2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number 1

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to introduce to the House a number of representatives from the Alliance of B.C. Students, starting with Mr. Sacha Fabry, the chairperson; Harsimran Malhi, from Langara Student Union; Alex Lomelino, from Kwantlen Student Association and also from Kwantlen, Patrick Meehan; and Kate Phifer from the Capilano Student Union.

In addition, we have two outgoing student politicians from the University of Victoria student association, Kenya Rogers and Brontë Renwick-Shields, who have shown themselves to have what it takes to get into the public realm. I expect that we’ll hear their names again.

Please welcome all these student leaders to the House.

G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today is an old family friend of mine from Terrace and Prince George. He’s been visiting MLAs on both sides of the House over the last couple of days. He’s currently the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour. Would members please join me in welcoming Aaron Ekman.

Hon. T. Lake: B.C. emergency health services is the largest provider of pre-emergency health care in Canada and one of the largest in North America. We stood outside the Legislature today to announce the community paramedicine program that allows paramedics in small communities to be part of the health care team within their scope of practice and increase the opportunity for communities to have a team of health care professionals looking after them.

I want to thank the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. Some of their members are here with us today, including the president, Bronwyn Barter. We have Cameron Eby, Corey Viala, Rhiannon Davis and Richelle Cole. I want to thank them for their participation today, and I ask the House to please make them welcome here.

M. Mark: It is my pleasure to introduce one of my constituents in this House. Adrienne Smith is a tenacious human rights activist and lawyer. They graduated from UBC law school and were called to the bar in British Columbia in 2014. Adrienne Smith lives and works in the Downtown Eastside where they’re advocating with passion and tenacity and dedication to reduce the harm which law causes on marginalized communities. Adrienne is in the gallery today in support of transgender rights. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to introduce my friend and colleague, Ms. Pamela Gardner, a certified orthotist with Burnaby Orthopaedic and Mastectomy and our party region 10 director. Pamela has brought with her today her niece Ms. Kayla Nowbry, a student at Our Lady of Mercy School in New Westminster.

Kayla is very interested in politics, and it was my pleasure to host her for lunch today in the legislative dining room. She’s interested in creating a student council in her school. Would the House please make Pamela and Kayla feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Up in the gallery and joining us at the Legislature today are incredible advocates for human rights — for transgender human rights, gender variant human rights and the human rights of all British Columbians. I would like us to all acknowledge them.

We have Morgane Oger, with the Trans Alliance Society; Tru Wilson, an incredible 13-year-old activist; Harriette Cunningham, also 13 and an incredible human rights activist; her mother, Megan; Marie Little; Joshua Ferguson, Nikki Koutsochilis; Catherine Jenkins; Olivia Toews; Stacey Elizabeth Piercey; my constituent, Rachel Andrews; Aaron Devor; John Yano; Catherine Mateo; Chrys Tei, from Victoria; Oliver Hildebrand; Terti Rey; Christine Lord; Rachel Mason and a number of students from the Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry.

They’re here to watch the introduction of a bill later today. I would like to welcome them to their House, and if we could all make them very welcome.

[1340]

J. Thornthwaite: I have a couple of introductions today. First, I’d like to welcome my friend Roger Proctor and Boris Drubetsky from Genex Capital. We’ve also got a group of youth, as well as men mentors from the Boys Club Network that came to an event, along with the Education Minister, Attorney General and Solicitor General and many MLAs.

I’d like to welcome Laura Neubert, Walter Mustapich and Jimmy Crescenzo, who are the co-founders of the Boys Club Network; Phil Peachey, who is the director, youth justice program support, youth justice for MCFD; Gino Bondi, associate superintendent of schools in Abbotsford; Tony Zanatta, who was a former inspector for the Vancouver police department; students and actors Dzinh Nguyen and Jonny Mubanda; Brad Baker, district principal for North Vancouver school district on aboriginal education and safe and caring schools; Mike Finch,
[ Page 12426 ]
from West Vancouver school district; Greg Kitchen, Dave Robertson and Matt Wood.

They are all here to perform Man Up!, which is a journey from edge of hopelessness and despair to the pinnacle of hopefulness and success, the true story of the Boys Club Network, tonight at Reynolds Secondary school theatre. Anybody that’s available, please go check them out. It’s a great program. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Huntington: I would like to join my friend from Vancouver–West End in welcoming the LGBT community today — in particular, Ms. Lisa Salazar, who is a well-regarded counsellor in transgender issues and who is the author of a fabulous book, which I encourage everyone to read, called Transparently: Behind the Scenes of a Good Life. I welcome Lisa and her group to the House today, and I hope everyone makes them welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m pleased to introduce a guest in the House today. Dylan Armour is the general manager of an innovative manufacturing company located in Surrey called Trexiana Wholesale and Distribution. Trexiana is a B.C.-based company that manufactures and distributes the Flex MSE Vegetated Wall System. They directly employ 75 people in jobs ranging from manufacturing to marketing. I also understand that Dylan served as a page in the Yukon back in 1988. Would the House please make Dylan feel very welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the minister in welcoming Bronwyn Barter and Cameron Eby and the other ambulance paramedics to the Legislature today. They have worked very hard. They negotiated very hard. They’ve worked very hard to bring about the realization of the community paramedicine program today, which will be wonderful for many communities across this province.

I also want to welcome them in the capacity, together with other people who visited with members of our side of the House and will be meeting with government members tomorrow, on behalf of Honour House in New Westminster. Honour House is a home away from home for first responders, for firefighters, for military personnel, for ambulance paramedics. It is located, very proudly, in New Westminster. Our communities come together to support it.

It was awesome today to meet with them and to hear that they’re going on the road to tell communities across British Columbia about an expanded program which will include Honour Ranch, on a donated piece of property in North Thompson.

I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming board members from the Honour House today, including Bronwyn Barter, New Westminster fire chief Tim Armstrong, Al De Genova and Melissa De Genova. Please welcome them to this House and congratulate them for their awesome work for Honour House.

Tributes

IAN HENNIGAR

G. Holman: I want to acknowledge in the House today the passing of Ian Hennigar, who was senior manager of the Panorama Rec centre since 2010. Ian was highly regarded by his colleagues in the CRD and by the Saanich peninsula community. He and his wife, Brenda, started the peninsula’s local speed skating club over ten years ago. He was recently recognized by Speed Skating Canada for his contributions to the sport.

On behalf of the Legislature, I’d like to express our condolences to Ian’s family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

[1345]

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I would like to introduce this House to a remarkable constituent today. Mr. Nicholas Blackburn is joining us today from the Comox Valley. Nick graduated from the valley’s very own G.P. Vanier high school, my former place of work and maybe my future place of work down the road. Although I did not have the honour of teaching him personally, he was known for his commitment to excellence in both track and field and involvement in various theatrical productions.

Nick has represented the valley at high-level competitions across the province and nation, including a competition in the United States. He is continuing his education here in Victoria in the area of massage therapy. I’d like to take a minute to wish him success in his studies and would ask all the members to make Nick welcome and welcome him to chamber.

D. Routley: It’s my honour, on behalf of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia, Mr. Paul Fraser, to introduce three guests. Mr. Fraser would like the House to help make welcome his friends from Nelson, Gordon Watt, who is an arborist; his wife, Yvonne Watt, who is a daycare centre operator. They are here to celebrate their son Harris Watt’s completion of his second year at UVic. Can the House please help me and Mr. Fraser to make his guests welcome.

M. Hunt: This week the Foursquare Church of Canada is holding their national convention here in Victoria, and we have eight pastors from British Columbia that are here with us today. We have Anina Simpson, Linea Hanson, Craig Millar, Dan and Jean Houghton, Lisa Wengel, Jason Colony and Quinton Thomas, who all here to watch
[ Page 12427 ]
the peace and love that happens in this wonderful House. I’d ask the House to make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are students and teachers from Archbishop Carney Senior Secondary School, a high school in my riding about a five-minute walk from the house. They’re here to observe the proceedings today. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

J. Martin: I see in the gallery a longtime political scientist from Simon Fraser. Patrick Smith is here. I actually took my very first poli-sci class from Dr. Smith, and I’m not too sure he’s pleased to be made aware of that bit of information.

Hon. C. Clark: I would like to join in welcoming Dr. Smith to this Legislature. I had no idea that he was so old until today. [Laughter.]

I know that for many of us in this Legislature, on both sides of the House, he was a great teacher. He didn’t discriminate against even the Liberals in his class. I know, for many years, he’s really personified what it is to be called to teaching.

I want to say thanks for all of the work he’s done in British Columbia in post-secondary institutions and for all of the support that he’s provided over the years for the programs that are active in this Legislature to ensure that young people really see what happens and understand how this place works.

A. Weaver: It gives me pleasure to introduce to the House Dr. Lisa Gunderson, who is a registered clinical counsellor and passionate educator visiting today.

I’d also like to join my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education in welcoming the chairperson from the UVic student association, Brontë Renwick-Shields, and the director of external relations, Kenya Rogers. They’re both executive directors at UVic.

Finally, I’d like to join the member from Vancouver–West End in welcoming Aaron Devor, a friend and colleague and the world’s first chair in transgender studies at the University of Victoria, where I was prior to sitting in this chamber today.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Shin: Joining us in the gallery today are the members from Korean Canada Tennis Association led by its coach, Mr. Moo Yong So, and president, Ms. Sung Og Kong, who was a former junior national athlete herself.

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and I had fun demonstrating, or at least trying to demonstrate, the first serve for the games last summer. We look forward to the opportunity to do the same this year, cheering on over 1,000 Korean-Canadian tennis players in B.C.

Would the House please join me in welcoming the delegation here today.

Hon. T. Lake: April is Dig Safe Month, and we’re going to hear a little bit more in a private member’s statement about digging safely in the province of British Columbia.

[1350]

We have two representatives of the organizations involved in ensuring that we always call before we dig and stay safe. That’s Dave Baspaly and M.J. Whitemarsh in the gallery. Could you please make them all welcome.

K. Corrigan: Included in the Korean Canadian Tennis Association delegation that was previously introduced are two of my constituents. They are Young Woo Choi and Keon Ho Song. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

B. Ralston: I also wanted to join in the welcome for the Korean Canadian Tennis Association. Each year the association hosts a tournament with over 120 local participants competing and this year is planning a multicultural tournament.

There are a few individuals who I wish to welcome personally: Jung Ja Hwang, Joong Hee Lee, Mu Yong So, Sung Og Kong, Yun Ho Yang and Deborah Yang.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND
MISCONDUCT POLICY ACT

Hon. A. Wilkinson presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time today.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m pleased to introduce this bill, Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

Currently our public post-secondary institutions are not required to have a policy to address sexual violence and sexual misconduct on their campuses. Sexual misconduct is widely defined in the bill to include a range of sexual acts that cannot be tolerated or condoned or ignored.

Unfortunately, a number of these incidents do occur at institutions across the country on a regular basis, and our public post-secondary institutions have reported some of these in recent months.

Premier Christy Clark has stated that there’s more that we can do and more that we should do, and this bill addresses that. This proposed legislation builds upon the private member’s bill, Bill M205, introduced earlier in this session, and the Ontario legislation on this topic.
[ Page 12428 ]

This legislation will require all institutions in our public post-secondary sector in British Columbia to establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy that addresses a wide range of sexual assault, sexual harassment, misconduct and other preventable episodes which require a response. These policies will also be required to set out procedures on how an institution will address these issues and require reporting of these incidents on a regular basis.

The proposed legislation will come into force one year from royal assent. Institutions will have that year to establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy.

The proposed legislation respects the autonomy and diversity of our post-secondary institutions, including our autonomous universities. The proposed legislation provides significant latitude for institutions to set policies that meet the needs of students, including education and prevention, while working to create a safer environment for students to come forward to report sexual misconduct of all types.

Institutions will be required to consult with students on the development of their policy to address sexual misconduct and to conduct surveys on the effectiveness of these policies at the direction of the minister.

Once established, these sexual misconduct policies will need to be reviewed — with student consultation — at least once every three years or more frequently, as directed. The legislation will be supported by a framework that has been developed with the institutions and with the anti-violence sector in our communities to provide guidance for a comprehensive approach to dealing with sexual violence and sexual misconduct.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M222 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
(RECOGNITION OF GENDER IDENTITY
AND GENDER EXPRESSION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Human Rights Code (Recognition of Gender Identity and Gender Expression) Amendment Act, 2016.

S. Chandra Herbert: I move that a bill intituled Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hon. Speaker, Madam Premier, cabinet ministers, MLAs, fellow British Columbians, I rise today to ask you to say yes to human rights, to say yes to adding explicit protections to our human rights code for gender identity and expression, to say yes to joining the majority of Canadian provinces that have listened to transgender and gender-variant people and their allies and legislated explicit protection.

[1355]

This is the fourth time I move this bill, because it matters. When a minority is abused, attacked and discriminated against, the majority must act. Transgender people face some of the highest rates of violence and discrimination in B.C. We can and must end that.

When you read B.C.’s human rights code, it includes protections for race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, political belief, sexual orientation, sex, physical or mental disability, family status, marriage status, and the list goes on. What’s not there, written in black and white? Gender identity and expression.

You can’t end violence and discrimination unless you name it. You can’t fight for your rights unless you know you have them. This bill would ensure that all British Columbians would have no doubt that we in this House stand for human rights equality for transgender and gender-variant people.

Some have asked why I move this bill again when the government has refused to act before. I move it because it will make a difference. Seven provinces and one territory with governments of all political stripes agree. The New Democrat caucus supports this bill. The Green and independent MLAs support it too. Members of the B.C. Liberal caucus have come to me and said privately that, if it came to a vote, they would support it as well.

Today I’m appealing to the Premier, to the House Leader and the cabinet to call this bill for a vote, so that we can pass this legislation and join with the majority of Canada to ensure explicit protections for gender identity and expression. Let’s say yes to human rights.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M222, Human Rights Code (Recognition of Gender Identity and Gender Expression) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

KARICE ENTERPRISES
LIGHTING DESIGN COMPANY

M. Hunt: A company in Surrey is receiving international acclaim for their bright design. Karice Enterprises is a family-owned and operated artisan manufacturer that designs and manufactures custom lighting and metalwork for clients around the world. This month Karice’s
[ Page 12429 ]
Electron, an energy-efficient LED wall sconce, won silver at the largest design competition in the world, the A’ Design Awards in Milan, Italy. It is also one of six finalists in the running for the 40th annual Lighting Design Awards in London, England, which is considered the Oscars of the lighting design world.

The minimalist Electron illuminates from both the inner and outer rings of its innovative and sophisticated design. The inspiration for this design was the electron that we all learned about in science class — the subatomic particle that, at first glance, appears to be a simple design but is actually a complex creation. For both prestigious awards, they have gone up against the world’s best lighting designers and manufacturers and have showcased the excellence of B.C. craftsmanship.

I had the opportunity to tour Karice Enterprises earlier this month, and the company is set apart by its personal touch. Each piece is handmade from scratch at its facility in South Surrey, using advanced engineering and cutting-edge technology. Maurice and Jordan Dery, the father-and-son design team behind Karice, take pride in their ability to tackle challenging designs. They strive to produce designs that are not only creative but practical too.

I wish them all the best at the Lighting Design Awards on May 5 and as they showcase the best of Canadian design and manufacturing to the world from right here in B.C.

VANCOUVER PUBLIC LIBRARY

M. Mark: It is my pleasure to speak about a true social equalizer in our community — the Vancouver Public Library. On a recent visit to the central branch, I witnessed hundreds of people from all demographics — young and old, students and seniors — lining up, waiting for the doors to open.

Some of the people that I talked to were returning books and DVDs. Others from a local men’s shelter were waiting to check their email to see about the status of their job opportunities.

[1400]

Not only is the Vancouver Public Library staying true to its traditional role of ensuring that every community member has equal access to information, knowledge and culture, but more importantly, the library is evolving through the use of new information technology to meet demands in the 21st century.

Their new Inspiration Lab is a perfect example about the importance of staying current in our ever-changing digital world. While I’m not an artsy person by natural talent, many of the youth, millennials and artists throughout Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and beyond its borders truly are.

This is what made my visit so exciting. I was so impressed to see public space set aside for recording booths, to access digital equipment to restore family photos or to transfer your old school cassette tapes to more modern social media, and to utilize creative and often inaccessible digital software to transform their ideas into true works of art.

The Inspiration Lab illustrates how a modern public library can bridge the digital divide across all demographics in an effort to facilitate cultural, social and economic ingenuity. Visiting the Vancouver Public Library offered me new insights into an incredibly important community asset — the community infrastructure that hosts collections in public spaces, free programming and that offers a commitment to equality and access to justice.

If you haven’t visited your local public library recently, I encourage you to do so. I’m sure you’ll be impressed.

PROGRAM FOR ABORIGINAL YOUTH
ON REDSTONE RESERVE

G. Hogg: We are all each motivated by those things which are most meaningful to us. Chief Ervin Charleyboy of the Redstone Reserve in the Chilcotins was motivated by the loss of some of his youths to the wrong crowds.

He wanted options for them. He wanted them to be motivated by positive role models and by sports, and he reached out to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for assistance. We were able to put together a small group — an RCMP officer, a former B.C. Lions player and a recreation specialist, all aboriginals and all with motivational life stories.

We spent two days on the Redstone Reserve speaking to and working with the 50 students of the Tŝi Deldel School. One of the teachers later said that she saw students push themselves to a physical level, get to the breaking point and then push themselves again. She said that it was so important for them on an emotional level, because they learned that if they can do that at school, then they can do it with every goal they have in their lives. This became the subject of many of their class discussions.

She also stated that she saw a spark of a newly formed sense of confidence in many of them. She said that the kids go through things that even adults shouldn’t have to deal with. Despite a great community and supportive parents, their circumstances are so challenging, and they don’t get the support that kids in many cities may get.

We often hear stories and read reports, but until we meaningfully engage with people where they live, until we experience even a small bit of what they experience, I don’t think that we can really understand what they are dealing with. We were honoured, by the people of the Redstone Reserve, that they shared their lives with us and inspired us.

Our thanks to the Chief Ervin Charleyboy, Principal Gilroy, the teachers, elders, parents and especially the students. They taught us much, and they taught us well. The issues that motivated Chief Charleyboy have motivated us, and we thank them all.
[ Page 12430 ]

STEWART WORLD PORT AND
WIND POWER PROJECT IN TUMBLER RIDGE

D. Donaldson: They can be almost 200 feet long, travelling at night, sometimes crawling slowly, sometimes moving quite quickly along the valley bottoms of the northwest. This is not some horror story of a genetically modified organism gone wrong or an invasive species spreading due to climate change.

What we’re actually talking about is a glimpse of what the green economy could really become in B.C.’s north, if given the attention it deserves. Those 200-foot-long sightings are wind turbine blades on specialty trucks on their way to Tumbler Ridge from the newly opened World Port in Stewart to a wind project.

These loads and shorter, heavier ones, the tower sections, require rolling road closures along Highways 37 and 16, so the travel is done at night with the traffic control crews accompanying the trucks along the way and with additional teams leapfrogging ahead to manage the temporary road closure of highway intersections, where the load might have to be steered from a cab at the back as well as the front to make the turn.

It can be a three- or four-day journey, so traffic control is a significant part of the logistics. In the north, those crews are supplied by the Gitxsan Safety Services, so much of the traffic control means jobs for local people. These jobs are another example of ones associated with the green economy.

[1405]

The 61 turbines and their tower blades are destined for Tumbler Ridge from Stewart, with much of their manufacturing done in the United States. These units use copper and steel, so it is another example of a potential blue-green alliance, where blue-collar jobs in mining and steel-making can be directly linked to green initiatives like wind power.

With the right focus from government and the correct regulatory structure, this type of blue-green alliance can mean local jobs spread around the entire province, including in the tech sector.

That’s the approach we have taken with our Power B.C. strategy. If fulfilled, what we see rolling through the night in the northwest might become more of a routine example of green jobs in this province.

UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE
AND DIG SAFE CAMPAIGN

D. Barnett: Hidden from public view and spanning across our province are complex networks of buried electrical, telecommunications and Internet cables; pipelines; water mains; and sewer lines. This infrastructure delivers the essential services British Columbians cannot live without — heat; electricity; water; communication data, including Internet and emergency services.

Each year thousands of buried facilities are needlessly damaged by uncontrolled digging, excavations that occur without first determining the presence and location of underground infrastructure in the vicinity of the digging project.

Interrupted services can lead to injury, death, environmental contamination and economic burdens to businesses. They strain emergency response resources and cause evacuations; property damage; road and construction project delays; traffic congestion and loss of data; disruption to emergency services such as 911; financial institutions, banking and purchasing transactions. These damages are avoidable.

April is Dig Safe Month across Canada. Here in B.C., a campaign reminding us to click or call before you dig is supported by the B.C. Common Ground Alliance. This is a time of year when all B.C. Common Ground Alliance stakeholders come together to communicate how important it is that professionals and homeowners call before they dig and follow the safe-digging protocol to help prevent injuries, property damage and inconvenient outages.

GLADSTONE SECONDARY STUDENTS
IN ROBOTICS COMPETITION

A. Dix: Last weekend, for the ninth straight year, the Gladstone Secondary Robosavages — from my constituency, of course, of Vancouver-Kingsway — led British Columbia schools into the VEX Robotic World Championships held this year in Louisville, Kentucky. Over 15,000 registered teams representing 150,000 players worldwide participate in the world championships and qualifying events — a Guinness world record, no less.

Gladstone is well known as a superpower in robotics, former world champions who, year after year, produce remarkable, imaginative teams. The Gladstone program, founded by teacher Todd Ablett and now ably coached by teacher Paul Wallace, sent three teams to the worlds this year.

Once again Gladstone teams did extremely well in the event. Robosavages’ team Z in the engineering division, for example — comprised of Angela Lee, Neiah Montero, Meredith Yu and Denise Chan — made it all the way to the finals, placing sixth in the world. This team was also one of the few all-girl teams at the event. The third Gladstone team, Robosavages R, were all novice students. They won a community award for their dedication and contribution in helping other teams.

Gladstone’s three teams and 18 students represented their school and province with pride and generosity. The Gladstone program is based on senior students supporting younger students, mentoring for success and for the love of learning.

Participating in Gladstone robotics is a life-changing experience for students. The Robosavages team counts
[ Page 12431 ]
future leaders in applied physics, math, digital and computer programing among its graduates and students.

All hail the Robosavages, who did us all proud in Louisville and showed what great students, supported by communities and parents and great teachers, can achieve in our public school system.

Oral Questions

PREMIER’S INCOME
FROM B.C. LIBERAL PARTY

J. Horgan: Once again big money and big money in politics is back in the news. This morning we learned that, on top of the $200,000 the Premier gets in salary from the taxpayers of British Columbia, she gets an additional compensation from the B.C. Liberal Party.

[1410]

I started to reflect, on my way into the office today: how bad has affordability got…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

This House will come to order.

J. Horgan: …in British Columbia if someone making $200,000 a year needs a top-up from their political party? I was thinking of those that make a fraction — in fact, a quarter…

Interjections.

J. Horgan: That’s it, is it? Pathetic.

…of the salary….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait. Please continue.

J. Horgan: The average salary in British Columbia is a quarter of what the Premier makes. In fact, the average salary in British Columbia is just what the B.C. Liberals topped up the Premier’s salary in the past number of years.

My question is: does she have anything to say to the people that are struggling in British Columbia because of the policies of her government that are increasing costs on virtually every single thing that the government touches? What does she have to say to them while she gets a bonus from the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member says he learned today that there was a leader’s allowance. Let’s see. It was disclosed in 2015, publicly. It was disclosed in 2014, publicly. It was disclosed in 2013, publicly. It was disclosed in 2012, publicly. It was disclosed in 2011, publicly. It was complained about by a former NDP cabinet minister in 1993 when my predecessor had it and disclosed it. It has been written about in newspapers across the province and, presumably, reaching people across the country. Congratulations, Member, you’ve finally learned about it.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: Another day at Yuk Yuk’s for the B.C. Liberals. Another day to take taxpayers’ noses and rub it in — the treatment they’ve been getting over the past 15 years from the most corporate-run government B.C. has ever seen.

It’s not enough for the Premier to give one tax break since the last provincial election — and she gave that tax break to those making over $150,000 a year; in other words, she gave herself a tax break — on top of that, the B.C. Liberal Party said: “You do such a good job of fundraising; we’re going to slide some of that money over to you and give you another $50,000.

British Columbians are paying more for their hydro bills. They’re paying more for MSP premiums. If you are on disability assistance, you’re paying more for bus passes. But apparently, to the people on that side of the House, it’s okay to raise money from the corporate sector and slide it into the pocket of the Premier.

My question: isn’t it past time, hon. Members, to get big money out of politics so that the smear that we saw in the Globe and Mail today doesn’t happen again in the future?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, the member cannot properly call this secret. It has been disclosed for many, many years. It’s not as secret as some of the letters he’s written to CEAA, for example, opposing Petronas — a lot more public than that.

I just want to just say very clearly that what my government, our team, has been focused on every day is to try and make sure that we raise the standard of living of British Columbians across the province. The way we’ve been doing that is by saying yes to projects, yes to development, yes to workers, yes to jobs — all across British Columbia.

[1415]

That has meant that we are projected to probably double the rate of national growth in our economy. It means that we’ve created 72,000 jobs over the last year. It means that 50,000 people, many of them our neighbours from Alberta, have been flooding into British Columbia to try and take part in this growing economy.
[ Page 12432 ]

We want the economy to grow so that British Columbia workers, British Columbia families can have a better standard of living and better opportunities for themselves and their children. That’s what we’re focused on every day. If the member would like to join us in doing that, maybe he could say yes once in a while too.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, yeah, the only family whose cost of living seems to have gone up lately is the Premier’s; it’s not anybody else in British Columbia. We have the lowest minimum….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I’m sorry. I didn’t know that this was a member’s time for the member from Langley. I was unaware of that. We have….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Excuse me. Members, we will wait.

The Deputy Premier will come to order.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We have the lowest minimum wage in the country. The Premier gets a stipend from her party because of her acumen at fundraising, not by managing the people’s lives in British Columbia. You don’t make kids better by closing their schools. You don’t make health care outcomes better by extending wait-lists. And you certainly don’t get big money out of politics when you’re directly benefiting from it.

My question is to the Premier of British Columbia, who oversees the lowest minimum wage in the country, a tax break for herself, higher MSP — the only place in the country that has MSP — higher hydro rates. Will the Premier join with us today and take big money out of politics? Or is it just too much of a hit on her own personal bank account?

Hon. C. Clark: This coming from the member who takes free suits from his party. This coming from the member who says he’d be happy if someone gave him 50 grand to have lunch with him. This coming from the member who, on the same day, said he wanted to ban corporate donations, then went over to Vancouver for a $2,000-a-plate breakfast with developers. These are the questions coming from that member across the way.

I should note that while he charges $5,000 for a breakfast with the Toronto Region Board of Trade, our Minister of Finance here only charged $69.

We are working every day to make sure that British Columbians have more opportunity by growing the economy — something that the member has opposed every single step of the way. Standard and Poor’s recently came out and said that British Columbia’s financial disclosures are “transparent, comprehensive, timely. In our view, the financial management practices are amongst the best of all Canadian provinces.”

We are very proud of the work that we’re doing. We support workers. What the member should remember is that if you don’t support jobs, you can’t support workers. You can’t say you support working people if you don’t support having them go to work. We support jobs. We support creating opportunities for British Columbians. We’re going to continue to do that in the fastest-growing economy, the healthiest economy anywhere across this great country.

