Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 215

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

Hon. C. Trevena

D. Ashton

J. Sturdy

A. Olsen

S. Bond

J. Tegart

D. Barnett

D. Davies

G. Kyllo

D. Clovechok

P. Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

E. Ross

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Thornthwaite

D. Barnett

J. Rustad

J. Tegart

L. Throness

S. Furstenau

S. Bond

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2019

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Transportation and Infrastructure. In Committee A,

Section A, Douglas Fir Room,

I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and

Families.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

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

chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

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

Hon. C. Trevena: If I might, before we start on the estimates debate — I know

there’s a lot of interest and a lot of questions that are going to be

coming up — I would like to just talk a little bit about some of the

great work that this ministry is doing.

Last year I was talking about how, all around the province, the

ministry staff work so extraordinarily hard on behalf of British

Columbians to ensure that our infrastructure is working, that we have

the infrastructure we need, that our highways are fixed and working and

working well within communities and between communities, that we have

transit working within our communities, that we have long-distance bus

service working. I know these are some of the issues that will be raised

through the coming days of the estimates debate.

They also work to ensure that we have a good relationship with

B.C. Ferries and that we have a ferry system that works for the coastal

communities as well as the ferries that work in the Interior. The whole

gamut of aspects that are involved in transportation, in making sure

that peoples’ lives are better, are well-serviced.

I can’t thank the ministry staff enough. I think that every MLA in

this House knows their ministry workers in their jurisdictions, has a

good relationship with them. There is an ability to have questions

answered and have one of the very basic things, our constituent’s

concerns, dealt with very quickly. On a grassroots level, I’m

extraordinarily proud of their work and very happy of the work they do.

Going up through the ministry, it’s a great team.

I will introduce my colleagues, the staff who are around me, in a

moment, but I just wanted to comment on some of the things that we may

be talking about during the estimates debate. The ministry is investing

more than $5 billion in transportation improvements over the next three

years under the 2019 service plan. There’s another $1.692 billion in

partner contributions, which means our three-year investment is $6.7

billion.

I think that people are aware that there are investment plan

supports for both preservation of highways and side-road assets. We’ve

got the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge on the books now,

construction of the Broadway subway and continue to work on four-laning

to the Alberta border. As I mentioned, we’ve got public transit

investments, the trade network that is so important to British Columbia

and the country to make sure that our trade networks are reliable. We’ve

got Bike B.C., air access. We have just launched an active

transportation consultation.

We are doing many, many projects. I’m anticipating that there is

going to be some interest from the opposition. I really look forward to

explaining the work that our ministry has been doing on the community

benefits agreement, which is a fantastic way of dealing with the skills

shortage that British Columbia is facing, ensuring that young people and

people who have not had access to this sort of work before — Indigenous

people, women and others — will have access to high-quality training

through the investment in our infrastructure. I anticipate a lot of

questions about that, and I look forward to that.

[1:40 p.m.]

I know that the opposition is very interested in app-based

ride-hailing. We were able to pass legislation last year. After

app-based ride-hailing has been around for seven years, within just over

a year, our government was able to pass legislation which brought that

in. I know there’s some interest in how that’s evolving. I anticipate

answering questions about that.

Our ferry system. I know there’s a huge amount of interest on the

opposition side for the coastal ferry system. The opposition, when they

were in government, created the construct that we now have. We are,

obviously, working with that construct and had a report by Mr. Blair

Redlin delivered to me last year, which we’ve been acting upon. I’m sure

that there’s going to be a lot of interest in the coastal

ferries.

I’ve mentioned B.C. Transit in general, but I know their critic

has some specific questions about B.C. Transit and long-distance bus

service around the province.

Last but definitely not least, the trucking sector. I anticipate

there are going to be questions about that too. With that, I’m going to

once again thank the absolutely diligent staff around the province and

use this opportunity to introduce those staff who are with me today. I

know the two here, and I haven’t looked to see who’s behind

me.

Next to me we have Grant Main, my deputy minister. Behind him is

Alan Thomas, the CFO of B.C. Transit. On my right is Nancy Bain, the

assistant deputy minister for finance. Behind her are Deborah Bowman,

assistant deputy minister for policy, and Andrea Mercer, who is the

executive director for B.C. Transit.

With that, I will take my place, in the anticipation that we have

a very healthy afternoon’s debate and be able to move on with the

estimates.

D. Ashton: I would just like to thank the Minister of Transportation, the

ministry staff, especially the ministry staff in the city of Penticton,

and the contractors that did an exemplary job of rectifying a rock slide

north of Summerland.

Again, if I could ask the minister if she would pass along the

gratitude, not only on behalf of myself but all the citizens that

utilize that corridor to go back and forth to work.

There were some examples of where people had to detour, but again,

the staff and those contractors did an incredible job during that

exemplary weather that the Okanagan was facing. My hat’s off to the

ministry, the minister and all those involved in that.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for having that recognition. Too

often staff in any ministry do their work, and they’re not recognized. I

will absolutely make sure that the thanks are passed on.

I think they did do an exemplary job. Within a month of a massive

landslide, they were able to make sure that road is now safe and open

for use again.

I thank the member for his patience and his community’s patience

as that work went underway and his help in making sure that people knew

what was happening. So thank you.

The Chair: Sea to ski, Member.

J. Sturdy: West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

The Chair: Okay, let me redo that.

J. Sturdy: We do ski, but it is Sea to Sky.

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for her opening remarks and for having

the staff. I think we will, as I mentioned to the minister, focus

largely on transit to begin with — B.C. Transit and transit around the

province.

I do have one question to start, and that is that historically, as

we entered into a new budget cycle, the Premier would issue a new

mandate letter or an updated mandate letter to the minister. Has that,

in fact, been the case this session?

Hon. C. Trevena: No, the ministers did not get new mandate letters.

[1:45 p.m.]

We obviously have a mandate from the Premier for work that we need

to be doing. We continue to work assiduously on that, making sure UNDRIP

is involved in everything that we’re doing. Truth and reconciliation is

there. We are working to make life more affordable and accessible and

working on building the economy. The Crowns that are under the ministry

did get mandate letters.

J. Sturdy: We’re going to start off with B.C. Transit. I think I’m going to

take this opportunity, as the critic, to focus a little bit on B.C.

Transit in my neck of the woods.

As you know, the previous Liberal government invested

significantly in the Sea to Sky, in terms of the Sea to Sky

High­way improvement project. This project…. I think what it has

done is it has demonstrated the value of good investments —

well-planned, well-thought-out and well-executed investments. It really

has changed the region in many ways.

I’m sure the minister has travelled the Sea to Sky, hopefully

beyond Whistler, because it does actually go all the way to Highway 97.

She has indicated that she has driven all the way around, so that’s

good. She’ll understand that there are communities up and down the Sea

to Sky corridor. Obviously, the highway starts, essentially, in

Horseshoe Bay, but Lion’s Bay is impacted, and Lion’s Bay is a community

that has some concerns around how the highway impacts their community

and the feel of their community.

There’s development potential at Porteau Cove, which is beginning

to re-emerge. Britannia Beach is a community that has a history of over

100 years and an industrial history. The province has a significant

stake in it, and there has been new investment in Britannia Beach.

Hopefully, the minister has had a chance to visit the B.C. mining

museum, because it is a spectacular entity.

Macdonald Development has reconfigured the old town­site of

Britannia Beach, which is growing rapidly. The population is growing,

and there are a number of different proposals for that.

Squamish, just a little farther up the road, is a community that

has really, I think, felt the brunt of the development on the Sea to

Sky. It is forecasted to double in population in the next 15 to 20 years

and is well on track to do just that, which puts tremendous pressure on

the community at a whole variety of different levels.

Then, of course, when we go up as far as Whistler, we’ll see that

the visits in Whistler have increased dramatically. We’re over 3 million

annual visits in Whistler. Then, of course, Pemberton, where I’m

fortunate enough to reside…. That has changed the community. The access

to that community is changing the community. In fact, in many ways, it

has changed my business and my family farm, in that now, because of that

capital investment in the Sea to Sky, our farm is able to deliver fruits

and vegetables to 25 or 30 restaurants in Vancouver on a weekly basis,

without having to stay overnight. It has really changed the

game.

One of the areas where there is certainly very much an impact that

is, in fact, globally recognized…. Other than the fact that the Sea to

Sky is one of those ten highways you have to drive in your lifetime sort

of thing is the impact that traffic and transportation has had on the

region. When we look just beyond Pemberton, beyond Mount Currie, up into

the Joffre Lakes, we went from seeing dozens of people a day to

literally 4,000 people in a single day just because of that ease of

access and the quality of the infrastructure.

Why I mention all of that is because I like to talk about the Sea

to Sky, obviously, but beyond that, there is a recognition which wasn’t

there not more than a few years ago that the capacity on that highway is

not infinite. We’re seeing cases now where there are traffic delays.

There are backups. There’s a need to steward our capacity.

[1:50 p.m.]

Transit is one of those initiatives which has now become important

to the collective. Historically, it wasn’t necessarily quite as

important. There is a transit system. There is B.C. Transit, which does

contribute and partner with the Lil’wat Nation, with the village of

Pemberton and with the regional district, in terms of a Mount Currie,

Pemberton and Whistler commuter — for those three local governments and

First Nations contributing to a partnership with B.C. Transit. That was

the extent of regional transit in the Sea to Sky. Whistler had its own

internal transit system with B.C. Transit, as does Squamish.

There wasn’t historically, necessarily, the desire or the feeling

that the time was right to invest in a regional transit service, But

that has changed, and that changed a number of years ago. Our

government, the previous B.C. Liberal government, agreed with the

outcomes of the B.C. Transit futures plan and agreed to participate with

local governments in the area to fund on the standard funding formula

for regional transit services.

Since that time, obviously a change in government…. I wondered if

the minister could tell us whether that’s something that she has the

same sort of commitment on. What is her perspective on how we move

forward on transit in the Sea to Sky?

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

We are absolutely committed to high-quality public transit

throughout the province. I know that there’ll be questions later about

what is happening as a replacement for Greyhound. We moved very quickly

to get B.C. Bus North operating in northern communities — from the

centre of B.C. north, from Prince George north — to fill a gap that was

left at really short notice. We are a government that is committed to a

good public transit system.

Sea to Sky is obviously part of that general development of public

transit. I know that all communities will benefit from the establishment

of a B.C. Transit service from Pemberton through down to Horseshoe Bay

and then linking with the TransLink service. I know that B.C. Transit

has been doing extensive work in making sure that it can work smoothly,

that there will be a smooth transition when it hits the TransLink area.

I think that with the significant engagement they’ve been doing and the

commitment from communities and our commitment, as the government of the

day, to make this happen, it will be happening as soon as we

can.

[1:55 p.m.]

On that note, I’d just like to acknowledge that there’s a group of

school students who’ve come into the Legislature. I’m not sure where

they’ve come from.

What you’re watching today is the debate of the estimates of the

Ministry of Transportation. We’re going to be talking about how much

money, I, as the Minister of Transportation, can spend in British

Columbia. On this side of the House, there is an opposition member who’s

asking me questions about why we’re spending the money and how we’re

spending the money. This is really how the Legislature works, in action.

I hope you enjoy your visit.

J. Sturdy: Well, I’m glad to hear that the minister is committed to transit

on the Sea to Sky, a regional transit service on the Sea to Sky, and its

integration with TransLink. It would intend, in fact, to go from, just

to correct the minister, Mount Currie, rather than just

Pemberton.

There were meetings with the regional board, the Squamish-Lillooet

regional district that struck a transit commission, or a transit

committee, to develop principles around which this service would be

based. They struck an MOU, and out of that MOU, they determined that the

commission model, rather than a service model of a regional district,

was the model they chose to pursue.

They were looking for seven members on that commission: a member

from Pemberton; a member from Whistler; a member from Squamish; a member

from the regional district area C and the regional district area D; and

two members from the local First Nations, the Squamish First Nation and

the Lil’wat First Nation.

Now, this MOU was adopted by all parties, and there was discussion

with the minister. In fact, I believe this group or many from this group

had meetings with the minister at UBCM last year to talk about this. The

feedback this group received was that what was important was that there

were nominations put forward with regard to the commission, to

appointments to the commission.

It was awkward, obviously, because there was a municipal election

in the middle of it. Not the least of which, there were some people who

chose not to run that were not expected not to run. All of a sudden,

there’s a whole new group of people at the table. However, they paid

attention. They recognized that they needed to act as was suggested was

in their interests by the ministry staff.

I don’t actually know quite who was making these suggestions. But

this was the feedback that I received — that they needed to appoint

these members in order for an order-in-council to appoint these members

to a commission, in order that that commission could make

recommendations around funding of the service. Then there would also

likely need to be some amendments to legislation to allow for First

Nations to serve on that commission, because at this point, I

understand, it’s only local government elected officials that are

allowed to serve.

They did this. They struggled. They complained. They looked for

extensions. That wasn’t forthcoming. They did get the recommendations

for appointments put forward to the minister sometime back in November,

I believe. When can they expect to have the appointments through

order-in-council completed so that they can get on with their work as a

commission?

A. Olsen: I just wanted to take the opportunity, while the minister is

preparing an answer, to indeed introduce the students. May I seek leave

to make an introduction?

[2:00 p.m.]

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Indeed, the school group that’s here — and they may be able to nod —

is from the Langley Christian elementary school. Their teacher is Tim

VanHemert. They’re a grade 5 class. There are four classes, actually, here

today.

Welcoming you to this chamber, the chamber that represents you and

your future. Everything that we do in here is with you in our minds. Thank

you very much for coming and joining us today. Indeed, as the minister

suggested, we’re working through Transportation estimates today. So enjoy,

and enjoy your day in Victoria.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, members of the region presented me with an MOU. I think it

was at UBCM last year. As the member notes, there was a civic election

since then. The nominations, actually, were after the civic election, so

it was post the civic election.

B.C. Transit has established the B.C. Transit board, has

established the commission, and we are working through the process. We

are working through all the considerations. Because of the nature of the

service, the governance of the service, there are many issues that we

are working through at the moment. But this government and myself, the

minister, are committed to making sure that we get the B.C. Transit

system working along the Sea to Sky, from Mount Currie — apologies for

early on — all the way through the corridor.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister, then, perhaps let us know what some of those

issues are that are being worked through?

[2:05 p.m.]

The MOU and the local governments have nominated people to serve

on that commission. Are there some other issues that they should be

aware of as to what the minister is working through and why they haven’t

yet been appointed?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to tell the member that there is nothing to worry about.

As I say, we are absolutely committed to making sure that this

happens.

I think that the member is also aware. He’s had many discussions.

He’s a former mayor of one of the communities. He knows the communities.

He knows there’s a lot of transit in the area already. So he’s aware

that what is being worked on is, basically, a new governance model. It

will be a unique governance model.

That leads into a lot of other considerations on funding, on the

business model, on the relationships with other jurisdictions. They were

mentioned earlier — about with TransLink. There are a number of issues

that are still being worked through. But I can give the member my

commitment that we are absolutely determined to make sure that this gets

up and running.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister describe the new govern­ance

model?

Hon. C. Trevena: Well, the region wants a regional transit commission, a regional

model. That is what we’re working on, as the member knows. It’s not an

overnight process. As I say, we’re working on this regional transit

commission that has been asked for by the region, a seven-member transit

commission.

[2:10 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: The members in the region have let me know that it’s been

suggested to them the next steps are appointment through

order-in-council to the commission. They would then, as official

commission members, make recommendations around funding to…. I’m not

quite sure to who, actually. I suppose it’s to the minister. Perhaps the

minister could clarify that. Then there would be some legislation,

potentially, as a fallout of that, depending on what the funding formula

looks like. Is that accurate?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the member’s sequencing is correct. A request will come to

our ministry — to myself, as the minister, and our ministry — to make

the decision. Obviously, there are a number of issues at play, and we

want to make sure that this can move as smoothly as possible.

J. Sturdy: When would the minister anticipate or hope — maybe stick with; can

she promise, perhaps — as to when these members could be appointed so

that they can get to work on their commission?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I said to the member, we are doing due diligence. We are

working as hard as we can to make sure that we get everything sequenced

smoothly and in place. So we’re doing due diligence, and we’ll be taking

each step as quickly as we can.

We know that there is a community desire to have this up and

running as soon as possible. I know that. I’ve talked to the

communities. I know there is eagerness to have this.

It’s going to service the whole corridor. It fits very nicely with

CleanBC. It gets people out of their cars. It makes sure that we are

getting people travelling through the corridor by bus. It makes travel

affordable in an area that is not necessarily the most affordable, as

the member knows as the representative of the area.

For us, as a government, it is something that really is…. It fits

what we want to be doing as a government in getting people out of their

cars, getting people onto public transit, reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, making sure that life is affordable and that it is helping

that regional economy.

So once again, I give the member my assurances that we’re working

as hard as we can to get things in place so that we can move ahead with

this.

J. Sturdy: Are there other commissions in the province that would be

reflective of what is being considered for the Sea to Sky, or are there

other examples in the province of commissions that would be doing

essentially the same thing?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. I know his eagerness, and I

know the eagerness of his colleagues who also want to ask questions. I’m

trying to give the member assurances that there is absolutely nothing

nefarious going on here. We are working as hard as we can.

Directly to his question, no, there is no other commission like

this one. There is one other commission in B.C., and that’s for Victoria

regional transit. It’s not the same model that’s within Victoria. This

is between communities. It’s a longer distance. We want to make sure we

get it right because it may become a model for other

jurisdictions.

As I say, I’m very committed to making sure that B.C. Transit is

able to work across B.C. We’re already seeing different B.C. Transit

services. We’ve got — whether it’s the Highway 16 one that finally

started after years of pressure to make sure it started — the Highway 16

service. We’ve got B.C. Bus North. We’ve got a different system in the

Okanagan. We’ve got from Vernon down through to Kelowna. And now we’ve

got Sea to Sky.

We want to make sure that when we’re dealing with something like

this, we do get it right, so we can be looking to the future rather than

trying to reinvent it every time we get the possibility of another

service.

J. Sturdy: Would the minister be able to describe what she anticipates the

role of a commissioner to be? What areas of responsibility do they have?

What types of decisions will they be able to make?

[2:20 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

R. Coleman: This afternoon, cycling through, are four groups from the Langley

Christian elementary school in my riding. It’s a great school. I’ve been to

it many times over the last 20 years. It’s always engaging to be with the

students. I’d like the House to make them all feel welcome this

afternoon.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Trevena: The role of the commission is set down in the B.C. Transit Act.

We’re just trying to find out, really, how far back the B.C. Transit Act

goes. It’s been around for at least 25 to 30 years. It’s an established

act. The act gives the commission the ability — with the advice and

cooperation of B.C. Transit, obviously — to look at the routes, the

rates, the levels of service, the logistics and also how to raise the

local-funding portion of the cost of their service.

J. Sturdy: It is interesting that it’s been around for 25 or 35 years yet not

used, really. Well, you said the commission model hasn’t been used,

historically, other than through the capital regional district.

Interesting.

Could the minister describe to us what the standard funding

formula with B.C. Transit for local services is and whether that would

differ in a regional setting?

Hon. C. Trevena: Under the traditional model, the local governments pay 53 percent,

and we pay 47 percent. Those are operating and capital costs under the

traditional one for each individual community, whether it’s Campbell

River or Pemberton or whatever. That’s how the breakdown is.

[2:25 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I understand that the local governments in the Sea to Sky are

interested in a transit fuel levy. Is that something the minister is

considering? If so, how would that work? How does that factor into the

standard model?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. This is, again, one of the

reasons why it’s taking a while: because yes, we are considering

this.

As the member knows from his own experience in local government,

in the traditional model, for the community’s side, for the local

administration side, it’s funded by property tax, by fares and by

advertising. There has been interest in a regional fuel tax, but we are

looking at all models to ensure that…. We’re still working through this.

There is an interest in a fuel tax. We know that there is a lot of

pressure in that region on the property-tax side, so we’re looking at

this.

This will be a new model, and, as I said to the member before, we

want to get it right because it is a new model.

J. Sturdy: The local governments in the region have suggested, with the fuel

tax levy that was collected, that that revenue would come off the local

government’s share. Would you agree with that assumption?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is, again, one of the reasons why we’re examining how it’s

all going to fall into place. The only other place where there is a

commission, where there is a fuel tax in the B.C. Transit system, is in

Victoria, where they have a 5.5-cents-per-litre fuel tax. Under that, we

as a province pay 31.7 percent, and the communities pay 68.3

percent.

[2:30 p.m.]

It is trying to get it right. This is part of the many things that

we’re working through when we’re working through what will be a new way

of doing transit within British Columbia that we can potentially use as

a model elsewhere.

J. Sturdy: Have there been any calculations done on potential revenue

generated through a fuel levy in the Sea to Sky?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, it is part of the ongoing work that we’re doing. You can look

at roughly how much gas is sold in the region, put a figure on what you

could tax it at and work out how much revenue would be

generated.

This is part of considerations, going back to the member’s initial

questions when asking about why we have not got everything in place

right away. There are many different things that need to be considered,

and we do. As I have told the member before, we want to get it right. We

want to get it right for the communities who are going to have the

transit system. As I said to the member before, they are going to have

the transit system. We are committed to it. We do want to get it right

so that if this comes up in other regions, we can use it as the

potential model.

We’re doing two things at once, but our main thing is to get this

right and to make sure that we are able to move ahead with

it.

J. Sturdy: Well, fair enough, Minister. I think we all want to get it right.

But I think that there’s also some angst amongst local government and

the community, who are looking to have a service put in place. I’m just

trying to help provide clarity to those local government members and

community members who are anxious.

The minister earlier mentioned that there was, or maybe in

passing…. She might not have actually meant it but suggested there was a

variety of other transportation or transit options in the corridor. We

can go back and check Hansard . I take it that it was not there

to suggest that there was a satisfactory level of transit solutions. I

did want to point out that there are services but they are limited and

very specific and don’t serve the whole corridor generally.

Naturally, people are anxious. People are finding that their

options have been diminished as a result of Greyhound departing the

corridor, and it has caused problems for people. The regional hospital

is in Squamish, and that is challenging for many people. It’s a long way

to Squamish.

[2:35 p.m.]

Again, to go back to my previous question. Can the minister be

specific around the calculations, in that, can she tell me how many

litres of fuel are sold in the Sea to Sky in a calendar year?

Hon. C. Trevena: Sixty million litres is the last figure we have.

J. Sturdy: Sorry. Was that 60 million litres gasoline and diesel, all

transportation fuels?

Hon. C. Trevena: Those are the litres sold at the gas stations. We’re obviously not

taking into account the electricity used in electric cars.

J. Sturdy: So 60 million litres of transportation fuels. Is that inclusive of

on-reserve sales? Is that counted in the number?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is the latest number that we have. Staff don’t have a

breakdown of that. We’ve got the basic generic number for the region of

60 million litres.

J. Sturdy: There are currently, I believe, transit-oriented taxes or levies

on transportation fuels. Perhaps if the minister could clarify what’s on

those fuels in the rural parts of British Columbia — so not TransLink

areas but B.C. Transit areas. Is that consistent around the

province?

The second part of that question is: where is that levy collected?

Is it collected by the retailer, or is it collected at the distribution

point through wherever the bulk sales are? Where is it

collected?

Hon. C. Trevena: Can I just ask the member for clarification? He’s asking about the

gas tax, like the price per pump when you’ve got the extra taxes of

provincial carbon tax and so on. Is that what the member is looking for

— and who collects them and how they’re distributed?

[2:40 p.m.]

Is that the question? Sorry, I just want to make sure that we get

this right.

J. Sturdy: Fair enough. The reason I asked this question is…. It seems common

wisdom, whether it’s accurate or not, that in Metro Vancouver or in the

TransLink catchment, there is approximately a 17- or 17½-cent transit

levy collected. In the non–TransLink area — for example, in the Sea to

Sky — it’s understood that there is a transit fuel tax, or a fuel tax

associated with transit, that is collected in the Sea to Sky that’s in

the neighbourhood of three or four cents.

I’m wondering. Is that accurate? Is that a number that is

applicable right across the whole province? Where is that fuel

collected? Is it collected through the wholesaler, or is it collected by

the retailer as they sell at the pump?

Just to give it a little bit of context here, recognizing that

there’s a 17½-cent fuel levy collected in the TransLink catchment and a

much, much smaller, if at all, fuel levy collected for B.C. Transit in

the rural areas, theoretically there should be a 13- or 14-cent

difference between Squamish and Vancouver. You know what? There’s not.

Amazing. There’s not. Who would have thought?

I’m trying to get a handle on the accuracy of those assumptions

and then understand where the taxes are collected. Then perhaps the

minister has some suggestions for me in terms of how we can provide a

little more equity to the taxpayers in my region.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I wonder if we could just defer the full answer here, because

we’re trying to get figures. Because it’s a tax issue, it includes the

Ministry of Finance. It might end up being a Ministry of Finance

question, because we’re just working out who has responsibility for

which piece. We want to make sure that, obviously, we do get it

absolutely accurate.

I understand what the member is saying, that his constituents feel

that it is absolutely unfair that they could be paying the same in

downtown Vancouver for gas as they are paying in Squamish or Whistler.

That is much less a tax issue at the moment than the greed and ability

of corporations to charge that and know that people will feel that they

have to pay that because they have no option. So the parity of costs of

gas in the Sea to Sky corridor to what they’re seeing in the TransLink

area has more to do with the gas companies charging what they feel they

can get away with.

On the other question of the amount of tax, I would really like to

defer until we get clarity through the Ministry of Finance.

J. Sturdy: Fair enough. Is there any answer in terms of where the tax is

collected?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we’d like to get clarity from the Ministry of Finance. It

might be a question best asked during Ministry of Finance estimates.

They were supposed to be before ours, but they’re coming up soon, I

believe.

J. Sturdy: The reason I ask you is it does tie into, ultimately, the

decisions around what taxes would be acceptable in terms of supporting

local transit. The question of on- and off-reserve sales of fuel also

ties into that, so it’s an important question to answer.

I’ll hand the floor over to my colleague from Saanich North and

the Islands for a question around CRD appointments.

A. Olsen: As I was listening to the member ask questions about the potential

for a regional transit commission in his riding, it sparked in me a

question that I have for the minister about how the — it kind of fits in

with the line of questioning that he has — members of the regional

transit commission for the metropolitan area of greater Victoria are

selected.

I note that from my riding, one of three mayors — it’s in the

legislation — is selected to sit on the regional transit commission. In

the past, it’s been noted that there’s been kind of a regular rotation

of these mayors. We did some investigation and were not able to figure

out how it was that those mayors were selected or what the process

was.

Perhaps, since the member was asking about the establishment of a

regional transit commission in his riding, I’d just ask the minister for

some clarification on how it is that the mayors of my riding, the one

seat that is representative on the regional transit commission, are

selected.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. The appointments are prescribed under the act.

At the moment — and there is no formal policy that they rotate — we

have: two representatives from Victoria, the mayor and a councillor; one

from Sooke, who is the mayor of Sooke; a mayor and a councillor from

Saanich; I believe the mayor of Oak Bay; and the mayor of Colwood. It is

at the minister’s discretion. The names come to the minister, and

decisions are made on that.

A. Olsen: I note in the act that it is very prescriptive with respect to the

mayor of Victoria; a councillor from Victoria; Esquimalt; a mayor from

Saanich; a councillor from Saanich; one of the following from Sidney,

North Saanich or Central Saanich; and then one of the following: a mayor

of Colwood, Metchosin, Langford, View Royal, the Highlands or

Sooke.

I note that there are two from the Western Communities currently

sitting. I’m just not sure what the mechanism is which…. I recognize

that it’s not formalized in any way, that it rotates. That has been the

practice. I recognize, also, that it’s an order-in-council that formally

approves these, and we were notified that the approval happened. But I’m

just wondering what the mechanism was.

We were asking about this prior to the decision being made, and it

was never made clear to us what the process was to determine whose name

is on that. Furthermore, while I don’t have any quibbles over the fact

that there is a member of…. There are two, in part (

g) of the act. I’m

just wondering how that happens? It seems like a bit of a mystery,

frankly.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member, and I understand the desire for

clarification.

Names are put forward, obviously. We have a Crown agency board

resourcing office that helps ensure that we get names. They look at that

and talk to people about that and come with recommendations.

The concern, I understand from the member, is, potentially, that

there are two from the Western Communities. I think this reflects,

really, the growth of the Western Communities. Sooke is no longer a

quiet backwater now. I’m not sure whether the people of Sooke like that

or don’t like that. But I think it’s very important to have them engaged

in transit decisions, because we are hoping that more people are using

transit from the farther west we go, rather than be driving

in.

S. Bond: Good afternoon, Minister. I appreciate the opportunity.

I want to thank my colleague the critic for

Transportation.

We’re going to talk a little bit about buses, but it’s going to be

about those that used to run across northern British Columbia. I do want

to recognize the team of people that work in the Ministry of

Transportation in northern British Columbia. They do an excellent job

every day. They work very hard They’re very collaborative. I really

appreciate the work they do on behalf of northern residents.

Minister, I’m wondering if you could give us an update on B.C. Bus

North. I would like to know, specifically, what the intentions of the

minister are when the contract ends in just a few short

months.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. I know that she’s obviously

concerned about the service to her community and communities around the

north.

I’ve got to say that I’m extraordinarily pleased with the success

of B.C. Bus North. B.C. Transit and our ministry moved extremely swiftly

when Greyhound pulled out. Within about six weeks, we got a service

going in across the whole of northern B.C., which is really quite

extraordinary, given the size of the area and the complexity of the

routes and everything else.

We’ve had more than 3,000 passengers in the first seven months.

Just as an aside to the member, I know there were some concerns about

the Prince George–Valemount section. The route has been changed, so it

will be more reflective of what people really need.

I’ve got to say that I’m extraordinarily pleased with what has

happened so far. There was a real desire to make sure that people were

not left stranded. We did not want people to be without affordable

ground transportation. That continues to be my commitment.

We’re aware of the year coming to an end in June, and we are, at

the moment, looking at different options. We continue to engage with

communities and will be engaging with communities in the coming weeks

and months. We’re also working with the federal government to see the

commitment that they’re providing, because we’ve got both the B.C. Bus

North as well as what was there in the rest of the province when

Greyhound pulled out. Actually, it’s pulling out from the whole of

western Canada. That’s when we, as a province, engaged with the federal

government to get the federal government working on what was a national

issue.

I am absolutely committed to making sure that people have access

to safe and affordable ground transportation. B.C. Bus North has been a

great success. We do continue to look at what will happen after June,

when the first year comes to an end, and to make sure that we can still

provide good service to people or that people can have good

service.

S. Bond: Well, I appreciate that. I think there are some issues, which I

will raise, with the service as it exists, although there’s been some

flexibility added in the last week or few days, at least.

Is the minister prepared to say today that should there not be a

private sector provider that is going to run along Highway 16 —

obviously, a pretty significant rural part of British Columbia — she

will be prepared to continue the existing B.C. bus service beyond its

one-year contract?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I just want to clarify one thing. The B.C. Bus North is more than

Highway 16. The member mentioned Highway 16. We know that Highway 16 is

a vital route for many people, and that’s why we’ve got the Highway 16

action plan, which eventually came after much pressure. It was started,

it has been extraordinarily successful, and we will be committed to

continuing that.

My commitment to the people in the north is that…. We came very

quickly last time, when Greyhound pulled out, and ensured that people

were not left stranded. We are working with communities. We are working

with the federal government to try and find alternatives. I want to give

people the assurance that, come June, they will not be left stranded.

They were not left stranded last year, and they will not be left

stranded this year.

S. Bond: My constituents will be, I assume, relieved. There will still be

uncertainty until we know that there has been a permanent solution put

in place. We recognize that this has been an investment on behalf of the

provincial government, and it was a necessary one. You can imagine that

for some people, it is their only method of transportation in northern

British Columbia. They don’t have the option of a variety of other

services.

I will certainly be keeping in touch with the minister to make

sure that we understand what the process involves and what the options

are that are being considered so that a service remains in place. I do

have a concern about the existing service. I shared that with the

minister via correspondence after meeting with a number of advocates in

my community who speak on behalf of persons with

disabilities.

I’m sure the minister is aware that the bus service that currently

exists is not accessible. That is a challenge for northern residents.

Frankly, in the day and age that we’re living in, it’s unacceptable. We

need to sort out, in whatever model of service is going to be provided

across northern B.C., that it is inclusive of all residents.

The minister knows that we had a situation at Christmas where B.C.

Bus…. The

schedule and the companion

schedule that run with the Northern

Health bus didn’t work. In fact, we had northern residents, some with

disabilities, and others who simply were trying to travel during that

period of time and could not do it.

Is the minister, in the work that she’s doing, looking at options

or a continued B.C. Bus North or whatever it is? Has the team been made

aware of the need to look at inclusive bus services, which means

accessible buses?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I understand the member’s real urging that the vehicles be

inclusive for residents. This was set up, as the member well knows, very

quickly. B.C. Transit was not able to source wheelchair-accessible buses

at the time.

I have to say Northern Health Connections really did help out.

There may have been some glitches, but they’ve changed their criteria

for allowing who could be using the buses. They are accessible and allow

for companions to be part of that ride. I think that was a very good

move, because we want to say…. I think that, like the member,

representing a rural community, we know that there aren’t options for

many of our constituents. We want to make sure that they can travel

safely and affordably, and that’s what we’re committed to.

I also assure the member that, as we move along with decisions, we

will be talking with her and her colleagues about what can be done next.

The inclusivity is obviously a concern. We will be working as best to

address that.

S. Bond: Thanks to the minister for her response. It’s critically important

— you know, when we talk about the issue of mobility, not being able to

get home for Christmas or a variety of other things, back and forth. The

minister is correct. Northern Health Connections has played a critical

role, but those schedules aren’t as well aligned as they could or may be

moving into the future.

I have two other questions. Again, I thank the critic for the

time. I want to ask about the scheduling issues that have been raised.

Again, I brought that issue as a result of concerns that were expressed

from my constituents. First of all, grateful, of course, that there is a

service at all, but for communities like Valemount, for example, it was

very difficult to find a way to make B.C. Bus actually work for them.

You’d end up having to stay a day or longer to actually get to and from.

So there were issues related to convenience.

Now, I know that the

schedule has been adjusted very recently — in

fact with, I think, a departure coming out of Valemount early in the

morning. There have been some changes made. I am encouraged by the fact

that there’s been some flexibility introduced there.

I’m guess I’m wondering: what is the mechanism that the minister

and her staff use to hear from local residents about what’s going to

work best for them? One of the arguments that the bus company makes —

for example, that Greyhound makes — is that buses are empty, and we’re

not getting capacity. Part of that is because of the scheduling issue.

They rarely run. If you expect someone to get on a bus in rural British

Columbia at midnight on the side of the road, I’m thinking that

utilization numbers are probably not going to be at their maximum. So

it’s been encouraging to see some

schedule changes.

I guess I’m wondering: does the minister have a mechanism in place

to hear feedback from local residents about what will work for them? I

know that the mayors of my communities have spoken up.

I’m encouraged that there’s been some change, but how, moving

forward, will those changes be monitored to see if they actually meet

the needs of residents? Otherwise, we’ll be back here in the next year’s

estimates with the message that nobody used the bus. That’s because it

has to fit into the lifestyles and sort of the ebb and flow of people

getting to and from Prince George and other locations.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I hear what she’s saying about Greyhound only

running at night. The stories you’d hear about people who are stuck

trying to catch a bus at four in the morning with a kid or something….

It’s just ridiculous. It’s no wonder that people didn’t want to ride

Greyhound.

I think that the very fact that we have had more than 3,000

passengers in the first seven months is a testament to that, that people

do want access to this service and to safe ground transportation and

affordable ground transportation, if it’s provided at a time that suits

regular life.

To the member’s specific question on the feedback, obviously, I,

as minister, am talking regularly to community leaders. Our ministry is

talking to people within the community. There is a customer service

portal on the B.C. Bus North.

The very fact that we were able to change the Valemount one — I

know it may seem to have taken a long while — is because of customer

concerns. I think the member knows as well as anybody that it’s a huge

area and, doing twice a week on two different routes, round trips, to

make adjustments isn’t easy. B.C. Bus North is trying to be as flexible

as they can when they get feedback.

I’d like to just add for the member that one of the reasons we put

B.C. Bus North in place, obviously, was to meet the need of people in

the north, to make sure they had that access to safe, affordable ground

transportation. But it is also an opportunity to find out what the

ridership numbers are.

When I talked to community leaders and I had meetings with mayors

from around the north, one of the things that everybody felt they needed

to know before going on to the next stage is: what is the ridership? How

well used will it be? What routes really do we need? This has really

provided a lot of information for that next stage, for when we are

looking at how we roll out a next stage, what happens in June. We have a

lot of information here that we have gathered, and we are very much

listening to those who use the service.

S. Bond: My last question in this section…. I know that I’ll hopefully be

getting some time at a later stage in estimates to talk about rural

highways in my area.

I do want to say that I think that the work that’s been done with

the Northern Health Connections bus and B.C. Bus North is important

work. I think rationalizing those services, trying to find ways

to….

[3:20 p.m.]

I have, many times, visited with the Northern Health Connections

team and seen the service that’s provided there, and it’s exceptional.

The drivers are well appreciated by the people who actually use the

service. So I hope that that relationship will continue and will serve

northern residents the way it has since we, obviously, heard the

terrible news about no bus service.

I just want a simple confirmation that the Northern Health

Authority, through its partnership with the ministry, is not subsidizing

important health dollars. Obviously, they provide services to patients.

There are fees attached with that, and there is a grant provided to

Northern Health. But I want to be sure that additional funds for that

partnership arrangement are not coming from health care funds when we’re

actually talking about a transportation issue.

Are there discrete budget lines? I just don’t want to see an

increased subsidization by Northern Health when we’re talking about a

transportation issue. Could the minister just give me some assurance

that that’s not happening.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to thank the Minister of Health for the work he’s done —

well, a lot of work around the province — on the Northern Health

Connections, because he did work with them to have their criteria

expanded. They will transport people based on social determinants of

B.C. Transit pays for B.C. Bus North. Ministry of Health, through

Northern Health, pays for Northern Health Connections. I’m not sure how

their budget line works, so don’t take it as read that it is through

Northern Health. But that is through the Minister of Health’s estimates

— how much it would cost. It’s one service provider. It’s the same bus

company that’s providing buses for B.C. Bus North as for Northern

Health.

The company knew the region, and I’m sure are able to bring in

economies of scale. But it’s two discrete budgets — the Northern Health

Connections budget and B.C. Bus North budget.

J. Tegart: First off, I’d like to start by saying thank you to your

staff.

We have seen nothing but good relationships with the staff in our

area. As you’re aware, all the main highways go through my riding. When

highways are closed, Metro Vancouver is closed. So we’re pretty

important, or so we think.

[3:25 p.m.]

It is a pleasure to be able to pick up a phone and arrange a

meeting and ask our questions in the local office. That is unusual,

because so many of the ministry offices have been closed off to us. So

thank you for letting your staff do that.

Transportation is a huge issue in my riding — very rural. As

you’re aware, Greyhound pulling out was devastating to our area, even

though the

schedule was horrendous.

My first question is: has the ministry done a comprehensive study

of which communities do not have any ground transportation available to

them at this time?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the thanks to staff. I’ll make sure they

hear that.

As I was saying…. I’m not sure whether the member was here when I

made my opening remarks. Our transportation system is essential for

everyone in this province. I know everything is essential for everyone

in this province, but I’m pleased that the member, herself, as well as

her constituents are getting that service. That’s what they deserve, and

that’s what they should do.

[3:30 p.m.]

As far as the question of…. What was a simple question got into

quite a lot of debate when asking have we done a provincewide

assessment. So assuming that the member is meaning rail, transit

service, long-haul bus and everything that is there, we

haven’t.

We’ve been focusing on the most recent Greyhound pullout — last

year’s Greyhound pullout — which left us with needing to fill in the

north and then when they left western Canada. Since they left western

Canada, we’ve engaged with our federal counterparts and have been

leading…. We co-chair a national working group.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

We’ve made sure that the federal government is

extra­ordinarily aware of the needs of rural communities, that

there is a huge gap for rural communities. I know that in the member’s

own region, with Greyhound pulling out, at the moment, there is a gap.

There are gaps right across northern and rural British Columbia that we

need to be addressing.

I’m very pleased that we, as a province, are taking a lead on this

and that we are co-chairing this federal working group and continue to

work on ways that we can ensure that there is affordable ground

transportation for people across the province.

J. Tegart: Thank you for your response. The minister talks about the support

for B.C. Bus North. Could you give me a figure of how many dollars go

into subsidizing that service?

Hon. C. Trevena: So $2 million was budgeted for. We budgeted for…. We didn’t know,

at the stage when we were setting this up very quickly, what the

ridership was going to be and the uptake. The budget was $2 million. We

can break that down to the exact where we are today, if wished. But that

was the amount earmarked.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. Are all those dollars provincial, or is

there a federal-provincial partnership in those dollars?

Hon. C. Trevena: They are provincial dollars. This was, as I was mentioning to the

member’s colleague and to…. I’ve got to say, I’m very proud of B.C. Bus

North. It came in so quickly. It was dealing with an immediate emergency

of Greyhound saying: “We’re going in a few weeks.” We needed to get the

service up and running.

That’s why we worked with B.C. Transit to get a B.C. Transit

service working in the north, something that was out of B.C. Transit’s

usual business model, out of its usual delivery model. It was a very

quick response. Within six weeks of making the decision, B.C. Transit

buses were up with a

schedule and stops and ready to go. It was a very

quick response, and it has proven to be a very good response to an

immediate need.

J. Tegart: Are there any federal dollars available to assist in

hard-to-service rural bus routes?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the federal government has said that they will be offering a

subsidy. We are working very closely with the federal government on how

we’re going to fill the gaps, both in our province and across western

Canada, to ensure people have that transportation — and also, obviously,

on subsidy as it applies to British Columbia.

I think the member is well aware that a number of private

companies came up and were able to fill the gaps that were left by

Greyhound or fill some of the routes that Greyhound had vacated. After

that, there were a number of areas that were still uncovered, at which

point we, as a ministry, put out a request for expressions of interest.

We got four companies that could fill those gaps. Staff are working on

the next steps in how that will roll out.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I guess when I look at B.C. Bus North

and I look that we’ve invested $2 million and we’ve had 3,000

passengers, it’s pretty clear that for public transportation in rural

B.C. to be successful, we’re going to need to subsidize it. I don’t know

how a business could get a return on investment running a bus route with

those numbers, unless I’m off base.

[3:40 p.m.]

When we look at southern B.C., and I look at my riding in

particular, which includes the Fraser Canyon, which has been devastated

by the Coquihalla, and I look at some of the communities which are

desperate for ground transportation, I’m not sure that the number of

people who live in the canyon would be able to make it — a profit — to

run a bus down the Fraser Canyon.

When we talk about the discussions with the federal government, I

certainly have had a constituent in my area looking at providing service

— and very, very excited about that. But with the announcement that

there are discussions with the federal government, how do you put in a

request for proposals when you don’t know what the dollars are? That’s

the challenge.

If there is discussion about subsidy, then if I were a business

person, I would be waiting to see what those numbers are so that I could

put my business plan together and be as successful and sustainable as I

could be. The difficulty is that because we don’t know what the numbers

are, and they’re not out there, how do you put your proposal in? When do

you think that we will know what the federal dollars are?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I can answer it this way. When Greyhound pulled out, we went to

the Passenger Transportation Board and worked with them — as the member

knows, they are the organization that gives the licences to bus

operators in this province, as well as taxis and other operators — and

asked them to fast-track an application. Because we knew that there was

going to be vast swaths of the province without bus transportation, and

that was not acceptable.

The Passenger Transportation Board agreed, and we got quite a

number of applicants coming through who wanted to operate a bus service.

At the time, this was all done on a commercial basis, this whole

application fast-tracking. Every applicant who applied was applying to

run a bus service on a commercial basis, independently. The Passenger

Transportation Board is still getting applicants through, who want to

operate service for a long-distance bus in British Columbia.

Just last week there was an application for a company that wants

to run a bus from Surrey to Prince George. It was posted at the

Passenger Transportation Board. These were all ones that wanted to work

on a commercial basis. That left us with…. We could look at the map.

After the first round of fast-track went through, we could see where

this service was that would be able to operate on a commercial basis,

and where it wasn’t.

The majority of routes that Greyhound pulled out of in the last

round…. I know that they’d been, like, death by a thousand cuts. They’d

been pulling out from Highway 3 and other areas for some time. In the

majority of areas where Greyhound pulled out of, there was coverage.

Where there wasn’t coverage is where we put out a request for

expressions of interest from those providers who felt they might be able

to provide some service there.

As I mentioned to my previous question, we’re still working on the

next steps of that, with the RFP, at the same time as working with the

federal government on their commitment, and what their public commitment

translates into, basically, in dollar amounts. We are on the phone daily

with them. This is in addition to our continued work with the federal

government on how we can look at ensuring that across western Canada,

communities do have access to safe and affordable transportation, with

the loss of interprovincial transportation companies such as

Greyhound.

J. Tegart: I guess one of the things that those of us who live in rural areas

talk about a lot is how many people live in our communities without

vehicles. It’s a challenge, not only for the long-distance bus routes,

etc., but also locally. When we talk about ride-sharing, it is not just

an urban issue. We see it as a possibility, in our small communities, to

not have to buy buses and to actually provide opportunities in our small

communities for ride-hailing. I’ll just make that comment.

[3:50 p.m.]

The other thing, while I have the floor. It was interesting to

listen to the critic talk about the capacity issues on the Sea to Sky.

I’d love to talk about capacity issues up the Fraser Canyon, because

there’s endless capacity. I call it the forgotten highway. I want to

just put it on the record that I’ve made the Fraser Canyon my project

this year. I’m giving you lots of notice.

I drive the Fraser Canyon every week. When I drive the Duffey, out

the Sea to Sky, and I see all the signage, all the pullouts, all the

opportunity for people to hike…. We have all that without signage,

without pullouts, without a highway that’s overly well maintained and

with very little traffic. So if you want to come up and visit for a day,

it’s a great place to come.

I’m wondering…. I don’t know if this is the time or if the

minister could answer it when other staff are here. I’m looking for

dollars around signage, around pullouts and around maintenance in the

Fraser Canyon so that we can start to bring that highway back to life.

It is a wonderful opportunity for people who live in Metro Vancouver to

do day trips. So when that member’s…. When West Vancouver–Sea to Sky has

overcapacity issues, we have another route that we can invite people to

take.

I’m not sure if this is the time that the minister could make some

comments on what my constituents can do and can expect in the budget

around the Fraser Canyon, but at some point during the estimates, it

would be wonderful if we could get some response to that.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member and to the member for sea to ski. It’s

going to stay. I’m sorry. It’s going to stay.

Are we moving off transit? We can get other staff.

Other­wise, I can give the member a very high-level response.

Obviously, we will have the opportunity…. We’ll have our highways folks

in later on in the estimates process, and I think it’s worth having a

greater discussion.

I have to say I think there are lots of people in rural British

Columbia, and I count myself among them, who are very aware of

transportation issues — of people who don’t have cars, people who are

too old to drive, who are trying to find a way without bus service and

how you make a community work without that. I’m very aware of those

issues.

I’m also aware of the amount of money that went into the Sea to

Sky. It’s a lovely road — a decision made before the 2010 Olympics by a

previous government. I’m not going to get into all of that at the

moment. The need to be able to invest in our highways to make them safe

and make them…. Really, when you talk about pullouts, yes, there are the

tourism opportunities, and yes, there’s all the hiking and everything,

but for me, it’s an issue of safety, ensuring that people have a place

to rest, a place for trucks that need to pull out.

Yes, those sorts of issues continue to be a priority for me and

for the ministry. When we have our highway section, if you want to

connect with your critic about when we’re doing the highway section, I’d

be happy to go into more details about specific highways in the member’s

riding.

J. Tegart: Just one more. My apologies to the critic. I’m very pleased to see

the ten-mile slide still in the budget and look forward to the

completion of that project.

Thank you very much for your candour today.

D. Barnett: As you know, I have questioned before about how we have no

transportation. There is a licence that was held up, and it was supposed

to be by the 21st of November, according to the Passenger Transportation

Board. There were supposed to be two buses en route. There were no buses

en route, so the licence is extended again and again. Now I hear on the

radio it’s been extended again, until the 8th of March. We have had no

transportation from Williams Lake, from Anahim Lake, all the way through

my colleague behind me who just spoke’s riding.

[3:55 p.m.]

Minister, this is unacceptable. When Greyhound gave their notice,

your ministry said you were working on this; you would work with

communities. There has been no dialogue. There has been nothing

throughout my whole region.

I have senior citizens who can’t get anywhere. I’ve sent you a

package of letters this big last week. When are we going to be able to

have this licence available — I see somebody else has now put in an

application — so that we can get our people moving to doctors, to

schools, to families, to places they need to go? This is an emergency.

We have absolutely nothing. When can we expect the ministry to move

forward with this?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the question. I think the member is well

aware that Greyhound, over the last number of years, started pulling

back service in some of the routes that the member is talking about —

earlier withdrawals of service previous to our government. As soon as we

had the loss of Greyhound service under our government, we acted

immediately.

Our initial loss was all of the northern routes, where we brought

in B.C. Bus North as an immediate response. For those routes south of

Prince George, where Greyhound pulled out in this latest round — as I

say, they were pulling out from the early…. I’m not even going to cite

when they started pulling back, but it was definitely before we formed

government.

When we formed government, we made sure that we could fast-track

applications. We could see where Greyhound was pulling out from the

whole of western Canada. They made their announcement in the summer of

last year, 2018. We fast-tracked applications through the Passenger

Transportation Board. As the member well knows, the Passenger

Transportation Board is the organization that deals with…. It’s an

arm’s-length tribunal that deals with applications for licences, whether

it’s buses or taxis or…. It will be the organization that deals with

app-based ride-hailing.

The Passenger Transportation Board had the ability to fast-track

applications. They got a number of applications to fill the services

that Greyhound had pulled out of at that stage.

[4:00 p.m.]

When we realized they hadn’t got enough to cover all the routes

that Greyhound had pulled out of in 2018, when they pulled out of

western Canada, we did a request for expressions of interest to get

other applicants who might be able to operate on some of these

routes.

We’ve had, since then, four other applicants. We still have

applicants coming through who want to operate on a commercial basis. The

Passenger Transportation Board is still dealing with companies that want

to operate on a commercial basis through some of the interior of

B.C.

We are working as assiduously as we can to ensure coverage. I am

very concerned when people do not have access to safe and affordable

ground transportation. Some of these are historic cuts that we, as a

government of 17 or 18 months, would still try to be covering. What we

are definitely trying to cover are those cuts that came under our watch,

as government, when Greyhound pulled out from western Canada.

Just as an aside, I do know that some of the members, elected

officials, held a meeting — it must be about ten months ago now — in

Prince George. I know there were some representatives from the member’s

constituency that came to that meeting to discuss long-distance ground

transportation.

D. Barnett: Minister, the issue, in a nutshell, is we lost Greyhound at the

end of September of 2018. Prior to that, we had adequate service for our

communities.

My issue is the fact that the transportation board took an

application. There was an obligation to be on the road by the 21st of

November. That obligation was not met. Therefore, that licence was

extended, extended, extended, so nobody else would put in an

application. I have been in contact with them. We still have no

service.

We now have a very dangerous situation. We have a hospital with no

nurses. We have no transportation for these mothers to go to Kamloops or

to go to Prince George early so they can go and have their babies. We

have a serious situation here. When will we get some assistance? When

will a licence be given to somebody who has a bus, who has a service,

who is willing to provide it throughout the region so that my

constituents can be safe and move on with their lives?

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand the member’s frustration. We are just checking — the

reason it took a little while to come back — what Interior Health has to

offer. They obviously have their bus, but it is limited. I’m aware of

that now.

As I say, I do understand the member’s frustration. The Passenger

Transportation Board is independent. They have decided to extend the

requirements on their licence. We now have until this Friday, the

eighth.

[4:05 p.m.]

I know that the member…. I, myself, hope that we do get

resolution, because there is, obviously, huge concern. I’ll continue to

watch. But the Passenger Transportation Board is an independent body

that has issued a licence and has issued an extension to these

licences.

D. Barnett: Minister, I do know that the Passenger Transportation Board is a

separate entity. I also have been around for a few days, and I do know

the minister can make changes if they so choose. Changes need to be

made. We are in desperation. We thought maybe we’d have ride-sharing,

and that would’ve been at least something.

We have no taxis. We have nothing. Fortunately, we have the

Northern Health bus. But that is one that basically comes through and

picks up people and takes them for health care meetings, if they meet

the time the bus is coming through.

This is a very serious situation, and I cannot tell you how

serious it is and how upset and frustrated people are. We’re trying to

encourage people to live in rural British Columbia, and every time we

take a step forward, we seem to take a step backwards.

I’ll wait till Friday and see what happens. I do know there are

other companies waiting, have been waiting since November 21. But the

licence keeps getting extended. These companies have told me they will

not put an application in and go into a bidding war with somebody.

Nobody should be able to hold a licence up, Minister. We’ll leave it at

that and see what happens.

I do know that if there’s help in northern British Columbia, why

is there no help in other rural communities in British Columbia? We had

the same situation that they’ve got. My riding backs onto my colleague’s

behind me, and we all have no service whatsoever.

I’ll leave that there, but I do have another question or two. My

question is: the funding for Highway 16 — what dollars and cents go into

that highway passenger service project?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, this is something I’m very pleased that I’m able to talk

about, because for a number of years after the former Attorney General,

Mr. Oppal, presented his report, there was absolute inaction from the

then government on Highway 16.

Eventually, after much pressure from my colleague on this side….

Well, we were then on that side of the House. But my colleague from the

North Coast, among them, really pushed to make sure that there was

actually service on Highway 16. We now have it, and we are fully

committed to it.

It has been, over the number of years for the five-part plan,

because of the vulnerability there…. That includes transit, transit

shelters, community buses, as well as driver’s education. Over the life

of the project so far, it’s been $8.1 million. That is a cost-share

between the communities as well as the province, with the province

providing capital funding.

D. Barnett: What portion of that is the province, for the funding of the $8.1

million?

Hon. C. Trevena: The province is paying for this. It was started by the previous

government, after much pressure, as I say, from my colleague the member

for the North Coast, who put a lot of pressure on the previous

government, who failed to enact the actions of the Oppal

Commission.

Finally, government acted and the provincial government is doing

the right thing. Our government continues to ensure that people on that

very vulnerable stretch of highway have access to safe and absolutely

affordable ground transportation. I think that everybody knows the

history of Highway 16 and the importance of investing to make sure that

people are safe travelling on that highway.

D. Barnett: It was my misunderstanding. The question was: is the $8.1 million

all by the province? Because I thought I heard you say that the

communities were participating in it also.

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies to the member. Yes, the $8.1 million is provincial.

That’s our portion that has been budgeted for over the years, up to now.

Approximately $800,000 for this year.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for answering the questions. I, too, would

like to say the staff of the Ministry of Highways is one of the agencies

that is very cooperative with all communities, with local governments,

with MLAs. Most of the ministries are shut off from our MLAs, as my

colleague has said, and to our staff. So we really sincerely appreciate

your openness and transparency.

D. Davies: I’ve just got a couple of questions. I want to thank the critic

for allowing me the opportunity to ask some questions. I also want to

start out by thanking the minister and thanking the ministry staff for

the time today, as well as the ministry staff around the province for

MOT.

Katherine Styba up in Peace River does a fantastic job for all of

you. Certainly have a good dialogue with her and myself. I also wanted

to thank MOTI for the work — I did this earlier — getting access to Old

Fort. Of course, there was the devastating slide up there which closed

off the whole community. So I want to thank the ministry. The residents

certainly thank you for getting access in a fairly reasonable time into

that community once it was deemed safe. I want to thank the minister for

that.

I also want to thank Yellowhead Road and Bridge, YRB, which, of

course, is no longer the contractor moving forward. It’s Interior Roads.

I want to thank YRB for their many years of incredible road maintenance

that they provided to the North Peace. I look forward to working with

Interior Roads as they move.

Minister, my question is around bus service again in the north. I

know we have B.C. Bus as a temporary measure. It seems to be working

decently. It wasn’t scheduled as well as, of course, Greyhound was. But

it is something for the time being.

[4:15 p.m.]

My question is, though: what is the long-term plan? I understand

that we’re looking for contractors. Is there anything? Have we got any

contractors that are lined up, kicking the door down, trying to get into

this market?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I thank the member for his recognition of ministry staff.

They do work extraordinarily hard. Really, whether it is in the

day-to-day running of operations or it’s in an emergency, such as the

slide in the member’s own constituency, they are there all the time,

working for the community. It’s their community too.

Likewise with the road maintenance contractors. People love

complaining, except that it is your neighbour who is running the plow or

whatever. These are our neighbours. They are our colleagues. It’s nice

that they have the recognition. I thank the member for giving them the

recognition.

B.C. Bus North. I had a bit of a conversation about it with the

member’s colleague from Prince George–​Valemount. It is something

I’m extraordinarily proud of, extraordinarily proud that B.C. Transit

and the ministry were able to get this up and running so quickly when

Greyhound pulled out. B.C. Transit got it operating within about six

weeks of having decided to move with it. We now have, in seven months,

seen more than 3,000 passengers using it, so it has been

successful.

I think the member knows it’s very affordable: $35 or $45 for a

ticket. I think one of the reasons for its success — as well as,

obviously, the cost — is the fact that it’s operating in the hours that

people want to travel. It’s largely operating through the daytime.

People don’t have to wait around at four in the morning in the cold, by

a gas station, hoping that the Greyhound is going to pull in for them.

So I think that it has been a big success.

We now are, obviously, looking at next stages. This was put in

very much as an emergency solution to a very worrying problem. When we

put it in, I had many conversations with the mayors of the region and

elected officials of the region and continue to do so. It was agreed

that this was going to be an opportunity to really assess what the need

was, what did and what didn’t work.

We’re still looking at that. We’re still sort of gathering that

information. Obviously, we have a few months to get to the next steps,

but we are working. It’s very much in our sightline that June is the

anniversary of the start of B.C. Bus North. It is when people are

anticipating something else to happen, and we are working assiduously to

see where we can go in the next stages.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister, for that. From what I understand, then, we’re

still in the assessment stage, looking, gathering information. My only

worry is that around B.C., we’re kind of seeing piecemeal deals

happening. I guess the people of Peace River North, certainly up in Fort

Nelson and those remote areas…. They need that access to come to Fort

St. John and have a baby or even just access specialists at the

hospital. I get a lot of questions when I do travel up to Fort Nelson.

“What is the long term? Are we going to be able to rely on some sort of

bus service?” I guess the question back….

[4:20 p.m.]

It sounds like maybe around June — I’m not sure if that’s what you

were saying — we could be looking at an announcement of some sort,

moving forward. Is that what I understand? If not, what would be a date

for something like that?

Hon. C. Trevena: There are a number of things at play at the moment. We’ve got B.C.

Bus North and what happens in the north for bus service, which is,

absolutely, on an immediate agenda. In fact, I think all ground

transportation is on an immediate agenda, but this is an immediate

agenda because we’ve been running for about seven months. The contract

was for a year. We’re hoping that we are in a stage, sooner rather than

later, to be able to move on to a next stage.

There is a desire to have…. Are we going to still have B.C. Bus

North? Are we going to have a different service? The member for Prince

George–Valemount asked a similar question. It’s something that we are

still working assiduously on — what the next stage is, what the next

steps are. We’re talking to local communities about that, as well as

working through what we have.

The gaps in service. We call them the gaps, the areas where we had

coverage for former Greyhound routes. I know that when we put out the

request for expressions of interest at the end of last year, one that

came back was for Fort Nelson up to Watson Lake, to provide a service up

there — that section. I know it’s not the other way around, but there is

clearly an interest there.

We are also working with the federal government. We are

co-chairing a committee with the federal government to look at,

effectively, ground transportation, rural transportation across western

Canada.

I think the fact of Greyhound’s withdrawal alerted our federal

counterparts that the interprovincial bus service was no longer in

existence and we needed to do something. It didn’t all rest on us as a

province. We are the province that has the largest amount of ground

transportation routes, followed by Alberta. It doesn’t rest on the two

most westerly provinces; it is a federal issue. So we continue to work

on that and co-chair that group.

We’re looking at a different group of answers to try and deal with

the same problem, which is ground transportation in the north and across

the whole of B.C. This continues to be…. At the moment, it’s an evolving

solution, but I hope that soon it will be an integrated

solution.

G. Kyllo: I would like to give thanks to our Transportation critic, my

colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, for an opportunity

for myself and some of my colleagues to pose some questions to the

Transportation Minister.

As the MLA for Shuswap, some of the rural communities have

significant transportation challenges, and I just wanted to highlight

for the minister the fact that some of our communities, actually, are

not serviced by Greyhound now, obviously, and are not serviced by B.C.

Transit either.

So for small communities like Malakwa, Sicamous, Grindrod,

Enderby, Falkland, Sorrento and the entire North Shuswap, there is no

public transit that’s provided currently. Residents, clearly, relied

heavily on Greyhound. I think, for the most part, Greyhound provided a

great service that was of significant benefit to the rural parts of

Shuswap in providing consistent and convenient access to points around

B.C. and into neighbouring provinces.

[4:25 p.m.]

The Greyhound bus service provided a minimum of two buses a day,

and during the holiday seasons and summer months, they provided three

buses a day that actually came through the Shuswap. In talking to some

of the previous operators of the Salmon Arm depot, they indicated that

it was not uncommon for 20 or 30 passengers, on average, to be making

the stop, actually getting on or off the bus in points like Salmon Arm.

Their estimates were that about 100 to 150 passengers per day were

actually utilizing the service through the Shuswap. So there is a

significant demand and significant utilization of that

service.

The question that I have for the minister is: what due diligence

was undertaken by the B.C. transportation authority in granting a permit

to a company called Rider Express that is now providing limited service

in Shuswap?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. The deci­sions on that were made

by the Passenger Transportation Board, which is an independent tribunal.

It is not a decision by the ministry.

G. Kyllo: Did the minister not believe that there was importance to ensure

that there was rigour applied in determining who would be actually

provided with these licences to provide bus services for communities

where Greyhound had pulled out?

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll provide the answer and then beg the indulgence so we can have

a ten-minute recess, according to the critic. But I’ll give the member

an answer now and provide him more fodder for his next

question.

A couple of things. I’m quite concerned that…. The member clearly

appreciated the role of the long-distance bus service in his

constituency, in his communities, but I did want to underline that he

does have B.C. Transit service. There is Shuswap regional transit that

operates in the member’s constituency.

I’ve got to say I’m…. It’s one of the things that one learns when

one becomes a minister — the breadth and depth of the role of government

and government Crown corporations. B.C. Transit does an amazing, amazing

job, I think, unlike any other province — to have a transit system like

we do. It’s in 130 communities. Really, in small communities, in larger

communities, there is this network.

I was talking to the critic, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to

Sky, earlier on today about the possibilities of regional transit and

how we can grow different transit systems. So I’m really pleased to say

that we do have B.C. Transit, and while the withdrawal of Greyhound

obviously was hugely impactful for our province, we didn’t suffer quite

as badly, although I know that the people who used Greyhound felt that

they suffered. In comparison to some provinces, we didn’t suffer as

badly because we had B.C. Transit. I know that doesn’t deal with the

long haul, but it is there, and it is growing regionally.

To the member’s question about specifics on the application for

taking over one of the Greyhound routes…. As I mentioned to the member,

it’s the Passenger Transportation Board that makes the decision, and it

is following very clear guidelines in the Passenger Transportation

Act.

They have to ensure that the applicant passes what’s really

described as a three-point test. That means that they are fit and proper

to provide the service, that there is an economic need and that there is

a sound business backing for it. So we’re looking at issues such as:

that they are fit and proper, that they have the financing and the

capital, that they’ve got a good reputation. The board looks at the

economic need, assesses the need in the region for the service and,

obviously, the sound economic and business case. It looks at

that.

The Passenger Transportation Board operates in a very transparent

manner. They do due diligence. They post applications and decisions on

their website. When they’re posting applications, they take in letters

of, I guess, support and letters of concern and, as an independent

tribunal, make the decisions on the service, whether it be a bus

service, a taxi service or soon to be an app-based ride-hailing service.

They make those decisions independently and independent of this

ministry.

With that, Mr. Chair, if I might ask that we recess for ten

minutes. Would that be okay?

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

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Chair: We’ll continue with the estimates for the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

G. Kyllo: Minister, thank you very much for the response. What I heard is

that it was clearly the Passenger Transportation Board that vetted all

applications. You indicated that there was a three-point test, which

included due diligence to determine the business case that the actual

service provider was fit to actually provide the services, the economic

need, as well as business backing.

Did the minister have any direct conversations — I guess either

conversations directly or through senior staff — with the Passenger

Transportation Board to evaluate, I guess, or to have a look and give

consideration to the evaluation criteria by which companies would be

vetted and potentially granted licence to take over from the services

that were retracted from Greyhound?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the break.

Yes, the ministry wrote a letter about expediting applications.

That was the only contact the ministry had with the Passenger

Transportation Board. The Passenger Transportation Board works

independently as an independent tribunal.

G. Kyllo: So if I understand correctly, although we have certainly heard the

minister talk about the concern for the replacement of bus service for

rural communities largely or negatively impacted by the retraction of

services by Greyhound….

If the minister could provide some further clarification that

there was no direct contact with the ministry to provide any direction

to the Passenger Transportation Board, with respect to ensuring that the

review and the vetting of those applications clearly took into

consideration the need for those companies to have the financial ability

to actually meet the service provision by which they made application

and made a commitment through the application process?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board is completely independent. The board has its own staff

that looks at applications. The board applies the three-part test. But

it has nothing to do with the ministry.

[4:55 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: So let me get this straight. Although the minister acknowledged

the negative impact that the retraction of Greyhound service was having

on rural communities, even though she expressed grave concerns about the

continuation of service, largely for rural communities around the

province, the minister did not avail herself of, I guess, or have

conversations directly with the Passenger Transportation Board to, I

guess, instill upon them the importance of ensuring that the

applications were thoroughly vetted, such that those that were going to

be provided the opportunity to provide services to replace the services

that were retracted from Greyhound actually had the financial ability

and the commitment to ensure that they were providing the services that

they had set forth in their applications to the Passenger Transportation

Board.

Hon. C. Trevena: I mean, obviously, yes, I was absolutely concerned about Greyhound

pulling out and leaving people stranded, and I still am very alive to

the situation. The urgency of the matter did mean that we wrote a letter

to the board asking to expedite their process.

But to remind the member, Greyhound had to apply to the board. The

board did consultations, very thorough consultations. They went out and

had hearings around the province. They then accepted Greyhound’s

decision to pull out and allowed Greyhound to pull out. They did tell

Greyhound they had to wait three months to pull out. At that stage, they

were then going to be fast-tracking applications. That was, I believe,

partly as a result of our letter, but also the board was aware, from the

hearings, of the urgency.

Then the board, as I’ve mentioned to the member before, used its

three-part test on assessing any applicant that was wanting to cover the

service. As part of the test, people have the opportunity to either

support an application or to oppose an application, to raise concerns on

an application.

The board, as an independent body, applied the tests, came up with

the results that we have seen coming out across the province, translated

into the service that we do have in certain areas. I know there’s

concern in the service we don’t have in other areas.

G. Kyllo: So the minister acknowledges that the direction provided from the

ministry to the Passenger Transportation Board was for them to expedite

the processing of applications.

[5:00 p.m.]

Can the minister elaborate if there was any consideration given to

the level of service that was being provided by the different applicants

in vetting and coming to a final determination before granting such

licence?

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s a decision by the independent Passenger Transportation

Board.

G. Kyllo: The minister felt, I guess, incumbent on providing direction to

the Passenger Transportation Board to ensure that applications were

expedited but did not have any concern with respect to the service level

that was being provided.

The communities that I represent definitely are negatively

impacted by the withdrawal of a very robust service that was previously

provided by Greyhound. The Passenger Transportation Board, in vetting

applicants to provide what we hoped would be a full replacement

service…. It’s my understanding, if the minister can just clarify one

more time for the record, that there was no direction provided by the

Minister of Transportation or any concerns expressed to ensure that the

Passenger Transportation Board took into consideration the level of

service that would be provided by applicants in their vetting

process.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I reiterate that it is a decision of the independent Passenger

Transportation Board, the tri­bunal, to decide on the

applications. Part of their criteria when they posted for the expedited

service was that they highlighted the fact that the applicant had to be

fit to provide this service, but the applicant is the one that suggested

or applied for a certain level of service as part of the application, as

it would do.

It is up to the Passenger Transportation Board, which I again say

works without our hands on it, as an independent tribunal. They went

through the applications and decided the appropriate ones.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that response.

Well, here’s what we do know. Rider Express made an initial

service commitment of 14 trips per week between Calgary and Vancouver.

For the period November 1 to November 3, the commitment was actually

honoured, with two buses a day coming through the Shuswap.

However, November 4 to 5, service was not provided for two days,

citing bus breakdowns and service issues. From November 6 onward, the

service changed to just two trips per week: Fridays leaving Calgary at 8

a.m. through to Vancouver and then coming back on Sundays, leaving,

again, Vancouver at 8 a.m. and ending up in Calgary. On November 29, the

service was adjusted yet again — these changes were totally at the whim

of Rider Express — dropping the service down to one trip per

week.

Their application and commitment to the Passenger Transportation

Board was for 14 trips per week between Vancouver and Calgary. As of

November 29, that service reduction is down to one trip per week.

There’s no coordination with other service providers in the

province.

Does the minister feel that an application by a company that sets

out a specific service requirement or a service standard that they’re

going to actually provide, that it is just and right for that service

provider to adjust a

schedule as they see fit, at the detriment to those

persons and those communities which that service is intended to

serve?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much to the member. Sorry about the delay on this.

We’ve just been trying to track down the information. We can’t track it

down at the moment. We don’t want to be giving inaccurate information,

so I’m wondering whether it would be acceptable for the member if we can

go and find out more information about what may or may not have happened

and be able to provide an answer to the member — I know this is not the

end of our estimates debates; in fact, it’s only just the beginning —

and be able to bring it back at a subsequent opportunity at estimates,

if that suits the member.

I do know that it is up to the Passenger Transportation Board. For

instance, when Greyhound wanted to withdraw its service, it had to go

through the Passenger Transportation Board to make that change. I

honestly don’t know, because the Passenger Transportation Board is

independent, what sort of discussion there has been with the provider

and the board. But if it’s acceptable to the member, staff will be

looking at this and will come back with a more complete and robust

answer.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that and would welcome a bit more of a fulsome report

as far as what the Passenger Transportation Board has to reveal. But my

question to the minister is: does the minister feel that it is

acceptable for a company that makes application and is granted a permit

to provide service delivery at two trips per day, at 14 trips per week,

to have the ability of reducing that service to one trip per week

without any repercussions?

If the minister could just maybe share with the House what her

personal feelings are with respect to a commitment made by a service

provider that is no longer meeting that commitment and whether she

believes that is acceptable or not.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: If what the member is saying is accurate, it’s obviously

unfortunate. But I have asked staff to come back and give both a fuller

answer to the member as well as give me a fuller picture of what may or

may not have been happening with this particular applicant, the

Passenger Transportation Board and the service provided. When I have

that, I’ll be happy to answer the member’s question.

G. Kyllo: Well, thank you to the minister for the response.

The reduction in service has a significant negative impact on

communities across British Columbia, especially in Shuswap. For a family

living in a community like Malakwa or Sicamous that may need to have

transportation to go to Vancouver for Children’s Hospital, with only one

service provided per week on Greyhound, even though they may only need

to be in Vancouver for a day or two for an appointment, they actually

are required to stay in Vancouver for a full week in order to get the

return trip back to the Shuswap.

I can’t impress upon the minister enough, with all due respect,

the seriousness and the impact it is having on small communities. The

number of passengers that were utilizing the previous Greyhound service

was significant. We are finding in communities throughout British

Columbia, where there’s a lack of B.C. Transit, there is now a huge void

that’s been created by the retraction of service delivery by

Greyhound.

The minister, in her own admission, in providing a letter of

concern, a letter of direction to the Passenger Transportation Board,

said the only objective and the only criteria was to expedite

applications. From what the minister has shared with us, there was no

concern raised, at least in that letter, about the service delivery

levels and the amount of rigour that would be put behind ensuring that

those service deliveries that are actually committed by the applicants

were actually maintained and fulfilled.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

To the minister: thank you very much for the time.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for raising this issue. However, I did want to

clarify, before we move on to the next questions, that our concern was

not only expediting the applications. That was a concern. That’s why a

letter was sent to the Passenger Transportation Board, which is

unusual.

The criteria on which the Passenger Transportation Board makes its

decisions, as I have told the member, is the three-part test. They are

that a company’s fit and proper, that there’s an economic need and that

there’s a sound economic business case. These are the criteria that the

Passenger Transportation Board uses when assessing an

application.

[5:20 p.m.]

It is incorrect to frame it that the only concern that I had was….

It had nothing to do with that. But the application was expedited, and

that was what we told the board — to use the judgment. The board

would’ve continued to use its three-part judgment while expediting

applications.

I have to say to the member that I absolutely understand concerns

and appreciate his addressing his constituents’ concerns about access to

long-haul transportation and ground transportation. This is something

that is being felt right across the province, right across western

Canada. We in B.C., although it may not feel like it at the moment, are

actually taking a lead in the country on ensuring that we get affordable

and safe ground transportation operating across the country and

B.C.

A. Olsen: Just a few more questions on B.C. Transit, I think, to wrap up

this section. I’m given the opportunity for a few minutes here just to

ask some questions with respect to Saanich North and the Islands and on

behalf of my colleague in the Cowichan Valley.

One of the things that my colleague from the Cowichan Valley has

talked about is a lack of connectivity, both north and south, I think,

from her riding — from Duncan south to Shawnigan Lake and, as well, from

Duncan north to Nanaimo. She has asked me to raise the issue and to ask

the minister for a response about increasing B.C. Transit connectivity

with the Cowichan Valley.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member.

I’ve got to say I love seeing the buses go through the whole

region, particularly over the Malahat. I’m sure that the member will

have questions about various highways, and his colleagues will have

questions about various highways later. It’s a real pleasure to see B.C.

Transit taking passengers over the Malahat. Likewise, I was coming back

the other day in the snow and saw B.C. Transit very efficiently

travelling. So a lot of safe journeys there.

[5:25 p.m.]

As far as any expansion of service, either increasing the very

successful Cowichan-Duncan-Victoria route or going north towards

Nanaimo, it is a request of the local governments. The municipalities

talk to B.C. Transit. If the municipality sees the need, it will talk to

B.C. Transit about potential plans. B.C. Transit will start talking with

communities about ridership.

One of the services in the corridor expanded to include a Saturday

service recently, which again came from that genesis of the local

government talking to B.C. Transit. The local government here is

obviously Duncan or Cowichan or the capital regional district. If B.C.

Transit finds that there is a business case for it, it will then come

into their expansion plans, which come to us as a ministry for when

we’re looking at their expansion plans in the budget.

I know that your colleague has talked a lot about this and is a

very strong advocate of this. I really am very pleased that she is such

an advocate, but we need to get that conversation going from the

municipalities with B.C. Transit.

A. Olsen: One of the things I note coming back down here to the south Island

and into Saanich North and the Islands…. Recently you attended a

celebration — I unfor­tunately wasn’t able to be there, but the

minister was able to attend — on Saltspring Island and very much

appreciated the transit on Saltspring Island.

The mayors and councillors on the Saanich peninsula, specifically

in Central Saanich…. In the last municipal election, I think the ballot

box question, the most important thing, and perhaps to my questions

earlier, was transportation and B.C. Transit connectivity.

There are substantive concerns that the Highway 17 bus doesn’t

stop in Central Saanich. It drives straight through. There have been

some requests — we’ve sent a request to your ministry and some requests

from people that I know in the municipality — to have a bus stop at Mt.

Newton Cross Road. I know there was one built into a project there, and

we’ve had the discussion.

I’m just wondering if there are any plans to take a look at that a

little bit deeper — something along the lines of what happened at

Sayward, for example, where buses can actually escape the side of the

highway and then be able to connect people there at Mt. Newton Cross

Road and Highway 17.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is well aware that Highway 17 has been

identified by the Victoria Regional Transit Commission as important as a

transit link, a transit highway. Development on it for transit,

obviously, depends on funding partnerships from local governments as

well as through our ministry.

[5:30 p.m.]

The specific that the member is talking about is something that….

I know that B.C. Transit has conversations with municipalities all the

time, and municipalities have conversations with Transit. If

municipalities are in a position to start looking more formally at this,

to start engaging in a more formal discussion, I’m sure B.C. Transit

would be happy to start those discussions also.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

There are both the informal discussions about communities saying

“we need this,” and then it gets into the formal process. I think we’re

still at the informal discussion. It’s been raised through various

people from communities to B.C. Transit. Then it just sort of needs to

move on to the more formal level and see whether there is the public

appetite as well as the community appetite and that there are then,

obviously, the dollars for it.

A. Olsen: I think, at this point, it was important that…. This has been an

issue that has been raised with me dozens of times since getting

elected, an issue that residents in Central Saanich really want to have

resolved specifically at that intersection.

I think what I’m going to do, though, is I’m going to take this

off line and have a further conversation. My understanding was that a

development had secured a certain amount of investment in adding bus

stop infrastructure and that Central Saanich had that as part of a

development, from what I understand. It wasn’t B.C. Transit but the

ministry.

I’m going to leave it at that, because we can probably have a

conversation about it off line and move it forward. I know that my

members opposite here would like to continue on this. So let’s just

leave it for that, and then we can have a more direct conversation with

the people around the table.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Member. The staff here are very happy to engage. It

might be a matter for our highways division as well. They’ve been

engaged in this. Happy to have that conversation. We’ll make sure that

happens.

D. Clovechok: A quick question on transit. I was just reading today that there

was a recent Poparide survey done that is claiming that there are two

million British Columbians that have been left out in the cold by the

loss of Greyhound. We all know the profound effect that that’s had. I

won’t get into the Greyhound issue right now, but what I can say is that

this is felt so severely in the town of Golden, where they have

absolutely zero transit.

I just wanted to call into recollection the conversation that we

had last time we had this. “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 appreciate

that.

The time has come that we need to work together because these

people, the seniors in Golden, have absolutely nothing. The medical bus

to Cranbrook goes twice a week. That’s it. There is absolutely zero

transportation for seniors in Golden — nothing. Other than riding in a

horse and buggy, I don’t know what else can be suggested.

I guess what I’m saying to the minister today is: will she commit

to looking and examining this right away? It is at critical mass in the

town of Golden for the seniors that I represent.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question from the member. It’s, obviously,

absolutely concerning for the member, for his constituents.

As I understand it, Golden used to have B.C. Transit but lost it

almost seven years ago now. So for seven years, I assume, there has been

nothing. I’m unclear, because if Greyhound did stop in Golden, then it

should be captured in our unserviced areas. Because it’s on the Alberta

border, it’s that much more difficult to get the expression of interest

— to get across the border.

Yes, I will work with the member to see what we can do. We are

still…. We’ve got the request for expressions of interest out. We’ve got

a number of companies that have come back and said they would be

interested in covering the gap service beyond where we got the expedited

applications at the end of last year. So we have a number of companies

that have come forward and said that they would provide service. They

understand there is none that is looking at that particular section. So

we’ll follow up on that, because it is a gap.

As I’ve mentioned to some of your colleagues in this discussion,

we’re also working with the federal government on how we can ensure that

ground transportation is available for rural communities. With Golden

being pretty well on the border, we’ll look interprovincially about what

opportunities arise there. But I’d be happy to work with the member to

see what we can do to find what ground transportation there would be

available. I see that it seems to have fallen through everybody’s

cracks, which is not acceptable.

[5:40 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. A couple of things. Just to help clarify for

me why the transborder issue — or the comments that you just made…. I’m

not really clear on how that affects the people in Golden, what happens

in Alberta. So you could help me with that. Then, also, what’s the best

way for us to move forward on this, between myself and the

minister?

Hon. C. Trevena: The only issue about the border is that we’ve been looking at

those providers…. Many of those providers are just working within B.C.,

and the applications were to work within B.C. There have been one or two

that have said they would do across the border, but they’ve not been

flooding in. So that’s the only issue about the border. It’s that we

look within our own province.

The next stage is…. My staff are obviously aware of this now, and

I’m aware of it, and I’ll be working with my staff and keeping the

member informed. If the member wants to sit down and talk with me about

the situation with staff, we can make that happen too.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that opportunity. I will take you up on that, and

maybe we can facilitate a meeting for that.

In the interim, while these companies are looking at potentially

providing those services, is there any way that we could look at B.C.

Transit filling in some sort of a service until such thing is done?

Again, I stress the fact that the seniors, especially the seniors in

Golden, have absolutely nothing in terms of transportation — nothing.

The town of Golden is very aware of that. They’ve done what they can do,

but they’re in a conundrum as well. This is really a provincial

issue.

I guess my question is: is there any interim gap that could be

filled by B.C. Transit in the short term to try to service this

community?

Hon. C. Trevena: The question of B.C. Transit getting involved is…. Again, I was

talking to the member for Saanich North and the Islands of a community

having to approach B.C. Transit and ask for service and the limits of

the service and the ability of the community to assist in financial

delivery of that service. As I said to the member, I’m very happy to

work on his and his community’s behalf, as I committed last year. I feel

that that commitment still needs to be met, absolutely. I still believe

as fundamentally about it. So, as I say, I will work with the member to

try and ensure that we can find some service there for the people of

Golden.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for the commitment. We can, hopefully, get going on that

as soon as we possibly can. I’ve got some other ideas, but I’ll save

those for the meeting.

Thank you very much for your time and your comments.

J. Sturdy: I think we’ve canvassed transit, so we can move on to rural

highways.

Interjection.

The Chair: Yes, a five-minute recess. Is that enough?

Hon. C. Trevena: Perfect, thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:45 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: It’s great to be up again. Good to see you again,

Minister.

I want to welcome the new staff here and thank you for all you do.

Without you guys, it doesn’t work.

[5:50 p.m.]

I also want to recognize, on the record, back at home in our

region, Ron Sharp and his staff. Outstanding work. They’re consummate

professionals. I just wanted to say that out loud in front of his

bosses. I say it only because it’s the truth.

I’ll talk a little bit about something that’s near and dear to

both of us. That, of course, is the Trans-Canada Highway and the Kicking

Horse Canyon section, which is about to become the most expensive

highway project in the history of this country. Just wanted to know if

she could update us as to where that RFP sits today. What’s the timeline

of that in terms of concluding who’s going to be getting that

contract?

Hon. C. Trevena: Nice to be continuing the conversation. I, too, would like to

acknowledge the praise of staff and introduce some new staff who’ve

joined us to talk about highways. On my right is Scott Maxwell, who is

responsible for the north of the province. Over on my far right is Mike

Lorimer, who is responsible for the whole interior of the province.

Behind me is Kevin Richter, associate deputy minister with

responsibility for highways.

A long introduction, a bit confused. My answer will not be either

so long or so confused. We are on track to start the procurement later

this year.

D. Clovechok: Hopefully, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Had

to say it.

Could you just maybe explain exactly, to find out what that

procurement looks like, in terms of a timeline?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We had a changeout in staff, because, luckily, the project

director for Kicking Horse was awaiting for just this question — Murray

Tekano, who is now on my left. I just wanted to get clarity, obviously,

and to make sure that the member was not misdirected.

We’re doing an RFQ, RFP process. The RFQ is going out late spring,

summer. And RFP, we anticipate, end of the year, winter 2019-2020. Is

that winter? The way you describe winter is wherever winter comes. It’s

been a long winter for people, so I’ll leave that one with

you.

D. Clovechok: Welcome to the new staffer. We’ll be seeing a lot of each other

when you’re building that highway.

Just a clarification point for me, then. From what I think I just

heard is that there won’t be shovels in the ground until next year. Or

is it going to be this year?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’ll be next year. We’ve got the request for qualifications,

where we’ll get the proponents, an array of different companies that

want to bid on it, this spring, summer. Go through those. Do the

selection process down to those who will be successful to go for the

RFP, which we’re anticipating late fall, winter, with a plan to get

shovels in the ground by next year.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer. Hopefully, in the spring of 2020, we

might be able to see some shovels in the ground. I’m just putting that

out there, because it’s needed to come.

Another question that I have around that, and it’s a

multiministerial question. When that construction project starts to

happen, it is, as we all know, going to be one of the most major

construction projects in the history of this country around the

Trans-Canada Highway — incredibly expensive.

[6:00 p.m.]

With that, for the town of Golden, which is around 3,500 or 3,600

people, there’s going to be a huge influx of new folks in the area.

That’s going to put some significant pressures on the town itself, from

social services to policing to….

To the minister: I’m just wondering if your ministry and other

ministries have already taken steps towards forecasting these kinds of

issues and working with the town of Golden to try to get prepared for

what’s coming their way. It’s exciting, and everybody is excited by it.

But there are also issues that come along with this, as I’ve mentioned,

from policing to whatever. I’m wondering where we are with that, in

terms of where your government might be.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s very interesting. For almost a year now, since spring 2018,

there has been a community liaison group working in Golden. We, as the

ministry, are the main provincial government agency at that meeting, but

it includes the municipality of Golden, the community of Golden, the

emergency service, the chamber of commerce and economic development

branches, the hotels and bed and breakfasts and people who could provide

accommodation for the influx of workers, if there is an influx of

workers. It’s looking at, as the member is well aware, the pressures of

a big project descending on a small town and how to maximize those, how

to create the benefits and how to ensure that it doesn’t disrupt the

community.

We’re very well aware of that. Having this community liaison that

meets every couple of months means that the project…. You can craft it

so that those pressures can be addressed when it’s starting to ramp up,

through the project, and then ramp down.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer. It’s encouraging to hear that it’s

already ongoing.

Would it be safe to say that as that project unfolds and up to —

whatever that number — 300 to 500-some-odd construction workers roll

into the Golden area…? Would it be safe to assume, then, that the

province would be considering looking at maybe, as just one example that

comes to my mind immediately, staffing one or two more members of the

RCMP? Are you looking at that kind of thing — to put some resources in

that way?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The RCMP have been involved in discussions. The head of the

detachment apparently is part of the group. At the moment, their main

focus has been on traffic control, rather than the potential impacts

that that upheaval of society could have on a community. But since there

is this liaison committee, and the RCMP is involved in it, it could well

become a discussion. If it does become a discussion, the RCMP has its

channels to talk to the Solicitor General about staffing, through its

own channels. But we’re very alive to this and to impacts on communities

when you have a big project coming to town.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much. That’s reassuring — that this is ongoing and

that there’s future potential as this unfolds. It’s not only within the

town of Golden itself but the multitudes of traffic that come through

the Kicking Horse through summer programs. So it is going to be an

interesting watch. To the minister: I’m pleased that you’re getting

ahead of that.

The last question that I would have around the Kicking Horse

Canyon. We all know, through your budget and looking at your budget,

that there is X amount of dollars that are budgeted from the province

and X amount of dollars budgeted from the federal government. That’s how

much there is, and you’ve got to stay inside those budgets.

My question to the minister is: given the new community benefits

agreement, do you foresee any additional costs in terms of the employees

that will be working on this under that community benefits agreement?

And will that create some