be bringing that to the minister’s attention is that there is a

tendency for people to go to Kenneth Creek. In fact, there are concerns

about potential poaching, those kinds of things.

The Spruce City Wildlife organization has come to me with what, I

think, is a very reasonable ask: to look at whether or not there could

be consideration for a viewing platform — it is under this minister’s

purview — and also signage about the importance of reminding people that

it is a salmon run. It’s not a place that people should be simply going

to, to access fish.

I’m wondering if the minister could at least confirm for me that

ministry staff are prepared to work with the Spruce City Wildlife

organization to look at what I think would be an incredible enhancement

for that particular stretch of highway. We pass it regularly as we’re on

our way to the Robson Valley.

I know that there has been a very thoughtful request. I’m

wondering if the minister or her staff are aware of that and whether

there is a conversation going on about the importance of

that.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s interesting being a rural MLA, isn’t it?

This came to attention, I think, not just because of what the

member’s saying, but there was a failing culvert. We were replacing it

with either a new culvert or a bridge.

There has been conversation with the association about what can be

done. We obviously recognize it’s a valuable asset and important to the

community. There are some concerns about safety at that location, but

staff will continue to work with the association to see how we can best

optimize both a new build and the association’s desires.

S. Bond: I think the organization certainly understands that. They’ve been

very reasonable in their ask. I think it’s just an important discussion

to have, because not only are there safety issues, this organization is

working very hard to ensure that salmon actually have the opportunity to

be as successful in their run as possible. So I think there’s a mutual

benefit there.

I would just ask — and I won’t ask for a response, because I’ll

move on to my last item — that signage be considered. I know that it’s

important. We did some of that in the Valemount area when there was a

concern about boaters and how they were behaving. I know that the

ministry is exceptional at building signs and looking at how that’s

done, having had experience with that in the ministry. So I’m hopeful

that, at least, we could look at signage as a sense that: “We hear you,

and we’re going to do something about that.”

Lastly, I would like to just ask the minister to give me any

thoughts that she’s had or actions that she’s taken since the Greyhound

Line decision was made. I know she knows and is aware — because we’ve

had those conversations, which have been appreciated — that there are

very many vulnerable citizens along that corridor for whom this was

their only safe and regularly scheduled form of

transportation.

I was grateful to see that the end of the Greyhound routes in my

constituency, at least, is being extended, as I understand it, to cover

the winter period, which is incredibly important. But I’m wondering if

the minister has had a chance to talk to northern leaders to start to

formulate what kinds of options we may well be considering. It is an

enormous loss, and there is deep concern being expressed across not just

that region but others.

I would just ask the minister to perhaps provide me with an update

and what her next steps might be.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question and for giving me the

opportunity to talk a little bit about what’s been happening with

Greyhound. I think every member who lives with Greyhound going through

their communities, or lack of it now, is disappointed with the decision.

The tribunal is independent. There is nothing we can do about their

decision, but what we can do is try and find solutions for

communities.

I have made contact with the member herself and hope to be sitting

down with MLAs from the north to talk about how we can jointly try and

work to solutions. I’ve been reaching out to elected officials and First

Nations across the north.

During one of the break weeks that we have, I’ll be coming up and

talking with communities about the options that they see. I think we all

know how vital this is for our communities — the fact that many people

don’t have an option. They felt that their options were already being

limited by the approach Greyhound had. They’d pick you up at four in the

morning and drop you off somewhere else — completely at hours that

didn’t work for people who are looking for transportation.

We are talking with communities, looking forward to sitting down

and talking with them in a couple of weeks, and looking at models that

are used elsewhere in B.C., looking at other jurisdictions. What model

could we use? We can bring ideas to the table for these

meetings.

There is still the Passenger Transportation Board acknowledging

the fact that this is sudden and difficult for communities. It has said

that it would fast-track applications from commercial operators if there

was a commercial operator who wanted to come in to pick up the slack. I

know that when Greyhound pulled out a few years ago from northern

Vancouver Island, from Port Hardy, which I represented, a commercial

operator did move in. But, obviously, the scenarios are different in

different communities. So whether or not that happens….

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I’ve heard some community leaders talk about maybe we should be

looking at some sort of…. Whether it’s a not-for-profit or some other

mechanism, I think that there are ideas. Time is limited. Greyhound has

got until the 31st of May.

It would be wonderful if we could find something that’s a seamless

transition. I don’t know whether that will be possible, but the member

has my commitment that I will work hard with her and her colleagues and

representatives from her communities and the communities of her

colleagues across the north to find solutions and make sure that we are

not leaving people stranded. I think that it is something that has been

disappointing for everyone.