D. Eby: Now, the Premier says she’s been transparent about her stipend or commission or whatever it is that she gets. She says she’s disclosed it. She says everyone has known about it for years. Well, if that’s true, can she rise in this place and tell us exactly the full amount that she’s received from the B.C. Liberal Party through this stipend since she’s become leader of the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I merely point out that the member is now an experienced member of the chamber. He knows that there are rules governing what may be asked in question period, how it relates to ministerial responsibilities. He of all people….

[1420]

You know, I might add that he probably should have told his leader about the disclosure of these matters, since I’m sure that he reviewed them. It would have helped his leader if he had passed that on.

Madame Speaker, the member knows that the question is out of order for question period.

Madame Speaker: The point is well taken. Minister responsibility does not apply in this instance.

D. Eby: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I take your advice.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL COSTS IN
PREMIER’S CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CASE

D. Eby: I see that the Premier has her lawyer defending her here today.

Interjections.

D. Eby: Yes, you get what you pay for.

Now, speaking of lawyers….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just take your seat, please.

Please continue.
[ Page 12433 ]

D. Eby: The Minister of Finance isn’t the only lawyer defending the Premier. She has also hired a lawyer to defend her in the conflict-of-interest complaint that I’ve filed. Here’s the bad news. The lawyer that’s defending her is paid for by the public, by taxpayers. So not only is the Premier taking a cut of every donation made to the B.C. Liberal Party, not only….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Question, please.

D. Eby: Not only does she appear to have taken more than $200,000 in that stipend, not only does she ask for $20,000 to sit down with her at a private dinner to discuss what’s going on, on the government’s agenda, but now she wants taxpayers to pay for the lawyer to explain to the conflict commissioner why this is all okay. The Premier is fine with B.C. Liberal donors paying for her car, real estate, her personal expenses. Why aren’t they paying for her lawyer?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, there is a whole host of issues. They are important issues. They are issues that confront and involve the lives of British Columbians, that relate to the well-being of British Columbians. They are all legitimate matters for discussion, for probing, for criticism, for investigation in this chamber at this time.

The expenditure of caucus budget dollars is not one of those matters. I think that it is a sign, candidly, of an opposition that is bankrupt of ideas. By the way, that’s okay because if they ever got a chance to govern this province, the province itself would be bankrupt.

M. Farnworth: The questions that the Leader of the Opposition has asked and that my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey asked have related to activities by the Premier in her conduct as Premier of British Columbia. Now, if the government is afraid to answer those questions by trying to hide behind a nonsensical point of privilege, then we really do have a lot of questions to ask about exactly what this government is up to.

When the Premier is sitting down for dinners and you pay $25,000 to sit next to the Premier up in Prince George or you pay $10,000 to sit two persons down from the Premier at a dinner in Prince George and when a complaint has been filed with the conflict commissioner….

[1425]

Those lawyers have been paid for by taxpayer dollars. They can say what they like. Whether it comes from caucus or the party, it has come through taxpayer dollars — whether it’s donations or through this chamber. Then, the Premier should have the guts to stand and be accountable in this House and explain why she will not do that.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat.

Members. The members will come to order. Members will be reminded that conversation and debate in this chamber are characterized by moderation, temperance and civility. Please take that reminder.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is wrong. The reason that the first set of questions was answered and not the second is because the first questioner had the intelligence to understand that the rules of the House require that somehow the question must relate to the duties of the Legislature. Congratulations, member. He knows the rules.

Second, I don’t know if the member is suggesting that Glen Clark didn’t have, for example, the support of a government-funded lawyer when he was before the conflict commissioner — or any number of other members that that member sat with when they were on the government side of the House. But that is the way it has been done in this House for a long time, and that’s the way it’s continuing to be done now.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Two weeks ago, government ministries held yet another action plan meeting in Spallumcheen. Following that meeting, three professionally licensed hydrogeologists sent an open letter to government expressing, in their words, “dismay” with a so-called action plan which calls for another year-long study. While the Environment Minister told this House that Hullcar water contamination is not ongoing, these water professionals say that contamination is continuing and the government’s plan will do nothing to protect the aquifer.

When will the Minister of Environment give Hullcar valley residents and the Splatsin First Nation a real action plan that puts an end to the contamination of their drinking water?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct that our staff have continued to meet with the community. They’ve outlined work that they have done to date. They’ve also outlined the plan going forward for additional sampling, testing, studies. They heard concerns from the community. They are responding to those. They’re working within the ministry to try and create a plan that will get us to the right place.

We have about 18 of our provincial staff, across different ministries and agencies, working on this particular issue of importance. While the member can point to people who write reports and study them — I’m sure they’re eminently qualified — what the member ignores is the fact that we have some fantastic people in this ministry who are dedicating themselves to this — people like Jennifer McGuire.
[ Page 12434 ]

Jennifer McGuire has 25 years’ experience with the provincial government, direct experience with agricultural waste management. She makes recommendations to me. She advises me. The member would have me ignore that experience.

We have someone like Dennis Einarson — 37 years of impact assessment and water quality monitoring work in B.C. He’s another person who advises on this file and who’s working diligently on this file.

We will certainly be taking into account all the input we receive from the community and from experts who have sent in their own views. But we also must rely on the trusted civil servants we have in government who dedicate their careers to the protection of our environment.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: The residents of the Hullcar valley and the Splatsin First Nation want this government and this minister to put an end to the contamination of their drinking water. Words and studies won’t do that. They want action today.

[1430]

These three water geologists, between them, have years of experience. They’re well respected. They’re published, and they’re routinely utilized. They reviewed all of the available data related to Hullcar aquifer contamination, and they performed their own tests.

The Environment Minister told this House that the source of the nitrates was not yet determined, but these water geologists say it is their professional opinion that the largest dairy farm’s field is extremely likely, if not certainly, the source of most of the contamination. They go on to say that this government’s actions are not protecting public health or the environment, and they, too, join residents calling for a moratorium on effluent spreading on the field of concern.

How many more years does this Environment Minister expect residents to wait before this government puts a moratorium on effluent spraying and protects Hullcar aquifer water?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll first point out and remind the member that on the field of concern, which is also referenced in the letter that he mentions, there has not been spreading since August of 2015. But while the member quotes or speaks about those who have provided this study of their own, I also receive materials. Again, these are from experienced employees working in the Ministry of Environment.

In this case, Carrie Morita writes in one of the reports: “Given that Hullcar aquifer is unconfined and thus vulnerable to contamination, any uncontained source of nitrogen — be it manure or chemical fertilizer application, septic fields, manure storage feedlots, etc. — has the potential to introduce nitrate to the aquifer.”

I wish, and I know the community wishes, that there was a simple and quick solution to this challenge. There isn’t, and there is further work that needs to be done with the community. We are reaching out not only to other agencies but also other community organizations like the Okanagan Basin Water Board.

I will quote their executive director, Anna Warwick Sears, who said: “I was struck by the strength of the response from the Ministry of Environment. I feel the ministry took the issue seriously and has a plan going forward.”

SENIORS CARE CASE IN
POWELL RIVER–SUNSHINE COAST

N. Simons: I have an 84-year-old constituent who is suffering from dementia. In July, he was hospitalized because his wife finally conceded she was no longer able to care for him at home and the police had brought him back after he’d wandered away on three separate occasions.

Now he’s always sedated and usually restrained in a chair. His wife loves the hospital staff and wonders: what else are they supposed to do? It’s not fair to this man or to his wife or to the staff for this gentleman to be bored, stuck on an acute care ward for ten months. Does the minister believe this is justifiable?

Hon. T. Lake: This is the first time that I’ve heard of this particular constituent’s concerns. As always, I’m willing to work with MLAs to examine the kind of treatment that constituents are receiving in the health care system. I would encourage the member to come and meet with me around that issue.

This is the government that set up patient care quality offices in every regional health authority to make sure that families and patients have the ability to express their concerns and action would be taken, and that is often the case. I would encourage the member to come and meet with me, and we will try to resolve the concerns of the family.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: The minister’s office has been made aware, and it’s over two weeks ago. It’s not safe for this gentleman either. He got loose once, and while he did set off the alarms, he was onto the fourth floor and halfway up the ladder to the roof before security found him. You can’t blame him for wanting to get out. He hasn’t been outside in ten months.

Does the minister think it’s appropriate for an 84-year-old man, or any person with dementia, to be confined inside a hospital, restrained — often restrained physically — and sedated for ten months?

[1435]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, I would be happy to work with the member.

Dementia patients pose, of course, real challenges for health care staff in terms of provision of the type of facility that helps to ease their anxiety. There are many different programs around the province of British Columbia. We have invested in 6,500 new spaces for residential care. Many of the newer centres have special dementia wards that will reduce anxiety and that will reduce some of the behaviours associated with dementia in a way that does not rely on the use of medication.

No one wants their family member to be in that sort of state. I understand that completely and am willing to work with the member for this constituent.

WAIT TIMES FOR SURGERIES AND
INNOVATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM

J. Darcy: On Monday, we raised the story of Denise Tessier, a Quesnel woman who has been waiting three years for knee surgery and who says now that her bone is totally bone on bone.

Yesterday a new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that B.C. patients are suffering because the Liberal government has put the drive to privatize ahead of innovation and ahead of patients like Denise. You see, hon. Speaker, they had a successful model for speeding up knee surgeries. The Richmond hip and knee reconstruction project brought wait times for hip and knee replacement surgery down by 75 percent — from 20 months to five months. It was innovative. It was cost-effective. It should have been scaled up. Instead, the Liberal government cancelled it.

Why has this government refused to scale up innovation in public health care and forced Denise to wait years in unbearable pain?

Hon. T. Lake: There were two reports yesterday: one from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and one from the Fraser Institute. Unsurprisingly, they drew different conclusions.

If you look at Saskatchewan, for instance, the use of publicly paid private clinics has reduced wait times in Saskatchewan. We don’t have an ideology about getting people better. In a publicly paid, publicly administered system, there is room for all kinds of innovation.

In terms of the Richmond hip and knee program, it was not cancelled. That is just not true. It was amalgamated into the UBC Centre for Surgical Innovation, and that program is doing more than 1,600 hip and knee replacements a year. It’s been a tremendous success.

We put $10 million more into addressing those that are waiting longest in the fall of this past year. From September to January, an additional 6,000 surgeries have been performed. We are doing a lot of things around the province in terms of surgical wait times — looking at booking strategies, looking at first available surgeon strategies and making sure we have specialist nurses available. All of this will address the wait-time issue.

Madame Speaker: Member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Let’s set aside the reports. Let’s set aside the minister’s rhetoric. Here are some facts. The facts are that wait times…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Darcy: …for hip, knee and cataract surgery in B.C. are the second worst in Canada — the second worst. Those aren’t just statistics. Those are about human beings. Instead of the members opposite cheering, they should be ashamed of this government’s record.

There are excellent examples. In Saskatchewan, a public innovation meant that 99 percent of patients are meeting the benchmark of 26 weeks, when in British Columbia it is only 46 percent.

Madame Speaker: Pose your question.

[1440]

J. Darcy: Why is this government refusing to step up public innovation in order to meet the needs of patients like Denise and thousands of others like her who are waiting in pain as long as three years?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m really glad that the member has endorsed the Saskatchewan model, because many of the things Saskatchewan has been doing are the things that we are embarking upon, including the use of publicly paid for, publicly administered, but privately delivered surgery. So thank you, hon. Member, for making us aware of that. I appreciate that.

The member reminds us that these patients are human beings. I’m very well aware of that, which is why I was very dismayed that a five-year-old patient was used as an example in this House to make a political point yesterday before the member thought that maybe they should come to our office and see if we could help.

In fact, there are surgeons that are available with a shorter wait-list for that patient, but that didn’t suit the member’s purpose. It was all used as a political ploy. These are human beings, and we’re working hard to look after them.

[End of question period.]

M. Mark: I rise to present a petition.
[ Page 12436 ]

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Mark: I present a petition from the B.C. Pet Society with 14,087 signatures to amend the Residential Tenancy Act and related acts to prevent discrimination against tenants with pets.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Transportation; in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 13.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: Section 1 refers to a definition prescribed under section 88(2)(w.1). In section 3, that refers to the amendment that is also referred to in subsection 1.

Can the minister explain the interaction of the two sections there? What it would appear to do, to me, is simply to add to the lengthy recitation in section 88(2) of the Safety Standards Act a further definition or reference to “power plant.” Can the minister just confirm that’s what’s taking place legislatively here?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, before I start, I’ll introduce the staff that I have with me today: Shannon Horner, the director of safety policy at the B.C. Safety Authority liaison office of housing and construction standards — and I thought I had a title; Tricia Daykin, senior policy analyst at the office of housing and construction standards; and Richard Slocomb, the vice-president of engineering, Oil and Gas Commission.

The member is correct. This is a new definition, and “power plant” is added, clarifying that the term is defined in the regulation. The significance is that this addition provides certainty that the defined term set out in regulation also applies to the act.

It is necessary because the amendments use power plants to delineate between the responsibility to the Oil and Gas Commission and the B.C. Safety Authority responsibilities. OGC, which is the Oil and Gas Commission, will have exclusive oversight of pressure piping, except where it forms part of a power plant. The B.C. Safety Authority will continue to oversee pressure piping and power plants because its expertise is needed in that area.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: This, I would describe, is a relatively brief bill, but this particular section would appear to be the legislative heart of it.

I’m looking at the definition of what’s called a specified regulated product. What this section does is remove it from the Safety Standards Act and the jurisdiction of the B.C. Safety Authority and places that with the Oil and Gas Commission. But, for the purposes of this legislative section, it takes it out of the Safety Standards Act.

Can the minister explain the rationale for taking…? I’m looking at — we’ll begin, and perhaps we can do them in turn — “specified regulated product,” which is subsection (a): “gas systems and equipment referred to in section 2(1)(b)(vi).” When one looks at 2(1)(b)(vi), it says that this act…. I’m looking at section 2 of the current Safety Standards Act. “This act and its regulations apply to all of the following: …(b) all of the regulated products as they are defined in the regulations.” And the particular one that’s referred to is “gas systems and equipment.”

That is specifically included in the Safety Standards Act. This amendment would specifically exclude them from the act, in relation to gas systems and equipment.

Can the minister explain the legislative purpose and perhaps also give a short definition of gas systems and equipment as it concerns the legislative objects of this piece of legislation?

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 3 is repealed and replaced so that the Safety Standards Act ceases to apply to specified regulated products and regulated work in relation to pipelines and oil and gas facilities and begins to apply to other regulated products and regulated work that were previously exempt.

The existing provision under section 3(1) exempts all regulated products in relation to mines as that term is defined in the Mines Act. There’s no change to the application of the act in relation to mines.

Subsection (2) exempts various regulated products in relation to pipelines as that term is defined in the Oil and Gas Activities Act. More specifically, it provides that all regulated products are exempt except boilers and boiler systems, electrical equipment, pressure vessels, pressure piping and refrigeration systems and equipment.

The amendments ensure the act does not apply to specified regulated products that are attached to or used in the operation of a pipeline or oil and gas facility. This
[ Page 12437 ]
includes liquefied natural gas facilities. This provision exempts gas systems and equipment, pressure piping and refrigeration system equipment from the act.

These technologies will be overseen exclusively by the Oil and Gas Commission under the existing authority or the Oil and Gas Activities Act. There is one exception with respect to the pressure piping. B.C. Safety Authority’s responsibility will continue when the equipment forms part of a power plant.

Other exemptions are removed so that all other regulated products will be overseen by the B.C. Safety Authority — things like electrical equipment, boilers and boiler systems, pressure vessels, elevating devices, passenger ropeways, amusement rides and other regulated products specified in the Safety Standards Act.

This ensures optimal safety oversight of the technical equipment across the oil and gas sector. Ultimately, the Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for all operations and technologies within the facility. Within the larger system, the B.C. Safety Authority is responsible for safety in specific technical areas, which is…. After consultation, both agencies thought this would be the best way to approach the management of these activities.

B. Ralston: I do have a couple of questions for clarification. I’d understood from the minister’s comments in the House that the purpose of the amendments was to take the regulation of, particularly, the refrigeration systems but also oil and gas systems related to proposed LNG plants from the authority of the B.C. Safety Authority and place them with the Oil and Gas Commission.

What the minister seems to be saying here — and I just want to be clear about that — is that not only would proposed LNG plants fall under the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Commission, but existing oil and gas facilities would no longer fall under the authority of the B.C. Safety Authority but would also be regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission.

It seems to me, then, in that sense, to be a more sweeping and expansive regulatory change than was understood or at least explained at second reading by the minister. I don’t say that critically. That may be a failing on the part of myself to understand the scope of the legislation and its subtlety, but perhaps the minister could clarify that.

The Chair: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission seeks leave to make introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: In the House behind me are a class from Thomas Haney Secondary School in Maple Ridge, and teachers. One class is here right now. Another class is somewhere else in the precincts.

It’s a great school, I know. I taught there for three days, and then I went to a full-time position in another school. They come every year. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Interjection.

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. Boy, he opened up the door there, didn’t he? I have no comment on that, though. Welcome, folks.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Coleman: Not only, as we did this, did we want to, obviously, deal with the expertise that would be required in the regulatory framework and management and around things in the LNG plants but to, at the same time, clarify and make the responsibility for technical safety and regulation to pipelines and oil and gas facilities with regard to both authorities — the Oil and Gas Commission and the B.C. Safety Authority.

Basically, the changes apply to equipment that is attached to or used in the operation of pipelines or oil and gas facilities and to any work carried out in relation to that equipment. Now, this has been going on, and this is clarifying what has been going on, to make sure both parties understand.

The B.C. Safety Authority has certain expertise; the Oil and Gas Commission has other expertise. The Oil and Gas Commission has also done the work to understand the operation of gas plants and the integrated relationship with pipelines and the integrated relationship with LNG projects as well. That equipment is subject to the safety standard that is known under the act as “regulated product.”

References to regulated products can also include activities related to products, such as installing and operating the product. These activities under that act are known as “regulated work.” Where the legislation refers to previously regulated work, it means refrigeration and piping equipment. These become exempt, meaning the OGC will have exclusive jurisdiction over them, together with gas equipment, under the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

References to the “previously unregulated product” means the technologies that have, until now, been exempt from the Safety Standards Act oil and gas settings. They will now be overseen by the B.C. Safety Authority, together with technology that the B.C. Safety Authority is already overseeing.

Technologies that are new to the B.C. Safety Authority oversight in relation to oil and gas are elevating devices, such as elevators, passenger ropeways and any other regulated product that may be specified in the regulation. Technology that the B.C. Safety Authority already over-
[ Page 12438 ]
sees with regard to this industry is electrical equipment; boilers and boiler systems; and pressure vessels, as distinct from pressure piping, which falls under the OGC.

That would be the explanation as to the distinction. It really is about identifying clearly who has responsibility for what inspection and management of specific pieces of the industry that the expertise exists with, within each of the agencies of both the Safety Authority and the Oil and Gas Commission.

B. Ralston: I’m not sure that I totally understand the explanation, but I’ll ask a few further exploratory questions.

I’m dealing with, then, in the proposed section 2, the amendment in reference to subsection 3(1)(a), “gas systems and equipment referred to in section 2 (1) (b) (vi).” Gas systems and equipment. This particular aspect of the operation of an oil and gas facility, as I understand the minister’s explanation, is at present inspected and regulated by the B.C. Safety Authority. Presumably, since they’re doing it, they have the expertise now, and have ensured and enforced safety standards in oil and gas facilities throughout the province.

Can the minister explain, then, why it is felt necessary to take that expertise — which is obviously, I would assume, working — and transfer it to the Oil and Gas Commission? There’s reference made to superior expertise in the Oil and Gas Commission, yet it has resided in the Safety Authority for some time. They clearly must have the personnel, the systems, the inspection protocols to do this job properly. So why is it felt necessary to transfer it?

[1500]

Hon. R. Coleman: The OGC has always had gas systems and equipment pressure pipe refrigeration under their purview as well as the Safety Authority. The challenge that was identified by the agencies as we came through there with regards to the oversight is the specificity of that, where the expertise laid and what we were doing.

For instance…. I’ll try this, and the member may have more questions. The B.C. Safety Authority will continue to oversee electrical equipment, borders and pressure vessels and elevating devices and passenger ropeways. The division of duties here, though, makes technical sense, ensuring the right codes and standards are applied to the right equipment. It also allows a safety authority to apply its technical expertise in key areas.

The type of refrigeration used in LNG plants is inherently different than what is addressed by the Safety Standards Act. They would be dealing more with things like refrigeration units for ice rinks and arenas and cold storage. Where LNG plants process refrigeration for liquefaction, the latter is addressed in the LNG facility regulation under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. These agencies have worked together to come to this definition of where.

The new reference to “facility” clarifies the intention for section 3 that has always been to address all pipelines in oil and gas facilities, including large facilities like LNG plants. The act looks to the Oil and Gas Activities Act for definitions of “pipeline” and “facilities.” The definition of “pipeline” includes references to facilities, but the amendments refer to both terms individually in order to provide certainty.

The confusion of what pipes and facilities were when they’re actually interconnected into the same system is being clarified by accomplishing this and making sure that the expertise which will lie with the Oil and Gas Commission on LNG-type facilities for the refrigeration side — which is different than an arena or a cold storage facility and those types of things, which would be under the Safety Standards Act — can be coordinated through both parties in such a way that they each apply their expertise where it’s required.

B. Ralston: The minister is making explicit reference to subsection (c), “refrigeration systems and equipment.” Notionally, the difference between an ice plant and a hockey arena and an LNG plant, and its massive requirement to cool natural gas down to a very, very low temperature, obviously makes sense.

My concern was in (a), “gas systems and equipment.” The regulation appears to be administered now. Since the paramount concern in the act should be — or seems to be, at least nominally — safety, I can see that there may be some functional wish that wants bigger facilities to go to the Oil and Gas Commission and smaller ones to stay with the Safety Authority.

I guess my concern is the consequence for the administration of and creation of a safe work environment. At the present time, is there any deficiency or any perceived weakness or errors or something inherently wrong with the way in which the B.C. Safety Authority is administering the safety standards that are required to properly run gas systems and equipment, which appear to be separate from the new refrigeration system that’s contemplated for an LNG plant?

[1505]

I think the minister had conceded that “gas systems and equipment” referred to the operation of existing oil and gas facilities. That’s a lot of facilities throughout the province right now that are under the authority of the Safety Standards Act and the B.C. Safety Authority and are now going to go to the Oil and Gas Commission.

I’m wondering what the…. Other than some kind of industry functionality division, what’s the benefit, in terms of public safety, of making this division?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the confusion is that nothing’s actually changing with regards to the management of gas systems in British Columbia. They are already under the purview of the management and regulation of
[ Page 12439 ]
the Oil and Gas Commission. They do that now — gas systems and management and safety, etc.

What this does is clarify some pieces within that — that the Safety Authority will have oversight of things like elevators and rope lines, that type of thing that would be standard for them. But in British Columbia today, this doesn’t change the fact that the OGC actually oversees the gas aspect of this. They will continue to do that.

B. Ralston: What the act says presently in section 2 is: “This Act and the regulations apply to all of the following…(b) all of the regulated products as they are defined in the regulations…(vi) gas systems and equipment.”

The minister says: “Well, it’s being administered by the Oil and Gas Commission now.” With what legislative authority is it being administered, given that it says right in the Safety Standards Act, prior to this amendment, that that’s who the responsible authority was?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll try and take a run at this one.

Basically, under the present act, all activities with regards to the Safety Standards Act are exempt from the Safety Standards Act. The section, as written, is confusing, so we’re trying to clarify, which is evidently causing confusion.

In order to continue on where the Oil and Gas Activities Act takes authority over all the activities in the oil and gas area, we are basically adding pressure piping, refrigeration — and gas is already in there, with regards to an activity — under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, which means the Oil and Gas Commission has responsibility for it.

Basically, the way the act is written under the Safety Standards Acts, it says a regulated product “other than products referred to in section” such-and-such-and such “is attached….” The Oil and Gas Activities Act “does not apply to the regulated product or to a person who does regulated work in respect of that regulated product.”

Right now, all the oil and gas activities come under the Oil and Gas Commission, under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. What this is doing is clarifying that added to that now is pressure piping and refrigeration. It will all fall under the Oil and Gas Activities Act for regulation.

While we’re doing that, we’re also identifying some things that may be in an LNG plant, like an elevator or those types of things. Some pressure vessels would still be allowed to be regulated under the Safety Standards Act and agreement. With this act, the changes will allow those to be regulated.

Today, oil and gas is actually exempted from the Safety Standards Act. The responsibility sits with the Oil and Gas Commission.

B. Ralston: Once again, I understand the desire, for perhaps functional reasons and for industry operation, to have everything concentrated in the Oil and Gas Commission. I suppose the legislative concern would arise that when you have a Safety Standards Act and a B.C. Safety Authority that has an independent jurisdiction focused on safety, that is somewhat different from the ordinary regulation and licensing of the commercial operation of oil and gas facilities. One wonders whether that is the best choice for the safety of the plant and those who would work in it.

Apparently, the legislative wish of the government is that everything be administered by the Oil and Gas Commission. One could reasonably foresee, within that legislative scheme, conflicts arising between regulation, and the administration of regulations applying to oil and gas facilities, and the operation in a safe manner.

When both are regulated by the same authority, is the minister not concerned that that may lead to the wrong priorities — that is smooth operation, if I could put it that way, being given priority over safety standards? That seems to me to be a legitimate question, given some of the problems that have arisen in other industries. I’m thinking particularly of the forestry industry, the operation of mills, where there certainly was a separate jurisdiction. Nonetheless, problems arose.

I’m just wondering. My concern is protection of the public and safety standards for those working in those plants, and those in surrounding communities that might be affected by, if there were — one would hope that there never would be — any escape or disaster that might result from inefficient or faulty safety procedures.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the Oil and Gas Commission has been monitoring oil and gas activities in British Columbia for decades. They do it from a perspective of, primarily, safety of the operation of the plants. They have an extremely high safety record and what have you.

[1515]

All this does is we move into other plants. The Safety Standards Act has not applied to oil and gas for some time. It is the Oil and Gas Commission and the Oil and Gas Activities Act that takes part of this. But as we came through the consultation process with regards to future plants like LNG, there were some activities that would be different that could be something the expertise of the Safety Authority could be added into to help with some expertise. Elevators are a good example, some pressure vessels and that sort of thing.

Basically, we’re actually allowing the Safety Authority in on some things with more safety, because the expertise exists with the Safety Authority. But the other aspects of the operation of pressure piping and gas lines and gas plants have been with the OGC, under its oversight in the activities act, for a long time.

These amendments with pressure piping and refrigeration will be also overseen by the OGC, because they were
[ Page 12440 ]
given a mandate to go and do the research, send the information to the integrated gas systems so that they’d be able to have that expertise in technical standards put in place with regards to how these would come together so there’d be no confusion for stakeholders.

To even suggest for a second that we would be taking the safety standard aspect out of the monitoring of these things would be unfair. But some things, like the elevating devices that I mentioned, will now be subject to the Safety Standards Act, because there’s no sense in going and finding new technical expertise on something that exists within the province. The expertise on the technical management and safety management of gas plants exists with the OGC.

This just allows — or brings back in under one of the sections of the act, basically — some of the things that would be available, because we think the Safety Standards Act would be helpful on those. It also clarifies that pressure piping and refrigeration would be part of the total exemption that’s existed in the oil and gas industry for a long time now — be added into that so that they would be able to deal with the integrated operation and safety aspects of a plant because they will have that expertise.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can assist in this way, then. The minister referred to letting the B.C. Safety Authority in. Are there specific people and a specific program with the Safety Authority that would deal with gas systems and equipment that will now move from the administrative jurisdiction of the B.C. Safety Authority over to the Oil and Gas Commission? Those people, those systems, that inspection protocol — will all of that be moved to the Oil and Gas Commission, if I can put it that way?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t think the member understands it. The gas systems are exempt today — will continue to be exempt and are exempt. Basically, what happens with the Safety Authority is no different than any other aspect.

If I have a building in Vancouver with an elevator, there’s an inspection protocol that the Safety Authority has in place with regards to the elevator. Well, they’ve put the same safety, but we’ve identified that if there’s an elevator in an LNG plant, they would also deal with those inspections and standards, like they do every elevator in B.C. Why would you have a commission, the Oil and Gas Commission, spending time learning how to do the maintenance and oversight of the safety of an elevator when you already have the expertise within government?

This is what we are allowing to happen. It’s that piece. The Safety Standards Act applies to the oil and gas sector with respect to specific technologies, including elevators and those sorts of things, but gas is under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, so they have been overseeing these for some time.

Basically, as you came along and added what could be a future activity in British Columbia and you looked at, let’s say, an LNG plant, there are some lifting devices and some boiler pressure vessels that are there that, given the expertise of the Safety Authority….

We need to put that amendment in to allow them to do that inspection and work under the act and under regulation, while continuing to allow the expertise — through the Oil and Gas Activities Act and the commission, which has been overseeing the safety of the oil and gas sector for a few decades now — to continue but to identify….

As you see the changes in technology and things taking place with regards to new industries, you want to get the technical piece; you want to ensure that the right codes and standards apply to the right equipment. This allows the B.C. Safety Standards Act to apply in technical expertise in key areas, so they will actually complement each other.

[1520]

B. Ralston: Well, I’m just looking at section 2, and these are the explanatory notes in the bill. The minister says that this regulation and inspection routine is already being done by the Oil and Gas Commission and this has been done for decades. That’s what I took him to be saying.

But the legislative amendment here — and this is the explanation offered; this is the official explanatory note — says the Safety Standards Act “ceases to apply to specified regulated products relating to pipelines and oil and gas facilities and to regulated work done in respect of those specified regulated products.” And then there are specified here gas systems, pressure piping, refrigeration systems.

If this has already been done for decades by the Oil and Gas Commission, why is this amendment necessary? This particular provision in the act doesn’t appear to have been followed — and for decades.

Hon. R. Coleman: The significance of section 2 and section 3, as described in the section notes that I have, are that basically the Safety Standards Act “ceases to apply to specified regulated products relating to pipelines and oil and gas facilities and to regulated work done in respect of those specified regulated products.”

Basically, right now the specified regulated products would be gas and pipelines, and we’re adding pipeline facilities and refrigeration as being specified regulated products to clarify that those are under the purview of the Oil and Gas Commission. So far I’m getting a nod.

[1525]

The amendments ensure that the act doesn’t apply — I’ll try this — to regulated products that are attached to or used in the operation of pipeline oil and gas facilities. This includes a liquefied natural gas facility. This provision exempts gas systems and equipment, pressure piping, and refrigeration systems and equipment from the
[ Page 12441 ]
act. These technologies will be overseen exclusively by the OGC under the existing authority, the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Pressure piping and refrigeration, under “specified regulated product,” are being added with regards to that responsibility. There’s an exception to that, and that’s where the B.C. Safety Authority’s responsibility will continue where the equipment forms part of a power plant. The other exemptions that are removed for all other regulated products will be overseen by the B.C. Safety Authority — electrical equipment, boiler and boiler systems and, just so we’re clear, pressure vessels.

In their act, they also have elevating devices and passenger conveyors, passenger ropeways and amusement rides. Obviously, there are no amusement rides in LNG plants. All of those are considered to be elevating devices so, therefore, have to also be identified as a product that’s specified under the regulations with others.

Basically, this is to ensure optimal safety and oversight for technical equipment across the oil and gas sector. The Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for all operations or technology within the facility — pipelines and all of those. Within that larger system, the B.C. Safety Authority is responsible for safety-specific technical areas.

B. Ralston: I think the legislation, when reading it, was clear in the sense that prospectively — that is, in the future — the refrigerated systems that would be part of an LNG plant, for example, would be included in the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Commission. The pressure piping, with the exception of a power plant, the unique requirements of an LNG plant, would fall with the Oil and Gas Commission.

I suppose where I find difficulty understanding the minister’s explanation is…. The statement that was made is that oil and gas systems and equipment have been regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission for decades and have not fallen under the authority of the B.C. Safety Authority, when the legislation clearly says that it does and this amendment is necessary to end that.

Perhaps the minister can get the assistance of his staff on this. Was there, effectively, concurrent jurisdiction in the sense that the Oil and Gas Commission was administering the safety aspects, falling under the Safety Standards Act, of oil or gas systems and equipment, regardless of what the legislation said, in the last decade or two? I know the Oil and Gas Commission is a creation of an NDP government back in the 1990s — a very visionary step, as I’m sure that the minister will be quick to acknowledge.

From that time forward, was the division of labour really a functional one — I’m not terribly worried about the legislative purview of the Safety Standards Act — and for administrative convenience all those functions were administered by the Oil and Gas Commission? Is that what is being said? This is simply finalizing that or recognizing that legislatively, what was the effective internal administrative arrangement that the Oil and Gas Commission operated under. That seems to me what the minister is saying. Perhaps he can confirm that.

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: When the Oil and Gas Activities Act was written, it exempted gas systems and equipment used in the realm of pipelines and oil and gas facilities. What we’re doing is we’re adding pressure piping and refrigeration into those exemptions in the Safety Standards Act. Right now the Safety Standards Act actually exempts oil and gas activities. That’s from the beginning, when the legislation was brought in, as the member correctly pointed out, back in the 1990s.

The Oil and Gas Commission oversees those technical areas within the broader facilities today. But because of the addition of some of the activities that could come from LNG, like pressure vessels and refrigeration that would be included in a plant, we’re adding those exemptions to the Safety Standards Act so that that’s clear.

While we’re doing that, at the same time, we are adding, in relation to oil and gas activity…. There are technologies that the B.C. Safety Authority already oversees in this industry. That would be electrical equipment, boilers and boiler systems, and pressure vessels — distinct from piping, which falls under the OGC. All we’re adding is elevating devices under the B.C. Safety Authority oversight in relation to oil and gas. Elevating devices are the only thing we’re adding.

We also have in there the catch-all phrase, because we do this when we do legislation, that any other regulated product may be specified in regulation. There’s nothing there now, but that’s there in case there’s something that were to be identified as we move through to new technologies in oil and gas or new technologies that may affect an LNG plant that we feel should be added for the B.C. Safety Authority oversight. It gives the ability for government to do that under future regulations.

The reality is that the Safety Standards Act is not being changed for any of its authority relative to the oil and gas system, because the oil and gas systems and equipment have been exempted from the time the act came into place. What we’re adding is, because there’ll be some new activities, the pressure piping and the refrigeration piece.

While we’re doing that, we’re also identifying at the same time that there could be something else that the Oil and Gas Commission does not want to…. Or through discussions with the Safety Authority, it feels elevating devices such as elevators and passenger ropeways should be inspected by the B.C. Safety Authority oversight. So we’re adding that in as a technology that they will oversee, in addition to electrical equipment, boilers and boiler systems, and pressure vessels. That’s basically all we’re doing.

[1535]

B. Ralston: There’s a reference in proposed subsection (2): “This Act does not apply to…(b) a person who does regulated work in respect of a regulated product described in paragraph (a).” That reference to (a) would be, in this context, I would think, the mine. But perhaps the minister can explain: who is the person that’s referred to in 2(b)?

Hon. R. Coleman: We’re not changing anything with regards to mine under regulated product in this act. We’re not making any changes there. When we’re talking about regulated work, same thing. There’s no changes there. That’s already in the act as it is today — under the Safety Standards Act — when you talk about a person with respect to regulated work on a regulated product.

Outside of that, though, we’re not changing with regards to the subsection the member is talking about. But if you had a person that was doing work on an elevator, the Safety Standard Act applies to their licensing work as well as the elevating product. That’s what that refers to.

B. Ralston: Well, what the regulation says very clearly, or this proposed section, is that this act does not apply to that person who does regulated work in respect to a regulated product in a mine. Can the minister give…? Perhaps sometimes it’s easier to understand these proposals if an example is given. What would be the circumstance in which this would be necessary or this legislative clarification is necessary?

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s really not up for discussion in this legislation. That’s how it exists today. That’s how it’s written today, and it has nothing to do with this legislation. That section the member is reading is not being changed. It exists today, and it remains the same.

B. Ralston: With respect to the minister, the idea that legislation would be passed that changes nothing — has no force and effect — is contrary to every principle of legislative interpretation. Legislative interpretation would say that if something is passed by the Legislature, there’s a purpose for it, and it must be either remedial, or there must be a purpose for it.

To say that it’s in the act but it changes nothing and it serves no purpose is just contrary to every principle of legislative interpretation. I don’t mean to be difficult, but I don’t follow the minister’s explanation. It just doesn’t make sense.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t want to get into the debate with the member either, but the section is being repealed and is being replaced with the amended section, which leaves in place exactly the language with regards to that subsection the member talks about as it was in the previous section.

But when you change a section, it doesn’t mean you’re amending the entire section. You’re putting amendments into a section, but you’re changing the section because the ordering can be differing, the numbering can be different or whatever the case may be. But that particular language in that section which is being changed, repealed and replaced with the new section is the same as it was in the previous section within the act.

B. Ralston: In subsection (3), there’s a further qualification about subsection 4. It says that this act does not apply to specified regulated product attached to or being used in the operation of a pipeline or…. It’s similar to the previous subsection (2). Can the minister give an example of where this would be required and the legislative purpose in this particular section?

[1540]

I’m referring to, in proposed section (2), subsection (3), which reads: “…this Act does not apply to (a) a specified…product attached to or being used in the operation of a pipeline or facility.” Can the minister explain the legislative purpose of this subsection?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Safety Standards Act, as the member knows, doesn’t apply to gas activities now. Basically, the specified regulated product that is being used in the operation of pipeline or facilities…. This is where the rub comes in, where we’re changing to pressure vessels and refrigeration, and they’re a specified regulated product, in addition to the other oil and gas activities that are already exempted from this act.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

B. Ralston: The title heading for this section and many of the subsequent ones is “Transition.” Presumably, that’s the transition between the jurisdiction of the Safety Standards Act and the delegation to the Oil and Gas Commission.

Can the minister explain, broadly, how transition will work legislatively? And what would be…? We can probably add some questions about what the effective dates would be. I presume they’re by order in council, in section 11. Perhaps just explain the process by which legislative transition will take place.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sure. It basically sets out the definitions of the transitional provisions. The significance is that these definitions apply to the transitional provisions that govern practical aspects of how the change to oversight will proceed.

Basically, “previously regulated product” refers to pressure piping and refrigeration. They become exempt and will now be regulated exclusively by the OGC, as we discussed earlier. And “previously unregulated product” now comes in, which refers to the various technologies
[ Page 12443 ]
that are currently exempt and will now become subject to the act. The most significant are the conversation we had about elevators and passenger ropeways earlier.

B. Ralston: The process of transition, which the minister has offered an explanation of…. Can the minister explain, in section 4, the operation by which “authority” is defined? It refers to the “administration of provisions of the Safety Standards Act and regulation under that Act is delegated under Part 12 of the Safety Standards Act.” And turning to part 12, it is “Delegation of administration.” Can the minister explain how that will work in relation to this particular transition of authority?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is pretty standard. Basically, under the Safety Standards Act, they have the ability. The authority has already been delegated, for instance, to the B.C. Safety Authority. The reason we use “authority” versus the actual “B.C. Safety Authority” is because that authority, with administration, could change in the future.

That means a person to whom administration of the provision of the Safety Standards Act and regulation, under the act, could be delegated under part 12 of the B.C. Safety Standards Act. The authority could change. Basically, the authority exists…. We do this all through government. I know the members opposite would know this. We actually give delegates authority for the operation and the implementation of an act or a regulation, and that’s a delegated authority.

This basically says that right now, the person that administers that provision is under part 12 of the Safety Standards Act. It happens, in this case, to be an agency called the B.C. Safety Authority. That could change in the future, but they could still be delegated. So you don’t identify the necessary authority by name. You identify that there’s an authority, and then you delegate that.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

B. Ralston: This is another transitional provision, referring to installation permits and operating permits.

Can the minister explain how, in the process of transition, there will emerge no regulatory gap in the sense that permits issued under previous authority would be seamlessly transferred to the new authority? I’m assuming and perhaps…. I think the minister might just wish to confirm for the record that there will be no regulatory gap in the sense that existing operating permits will continue in existence in a legal sense without any gap in authority.

Hon. R. Coleman: The provision terminates the B.C. Safety Authority, so the Oil and Gas can become the exclusive oversight of the refrigeration in oil and gas settings.

The facility permit covers these. As a result, we’re covered through the Oil and Gas Commission. Relevant permits are those related to refrigeration systems equipment. There are no permits related to pressure piping. The provision authorizes, also, that the Safety Authority can refund fees paid to them in relation to permits and applications that are cancelled by this bill because they’re now caught in the facility’s permit, in the general permit of the operation of the facility.

B. Ralston: Just dealing with the issue, then, of not only transitional permitting but new permitting, in the very brief debate that we had at second reading, the minister referred to the expertise that he viewed as residing in the Oil and Gas Commission for, prospectively, LNG plants.

I did pose a question about, in the permitting process, what international experience or authority from existing LNG plants the Oil and Gas Commission was going to draw on in creating a new set of regulations to regulate the commissioning and the operation of new LNG plants.

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: There is expertise and experience with smaller LNG facilities in British Columbia today. We’re drawing on that. We have an LNG engineer on staff, as well, at OGC as well as consulting engineers helping us with that work.

Our folks have also been to Bintulu, where there’s a nine-train, multi-million-tonne LNG plant that’s having its ninth train built now with regards to LNG. They brought in experts to train the staff, and its engineers have travelled to operating plants here in B.C. and overseas. It currently has experts on staff, which is the engineer I was mentioning, available. We have consulting engineers who have expertise that are also helping to train our staff.

B.C. Safety Authority has also sent personnel overseas to learn about LNG. It has highly trained people experienced with complex pressure vessels, which is the boiler piece and the electrical systems we talked about earlier.

The work has been going on to prepare and to be able to have the regs and the standards in place. They’re working on that now as they work towards, hopefully, a final investment decision.

We have, actually, smaller operating LNG plants in B.C. with that expertise. Even though they’re smaller, the systems are very much the same, just on a scalable difference. Whether it be the one in Delta or the one on Vancouver Island, there is expertise here that we’re drawing on as well.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. I’m familiar with the Fortis plant in Delta. I’ve been invited and had a look at that particular plant.

The minister mentioned a nine-train facility. I didn’t quite catch the name. I wonder…. Just for the clarity of
[ Page 12444 ]
the record, perhaps you could express that once again and give the geographical location of that particular plant.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t have all the locations some of these folks may have gone to. But the nine-train facility, which is just about to commission its ninth train, is in Bintulu, in Malaysia. It’s in Sarawak, actually. It’s been operational since…. It was one of the first LNG plants built in the world, back in about 1968, and has continued to add to its capacity. I think the first shipment went out in about…. I’m going to say around 1970, somewhere in there.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

B. Ralston: This section is entitled “Information-sharing with Oil and Gas Commission.” The explanatory note talks about “the sharing, between the ministry of the minister responsible for the administration of the Safety Standards Act…and the Oil and Gas Commission, of personal information that relates to regulated products.”

Can the minister explain briefly what type of information is being referred to here? Would that be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t think it would be because I don’t think there’s any commercially sensitive information in this particular provision with regards to this. Basically, what it is, is that the ability to share information will be crucial to ensuring a smooth transition.

The B.C. Safety Authority will need to provide records related to pressure piping and refrigeration so the OGC can ensure nothing is missed in the transition to their oversight. Similarly, the OGC may need to share information with the B.C. Safety Authority facilitators in their oversight responsibility in oil and gas settings, primarily with the elevating devices that we mentioned earlier. I’m not sure how many elevating devices would actually exist in our existing facilities. I think that really refers to larger plants in LNG.

Some of these records may contain personal information, but that would be basically redacted, as I understand it. Basically, it would be the qualifications of the contractor associated with the permit — those types of things. They would be subject to the FOI. But the actual information relative to the sharing of information and what’s being transferred from one entity to another, I think, is pretty straightforward.

[1555]

We think that there may be small amounts of personal information, such as contractors’ qualifications, on a permit application. The amendments ensure it can be shared as needed for optimal safety oversight. The details have been reviewed with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The office has expressed it has no concerns. The collection and use of the information are authorized by FOIPPA, and the amendments provide express authority for disclosure. Basically, the records would only include business contact information.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 13, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage on Bill 21, intituled the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 3:59 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

[1600]

G. Heyman: Section 3 is, I believe, pretty transparent. Sections 79 and 80 of the act are repealed because this amendment act actually replaces, in considerably more detail, what was addressed in terms of spill response in the Environmental Management Act.

Could the minister indicate if anything of substance was omitted; if so, the rationale for that; and what she con-
[ Page 12445 ]
siders — in a descriptive form, not necessarily a detailed form — the most substantive additions or amplifications to spill response that will replace sections 79 and 80?

Hon. M. Polak: We aren’t able to think of anything of note that has been omitted or removed from the old sections. As the member noted, really, this is about adding all the new pieces.

As far as what I think would be the way to describe the most substantial changes here, it’s probably easier to describe that in the overarching approach that this represents. We’re moving away from a system that was pretty much entirely focused on just cleanup of a spill and, instead, broadening that focus to require preparedness; prevention activities; cleanup, of course, as we always have; and then also moving beyond that into reclamation and remediation.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Heyman: Section 4 is not going to pass for a while, because that’s where all the substance of the bill is.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As we noted in second reading, we will support this bill. But I think it’s important in committee stage to explore a number of aspects of it, get them on the record, clarify how some of the things left to regulation were, in fact, left to regulation, and some of the parameters that will be placed around the filling in of the gaps, if you will — and also to clarify, for the public, how this might work in a number of areas.

I will also have a limited number of amendments to propose in areas that interest groups have indicated could, in their opinion, be strengthened and given more transparency and public accountability. We’ll see if the minister shares their views, or my view, in that regard.

In terms of the definitions. We have a definition of “area response plan,” and then further on, we have a definition of the “geographic response plan.” Can the minister tell us how this differentiation will be applied, why it exists and clarify exactly what those differences will look like or if that is, at this point, conditional on other factors?

[1605]

Hon. M. Polak: The difference between the two is that the area response plan is strategic, whereas the geographic response plan is tactical. The area response plan is more of an overview. There could be one for the entire province. There may be three for the province.

A geographic response plan is one that would be ordered specific to a space that represented a high degree of sensitivity. Typically, we’d expect those to be focused on rivers and streams and shorelines — things of that nature.

G. Heyman: If I heard the minister correctly, the area could be the whole province and would be tactical. Geographic would be strategic, with respect to a particular geographic area or a particular sensitive ecosystem, like a stream or a river or a particular habitat for a species — perhaps a species at risk.

My question is, therefore: will all of B.C. be covered, in one manner or another, by a geographic response plan?

[1610]

Hon. M. Polak: The area response plan — be it one covering the whole province, or maybe it would be a number of them, two or three — would provide the overarching guidance, the strategic approach. Within that, in a given region, there may be areas that have a high degree of sensitivity, very many hazards. You would then designate, under a geographic response plan, that specific area as one where one could say there are special instructions to follow in the case of that smaller area.

I was messing around in my head with a layperson’s description. I thought maybe the easiest one is to think of the instruction manual for your model of car. Now, depending on which options you get on your car or which model you have, while the instructions for operating the entire car are pretty much the same for every model that you’ve got, there will be specific differences, such as where the button for opening up your trunk is located or whether or not you have a specific air-conditioning switch or it’s automatic or not.

The overall car — they all operate pretty much the same. So there’s your area response plan around the province or around certain regions; you have a general approach. Then in specific areas there are differences within that.

Those would be individually ordered based on an assessment of their sensitivity and the level of hazard that’s represented there, such as the difference between a river or stream where there’s just nothing going on and no industry for miles versus a very, very highly trafficked sort of river, like the Thompson where you have lots of industry. You have rail and many other hazards. You might take a different approach there.

G. Heyman: To extend the metaphor beyond cars, would this be akin to the quick start-up instructions versus the detailed manual?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s a better explanation than mine.

[1615]

G. Heyman: And it’s free.

Just to pursue this a bit further, would every area of the province have at least a minimal geographic response
[ Page 12446 ]
plan in addition to the area response plan, but some would be more detailed, address more potential pollutants or hazards and be more complex? Or would some areas of the province simply be covered by the area response plan and nothing further?

Hon. M. Polak: The geographic response plans would be ordered based on the assessment of a specific area and its risks. While I couldn’t say with absolute 100 percent certainty that every area response plan area would also have within it some spaces that were designated under a geographic response plan, I think that given the nature of the province and the geography, it would be highly unlikely that you would find an area that did not have within it those spaces that are designated for a geographic response plan. It would be highly unlikely that that would occur.

G. Heyman: I’ll accept that the minister says it’s unlikely, which may mean this next question is difficult to answer. Can the minister or her staff think of any situation which might, in their opinion, exempt a particular region or pocket of the province from a geographic response plan, and how that might be determined?

[1620]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll just say to the member that I’m not in any way trying to be cagey about it, but just accurate.

The designated areas are expected to be bodies of water; sensitive ecosystems; archaeologically, culturally, historically, socially or economically sensitive areas. As you look across the entire province of B.C., you’d be hard-pressed to find an area that isn’t going to require some level of GRP within their area response plan. That’s why I say it would be unlikely.

We know that water is typically where we see these utilized the most. For example, if we look to the south of us, I was advised, if I’m remembering correctly from a few seconds ago, that pretty much their entire shoreline is designated under a model like the GRP.

Again, if you think about the province and the lay of the land here, you’d be hard-pressed to find an area in the province that doesn’t contain some of those values and, therefore, would require us to be designating a GRP.

G. Heyman: I think the minister and I have had a number of discussions in this chamber about water recently. I assume that when the minister said “designated area,” she meant a designated area that would be covered by a geographic response plan.

I will add that onto my other question, which is: assuming that every part of the province might be covered by a geographic response plan, is it conceivable that different designated areas to be covered by a geographic response plan might not be contiguous but be covered by the same geographic response plan? Or could there be categories of geographic response plans for lower-risk areas but areas that have sensitivity and should have some additional amplification to the area response plan?

Hon. M. Polak: Each GRP would be tailored to respond to the unique features that would be under the designation in that space. So the latter, really, to the member’s question, could be contiguous, might not be.

If you take the Fraser River — for example, a GRP down in the area of Richmond-Steveston outlining the tactics that would be required to respond…. Those would look different than the GRP that would be up at Hell’s Gate on the Fraser River. Each GRP would be tailored to those individual circumstances.

[1625]

You may see GRPs all the way along the course of a river, or it may be that you go for ten kilometres and then maybe there are five kilometres where, really, the information, the strategy and the area response plan are sufficient, but then, further up, there’s something else that requires a GRP. So all of that would be open for a designation in any of those ways.

G. Heyman: I took it from that last answer — and I’ll just ask the minister to correct me if I’m wrong — that there might be pockets that are only covered by the area response plan.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, that’s correct.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there ends up being only one area response plan, just for the ease of my illustration. If you picture a map of the province, and we’ll colour the area response plan green, then the entire province is coloured green. If you had the areas that have a GRP, then all across the province, in different places, you’d see spots of red for those GRPs popping up and telling you that this particular area needs some special attention, special tactics, when there’s a response that is needed.

G. Heyman: I’m not attempting to just pick away here. Initially, the minister said that while it was possible, she didn’t think it likely that there’d be any parts of the province that weren’t covered by their own GRP.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I’m just going to sit and let the minister answer.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize if I did not get the point across clearly.

It would be unlikely that you would have anywhere in the province…. Let’s use the three area response plan scenario. If the province was covered by three different area response plans — because you divide it up into three
[ Page 12447 ]
regions — within each of those regions, it would be really unlikely that any of those would not contain some GRPs. I would say virtually impossible, although I’ve learned in this House never to say that because you don’t know how something will unfold in the long run.

As we’ve discussed, the nature of the GRPs and where they would be designated…. Very difficult to imagine an area of the province that wouldn’t require some GRPs. The idea behind them is to develop, with the strategic vision of the area response plan, a second layer that is tactical and that’s specific rather than general provisions of response and how to approach that.

G. Heyman: I think I’m getting this now. It’s not that every part of the province will be covered by, first, an area response plan and then a geographic response plan, but that every area of the province will be covered by somewhere between, say, one to three area response plans. There won’t be gaps between the area response plans.

Hon. M. Polak: That’s correct. There wouldn’t be any part of the province that wouldn’t be covered by an area response plan. The geographic response plans would be designated on specific spots where we’ve identified a need for a tactically specific approach.

G. Heyman: Say there is a spill in an area that does not have a geographic response plan. Will the area response plan have enough specificity to deal with a spill in that particular location?

[1630]

Hon. M. Polak: First, it’s important, I think, to just go over and understand the role of the area response plan. The area response plan is there to guide the planning that individual operations need to make to be prepared to respond. It also is not tactical. We have people who are qualified to respond to spills of different types, and depending on that spill, they would respond accordingly, using their expertise.

The point of the GRP is, in the case of a particularly sensitive area, then we would want those responding to have that additional information ahead of time. Those tactics are already established specific to that one stream or that lake or what have you — or maybe a culturally sensitive site — so that there’s a much quicker means of response, instead of time being taken away from response by having to evaluate and plan the response.

It would be much clearer in those cases where we know that there is a sensitivity or a high degree of hazard. So based on risk, based on sensitivity, but the area response plan is not intended to be tactical.

G. Heyman: I take the minister’s point, but if the area response plan is going to dictate the plan of attack, if you will, for cleaning up spills in areas that haven’t been deemed to require a geographic response plan — because there isn’t a particular body of water or there’s not the cultural sensitivity or the habitat that are outlined later in the bill as the criteria for a geographic response plan — any response that entails a spill cleanup or management of a hazard requires some level of tactics.

Just to clarify, I assume that the area response plan will have general tactical approaches applicable to any spill, and the geographic response plan would have tactics tailored specifically to the sensitivity of the area that was governed by the geographic response plan.

That’s actually a statement, not a question, but I will assume the minister can treat it as a question and clarify if I’m understanding this correctly.

[1635]

Hon. M. Polak: The implied question is: “Well, if it’s not happening in the ARPs, where is it happening?” The ARPs — I’ll just give you a sense from the descriptive notes — provide general information on the risks present as well as an inventory of response resources available within the area it covers. They are prepared at the provincial level. It’s higher-level planning, and it lays out the process and procedures for notification, activation and response for all spills that would occur within that area.

Where we would expect to see the tactics generated would be in a few different ways that would integrate. Certainly, we expect that qualified professionals would be designing tactics for an individual operator. There are tactics that would be employed by those responders based on their professional training and qualifications. Those would find their way into an incident command where those tactics would be determined and executed based on the individual situation.

In that case, in responding to a spill, if it was noted that within that incident location there was also a GRP, then that would be taken into account as well.

G. Heyman: Section 91.11(1)(d) states that “the spill contingency plan demonstrates that the regulated person has the capability to effectively respond to a spill.”

Can the minister tell us what criteria would be placed around what exactly needs to be demonstrated and whether there would be a kind of template of questions that would be asked in every case or if it’s more general than that, or if this will be set out in regulation at a later date, or if it will be determined dependent on the particular hazards that the regulated people might be responsible for?

[1640]

Hon. M. Polak: This will be developed further within the regulations. What I can say is that we are considering a few different factors, one being that there will, of course, already be some operations that have contingency plans in place that may in fact be sufficient. With new
[ Page 12448 ]
operations or new plans, we will want to certainly see a consistent standard across the province, recognizing that there will be some individual differences depending on the type of operation that’s involved — but then, that will be spelled out in regulations.

The biggest change that’s taking place is the onus on the regulated person to be able to demonstrate that capability.

G. Heyman: That’s, in fact, one of the nubs of the problem with this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it’s a very significant improvement over what we have currently. There are just a whole lot of questions left to regulation.

I note that (d) requires that the regulated person “has the capability to effectively respond to a spill,” but there is no definition of the word “effective” in the definitions. I’m wondering if the minister can say, with some clarity, what “effective” means, or if that is going to be left to regulation, or if it’s going to be a subjective test or an objective test.

[1645]

Hon. M. Polak: I think the best way to illustrate what would be required for a plan for their capability to be effective is to consider the requirements that we’ll be discussing further on in the bill: how quickly can they respond? How quickly can they contain…? There are, as the member knows, all manner of requirements like that further on in the bill.

In asking the question, “Is there capability? Do they have the capability to effectively respond…?” In making that judgment, they would be measured against the requirements that are going to be placed on them. In the case of a spill, could they actually meet the requirements that are set out? Do we think, looking at the capabilities that they’ve described, that they would be able to do that?

G. Heyman: The requirements are in fact laid out, in general terms, in various places in the bill, to the best of my recollection. As we move through, we’ll have a chance to look at them in some detail. But their specificity is left to either regulation or the determination of a director, which means they’re potentially open to interpretation.

Could the minister talk about what level of transparency might exist in the creating of the benchmarks for any number of the categories of effective response — whether it’s time, whether it’s capacity, whether it’s personnel, whether it’s equipment, whether it’s end result, or whether it’s mitigation?

[1650]

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the member is aware of the many years of consultations that have taken place around this. Actually, our third intentions paper is out now. We intend, as we develop the regulations that will bring life to the act, to be engaging in the same manner that we have with First Nations, with communities, broadly out to the public.

We know that we can gain so much from that information, and, of course, there are many out there in the industry sector, as well, who have specific expertise. We intend, in terms of the transparency, to be absolutely transparent with the development of this. We think that makes for much better planning.

Insofar as leaving it to the regulations, though, that is a very important decision that we’ve made. We’ve made it because of the nature of this work. Our knowledge is constantly evolving. The experiences in other jurisdictions are constantly evolving, and we will learn.

With each and every unfortunate occasion where something occurs, the member will know, there are after-action reports that are developed. There will certainly be analysis. We want to have the ability to continuously improve the regulations and keep the bar high. We also want to ensure that the director can respond to what is really a dynamic situation so that there is that flexibility to provide direction in a case where some unique circumstances may present themselves.

G. Heyman: If I look further at 91.11, it says, in (b): “the spill contingency plan is reviewed, updated and tested in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed frequency.” How would the manner and the frequency be developed in this instance?

Hon. M. Polak: There are a large number of contingency plans already in place that have prescribed timelines for the review and updating and testing and also the manner that are prescribed in other statutes. This is referencing those.

G. Heyman: But, presumably, there are many other contingency plans yet to be developed. In terms of reviewing, updating and testing them, did I understand the minister correctly that the manner in which that will be done and the frequency at which that will be done is already prescribed? Or that will be prescribed in future?

[1655]

Hon. M. Polak: Because there are other statutes that already prescribe the manner and frequency under which this should occur, staff are looking at those and will tailor the prescription for the review and updating and testing to take into account what is in those other statutes so we don’t create a conflict. That’s why the provision is worded in the way it is.

G. Heyman: Should I assume that the manner and frequency will be a matter of regulation and therefore public? Or will it be in some other form?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, it would be. It’s our intent to ultimately get to a place where there is consistency across the piece. But of course, with the number of statutes we’re deal-
[ Page 12449 ]
ing with, it’s important to ensure that we have that opportunity, through the discussions of the intentions paper, etc., to consider the potential unintended consequences if we don’t align with some of the other statutory requirements.

G. Heyman: If I move on to sub (2), it’s talking about the spill contingency plan — that the “investigations, tests and surveys are undertaken in accordance with the regulations, if any….” How would it be determined whether or not there should be regulations respecting investigations, tests and surveys?

The section goes on to say “…that are necessary to determine the magnitude of risk….” And if there are no regulations, does that mean that there’s either no specificity or no investigations, tests and surveys are required?

I understand there’s an agreement to close debate at this time on this bill and continue tomorrow. If the minister wishes to answer this question when we resume debate, that’s certainly fine.

Hon. M. Polak: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 7. I would just request a brief recess while we get our people in order.

Madame Speaker: This House will recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 5:02 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — INDUSTRY TRAINING
AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:06 p.m.

On section 1.

S. Simpson: I figured we would get to the content here, really, of the purposes of the authority. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what the thinking was?

I think one of the things that’s unique here is, of course, that the ITA, the initial legislation that’s being amended by this, in fact did not have a purpose incorporated in the original legislation. Could the minister maybe just tell us a little bit about what the decision was as to why, to try to define this purpose more clearly here versus what seemed to be a piece of legislation that’s more functional and listed a series of functions to it — and what the thinking was around the purposes in 2.1?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to our bill this afternoon.

I’m very delighted to be joined by two of the members of the great team that we have in JTST, working hard every single day. We’re delighted to have Scott MacDonald here, who is the ADM of the labour market and information division, and David Muter, who is the executive director of strategy and planning in our labour market and information division as well.

The entire purpose of the amendments that we’re making are really about clarity and making sure that people within the system, who relate and interact, people who are engaged with the ITA, people who seek out training through the ITA for employers and others, that the McDonald report….

We asked Jessica McDonald…. I asked her to take a look at the Industry Training Authority. One of the recommendations that she came back with was to ensure that there was clarity and understanding about the role of the ITA. That’s why we included a purpose statement here. It is also to help increase the consistency with other Crowns.

[1710]

S. Simpson: Under the purposes, the first is “(a) to manage and support an industry training and apprenticeship system in British Columbia” — pretty general, pretty clear. The second one is “(b) to ensure that the industry training and apprenticeship system referred to in paragraph (a) meets the Province’s need for skilled workers.”

I know about the labour market opinion. I know about the deputies’ committee that does some work on that. But could the minister elaborate a little bit about that, generally in that area. I’m particularly interested…. I know the focus that there’s been on trades leading up to this and that much of this adjustment related to trades.

Could the minister talk about how that work gets done around the skilled workers in the areas that are not the conventional trades so much, as we’re seeing more and more? I know that the government has talked about technology. The government talks about diversity, a diversified economy.

Could the minister talk about how you’re getting at those trades or those skilled workplaces that aren’t falling within the trades specifically?
[ Page 12450 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we have spent a great deal of time over the last number of years looking at labour market data and information, making sure that we understand — as best we can — what the workforce demands of today and the future will be in British Columbia.

The main reference there is to ensure that that sense of alignment related to labour market data and needs is clear — that the industry training and apprenticeship system needs to meet the province’s need for skilled workers. And we’ve done a lot of work to make sure that we understand what British Columbia requires and needs over the next number of years.

But this piece of legislation, obviously, is directly related to the Industry Training Authority. In essence, it has a very specific scope of trades. While there are demands across our diverse economy — absolutely — they’re not all managed through the Industry Training Authority. There’s a very specific scope. It’s about 100 specific occupations that are managed through the Industry Training Authority. We look specifically at those training needs.

But through the skills-for-jobs blueprint and a variety of other mechanisms — particularly across ministries, with other ministries like Education, Advanced Education and others — the range is much broader. There are 500 occupations that we would look at through other mechanisms.

But in the case of the Industry Training Authority, it’s a specific scope. It is focused on trades and, in particular, 100 specific occupations.

S. Simpson: I believe…. The minister will correct me if I’m wrong on this. The ITA originally — there were about 70 or so. It has grown some over time as other trades have been deemed to appropriately fit the ITA mandate and have been incorporated in.

Maybe the minister can talk a little bit about — maybe this will help me to understand this — how the decisions got made that a trade was appropriate to be added to this particular mandate of the ITA and how the decisions get made about adding those in, in order to meet the purposes now, if we adopt this — the purposes of the authority.

[1715]

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things we want to see more of — and in fact, part of the reason we’re at more than 70 now — is we want the ITA to be responsive. We want it to be responsive to industry needs. It was one of the criticisms that we heard, actually, previous to this.

A current example of how we’re moving the numbers up would be a program, for example, called the construction craft worker program, which is now a Red Seal trade in British Columbia. By looking at and understanding the data, the needs that we have, working closely with industry, we assess what the relevant and new trade opportunities might need to be. We do see that number growing.

The major principle that is important, from my perspective, with the Industry Training Authority…. It is an industry training authority, so we work very closely with industry. We need it to be responsive and nimble so that when something emerges….

For example, we looked at the construction craft worker. We’ve seen an evolution of that program as well — looking at programs that are designed particularly for First Nations students in rural settings, for example. We analyze the data. We work closely with industry, and we do want the organization to be responsive to emerging trends.

S. Simpson: Is the process, just so I can more clearly understand it…? I understand that the deputy ministers committee does work on this or makes recommendations to the minister, to cabinet, around changes. But is it the ITA board and the ITA leadership itself who go out and seek some of this out and then make recommendations themselves? Is it coming through that process? Is that where the discussion happens?

Is that where the stakeholders engage — with the ITA structure itself? Or do they engage through the ministry and through the deputies’ committee? How does that happen — to decide who fits under the umbrella of the ITA?

Hon. S. Bond: The authority to grant certificates…. There is also a designated list of Red Seal trades, but the authority is granted through legislation to the Industry Training Authority to actually create credentials and to issue those credentials.

[1720]

In terms of how they look and how the information comes to them, there’s a variety of ways. Probably most importantly, from their perspective, is that we do have sector advisory groups. There are 11 of them. In fact, they provide direct advice on their sectors to the Industry Training Authority. As a ministry, we’ve also been engaged in better understanding the labour demands and the labour market. We have held sector round tables, for example, around the province with numerous sectors to better understand their needs.

Another example is the Liquefied Natural Gas Working Group, created by the Premier to talk about the demands of the industry. It’s been a very productive group. It has organized labour, it has First Nations, it has proponents and government, and we work together to better understand the needs and the labour market demands — a variety of mechanisms where we gather the information and we analyze the needs. Ultimately, the authority is granted to the ITA to issue certificates and credentials.

S. Simpson: I’m going to go back and talk a little bit about the process and the advisory committees and how they engage in this. This process is pursued. At some point here, a recommendation comes forward, I’m assuming, to the minister, and the minister takes it to the cabinet —
[ Page 12451 ]
or whatever the process of authority is there — and then there is approval to add a sector to the ITA’s agenda.

At that point, the ITA, of course, has done the preparatory work. They’re ready. They then say: “Okay, we have this. We’ll now determine the credential and work with educational institutions to set the credentials, set the curriculums, do all those things to our satisfaction and figure out what we’re going to fund here through ITA dollars.”

At some point here, it comes back. Is it the minister who ultimately says to the ITA, in some form, “Okay, here’s your authority to add skilled trade X to the list,” and then the ITA proceeds to do what they have to do to make that happen?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, it is a delegated authority. I can assure the member opposite that they don’t come and ask for approval to issue a certificate or determine whether or not a candidate is eligible for participation or those kinds of things.

Under the act, the powers of authority respecting training programs are delegated to the Industry Training Authority. Section 8(1) says: “The authority may do one or more of the following….” There’s a long list of things that are delegated to the ITA. They can “designate a training program, including a training program for a trade or an occupation, as a recognized program.” They can “develop programs of training and apprenticeship” and programs, etc.

In essence, we work very closely with the Industry Training Authority. Our staff works with them pretty much on a daily basis, but when you look at part 3, section 8 of the act, it actually delegates the authority to the Industry Training Authority.

[1725]

S. Simpson: Just to follow that a little bit, when I look at part 3, the powers of the authority regarding this, 8(1)(a) says: “designate a training program, including a training program for a trade or an occupation, as a recognized program.” Then (b) says: “recommend to the minister that a training program, including a training program for a trade or an occupation, be designated as an accredited program.”

Maybe the minister could just explain, because one seems to say to me…. So (a) seems to say to me that the authority can designate the program, but (b) seems to say that it’s a recommendation to the minister. I’m assuming if that’s the case, the minister has to approve of the recommendation.

I’m just trying to figure out here the difference between them being able to do it and it falling to the minister, and what’s the difference in those two.

Hon. S. Bond: As sub 8(1) says, “The authority may do one or more of the following.” While (b) is a potential, which is “recommend to the minister,” in practice, the authority has been delegated to the Industry Training Authority.

While we would have discussions…. For example, the authority would come and would lay out their strategic plan or talk to us about where the pressures are, where their emphasis is going to be. Obviously, I, as the person who has general oversight, would comment and would look at those things.

In terms of the practice, the Industry Training Authority and their board — a very competent board, a very hard working board — the authority has technically been delegated to them. I certainly do not make a practice of approving a particular training program or certificate.

S. Simpson: The minister spoke earlier about…. When she spoke about the different groups or sectors that would provide advice to the conversation around this, she made note of the sector advisory groups or the sector advisory committees. She said there are 11 of those there and referenced the LNG Working Group.

The LNG Working Group, undoubtedly, is quite diverse. It includes a variety of different interests that have a seat at that table. The other sector advisory groups, are they similar in terms of the diversity of their membership? I’m thinking…. We talked about workers. We talked about industry and potentially other stakeholder groups. Are they reflected? Maybe not quite as diverse as LNG, but reflective of the same thing?

Hon. S. Bond: There actually are terms of reference for the sector advisory groups, and the purpose is to advise government and the ITA on industry-specific issues that are key to skills training.

The way that they were created was in proposals coming from industry, with support by the Industry Training Authority — from them. The composition was to be representative. The composition that’s noted in the terms of reference would include employers, aboriginal communities and labour, 20 individuals or less and that the participation should be voluntary. It’s not a paid position.

The expectation is that the sector advisory groups be representative. We certainly, in looking at the composition, think that we have achieved some balance there. We think that’s important, but it’s also something that is evolving.

There’s likely to be change over time, but I was very clear with the Industry Training Authority that I wanted it to be representative. I also felt that we had a representation that was also aware of gender and regionality. We want to be sure that we’re not focusing everything in one particular area of the province.

[1730]

Tough to do at times, especially on a voluntary basis, but those were the principles that I made clear to the ITA.
[ Page 12452 ]

S. Simpson: I could ask in a couple of weeks in estimates about this, but I’ll make the ask now. Is the composition and the membership of those committees public information?

Hon. S. Bond: I’m not confident in the answer, whether it is or isn’t. I don’t think there’s been a decision to say that it shouldn’t be, but I’d want to check that with the Industry Training Authority. I can certainly provide that answer when we’re in estimates. I do appreciate knowing it, and we’ll check.

S. Simpson: Thanks. I’d appreciate that, to get some clarity on that.

Under (d), under the purposes: “to promote industry training programs, including by encouraging employers and individuals to participate in those programs.” When we talk about promotion, obviously, that can happen in a bunch of different ways. I know there was a session the other day, down in the reception hall, talking about promotion — I’m sure with young people — and talking about high school students. I know some additional resources were applied to help move that forward. There’s also, obviously, advertising.

Could the minister just tell me…? Is the expectation of the minister that advertising is part of the responsibility of the ITA? And maybe a bit of clarity. Recently I’ve seen ads for the $10,000 training fund that the government has run. I believe that those are government advertisements, not ITA advertisements. But if that could be cleared up. So is that something…? Does the government do that, or would the ITA be running that kind of advertising and promoting and using a promotion advertising budget?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, there hasn’t been an intent not to have information shared. I think that one of the things that…. I know that the issue of advertising — who does it, how much does it cost, and is it government? — has been a matter of debate in this House. I have a very firm belief that there are programs and opportunities that British Columbians simply are not aware of. I can understand concerns about a perception that it is partisan. From my perspective, making sure we have young people aware of the opportunities that are available to them isn’t partisan. I think all of us want to share that information.

I’m advised that the Industry Training Authority may have participated in information-sharing. I don’t know if it meant television campaigns or not. They do have a responsibility to make sure that young people today and their families…. I’m more concerned, in many ways, that decision-makers in people’s lives — teachers, counsellors, parents and others — are aware of opportunities and, most importantly, about the changing labour market demands that we have, making sure that they understand what the possibilities are and what some of the pathways are.

We certainly work closely with the Industry Training Authority and my team to talk about how we maximize the benefit of anything we do together. If we’re talking about Work B.C. or skills training, we want to make sure we’re being prudent, maximizing the use of any dollars that we expend. Their campaigns may include public advertising, but they would certainly be focused on what the opportunities are and really just giving people a sense of information.

I see it as a public service, not as an advertising campaign. Families need to understand what the labour market situation looks like, what the options are for their students, for their children and even for those older workers who are looking at two or three job changes in their lives.

[1735]

To the member opposite’s point. It may well include ads. We think that’s an important part of sharing information with the public.

S. Simpson: Just to the minister, you know, we could debate about advertising and whether it’s appropriate or not. I don’t have any particular problem with an ad that tells somebody that they can get up to $10,000; check this website, and it’ll tell you whether you qualify to get some money to train. I certainly don’t have a problem with government letting people know that.

What I’m trying to determine here with (d)…. And part of this is because purposes…. It’s one of the things…. As the minister pointed out, Ms. McDonald and her report talked about the need for clarity and for a number of things, and the purpose section, I’m sure, is certainly intended to deliver some of that clarity.

I’m just trying to distinguish here the difference between what the responsibilities of the ITA are around doing its job in terms of promotion. Is it their job? That promotion could be running television ads. It could be putting materials into schools. It could be done in a variety of ways. I’m trying to determine what that responsibility is for the ITA to meet its purpose here versus what may be a government advertisement. I’m more interested in what the ITA is actually supposed to be doing. We’ll debate what government does another day.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the pragmatic approach about getting information out, because I do see it that way. I think we can debate other things at other times, but for me, making sure that employers, for example, know that there are apprenticeship training tax credits and those kinds of things is really critical.

When it comes to the ITA, their primary purpose would be promoting the programs that they have, making sure that there is that connectivity on the ground, people know what’s happening, where, in what communities, what the seats are — the very practical things, in terms of running programs. But also from a broader
[ Page 12453 ]
perspective, talking about industry, talking to industry, promoting programs with employers — very important, from my perspective.

One of the things that we’ve worked on very hard is looking at increasing the number of apprentices in British Columbia. The Industry Training Authority does a lot of work, both with apprentices on the ground and with employers to let them know about the benefits of being a person who has apprentices and also working with apprentices to make sure they know what kinds of opportunities are available. Their role is more specifically….

My role, in general oversight, is to speak more broadly about the importance of skills training, to look at labour market data and some of those bigger-picture things. But the ITA is certainly expected to promote their programs, work closely with employers, make sure that apprentices understand what benefits are available to them — probably more programmatic than general. They do a lot of work with employers and in schools and a variety of other places.

Government’s role is that broader picture, allowing British Columbians to know how we invest those dollars, what programs are available. I should say, though, that we have a very constructive working relationship between our two teams. As I said earlier, to try to maximize the benefits of whatever investments we’re making, we need to do that in a collaborative way, and I think that has really improved over the last couple of years.

S. Simpson: Just one or two more questions on the purpose, and then we’ll move on to another section. The minister knows that probably one of the challenges — and I know she’s acknowledged this, and we’ve talked about this in other times — facing the apprenticeship system today is bringing more employers to the table to accept placements and bring people in and invest in the success of those placements.

In (c), it says: “to work with the government to achieve the government’s objectives respecting the industry training and apprenticeship system referred to in paragraph (a).” I’m sure that one of those objectives is to enhance the placement situation over what it is today.

Is it the expectation that the ITA will be kind of the key place to bring recommendations, then, to government as to how that might happen? There’s a variety of ideas out there about sectoral fees, about promotion, about new incentives. There are lots of ideas.

[1740]

Is it the ITA’s job to bring that to government and to the minister — what those options are? Or does that primarily sit in the ministry — to look at, develop and initiate those options?

Hon. S. Bond: I very much appreciate that question. I think that together we need to figure out, not just in B.C. but across the country, how we do apprenticeship in a more effective way.

We have actually taken the lead on a number of files, and the member would know that, in terms of our decision to require apprentices on public projects. I know that people, probably including the member opposite, would have liked to have seen us have a quota of a certain percentage. We’re making good progress, I think, in that direction. We did not put a quota in place.

I do think there is an important job to be done in terms of outcomes, innovation, how we do apprenticeships. So, yes, I have asked the Industry Training Authority to look at that whole process. In fact, about a year or so ago we held an apprenticeship forum that was hosted by the ITA — the member might have even been there — to look at that whole issue of innovation. How do we make sure that apprenticeships are of the quality they should be, that students are completing those programs?

The ITA has been asked and tasked with…. It’s a priority for government. It’s a mutual project here. I provide the general direction to the ITA. We need to look at better outcomes in apprenticeship numbers. We need to look at how we do this differently. We need to look at other jurisdictions in terms of how they do things.

We have a lot to learn, as well, from the groups in organized labour who train in our province. Their outcomes are very good. We work constructively with them to better understand how they’re managing this.

To the member’s question, yes, the ITA has been asked and will continue to be asked to bring recommendations about improved outcomes, about innovation, about how we encourage more women, First Nations, persons with disabilities, to participate in those programs. How do we make it easier for an employer to be engaged? That is a real challenge. If you’re a small or medium-sized enterprise, to take on an apprentice can be a really big task.

The Industry Training Authority actually has special staff resources to go out, outreach to industry, talk to employers, assist them in the process. They also have staff that do the same to encourage apprentices.

S. Simpson: We’ll probably get to discuss this a little bit when we get down to the section around the strategic plan and a little bit more of the detail there.

Does the ITA, in terms of, again, achieving this purpose…? We’ve seen the decision around the blueprint. Obviously, the ITA is pretty instrumental to the success of the blueprint. It has brought together, in a slightly different fashion, I think, the roles of Advanced Ed and Skills Training through the ITA — in fact, to the extent of dedicating a portion, in the Advanced Ed side, of the operating grant there in terms of programs. It’s 20 or 25 percent across the board for post-secondary.

In achieving the purpose here, the government’s purpose, how does the ITA…? The minister has talked about how the ITA, hopefully, engages the industry side of things. How does the ITA engage the Advanced Ed side
[ Page 12454 ]
to make sure that piece is also getting to achieving these purposes?

[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: The ITA is very much a partner in the work that we are doing. In fact, the member is correct. Not only do they engage with Advanced Education; the skills-for-jobs-blueprint actually works across five ministries, including Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. It works across our Social Development Ministry, Education, Advanced Education and, of course, Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. The ITA would, for example, participate in the labour market priorities board as they come and present the job that they need to do with the dollars that they have.

I appreciated the member being there at the blueprint event. We’ve just asked the ITA to actually look at the integration of youth programs, for example, and that was a critical partnership between the ITA and the Education Ministry. We know that we have to start earlier, and we made some changes, looking at exploration courses and a variety of things. So there was a very close connection with the ITA and the Ministry of Education.

We really consider them a partner in the work that we’re doing. While we provide general direction through their mandate letter, we also work with them on a daily basis to ensure that we are aligning the resources that we have in those five ministries plus the ITA — also very constructive relationships with post-secondary institutions.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

They connect at a number of levels in a number of ministries, and that’s the kind of work that we’ve been encouraged to do through the blueprint. No longer do we look at skills training through one lens. We actually have five ministries plus the ITA and, at times, others that have peripheral engagement. It’s really a very different approach to how we manage these funds and make the decisions than has existed previously.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Simpson: Section 2(a) is a change, and I read from the explanatory notes. It talks here about “striking out ‘satisfactory to the minister and, whenever required by the Minister of Finance,’ and substituting ‘satisfactory to the Minister of Finance and, whenever required by that minister.’”

I see in the explanatory note a little bit of a reference to making it more consistent with other provisions. Maybe the minister could just explain a little bit about what it is that was not happening in the current legislation that this will make different.

Hon. S. Bond: It really is just a catch-up provision. We’re updating the act, and we wanted to make this consistent with other acts. This is straightforward, and it lines up with other acts that require the same thing. It’s the Financial Administration Act. So, in essence, it’s really just updating current practice and making sure legislation aligns with that.

S. Simpson: Should I assume that 2(b), which deals with the provision of auditors and who names auditors…? I think the current practice is the Minister of Finance appoints the auditor, and this now creates a situation where the authority will appoint its own auditors. Is that pretty much the same thing?

Just as an additional question: the ITA falls under the Auditor General, if they want to look at this?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the member is correct. This is basically to align it with other Crowns.

S. Simpson: Just on that second piece, around auditors…. I know everybody does their own auditors. I’ll get the answer now, or I’ll get it in estimates. But the ITA would fall under the Office of the Auditor General. They would have authority to come in if they chose to do so.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the Auditor General does have authority to review the financial statements of the ITA.

[1750]

S. Simpson: Section 2(c) repeals two sections of the current act and replaces them with a section that essentially establishes the requirement for a three-year strategic plan to be put in place by the ITA. That replaces what is the current section 5, which requires a multi-year business plan and includes a number of things that are listed in the act, mostly around data and authority around money and some of those things.

Could the minister talk a little bit about the decision to shift from a business plan to a strategic plan and what that means and why that decision was taken?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, I know that he has read the existing act. If you read the language in the previous section related to a business plan…. First of all, it basically left the decision around when that occurred to the minister.Basically, the minister could specify, and the authority must submit to the minister a multi-year business plan for review.

One of the things we wanted to do was make it clearer that here’s the date, and here’s when it’s expected. We thought that was an important piece of clarity.

But I think if you read the subsections in the old act, you can see that much of that was related to fees and revenue, and it was about assets and liabilities. There was some discussion about how you increase the quality and quantity of training.
[ Page 12455 ]

But, really, it didn’t speak to what we think, what I think and I think what Jessica McDonald referred to in her report — things like goals and targets and outcomes and initiatives and performance management and industry engagement. It’s all of those things which, in our view, are critical to ensuring that you have a very successful organization that’s focused; that industry understands what the framework is; and that, in fact, there is some coordination between the things that government has determined are important, based on labour market data and a variety of other things, and what is actually being considered and part of a strategic plan.

I think it was, first of all, a decision to be very prescriptive, in the sense that on or before December 31 we’re going to have a three-year plan submitted. It’s strategic in nature, and it is also very focused on outcomes. One of the things that, certainly as minister, since I’ve had the Industry Training Authority…. I want this to be about outcomes — to make sure that, if people are participating in training programs in our province, they can expect an outcome that is successful.

We need to concentrate on outcomes. We have the potential of literally hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next number of years. We need to make sure that we have a plan that lines up against that demand and also meets the needs that we have. So it was a very significant shift, from my perspective, and I think that it’s one that is important — that we look at those details and broaden the expectation around the strategic plan.

S. Simpson: I’m going to get to a few questions around the strategic plan and the objectives of the strategic plan. But to clear up or clean up here a little bit on the current language around business plan….

[1755]

I would agree with the minister that it is about administrative function and fiscal and financial and controls. That seems to be the focus here. So could the minister tell me: if those things now are going to be gone from this section, is there someplace where it gets picked up? These things about any proposals by the authority for fees, revenue initiatives, expenditures, etc., allocation of funds, assets, liabilities.

Those things that are covered by the business plan — where do they get picked up now in the legislation, since we’ve moved that off the table and gone to a strategic plan?

Hon. S. Bond: That’s a good question. Where did those responsibilities go? They did go somewhere. The authority now is required to submit a three-year strategic plan, and it outlines the authority’s plan in partnership with stakeholders to achieve system targets. That’s very much, in a nutshell, what we expect the strategic plan to do. It also requires the authority to engage formally with stakeholders and making sure that industry has a role.

The multi-year business plan was actually, then, a duplicative requirement. Where that’s picked up now is not through the ITA act, but the information is now requested under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and also the Financial Administration Act. That will be done through annual service plans. That is a common practice for Crowns.

Guidelines for service plans are determined by the Crown agencies resource office. It does require the authority to submit a service plan through the act…. Through this act, it’s now unnecessary, but that information is captured in a different format.

S. Simpson: So then I should assume and understanding the service plan…. We’ll be looking at and seeing a service plan from the ITA that will capture what is under the existing section 6, which says: “Within 90 days of each fiscal year end, the authority must submit to the minister, in a form approved…a report of the authority on its operations the preceding fiscal year….” Goals that are met and a financial statement showing the revenues, expenditures, etc., and the annual report of the auditor of the authority….

That will be captured by the Financial Administration Act and the Budget Transparency Act, so those obligations will continue, but they’ll continue under those auspices. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, as all government Crown corps are required to submit service plans and annual service plan reports and financial statements. So the service plan and the annual report will come under sections 13 and 16 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

The Crown agencies resource office is responsible for administering the sections of the BTAA, which is the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, on behalf of the government. They develop, as I said, the guidelines.

The detailed financial statements are submitted under section 2 of the Financial Information Act. The existing subsection related to service plans and annual reports was repealed to remove that duplication with the BTAA and the FIA.

That is consistent with recent Crown agency statutes such as Destination B.C. and the Transportation Investment Act. So we’re actually bringing the ITA more in line with other Crowns and then asking for the additional and, in my view, equally as important strategic plan which lays out, as I said, key initiatives, targets, outcomes, goals and a performance management framework.

[1800]

S. Simpson: I do want to now go and talk a little bit about the new plan that will come into force with the passing of Bill 7, which is the strategic plan that’s in place.

It lays out the three objectives of the strategic plan:

“(a) how the authority proposes to advance each of the purposes referred to in section 2.1” — which was the purposes
[ Page 12456 ]
section; “(b) the process the authority proposes to use to engage stakeholders to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for stakeholders to provide to the authority advice and recommendations in relation to the strategic plan and the advancement of each of the purposes referred to in section 2.1;” and then “(c) other matters the minister may require.”

It goes on to say, of course, “The minister may require the authority to amend a strategic plan…” should the minister, obviously, deem that necessary or appropriate.

Could the minister talk a little bit about (b)? Let’s start there. This is “the process the authority proposes to use to engage stakeholders” to ensure that there’s sufficient opportunity.

Maybe first of all, what the minister envisions as stakeholder interests. I know there are some obvious stakeholders that we would all know very quickly, but what does the minister envision as stakeholder interests? What’s it going to require for the minister to be satisfied that the ITA has reached out in a way that is fulsome enough and sufficient enough to satisfy her?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that making sure that there is a connection between the ITA and stakeholders is critical. It’s actually, in large measure, what prompted the McDonald report. People in communities and in post-secondary institutions and others felt very disconnected from the Industry Training Authority. I think they felt that there needed to be a much more direct relationship and that they had not only the right but the responsibility to shape some of the thinking that was going on there.

I was very pleased with the report that I received. We’ve worked our way through all of those recommendations with the ITA. When the McDonald report was in the process of being written, over 200 individuals — employers, apprentices, representatives of industry — were interviewed as part of that process. It really set the stage, I think, for a changed approach to the connectivity.

The definition that we have endorsed, in essence, though not a formal definition, of system “stakeholders” — I will read it to the member opposite — includes employers, industry, labour, apprentices, journeypersons, training providers, First Nations and other community partners with an interest in the skills, trades and apprenticeship system. It’s a pretty broad-based group.

We need to remember that the strategic plan is due once a year. It’s not like a royal commission every year. The Industry Training Authority has regional staff on the ground. They have people that work directly with industry, directly with apprentices, with post-secondary institutions. The board also does a great deal of work with stakeholders. There is an expectation that there be broad and regular discussion.

[1805]

It doesn’t translate to a formal royal commission or anything like that, but it is an ongoing connectivity with those stakeholders that shapes the strategic plan. I think there was a feeling, as I said, that that connection and that purpose….

One of the reasons we have these amendments here is for that very reason: to clearly articulate that this is an expectation. It will need to be reported out at least once a year. You’re going to have to tell us who you talked to and how you did that. I think that was a very direct response to how people — stakeholders and people within communities — were feeling about their lack of ability to access and shape some of the thinking at the ITA.

S. Simpson: I would agree. I think that when you look back at, certainly, pre–the McDonald report, and the changes that came consequent to that, there were serious shortcomings with the program. Educators and organized labour, as two of the key players in this, certainly, I think, both felt pretty excluded from that process. I think, as the minister said, they’re both pretty integral to the success of the process, particularly when it comes to the skilled labour section that the ITA deals with.

I understand and agree that we’re not talking about holding a royal commission here every year. But the bill does talk about, certainly: “In developing and implementing a strategic plan referred to in subsection (5), the authority must consult with” — and then lists: “(a) industry stakeholders, and (b) other stakeholders the minister may specify.”

Now, I’m going to assume, and the minister hopefully can confirm, that industry stakeholders, in her view, includes industry and labour — union, non-union, I’m not concerned about that. But does it include industry? Does it include the business interests and the workers’ interests? Does that make up industry?

Hon. S. Bond: It absolutely does. As I referenced earlier, I think that there is some exceptional work being done in our province by the labour movement when it comes to training. I have visited a number of their sites and certainly have plans to visit additional ones.

The definition that, as I read earlier, I conveyed to the Industry Training Authority, when it comes to stakeholders as defined by the minister, includes employers, industry, labour, apprentices, journeypersons, training providers. The list goes on. It is certainly much broader, then, which is obviously allowed and reflected in the act.

You know, I think it’s in our best interest and the Industry Training Authority’s to have the best possible information and input that they can get. That means that we have to go out. It takes time and effort.

I think that creating a culture of encouraging that input and dialogue was absolutely essential in the changes that were made at the Industry Training Authority, and that needs to continue. It’s not about sitting in offices and deciding what courses need to be created, or programs. It’s about talking to industry, talking to people in the sectors, talking to workers, talking to journeypersons
[ Page 12457 ]
to best understand how we can adapt and see training programs evolve.

There is an expectation that in the strategic plan, it will be articulated who they talked to and that that be an ongoing process.

S. Simpson: I’m going to assume by this that where it says in (5.2) (a) and (b) that “(a) industry stakeholders, and (b) other stakeholders the minister may specify….” The list that the minister has given us today…. Would the list, at least the starting point of the list that the minister would specify, need to be part of that discussion under the legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: That would be absolutely correct. Whether or not it’s been translated in the mandate letter, that isn’t how it’s been communicated.

[1810]

There is a clear understanding that my definition of stakeholders includes a very broad group. That included the creation of the sector advisory groups, ensuring that there is representation that is broad-based and balanced. From my perspective, it goes beyond simply the conversations that take place leading up to a strategic plan. It’s about a culture of engagement and making sure that the framework — the sector advisory groups, the round tables that we participate in…. We’re always interested in having a balanced and broad-based approach.

S. Simpson: At this point, I’m trying to envision what the strategic plan might look like in terms of the scope of the plan and the kind of content that would be in the plan. It says that the purpose of the plan, obviously, is to…. “(a) how the authority proposes to advance each of the purposes referred to in section 2.1” — which is the cornerstone of this piece of legislation.

Could the minister talk a little bit about what her expectations are for the plan? Is it going to lay out the strategic objectives and then talk with some specificity about that, about timelines, and talk about resource requirements there? I’m trying to figure out what the depth and scope of these plans will be over and above being aspirational — what it looks like.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, certainly, I haven’t seen one yet. This will initiate that process. But the intent would be that it is basically the road map that they are laying out for us to take a look at. It is how they, first of all, incorporate any specific directions that have been provided by government. Those would likely have been provided through a mandate letter or anything…. For example, we just worked with them to look at the whole integrated youth program for apprenticeships and found that we needed to make changes. Obviously, those are taking place.

It is more than a visionary document, if that helps the member opposite, at least in my thinking. It is about targets. It’s about outcomes. It’s about explaining how industry engagement will take place and what mechanisms will be used.

I think the member’s questions were very valid. How do you connect with all of those groups, including workers and First Nations, etc.? Those are the kinds of things. Not simply visionary. It would need to be a road map. It would be the how-to. How are you going to get to a more innovative system? How are you going to meet the targets that we know exist — the gaps?

One of the things that understanding the labour market data has helped us do better is that we can project. I say this…. Even though we work very hard, it tends to be an art more than a science, because project dates shift and people decide to stay in school or go to work and retire earlier or later. The best that we can, we are trying to figure out what the gaps are in the labour force, when they’re going to occur and who we need to fill them.

I would expect the Industry Training Authority’s strategic plan to take all of that into consideration and lay out a road map to say: “Here’s how we’re going do this. Here’s who we’re going to talk to.” I do expect it to be a significant document, not simply a high-level visionary one. I think there does need to be substance to it, and it does need to lay out targets and a process for meeting the needs that we have in the province.

[1815]

S. Simpson: Would the minister expect, with this plan, if it’s going to be a substantive document — and I’m happy to hear that — that it would be budget-linked? It would talk about the allocation of dollars to different areas, to seek purchases to those different areas? Is that expected to have that level of the financial detail, about how moneys get applied as well?

Hon. S. Bond: It’s basically a two-step process. I think it’s the best way to describe it. The strategic plan is the basis for the authority’s service plan. It’s actually in the service plan. I know the member and I have discussed many service plans over our time in debates and estimates.

In essence, the strategic plan lays out what they’re going to do. It informs the service plan, which explains how they’re going to pay for what they do. They’re going to be linked together — I think in a much more effective way. So it will be, yes, they have to provide a strategic plan. It will reference the program, where they intend to go, and it will then be linked directly to the service plan, which explains the spending and costing side.

S. Simpson: Is it the minister’s expectation, presuming that this legislation passes here today or tomorrow or in the next day or two — and then whatever it takes to bring assent in the next couple of weeks — that the first strategic plan will be developed for…? Year-end 2016 will be when the first three-year plan will be put in place?
[ Page 12458 ]

Hon. S. Bond: The reason we were taking longer than just simply a yes, which it should be…. They will be required to provide a strategic plan at the end of this year should the bill pass. They will be required to do that.

I just wanted to be able to explain, at the same time, the link to the service plan. Service plans are tabled normally with the budget. The sequence would be to receive the strategic plan at the end of December and link that to the service plan, which will be tabled, obviously, with the budget. I think what’s important is that a report-out on the strategic plan will be included in the annual service plan report, so there will be a direct connection between the service plan and the strategic plan.

The simple answer is: yes, they will be required to provide a strategic plan at the end of this year.

S. Simpson: Okay, so now my understanding. They prepare this. The minister receives it by the end of the calendar year, December 31. The budget comes out in the first couple of weeks of February, and service plans are attached to that.

The minister talks about a report-out on the strategic plan. Is it the minister’s expectation that the strategic plan will be a public document? After the minister has had the chance to review it, it will then be released in its entirety. Is that the expectation?

[1820]

Hon. S. Bond: It would certainly be my intent to make sure that it’s public. I think that when…. The whole point of the strategic plan is to give certainty, to provide a road map, to increase understanding and participation, so the intent would be to make it public. I’m hesitant only because we have to sort out how that links to the service plan and what that looks like. Certainly, my intent would be that it would be public. It’s a strategic document. People need to understand that.

It’s one of the things that, certainly, we heard, through Jessica McDonald’s work, as I said — that there needs to be better connection. People need to understand this bill is about clarity. Understanding the purpose and the plan is absolutely critical. So it would be our intention to make it public. The question would be on the timing, and we would sort through those details.

S. Simpson: Maybe just a little bit more around the timing. I’m just trying to understand. The minister isn’t necessarily certain that that would be released in tandem, for example, with the service plan so that people could look at the two documents and say: “Okay. Well, I see how they come together.” The service plan provides the resource base for this. The strategic plan talks about the goals and the timelines and the objectives to achieve those goals. Not certain that they would be released at the same time. Just kind of thinking about how they would work together.

Hon. S. Bond: We haven’t yet determined the process for making it public, whether it’s in tandem, which I think is a sensible approach. I’m not sure about the ability or the effectiveness of releasing the strategic plan before we have the service plan attached to it so people actually know there are dollars.

I can just commit to the member opposite that it is our intent to allow people to understand and see that document. It’s a matter of…. We actually haven’t come to ground yet on how that would be done, but it’s certainly not a matter of if. Our view is the strategic plan is all about letting people know what the Industry Training Authority’s goals and targets are and holding them accountable to that. It’s just a matter of sorting out what the best process is.

S. Simpson: In section (5.1) of this, it says: “The minister may require the authority to amend a strategic plan that is proposed or approved under subsection (5).” Quite likely and quite possibly, the first one, because it will be the first one, may actually result in some adjustments to ensure the plan meets the expectations of the minister. That wouldn’t be a surprise.

Is it the minister’s thought that…? I’m trying to figure out how she’s going handle this. Is she going to have her senior officials be engaged in that first strategic plan to make sure it’s heading down the road that the minister expects? The first one will lay the groundwork for subsequent ones, for future ones. Will she have her senior officials engaged directly with the ITA in developing that first plan so that it’s pretty close to the mark, if not on the mark, by the time it actually hits the minister’s desk? Or is it going to be: “You know what I want. Deliver it to me, and then we’ll look at it after I get it”?

Hon. S. Bond: No, the process I envision is just as the member laid it out. I don’t think it would be a surprise to me by the time it arrived in December. I don’t think that’s a productive process at all. I think it would be iterative. I think that our senior team works with the ITA now on a regular basis, and I think that would continue.

For me, it’s not about a gotcha kind of document — that it’s us and them. This is about working together to put the best possible training system in place, with outcomes, and making sure we’re looking for innovation and increased completion rates, all of those things that we’ve made very clear to the ITA are priorities to the government.

[1825]

I think it is about an ongoing working relationship, especially on the first one. As the member points out, this is new to the authority. We expect there to be…. It will, I’m sure, be a bit more challenging this year. But laying that foundation of working together, working with industry, our stakeholders, our partners — all of the list of people that we referenced earlier — ensures that we have a road map that British Columbians can have confidence in.
[ Page 12459 ]

I think it’s less about the minister checking their homework. It’s more about a collaborative process that we work through, that by the time we get to December, we have a product that all of us can agree is what represents the best possible road map for the system.

I would see it as an ongoing working project between the ITA and the ministry, obviously led by the ITA — that’s their job; that is their mandate — but more of a collaborative process than a surprise: “Here’s the document. Now let’s check off the boxes.” I would see it as iterative and collaborative.

S. Simpson: Subsection (6), the next piece of this section, talks about progress reports, essentially. It says: “The authority must submit to the minister, at the times specified by the minister and in a form approved by the minister, (a) a report on the progress the authority has made in advancing each of the purposes referred to in section 2.1, (b) a report on the progress the authority has made in carrying out the matters set out in a strategic plan approved under subsection (5), and (c) other reports the minister may require.”

Could the minister talk a little bit about this progress report process and how she sees that working?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it would best be described as an accountability touch-base. We don’t want to get through an entire year and then find out there are missed targets or there’s a chance for us to recalibrate partway through a year if there’s a better approach. I think it’s just prudent to say, “We want to have a progress report against your strategic plan. Are you making progress? Is it working?” — rather than get to the end of the year and find that it hasn’t been as successful as possible and we waited till the last minute.

Again, it goes to the whole nature of what I would envision this process to be, and that is collaborative and how we figure out how to improve the system and improve the outcomes. I think it’s mostly about: let’s not let this go an entire year. Let’s have those points where we check: are we meeting the expectations that have been laid out in the strategic plan, and if not, what can we do to fix that?

S. Simpson: In the existing act, and I understand this is about the business plan…. It’s specific in time. It says within “90 days of each fiscal year end” — so, I guess, end of June — “the authority must submit to the minister, in a form approved…the following: (a) a report of the authority on its operations for the preceding fiscal year and its progress in meeting the goals specified in its business plan…” etc.

I appreciate that the business plan and the strategic plan are different documents and they will accomplish different things. This one kind of set…. It’s going to happen within 90 days.

Can the minister talk a little bit about — to the degree that she has got her head around this, because it may be still a work in progress — what she thinks the timing is going to look like? This said: “In 90 days, give me a report that answers these questions and tells me how we’re doing.” This says time-to-time reports, which is somewhat more vague about timing, about frequency, those kinds of things.

[1830]

Could the minister talk a little bit about the reason to go to this little bit more vague — and maybe more effective, it may well be — than the kind of “it will happen on this timeline”?

Hon. S. Bond: It was designed, basically, to provide a bit more flexibility. For example, if the strategic plan has a six-month window, where they’re looking at certain milestones within six months, you’d want to be able to shape your touch-base on that with a bit more flexibility.

I think the other thing that, from my perspective, is important is there are going to be certain aspects that may go very well and other things that may be more challenging. Our thinking, at least, was that it’s more flexible. We can make a determination, after looking at the strategic plan, that they need six months to actually get some traction.

In the second year — if things, from a longer-term perspective, have been under way for a year and a half — we may not need to meet as frequently. It certainly wasn’t about lack of accountability or transparency. I think it was the flexibility perspective. Let’s receive the strategic plan, review it, take a look at it, and when we need to, let’s sit down and touch base and make sure that it’s on track. It also allows us to do that more quickly, if we think there are concerns.

S. Simpson: Could the minister talk a little bit…? In (5.2), it does reference this again when it talks about the stakeholders and engaging: “In developing and implementing a strategic plan referred to…the authority must consult with.” What’s the expectation that the authority responsibility will be, much as the minister talks about this touchstone or process, a progress report process, which is referenced here in section (6)?

Does the minister expect…? Does the section (5.2) reference satisfy her that the expectation also is that the ITA is going to have that same kind of conversation, maybe, with the legitimate stakeholders about how the strategic plan is going and not going? And how does the minister get that feedback from the stakeholders? Is there a process for that, other than…? Some of these people are going to call you up and tell you what they think. But is there a process other than them doing that so that you get their feedback as to how it’s going too, as part of your deliberation?
[ Page 12460 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, those are important questions. I was just sitting and thinking about what mechanisms they use to get to me. There are a lot of them. Usually, it’s potentially on the street or email, but we also engage with stakeholders. We have round tables, for example — sector round tables that we have hosted across the province and across sectors over the last year. I would fully anticipate we continue that. We think it’s incredibly important that there be feedback.

[1835]

When we look at how section 6 is being amended, one of the key points is not only does the authority have to provide a map for how they’re going to be engaged in the first place in the shaping of the strategic plan; it also says they must engage with stakeholders around the advancement of each of the purposes. There is an expectation that there is ongoing relationship that would obviously review the strategic plan, the service plan, and I fully expect there would be a two-way dialogue about the progress. It’s an expectation.

I think we’ve tried to articulate that it’s not just in the beginning stages of forming the strategic plan; it’s throughout this process. If you’re going to meet your purpose, you have to explain to us how you’re going to continue to engage with the stakeholder list that I laid out for the member.

S. Simpson: I guess why this question seems to me to be particularly important, this particular discussion…. I think the minister would agree that one of the real shortcomings of the ITA in its earlier incarnation was that it got disengaged from a whole lot of people that it should have been working with all the time and that that led to an isolation of sorts, of the ITA, that just made it much less successful than it should have been. I know there has been a lot of work done to try to correct that in a whole range of ways, including engaging these stakeholder interests and making sure they’re part of the conversation.

I’m thinking again about how the minister…. I know the minister probably, in the grocery store and on the street and by email, certainly hears from lots of people about lots of things. At this point, other than these round tables, which kind of function, how they function….

The minister hasn’t settled yet on how to formalize this engagement with these stakeholder interests to make sure that they’re in sync, that the progress that’s being made with the strategic plan is something that everybody has a comfort level with, that it’s going in the right direction, bumps and all — and there will be bumps; there’s no doubt — but that everybody has a comfort level that generally, what’s going on is the right approach. There’s no…. Or maybe there is some idea about how to formalize that discussion on the minister’s side so that people have confidence they are going to have her ear, at least on the piece around how progress is being made.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the sectoral round tables have been fantastic, and I would anticipate continuing those. But I think another equally important mechanism…. As Minister of Labour, and I think others have worked on this, I try to meet quarterly with all of my important stakeholder groups as well. That would be an excellent opportunity to receive feedback.

For example, I meet with the B.C. Federation of Labour; other organizations, including business organizations, across the sector; Destination B.C.; a tourism advisory council; the Premier’s Women’s Economic Council — all of those things. I think those are perfect venues for people who are linked to the Industry Training Authority outcomes and often are consumers of the product — certainly, a great place for me to hear that feedback. It’s something that I could easily request, beyond the agenda, on a regular basis. I think there are a number of mechanisms, and I will certainly be looking for feedback.

I do agree with the member opposite that there was a sense, I think, of disconnect. That’s one of the reasons that I asked Jessica McDonald to do the work that she did. I have to say that she did a really fantastic job. She met with many, many, many organizations and people across the province, and I heard nothing but compliments about how she worked to understand the issues.

[1840]

That shouldn’t be necessary, and we shouldn’t have to bring in someone and ask them to review an organization. What I expect to see is that the same kind of connectivity, engagement, is part of the culture of the Industry Training Authority. I think it’s essential. If you’re going to have a great training system, you actually have to talk to the people who do the training, who take the training, who hire the people who are taking the training and the parents who are encouraging their kids to take the training. I think that’s how you get a system that works.

I appreciate the comments. I think we will look for as many mechanisms…. I find my quarterly meetings with all of my formal stakeholder groups very, very helpful. Believe me, they don’t hesitate to tell me quite clearly how they feel about issues. I think that would be a really great venue, and I could certainly make it a regular agenda item.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us…. Is it her expectation, or in some fashion, whether it’s the detailed reports…? These progress reports — do they become public in some fashion? Or are those documents for the minister and her officials?

Hon. S. Bond: I don’t think, at this point, I’ve anticipated, at least, that there would be formal reporting out during those touch-bases. I think it’s more an opportunity to look at momentum, look at whether outcomes are being met. At this point, I don’t contemplate, necessarily, that being public. I don’t see it in a formal reporting kind of sense.
[ Page 12461 ]

But transparency is important. I think that the system needs to know that there are those checks and balances in place. So it’s not something I’ve determined at this point, and again, we’re still sorting out what that mechanism looks like. The most critical thing will be the lead-up to the strategic plan and how it’s actually developed, particularly in the first year.

So I haven’t really made a determination about that. I see it, in many ways, as less formal than a written report or a report card on your progress. I don’t see it in that way.

S. Simpson: I guess the point I make, and I appreciate the minister’s comment here…. I think the minister has said it’s critical — that level of engagement — and it’s pretty explicit here in the legislation and in the development of the strategic plan. The stakeholders and all of the interests to this are going to be a pretty big part of the conversation as the plan evolves to what, ultimately, will land on the minister’s desk at the end of the year.

Part of the interest I have in what form these progress reports, or whatever we call them, take, is that it’s probably going to be important, in my view I think — and I’d be interested in the minister’s comment — that the organizations, all of those interests, have a pretty clear understanding of what the ITA is telling the minister about how things are going and what the ITA is saying about what this progress looks like, what the challenges look like and what some of the opportunities and obstacles might be to accomplishing the plan.

So I’m kind of interested. If it’s too informal, I worry that you start having organizations that are concerned about transparency and engagement saying: “Well, I want to make sure that I know what the minister is being told is the same thing that I’m hearing, and then I can concur or not based on how I feel about it.”

[1845]

I just worry about the level of formality to ensure that that information is the same for everybody.

Hon. S. Bond: I think that’s a very compelling argument.

I’ve never been hesitant when I look at things like the work that I asked Gord Macatee to do on the Lakeland and Babine situation. When he came back with his reports, we reported out publicly on his progress. We reported when we were making a recommendation. When it was complete, we said publicly. I expected that of Mr. Macatee, and he did a great job.

I think there is some merit, actually, and I think the format is what we would have to discuss. I think having a sense of sharing with the public, sharing with those stakeholders a sense of the momentum that’s been built, where the challenges are…. My reluctance is I don’t want this to turn into an exercise of how many reports they have to write.

I think there is merit in looking at regular reporting out about the progress. I’m not at all opposed to that. Those are the kinds of discussions I would welcome input on. Over the next period of time — should the bill pass — as we formalize this process, I think that is a question worth considering — that there may be times throughout the year, instead of going from December to December, that there be some progress reports made public. I’m not necessarily opposed to that, and it certainly is something that we will consider.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister’s answer. That might be one of the projects to give the ITA for their first strategic plan: to explain to you how they do that, in a way that doesn’t become overly bureaucratic or onerous and still allows everybody to be on the same page in terms of the discussion. I worry sometimes about people having different information or different views of what the information is, fairly or unfairly, around those matters.

I think I’m going to sit down on this section now.

The Chair: Shall section 2 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

S. Simpson: I have one question. I might apologize. I might have just done this. I think I have about one more question too, and I’m finished, and we’ll have this done.

Under (10) — and I apologize to the Chair; I was misreading this — it says that “money received by the authority from any source may be retained by the authority to be used and dealt with for its purposes.” That seems, to me, different from what was in the previous section, which seemed to really limit the authority’s ability to get funds from other sources.

Could the minister just tell us: is this a change in thinking about where dollars will come from for the authority or where revenue streams may be available to the authority from what currently happens?

Hon. S. Bond: No, it does not mean that the ITA cannot seek out other funds or look at sources of revenue. It makes the ITA consistent with other Crowns, and what it does mean is that they would have to use those funds for the purposes outlined in the act, at the beginning — which are providing training and all of those things.

No, they can still go and find resources and revenue. They can keep it and use it to meet the purposes that are outlined. It simply brings the administrative process related to that into line with the Financial Administration Act, which is common to other Crowns.

S. Simpson: Just so I’m clear — I think I got that — if I read section 7(1), right now it says: “The authority must not borrow money without the prior approval of the minister and the Minister of Finance.” And then, of course, it
[ Page 12462 ]
can’t run deficits. So now it isn’t required. The approval of the minister will not be required.

[1850]

Of course, it still can’t run deficits without approval, but it does have more flexibility to be able to access other sources of funds? I don’t know what those would be and where they might come from, but it does have a little more flexibility that doesn’t require the minister to sign off on these things now. Would that be correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The sources don’t change. So they can do the same thing after the bill passes, hopefully, than they did before. What changes is that we simply clarified that you have to use the money for the purposes that are outlined in this act. Obviously, that’s what happens today, but we wanted to be sure that it was clarified and also consistent with other Crowns.

An example of where they can raise revenue is if they develop a course, they can sell it to other jurisdictions and raise funds that way. If they do a great job and other people don’t want to reinvent the wheel, they can actually purchase that course curriculum or course provision — those kinds of things — and they can raise revenue. They can still do that. They simply have to use it for the purposes outlined in the act. That was for clarity.

S. Simpson: Now we’ve passed section 2, I’ll actually go to section 3, where we were. I just have one question….

The Chair: Shall section 2 pass again?

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Simpson: Question here. It just says: “adding the following paragraph: (a.1) prescribing other purposes of the authority.”

Am I just to assume that this is kind of the regulatory order-in-council catch-all that we see in much legislation that allows change to be made through regulation to the purposes of the authority without having to come back and legislate other pieces?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that’s correct. I mean, one of the things…. By putting more specific details in the legislation, which will be law, we wanted to make sure that as issues emerge — whether there are things we need to adjust — we don’t want to have to open up the act every time we do that.

It is very common practice. We don’t anticipate anything extraordinary, but on the other hand, we wanted to have the flexibility to add things without coming back to the Legislature to do that.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — INDUSTRY TRAINING
AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 7, Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Thomson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.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); D. Ashton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $843,349,000 (continued).

C. Trevena: Today we’re moving on to some of the infrastructure projects. I’d like to start by asking some questions about the George Massey Tunnel replacement. I have a sense this might take some time this afternoon. That will be my focus. I’ll then move on, if we have the
[ Page 12463 ]
opportunity, back to some transit questions I didn’t get the opportunity to ask yesterday, just to let the minister and his staff know.

I just wanted to ask…. I have an email dating back to 2013. It’s just before the Premier’s announcement of the Massey Tunnel replacement. In this email to communications and government affairs, planning and development, and various people who are named in it, there is a note about the GMT — obviously, the George Massey Tunnel, and the committee is referred to — saying that they were concerned about the lack of coordinating, planning and justification for the tunnel.

I think that we’ve seen over the last couple of years, as the tunnel has progressed, almost the government justifying it because they’ve said that they’re going to replace it. I know we now do have…. Although I asked in estimates last year about a business plan and learned that there wasn’t a business plan this time last year, I understand that in the fall, we did get a business plan.

I wonder if the minister could explain why it has taken so long, from 2013 to 2015, to get together a business plan for a $3.5 billion project.

[1455]

Hon. T. Stone: I’m obviously very pleased that we’re moving on to George Massey and very happy to answer the member’s question.

I did want to, just for the record, indicate that I have three very short responses to three questions that were asked by her colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey yesterday. I’d be happy to do that. It may be more appropriate in between, maybe after we leave George Massey and move on to the next one, if you want. Or I can do it now.

C. Trevena: If you’d like to do it now, that would be great. Then we’ll just move on.

Hon. T. Stone: Okay, great. I appreciate the member for North Island indulging me on this. I’d promised, committed to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, to get back with a couple of quick responses to questions yesterday.

The first issue was with respect to crosswalks at 16th and Hampton in Vancouver. As the member knows, there are two crosswalks — one at 16th and Hampton, at UBC, and one at Chancellor Boulevard and Hamber Road. The Chancellor Boulevard and Hamber Road crosswalk is somewhat unsafe for the students who are crossing to UHill Elementary. The ministry does agree with the member that the markings aren’t as clear as they should be. There are also, at the moment, no lights. It is indeed a high-traffic road. There has been an assessment of it by the Ministry of Transportation, and we’re looking into the exact details of that assessment.

What I do want to say, though, is that the ministry has been working with UBC on the installation of a crosswalk at this location. The new crosswalk will include flashing overhead ambers, a pedestrian push button to activate the overhead lights, striping on the road, and advance warning signage notifying drivers of the pedestrian crosswalk and additional overhead lighting.

[1500]

UBC actually started the installation of the new crosswalk system about a month ago. Construction is anticipated to be complete by June 15. UBC is funding the installation of the new crosswalk here. The ministry will then be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and repair.

The second issue related to speed limits. There was a request that the Ministry of Transportation consider dropping the speed limit from 70 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour at 16th and Hampton. Again, this is in the lead-up to the crosswalk that I just spoke of. The ministry does support a reduction in the speed limit in the vicinity of this crosswalk. We have approved extending the existing 50 kilometre-per-hour zone, so it begins about 420 metres east of the crosswalk. We believe that this will provide enough time for motorists to slow down before they encounter the advance crosswalk warning signs.

The last issue that I was aware of from yesterday was relating to the pedestrian crossing at Chancellor and Hamber. This crosswalk is used for crossing from Chancellor Boulevard to the University Hill Elementary School. The ministry has examined the crosswalk at this location and has been working with the local parent advisory council and other key stakeholders about upgrades to this crosswalk.

The crossing is controlled by a full pedestrian signal, which displays a red light to motorists when children are crossing. We did improve safety here by adding countdown timers about a month ago. Further improvements are planned, including refreshing the crosswalk lines and, at the right turn, adding new crosswalk lines and additional signage. Finally, in addition, sidewalk letdowns will be installed on Hamber Road to improve accessibility for pedestrians.

I’m happy, again, to be able to provide those responses to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey from yesterday.

With respect to the member for North Island and her first question on the George Massey Tunnel project, I will answer it as follows. As I have said in the House and publicly quite a number of times, these major infrastructure projects begin with an aspiration. They begin with a vision. They are always subject, however, to a business plan. Whether it’s a major road improvement, a new bridge, whether it’s sidewalk repairs, everything that we do in the ministry must be backstopped in terms of infrastructure. Everything we build must be backstopped by a business plan.

When you’re talking about multi-billion-dollar projects, it takes time to actually develop a business plan. What we
[ Page 12464 ]
did in the case of George Massey was exactly what we did with Port Mann and the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the Sea to Sky Highway — and on and on the list could go. We started with planting the flag, laying down the aspirational goal. We’re going to address what we believe is one of the greatest congestion points in the province.

We then moved from that into the first round of public consultation, which was to confirm, based on that public feedback, that a challenge actually exists there, that there is a problem that requires some sort of a solution. We heard resoundingly from the public in that first round of engagement that, yes indeed, something has to be done. The congestion that exists in the tunnel, leading up to and from the tunnel on both sides, at different times of the day, is intolerable and needs to be addressed. We heard that loud and clear.

We then moved into the second phase of public consultation, which was to consider different options. I believe we considered five different options — everything from a bridge to a new tunnel, to expanding the existing tunnel, to different alignments. Do you put a bridge over the existing tunnel? Do you do a bridge at some other location and so forth? We heard overwhelmingly from the public in that second round of engagement that, indeed, the overwhelming preference was to proceed with a new bridge over the existing alignment, the existing tunnel.

[1505]

Based on that feedback, remembering all the while that behind the scenes, ministry staff, engineers and consultants — the project team — have been diligently working at all facets of the project — the preliminary engineering, preliminary environmental, ensuring that there is appropriate First Nations consultation, engaging with the Farmers Institute, engaging with local governments, etc. — to make sure that we’re incorporating all of that information into what will eventually become the business plan, the Project Definition Report.

We then released the Project Definition Report this last December, which included the business plan — still, at that point, subject to final Treasury Board approval. The business case is included in that project definition report. I think, to that point, we had publicly released about 3,400 pages of documents and information relating to the George Massey Tunnel project. That’s all on the project website.

That kicked off a couple of additional processes. First was the third round of public consultation on the project, which was about putting the business case and the Project Definition Report and our decision that we detailed in that report to proceed with this being a tolled crossing, with a toll likely in the range of the Port Mann toll. We wanted feedback on that. We wanted feedback on the plan generally. We have concluded that round of engagement, the third round.

I should point out that the other track that began earlier this year was the environmental assessment process. This project is subject to the provincial environmental assessment process, and so that process has begun. There is a working group that has been struck, with broad representation, as one would expect on a project of this size. And of course, there has been ongoing engagement with Metro Vancouver, with TransLink, with First Nations and so forth. I think, as a start, hopefully, that provides some context for the member.

In terms of her question as to why it has taken so long, this is a $3½ billion, a multi-billion-dollar, project. These projects take time. The Port Mann project was built over about an eight- to ten-year period. The SFPR was built over many years. From the time you actually make that aspirational claim and plant the flag to doing all the due diligence, all the environmental assessment work, all the First Nations consultation — not to mention the engineering analysis, the designs, getting ready for the procurement process and so forth — this is a very complex and time-consuming process.

That all being said, the last thing I’ll say is we’re on schedule to be in construction. We will see construction begin on this project in early 2017, which has been the projected date since that vision was first announced by the Premier a number of years ago.

C. Trevena: I think the minister skirted over the justification part of the question. I find it very interesting, also — the concept of vision. We had the announcement there was going to be the bridge in October 2013 from the Premier at UBCM. Then we have a report that the minister referred to, which is…. If I’m right, the one he’s referring to is from March 2014, evaluating the different crossing scenarios which give you the five different options. But the Premier had already said there was going to be a bridge.

I’m intrigued about how we jumped from what was the possibility of twinning the tunnels or upgrading the tunnel into a bridge, and this is going to be some of the themes of my questions.

If I might just read some notes here. This is from the city of Richmond council going through, basically, up to the present vision of how the options have changed. In July 2014, there was going to be $22 million on a seismic upgrade. By February 2006, there was going to be the twinning of the tunnel, expanding Highway 99 on both sides from four lanes to six. I’m very aware that they didn’t want to have problems on upper Oak Street and Knight Street.

Then it continued later that month that the Massey Tunnel was to be twinned, widened from four lanes to six. There was going to be, a couple of years later, discussion about having a bus lane there.

[1510]

A few years after that, the government meets Port Metro Vancouver and Fraser Surrey Docks to start talking about removing the tunnel and having a bridge. And
[ Page 12465 ]
so it goes. Now we have the bridge in place as the preferred option.

I’d like the minister to say when the decision was made that we are not going to be going for what could possibly be the more cost-effective — and I will be going into that in a short while — upgrading to seismic standard, twinning the tunnel and moving that way. And having a $3.5 billion price tag at the moment, an estimated…. In fact, in the minister’s own plan for his ministry, the estimate is $3.5 billion, and it is underlined as a cost estimate which will be refined. We’ve seen the way that figures are refined on major projects. They do usually go up and up.

If the minister could just very shortly say how he got from possibly twinning the tunnel, to the bridge.

Hon. T. Stone: First off, there were a number of things in there. I’ll endeavour to answer as many of the items as I can. The member will point out what I’ve missed, I’m sure.

[1515]

The first item. She referred to the $3.5 billion estimate that is in the ministry’s allocations. That’s correct. It is an estimate. It’s an estimate until we’re essentially in procurement. There is still the potential for some refinement based on feedback and recommendations that might come back to the project team as part of the environmental assessment process. There may be a few additional refinements there and elsewhere.

We don’t expect that the $3.5 billion estimate is going to change dramatically. But until we’re in the procurement phase…. When you’re actually going out to market through a public tendering process, it’s only at that point that you actually have a locked-down number, a project cost for a project, whether it’s of this magnitude or, as I mentioned earlier, it could be a much smaller project as well. That’s the first point.

The second point. The member talked about the seismic realities of the tunnel and discussions, years back, about potential seismic upgrades. We have made seismic upgrades to the tunnel over the years. It is safe. I emphasize that all the time with folks. It is safe to travel through today. But if we faced an earthquake of 7½ or bigger, then there’s potential…. There’s a little bit of concern there.

It still fundamentally comes back to congestion as the main driving force for moving forward with this bridge. We hear from residents — particularly in Delta, but also in White Rock and South Surrey — who use the bridge every day just how painful it is to sit in their cars for what amounts to hours and hours a week, when they could be spending that time with loved ones at the breakfast table, or at home at a more reasonable time for dinner.

What will come, however — back to the seismic piece — with this new bridge is a structure that will be absolutely in line with the highest levels of seismic standards possible. That’s, without question, a significant benefit that I think we should all be focused on.

The member also made a reference to the port, the discussions with the port. I want to, again, just clarify that if the question is: has the GMT project team actually had conversations with the port…? The answer is yes — without question — just as the GMT project team talked to all of the First Nations in question, all of the local governments in question, the cycling associations, the Farmers Institute, and on and on the list goes.

But any suggestion…. I’m not necessarily saying that the member is saying this, but there have been suggestions out there that this project is largely being driven from a position of wanting to serve the port and the port’s needs. I just want to say categorically that that is not true.

First off, the height of this new bridge that we’ll be building will not be any higher than the Alex Fraser Bridge. It’s not about bigger, taller ships coming up the river. There are other impediments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the tunnel or the bridge — when you’re talking about various pipelines that Metro Vancouver has or the fact that the water depth at the mouth of the Fraser is actually much shallower than where the depth of the river is above the tunnel and where the bridge will be. There are other limiting factors that actually limit the size of a ship.

Frankly, by the way, I’m glad that the member for Delta South is here as well. She knows this well. There are a good number of ships going up and down the river as it is. Some of these ships are pretty big, and some of these large ships are barely able to turn around as it is.

[1520]

Again, any suggestions that this project is mostly being driven from a place of wanting to serve the port is simply unfounded.

C. Trevena: I know that the member for Delta South has a couple of questions on that. I’d just like to continue on the decision, on how we got to the decision, which was my original question.

In 2009, there was another transportation minister, a very eager transportation minister, involved in the gateway project, Kevin Falcon. He, at that time, in 2009, stated very publicly that the Massey Tunnel was good for another 50 years.

I never thought that I would be quoting Mr. Falcon, but at the time, after the investment in the Port Mann Bridge, which we know has gone well over budget…. It’s gone from $1.5 billion to over $3.5 billion. That and the South Fraser Perimeter Road — which also went over budget, quite significantly, from $800 million to $1.2 billion — were going to be it.

Here the quote is from Mr. Falcon, the then Transportation Minister. “That’s going to be it for the immediate future. We’re now focusing heavily on our transit plan initiatives. We think that giving people a really attractive transit option is going to be one way we’re going to make better use of the existing road network that
[ Page 12466 ]
we now have.” The province’s $20 million investment in seismic upgrades will extend the life of the tunnel for easily another 50 years, according to the then Minister of Transportation.

We had, in 2009, the possibility of seismically upgrading it, which would extend the life for 50 years. The then-minister, Mr. Falcon, also noted at the time that Vancouver had made it clear that they did not want to see a bridge in that place because of the traffic congestion in the city. They stated that there were going to be, really, problems around the Oak Street Bridge.

To the minister: since, in 2009, Mr. Falcon said the upgrades made the bridge good for another 50 years, why is the seismic safety of the tunnel not adequate now?

[1525]

[J. Martin in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I want to say to the member that she referred to me as another eager Transportation Minister, or another eager Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. I take that as a compliment. He was also a minister who was really passionate about building infrastructure in this province, as I am.

I will say, though, in response to the member’s question: from 2009, the $20 million of seismic work that was done on the tunnel absolutely needed to be done. This was so that the seismic readiness of the tunnel would be brought up to a standard of being able to withstand a 1-in-275-year seismic event.

Now, the current standards that we strive to achieve with our infrastructure in British Columbia are to build infrastructure that can withstand a seismic event that is a 1-in-2,475-year event. So there is room for further improvement on the seismic front in terms of this corridor.

The $20 million that was put into the tunnel, again, was absolutely needed. That made the tunnel safer for people using the tunnel, for people in the tunnel. If you are in the tunnel and there is a seismic event, a 1-in-275-year event, you would have enough time, because of the seismic upgrades that were made, to actually get out of the tunnel safely. That was very important.

That work that basically raised the tunnel’s seismic level to the 1-in-275-year point was good for 50 years. Without question, that was what that project was all about. The “good for 50 years,” while it may apply to the seismic component or aspect of the bridge, certainly does nothing to address the very real congestion that exists at this location.

I again point the member to the many other driving forces, reasons why we are moving forward with this project. It’s so that people who are currently sitting in their cars many days of the week, idling, can leave home a little bit later in the morning, get home a little bit earlier in the evening. Most commuters will save 35 minutes a day when the new bridge is in use. That is huge. There will be significant reductions in emissions, which will be because of much less idling — one million hours of idling less. That’s good for the environment.

If you are a cyclist, and there are many that go through the tunnel, at the moment, you can’t cycle through the tunnel. You have to put your bike and get on a shuttle bus and be taken through the tunnel. Transit is not as convenient as it could be, not as reliable as it could be with this improvement.

The seismic component is important. That is a huge benefit of the new bridge. That will take this piece of infrastructure to a seismic level much greater than the seismic level that exists with the tunnel today.

[1530]

But again, I point to all of these other benefits — for commuters, for cyclists, for transit users and, certainly, benefits for the environment — as the real reasons why we are pressing forward with this very important infrastructure improvement.

C. Trevena: The minister says that the current standards are for a 1-in-2,475-year event. The upgrade gives the tunnel a 1-in-275-year event. I understand that there were plans to do a phase 2 of seismic refits that were cancelled and that would have brought the tunnel up to one in 475 years. This would have been doing ground stabilization and ensuring that more seismic upgrades were there.

I’d just like to know from the minister why those were cancelled. I understand…. Nobody is disputing that the Massey Tunnel is a bottleneck. We all hear it on the radio. Many, many thousands of people live it every day. They’re dealing with this. But the question I want to know is: why, when we had the alternative of seismically upgrading the existing tunnel and then looking at another potential alternative…?

One of the things the previous Transportation Minister Mr. Falcon suggested and worked on — and I will go into this in a little while — is improving transit along Highway 99. There was going to be a lot of money going into transit. That has not come into play. Why was there not this second great round of seismic upgrading and, subsequently, a solidly seismically stable tunnel and looking at an alternative just to expand some transit alternatives there?

The Chair: Member. Oh, Minister.

Hon. T. Stone: I’m a member as well. Thank you, Chair.

C. Trevena: It’ll happen soon enough.

Hon. T. Stone: We’ll see about that.

[1535]

The first question was about if there had been a preliminary plan to do a second round of seismic upgrades to the tunnel. The member is quite correct. If that work had
[ Page 12467 ]
proceeded, it would have brought the seismic upgrading, the seismic standard up to a 1-in-475-year event.

It was determined, as a result of the technical analysis, that the risks that would come with doing that work were just far too great, the reason being what the work would have involved. This is the second phase. It would have involved doing a tremendous amount of work on both sides of the tunnel. The technical analysis, the engineers in the ministry, determined that working that close to the tunnel with this work would have posed too great of a risk to the bottom of the tunnel, which you can’t get to.

The bottom of the tunnel sits on the soil, which in the event of, certainly, an earthquake is expected to liquefy. Even with work going on, on the sides of the tunnel, there is a risk of liquefaction taking place to some extent. So it was determined not to proceed with that second round of seismic upgrading. Again, even if we had, it would have brought it to a 1-in-475-year standard as opposed to the 1-in-2,475-year standard that we will get with the new bridge.

The second question related to transit. The simplest thing I can say is that while transit through this corridor is very successful — there are about 10,000 people a day that are moving through this corridor — it is at capacity. The existing tunnel is the limiting factor. This is the limiting factor to continued expansion of transit.

Now, we saw the same thing with the Port Mann Bridge. The members opposite said the Port Mann was the wrong bridge at the wrong time and we shouldn’t do it, and the rest of it. One of the most important benefits that has come with the Port Mann Bridge is the express bus from Langley over the Port Mann Bridge that’s carrying thousands and thousands of people. Actually, that got lots of people out of vehicles. It’s been good for the environment, and that’s helped drive up transit ridership.

We expect that the same will happen, that it will be possible, with the new bridge. The new bridge includes a tremendous number of transit enhancements. It allows for the possibility of rapid transit in future years, and that’s exactly what we want to see happen.

Frankly, folks south of the Fraser in places like Delta have, I think rightfully so, pointed out that they’ve been paying a lot of money into TransLink and that it’s questionable whether they get the service they pay for. This new bridge is going to help in a significant way. It’s going to help allow for a significant expansion of transit through this corridor.

V. Huntington: I just want to go back to the minister’s previous comments about whether or not the port was involved in the choice of the bridge and the size of vessels moving up and down the Fraser presently. I just want to assure the minister that until the bridge was announced, the port was very vocal about whether or not a bridge should go versus the tunnel — very much supportive of the concept of a bridge.

I’m sure the minister has read the Fraser Surrey Docks study that was undertaken, with the port’s blessing, on the depth, the draft, over the tunnel and whether or not they could increase that draft — because of the size of vessels they wanted to bring up at the Fraser Surrey Docks — by removing the boulders on top of the tunnel that prevent it from floating, and replacing those boulders with sheet metal plates.

The issue of draft over that tunnel has been a significant one, and I just don’t want the minister to gloss over the fact that it hasn’t been a longtime issue that’s been under discussion by the port for some time.

[1540]

Aside from that, we know that for the last ten, 12 years, even more perhaps, various iterations of the Gateway Council have been key in the development of the transportation plan for the movement of goods throughout the Lower Mainland. For many of those years, your former deputy of the ministry chaired the council. The council’s name is now the Gateway forum. It has always housed the same individuals, same companies, same industries.

Can the minister tell me the extent to which the discussions about the bridge and the plans to create that new corridor, that new crossing, and the discussions with regard to tunnel versus bridge…? How much of that took place in the Gateway Council–cum–forum over the last number of years? To what extent were Ministry of Transportation officials involved? Will he make those agendas and the minutes relating to those discussions available?

[1545]

Hon. T. Stone: Now, I’m assuming that the member is referring to the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: Well, there are a number — the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, as an example. The council pushes information to us about their activities and the things that they’re focused on. We don’t send ministry staff to those meetings, so we’re not aware of any specific discussions within that group on bridge versus tunnel or any other aspects of this project.

If the member wants to ask about other specific tables, I’d be happy to answer as well. I’ll pre-empt her with one.

The Pacific Gateway Alliance is probably the most prominent group that meets. I am the chair of that group, being the Minister of Transportation for British Columbia. As the member knows well, that’s an alliance of the three western provinces and the private sector as well. That body was constituted quite a number of years ago — it might be ten years now — and meets three or four times per year. Usually the ministers are part of the meeting, as well as senior representatives of a wide range of different stakeholders.
[ Page 12468 ]

The focus of the Pacific Gateway Alliance, as a subset of the new west partnership, is to focus on areas of cooperation between the three western provinces when it comes to the movement of people and goods — how we can, as western provinces, collaborate to make sure that we’re fully leveraging federal infrastructure dollars, getting maximum bang for our buck throughout the entire supply chain, for example.

There are policy discussions. There are infrastructure discussions. There are regulation discussions. Standardizing trucking regulations, for example, was a big win that Alberta and British Columbia were able to hammer out as a result of that table.

I can confirm that, as is the case with all the major infrastructure priorities of the province, the George Massey Tunnel replacement project has certainly come up, has been part of the discussion at that table, but only in the sense of: this is a priority for British Columbia. I would never have gotten into a discussion at that table about bridge versus tunnel or any of those types of details, because they wouldn’t be relevant to the others participating in those meetings.

V. Huntington: Well, it’s disappointing that the minister is going to avoid the question — let me put it that way — by being so specific about extraneous gateway organizations or councils. If we’re going to play that game, then I’m going to come back tomorrow with the specific names of all the specific gateway organizations that your ministry has been deeply involved in. I think it’s a shame that….

You know and your staff know precisely what I’m referring to here. If I have to say, “How about telling me whether I can have the agendas and the minutes of all of the gateway councils or organizations that the previous deputy minister chaired,” would you give me that information? Or can you advise me, if you won’t give me that information, is it FOIable?

[1550]

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly don’t think there are any games being played here. I actually resent the insinuation, to be frank. If the member has specific organizations that she would like to ask for information, assuming they are provincial organizations….

The Vancouver Gateway Council is not a provincial body. It is not an organization that reports up into the Ministry of Transportation. It doesn’t report up to me or my deputy. That organization — she would have to request directly for whatever information she wants. Again, if she wants to specifically state the organizations she’s interested in, we’ll consider her requests on a case-by-case basis.

What I do want to say is that I don’t understand where the, almost, animosity comes from for the port and port operations and for the movement of goods in this province. I don’t understand why the member…. There’s always a tone with the member in terms of the questions she asks, as if there is some nefarious plot that involves the port and the movement of goods in this province.

We are investing in critical infrastructure, on the one hand, to move people, and on the other hand, to move goods. The port that the member has so often criticized generates $2.5 billion in wages every year. It employs over 40,000 British Columbians, many of whom live in her riding. Let’s acknowledge those facts.

If she has questions that are relevant to the operations of our ministry, I’m very pleased to answer those questions. I have provided her with a response on the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, which is not part of the responsibilities of our ministry. I would be happy to address any further questions on any other groups, assuming they are government organizations. We’ll deal with those on a case-by-case basis.

V. Huntington: Let me just reply that I am as cognizant as the next individual in this province of the importance of the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority to the movement of goods and to the economy of this country and this province and my region.

I am perfectly, perfectly supportive of the port in those endeavours. I am not supportive of the port where it starts to impact the ecology and the environment of the Fraser estuary. That is what I have made clear from the first day I came into this office. For any insinuation that I’m not supportive of the industrial might of the Lower Mainland and of British Columbia…. The minister laughs, and the minister tries to prevent us speaking about the council that his ministry has been completely involved in….

Interjection.

V. Huntington: Well, you don’t chair a council if it’s not involvement.

At any rate, I just want to straighten the comment that I pretend and dissuade the port from everything it does. I do not. But I do dissuade the port and your ministry when you don’t protect the Fraser estuary, one of the most vitally important, ecologically sensitive areas on this continent. That’s when I get concerned.

C. Trevena: I’d like to switch tacks slightly, still talking about the George Massey Tunnel project.

[1555]

The business case for the project, which came last year — two years after the announcement of the project and a number of years, as we discussed, after the decision to keep the tunnel was put aside — says that traffic will grow, when it has actually been falling, according to the ministry’s own numbers. According the ministry’s numbers, between 2003 and 2014, the average annual daily traffic
[ Page 12469 ]
through the tunnel fell from 82,297 to 79,105, which is a 0.3 percent average decrease over a number of years.

The project status report, which comes out quite regularly — quoted in Business in Vancouver, just in March — noted that there was incorrect or insufficient traffic forecasting. This is going to have an impact on the cost of the bridge and the moneys raised, because, obviously, we are talking about having a toll bridge.

I wonder if the minister could clarify how much traffic is going to be using the bridge and whether he can explain why the project status report said that there was incorrect and insufficient traffic forecasting.

Hon. T. Stone: The member has asked about traffic projections. I’m not certain…. Perhaps she could say again where she’s referencing the traffic projection that she has referred to here.

[1600]

What I will say is that in the business case, which we released just before Christmas of last year, the traffic projections are obviously a significant part of that business case. That’s what the overall viability of the bridge rests upon in a huge way — the projected traffic volumes.

I will say that the projections that are contained within the business case — we are very confident — are solid. They were not just developed and cross-checked within the ministry, but we had two separate independent consultants verify the traffic projections to confirm, or not, the reliability of the projections. Those two external firms have confirmed that the projections that we are using in the business case are solid.

As is detailed in the business case, assuming the traffic projections that are contained therein and assuming a toll rate roughly comparable with the Port Mann Bridge, when the GMT opens, we are very confident that the entire cost of this project can and will be retired within the 50-year time frame. That is what is addressed in the business case.

C. Trevena: The source of my figures is the ministry’s own traffic data program. The business case for the Massey Tunnel replacement came out last fall. There’s a project status report for December 2015. It was quoted, as I say, in the March edition of Business in Vancouver. This project status report, which came out, I guess, a month or two after the business plan was released, said that there was incorrect or insufficient traffic forecasting. That’s what I’m trying to clarify. We had the business plan that came out with traffic forecasting. Then your own project update came out a month later saying that it was….

Interjection.

C. Trevena: The business plan for the project which came out last fall. Then the project update came out in December. Or is it the business plan? It’s an update? I’m also interested if the minister can clarify that.

Also, he mentions two companies that checked over the traffic projections. I wanted to know whether these two companies were at all involved in traffic projections for the Golden Ears and the Port Mann Bridge, because they obviously got them wrong if they were.

[1605]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, in answering the member’s question, the business case was released in mid-December of 2015. There are project status reports, which are largely internal to the project team. I believe they’re also made available on open gov, and they’re FOIable, and so forth.

I’m assuming the member is referring to the December project status report, which is a very common report that is used on a project like this. It identifies, actually, a series of…. Well, it’s a general update on the status of the project, but its focus is to ensure that the key risks associated with the project are front and centre in the minds of the project team. It deals with the environmental risks, with seismic risks, with traffic projection risks.

As I said in my former response, certainly the traffic projections, and getting those right, are critically important to the viability of the project. To that end, as I mentioned previously, we have done a lot of due diligence internally to ensure that we feel really good about the traffic projections that are included in the business case.

Those have been cross-checked by two independent firms. The member asked who those firms were. The firms were CH2M Hill and another firm called SDG. The former firm was not involved in the Port Mann project with respect to traffic projections. The latter firm was. Again, we’re very confident that we’ve got the traffic projections solid in this particular project.

[1610]

I will say, and I know where the member is going with this, because we talked about it last year…. The traffic projections on the Port Mann — I said very clearly then, and I’ll say very clearly again that the original traffic projections did not materialize. There’s no question about that. It’s all public record. That’s all out there. I’ve talked about it very publicly many times. The numbers have all been publicly released.

But I’ve also said it’s important to understand the context wrapped around that. The traffic projections were done prior to the worst world recession in decades. There was a massive credit crisis and a very significant downturn in the economy that British Columbia was not immune from.

That played a significant role in driving the traffic volumes down; as did some of the highest fuel prices that we experienced at that particular time; as did changing travel patterns, decisions that commuters were making every day because of the disruption and the delays that were caused by the construction itself — which, by the way, will not be a factor with the George Massey Tunnel
[ Page 12470 ]
replacement, because we’re essentially building a bridge over top of the existing tunnel. The traffic in the existing tunnel will continue to flow, and flow well, through the construction period.

Were the original traffic projections on Port Mann materialized at the end? No, they weren’t. That’s why, a couple of years ago, we adjusted the traffic volumes to the projections that we now have been using for a couple years now. Month over month, quarter over quarter, year over year, we have actually been exceeding those projections. So we think we have it right on the Port Mann.

We’ve taken lessons learned from that project, in terms of the traffic modelling, and have applied those to the GMT project. We’re confident that the numbers in the business case are also solid.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. It’s interesting how eager he is to promote the Port Mann in talking about the problems that it faced beforehand. I don’t want to get bogged down in this, but it’s been open several years, so people should have got used to using it by now; and the fuel prices have dropped — now they’re going up a little again, but they have dropped; and still there is less traffic going over the new Port Mann than the old Port Mann. It is proving to be a financial problem, because it’s a toll-driven bridge.

I want to continue. The minister has mentioned that if we get the Massey bridge rather than looking at the Massey Tunnel or any alternatives to that, it will be tolled. We still haven’t heard from the minister, although he promised in 2013…. I was at a Surrey Board of Trade meeting where he was speaking. He promised there would be a new tolling policy. We’re still waiting for the provincial tolling policy three and a half years on. But the Massey replacement will be tolled.

Just on working it out with the present costs that we are seeing and the present traffic projections, can the minister tell me what level tolls would be in place on, if we get it, the new Massey Bridge?

Hon. T. Stone: A few questions there.

First, there are no financial challenges with the Port Mann Bridge. The member can continue to say that. It does not make it true. The Port Mann Bridge continues to be absolutely viable. We are on track to retire the debt of the Port Mann Bridge by 2050, which was always the time frame. That has not changed, so any suggestion to the contrary is simply false.

As I said earlier, the traffic on the Port Mann Bridge is up. It’s up 5 percent this year. It’s up 6 percent month over month. We are seeing more people opting to use the Port Mann than the previous month and the previous year, which is good.

Traffic volumes are up on all of the crossings. That’s what happens when you have a healthy economy. Traffic volumes are up on the Alex Fraser. Traffic volumes are up on the Pattullo. They’re up on the Golden Ears Bridge. That is what happens when you have a healthy economy.

[1615]

So the member can continue to try to create a perception of something there on the Port Mann. It doesn’t exist. It’s an entirely viable project which is saving commuters a tremendous number of hours per day.

The second point the member asked about was the toll rates on the GMT. Again, I’m assuming that she has read the business case. If she has indeed read it, she would know the answer to her question. She wouldn’t have had to ask it. We have said that the toll would be in line with what the toll will be on the Port Mann when the GMT project comes on stream. That is in the business case. It’s there for everyone to see.

I believe the member made a comment about regional tolling. We can get into that a little bit later, if she wants. But I have been very clear for the last several years that there are a couple things that would have to happen for there to be a change in the provincial tolling policy. One is the province moving forward with GMT, and secondly, Metro Vancouver, the Mayors Council, deciding to move forward with the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. In that situation, the only non-tolled option for drivers in the Lower Mainland would be the Alex Fraser, in which case the tolling policy would need to be updated.

We’re encouraged by the vibrant debate taking place on regional tolling. We are monitoring that debate very, very closely, and we will look forward to continuing to discuss that with folks who live south of the Fraser and others who use all of the crossings over the Fraser.

C. Trevena: On the tolling, yes, of course I’ve have read the business case. I’ve been waiting for it long enough, like many people have.

The minister’s staff, the project staff, has had consultation. There was about 20 percent in favour, in comparatively clear favour of the bridge, but they weren’t…. They knew it was going to be tolled, but we haven’t actually heard what that toll is going to be. That’s why I wanted a direct question. I mean, we’re talking about something that’s going to open in a few years.

Looking ahead, I know you can’t guess, but…. In our working through the budget, we’ve worked out that to pay off the bridge within 30 years, if that was the time frame, toll revenues would have to be about $285 million a year, which starts off on, effectively, a $6.30 toll each way. That is on the assumption that the cost is contained at $3.5 billion — I think there are many questions still on whether that will be possible — that traffic rises in the way that’s predicted in the business plan and it’s not diverted, as it was on the Port Mann Bridge.

We’re looking at a 2 percent a year increase, which is fair, and fixed costs for toll collection, maintenance operations are similar to the Port Mann, which is about $35 million a year. On those assumptions, we have estimated it at $6.30.
[ Page 12471 ]

When the government did its public consultation and were talking about the possibilities that the bridge might bring — the whole ten lanes and two lanes for public transit and so on and so forth — did the minister’s staff, or did any of the project staff, indicate that it would be approximately a $6.30 toll each way?

[1620]

Hon. T. Stone: I just wanted to, first, correct a couple of pieces of information. First off, we’ve actually assumed, within the business case, about 14 percent diversion. That’s actually higher than what was recommended by external consultants. We went higher. I just wanted the member to know that there is a pretty significant diversion factor included in the business case — 14 percent.

Secondly, I think she mentioned that the bridge would be paid off within a 30-year time frame. It’s actually a 50-year time frame.

[1625]

The third point. Specifically, she was asking if the toll is in line with Port Mann. The assumptions she was using…. Would the toll be anywhere in the neighbourhood of $6 and change? I don’t believe it would be there at all. Considering the diversion factor that we’ve built in, the other factors that you look at, obviously, are: what the traffic volumes are actually doing, what the interest rates are at that particular time and so forth.

The maximum toll increase that is in the concessionaire agreement with the Port Mann right now…. We’ve said we want to treat these two bridges the same in terms of the toll rate. The maximum toll increase on an annual basis is a 2.5 percent increase, rounded up to the nearest five cents. Again, that’s optional. That’s an annual decision that is made by TI Corp. So even if you assume that 2.5 percent increase in the toll rate, rounded up to the nearest five cents, for, let’s say, the next five to six years of the construction time period for the GMT, when the GMT comes on, the toll for Port Mann will be nowhere near the $6 level that she has suggested.

C. Trevena: That will be some comfort for people.

We’re talking about a $3.5 billion project. As the minister said, that is an estimate, and we know that there are still various things that are going to come into play. How big the costs are going to go up, for whatever reason…. I know that there’s also the relocation of hydro lines, which is going to cost us the acquisition of land nearby, which could increase the costs. There are many ways of increasing the cost.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I’m still puzzled by the discussion that we had earlier and how we got to having a new bridge. I wondered if the minister or his ministry did any work and could give me any details about whether there was any costing done on the alternatives, on the possibility of a new tunnel or twinning the existing tunnel. We had the cost of the seismic upgrading. It was going to be about $20 million plus.

I know a tunnel in the Netherlands was recently upgraded. I know that they don’t actually have the seismic issue, but they recently had an upgrade. That was roughly $420 million Canadian, without the seismic but still upgrading a comparative tunnel.

I wondered if there was any cost-benefit analysis for the alternatives when deciding that we’re going to go ahead with the minimum $3.5 billion ten-lane bridge.

[1630]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the member’s question on whether or not the various options have been costed and whether there has been analysis done — maybe an eight-lane bridge versus ten lane or a tunnel versus a bridge, those types of things — there are two parts to this.

First off, we obviously did a tremendous amount of planning work on this, looking internal to the project team to look at the different options. We then engaged an external consultant who came and looked at the five different options that were discussed in the phase 2 consultation — the different bridges and tunnels on different alignments and so forth.

They actually produced a report — which was made available on line as part of that phase 2 consultation — that provides a pretty good summary of the benefits and the details relating to each of the different options. There is a qualitative cost analysis in there. It doesn’t name a specific dollar figure but does provide, “This option is more expensive than this option for the following reasons,” and so forth. So there was that done and publicly released.

I committed recently, while in Richmond, to actually ensuring that documents that show this analysis are made available and posted, which are added to the 3,600 pages of information that we have already publicly released.

[1635]

We’re committed to making sure that that information is made available. So the member will be able to see what the actual specific, in dollar terms, cost estimates actually look like — or what was presented to us as the project team was working through that phase 2 consultation, in particular.

C. Trevena: I’m to take it that the minister is going to provide me with those figures, or it’s something that’s just going to be posted on line. I wonder when he could clarify whether he could give me those figures and, secondly, just for this debate, if he could tell me how the bridge matched up, in basic dollar figures, to the next-priced option. I’m assuming, and this may be a false assumption, but it’s an assumption…. Again, if the minister can clarify whether the bridge is the most expensive of the five options that were looked at.
[ Page 12472 ]

Hon. T. Stone: First, we will absolutely make sure that we provide the member with the detailed information, in addition to posting it on line. I’m told by my officials that we will have that information ready in a matter of weeks, so later this spring we’ll get that information to the member and to the public on line.

In terms of the member’s more specific question about the quantum here — if the bridge is the most expensive option or not — a brand-new ten-lane tunnel was actually the most expensive option. My understanding is that that’s because there’s just always so much more risk from a seismic perspective, from an environmental perspective and so forth when you’re building a tunnel through a river versus doing a bridge.

On the other side of the equation, an eight-lane bridge versus the ten-lane bridge would have shaved off some of the overall costs but not enough to make it worthwhile, and you would lose the most important benefit. That is to alleviate the congestion on day one. It was very clearly determined in the analysis that the ten-lane bridge was required to ensure that there was no congestion on day one of its operation.

C. Trevena: The option of seismically upgrading the existing tunnel, as was discussed previously, and twinning that — not building a whole ten-lane tunnel but just using what we’ve got and building a twin tunnel. I wondered how that rated against the present plan.

[1640]

Hon. T. Stone: The member’s question. One of the five options that was considered in that phase 2 was to construct a tunnel beside the existing tunnel, so to continue to use the existing tunnel and have the tunnel beside it. That was an option that we did do the analysis on. There are some costs associated with that. That will be part of the package that we will provide the member and that will also go on line, in terms of providing that costing information on each of the different options. So you’ll have those details.

I will say, though, it was ruled out for a couple of reasons. One, you would end up with a tunnel, a new tunnel, that would be at a much higher seismic standard sitting beside a tunnel that would be at a lower seismic standard, which our engineers didn’t think made sense.

Secondly, you would not be addressing the main challenge that we’re trying to address, and that is to eliminate the congestion — which is, again, why we’re proceeding with a ten-lane bridge.

Again, that cost information will be forthcoming to both the member and the general public very soon.

C. Trevena: Forgive me, but I don’t understand why, if you’re twinning a tunnel…. I hear what the minister is saying about the different levels of seismic. But the fact you’re still extending the number of lanes that are available would be…. You’re doubling the capacity by twinning the tunnel.

The other question I have. We’re talking about how these are going to be posted on line. Surely, the ministry has got these figures and could give them to me right now.

Hon. T. Stone: No, we do not have the numbers here today, and we want to make sure that we provide the complete package. We are committed to doing that, both for the member directly as well as for the general public, and we will do that in the coming weeks, for certain.

Back to the member’s question about why not just build another tunnel, I’m assuming with three lanes or four lanes, similar to what’s there right now. Two reasons.

One is that would not address the congestion issue. The modelling that we have done has clearly demonstrated that even an eight-lane tunnel or a combination of eight lanes through two tunnels or an eight-lane bridge would not alleviate the congestion that exists today. Part of that is because we want to have dedicated bus lanes and HOV lanes. We want to really facilitate the transit part as well. That’s the first reason.

The second reason, which I’ve mentioned a couple times, is the existing tunnel. We’ve ruled out further seismic upgrades to the existing tunnel, notwithstanding potentially adding another tunnel beside it. The existing tunnel…. It is too risky to further seismically upgrade it from where it is today. That’s because we can’t get underneath the tunnel. Doing work beside the existing tunnel too close, the engineers believe, is a significant risk to the structural integrity of the bottom of the existing tunnel, which is, again, what we also expect to be the main problem in the event of a major earthquake. That’s where the liquefaction will take place.

We can’t seismically upgrade that existing tunnel, which would mean adding a new tunnel, with three or four lanes, beside it. We would, obviously, build it to the current seismic standard — of that 1-in-2,475-year event — but it would be sitting beside a three-lane tunnel that would be at its current and much lower seismic standard.

[1645]

V. Huntington: I just wanted to very briefly canvass the minister’s myth-busting assertion about the fact that the new bridge will result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Your ministry commissioned a report by MMK Consulting in 2014, and the result of the report indicated that the new bridge would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions when compared to other scenarios for replacement. The report indicated that it certainly would reduce idling times but that the induced demand that a new bridge would represent — i.e., the increased traffic that would flow through it — would balance out the decrease from idling, versus the number of cars that would now pass over the bridge.
[ Page 12473 ]

I’m wondering. As a result of that report, the ministry must be aware of that fact. Can the minister tell us whether the ministry has traffic-modelling studies that confirm the bridge will reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, and if so, can he provide those?

[1650]

Hon. T. Stone: I believe the report…. The member for Delta South may have actually specifically referenced it. Is it the MMK report?

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: Okay, correct. That’s good. We’re on the same page.

The MMK report that she is referencing was released prior to the PDR being released in December. MMK is working on a revised, updated version of their report. So yes, it exists. They’re very, very close to having it finished, and it will be made publicly available. If the member wishes, we could also commit to providing her with a copy directly, and we’ll do that very, very soon.

I do want to say that the environmental benefits are…. The modelling that’s been done, the analysis that has been done, indicates that the benefits are quite significant. While I appreciate what the member has read into the record in terms of an earlier version of that report — that was earlier, much earlier in the project — we do anticipate significant reductions in GHG from the reductions in idling and increased uptake on the transit side as well. That is all detailed in the updated MMK report, which will be forthcoming within a matter of weeks.

C. Trevena: Just to take that one step further…. I look forward to also seeing the new report.

There’s been research done by the Sightline Institute, which I’m sure the minister is aware of, that says that for every new mile of highway lane built, the extra cars on the road that fill it cause 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions over 50 years. That’s pretty significant. The Wilderness Committee has estimated that the Massey bridge replacement would have a carbon footprint of seven million tonnes of CO₂ over the next 50 years — again, quite significant.

I’m wondering if the minister can explain how the bridge, with its increased use, with the increased number of vehicles going over it — potentially 15 percent — aligns with the government’s legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets, which are calling for a reduction in emissions by 80 percent.

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for North Island: first off, as she knows well, the climate leadership team that we pulled together went out and did some really good work and has issued a series of recommendations that government is now considering as we work towards the release of our province’s revised and updated climate action plan. That will happen later this year.

There’s no question that transportation provides a tremendous array of opportunities for greenhouse gas reductions, considering that transportation accounts for 37 percent of British Columbia’s total emissions. That being said, we have a tremendous number of initiatives in the province that we’re very proud of, some of which we’re going to do more of. There will be some new initiatives in the transportation sector as well. Again, we’re working through that.

[1655]

I would say that on the one hand, we believe — and again, in my previous response to the member for Delta South, I’ve committed to making sure — that the analysis indicates that the environmental benefits that will flow from the George Massey replacement bridge are significant. The greenhouse gas emissions reductions that we will see, we believe, are quite significant.

There are one million hours of idling per year at that tunnel today. If nothing is done, the estimates are that that will increase to two million hours of idling per year in 2021 and 4½ million hours of idling by 2040. So doing nothing is not an option, in our view, and we believe that it will facilitate the expansion of transit, which is very good for the environment as well.

There is a whole range. I would be thrilled to talk about it in more detail, if the member wants to, in terms of the range of other initiatives that we are pursuing and considering.

We’re very proud of our electric vehicle program, the charging infrastructure that we’ve built in the province. We’re very proud of the fact that, across the country, we have the strictest low-carbon fuel standards, which have a huge impact on reducing emissions. We’re very proud of shore power, the fact that cruise ships now coming into the port plug in as opposed to spewing those diesel fumes into the environment in Vancouver.

We’re very proud of the fact that we’re converting ferries to LNG propulsion, which is going to reduce emissions by upwards of 30 percent. We’re very proud of the CNG bus program that we have. We have 50 CNG buses in the B.C. Transit network at the moment. We’re going to increase that significantly over the coming years. Each CNG bus reduces emissions by, again, upwards of 30 percent.

There’s no silver bullet on this front, but there’s a lot that we can do in transportation. We’re doing a fair bit of it now. We’re going to do more, and it’s a part of the job that, actually, I’m most excited about.

V. Huntington: I just want to follow up very briefly on the minister’s response to my question on emissions.

In the absence of the second MMK report, the conclusions of which the minister and the ministry obviously know already, and given the conclusion of the first MMK
[ Page 12474 ]
report — which stated that there would be no reduction in emissions, given the induced demand created by the bridge — the question was: what was the minister relying on? What data was the minister relying on when he says that there would be a reduced greenhouse emission total as a result of the new bridge? What was the data you were relying on, given the conclusions of the MMK report?

Hon. T. Stone: As I said a moment ago, the MMK report that the member has referenced was an older report. There has been a tremendous amount of work that has been done as the project has evolved and has been refined, and that analysis is contained in the updated MMK report. The data, the analysis is all in there, and it will be provided to the member very, very soon, as it will be provided to the general public.

C. Trevena: I just want to switch tack a bit. The bridge, if and when it’s built, is going to be going through part of quite a rich agricultural area, and the minister has promised that there’s going to be no net loss of agricultural land because of the bridge.

In the document that the member for Delta South just mentioned, debunking the myth, it states: “The province has committed to no net loss of agricultural land and is working with farmers to achieve a net gain in quality farmland in Richmond and Delta.”

I wonder if the minister could actually explain what this means. Does it mean there’s going to be no loss in Richmond and Delta because of the construction? Or is it that there is going to be some land lost and it will be replaced elsewhere? I wonder if the minister could explain specifically what “no net loss” means in relation to the building of the bridge.

[1700]

Hon. T. Stone: I want to say that I really appreciate the questions that the member is asking. This is providing yet another opportunity to clarify a number of concerns that have been out there, broadly. And every opportunity I get to bust the myths, as I say, I welcome.

With respect to the farmland, this is, again, one of the components of the project that our project team, myself included, is most proud of. We are absolutely convinced that not only will there be no net loss of farmland as a result of this project; we actually believe that there’s an opportunity here, if done right, to actually give a little bit of additional land back for farm use.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: Now, the member for Delta South is saying: “A little teeny.” Well, I’ll take a teeny, little bit, as I’m sure she would.

The point is, and I think this is the best way to explain it: the bridge, because it’s being built over an existing alignment, is basically, almost entirely being built on existing Ministry of Transportation right-of-way, so we don’t need to compromise very much agricultural land. Any that we do, we’re actually going to be able to give back the same amount, if not a little bit more.

We’ve been working very closely with farmers in both Delta and Richmond on this particular issue, and we’ve also had very good, constructive discussions with the Agricultural Land Commission on this project as well. Again, very pleased with the progress that the project team has made to ensure that this project does not have a detrimental impact on farmland and, in fact, may actually result in a net increase in farmland.

C. Trevena: When the minister says no impact on farmland, the bridge that is going across will allow what is being farmed on, around the area, to continue being farmed, and there will be no reduction in that as farmland anywhere within the however many kilometres we’re talking about of the bridge? That’s my first question.

When he says there might be a gain, would that be a gain in that specific area around the bridge?

Hon. T. Stone: Generally, there are a couple sections along the corridor where there’s a little bit more take in terms of land that the project will need. But for the most part, the vast majority of the corridor, there’s a little bit of give — of land back. Again, the net result of that should be no impact or a little bit of a gain overall.

[1705]

I would point out, for the member’s benefit, as well, that as I mentioned previously, we are in discussions with the Agricultural Land Commission. We’re readying the application that will be going to the Agricultural Land Commission very soon — almost, not necessarily exactly, concurrent with the submission of the environmental assessment office application.

Those are two processes that the applications will be in on very soon. On the ALC side, we expect that to happen over the next month to six weeks, maybe two months at the most. At that point, it will be absolutely publicly available as to every single square inch of land that needs to be taken for the project and every square inch of land that we propose to give back for the project. That will be coming very soon.

The only other thing I…. I’m not certain if there are any other questions on agriculture. But I just wanted to…. For the record, we also anticipate — we’ve been working with the Farmers Institute on this — that there will be significant drainage improvements provided to the farming community that will come as part of this bridge. That’s very good.

There will be access improvements. We’ve also heard loud and clear from a lot of the farmers that they look forward to the reliability that comes with the bridge in terms of the transport of their products, which I think is an important part of the discussion as well.
[ Page 12475 ]

C. Trevena: When the submission goes to the ALC and as the project moves on, is the minister concerned about, effectively, land speculation? We’re talking about a big project where there is going to be, I’m assuming, purchase of land and land dealings impacting, again, the $3.5 billion cost of the project.

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of any concern relating to speculation that could arise from this project in light of the fact that we do need to acquire some land to move forward with the project, we have factored that into our business case. We have factored some risk consideration for that.

We don’t expect there to be much speculation, because the pieces of land in question are very small. We’re talking about a lot of slivers of land through the entire corridor as opposed to a big chunk of land in any one place. So I’m not too concerned, frankly, about speculation. We certainly don’t view it as a significant risk. To the extent that there may be some risk there, we have factored that into the business case.

V. Huntington: Just a quick follow-up on the agricultural issue. Certainly, the farmers are very pleased about the opportunity for increasing the drainage and irrigation components of the agricultural system within Delta. They’re very happy with that.

[1710]

They remain very concerned, however, that the removal of the tunnel is going to affect the salt wedge, and they’re extremely concerned that that’s going to interfere with all of the drainage upgrades that went on during the construction of the SFPR.

The minister and his staff, or at least the minister’s staff — how are they working with the institute on this? Are they studying this issue, a go-round with climate science in mind and with the obvious sea rising as time goes by? What is the ministry doing in regard to the really substantial and serious concerns about the movement of that salt wedge?

Hon. T. Stone: I share the member’s concern. We certainly do not want to do anything that in any way is going to compromise the existing drainage, and we certainly have heard that from a number of farmers and the institute. We’ve had very regular meetings with the institute. We will continue to do that.

The external consultants that we have brought in to actually do the analysis on this and provide us with their technical expertise are very confident that, because the tunnel is actually just resting on the bottom of the river, its removal is not going to compromise the drainage in any way.

I would point out, as well, that this will inevitably, and rightfully so, be one of the series of considerations that the environmental assessment process will examine. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is on the working group, as part of the EAO process. There will be a lens applied, rightfully so, from an environmental perspective on this component of the project to make absolutely certain that we’re able to quantify what, if any, impacts there could be as a result of the removal of the tunnel.

[1715]

C. Trevena: I think the minister and his staff will be pleased to know we’re almost coming to an end of questions about the Massey replacement project. My questions are, possibly, moving forward. There has been quite a lot of concern from local government about the plan.

Richmond is, obviously, directly impacted by it. They had, in January, a very, very full — I’m sure the minister said — motion from the general purpose committee that the council approved, which was asking a number of questions of the minister. This was followed up by other resolutions in February, again, asking for movement from the federal side for an environmental assessment, and provincially for copies of all the studies on some of the things we’ve been talking about, and that a letter be sent to the Auditor General requesting comments on the process leading up to how the decision was made.

Likewise, Metro Vancouver has talked about the tunnel and is very concerned about the bridge working in contradiction to the regional growth strategy plan that it has.

I’m wondering how the minister is answering these questions from other levels of government. Local governments, obviously, are dealing with this day to day and will be dealing with this for many, many years to come.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I appreciate the member inquiring about a bit more detail on the engagement, the consultations, the meetings that have taken place with the various stakeholders. As we have canvassed, I think, quite extensively this afternoon, there have been three public rounds of consultation.

[1720]

Local governments and chambers of commerce and First Nations and others, including many, many citizens, have participated in those three extensive rounds of public consultation.

In addition to that, at the staff level, in the last three years there have been no less than 70 meetings between staff in the project team and the city of Richmond. There have been 70 meetings with Delta. There have been 20 meetings at the staff level with Metro Vancouver. There have been at least 20 meetings with TransLink. There have been over 100 meetings with the various First Nations.

There is certainly no question, whatsoever, that to this point the project team has been very willing to meet with local governments. Of course, this is on top of the very regular meetings with the cycling community; the farmer’s institute, as we talked about previously; the port; gateway councils and folks right across the entire spectrum.
[ Page 12476 ]

As I was mentioning earlier, the environmental assessment process…. We’re in the pre-application phase at the moment. There is a working group that has been struck. That working group has representation from a number of federal agencies, like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in addition to First Nations, local governments. Metro Vancouver has several staff that are sitting on the working group, so there will be opportunity there, as well, for input and engagement.

Then last but not least, certainly every single letter from Delta or Richmond or Metro Vancouver or TransLink that has been provided to the project team — inquiring about different aspects of the project or outlining concerns that these organizations might have — have been answered. Our project team endeavours to respond in writing when they receive requests in writing.

We also have a terrific team from Geoff Freer right on down. The project team prefers to meet in person where and when possible, as well, and that’s what they do every single day of the week when people request those meetings.

So that’s the broad, sort of, scope of engagement that has taken place. Of course, moving forward, there will be one more public comment period as part of the environmental assessment process. There is the Agricultural Land Commission process, and certainly, we’re still very keen to continue to meet with Metro Vancouver, and particularly, Delta and Richmond, on an ongoing and continuous basis moving forward with this project.

C. Trevena: The minister didn’t actually answer my question about their concerns.

These are political concerns. The Richmond council, the city of Richmond, has made very clear their concerns, and likewise, Metro Vancouver has said categorically that the planned bridge is in contravention to their regional growth strategy. So you’ve got one level of government that has its own plans for its own region that is questioning the minister’s and the government’s plans for this piece of infrastructure.

So how will the minister square the circle?

It seems like the minister is, obviously, pushing full steam ahead on the $3.5 billion bridge, and these concerns seem to be being talked out. I wonder if the minister can tell me how he is actually dealing with this.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I appreciate the question. I think that we deliver the best results for the taxpayers that we all serve when we all work together, and that needs to involve being collaborative and also being respectful.

We came out of the gates very, very clearly and strongly when the mayors announced their ten-year plan, which we thought was a very good plan. It’s a plan that, I think, they’re maybe refining a little bit at the moment, but generally is still, in their minds, their transportation plan for the region.

[1725]

We support their aspirations in that plan. That’s why we’ve committed to putting one-third into a replaced Pattullo Bridge. That’s why we’ve committed one-third to the rapid transit projects. We’re talking billions of dollars here of provincial commitment to the rapid transit projects in Surrey and Vancouver, as well as upgraded SkyTrain stations and enhanced SeaBus service for North Vancouver and more frequent bus service across the region.

We’ve invested $2.4 billion on the transit side in the Lower Mainland, and we’re very proud of that. I won’t recite everything I said yesterday about our record on transit, which we believe is a very good one. We lead the nation.

It’s important to invest on the highways and bridge side of the equation as well, which is why we support the Mayors Council’s intention to replace the Pattullo. It’s why we also believe that the George Massey Tunnel needs to be replaced.

It mystifies me to some extent why there continue to be some, not all but some, members of the Mayors Council, some of the locally elected officials in the Lower Mainland, who are not able or willing to embrace the importance of alleviating the single largest congestion point in the province of British Columbia, which is at the George Massey Tunnel, while recognizing that there’s that project and there’s a whole bunch of others in the Lower Mainland that all need to be done.

We need to invest in transit, no question. We have need to invest in highway capacity on the North Shore. We’re doing that. We need to invest in the George Massey Tunnel replacement. That’s why we’re moving forward with that.

I will say the transformation with the mayor of Richmond on this project has been quite something to watch. He was actually quoted in — I’m reading it right from the press release — the government release on November 21, 2012. Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie says:

“Traffic congestion is one of the main concerns of our region. Over time the Massey Tunnel has been a major negative factor affecting the efficient movement of both people and goods around our region and in our city.

“We are looking forward to being part of the planning process to replace the Massey Tunnel and working with the province on plans to get traffic flowing freely again throughout the Highway 99 corridor.”

I could not say it any better.

That was Malcolm Brodie, as the mayor, in November of 2012. It’s disconcerting that there has appeared to be a reticence on his part and on the part of some others to embrace what is a critically important, much needed and hugely supported project in his own community, not to mention others across the region.

That being said, we are very willing to continue to sit down with Mayor Brodie and his council, as we are with Lois Jackson, the mayor of Delta, and her council,
[ Page 12477 ]
with TransLink, the Mayors Council generally, Metro Vancouver, First Nations. We will continue to engage with all of the above as we move forward on what is a critical transportation project for the Lower Mainland.

C. Trevena: Not wanting to necessarily speak for, and feeling that I can’t speak for Metro Vancouver, the Mayors Council, those municipalities that are concerned about it…. They clearly, through their growth strategy, their regional plan, have a vision for what they’d like to see the Lower Mainland to be.

They have made that very clear, and it doesn’t include a ten-lane bridge. It includes what was first posited as — we started this discussion earlier this afternoon — the possibility of seismically upgrading the tunnel, the possibility of twinning it and improving transit.

There were plans in 2009 to massively improve transit, which would have already alleviated problems. There is the concern that there will be the bottleneck down the road of the Oak Street Bridge. You have a ten-lane bridge. The traffic, of course, is not all going to Vancouver, into downtown. A certain amount will be going that way, and that will create another bottleneck.

[1730]

While this bridge is clearly a vision for this minister and this government, I think it has to be on the record that it is not a vision for everyone in the province. Also quite troubling is the fact that it’s gone so fast from the announcement, back in 2013, to the shovels in the ground in 2017.

It looks, by all accounts, to be almost politically driven — if I can bring that up here in this nice, calm, collegial atmosphere that we have — just coming up after one election that we’re going to have it, that it’s going to be a replacement, and work’s going to start just around the time of the next election. It does feel like a very politically driven issue, but it is also one that does not reflect the vision that the people who are representing those in the Lower Mainland have for their constituents.

I know that the minister can show the consultation report. I’ve been through it very closely myself. Essentially, we get…. About 24 percent of respondents generally support the project as it was presented. There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. The minister has been answering them this afternoon, and I appreciate that. But I think that we do need to recognize that this is not the dream project for everyone.

With that, I’m going to be moving on now, unless my colleague from Delta South has any further questions here. I’m going to be moving on to….

Interjection.

C. Trevena: Sure. For timing, Evergreen, then a bit of transit and then see where we get to.

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

The committee recessed from 5:31 p.m. to 5:40 p.m.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

C. Trevena: I apologize for this. I had one last question on the Massey replacement, and it’s just been reminded to me. The management of the bridge — is it going to be run as a public-private partnership? Is it going to be run by the Transportation Investment Corporation? What structure is going to be running the new entity?

Hon. T. Stone: The George Massey Tunnel replacement will be…. The intentions, as detailed in the business case, are that it will be a P3. The TI Corp will oversee, certainly, the design and build components, manage the tolling infrastructure and, generally, the tolling related to the bridge, as it does with the Port Mann project.

C. Trevena: Switching to the Evergreen line. I’ve only got, at the moment, one or two questions about it. Again, it comes from Business in Vancouver.

I know that my colleague yesterday from Vancouver–Point Grey was asking about the Evergreen line. The minister explained that his involvement was as Minister of Infrastructure, so hopefully, he will be able to answer this question.

There have been delays in the project because of problems with tunnel boring, attributed to soil conditions. Apparently, the government — and this is coming from a Business in Vancouver article, so please correct me if I’m wrong — has said that the contractor, SNC-Lavalin, accepted the risk of geotechnical conditions in the tunnel, so the government isn’t going to bear the costs of these.

However, it’s reported that there have been more than 75 changes to the project, including additions to the bus loops, costs for art installations, removal of the fare gate barriers at five stations and a radio band upgrade. When the reporter filed an FOI with the Ministry of Transportation, it came back with redacted dollar figures associated with the changes.

I wondered if the minister can explain who actually is responsible for the cost of the change orders and how much this is going to mean the project going over budget.

[1745]

Hon. T. Stone: As I canvassed with the member’s colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey yesterday on a similar line of questions…. I certainly don’t mind reiterating what I said yesterday.

The Evergreen project has had a total project budget of $1.43 billion. That’s made up of the partner contributions from the federal government, the province and TransLink, and there’s a small other contribution as well. That budget has not changed from the very beginning
[ Page 12478 ]
of the project, when it was announced. Now, we can talk about project delays. Maybe the member wants to talk about that in a second question. But in terms of the budget and change orders and unintended or unknown issues that arise during a project of this magnitude, those are two very separate, very different things.

It’s very common, for a project this large and complex, for there to occasionally be change orders. And that’s just where, as you’re going through the project, you determine at a certain point that a particular aspect of the project needs to be refined or amended in some way to address new information that you might have, that you’ve obtained through that part of the project. The process for dealing with the change orders is very clearly detailed in the contract. It’s very clearly spelled out what that process is going to be in terms of sitting down with the contractor and working out what that means in terms of cost.

Very separate from that are unintended issues — things that you can’t really plan for. But they do arise on major projects. Again, it’s a huge project. There have been a number of issues that arose that no one could have predicted. There is a process, again, separate from the change order process, that is built into the contract and that ensures there is the opportunity necessary for that conversation to take place with the contractor and for there to be an agreement arrived at on the cost of those issues — who will pay the cost, whether it is at the exclusive risk of the contractor or whether it will come from within the existing project budget.

Any and all delays and, therefore, added costs related to the tunnel…. As the member knows, I went through this in a lot of detail yesterday as well. There was about a year’s worth of delay that is attributable to the very challenging geotechnical conditions that were encountered by the tunnel-boring machine. Those delays, and any costs associated with those delays, are 100 percent borne by the contractor, not the project budget. They’re not at all in the project budget.

There were a number of other unintended or unknown issues that arose where, after discussion, an arrangement was reached, and the contractor was provided some compensation for those items. The compensation for those items came out of the contingency that was built into the project budget. That’s exactly why you have a contingency in a project of any size, let alone a $1.43 billion project.

Again, to summarize, no change in the project budget overall. The $1.43 billion remains the same. There are built-in processes for both change orders and for unintended, unknown issues.

[1750]

There haven’t been any additional costs borne by the project, particularly for the tunnel-boring, but there have been on some other issues. That has all been covered within the contingencies that are built within the project budget.

C. Trevena: So for the 75 change orders, although there has been compensation to the contractor, that is part of the $1.43 billion project. It’s not in excess of the $1.43 billion project. It is just as a contingency fund that there is a budget line.

The minister is nodding, so I’m taking that as a yes.

Interjection.

C. Trevena: Please do. I have a second question, so please respond.

Hon. T. Stone: Just to provide maximum clarity. Sometimes a change order doesn’t involve any added cost. Sometimes it’s just a slight change in the design. “We’re going to do a little more of this but a little less of that,” so you save money over here, and you take those resources, and you apply them over here.

I just want to make sure the member knows that it’s not always a given that a change order necessarily involves added compensation. But the member is quite correct that that additional…. Any compensation provided to a contractor for a change order comes from within the existing project budget. There’s no addition to the budget as a result.

C. Trevena: I understand that there’s also mediation between the government and the contractor — with SNC-Lavalin. I wondered if the minister could say what the subject of the mediation is about and whether it is about the contractor trying to get recompense for the delays it’s taking for the boring.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, on any project, this being a big one, there are always issues encountered that could not have necessarily been foreseen. Sometimes those issues are raised by the project team; sometimes those issues are raised by the contractor. This is exactly why it’s important to have in the contract a mediation process which guides both parties through that required discussion to arrive at what is fair and reasonable relating to each and every one of the issues raised.

Again, that’s why you, then, also have a contingency built into the budget — so that if issues arise and if the issue results in an agreement between both parties for some additional compensation to be provided to the contractor, it’s coming from a contingency that’s already built within the overall budget.

I can confirm that there have been discussions about the tunnel-boring between the two parties, but the agreement that was reached, at the end of the day, was that no compensation, no added compensation whatsoever, is going to be provided to the contractor for any delays or risks associated with the tunnel-boring. The contractor has agreed to assume all of those risks, 100 percent.
[ Page 12479 ]

D. Routley: How many change orders were there on the Sea to Sky Highway project?

[1755]

Hon. T. Stone: Seeing as the Sea to Sky project was actually delivered and began to be used six years ago, we don’t have those details here with us today. But we do have that information, so I will commit to the member that we’d be more than happy to get back to him very, very soon with a detailed summary of the number of change orders relating to the Sea to Sky project.

D. Routley: I would also ask the minister to provide information as to how many claims there were against the contract in total, in Sea to Sky; how many claims against the contract were made versus change orders; what was the value of those claims; and perhaps a breakdown if possible.

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, there is an obligation as part of the freedom-of-information environment or regulation in the province that we ensure that we protect the confidentiality of commercial information. That being said, certainly, looking through that lens, we will be pleased to provide the member with the information — as much of that information as we possibly can.

D. Routley: Extrapolating from that answer, can I assume, then, that I will receive the value of the claims — if not a specific breakdown as to what they were — and the number of claims, to compare to the change order list?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly — all the while, respecting commercial confidentiality — we’ll endeavour to provide as much of the information as we possibly can that the member is requesting. And we’ll do our best to try and provide it in the format that he’s suggesting as well.

C. Trevena: I hope this isn’t going to cause some problems, because I did say just to the deputy that we’re not going to be doing Port Mann. But this is financing, so hopefully it’s more general.

[1800]

It’s a question that has been given to me. It’s somebody who is very interested in this, and it’s in my list of financial questions. If you can’t give it today, I’d be happy to get a written response. I realize that…. I’m just going through the end of my infrastructure pile here. The question is: what is the interest rate that TI Corp is using to calculate the cost of debt service, and how does it compare to the current provincial cost of borrowing for long-term debt?

Hon. T. Stone: We thought we might have the answer that the member was looking for here. Unfortunately, the Port Mann support staff from TI Corp has just left. But we do have the information, so we will get the comparison that the member is looking for. We might be even able to get that for her tomorrow, and if not, very, very soon thereafter.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that. I’m not sure whether…. I don’t really have any Port Mann questions, so I’m not sure whether it’s worth bringing back the TI Corp people. If I just write these questions down and send them, perhaps we can deal with it that way?

A Voice: Sure.

C. Trevena: Yeah, okay.

I’m going to move on now to just a couple of questions about Highway 1 and the plan for four-laning Highway 1 that I mentioned before — the concern that we’ve had for the Massey Tunnel replacement. It was advertised in 2013, around the election time, going to be delivered in the 2017 election.

We’ve had now two elections already gone by with a promise — the billboards up — for the four-laning. I know that we’re going to go into a third election, and the billboards will still be up. I know that there has been some work done on it, and there is some money committed to it, but I’m wondering why the government is not willing to give, really, the commitment. We’ve got a $3.5 billion project going to free up traffic going into the Metro Vancouver area.

This is — as the minister is aware and talking about trade — a major artery for trade for the province. It is our main highway into the province. It’s used usually by trucks and everything else, and it still doesn’t seem to have the commitment that it needs. I wonder if the minister could explain why it’s still taking so long.

[1805]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, I always appreciate questions about the Trans-Canada Highway. In our government’s commitment to continue four-laning, we made a commitment, which the member refers to, actually back in 2012, for $650 million of provincial capital to be invested in the corridor between Kamloops and the Alberta border.

We believe that we’re going to be able, during that time period…. Recognizing that we’re 3½ years into that, we are on track to spend the $650 million. We also believe that we’re going to be able to leverage the $650 million of provincial funding up to, likely in excess of, $1 billion when we factor in federal government commitments that have either been announced already or that we are in discussions in regards to at the present time.

In terms of the current three-year service plan, there’s…. That’s fiscal ’16-17 to ’18-19. There’s $206 million that’s provincial dollars that are allocated for pro-
[ Page 12480 ]
jects. Those projects include projects currently underway: Monte Creek to Pritchard; Pritchard to Hoffman’s Bluff; Hoffman’s Bluff to Chase Creek west; the replacement of the Malakwa bridge; the Illecillewaet four-laning project. Those are all four-laning projects that have been announced. Most of those involve a federal contribution as well, which is great because, again, that helps us leverage the provincial dollars that much further.

We have provided the federal government with a series of priorities for this corridor, in no particular order. We’ve indicated that the remaining four-kilometre section of the Kicking Horse Canyon, which we estimate could cost upwards of $450 million, is a priority. We believe that’s of national significance — that particular piece.

[1810]

We are very close to having the design done and submitted to the federal government for a project west of Salmon Arm, which would be a very significant improvement, including the replacement of the Salmon River Bridge. There is additional four-laning that we would like to get on with west of Revelstoke — and a few other locations throughout the corridor.

We’re going to spend our $650 million within that ten-year time frame. We’re going to lever that up as much as we can with federal dollars, and it can’t happen too soon, recognizing the importance of this corridor, both from a safety perspective and a trade perspective.

C. Trevena: The minister obviously recognizes the importance of the corridor from a trade perspective and a safety perspective, and yet, as I say, it seems that he’s willing to spend $3.5 billion in a very short time frame for a bridge that he has argued for, for the economy and for the importance of that region. I would suggest that Highway 1 has importance to the whole province, right the way across the province. It is our main artery, and it’s surprising that we’re still not seeing that real financial as well as work commitment that is necessary to make it both a safe and productive corridor.

I have, on behalf of my colleague for Columbia River–Revelstoke, a specific question on the highway, and that is the slumping at Heather Hill. The highway was closed again last week. It is a continual problem, and there’s very much a desire to know when that will be dealt with.

Hon. T. Stone: The location that the member just referenced — we are certainly very well aware of the situation that is taking place there. This is actually east of Rogers Pass in Glacier National Park. So it’s actually part of the federal highway system. It’s not part of British Columbia’s highway network, so it’s actually a federal responsibility to address the issues there.

I’m advised by staff that they’re in regular contact with their federal counterparts. Obviously, it’s one corridor, so that collaboration is really important. The federal staff are doing some slope stabilization and looking at other strategies that would represent more of a long-term fix for this particular location. But, again, it’s part of the federal highway system, and so it’s their responsibility.

C. Trevena: And finally — hopefully, finally, for this year — on Highway 1, the lines. I mean, the minister has driven the road. I’ve driven the road. The paint every spring…. It’s seriously dangerous. You’re going up a hill, and if you don’t know the road, you don’t know who’s got the passing lane, who’s got the right to be coming down the middle or going up the middle. There are sections that are, you know…. Even people who know the road tell me that it is very frightening to be going out when you don’t have that clarity.

[1815]

I know that we have this constant discussion about the lead-free paint and the fact that it washes off, and every year the minister says: “We’re looking for something new.” Have we found something? What can be done to ensure, particularly on dangerous highways, that the paint is kept up to standard?

Hon. T. Stone: The member raises a question which is probably the number one issue that I hear about in every corner of the province. I hear about it up north, certainly anywhere that there is snow and four defined seasons. I hear it in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island, where it’s more about rain.

The simple reality is that the member is quite correct, and she and I have spoken about this previously. The federal regulation changed due to the high VOC content of the paint we previously used — the volatile organic compounds. That was an environmental regulation at the federal level. Fair enough, but it certainly poses a safety issue, which we’re well aware of.

There is no paint composite that we’ve been able to find, frankly — nor has any other province been able to find one; nor have most states that we’ve talked to been able to find one — that is as durable as the paint that we used to use. This is an issue that we are grappling with right across the country.

To that end, though…. The member is quite right. I have suggested that we are trying to do everything we can to figure this out, and to that end, we’re confident that we’ll come up with a made-in-B.C. solution.

We actually proceeded with a pilot project in three different locations last spring that we are going to test for four seasons. We’re just about through the third season now. Three pilot locations. One is just barely north of Kamloops, the second is in Prince George, and the third is in Maple Ridge. We’ve actually taken about 20 different compounds of paint that we’ve developed, and we’ve applied them in lines across the highways in these three different locations.

The paints vary in colour, thickness, the beading quality and so forth. I’m advised by staff that several of the
[ Page 12481 ]
composites that we’ve painted, actually, are showing some promise, that there may be some durability there. So I’m hopeful that we will get through one more season and we’ll be able to evaluate the results and identify one of the composites that we’ve developed here in British Columbia that will solve this problem. And maybe this is something that we can license and sell to other jurisdictions in Canada.

At the end of the day, the member is correct. It is a huge safety issue. It really is, and it’s one that I’m determined to fix.

D. Donaldson: I have an infrastructure funding–related question around the Heart of the Hazeltons, the Upper Skeena recreation centre project. I’d like to get an update, and the members of the community owners group are interested in an update on a particular component of the funding.

I just want to bring the minister up to speed on the latest. The owners committee has commissioned the detailed design of the building, so they’re ready to go to tender. The hope is that the work will begin this fall, in 2016, which means in the 2017 season the communities will still be without a recreation centre.

Further delay could mean the loss of another year and another season on top, especially when you consider the weather-related aspects where construction has to begin at a certain time of the year in order to get certain components of the work done before the cold winter weather sets in.

[1820]

Already in 2015-16, the community didn’t have a facility, but as the minister likely knows, they made the best of it and were able to, through volunteer effort, have an outdoor facility on artificial ice that I skated on myself. It was a beautiful experience, but not the best experience for trying to have an extended season. To have what the community really wants and needs, it’s not the most ideal.

The minister will likely know that Dr. Peter Newbery is leading the fundraising committee. He recently met with your staff, who’ve been very helpful. So $5 million has been raised locally. From what Dr. Newbery tells me, money from gas tax has been applied for and identified, but there’s still a shortfall federally that potentially could be identified from earlier unused Build Canada projects.

What I’m told is that the province — members of the minister’s staff — is working on it with the feds. The owners committee appreciates that, but they want to emphasize that time is of the essence. Can the minister advise on how the conversation with the federal government is progressing on that aspect and if he has an idea of when an announcement might be made in regards to this funding?

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I very much appreciate the member raising this question. I think we’ve talked about it. This is probably the third year, maybe the fourth year, in a row. On the one hand, it disappoints me that we are still talking about it. On the other hand, I really want to assure the member that this is a project that I very much want to see happen.

[1825]

It’s been a challenge of moving parts between the very good work, the funds that have been raised locally and the availability of some federal dollars. Obviously, I will ensure that now the province is there as a partner, as well, in some capacity.

In terms of where we’re at, part of the complication was the changeover in federal governments. We were making some really good progress and looking creatively at certain options with the previous federal government, and there was a change in government. That being said, I’ve personally raised this project with the Minister of Infrastructure federally. I have personally spoken about this project to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs federally — her office.

At the senior-most staff level, we have profiled this project as a priority for British Columbia. My understanding is that the discussions are going very well. We’re encouraged, very much encouraged, that there will be some gas tax funds allocated to this project.

We’re also encouraged that the federal government is seriously considering an additional contribution from one of the handful of components of the Build Canada fund. Then, as I said, the province would very much, I think, be willing to be a part of moving this project forward as well.

They say patience is a virtue. I certainly am going to continue to do everything I can — as the member, I know, is — to once and for all push this project over the finish line with our federal partners so that the work can actually be done, preferably this construction season.

We know that’s certainly the stated intention of the new federal government. They want to see projects just like this one move forward, and move forward in the current construction season, and I would certainly share that sentiment. So my efforts will continue to try and make that happen.

C. Trevena: Going back to highways and infrastructure — I hope that I’m right in looking at highways and infrastructure — and maybe crossing over a little between them, I’ve got a couple of questions. Unfortunately, I keep putting off the transit questions. We will definitely get to transit tomorrow if we don’t get onto it a little, start into it, today.

My questions on highways and infrastructure. One is that we’ve been talking about major projects — Evergreen; touched on Port Mann; obviously, the Massey replacement. I wondered if the ministry has a list of prequalified
[ Page 12482 ]
bidders that it recognizes, and whether it can share that with me, for its major projects.

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to major projects, like the George Massey Tunnel replacement project, it is very common to put a call out for qualifications. That’s recognizing that these are huge projects that have the potential to strain the capabilities or the resources of many companies.

[1830]

We do an initial qualifications call. Maybe on a major project, let’s say we received six or seven responses to that. We would whittle that down to, perhaps, a list of three or four. We would then have an RFP process that those firms would engage and participate in.

On the smaller projects — so a four-laning section of the Trans-Canada Highway or the McKenzie interchange project here in Victoria, for example — there’s no prequalification process. There’s no list of prequalified contractors that we draw from. These smaller projects are open-tendering RFP processes.

C. Trevena: But on the bigger projects, there are lists of prequalified bidders. There are people that…. The minister just said that there isn’t a list for the smaller ones, which implies that there is a list for the larger ones, or there is an awareness of which companies are likely to be bidding on any given project. I’m wondering if the minister could share that knowledge.

Hon. T. Stone: There is no master list of prequalified contractors, even for the big projects. What we do on the big projects is a request for qualifications, an RFQ, where we put that call out. That’s intended to filter the companies, the contractors that may enter the RFP process. It’s intended to filter them, recognizing that in some of these huge projects, there are only certain firms that would have the capabilities, expertise and resources to deliver.

Once we do that RFQ…. That, again, is an open call. It’s not an RFQ to a select group of companies. It’s an absolutely open call for qualifications. We whittle that list down, and then there’s an RFP on that smaller list.

That’s for the major projects. Every other project, as I mentioned, is just a standard, wide-open RFP tendering process.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to ask briefly about the capital spending on highways. Comparing this year’s budget to last, we’ve got the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority increasing by 32 percent since last year. Last year, the budget forecast that the Transportation Financing Authority would spend $1.4 billion for 2016-17. This year it’s forecasting $1.8 billion for those two years. That’s about a 32 percent increase, $438 million.

Within the budget, the table on provincial transportation investments shows increase in the major highway corridors and roads: last year, a budget of $103 million, and now the project is projecting $188 million for the 2016-17 fiscal, which is an $85 million increase, 83 percent. There’s also an increase in other transportation programs from $50 million to $98 million, which is about 96 percent.

I’m just wondering what is behind these large increases to highway capital funding for the sections “Major highway corridors and roads” and “Other transportation programs”?

[1835]

Hon. T. Stone: I just wanted to clarify. Maybe the member could just nod. I think the question was the increase in the total spend, as projected over the three-year service plan: the difference from last year’s three-year view to this year’s three-year view for major highway corridors — correct? — and other transportation programs. Those are the two? Okay.

I mean, essentially what this comes down to is the cash flow of projects which are contained within each of these line items. An example would be the Admirals-McKenzie interchange that we’re moving forward with here in Victoria. In last year’s view, the project had not been announced, and furthermore, we weren’t going to be actually beginning work on that project until later this year.

In this year’s view, that project is going to be started at the end of this calendar year, so it’ll be reflected in terms of cash outlay and actually doing the construction work over the three-quarters of this fiscal year that we’re in, the three following quarters.

[1840]

It’s really just when projects are…. It’s when we actually begin the construction on them and actually start incurring costs. Admirals-McKenzie is probably the best example that I can give. That is an example of a project under the “Major highway corridors and roads.”

Another example is: we have a six-laning project at 216th on the Trans-Canada Highway out in Langley. It involves continued six-laning as well as the interchange at 216th. Again, that’s a project that we’re now moving forward with, and our spend on that project is going to ramp up over the forthcoming fiscal year.

C. Trevena: I have two questions, and I’m very aware of the time.

It’s still as significant that we’ve got, in the “Other transportation programs,” a 96 percent increase. I mean, that’s doubling. What accounts for that? Secondly, even with these ones coming on stream…. I understand what the minister is saying. We were talking earlier about the timing of certain projects in the election cycle, so I’d like to know how many new projects happen to be coming on stream this year.

Hon. T. Stone: In the “Other transportation programs” — that line item of the TIP table — these are expendi-
[ Page 12483 ]
tures that are related to different transportation projects other than the major highways and highway corridors and so forth.

As the member will remember, we announced B.C. On the Move, our ten-year transportation plan, last March. We included in that plan a significant increase in funding for cycling projects, for our air access airport infrastructure program. The airport infrastructure program is going to be $8 million this year. I think it was $6 million last year; it’s $8 million this year; it’s $10 million next year.

There are investments in renewing the inland ferry fleet — a number of the cable ferries and reaction ferries — which is out there publicly. I think we’re doing a project of three that we’ve just announced that will be built in Nakusp — and an array of other projects, like truck parking, for example. We profiled improvements to rest areas and truck parking and staging areas in B.C. On the Move. It’s really a reflection of our intention to invest more in these new and emerging areas of our transportation program.

C. Trevena: The minister didn’t talk about, actually, the highway projects that are going to be coming on stream that have ramped up by 32 percent. We’re talking about a number of significant highway projects that are being announced. The number has, I understand, gone up from last year, and that accounted for the 32 percent increase.

I see what the minister is saying about bringing ones on stream and that others have finished, but I wanted to know, comparatively, how many new projects are getting on stream this year over last year.

[1845]

Hon. T. Stone: I think the best response to the member’s question in terms of the number of projects is really to just say this. In any given year, we manage about 400 projects provincewide in the highways department.

Some are capacity-building. Some are rehabilitation-related. Every year is a little bit different. Some is a bit more rehab. Other years it’s a bit more capacity. We anticipate for this forthcoming year that, again, a total project count will be in and around that 400 number.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:46 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada