2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Morning Sitting
Volume 10, Number 1
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Routine Business |
|
Introductions by Members |
2755 |
Tributes |
2755 |
Stephen Ronald McClurg |
|
M. Elmore |
|
Statements (Standing Order 25B) |
2756 |
Heart health and Red Dress Fashion Show |
|
M. Mungall |
|
Automated external defibrillators |
|
N. Letnick |
|
Saltspring Island community bus |
|
G. Holman |
|
Autism support dogs for children with autism |
|
S. Hamilton |
|
B.C. Hockey League and Coquitlam Express hockey club |
|
S. Robinson |
|
Fossil deposits in Tumbler Ridge |
|
M. Bernier |
|
Oral Questions |
2758 |
Investigation into executive compensation at Kwantlen University |
|
D. Eby |
|
Hon. A. Virk |
|
Call for independent investigation into executive compensation at Kwantlen University |
|
A. Dix |
|
Hon. A. Virk |
|
Hon. C. Clark |
|
Locally grown food in Kootenay area and comments by Core Review Minister |
|
M. Mungall |
|
Hon. B. Bennett |
|
Consultation on changes to agricultural land reserve |
|
M. Mungall |
|
Hon. B. Bennett |
|
Government action on climate change and protection of farmland and food supply |
|
V. Huntington |
|
Hon. M. Polak |
|
Freedom-of-information requests involving Burnaby Hospital |
|
K. Corrigan |
|
Hon. A. Wilkinson |
|
"No records" responses to freedom-of-information requests |
|
G. Heyman |
|
Hon. A. Wilkinson |
|
Tabling Documents |
2762 |
Correspondence with respect to compensation and employment contracts at British Columbia universities |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Committee of the Whole House |
2763 |
Bill 15 — Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014 (continued) |
|
S. Simpson |
|
Hon. S. Anton |
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
Committee of Supply |
2769 |
Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) |
|
J. Rice |
|
Hon. T. Stone |
|
S. Fraser |
|
K. Conroy |
|
N. Macdonald |
|
R. Fleming |
|
B. Ralston |
|
C. Trevena |
|
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
M. Mungall: There is a young woman in the gallery who spent her formative years in the Kootenays. She is now studying political science at the University of Victoria and may one day find herself sitting in one of our seats, so we should beware.
May the House please make Elizabeth Dill very welcome.
S. Hamilton: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome two people to the gallery today. First, we have Jaime Arnup — Jaime is a mobility instructor and autism guide-dog trainer for B.C. Guide Dogs; and our puppy-raiser supervisor here in Victoria, Laura Mahoney. With them they have Telus, an autism support dog in training, who is sponsored by the very generous people at Telus Corp.
Would the House please make them feel welcome.
A. Weaver: I would like to introduce two people today. The first is the interim leader of the B.C. Green Party, Adam Olsen, who is in the galleries today. He is accompanied by Colleen Spier, a Saanich-based lawyer and CEO of the Island Métis Family and Community Services Society. This is Colleen's first time coming to the Legislature, so I ask that everyone please give her a warm welcome.
Michelle Stilwell: I have several introductions today. It's a busy day in the House.
First, I would like to welcome guests to the House from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, whose mission is to prevent disease, save lives and promote recovery. With us today visiting the House is fellow Olympian silver medallist Dr. Doug Clement, Diego Marchese, Adrienne Baker, Mark Colson, Erika Callowhill. I'd like to thank all of them for joining us here today on behalf of everyone. Please make them feel welcome.
I'd also like to acknowledge two constituents of mine. Switzy Dewitt is here with his daughter from Qualicum Beach. Please make them feel welcome.
It's a rare occasion that we get to celebrate monumental events here in the House, so today I'd like to recognize that the Minister of Energy and Mines is celebrating another monumental event, as it is his birthday.
L. Krog: Let me be the first to offer congratulations on a birthday over there. It's always good the government gets some good news for a change in the chamber.
Joining us in the gallery today is Avery Valerio. Now, she is a dedicated young woman. She sits on my executive, and she's here, believe it or not, because she wanted to celebrate her 17th birthday by attending the Legislature. Would the House please make her welcome and wish her happy birthday.
M. Morris: We have the privilege today of having the chair of the regional district for Fraser–Fort George in the House today, Mr. Art Kaehn. Would the House please make him welcome.
C. James: I have two visitors at the Legislature today. The first is Sheenagh Morrison. She's a provincial leader in the self-advocacy movement and also a leader of the diversability campaign here in Victoria. Her accomplishments and her workload put all of us in this House to shame. This year she won a Community Living B.C. WOW! Award. She's a recently published author. She swims with Special Olympics. She works at Thrifty Foods and the Beacon Hill Children's Farm. And in her spare time, the little bit that she has, she loves spending time with her family and friends.
With Sheenagh is her friend Jessica Humphrey. Jessica lives in Victoria with her husband and two children, ages ten and 12. Her eldest child has a developmental disability, and Jessica works as the self-advocate adviser for Community Living B.C.
Would the House please make Sheenagh and Jessica very welcome.
K. Conroy: I, too, would like to welcome the folks from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, not only to thank them for the lovely heart-friendly breakfast we had this morning but also for all of the work they do in the province, especially about bringing to light the information about AEDs and the need for them in every facility in the province.
I also want to remind members that they have paramedics downstairs in the Hemlock Room who are there to check your blood pressure, which might be really good for some of you after question period, but also to give us some heart-healthy tips on maintaining our lifestyle that we do here.
Tributes
STEPHEN RONALD McCLURG
M. Elmore: It's with a heavy heart that I rise to remember a friend of mine, someone I knew, Stephen Ronald McClurg. He passed away recently, on March 28, and I
[ Page 2756 ]
just want to extend condolences and sympathies to his family, his wife, Sharon. I first met him, actually, working on NDP campaigns.
He was a candidate, provincially — and federally, in the riding of New West–Coquitlam for the 2004 federal election — and he was also involved on the municipal scene as a founding director of Voice New West and a candidate for council in 2008. I'm just thinking of him and his family, and also, on behalf of the Legislature, I'd like to extend prayers and thoughts with the family.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
HEART HEALTH AND
RED DRESS FASHION SHOW
M. Mungall: Breathe deep, reduce stress, sleep well, eat healthy. So no trans fats, low cholesterol, low sodium, and yes, pass on the french fries. Don't smoke, drink in moderation, get regular checkups from your doctor or nurse practitioner, get out and get some exercise, and do dance.
What do all of these have in common? No matter what your age, they all help keep your heart healthy. Heart disease is a leading cause of death in Canada, and it affects more women than men. Thirty-two percent more women die of stroke than men do, and women are 16 percent more likely than men to die after a heart attack.
As our guests in the gallery know, the Heart and Stroke Foundation has been leading Canadians in learning more about heart health, and they have come up with some very fun ways to remind us that every day we need to take care of our heart. My personal favourite is the Red Dress Fashion Show.
As the symbol for the Heart Truth campaign, the red dress takes centre runway every year during Canadian Fashion Week in Toronto. There, Canadian designers create original red-dress designs in celebration of women and heart health, because the red dress represents women's courage and passion and their power for change as they share the truth with others and raise awareness about the importance of heart health.
The rhythm of our hearts is the rhythm of our lives. By keeping it healthy, the beat goes on.
AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS
N. Letnick: Last week I discussed in this House a way to avoid heart attacks, and that is by not getting angry too often. Well, today it's AED Awareness Day in British Columbia, and I'd like to talk about what happens if you do get a heart attack.
AED awareness is one of the examples of the many effective advocacy programs spearheaded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation. AED stands for automated external defibrillator. It is a portable device that can deliver an electric shock to help someone suffering cardiac arrest.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation is building a network of AEDs all across Canada. You have probably seen them at rec centres, arenas and workplaces around the province. The goal is, eventually, to make sure that all Canadians have knowledge and confidence to save someone's life by performing CPR and using an AED.
Sudden cardiac arrest kills more than 2,000 British Columbians every year and can strike without warning. When someone goes into cardiac arrest, their heart stops pumping blood to their body, and without oxygen and nutrients from the blood, the person's brain and organs will be seriously damaged within just three minutes. After 12 minutes the person is unlikely to survive. But if you know CPR and have access to an AED, you can make a real difference. The survival rate of someone suffering from cardiac arrest improves by 75 percent if they are given CPR and an AED is able to get their heart pumping again.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation, in partnership with our government, is donating 450 AEDs to communities all across British Columbia. That is something, I'm sure, that we can all agree is great news.
SALTSPRING ISLAND COMMUNITY BUS
G. Holman: I want to tell the House today about a remarkable capital regional district and B.C. Transit service on Saltspring: the Salt Spring Transportation Commission and its community bus, which is celebrating a major milestone this week.
It's likely seldom that such local services are raised in this House, but the Salt Spring Transportation Commission and its transit system are quite unique in British Columbia. As with all new regional district functions, the Salt Spring Transportation Commission required voter approval when it started in 2008. The first-ever public transit system on Saltspring was established under B.C. Transit's municipal program, which delivers a number of such transit systems throughout British Columbia, with local and B.C. Transit funding on a 50-50 basis annually.
Saltspring service was predicated on a feasibility study estimating about 17,000 rider trips were necessary to support a viable service. After only six years Saltspring's ridership now exceeds 100,000 trips per year, about six times the initial projections, and at a cost to local taxpayers of about $2 per month per household. According to B.C. Transit, Saltspring's community bus has the highest transit use of any community of its size in British Columbia. In fact, Saltspring has ridership levels comparable with communities several times its population.
The enthusiastic public response of Saltspringers to their community bus has allowed several service expansions with no additional funding from local taxpayers
[ Page 2757 ]
or users, another rarity in the transit world of British Columbia.
The Salt Spring Transportation Commission and its little bus that could is an inspiring success, and B.C. Transit is currently examining the feasibility of similar services on other southern Gulf Islands. Congratulations to all involved.