We talk about the north losing routes completely. More than half

of the province will have lost land transportation service in that way.

Likewise, though, members from the Interior are concerned about the

reduction in service as we see, basically, the attrition of this

commercial enterprise.

I have said I will work with the member, and I continue to work

with the member. I look forward to our meeting, hopefully before the

break. And then when I am in her communities, if she wants to be part of

those meetings, it would be very useful too.

S. Bond: I just want to thank the minister and her staff for their answers

this afternoon, and I want to thank the critic. With that, I’ll pass it

on to my colleague.

B. Stewart: I just want to say how welcome I am to be here in front of the

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and I look forward to

seeking some answers from her ministry.

First, I want to concur with the former speaker that I have to

thank all of the people that work in the ministry, the wonderful women

and men that keep this operating. As tough a winter as it has been, and

the criticism, I know that they’ve been trying hard, and they continue

to do a great job for British Columbia.

I want to just talk a little bit more about the transportation

objective to create mobility and of the movement of goods and services

and people within British Columbia and how that relates to the Okanagan

Valley corridor.

[5:30 p.m.]

One of the things that…. Having lived in the region my entire

life, I’ve seen it grow and where the population continues to grow. It’s

currently the fastest-growing urban or metro centre in all of British

Columbia.

It’s surprising. Last year there were over 9,000 new jobs created

just in the Central Okanagan regional district, and that’s creating

unprecedented pressures on the infrastructure and systems that have

already been put in place.

I know that the ministry continues to do great work. The

six-laning project from Highway 33 out to Sexsmith Road is nearing

completion, and I’m sure that that’ll be a welcome improvement. But more

importantly, we still continue, with these progressive improvements, to

see congestion and gridlock. It is not only affecting businesses within

my riding but the entire Okanagan corridor.

I think that with the Okanagan corridor vision, it was clear that

we wanted to look ahead because of the fact that it’s a narrow valley

bottom, and really, there are limited places to build roads. Of course,

for the growth that continues to come, not just from people moving there

but people building businesses there — to be able to make certain that

their businesses are competitive.

Access to health care. Of course, the government of British

Columbia has invested significantly in the Kelowna General

Hospital.

Education access for some of the schools that are specialized,

like Kelowna senior secondary, which specializes in the delivery of

French immersion and other programs….

I wanted to ask the ministry and the minister about the work that

was previously being done on the consideration of a second crossing and

where the minister and the ministry see that project in terms of moving

ahead. I see that they talk about the next phase as “charting the

course.” I am sure that this is no easy project, being that the

magnitude of it is staggering. However, I look at the population numbers

and the forecast that the W.R. Bennett Bridge will be at capacity in

less than 20 years, and I suspect that with the continued compound

growth rate, we may see that happen even sooner.

What I’m really wondering about is this. I want to find out

whether the ministry has a concrete next step in terms of the second

crossing across Lake Okanagan.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for his question. I’m not sure

whether this is his first question in estimates since he’s come back.

I’d also like to welcome him back to this place. It’s good to see him

back. I hope that there are many engaged questions from him in this

estimates and others.

When he was away, that’s when the Central Okanagan planning study

started. It was in 2014. A study team was brought together with local

governments from across the Okanagan. It includes Peachland, West

Kelowna, Kelowna–Lake Country, the Central Okanagan regional district,

the North Okanagan regional district, the Westbank First Nation, the

Okanagan Indian Band, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, as well as B.C.

Transit. It’s very much a long-term plan. It’s a visionary

plan.

His colleague from the northern part of the Okanagan, Kelowna–Lake

Country, was asking questions earlier on today about what’s happening

with it. This is a big-scope planning study. It is looking at the whole

corridor, literally south from Peachland up to the north end — about how

the communities want to develop it and how it can be best enhanced. That

work is ongoing and has been ongoing since the member last sat in this

place. It started in 2014. It is still underway.

As I mentioned to his colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country, Kelowna

itself has got some work it wants to do. It is with the agreement of the

other parties that it needs to do its planning work. It has slowed some

of this planning, the bigger vision planning, down. It is still ongoing,

but it has slowed it down. There will be further consultation later this

year.

Obviously, the ministry is continuing to work on projects while

that plan is going ahead. I’d say its planning is looking at the needs

and the requirements from the communities’ points of view. In the

meantime, we have announced — in fact, I think it was yesterday or today

— a $5.7 million safety project on Westside Road which is looking at

widening the road and realigning it. So we are continuing to invest in

the region while the communities work on the planning study.

B. Stewart: I did want to mention that project that your ministry has made a

further investment in. I want to make certain that we thank you for

that. We’ll come back to that in just a minute. I know that it was a

difficult project, when I was earlier the MLA for Westside-Kelowna —

being able to get the ministry to see it the way that the residents see

it.

On the Okanagan corridor, the bridge included all this long-term

planning. Of course, one of the key reasons for wanting to come back to

Victoria was to help make certain that the lasting legacy in that region

— something that I can look forward to passing on to my grandchildren

and their kids — is something that…. We had a great vision in terms of

longer-term planning. I’m not convinced that that has always happened. I

appreciate the fact that the city of Kelowna wants to further study some

of the impacts of this particular issue.

Are there funds still available in this fiscal year to do the next

phase or continue the work on the second crossing?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you. It’s great to have a project that you really feel

passionate about, that you want to leave as a legacy and have the reason

to come. I think everybody’s got their own reasons for coming to this

place, and if that’s what the member wants to leave as a legacy, I think

that’s a great sense of attainment.

As I say, the Central Okanagan planning study is a

community-driven study. So it’s what the communities want to see out of

it for the results, what they can be looking at. There has been some

emphasis on the highways. We’ve seen the six-laning happening. There’s

now more focus on transit, but it’s on all modes.

I’m sure the member knows that there is a community working group

formed to bring together the key stakeholders, the special interest

groups — they say cyclists, but as a cyclist myself, I don’t think we’re

special interest — environmental groups and community members to review

the work as well as having a big table, which is, obviously, the elected

officials and planning department.

It is a community-driven project, and it is up to the community to

decide where their focus should be and what modes of transportation it

should be.

B. Stewart: I think that these exercises, community consultations and planning

— and, of course, the city of Kelowna, which has been growing rapidly

and has its own share of transportation issues and is a big part of the

problem with congestion — really do have to address that. I think that

they’re probably the ones that have the heaviest lifting to do, because

it’s going to affect their community the most.

[5:45 p.m.]

When I look at this infrastructure that we built — $140 million

that was just opened in 2008…. I think one of the things about the W.R.

Bennett Bridge which was always a bit of confusion for the local people

was how it ended up being built with five lanes, two going north and

three going south with a divided barrier down the middle.

The time-of-day travel or the alternating lane that we used to

have on the former Okanagan Lake Bridge provided for an awful lot of

opportunity to be able to relieve congestion. I believe that there is a

simple interim solution that I think might be something that the

ministry has considered.

I’m just wondering if the counterflow lane into Kelowna has been

considered. I don’t know if it’s feasible, because of the nature of the

bridge deck, but I know that there is a single piece of property that’s

on the corner of Abbot and Highway 97. Those that travel it will well

know that corner, because it gets constricted back down to two lanes,

then widens back up to three on the other side. So is that an option

that is being contemplated in the short term?

Hon. C. Trevena: The idea was looked at, but there’s a capacity issue on the

Kelowna side, whether Kelowna could absorb extra traffic.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m not trying to circle back, but it does come back to the COPS,

the Central Okanagan planning study, on what communities want to see. If

Kelowna wants to see expansion there to allow for the absorption of the

extra traffic that would come in if it was three lanes going into

Kelowna. That is something that will be coming out from

discussions.

It was looked at initially, and it was decided not to move with it

because Kelowna doesn’t have the capacity, but still it is now part of

this planning study, about how best to make sure that we get traffic

moving comparatively easily in what are obviously growing communities,

densely packed communities and communities that are using single-person

vehicles or cars, as well as buses. You know, there’s a lot of bus use

in Kelowna, too.

B. Stewart: I appreciate that. It sounds to me like it is a feasible option.

I’ve heard that argument about the choke point in Kelowna, and I know

there were significant discussions some ten or more years ago, when the

bridge was being built, about the idea of what could be done about that.

I go back to my earlier comment that I think the city does have an

important role, and it’s going to have to address this issue.

The Central Okanagan planning group that you referred to — does

that include the Highway 97 corridor from just outside of Deep Creek,

where Greata Ranch is above Peachland, or from Peachland all the way

through Peachland, right into and through Kelowna?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

B. Stewart: That’s excellent. Having chaired the RTAC for a number of years, I

know that it was one of those kinds of projects that was left out of it

just because there was no community agreement. The MLA for Penticton to

Peachland, Dan Ashton….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Sorry. He’s concerned that we do bring this up and that we work

together collectively.

I think that the other thing that certainly comes into that is the

design work that’s being done on the at-grade or grade separations,

which is mentioned on your website, at Westlake Road and Boucherie Road.

I’d just like to know the time horizon as to when the city of West

Kelowna might expect those improvements to occur.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The preliminary engineering design work, Member, is happening on

Boucherie. We’ve got that underway. But I refer back to what we’d been

talking about before. We’re talking about a number of communities, as

the member well knows. He grew up in the area, he lived in the area all

his life, and he’s now representing the area for the second time

around.

We’ll be circling back to communities. We want to make sure that

there is community support for whatever happens. Again, I come back to

the use of the Central Okanagan planning study to get the big picture

and how this fits in the big picture. It is about seeking support from

communities and making sure there is that buy-in. But the planning work

and the preliminary engineering work are underway.

B. Stewart: I think this is my final question. I mentioned earlier about….

Well, first, thank you for your answer there on the last

question.

Westside Road. I’m very pleased to see that the ministry has

followed through and today made that announcement of $5.8 million to

help upgrade a further

section of Westside Road. I don’t know. I’m sure

the people within the ministry will remember the notorious title — it

being named “British Columbia’s worst road.” It still continues to carry

the reputation — maybe not quite the worst because it’s had significant

improvements.

I know that one of the things that made it a priority for myself

is because it links two of our most important provincial parks

together.

[6:00 p.m.]

In many of the sections of road, the local manager in the Central

Okanagan and I did extensive work, in terms of work that was done with

lidar in terms of the road. Many sections truly aren’t wide enough for

two large vehicles to pass one another. Sections are falling into the

lake. So it is really needed.

I know it’s difficult to justify, but as the Okanagan continues to

grow — the northwest side, Killiney Beach, Westshore — there’s a growing

number of families. These people are putting their kids on those buses

every single day, sending them to West Kelowna, to elementary, middle

school and post-secondary. That concerns me with the type of weather and

the fact that it’s not a priority road for, maybe, snow clearing and

things like that. I certainly don’t want to be the MLA if something does

happen there.

What I would like to just ask is that the last phase, which hasn’t

been announced yet…. I just want to make certain. I want to ask if the

government is committed to the last phase, which is the Pine Point

section, the last phase of this whole upgrade, and if they have a

timeline on when that might be expected. I know it’s on the website as

being “in design”. I’d appreciate it if you can give the residents of

Westside Road some sort of certainty on the horizon on that.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I think the member is aware that it’s quite a complex

project. There are a lot of geotechnical issues that we are facing. It

is in design. There is planning work being done for it. Because of the

geotechnical issues, I don’t want to foreshadow a date on when we might

be ready with it.

We had discussions earlier on today about work that was

anticipated to be done some time ago, and we got caught with

geotechnical concerns of land. Our engineers are working through those.

Hopefully we’ll be able to get something happening soon, but I don’t

want to foreshadow just when it would be.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for fielding all these questions and

answers. Just a couple of short questions — hopefully simple to answer,

I’m assuming.

I’m just wondering, first off: is there a provincial program under

development, or currently in discussions, around the transferring of

municipal transportation infrastructure corridors back to the province

for the province in general?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: No.

P. Milobar: I’m asking because, obviously, there are a great many, much like

the centennial hockey rinks that got built all through British Columbia

and all of Canada in 1967. A little before my time, but I’ve been told

that’s when they were all built. All those recreation facilities started

to hit a certain age where they all needed to be rebuilt — a major

expansion, major retrofits or a rebuild completely.

I would suggest to you that we have the same problem with the

bridge network within municipalities across this province. Several

millions of dollars — hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of

dollars — are going to be needed for municipalities to fix and repair

and make sure that bridges within their municipal control are in a safe

operating function for the travelling public.

Is there going to be a provincial program in place to make sure

that municipal-owned assets, specifically bridges, moving forward, will

be properly repaired and maintained with the support of the provincial

government?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question.

As the member knows, there are various federal pots of money that

municipalities seek for assistance. Whether there are going to be any

new ones coming up…. We’re obviously working with the federal

government.

As a former mayor, I’m sure the member is well aware of gas tax

money available to municipalities for infrastructure. I’d suggest he ask

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for that information.

P. Milobar: Frankly, that’s a surprising answer. I would note that there is no

federal money going in, at this point, to the Pattullo Bridge

replacement. There are gas tax funds available for the TransLink

communities, yet we see a 100 percent funded, municipally owned piece of

infrastructure, a bridge, being replaced at a cost of, currently, $1.4

billion. I’m sure it’ll rise over time.

The reason I ask the question, though…. As the minister pointed

out, as a former mayor of Kamloops…. We spent $8 million just recently,

retrofitting our bridge to make sure it was still passable for the

travelling public. It’s a major connection point. It handles about half

the volume, on a daily basis, that the Pattullo Bridge handles, and it

is a four-l