AUTISM SUPPORT DOGS
FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
S. Hamilton: As we all know, yesterday was Autism Awareness Day. On the heels of a very moving and compelling statement by the member for Parksville-Qualicum yesterday, I'd like to also take the chance to recognize the people with autism and the families, volunteers and organizations that help those people affected by autism.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House a Delta-based society that does fine work on behalf of children with autism here in British Columbia. Autism Support Dogs, a sister charity of B.C. Guide Dog Services, provides professionally trained dogs to children with moderate to severe autism.
Although every child with autism is unique, many exhibit common behaviours that lead to safety concerns and social isolation. For parents and other family members, this can result in highly stressful daily life. An autism support dog can provide a child the ability to participate in education and social and leisure activities.
The goal of the charity is to improve the quality of life for children with autism and their families. They rely entirely on donations so that they can provide these services and these dogs free of charge. It takes up to two years and costs the charity upwards of $35,000 to train and graduate each autism support dog. As I speak in the House, the organization is completing the training of their most recent autism support dog team right here in Victoria.
I urge every member of this House to log on to autismsupportdogs.org and take a moment to read the compelling stories about how these wonderful animals have improved the lives of children and their families. It's a most valuable service, as one in 68 children in Canada will be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, and a charity that my family and I have been involved with for many years now. I know the members of this House wish this valuable B.C. organization all the success for the future.
B.C. HOCKEY LEAGUE AND
COQUITLAM EXPRESS HOCKEY CLUB
S. Robinson: The B.C. Hockey League brings some of the finest hockey to our communities all around the province. This hockey league strives to be recognized as the best Junior A hockey league in North America. Playing Junior A hockey can lead to many different places, to an NCAA or CIS scholarship, to major junior hockey or to the NHL.
In Coquitlam we have our beloved Junior A Coquitlam Express, who recently won their division and are in round three of the BCHL playoffs, a six-game round-robin format between two other division champions, the Victoria Grizzlies and the Vernon Vipers.
While my competitive spirit is rooting for the Coquitlam Express, and we all get excited as we root for our home teams, we need to remember that the British Columbia Hockey League and its 16 member teams pride themselves on creating a positive environment for young athletes to develop as hockey players and as people.
With a focus on education and creating opportunities for post-secondary scholarship, the BCHL has more than just a young person's sporting future at heart during their time in the league. The B.C. Hockey League invites these young players to get involved in their community. So rather than brag about how our Coquitlam team does on the ice, I'd like to brag about who they are off the ice.
With the leadership of Darcy Rota, a much-loved Canuck alum and current owner of the Coquitlam Express, there's certainly lots of involvement in the community. Elementary schools enjoy a visit from the Coquitlam Express players, who read to the primary grades and play floor hockey with the intermediate students. They also offer literacy incentives for school reading programs and a pen pal opportunity for 20 lucky local classrooms.
The Coquitlam Express hockey club also supports many local organizations, including the Raise-a-Reader program and the annual Coquitlam Terry Fox Run. Last season the Express raised over $10,000 for charities through their game night events and facilitated the generation of an additional $7,000 for minor local sports.
However, my personal favourite charitable act by the Express was when I, as a local celebrity, offered up my superb peewee-level hockey skills to get on the ice and with the team as Coquitlam inaugurated its new ice facilities a few years ago. Madame Speaker, they let me win.
FOSSIL DEPOSITS IN TUMBLER RIDGE
M. Bernier: Today I'm speaking about an amazing but, unfortunately, not very well-known discovery that we have right here in British Columbia.
In fact, we have our very own Jurassic Park, where 120 million years ago Tumbler Ridge, in my riding, which is on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, used to be home of the best beachfront property in North America. Because of that, it contains sedimentary rock exposures from the Precambrian to the Cretaceous ages, as well as giving us huge fossil deposits featuring Mississippian invertebrates and Triassic fish and marine reptiles, as well
[ Page 2758 ]
as Cretaceous dinosaur trackways and bones, which can actually be found right on the surface.
In fact, one trackway we have was discovered by two young boys that happened to be just walking down the river — Mark Turner, when he was 11 years old, and Daniel Helm, at eight years old. These paleontological discoveries are of national and of international importance. In fact, one of the most recent discoveries is of tyrannosaurid footprints and trackways, the only ones known in the entire world. This could give the region and the province immense tourism opportunities, because whether you're young or young at heart, curiosity gets the best of all of us. And frankly, it's just cool to see.
None of this would be developing, though, if it were not for the hard work and passion of local doctor Charles Helm and paleontologists Rich McCrea and Lisa Buckley. The beauty of this area of B.C., as well as the opportunity to roam with the dinosaurs, should make a visit to Tumbler Ridge a priority for everybody.
Oral Questions
INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY
D. Eby: We've obtained a copy of the employment contract for the president of Kwantlen University. There are two signatures on this contract from board members — one from the chair, Gord Schoberg, the other from the Minister of Advanced Education.
In this contract Kwantlen promised to pay their new president just $5 under the $225,000 salary cap. It also says very clearly that "there are no collateral contracts or agreements" and that this contract is "the complete agreement" — in other words, there are no side deals. But that was not the case.
There was a side deal. The minister knew it, and he signed anyway. Will the minister acknowledge that he was aware there were not one but in fact two contracts signed with Mr. Davis on April 12, 2012 — one that was sent to the Public Sector Employers Council and reported as the president's total compensation and one that was never reported to the council?
Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite continues to choose to present incorrect facts. There was indeed a supply and services contract with the president of that university prior to the commencement of his employment.
As I've said a number of times and perhaps at the risk of sounding repetitive, an investigation — if that's the word the opposition wishes to use — a review is occurring by the assistant deputy minister to ensure that any of the payments and the disclosure of those are consistent with the guidelines under PSEC. That's occurring right now. It's going to clarify once and for all the term of the pre-employment period and the employment period so that the facts are correct.
Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.
D. Eby: The minister keeps talking about the pre-employment contract, but of course, these were signed on the exact same day. We've obtained a copy of the second contract between Mr. Davis and Kwantlen, signed by him on April 12, 2012, as well, for $50,000. The only deliverable Mr. Davis had to provide to Kwantlen was to "provide such consulting services as Kwantlen may request, subject to your availability." Unlike the other contract signed that day, this contract is clearly marked confidential — yet another violation of the Public Sector Employers Act, which prohibits contracts with school presidents from being confidential.
Will the minister acknowledge that he was well aware of this $50,000 side deal and that he told the Public Sector Employers Council, through his signature on the dotted line, that this contract did not exist?
Hon. A. Virk: Once again I risk being repetitive and repeating. The review by Mr. Mingay, the assistant deputy minister, is to determine what payments were made, what the contractual arrangements were. Did disclosure occur consistent with the PSEC requirements, and what was the total compensation received by the employees, consistent with compensation guidelines? That review by the assistant deputy minister is ongoing right now, and if the member has the courtesy to wait for the final review to be done, he'll have the answers to his questions.
Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.
D. Eby: We're told to wait for the investigation, but we'll be waiting a long time. The minister hasn't been asked one question yet in this investigation.
I have another question for the minister. On the same day, April 12, 2012, two contracts signed by the new Kwantlen president: one contract for the maximum salary allowed, signed by the minister and reported to the government, promising no side deal contract existed; a second contract, improperly marked confidential, not reported to the Public Sector Employers Council, for a payment not permitted under provincial salary cap rules.
The minister knows that any amount paid over provincial compensation standards becomes a debt owing to government. Will he initiate collection action to begin recovering this $50,000 for Kwantlen students?
Hon. A. Virk: Consistent with the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act, Kwantlen will be fully cooperating with any of the ques-
[ Page 2759 ]
tions that the assistant deputy minister has. I will provide any clarifying question. I encourage the member opposite to provide any additional information, and to go see the ADM as well.
CALL FOR INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY
A. Dix: The minister was there. He knows the answer. Why doesn't he tell us? Why were these two contracts signed on the same day? Why were the rules clearly skirted in this case? He was directly involved in it, so why doesn't he tell us about that? And why doesn't he tell us, while he's telling us about that, about this?
Once the newly hired president signed his two contracts — his maximum contract and then his extra contract for three months, $50,000 — he then proceeded to finish up his work at Empire State College in New York. He was tidying up key projects here, attending 12 of 14 graduations and taking a short holiday to Italy, as well as driving 2,500 miles across the continent to take up his new job.
Can the minister tell us, because he was directly accountable here, what Mr. Davis did for his $50,000?
Hon. A. Virk: Well, Madame Speaker, it clearly appears that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to impugn the reputation of a considerable, notable scholar and the president of a university.
The detail as to the work performed by that president will be made available to the public after the review by the assistant deputy minister.
I take offence to it. I think all university presidents and students would take offence to the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the president of the university was not working for his money.
Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Dix: What's offensive is a plan hatched by the minister to divert money from the university's student foundation to top up the president's salary, contrary to the rules. What's offensive is a scheme to hide $100,000 in payments to senior staff by recording them as supplier payments. What's offensive is signing two contracts on the same day, knowing that these both contained untrue commitments that no other deals were being done. Those things are offensive to students in British Columbia.
My question is to the Premier. This report by Mr. Mingay is reporting to the Minister of Finance and to the minister. Clearly, it's an investigation of the minister. Why don't we have an independent investigation? Why doesn't she today refer this to the Auditor General?
Hon. C. Clark: Our review is underway. The answers to the member's questions and more, I'm sure, will be available when that review is completed. I have absolute confidence in Mr. Mingay's abilities to be able to complete this investigation. The opposition may wonder if Mr. Mingay is competent to do this. I have no such questions. I think that he will do a great job.
LOCALLY GROWN FOOD IN KOOTENAY AREA
AND COMMENTS BY CORE REVIEW MINISTER
M. Mungall: This week New Democrats put forward new ideas to advance local food in B.C. because we know that people in this province care about their local food economy. In contrast, the Minister Responsible for Core Review, the minister responsible for the Liberals' attack on the agricultural land reserve, had this to say: "I get a kick out of the 100-mile diet…except that where I live, you'd have to eat hay."
Now, I know the minister has been to Creston. I've seen him there. We even have a mutual friend in the chair of the regional district. So he should know that there is much more than hay growing within 50 miles of his house. There are apples, cherries, strawberries, potatoes, carrots, lettuce, peas, pork, poultry, beef, wheat, barley, oats. They all grow on prime agricultural ALR land.
I've got to say this. Surely the minister has heard of Kokanee beer, because that's brewed in Creston too.
To the Minister for Core Review, how could he know so little about all that the ALR is producing in his own backyard?
Hon. B. Bennett: It's a pleasure to respond to the question. I thank the member for the question.
She's mostly right. I know that this may not fit the stereotype for question period, but the hon. member is correct. The Creston area is not part of my riding, but it's part of the member's riding, and it does grow all of those things.
In Cranbrook our climate isn't quite as friendly as it is in the Creston Valley. Our soils are not quite as good as they are in the Creston Valley, but we do manage to have a farmers market in Cranbrook. It is possible on the good agricultural land that we have — we don't have very much of it — to grow a few things. We don't grow much in the way of fruit, but you can grow some carrots. In fact, I want it on the record that myself and my wife actually grow vegetables in our backyard, only a few feet from my door.
Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.
[ Page 2760 ]
CONSULTATION ON CHANGES TO
AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
M. Mungall: Well, if the minister opposite is growing carrots in his own backyard, the question is: why is he so full of hay?
The minister did acknowledge, and I thank him for doing so, that agriculture is a major part of the Kootenay economy, particularly in the Creston Valley. The Harrises have built a dairy farm with added value through their milk bottling and cheese factory. Nadine Harris, a second generation farmer, says that the ALR must be kept intact to ensure the viability of her family's business.
Farmers like Nadine in the Creston Valley want to know: who did this minister consult when he decided to break up the ALR? Because, Madame Speaker, it wasn't them.
Hon. B. Bennett: There is an understanding within the agriculture industry that in what the legislation refers to as zone 2 outside of the area of the province that currently produces 85 percent of our food…. Yes, it's correct that 90 percent of the ALR is out there beyond Hope, but that huge area actually produces only 15 percent of the food in British Columbia.
One would think that after 40 years with that kind of a result, where you have 90 percent of the land within the ALR producing 15 percent of the food, perhaps it might be time to just take a look at what's happening. That's what the core review committee did.
In fact, the head of the Kootenay Livestock Association, who was in Victoria when we made the announcement….
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Order.
Hon. B. Bennett: I quote, from Faye Street, Kootenay Livestock Association: "We have to make some changes, and this is a huge start."
I have quotations from Rhonda Driediger, the chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council. I've got a quotation from Linda Delli Santi, the executive director of the B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association. I have a quotation here from Garnet Berge, the committee chair for the B.C. Grain Producers Association — all of whom support what the government is proposing to do.
I'm sorry that the member from Creston is offside on this. This is going to help agriculture in the rural areas of the province.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
AND PROTECTION OF
FARMLAND AND FOOD SUPPLY
V. Huntington: With respect, the minister has done a lot more than just…. I can't remember the phrase now; I can't remember what you said. You have done a lot more than just take a look in this province. I wish I had said that right.
Madame Speaker, last month the international panel on climate change issued its most alarming report yet of extreme weather events, rising sea levels and increasing temperatures. As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and his IPCC colleagues have repeatedly warned, either we act quickly to meet the future in a strategic way, or we do nothing and lose the opportunity to prepare for drastic change.
Rather than prepare for a difficult future, however, B.C. has a Minister of Agriculture who is quoted in Hansard as saying that climate change is a personal opinion, which is obviously true in his case, or else he would be moving heaven and earth to protect our agricultural land rather than opening it to non-farm uses.
Thirty years ago British Columbia produced 73 percent of its food. Today it's less than 50 percent. Half our food is shipped in from places like China and California. Governments that understand the agony of food shortages are actively buying fertile land around the globe, including right here in British Columbia.
My question is directed to any minister who can respond. Who on that side of the House is responsible for the food security of this province? Is any minister of this government leading a strategic study on the impacts of the rapidly warming globe on future food production in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Polak: Well, one of the very important aspects of our climate action secretariat's work has been to look at adaptation. Not only are we the first carbon-neutral government in North America, but we are also one of the first jurisdictions to put forward a plan with respect to adaptation. That, of course, means looking at the security of our food systems. It means looking at making sure that our water systems are sustainable.
But they don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is take a look at organizations like the OECD, which referred to British Columbia's approach to climate action as "textbook." Our leadership in terms of climate change has been mentioned in the Economist, the New York Times, the L.A. Times and the Guardian. For those on the other side who don't read those kinds of articles, I would refer them to a much-loved U.S. magazine on the opposition side of the House called Mother Jones, which said that B.C. can boast the Crown jewel of North American climate policy.
Madame Speaker: Delta South on a supplemental.
V. Huntington: Well, unless the minister's committee recommended taking agricultural land out of the reserve,
[ Page 2761 ]
then I'd say she has the cart before the horse.
In 2006 the Ministry of Agriculture reported that if B.C. expected to become agriculturally self-reliant, we would need to immediately invest in farmland by doubling the amount of irrigated land and increasing the amount of viable crop-producing land — including hay — by over 300,000 hectares. But here we are going in the opposite direction, leaving future generations without enough land to ensure their food security.
We will have invested upwards of $40 billion in the infrastructure for the Pacific gateway — clap, clap, clap — most of it on the agricultural lands of Delta South. Most of it, in case this government doesn't really know, is on the agricultural lands in Delta South.
Now Port Metro Vancouver is running TV commercials celebrating its role in bringing food to our tables. Let's cheer the 10,000-mile diet. China closes its markets when they have a food shortage, and others are going to do the same. In the future the importation of our food will be a luxury for only the wealthy.
Madame Speaker: Pose your question, Member.
V. Huntington: Does the minister think this is sustainable — does he or she and this government expect to rely on the port for our future needs — or will he commit to a strategic food security strategy, one that could protect our citizens and our agricultural lands into the future?
Hon. M. Polak: Well, certainly one of the most challenging things in government when trying to address the issue of climate change — that includes making plans for adaptation for changes that we know will occur in spite of our good work in terms of climate action leadership — is that we have to balance all the various interests of British Columbians while we're doing that. One of the best examples actually runs through the member's own riding, and that is the South Fraser Perimeter Road.
I know, as a former Minister of Transportation, that it represents one of the single largest investments in environmental remediation of any project ever in the province — $100 million that not only went to improving the drainage at Burns Bog, thus making it more likely to survive any kind of climate change that takes place, but also, for the first time, to bringing irrigation to farmlands in south Delta that never had it before.
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS
INVOLVING BURNABY HOSPITAL
K. Corrigan: The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association recently reported that the B.C. government is continuing to hide records from the freedom-of-information requests by calling them transitory and deleting the information they don't want to release.
This organization requested a series of damning e-mails exposing a B.C. Liberal strategy to manipulate the community consultation report on Burnaby Hospital for the political benefit of the B.C. Liberals. The association was told the records had been deleted because they were "transitory."
Will the minister responsible please explain why these kinds of sensitive political e-mails would be deleted?
Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite is fully aware that we have some of the most effective and wide-reaching freedom-of-information legislation in the country. We have a statutory framework for both transitory and recordkeeping rules. It is respected throughout government, and it is managed by professional staff in the civil service.
Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.
K. Corrigan: I mean, the Liberals all over the place are having a little trouble handling e-mails. This isn't the only Liberal deleted e-mail scandal. The Ontario Liberals are under investigation too. In fact, the Ontario Provincial Police would like to talk to the person handpicked by this Premier to run the B.C. Liberal Party. It's no surprise that the Premier isn't in a big hurry to send her party boss back to Ontario to answer questions, but maybe that would be a good idea.
The Burnaby Hospital e-mails, which were independently obtained by the opposition, showed the former Minister of Health using a private e-mail address in a bid to hide her actions. After getting caught, she promised to bring those e-mails back into the government system, and less than a year later they have disappeared.
Again to the minister, in what way were these e-mails exposing B.C. Liberal misconduct transitory?
Hon. A. Wilkinson: It is indeed ironic to be lectured by the members opposite about the use of e-mail. May I quote from the Province, from July 2000, when these members, some of whom were in cabinet at the time….
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Order. The members will come to order.
Hon. A. Wilkinson: The reporter states: "I asked the Premier what his e-mail alias was, and he just chuckled at my question. 'I asked my staff yesterday. They told me I have no alias. I'm very happy to hear that.' An hour later the NDP Premier's office was on the phone to the press gallery. It turns out the Premier does have an alias e-mail name after all. It's 'loriann,' after an assistant in his office. Nice to see his staff is keeping him right up to speed."
[ Page 2762 ]
It is beneath the members of the opposition to raise their own dismal record in this House yet again.
"NO RECORDS" RESPONSES TO
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS
G. Heyman: The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association recently uncovered a phone call between the U.S. Trade Representative and B.C. government officials complaining that B.C.'s privacy laws were "a trade barrier."
While the U.S. government provided documentation of the call when requested, the B.C. government claimed that no records existed. When I previously questioned the minister on FOI reporting, he said: "It doesn't matter if you write it on the bottom of your shoe; it's required to be disclosed when the FOI request comes around."
To the Minister of Citizens' Services, if that's his commitment, how come the U.S. government can answer questions about British Columbians' private information while this government can't?
Hon. A. Wilkinson: Coming from the members opposite, it is indeed ironic that they're supporting the efforts of the United States Trade Representative to create work for Americans storing our data in America, exposed to the FBI's and the CIA's scrutiny. We will never go down that path. Our task is to serve and protect the data of British Columbians, and we'll continue to do so.
Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.
G. Heyman: The minister claims that B.C.'s government record on disclosure of information is second to none. If that's the case, why does the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner claim that we're operating with a culture of oral government? Why has the "no response" for records gone well above the benchmark?
No records for intergovernmental phone calls negotiating British Columbians' private data. No records for e-mails where Liberal insiders were caught manipulating a report on the future of Burnaby Hospital. No records of expenses, agendas, notes and documents prepared for the Premier, senior staff and a number of ministers.
The reason for all of these "no records" responses is this government's deplorable policy of trashing information that British Columbians have the right to access. It's a bit rich coming from a government that this Premier claims to have as open. Perhaps we should call it transitory government.
Madame Speaker: Pose your question.
G. Heyman: To the minister, if this Liberal government is so committed to transparency, how can he justify destroying records of British Columbians before British Columbians can access them?
Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, I have covered this issue with the member opposite before, and it's unfortunate he can't remember the details. This government, in pursuit of transparency and disclosure, centralized FOI processing in 2009 and made it easy for any inquirer — a citizen, a member of the opposition, a member of the media — to simply ask for records from all ministries.
The number of "no records" responses rose because most ministries don't keep records from every other ministry. The Premier's office does not monitor the activity of all 28,000 provincial government employees, so the unresponsive record request rose.
What did we do in response? We worked with the people making the inquiries. We worked with the media. We worked with staff to give the inquirers feedback to advise them how to avoid wild goose chases, because we believe in transparency, open government and disclosure.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
D. Eby: I seek the leave of the House to table the two contracts signed by Mr. Davis on the same day, requested by the Minister of Advanced Education.
Leave granted.
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly here we'll continue committee debate on Bill 15, intituled the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
S. Hammell: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
S. Hammell: In the gallery are a number of classes from Creekside Elementary. They have had me in to teach them about government, and now they're here to watch government in action. Would the House please make them welcome.
[ Page 2763 ]
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; D. Horne in the chair.
The committee met at 10:58 a.m.
On section 4.
S. Simpson: It's good to be back, talking about Bill 15 again, the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Under section 4, section 7 is amended, and it strikes out a "store manager or a licensee who holds a prescribed class or category of licence" when referencing this.
Could the minister explain what the purpose for doing that is?
Hon. S. Anton: I didn't catch the whole question, but I think the question was why "a store manager…" is being crossed out on section 7(1).
The reason for that is that that itself is a form of delegation, which is rolled up into the delegation section which we discussed earlier.
S. Simpson: Does that mean that with the changes to the previous section around delegation and around the ability, I believe it said, to delegate to employees or other persons, that now covers this off, and that means that the manager could delegate that authority? Could they delegate it sort of on some permanent basis so the store managers could act within the context of this without going back to get approval? Would they have that authority? Is that what this would do?
Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes.
S. Simpson: Section 7(b) is adjusted by repealing subsection (2) and replacing it with the following. This is a section, for anybody who's watching us, that deals with approvals of licensing for special occasions, primarily around charitable purpose. It reads: "(a) the purpose of the special occasion is to raise funds for a charitable purpose, and (b) the recipient of the funds and its purposes are charitable."
Could the minister tell us how that changes what the current practice is?
Hon. S. Anton: This section is not a change. The former (2) and (3) are being repealed and replaced with this, which covers the same ground.
S. Simpson: Well, it talks about charitable purposes. Could the minister define "charitable" for these purposes? Is that registered charities? Is it some other kind of broader interpretation of charitable purpose?
Hon. S. Anton: The phrase "charitable purpose" is defined in the act in section 1.
S. Simpson: Could the minister maybe just enlighten us a little bit on that, since this is where it arrives, and tell us again: is this registered charities? Or is it a broader definition? Who would be included and captured under that umbrella of charitable purpose, and who might be excluded?
Hon. S. Anton: It's broader than a registered charity: "'charitable purpose' means the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion and other purposes beneficial to the community, and includes the advancement of the following: (a) recreation; (b) sports or athletics; (c) aid to the disabled and handicapped; (d) culture; (e) youth or senior citizens."
S. Simpson: If we go down under section 4 again, 4(d), it adds a paragraph related to "the occasion in relation to which the special occasion licence was issued could pose a threat to public safety." Could the minister explain how…? Is that a change from the current practice or the current regulation, and how is this different from what the current practice or regulation is?
Hon. S. Anton: This gives the general manager the power to cancel a licence actually in advance of an event. It could be that an event, for some reason, came under some kind of threat. There was going to be some kind of civil disobedience or some kind of real problem around it that was going to cause a threat to public safety. This allows cancellation in advance of the licence.
I could add that I suspect and hope it would not be used very often, but it's an important power for police to have.
S. Simpson: Could the minister explain how she envisions that would occur? This, I believe, has provided authority to law enforcement and that. Is the expectation of the minister that if the law enforcement officials in some given jurisdiction felt that an event was creating some risk, they would just then be able to go and cancel that in the name of the general manager?
Hon. S. Anton: The power lies with the general manager or the police. I think the way this might play out is if the police were alerted as to some kind of dangerous situation around a special occasion licence, they then have the authority to cancel it.
[ Page 2764 ]
S. Simpson: Is there any appeal process available to the applicant here over and above judicial review, which, as we know, is somewhat narrow, but seems to be the appeal process largely engaged in the act? Is there any appeal process over and above that?
Hon. S. Anton: In a short time frame there's probably not a great deal of opportunity to change it. If there's a longer time frame…. It's not so much that an appeal is needed but that the sponsoring organization could work with the general manager and establish, to the general manager's satisfaction, that there would be safety on the site.
S. Simpson: I assume, though, that if there was a case where the applicants were clearly of a different view about any risk, then that might be the concern of the general manager — that in fact, they may want some kind of process of appeal. Just to be clear again, to the minister: is there any appeal process available to people who don't agree with that ruling other than judicial review?
Hon. S. Anton: The form of appeal which is actually spelled out in the way that the member is suggesting is indeed judicial review, but these things can be settled in a more informal way, and often are, in the appropriate circumstances.
S. Simpson: We'll talk about this more, but as the minister knows, judicial reviews don't tend to overturn things. They send things back and tell the people involved that they should talk about it again and reconsider.
They don't overturn decisions, and they don't provide solutions. They send things back and say: "Look at it again." There's nothing that would stop the general manager from taking exactly the same position again. So a judicial review, unlike tribunals, in many, many situations doesn't provide the same kind of appeal process. I'll take it from the minister that there is no appeal process available to people in this situation.
Moving to the next question, still under section 4, which is around 7(5). The current language has been repealed, and new language has been put in place. The current language, I believe, says that the general manager "must" provide information around licences to the chief constable in the jurisdiction or authority and is obliged to provide that information.
This language doesn't oblige the general manager to send anything to anybody. It says that they "may send" it or require somebody to whom a licence is issued under this section to send it to anybody that the general manager deems appropriate to get it. I certainly don't have any question about if they feel that there's some need to broaden the scope past the chief constables in a given jurisdiction. That makes some sense.
I guess, though, that if I look at the section we just talked about, where we talked about the chief constable or law enforcement in an area being able to make a decision that a permit wouldn't go forward because they had concern for public safety, why is this section not going to oblige the general manager? In fact, it's going to change the language to not oblige the general manager to send that licence information to the chief constable in any given authority. How do we have assurances that they'll get it?
Hon. S. Anton: These licences may be issued for quite major events and very minor events, and the police don't always want to get all of that paperwork. This puts discretion on the general manager to decide when the police need to be notified or not.
The wedding the member wants to have in his backyard for his daughter — maybe he doesn't need to give that information to the police. For a big event, maybe they do. I think it's to allow that kind of discretion.
S. Simpson: You never know about that wedding.
I think, though, that the reality is…. The current language says it must be provided. Then I would assume it should become the discretion of the chief constable and of the police force to decide whether this is a matter that they're going to want to pay any attention to or whether they're going to file that and not worry about it unless something untoward happens. But why should that be their call? That's what the section said to me before — that it was their call, essentially, to decide whether to act on that or not.
Now it's the general manager's call. What is the logic for saying the general manager is a better judge of a local public safety matter than the local authorities, in terms of what's going to occur?
Hon. S. Anton: The way this works in practice is that the general manager in all the communities works with the local police detachment. Different police want different levels of things. Some want all the information; some don't. They work together to determine which information they need to get and will get.
S. Simpson: Chair, I think that at this point I'm going to let you pass a couple of sections here.
Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
S. Simpson: Section 10 deals with questions around liquor storage and issues around what a licensee can do, what reasonable measures they can take around improving their operation by being able to move product around.
[ Page 2765 ]
But could the minister maybe explain a little bit about how this section changes the current rules and what the thinking of the government was for doing this?
Hon. S. Anton: There are three sections which have been taken out. One which used to allow the general manager to make requirements as to the location of an establishment is now gone. The second is around marine facilities, which is obsolete. And the third is something which is no longer in use.
What has been added is the two (m) and (n) pieces, which allow a licensee to permit off-site storage. This was something, repeated to the parliamentary secretary again and again during his consultation, which was very frustrating to licensees — that they had to have all their product right at that location. They can now store it off site.
S. Simpson: Maybe, because this section…. I think I understand where it's going, and I think it makes sense to do this. But just for clarity's sake, what are the limits? Maybe this is reflected in (n), which says: "require a licensee to take reasonable measures to ensure that the operation of the establishment does not disturb persons in the vicinity of the establishment."
What was the thinking of the minister on what kinds of activities we are concerned about that have to be reasonable, that might cause that kind of concern? What was the minister's thinking and the drafters' thinking when they incorporated that particular clause?
Hon. S. Anton: Subsection (n) is simply a relocation of an existing provision. It used to be in section 20, and it's now going into this section, which is a more appropriate place for it.
S. Simpson: Would this allow, for example, an owner of a pub or a facility or maybe one of the breweries…? We have lots of great new craft breweries appearing across the province. I know I have a number of them in my constituency, and I visit them. Some of them are growing very quickly because of the success of the craft beer industry. It's really growing, and I think that's fabulous. It's a great thing, and I'm very supportive of that.
Many of them now have facilities that are starting to get stretched as they increase demand and put in new equipment. Space that they might have thought was storage space for them all of a sudden becomes production space, because they're not quite in the place to move and expand that quickly.
Could the minister tell me what kinds of things…? Would they be able to store all their product now in another place? Or would a pub that may have limited storage be able to store its kegs in another place and then bring them in as they need them? Is that what this does?
Hon. S. Anton: They can store off site if they make a change to the actual size of the pub in terms of seats and capacity. They may have some other regulatory things to do. I think that's what the member is asking. I think the big change here, which was very widely requested, as I said, is that they can now store at another location.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
S. Simpson: Section 11 deals primarily with section 13 of the act, and training is a key piece of this. Sections (3) to (5) have been repealed, and they've been substituted with sections (3) and (4). Could the minister tell us what those changes do in material terms?
Hon. S. Anton: Yes, this is a change. Again, this came out of the liquor policy review. The people who came to help us out on the health and safety side did strongly suggest, and we have agreed, that anyone serving or selling liquor should be trained.
There's a recertification language in here. It is likely there will be recertification required from time to time. That is to be determined by regulation, which has not been established yet.
S. Simpson: The training that we all know about is the Serving It Right training for people who are serving. Could the minister tell us what other training programs might be envisioned here, either existing ones or ones that the minister would like to see put in place?
Hon. S. Anton: The member is correct. It is the Serving It Right program, which many people are familiar with. There will be provision in the regulations for a slightly less expensive version of Serving It Right for special occasion licensees. It is the program that we use at the moment.
S. Simpson: To be clear, the expectation of the minister is that essentially that's the program that this is talking about — I appreciate this — with kind of a Serving It Right–lite, for lack of a better term, for people who are doing a private event or something, that wedding in the backyard. Other than that — which would have the Serving It Right–lite, we'll call it, for lack of a better term — is that what's envisioned in terms of training requirements to meet the obligation of this clause?
Hon. S. Anton: That's correct.
S. Simpson: I don't know this, so it's a bit of an inquiry about something that I'm not aware of. It talks about recertification here in the clause. Are there recertification
[ Page 2766 ]
requirements around Serving It Right currently? Are people who have Serving It Right required every couple of years or something to fill out a form or take a test, or whatever?
Hon. S. Anton: There is no requirement for recertification at the moment.
S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister said that that piece isn't fully fleshed out yet. Maybe the minister could tell us what the thinking is around putting recertification in place now and how that is envisioned to work. Particularly, I'm thinking about current employees of establishments who have been certified now. What's the expectation about current employees having to go back? Is it every couple years? What is the thinking here?
Hon. S. Anton: There are two issues raised. One is whether or not there would be grandparenting of existing Serving It Right holders. The other is what the terms of the recertification would be. Neither of those sets of policy have been developed yet.
S. Simpson: Those presumably will be done through regulation. Are they able to be done through regulation, or will we be seeing that next year, if this more substantive rewrite of the act is to take place?
Hon. S. Anton: Those things can both be addressed through regulation. When this piece passes, which I hope it does, the regulations will allow both of those things to be done.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
S. Simpson: Section 12. This starts to head into a whole variety of sections that seem to be a significant part of this legislation, which is some review and change to the authority of the general manager to be able to oversee operations. There're a fair amount of clauses in here, and we'll be going through a number of those around use of licence by transferees, actions against licensees. This is a pretty substantive piece of this legislation. We'll get to the detail of those as we walk through those pieces.
I have a bit broader question that covers section 12 — in this case, 17.1 — but other sections to come as we move forward. Could the minister talk a little bit about her view of the current enforcement capacity of the general manager and the ability to deal with licensees, the ability to take action when it's warranted and to move forward?
What is the current situation that the minister has found the need to look at and amend, in some cases, in order to meet government objectives? Could the minister talk about that broadly on the enforcement? Then we'll get some specific questions in the sections.
Hon. S. Anton: There is a change here to make the provisions around the holder of the licence more fair. The member the other day asked about the timing of a transfer and how a transfer works from a vendor to a purchaser. This is what happens. The sale is made. The premises is sold. The licence is, they might even call it in the agreement, sold. It's in fact not sold; it's transferred. The general manager has to approve the transferee, so there can be a gap in there while the general manager does the due diligence around the transferee.
In the meantime, the transferee is running the establishment. If there is some kind of enforcement needed at the establishment, the enforcement should be against the proposed transferee rather than against the vendor. That's the goal of this section: to cover that intermediate period between the sale of a business, the transfer of the business to the new owner, but before the licence itself is approved by the general manager.
S. Simpson: One of the things this section seems to do as well is that it clearly gives, and rightly so, the general manager the ability to suspend a licence in some circumstances for some period — order that the licence be transferred within the period specified to a person who's at arm's length from the proposed transferee or cancel the licence altogether.
Could the minister give us some idea of the kinds of circumstances that might warrant that kind of a decision from a transferee who's presumably getting this licence? They haven't actually had much time to operate the place yet. They're figuring it out. What might be the circumstances to warrant that?
Hon. S. Anton: I won't limit this by my example, but I will mention a couple of examples. If the transferee turns out to be a gang or have gang relationships, if they don't pass what is called the fit-and-proper for a variety of reasons…. I don't want to try and list them here, because there may be any number of them, but those are the kinds of circumstances where the transfer would not be approved by the general manager.
S. Simpson: We spoke about this before in another instance. Other than, again, a judicial review, which I know gets referenced here, is there any form of appeal process available to somebody who the general manager has deemed either not to be eligible for the licence or has cancelled it or has told them that they need to find somebody else to operate it on their behalf?
Hon. S. Anton: The process is this. When the pro-
[ Page 2767 ]
posed transferee is vetted, if the general manager does not think the transferee is the right person, is an appropriate person to hold the licence, the proposed transferee will be notified of that by letter. They do have the opportunity, then, for a formal hearing with the general manager's delegate, which would be like a one-to-one in a room. It's not a court hearing, but it's a more formal presentation, I think, by the proposed transferee as to why they should be accepted. If they are still turned down, their next opportunity is to judicial review.
S. Simpson: I will come back to talk about the appeal in a little bit. Just on the formal hearing. Under this, is the general manager…? If a transferee is rejected or limits are put on them based on the legislation, and they want to be heard, do they then trigger that formal hearing? Can they say, "I want to be heard," and the general manager is obliged to hold that hearing, or is it at the general manager's discretion as to whether that hearing occurs?
Hon. S. Anton: The request for the hearing before the general manager or his or her delegate is always accepted.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
S. Simpson: Section 13 affects section 18 of the act, which deals with tied houses. I know there's been a lot of work done on this. I know that the previous minister has done work on this. I know that some of the folks in my constituency who own food-primary establishments and own breweries were happy that they are able to now get some of their own beverage into their own facilities, houses.
Could the minister tell us what this does to section 18 by repealing (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3) and then making these following changes under section (b)? Could the minister tell us: what does that essentially do to tied houses?
Hon. S. Anton: I just want to go back to that previous answer because I am always nervous about using the word "always."
The question was on the previous section — the right to a hearing in front of the general manager.
It is the current practice of the current general manager that that hearing will always be granted. It is not set out in the legislation, but the view of the branch is that to say no to that would be rather detrimental on a judicial review, so the invariable practice is to say yes to that kind of hearing. But as I said, it's not set out in a formal way. It's more of an informal kind of process, and it's the practice of this current general manager.
S. Simpson: I thank the minister for the clarification. I appreciate that practice is one thing and that the current general manager has the practice of saying: "If somebody asks and it's a significant issue, I'm going to hear them." But as the minister says, it's not a requirement of the legislation that somebody has the right to be heard in a hearing with the manager.
Could the minister tell us why the decision has been made not to make that a requirement, particularly if, as the minister says, it also provides some protection or cover in relation to a potential judicial review and those questions of process that a judicial review may look at?
Hon. S. Anton: Yes, this is going back to the section that we passed already. The issue is: why is it not formalized in the legislation? It simply has not been viewed to be necessary, because it is a matter of current practice and has been for some time.
S. Simpson: I appreciate that. As much as practice is a critical part of all of the operations of government and administration, practice and requirement are two different things. I would encourage the minister — if not now, maybe next year — to look at making this a requirement so people always have…. If they don't have a formal appeal option, they at least are guaranteed the right to be heard over a matter that could affect their livelihood.
With that, I'll sit and let the minister answer on 13.
Hon. S. Anton: The question now is on section 13. What we have done here is take out the rather obsolete provisions that if you had a U-brew or a U-vin, you could not own a bar, for instance, or an LRS. We're taking those provisions out so that somebody who operates a U-brew or a U-vin can own other establishments.
S. Simpson: The practice around tied houses has tended to be…. For example, I think of one in my constituency. I'm going to mention them, and I'll probably get a call at some point about whether they like it or not.
The people who own a very successful brewery now, Parallel 49 — one of the more successful craft breweries, growing both in stature and size — also own St. Augustine's, which is a food-primary restaurant. I think it's a restaurant. It might be liquor primary. I'm pretty sure it's food primary.
They have 20 or 25 taps in there, all craft beers from Canada, the United States, elsewhere. That's their speciality — craft beers. For a period of time when they first were opening Parallel 49, they didn't have the ability to actually tap their own beers. They now have some ability.
Could the minister tell us: what's the thinking about limits and how this is going to work with tied houses? I think that there was some legitimate thinking about the problems that arose. I know it goes back a number of years.
Sometimes there were practices where major brewers
[ Page 2768 ]
would essentially buy the rights in a bar to monopolize all the taps in a bar through exchanges for advertising, promotion, whatever. They would buy that right from bartenders, and that's a problem. So there was some protection put in place, and I think that that made good sense.
What's the thinking now, though, about how the tied-house system will work, how the determination will be made that you need X amount of taps in order to have a couple with your own product but you need to sell other taps? How does it work around how you price that so that you're not giving some advantage to your own product over other products?
Just a sense of how that works as we make these changes — which I think are good changes and which I support — around tied houses, understanding the mechanics of how that's expected to work.
Hon. S. Anton: The tied-houses provisions…. There are still regulations which apply to tied houses and, I think, the things that the member was referring to. Those are contained in section 50 of the regulations. What removing these three subsections does is to take out the piece relating specifically to U-brew and U-vin owners.
S. Simpson: Just so I'm clear, then. This has no effect for craft brewers or craft distillers and how they operate? This won't affect them in any way at all?
Hon. S. Anton: The only change would be that they could now own a U-brew, if they wished.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
S. Simpson: This section deals with action against a licensee. Again, it's a pretty significant section with a number of clauses — at least ten different clauses and subclauses. Could the minister maybe walk us through a little bit about what the action against a licensee does, how that is a change from current practice and why the changes have been pursued with this legislation?
Hon. S. Anton: I'm going to work through section 14 here. Much of section 14 is part of the existing act. It's existing regulation which is now being put into the act. There are one or two new things, which I will draw the member's attention to.
Using the section numbers in the act, section 20(1) is existing. There are no changes there, but there's a reorganization — same with 20(2). Then 20(3) is new, 20(4) is a reorganization, and sub (5) is a reorganization.
There's a new feature in sub (6). It was the case that an employee used to be held responsible for an owners' malfeasance, and he is no longer. The word "employee" has been taken out of that.
So 20(7) and (8) are from the regulations, and sub (9) and sub (10) are just reorganizations. Maybe I'll just stop there, because that seems to be far enough for one set of answers.
I'm also noting the time. I don't know if the member wants to keep going on this question.
S. Simpson: I would note here…. As the minister says, it's not a change, but again, under section 20(2) it says, "If the general manager has the right under subsection (1) to take action against a licensee, the general manager may do one or more of the following, with or without a hearing," and then it lists a whole series of potential actions the general manager could take.
I would just come back and reference and remind the minister that this becomes part of the problem. It's pretty explicit here, as it is in the current legislation, that the general manager has no obligation for any kind of a hearing, even if they take an action against a licensee.
I would again suggest to the minister that as part of fair process, people should at least have the right to be heard when something as strong as maybe losing their business might be in play or a significant fine up to $50,000. Somebody should have the right to be heard if they're facing that, particularly since there's no appeal process other than a judicial review available here. That would be the comment.
I just want to go, though, to the change that the minister talked about in 20(6), where it says now that an employee is not responsible for an employer's action. What are the instances where that occurs? I'm a server. I serve somebody who I think is of age. Apparently, they are not of age. There's a responsibility that comes back on me and comes back on the bar. Am I responsible as the employee and the server, or is that obligation now all with the bar?
Hon. S. Anton: The answer is that a server is responsible for his or her own actions, but the purpose of this section, the change in this section, is they are not responsible for the actions of their employer.
Noting the time, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 2769 ]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. McRae moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.
The committee met at 11:01 a.m.
On Vote 44: ministry operations, $812,293,000 (continued).
J. Rice: I have two questions. The first is in regards to Highway 16. I think I've kind of got the gist of a conversation yesterday with the Minister of Transportation and another member. I'm just looking for clarification on what, if any, action is going to be taken on addressing the needs of aboriginal women living in remote communities between Prince Rupert and Prince George.
Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for North Coast for her question with respect to Highway 16.
As I did indicate yesterday, government is fully committed to acting on the recommendation that came out of the Oppal report. The recommendation — as the member, I think, knows well — with respect to Transportation was to identify safe transportation options along the Highway 16 corridor.
To that extent — I think, also, as the member knows well — this is proving to be a recommendation that's probably, out of all of the recommendations, one of the most challenging to address. There is no silver bullet.
That being said, there have been a tremendous number of discussions and meetings that have been held, particularly with local government officials, community organizations and other stakeholders throughout the corridor. Those discussions to this point have largely been led by Ministry of Transportation staff.
Recently, however, there are some further collaborative efforts that are now taking place between staff in the Ministries of Justice, community services, as well as the Ministry of Transportation so that we can hopefully accelerate the work that's underway to fulfil as fully as possible the recommendation to identify safe transportation options for folks along the Highway 16 corridor.
J. Rice: A different topic. I know that this question has been posed before, so I'm going to just frame it a little bit differently.
We on this side of the House have been asking for an economic impact analysis of the recent cuts and fare hikes to B.C. Ferries. My question would be: what would it take in order to have this be conducted by the provincial government?
The Chair: Just to interrupt the proceedings for a moment to welcome, in the chamber, Jonathan, Terry and Peg Weins from Kamloops, the minister's home turf.
Hon. T. Stone: Again, thank you to the member for North Coast for her question. I sincerely appreciate the passion which she brings to this issue, recognizing just how critical ferries are to her community in particular. I want to again go back to some core principles here and to reiterate, for the member, messaging that I think has been consistent from me and from government for the last ten months.
We have said ever since we launched our ferry vision, which was on November 18 of 2013, that there were indeed going to be impacts in communities. To a large extent, those impacts were going to be economic. I have consistently stated that those impacts would vary from one community to the next but that they would be real and they would be painful. There is no question about that.
I also want to acknowledge that government certainly acknowledges the significant and very important contribution that B.C. Ferries makes to the provincial economy and, indeed, to the economies of local communities. We're talking about a corporation here that employs over 4,000 people. Obviously, there are the wages and the economic multiplier effect of that.
Certainly, as I said — I believe it was yesterday or the day before, in estimates — B.C. Ferries spends over $100 million per year on maintenance and refit work, all within British Columbia. That has a huge impact on the economy. So we understand that. We acknowledge that. But again, I come back to the opening part of my response here: we have consistently stated that there will be a significant economic impact in coastal communities as a result of the service adjustments that B.C. Ferries is moving forward with.
But they are a part of an overall strategy. Because we said to people in coastal communities and we said to British Columbians that we were going to fix the ferry system for the long term, we are absolutely determined to follow through on that commitment.
That means tough decisions like these service adjustments, that means holding B.C. Ferries accountable to their $54 million efficiency target, and that means doing everything else, as laid out in our strategy on November 18, to work towards getting ferries to a place of affordability, sustainability and, indeed, a service that will be there for generations to come.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today. I don't have much time. I'd love to get into the debate that my colleague just embarked on here, but I don't have time for that.
As I've warned the minister already…. I already apprised him that I'm going to just keep it to Highway 4 alternative access. It's a question I've raised with all of your predecessors for the last nine years. Kevin Falcon equated me with the salmon that keeps coming back. So I will ask it….
Hon. T. Stone: Well, this is twice with me. You're insistent.
S. Fraser: That's true — although the Alberni Valley transportation committee has taken up this cause quite strongly in the last couple of years. I know the minister has had a chance to hear from them.
Just a progress report. We have only the one access from the east side of the Island across through to Port Alberni and Tofino and Ucluelet beyond. I have raised it in many ways. The safety issue is something that I've certainly seen firsthand, where the highway gets shut down and we are landlocked, if you will, in the community in Port Alberni — for medical emergencies, if there was a landslide, if there was a major earthquake.
I have raised it as a safety issue in the past, but of course, of late there are major initiatives that the Alberni Valley is hoping to embark on, mostly associated with their port. The transportation corridor, of course, becomes more critical for that.
Can the minister just update on the situation? Do we have any chance of seeing an alternative access to Highway 4 being brought into the works in the near future?
Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim for his question. He was quite correct in stating that I have met with quite a number of individuals and organizations throughout the corridor, including the mayor of Tofino, the mayor of Port Alberni, the economic development groups. I've had a couple of very good meetings with the port as well, and I think it's safe to say that I share the member's excitement for the potential that exists within that port.
Just a quick rehash in terms of improvements that have been made. Over the past ten years over $50 million has been invested in Highway 4, which the member knows well. It's probably because of his well-earned reputation as a salmon that keeps coming back. So good for you.
S. Fraser: Or good staff.
Hon. T. Stone: Good staff who follow up, yeah.
In 2013 there were significant improvements made with respect to installation of barriers. I believe about 14 or 15 bridges were either replaced or upgraded. There were some improvements with respect to message board signs, and so forth. For the 2014 fiscal year we have approximately $4 million allocated for continued safety and rehab improvements on Highway 4, so that's good news for that corridor.
I'll end on this note, just from more of a general perspective. The member would know well that a very firm commitment that we made to the people of Vancouver Island in the recent election was our commitment relating to the Vancouver Island transportation plan. The Highway 4 corridor, certainly, government sees as an important part of that plan. The plan will focus on all aspects of transportation — the ports, airports, highways and so forth.
One final point I'll make. I think this is an appropriate place to say this again. The Vancouver Island transportation plan will be a subset of the new ten-year vision that the Premier has asked me to pull together through this year. The last time that we had a ten-year vision was in 2003. Substantially all of the projects and the commitments made in that vision have either been completed or are nearing completion. This provides us with a tremendous opportunity to refresh the transportation vision for a new ten-year window.
In addition to safety being the number one concern, very close to that now is…. We're also looking at projects through the lens of goods movement and economic development. That's why I come back to the potential that there is at the port of Port Alberni. There's a tremendous opportunity there to grow that port, some excellent work being done on the ground there. We certainly want to do our part, from an infrastructure perspective, to assist in that growth and create more jobs in the communities affected.
S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I know we're running out of time. I just want to thank his staff for some of the safety improvements. They were very efficient, and Dave did a great job.
We had some tragic deaths there on Highway 4. We lost two paramedics — friends of mine, actually — so I
[ Page 2771 ]
appreciate that work.
Just to finish this off, close the loop on alternative access. Is there a next step that the community or the community groups involved should be taking to try to get the alternative access as high a priority as possible? Is there advice that the minister could provide to me to relay to the community for that?
Hon. T. Stone: My advice to the member would be this. Please advise your community organizations to stay tuned. We will be in touch very soon with details related to the engagement component of the Vancouver Island transportation strategy. Certainly, as the member knows well, the folks with all these organizations in his riding are not shy people. They've been very proactive with our office, with me, and I would encourage them to continue to do so. We will be providing details fairly soon to them directly to facilitate their input as the Vancouver Island transportation strategy is developed.
K. Conroy: I have two questions, so I'm going to put them together — looking at time and trying to make sure we have enough time for my other colleagues.
The first one is Highway 3. I am hoping — I'm praying, and I don't pray very often — that the minister is going to be doing some work on the Hope-Princeton. Even though I'm from the Kootenays, I'm going to lobby strongly for Highway 3, because it's the route that the majority of us use when we're coming to the Lower Mainland. We don't use the Coquihalla. Primarily, we go through Highway 3.
Right now it's in abysmal shape. I just drove down last week and drove back again, and the number of potholes is huge. At one point, two kids and a daughter screamed in the car when we hit a pothole, in trying to manoeuvre. My husband said I probably need a wheel alignment. It's really bad, so I want to bring that to the minister's….
Hon. T. Stone: Send Dave the bill for that.
K. Conroy: Send Dave the bill? Okay, that's on record. Awesome.
It's in really bad shape. I know that with the weather and the frost heaves, all of that kind of thing, the roads get bad. The higher roads which I have to travel over, which are all higher than the Allison Pass, are not as bad as the Hope-Princeton, which was terrible. So please do something about that.
My other question is about the Old Trail Bridge. I'm going to be like the salmon next to me, but I've raised this every session — I've got nods from behind me — since, I think, '06. It's an old bridge that needs to be decommissioned. The city is hoping they can make some kind of deal with the government. The government sold it to the city, I think in the '60s. The government owned it for 50 years. Now the city has owned it for 50 years. I know the mayor, Dieter Bogs, would dearly like to sell it back to you for the dollar they bought it for, but I know that's not going to happen. He would still like to put that on record.
The cost to decommission the bridge is considerable. It needs to be torn down. It's old. They've actually gone out to the community. They're going to build a pedestrian bridge. They've got buy-in from the regional district. One of the problems is there's a sewer line that goes underneath that bridge that attaches to both sides of the communities across the river. They need to have something there for that, so they've got the regional district buying in on that.
But they need help in tearing down the bridge. It's a huge, costly affair that has to be done if we don't want chunks of bridge falling into the river and floating down into the United States, which is what would happen.
They're hoping that somewhere there's going to be some help from the ministry, even if it's a 50-50 — you both owned it for 50 years each — some sort of cost-sharing that can help with the decommission of that bridge.
Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for Kootenay West for her questions. In reverse order, if I may. In terms of the Old Trail Bridge, as the member knows, the point of contention here is obviously the cost related to bringing the bridge down and doing so in a safe and responsible manner. The most recent estimates are several million dollars in order to do that.
In just checking with my officials, I understand it's been awhile since our officials and the municipality actually sat down and had a current conversation about this, so I will instruct my staff to do that and have a discussion about where this project is at.
With respect to Highway 3, the Hope-Princeton Highway, again, following on the comments I made with the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, this is also another very proactive group, particularly the coalition of mayors throughout the corridor. I've had a number of meetings with these mayors over the last ten months and understand well the concerns. There are particular sections that do need some attention sooner rather than later, for certain.
Over the last ten years we have invested almost $200 million in the corridor. We do have on the books another $30 million to $40 million of investment for rehabilitation and upgrades along this corridor over the next three years. We're just in a process of seeking input and feedback from the mayors' coalition and others through the corridor on making sure that we get the priorities right on the spend over the next three years.
K. Conroy: I'm not asking a question, just letting the minister know that the city of Trail is trying to set up meetings, and my office has been in touch with your of-
[ Page 2772 ]
fice. I'll make sure they get in touch really quick again to make sure that that can happen sooner than later.
N. Macdonald: Okay, I think we're in the place in estimates where we say things rather than really ask questions.
Just a series of things that we've been working on. First, I think the minister has one of the best jobs in cabinet. I think it's just a very interesting file to have. I also want to say that your local staff….
I mean, I'm sure that you hear it from all of us, but we really appreciate the local staff. They talk to our office. They answer the questions, because these questions often come with a certain degree of urgency, especially if there's a road closed or if somebody feels an area should be plowed in a certain way, and it's not. We need that good contact, and it's there.
The Trans-Canada, predictably. The minister, I know, has had the exchange with the critic. There have been investments. We need to finish the Kicking Horse, and certainly around Revelstoke. I know these are massive sums of money. The government has said the right things, with signs up before each election and with promises. There really has to now be something on the ground.
It's been a while since Gordon Campbell was Premier, when we had that work done. Other than the Donald Bridge, we really are not making the progress that we need to make for the volume and the importance of that corridor. That's one thing.
I want to talk about safety. These are issues that don't necessarily align with the minister's responsibilities but do speak to the importance of keeping that corridor open. We have a very strange system of paying for rescue trucks. I have had trouble with the Field truck that's been hit and has had to be replaced. Right now Revelstoke is trying to get a truck replaced. Invermere lost their truck, and Golden, because it wasn't up to standard, had to get a new truck.
For all of these you go through a very complicated system of trying to get lottery money, trying to raise money. These are all volunteers. The volume and the severity of the accidents they're asked to deal with speaks to trying to figure out a better system for making sure that we have road rescue managed. I think that would be something the minister could take on and try to figure out how to do that part of it better.
The paramedic contract means that we have a very difficult time keeping paramedics with the experience that we need to manage the Kicking Horse. Again, this is a Health issue, but it speaks to the safety of that road. The minister will understand, no doubt, that the fee schedule for paramedics just doesn't work to provide the type of care that's needed on the Trans-Canada. You have probably some of the least experienced paramedics, because that's all you can retain, looking after seriously injured people for hours on end. It's always going to be difficult.
In terms of policing, when I was mayor in Golden, we had far more police on that road. I travel very often to get to Victoria through Calgary. Alberta has a number of other agencies that look after ensuring that people are following the rules. They have sheriffs and other things.
I guess the question is…. Many in Golden have the same experience, or from Revelstoke, and they say: is it possible that if we have fewer police making sure that rules are followed, are there other groups that could do the same work?
Is it possible to use sheriffs? Is it possible to use the commercial vehicle people, who I understand aren't enabled to ticket? Certainly, we have commercial vehicle people that…. It seems to me, if that's the case, it would make sense that they could ticket on vehicles other than commercial. That maybe is not their primary focus, but there's no reason why they should be precluded from doing it. I think that's something that could be looked at.
Dividing lines. I know they regularly repaint at this time of year. I know the minister drove the Trans-Canada and says that he drives it fairly regularly. This time of year the dividing lines are almost impossible to see. I'm sure that there is a reason for the type of paint that's used. I'm sure that it dries quickly or something. But this time of year it's regularly brought to our office as being a safety hazard.
The other issue. You've arranged a meeting on the autobody issue. Rural autobody shops are not going to be able to manage. I appreciate the minister set up that meeting.
The last area is just with the commercial vehicle enforcement. I think they do a good job with the trucks. They make sure they have the chains, but what we repeatedly see is that those chains aren't used. Either it's a training issue for the trucking companies, which is possible, but I think it's also possible that it may be just easier to take the chance on getting up a hill without the chains.
Anecdotally, I see this so often, where you're halfway up the hill, and there's a truck there. They were told. You've got the signs up saying that they should be chaining up, and they just choose not to. That's, again, another area. I don't know if the penalty has to be more to make it worth their while to do it, or a different enforcement regime. I don't know what it is, but I know that it's a big enough problem that it's repeatedly brought to the office.
The other thing, I would say. You have service awards for police and for fire. The commercial vehicle…. We have quite a few stationed in Golden. One of the things that one of them mentioned to me is: has the ministry considered a service award for people that do very good work for you?
That's a whole bunch of things, many that aren't in your purview completely but relate to the work that you do. With that, I'll take my seat.
Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, I very much appreciate all
[ Page 2773 ]
of the comments and feedback and questions from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I'll do my best, as quickly as possible, to address some of them.
First off, on the issue of the paint used in dividing lines, I'm going to endeavour to provide a written response to you on that. There is an explanation. It relates primarily to federal environmental regulations that restrict the use of certain types of paint, which means what you're left with is paint that doesn't stick to the road as well as it used to.
There are all kinds of research and innovation taking place across Canada. This is an issue in every province, frankly, because of these federal regulations. I will put a more fulsome response in writing for the member, if that's okay with him.
With respect to the CVSE enforcement of the use of chains with commercial vehicles, again, I think what I may do is ask my staff to reach out to you and maybe understand a bit more the experiences that have been related to you and some of the anecdotal information that you have. We certainly want to make sure that CVSE is doing everything they can from an enforcement perspective on that. So we'll work together on that issue.
With respect to rural autobody shops, the member is one of many who have raised this. I want to be really clear about this, and not just within the NDP caucus. Certainly, within government I have made it very clear. I actually said it again yesterday, with the ICBC president sitting right behind me here in estimates, that there is to be no sole-source procurement. There is to be no limited procurement when it comes to any of the service providers. That is not on, and it's for exactly the reasons that the member stated.
There are small businesses — windshield shops, collision repair businesses, tow truck drivers and others — in every small rural community across this province that employ two, five, ten, 12 people. They are critical businesses for these small communities. Therefore, ICBC has a very clear directive from government, from me personally, to ensure that there is not to be any work whatsoever done on a move towards sole-source procurement or limited procurement, for that matter, as well.
If the member hears of anything happening in his communities on this front, I would ask him to inform me as quickly as possible, so I can address it swiftly.
With respect to service awards for the CVSE, I think that's a terrific idea. I will explore that with our staff. The member is quite correct. CVSE staff each and every day of the week are, in many respects, heroes. They do terrific work for the ministry. They keep our highways safe.
If British Columbians actually knew just the sheer volume of inspections that take place, visual and otherwise, as well as all the other work that CVSE does to keep our highways safe, I think people would be blown away. These are hard-working men and women, and they deserve our praise and a pat on the back. We'll look into that.
The member is correct with respect to the comments that he made in regards to paramedics and police and so forth. Obviously those are, indeed, outside of my ministry, my jurisdiction. However, I will pass the member's comments on to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health. I certainly encourage the member to ask those questions of those ministers in their estimates.
Last but not least, with respect to the Trans-Canada Highway…. The member was quite right. I do believe I have the best job in government. Transportation infrastructure touches every corner of this province. It connects our communities. It powers our economy. It creates all kinds of jobs.
Like the member, I come from a community that is on the Trans-Canada Highway, and I'm on that highway often. This is a corridor that moves an estimated $2 billion worth of goods every single year. This is a highway that continues to have closures, particularly in the member's constituency, that frankly are intolerable from a safety perspective, from a convenience-of-the-traveller perspective and also from an economic perspective.
I want to assure the member that building upon the $700 million that we have invested in the Trans-Canada over the last 12 years, we're going to press forward with $650 million over the next ten years. Priority projects that are currently underway include a number closer to my end of the Trans-Canada — Hoffman's Bluff and Pritchard and Monte Creek and so forth.
We are actively discussing the final piece of the Kicking Horse Canyon, as well, with the federal government. As the member knows well, that's a four-kilometre section. It's an extremely challenging and costly piece to finish, but it's one that's got to get done. It's one that we believe — and I know the member shares my position on this — is of national significance. We need the federal government to come to the table with us on this project, and I'm hopeful and confident that they will.
R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister about an issue in my constituency, which is around dangerous intersections.
I unfortunately don't have the piece of paper in front of me that was dated approximately 2010, but my office in my constituency contacted ICBC a couple of years ago after a near fatality of a small child at one of the dangerous intersections. ICBC was good enough to give us information that showed that on southern Vancouver Island, of the top ten most dangerous intersections, five or six are in my constituency. They are on routes that intersect with both Bay Street and Hillside Avenue.
Of course, Hillside and Bay are intersected by both the No. 1 Highway and the No. 17. I think, really, that I just want to talk about Bay Street, because there is an opportunity here for the Ministry of Transportation to play a role, with the city, through B.C. Transit, which now has
[ Page 2774 ]
transit service on Bay Street. That's a new introduction just over the last several years. It's a positive development. Nevertheless, Bay Street remains very dangerous.
It's necessary for pedestrians to get through at least six different neighbourhoods. There are schools and institutions like Royal Jubilee Hospital, which Bay Street actually ends in. It T-bones into Royal Jubilee. It's now the main entrance to that hospital. It used to be Fort Street. That is driving a tremendous amount of traffic along Bay Street.
I know the city has, as a priority, a streetscape reconfiguration there to make it a safer route. Obviously, ICBC has an interest in making it safer — to lower insurance claims, to save lives and to reduce significant accidents that are causing injury there. But it is expensive, sometimes, to do these streetscapes. What has happened is that there has been a piecemeal approach.
B.C. Transit service has been introduced, but there are no proper bus bays on that route. There has been no midblock relief to help pedestrianize it. As I said, this stretch of road that intersects two highways goes through several neighbourhoods — Rock Bay, North Park, Hillside-Quadra, Fernwood and Jubilee, to name a few. While I don't think we have time this morning to go through the specifics of what might be involved, I do feel there is a role here for the Ministry of Transportation.
My question really is: could the minister assign somebody to sit down with the city and the other stakeholders, including the residential associations and B.C. Transit, to look at how we can stop the piecemeal approach to Bay Street and come up with a more comprehensive plan? I think some of these stakeholders are willing to put money on the table so that it is done properly and so that we can reduce accidents on this important arterial in Victoria that serves so many institutions.
That's really what I'm looking for this morning — if the minister could make a commitment, at least, to assign somebody in his ministry to work with the city and others to have a look at Bay Street. I think every level of government has an interest in making this a safer road. The volume of traffic on it now is such that it really is an urgency, and I would hope that his ministry might put some prioritization on it.
Hon. T. Stone: Very quickly, for the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, I will certainly commit to that. I will ask my officials to coordinate a discussion or a meeting with all of the other stakeholders — B.C. Transit, the city of Victoria, obviously, and others — to have a discussion.
I think we share the same goal here, the same objective: to work together with all the stakeholders to improve safety and ease congestion on what is indeed, as the member put it rightly, a critical corridor in the city of Victoria.
B. Ralston: I want to raise an issue that concerned my constituent, Dean Stephenson. The minister replied to a letter that I wrote. The letter is dated December 11, 2013. The reference is 220602. It's about access to the Fraser Surrey Docks.
He works as a security guard at the entrance to the Fraser Surrey Docks. It's now divided. He doesn't own a car. He takes the bus to work. He works shift work. Where the bus stops is now on the other side of a four-lane highway, and there's a change in elevation as well. He asked what provisions were going to be made for bus service, and there was a response that was expected. The letter from the minister is dated December 2013.
I'm just wondering if the minister could provide in writing an update. There is also a requirement that TransLink — Coast Mountain Bus — be involved as well. But surely the minister would have concerns about a person getting to and from work in a safe manner using public transit, given all the values that both sides of the House express on the value of public transit.
Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, the team in the ministry recognizes that this is a challenge. We are very well aware of it. Discussions are ongoing, along with TransLink, to come up with an appropriate solution to address the challenge. I'd be happy to ensure that we keep the member in the loop on that as we move forward — hopefully, with a solution that will work for everyone.
C. Trevena: These are a couple of questions that I don't think we are going to have time to answer, so I would be happy, if there is that sense of urgency, to take answers in writing.
They are follow-ups to some of the questions that I posed earlier to the minister. I just wanted, as I say, to see if the minister could respond.
I had some questions previously — I think it was back on Tuesday, or Monday maybe — about the avalanche training that happened. The minister talked about the importance of it. But I just wanted to know what the difference was between the avalanche training carried out in February by the ministry staff and that carried out by the maintenance contractor, whether there had been avalanche courses before, and for how many staff we're talking about.
I know the minister has committed to get back to me on the cost of the course and the cost of providing the fleeces. I just also wanted confirmation that these were Ministry of Transportation fleeces, not ones bought outside.
Secondly, I'd like to get on the record…. If the minister can't respond right now, you can respond in writing. It's going back to some of my questions about the Port Mann Bridge, so I assume it will be an in-writing response. One, we started talking around but never got down to the details: about how the revenue forecast for
[ Page 2775 ]
the Transportation Investment Corporation is developed. Why isn't that data released with the service plan? A tangential question: I just wondered why the former MLA and former Finance Minister Colin Hansen was appointed to the board there.
My final one, which again, I'm very happy to take in writing. It's a release that came out, just when we were in the middle of estimates, about the Belleville wharf. I wondered if the minister has a cost estimate and a timeline for redevelopment at the terminal and the wharf in Victoria.
With that, that is the end of my questions. I know that we're closing out estimates today, so I'd like to thank the minister and thank his staff for their help now and throughout the province, throughout the year. I think all of us, as MLAs, rely very much on the minister's staff for assistance. It's a big issue that comes in to all our offices, particularly rural MLAs, and I would like to thank his staff, through the minister.
Hon. T. Stone: First off, I certainly want to provide the assurance to the member for North Island that we will respond as quickly as possible in writing to all of the remaining questions that she just posed: avalanche training, TI Corp, Belleville wharf and anything else that I missed there.
I, too, would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for North Island for, I think, her very thoughtful — often tough but thoughtful — questions that she posed over the last number of days. I think this is exactly how it's supposed to work. I think, hopefully, we did British Columbians proud this week. I would like to thank all of her colleagues, as well, for their contributions.
I also would like to end on this note. As I stated a moment ago, I do believe that the Ministry of Transportation is the best ministry in government, and it's mostly because it's filled with exceptional people. We may have disagreements as politicians on issues from time to time, or oftentimes, but I think we all agree that we have fantastic staff. Certainly, I've heard from MLAs of all parties in every constituency in this province just how exceptional the men and women are who work in the ministry.
Specifically, I'd like to thank my deputy minister, Grant Main. I'd like to thank Jacquie Dawes, Dave Duncan, Norm Parkes, Kevin Richter, Kirk Handrahan, Nancy Bain and Greg Gilks. I'd like to thank all of the staff that work in the Ministry of Transportation offices across the province. I also would like to thank the hard-working men and women of B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail, TransLink, TI Corp, ICBC and PavCo, all of which fall under the responsibility of this ministry.
I'll end on this note. I'm not sure if the constituents from Kamloops who were here witnessing the estimates…. I'm not sure I've ever seen constituents show up for estimates. Congratulations. Talk about service awards. Maybe there should be some for…. But to Jonathan, Terry and Peg Wiens, hopefully, this was all you thought it would be, and enjoy the rest of your day.
Vote 44: ministry operations, $812,293,000 — approved.
Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 44 of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada