Second Session, 41st Parliament (2017)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 48
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
Hon. R. Fleming | |
J. Thornthwaite | |
M. Elmore | |
J. Tegart | |
A. Kang | |
T. Stone | |
M. Dean | |
I. Paton | |
Hon. C. Trevena | |
J. Sturdy | |
S. Furstenau | |
Hon. M. Mungall | |
S. Furstenau | |
Hon. M. Mungall | |
M. Lee | |
Hon. J. Horgan | |
J. Martin | |
D. Barnett | |
Hon. M. Farnworth | |
Orders of the Day | |
Hon. C. Trevena | |
J. Sturdy | |
T. Stone | |
D. Clovechok | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
D. Ashton | |
Hon. S. Fraser | |
E. Ross | |
C. Oakes | |
A. Olsen | |
J. Rustad | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2017
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. C. James: We have a number of hard-working board members, directors and staff visiting us from credit unions across the province. They’re here to talk to all members about the incredible contribution that credit unions make to the economy in British Columbia, to small businesses and to communities in their contribution.
I’d like to introduce Shelley McDade, CEO for Sunshine Coast Credit Union; Michael Strukoff, board chair of Grand Forks Credit Union; Betty Baxter, director of Sunshine Coast Credit Union; Dave Cunningham, vice-president of public affairs and communications, Coast Capital Savings; Anna Hardy, director of governance and legislation affairs, BlueShore Financial; Angela Kaiser, director of Prospera Credit Union; Ron Dau, who is assistant vice-president, First West Credit Union; Richard Hill, director, First West Credit Union; Jeff Shewfelt, co-CEO for G and F Financial Group; Lauren Dobell, director of strategic partnerships and advocacy, Vancity; and Darlene Hyde, director of Westminster Savings.
I’d like the House to please thank them for their incredible work and welcome them to the gallery.
Hon. S. Fraser: I always feel honoured and privileged to be known as the MLA for Mid Island–Pacific Rim. One of the most dynamic communities in my constituency — indeed, the entire province — is the district of Tofino. One of the reasons for that dynamism is the mayor. This mayor, in the last election, won by acclamation, which is a wonderful thing to do. I can just imagine that. But would this House please join me in welcoming my good friend Mayor Josie Osborne.
T. Redies: I’d also like to welcome the credit union folks. I worked with a number of them over the years, and it was a real privilege. I’d like to acknowledge two friends in the House: Ken Voth, the director of First West Credit Union, and Bill Brown, director of Westminster Savings Credit Union. So nice to see you all.
M. Stilwell: Today in the House I’d like to welcome Janet Smukowich from my community. She is an active volunteer and dear friend. She’s somebody who worked tirelessly on my campaign, on many campaigns, and is a strong member of the B.C. Liberal Party with the Womens Network. I know she’s a dear friend of many in the House today, so would the House please make her feel welcome.
Tributes
TONY HUNT JR.
Hon. R. Fleming: I rise to mark the passing of a great person who we lost too soon recently. Tony Hunt Jr. was a celebrated artist, dancer, family man and long-time contributor to our community here in greater Victoria.
Tony Hunt Jr. was part of a long line of First Nations carvers on Vancouver Island, including his grandfather, Henry Hunt, and his great-grandfather, Mungo Martin. Tony’s father, Tony Hunt Sr., and his uncles Richard Hunt and Stan Hunt are also accomplished artists.
Tony was renowned for his unique take on the traditional Kwakwaka’wakw style. His carvings have been showcased at the Royal B.C. Museum and the Burke Museum in Seattle and can be found in museums around the world.
Tony was also a great collaborator with the greater Victoria school district on many, many projects. In 2015, he donated four months to carving a totem pole to mark the 100th anniversary of École Quadra Elementary, in my constituency in Victoria. He also took the time to set up a carving tent where he shared his knowledge and the story behind the totem with students.
Tony is remembered by the local community as a kind, quiet and deeply spiritual man. He will be missed. He was honoured at a memorial at Mungo Martin House at the Royal B.C. Museum — fittingly, the house built and named after his great-grandfather.
I would ask that members join me in offering our condolences to the family of Tony Hunt Jr.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BUSINESS AWARD RECIPIENTS
IN NORTH
VANCOUVER
J. Thornthwaite: Next Thursday, November 9, will mark the North Vancouver chamber’s 20th Annual Business Excellence Awards gala. This sold-out event recognizes and celebrates the outstanding achievements of the members of the local North Vancouver business community and is the chamber’s most popular event of the year.
Plus, Capilano University students from the Nat and Flora Bosa Centre for Film and Animation are connected with the finalists and do Academy Award–style videos on each finalist, which are also judged by film experts.
I would like to give recognition to this year’s 2017 award finalists: for community contribution, North Shore Crisis Services Society, Seymour Salmonid Society, Vancouver Adaptive Snow Sports; for innovation, Burrard Pharmaceuticals Enterprises, Novarc Technologies and Yocale; for service excellence, Leah’s Automotive, Tour de Feast restaurant and Zazou Salon and Academy; for young entrepreneur, Eric Savics and Danny Hagge, Miranda Widgery-Webber and Shae de Jaray; for business person of the year, Bryce Eyton, Ross Forman and Dr. Shehla Ebrahim; for business of the year, ePACT Network, Sartori Environmental Services and Sprucehill Contracting.
I would like the House to please join me in congratulating all of these award finalists, as well as the North Vancouver Chamber as they celebrate 20 years of business excellence in North Vancouver. I look forward to congratulating with you next Thursday.
COMMUNITY LIVING
M. Elmore: October is Community Living Month in British Columbia. It’s a time to recognize and celebrate the contributions and potential of people with developmental disabilities in our communities. It’s also a time to acknowledge and thank the people, support workers and organizations across our province working to build communities that include people of all abilities to live lives of dignity, respect and opportunity.
Community inclusion is about supporting people of all abilities to live more independent, inclusive lives. It’s about being included where you live, go to school, work and play. And building inclusive communities is good for all of us. When we remove the barriers, everyone feels welcome.
Our government is committed to building a better B.C. for people of all abilities. Since forming government, we’ve acted quickly to improve supports for people on disability assistance. We’ve increased rates by $100 a month and launched a new transportation supplement to address long-standing concerns from the disability community. We also increased earning exemptions so that people can keep more of the money they earn.
These are just the first steps. Soon we will begin to work on a poverty reduction strategy consultation that will include voices from across British Columbia on how we can continue to make life better for people in our province.
Building community inclusion can be done in so many ways, and it’s important to recognize those who are making a difference. Each year at this time, Community Living B.C. launches the annual Widening Our World or WOW! awards to recognize British Columbians who are leading the way, people working to create a province that we’re all proud to call home. I encourage everyone to visit the CLBC website before November 30 to nominate people they know who are working to create inclusive communities where everyone is welcoming.
During Community Living Month, all British Columbians have the opportunity to celebrate diverse abilities and to think about how each of us can make our communities more welcoming for people of all abilities. We all have a role to play in ensuring people with disabilities can fully participate in society, and I encourage everyone to think about what they can do to make their communities more inclusive and welcoming for people of all abilities.
STEELHEAD PROJECT
IN FRASER-NICOLA
AREA
J. Tegart: I rise in this House today to speak about a project that has recently been completed in my riding of Fraser-Nicola. I have the honour to serve as the co-chair of the B.C. Liberal steelhead caucus. We have built relationships with many volunteer organizations that focus on the sustainability of this iconic fish.
Steelhead populations are suffering for various reasons, including increasing ocean temperatures, habitat debilitation on land and unselective salmon fishing practices. In 2014, a rockslide put a huge rock and some pieces of a failed bridge foundation into the Coquihalla River near Hope. This blocked the migration of steelhead in the river.
In partnership with a coalition of B.C. organizations, including the Wildlife Federation, the Federation of Drift Fishers, Steelhead Society and fly fishers and the province of B.C., we identified the importance of removing this blockage to assist in the spawning of the steelhead. Funding for the project was provided by the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C., the Steelhead Society, Kingfishers Rod and Gun Club, and the province of B.C.
In September of this year, the rock-blasting charge whittled down the blockage into smaller pieces. High water flows of the fall and winter will force those smaller pieces out of the way. To quote spokesperson Shaun Hollingsworth: “Now the steelhead are going to be able to get upstream to the spawning areas of the river. It will also provide angling and fishing opportunities for recreational fishermen. This is great for the economy in Hope and for B.C. as a whole.”
I’d like to acknowledge the work of Shaun Hollingsworth in coordinating and overseeing this project. We look forward to improved counts of steelhead returning to the river. That is what it’s all about.
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS
A. Kang: October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. October 31 is not just Halloween and ghosts, and monsters aren’t the only things that haunt us. Today also marks the end of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which raises awareness of what truly haunts us — breast cancer. It has taken the lives of many Canadians as the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in Canadian women, after lung cancer.
In 2016, breast cancer was the most common cancer diagnosed in Canadian women. One in four cancers diagnosed in women in Canada were breast cancer. The risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer also increases with age. In 2016, it was estimated that 83 percent of new breast cancer cases would occur in Canadian women over the age of 50, compared to 17 percent under the age of 50.
As the population of B.C. continues to age, we must make sure we can take care of British Columbians by encouraging them to get their routine screenings. The earlier we can detect breast cancers, the earlier we can take action and save lives. Although male breast cancer is rare, we should not overlook it as we continue our battle against breast cancer.
I applaud the breast cancer charities for leading this battle, as they continue to raise breast cancer awareness as well as funds for research into the cause, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure. Their efforts have prevented breast cancer from taking the lives of many Canadian women.
Breast cancer deaths have decreased 44 percent since their peak in 1987. Early detection, regular mammography screening, advances in screening technology and improved treatments all have played an important role in reducing breast cancer deaths. But there is still much work to be done.
On the last day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, in addition to raising breast cancer awareness, I strongly encourage British Columbians to take action against breast cancer and get their mammography screening today.
RAE FAWCETT BREAST HEALTH CLINIC
IN
KAMLOOPS
T. Stone: Today and also as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I am proud to acknowledge the recent opening of the Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic, a clinic giving the Kamloops region access to centralized outpatient services, greatly reducing wait times for breast cancer diagnosis.
Before the clinic’s recent opening, patients in and near Kamloops had a much longer and sometimes frustrating path to receiving the life-changing news of a diagnosis, and such a diagnosis would often require multiple appointments and follow-up consultations.
Thanks to the opening of the Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic, Kamloops now has a new, integrated system that will give patients access to a single-visit triple assessment comprised of a clinical examination, diagnostic imaging and breast cancer diagnosis in one trip. This integrated and coordinated pathway at this state-of-the-art new clinic will speed up the time for everything from testing to surgical referral.
All of this would not have been possible without longtime Kamloops philanthropists Rae and Ron Fawcett. The Fawcetts have been incredibly generous in stepping up to support many worthwhile community initiatives, from arts programs to our hospital to our university. Their $1 million contribution to the Royal Inland Hospital Foundation helped create both the Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic and the Rae Fawcett Simulation Centre.
This generous gift will have a lasting and major impact on patient care in Kamloops and the surrounding areas, as it not only helps to improve breast health outcomes but also provides valuable training opportunities for health professionals.
I ask all members of the House to join me in applauding Ron and Rae Fawcett, as well as the hard work of the Royal Inland Hospital Foundation, for making this breast health clinic a reality for the people of Kamloops and the surrounding area.
WILD ARC
M. Dean: A small and shy songbird made it into the history books in my constituency last month. A rescued Swainson’s thrush was the 40,000th wild patient treated at the Wild Animal Rehabilitation Centre, Wild ARC, in Metchosin. The facility opened in 1997, and during their first year, they helped just over 1,500 wild patients. Now celebrating their 20th anniversary year, Wild ARC treats twice as many animals in need.
This isn’t only because they’re better known and very well established. It’s also because of increasing urbanization into wild areas. Most of the animals that come for help come because of human activity that has led to an animal being injured or orphaned, and then they need the special care and treatment of the Wild ARC team.
The team is amazing, with high professional credentials, a love for animals and 250 volunteers who give over 25,000 hours of service a year. They’re responsible for all of the care and transportation of the animals, raising awareness about wild animals in need. They offer education to children and the community — although, of course, Wild ARC is not open to the public, to ensure all the patients can recover in a stress-free environment. In most successful cases, the healed patient is released back into the wild.
The facility plays a critical role in wildlife welfare and education for the entire community, says Dr. Sara Dubois, the chief scientific officer, and is a model facility for training and innovation in the professional field of wildlife rehabilitation.
I wish to say congratulations to everyone involved for all of their work over the past 20 years, and may we all please wish them the best for the next decades.
Oral Questions
MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
I. Paton: Nearly two months ago the minister announced what she called a technical review of the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. Yet at the same time, she went to great pains to tell British Columbians: “We’re not going back to square one.”
Well, it seems that someone forgot to tell the Finance Minister. You see, in estimates last week, she made it clear. The budget for the replacement has been completely been removed. And the millions spent so far, including $66 million by the province and $25 million by B.C. Hydro…. According to the Finance Minister, this money is “a write-off.” So it is back to square one.
The traffic, my goodness, the traffic…. Now that fall is upon us, winter is upon us, darkness, rain and increased crashes, it’s becoming worse and worse every day in this old George Massey Tunnel.
My question to the Minister of Transportation: are the commuters who are stuck in B.C.’s worst bottleneck also a write-off, and if not, can she give a specific date for construction of a replacement — any sort of replacement?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m delighted to talk about a prudent approach to constructing our infrastructure that we so desperately need in this province.
We acknowledge there is a problem on the Highway 99 corridor, and we’re going to be addressing that. We want to get the right solution. We want to make sure that we are looking at all the options as well as engaging with the Lower Mainland elected officials, who were shut out by last government.
We want to make sure we have a collaborative approach and that when we’re investing the billions of dollars necessary to make that crossing work, we are doing the right solution.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.
I. Paton: That is quite a comment, that the public was shut out of the engagement of replacing the tunnel. Two hundred and fifty meetings with farmers, with residents, with stakeholders — that is being shut out?
Construction was supposed to be underway right now on the George Massey Tunnel replacement. Years of planning has gone into this project. Hundreds of meetings and rounds of consultations were held. There are over 14,000 pages of documentation on the minister’s own website. Despite all of this, the minister announced a technical review nearly eight weeks ago.
To the Minister of Transportation, British Columbians have heard and seen nothing over the last eight weeks. What is the status of her sham review, when will the report be made public, and will she table the terms of reference today?
Hon. C. Trevena: This is, of course, a serious issue. We know that we have a problem with congestion on Highway 99. We want to get the right solution. But many of the people who were consulted did not like the approach that that government took, when the opposition was in government. They did not like the approach. Even the former Minister of Transportation acknowledged that they did not engage sufficiently with people who represented the Lower Mainland when they were in government.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a second supplemental.
I. Paton: Again we’re told that the citizens, the stakeholders, were not consulted and did not agree. There were five options put forward as the best option to replace the George Massey Tunnel. Time and time again, a new bridge over the existing Highway 99 corridor came up as the most favourable and environmentally favourable option.
I will remind the minister that the George Massey Tunnel is once again the worst bottleneck in this province, and 80,000 people a day are stuck in traffic and rush hour in that tunnel. Trucks are still idling, stuck idling, at a significant cost to our economy. Commuters are missing medical appointments. Commuters are late for work every morning. The people who deal with this every day deserve some clear answers on when something will be done to fix the congestion.
To the minister: will you at least — at the very least, what we’re looking for — table the terms of reference to this phantom review that is taking place on the tunnel replacement?
Hon. C. Trevena: The member from Delta is angry, clearly upset, about what we have or haven’t done in eight weeks. That side of the House had 16 years — 16 years in which they clearly got it wrong. I would ask the member from Delta….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response, please.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d ask the member from Delta, if he feels so confident about public buy-in, that he talk to his colleagues from Richmond and hear how happy they are with the proposal for the ten-lane bridge.
Even, as I say, the former Minister of Transportation said earlier this month that there was too much politics in the solution that that side of the House found. “There was too much tension. Too much political calculation. We need to stop telling local communities and regions what is best for them and start engaging with them to improve the places where we live, work and play.” That is exactly what we are doing.
J. Sturdy: Well, we certainly do understand that the Minister of Transportation is fond of engaging in reviews and is excelling in avoiding answering basic questions. So far, she has refused to give a timeline or specific date when she will bring in the rules for ride sourcing, despite breaking that spring promise to introduce the rules this year. Now she refuses to give a date on when she will do anything about the congestion at the Massey Tunnel.
The minister wants us to believe that despite what the Minister of Finance has said, she hasn’t written off commuters stuck in Massey Tunnel gridlock.
The question to the minister is very simple. To repeat it, when will she introduce to the House the terms of reference for the study that she announced two months ago?
Hon. C. Trevena: We keep hearing the opposition talking about writing things off and the loss of revenue. We have made an investment. We accept there’s been an investment made in land bought and in preload delivered. There is investment there. We know that this is going to be an expensive project. That side of the House had it at $3.6 billion, and we know how cost-effective they’ve been. We would have seen it ratchet up and ratchet up and ratchet up.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. Trevena: We are going to be doing a review, a technical review. We are engaging with the mayors, and we will be talking about this in our own time, when it is appropriate.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
J. Sturdy: Well, I’d like to say the minister’s answers were unconvincing, but they weren’t even answers here. I’m not sure she’s really listening to the question.
The question was: when will the minister provide to the House the terms of reference for this review? In fact, will she commit to tabling that terms of review today?
Hon. C. Trevena: I do find it very amusing that after 16 years, that side of the House expects us to have all the solutions in eight weeks.
We are going to be consulting with communities, which that side of the House didn’t do, ensuring that we get full engagement and making sure that we do a thorough technical review. But there has been huge criticism about the approach of that side of the House when they were government for 16 years. I quote again…. I asked the member for Richmond to stand up and to ask a few questions.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you may take your seat for a moment. It’s not clear to me that there’s an interest in hearing your answer, because your voice….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, you are…. I’m sorry, but you’re completely drowning out the response. Perhaps we could try this again.
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
They also did not want to listen to the elected officials. I would suggest that the members from Richmond join in this debate, because their own mayor said, when we decided that we were going to consult: “We have been trying to constructively comment on this proposal from the first day it was announced. We have been disregarded and ignored in the questions that we have asked. It’s absolutely critical to the future of our city that there be a re-examination of the project. It’s so important in many different ways.”
We are going to be re-examining it. We are going to be bringing the terms of reference to this House when they are ready. And here we move it.
SITE C POWER PROJECT REVIEW
AND ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY
S. Furstenau: Here we go. In 1983, BCUC recommended against building Site C and directed B.C. Hydro to increase research into alternative energy, including geothermal. Fast forward 30 years, and this work has not been done. The joint review panel that looked at Site C in 2014 once again identified a lack of research and action on exploring other alternatives as a major gap in B.C. Hydro’s planning.
Consider Tumbler Ridge, where B.C.’s largest wind project just started operations. Private investors are lining up to invest in wind energy in Tumbler Ridge, where capacity for potential energy production is 70 percent of what Site C could produce. The biggest impediment to investment in alternative energy has been B.C. Hydro’s singular focus on mid-20th century technology of mega-dams.
To the Minister of Energy and Mines: what is your government going to do to ensure that clean energy projects move forward in B.C., instead of taking their investment dollars and jobs in local communities elsewhere, as many have been for several years?
Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the substantive question.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Mungall: I see that a substantive question has upset members of the official opposition.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member from the Green caucus for patiently waiting for an answer after all of that.
Anyhow, as we know, currently Site C has been before the B.C. Utilities Commission. They are doing an expert independent review, a review that should have always been done. Unfortunately, it was not conducted under the B.C. Liberal government. That was the wrong decision, so we’ve righted that wrong decision. We’ve got that review, and the report is going to be coming out tomorrow.
In that report, the B.C. Utilities Commission looked at alternative energy sources to Site C, and they will be including that analysis in their report. They’re going to be looking at what would be in the best interests of ratepayers and the best interests of British Columbians. I’m not going to prejudge that report, and I’m not going to prejudge the decisions around that.
The member will note that in my mandate letter, I’ve been directed to build the road map to renewable energies for British Columbia. I take that very seriously. I also am very excited about that opportunity. We’re going to be working with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and all members from this House on that road map. I think it’s very exciting. It’s a real opportunity for British Columbia — all of us here in British Columbia — to become a real powerhouse for western Canada and the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.
B.C. HYDRO MANDATE
S. Furstenau: I’m really pleased that the minister raised her mandate letter, because this is a very important piece of where we need to move forward.
B.C. Hydro does need an updated mandate. What I’d like to ask for are more specifics on exactly how that mandate is going to be adapted so that we are moving into a 21st-century energy landscape in B.C. rather than stuck back in the 20th century.
Hon. M. Mungall: As the member will know as well, this government is going to be conducting a review of B.C. Hydro so that we can look at its mandate. I mean, I think we can all acknowledge that the previous government utterly mismanaged B.C. Hydro, leaving this government with quite the mess to clean up.
That’s why we’re conducting a review, so that we can identify all the things that need to take place so that we can move this province into the 21st century in terms of energy production.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mungall: As I said, the dream of making B.C. an energy powerhouse…. A renewable energy powerhouse, not just for western Canada but for the Pacific Northwest and as far as we can go around the world — that is the dream. It is attainable, and I look forward to working with every member of this House to do that.
GOVERNMENT POLICY
ON LABOUR
CONTRACTS
M. Lee: Last week, the government announced a major new policy with significant implications for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Speaking to organized labour, the Premier announced that this government would impose new rules and that contracts would be “subject to best bids.”
Yesterday in estimates, the Minister of Transportation defined this as “investing in the tangential future of this province.” The minister was not able to say what the cost implications are for the billions of dollars at stake in contracts to build roads and other critically and, as she just mentioned, desperately needed infrastructure for this province. But she was very clear that she would be consulting with the Premier’s office.
This minister has had some time now to consult the Premier’s office. Can she tell this House what this new tangential commitment will cost taxpayers?
Hon. J. Horgan: I want to say to the new member of this House: he can consult with the Premier’s office anytime he wants, as can all members of this House. If they want to know where we’re going, we’re happy to tell you.
You will know that during the election campaign, I spoke about ensuring that when we make capital investments….
Interjection.
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m sorry. Has the member from Langley got something to say? Perhaps, at some distant time in the future, that member might be on this side of the House again, but for now I’ll focus on answering the question.
I believe that all British Columbians would love to hear an answer to this question. The reason we’re moving to best bids or community benefits agreements is so that we can ensure that the next generation of workers get the skills training they need to replace the decrepit old people like those on that side of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.
M. Lee: Well, I’m very happy that the members of the House have heard the answer from the Premier. British Columbians will be happy to hear that you’ll be defining what a “best bid” is, unlike what the Minister of Transportation was unable to do yesterday in estimates.
This minister recently cancelled the George Massey Tunnel replacement project — a project that, documents show, came in $900 million under the estimated cost. We find it troubling that on one hand, the minister cancels a project that’s good for taxpayers and, on the other, extols the virtues of a practice — as the Premier has just done — that in the 1990s led to cost overruns and project delays. She owes it to taxpayers and the thousands of British Columbians stuck in gridlock….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
Member.
M. Lee: I was here in the ’90s when the Island Highway was built and those cost overruns were done. The scope of that Island Highway changed in the context of that build. But let me just say that that led to cost overruns and project delays. She owes it to taxpayers to explain how this new policy will affect all the other projects in this province, including the George Massey Tunnel and Highway 1.
My question to the minister is this: can she tell us the implications of this policy on the George Massey replacement, Pattullo, Surrey LRT and the Broadway extension, and what increase in costs and delays will this new policy cause?
Hon. J. Horgan: Only a B.C. Liberal would stand up and say our estimate was under budget, because they haven’t done anything else under budget after 16 years. I wonder if the member can help us out with the Vancouver Convention Centre.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: The Vancouver Convention Centre, $325 million over budget…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. J. Horgan: …and some years beyond due date.
The replacement for the roof on B.C. Place we were going to do…. I think the Mexicans were going to pay for it when they proposed it the first time, à la Trump, but it cost us $149 million more than budget.
And I can’t forget my member from Langley. When he oversaw the northwest transmission line, it was only $342 million over budget.
To the point of the member’s question — and, I think, the thing that the public wants to hear about: when we spend public money, we should get a public benefit. That means local-hire provisions. Small businesses in Kamloops and small businesses in Merritt get an opportunity to grow their businesses, because public dollars are being invested. Most importantly, if you have local-hire provisions, you can make sure that you’re hiring more women, hiring more Indigenous people and ensuring that there are apprenticeship ratios so that projects can create the next generation of B.C. workers.
J. Martin: If history reminds us of anything, it’s that NDP policies have a profound negative impact on the economy of British Columbia.
A moment ago the government was patting themselves on the back for the Island Highway. Well, let’s talk about the Island Highway. Skyrocketing labour costs. The NDP had to scale back the project considerably. Traffic signals replaced interchanges. Two lanes replaced four lanes. And to top it off, it was two whole years late. Well, history repeats itself. We see, right now, the NDP — the Minister of Transportation and the Premier, in particular — praising the values of fixed-wage contracts.
To the Minister of Transportation, can she please tell the House that she plans on replacing current MOTI project-tendering practices with the Premier’s favourite fixed-wage contract practice — yes or no?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m grateful that the member is taking us back to the 1990s here, after eight weeks of government in 2017.
I think there were a couple of members that were in opposition back in those days. They seem comfortable to be back there again. They can, at their pleasure, raise issues in this Legislature. But the people of British Columbia, whose tax dollars we’re talking about, want to make sure they get more than a bridge or a school or a roof on a stadium. They want to make sure that local people are getting access to jobs and that small businesses can grow and offer opportunities for procurement.
Critically important — again, the aging people on that side of the House…. We need to train the next generation of workers. Wherever I go…. If the leadership candidates are honest with themselves, they’re hearing, as well, that businesses need skilled workers. We’re going to train them.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.
J. Martin: I must say: my congratulations to the Premier for having the courage to use the words “’90s” and “people of British Columbia” in the same sentence. As I recall, the people of British Columbia had something very, very significant to say about the ’90s. They threw them out in the single biggest electoral slaughter in British Columbia’s history, 77 to two.
As I mentioned a moment ago, history repeats itself. Remember that. Fast ferries. Bingogate. Bingo. Fixed-wage contracts. Well, here we are. Now we’re back, fixed-wage contracts once again. They directly escalated the cost of that Island Highway project and added $72 million in additional costs to the project that were totally unnecessary.
To the Minister of Transportation, is this the government skirting the incoming campaign finance laws; is this the government’s trick to reward their union supporters from the last election, giving them the treat of taxpayers’ money?
Hon. J. Horgan: It is a little bit rich to hear the B.C. Liberals even mention Vancouver Island in this House.
If they had even a modicum of understanding of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, they would know that the people that were trained on the Vancouver Island Highway have been building British Columbia. Go to Langford. Go to Sooke. Go to Parksville. The people that are building the communities of British Columbia on Vancouver Island learned how to do it on the project, the Island Highway project agreement. That’s what the new tenders are all about.
Now, I appreciate the shortsighted view of those on the other side of the House. I appreciate that they like to go back to the 1990s, in some whimsical way. The people on this side of the House are from the 21st century. The people on this side of the House want to build B.C. tomorrow for the next generation, not harp about the last one.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could move towards the question.
WILDFIRES AND REIMBURSEMENTS
TO EMERGENCY
VENDORS
D. Barnett: Yesterday the Minister of Public Safety made it clear in the House that government is unable to pay its bills. If you were to follow his logic, the best way for British Columbians to get reimbursed is to contact their local B.C. Liberal MLA and complain. Members on this side will take no lessons whatsoever from that minister on how to connect with constituents and support them when they are having difficulties.
The minister complains that there are thousands of invoices. That may be the case, but the minister has an obligation as a minister of the Crown to ensure British Columbians affected by the wildfires are taken care of.
My question is to the minister: does he have any way to prioritize which bills get paid, other than files singled out by opposition MLAs?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member for that question, and I want to thank her for making my day. I’d like to let….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could please hear the response.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
You know, that member does work very hard, and it would be nice if her colleagues had enough respect to let me answer her question. What I would like to….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
What I’d like to tell the hon. member….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Member, I can see it’s going to take at least four years to learn to do the level of outrage that I was able to do when I was on that side of the House.
If I may get to the point, which is that as of October 16, all outstanding invoices have been paid with the exception of a few where additional information is required. Some $462.9 million has been paid out so far this season. So the invoices are being paid, and they’re being paid, in the majority of cases, 80 percent, within 30 days.
Again I would also say to the member that if there are issues, do bring them forward. We will resolve them, in the same way as yesterday when the member for Prince George–Mackenzie contacted my office with an issue concerning a constituent. We got back to them right away. We were able to resolve the issue.
The problem, I keep saying to the member, is that when she says, “We will bring you the names of the individuals who are having problems,” and fails to do so, we cannot do that. Yesterday again she said to me that she had scores of complaints that she was going to bring to my office Well, again, as of ten o’clock today, I had still not received anything.
Our ministry is working extremely hard to ensure that contractors are paid and paid as quickly as possible. The record in the ministry shows that’s taking place, and it will continue to take place. But what it requires is members to let us know when there is a problem, and we’ll work as hard as we can to resolve it. We have wonderful staff who’ve been working the entire season to do just that and will continue to do just that.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued estimates on the Ministry of Transportation. In Committee A, I call continued estimates on the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:01 a.m.
On Vote 42: ministry operations, $843,545,000 (continued).
Hon. C. Trevena: Before we start, I’d like to introduce staff because we have some new contingent here. I have again my deputy, Grant Main; assistant deputy, Nancy Bain; assistant deputy, Kevin Richter,for highways; assistant deputy, Patrick Livolsi, for infrastructure; and assistant deputy, Deborah Bowman, for policy. With that, I look forward to a healthy hour of discussion.
J. Sturdy: We might as well dive right into it. Has the preliminary design tender gone out yet on the section of Highway 1 from Hoffman’s Bluff to Chase Creek Road?
Hon. C. Trevena: There are a few phases for this section of road that are going be done. There is one section that is about ready to go to tender. But for the section that the member asked about, there are still discussions with First Nations, with Neskonlith First Nations. On the section that the member asked about, there is still that discussion.
We’ve got the concept paper. We’re working very closely, obviously, with the First Nations on making sure that we get everything right. There is one section of that highway that’s ready to go, but it is a three-phase approach. So if the member wants to break down the various segments, I’m happy to talk through the various segments with him.
J. Sturdy: Perhaps, then, I’ll ask the minister to break those down and tell us where they are on each of those three segments.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very happy to talk about the Trans-Canada and how we’re going to be accelerating a project that has already started. It’s started in many iterations, and it’s had different names. So to ensure that we get this one moving….
This piece of the four-laning has three sections, as I mentioned to the member. The first segment is pretty well ready for tender. It’s due to go out for tender shortly. The intention is to get it out this fall, but that is somewhat linked to a second section just to the east of the first section.
On that section, which is Chase West to Jade Mountain, there is an engineering consultant doing detailed engineering at the moment, but there are also discussions with the community still. Staff have a meeting with the mayor and staff from the village of Chase, I believe, later this week. There’s going to be an open house in the community towards the end of November to have further discussions.
This came up, I think, during question period earlier on in the session, about whether or not we were going to go ahead with it. But it was a fact that the community actually wanted further input and discussions about the design and just where the interchange is going to be. That’s what ministry staff are talking to the village about. That’s what the open house is going to be about, and that’s what the engineering work is looking at. So that would be the second stage of it, which is just east of the first stage, which, as I say, is ready to go to tender.
Then, on the west side, is the section which isn’t due to be complete for about another four or five years. That is where we’re still having discussions with Neskonlith First Nation about how it’s going to work.
As I say, it’s quite complex. It is 11.9 kilometres, so it’s quite a length of section. It is going to include the four-laning. It will impact the village with different interchanges and frontage roads. It’s obviously going to bring in better pedestrian use and better connectivity, we hope, for the community. Obviously, we’re looking at it from a safety level, to make sure that we are bringing in safety along the whole of the Trans-Canada corridor, which is why we’re working on and will be accelerating the four-laning of the Trans-Canada.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. The way we have it broken down, and perhaps just to provide clarity to the constituents…. For the first section of Hoffman’s Bluff to Chase Creek Road, what I’m hearing is that the design has gone to tender or it will shortly be going to tender.
The question, I guess, would be…. I see the minister shaking her head. We were all over the place there. So let’s talk about Hoffman’s Bluff to Chase Creek Road. Has that section gone out for design yet, and if it hasn’t, when will it?
Hon. C. Trevena: No, that hasn’t gone out yet. That’s because there are still discussions with Neskonlith First Nation. We don’t want to, obviously, work without having full agreement, and we’re working well with them.
J. Sturdy: Do we have a timeline on that section, then, in your discussion with First Nations — in the minister’s discussion?
Hon. C. Trevena: Because it’s the last section…. It’s quite complex — making sure that we have everybody on board, including ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of the village. This is a real concern. This is the last section, so we’re not expecting it to be completed until 2022. That’s the end date of it, so it does give us some space to work and make sure we get everybody on board.
J. Sturdy: I apologize. I’m not intimate with all of the geographies. So in terms of the first section, I take it that that’s…. Is that west Chase to Jade Mountain? If so, this was a tender that was ready last spring. Is it out?
Hon. C. Trevena: That’s the second stage. There’s the first stage, which is a very small piece in the middle. That was the one that was delayed because the village wanted to have more consultation.
They were concerned about just where the interchanges are going to be. That consultation has been ongoing with ministry staff and is continuing even into this week. There will still be meetings with ministry staff, the mayor and the village. There will be an open house to look at the alternatives later on in November. Mid-to-late November, there will be an open house so the community can look at the possibilities.
T. Stone: I want to congratulate the minister for having what I always said was the best job in government, being the Minister of Transportation. I do appreciate a few questions that my colleague asked about critical sections of the Trans-Canada Highway, which are actually in my riding. I thought that I would just ask a couple of quick questions.
I know that the minister and I have had a few exchanges about the three sections of what is one project. Obviously, I’m intimately familiar, having done a lot of the preliminary work, securing federal funding and working with staff to ensure the appropriate engagement with the village of Chase and local First Nations.
If I recall, this project is being broken into three phases. I think the minister correctly indicated a moment ago that the first section that will be done is actually the middle section. That’s the section that’s ready to go to tender. I’m hopeful that that tender will go out soon. I do understand that there are some implications relating to where the final design lands for the second section, which is actually the most eastern section, because that most directly relates to access in and out of the village of Chase. I do understand that it’s ideal to land on that design for that second section in order to feel really good about pushing a tender out for the middle section. Perhaps the minister could confirm that that is indeed still the case.
Secondly, I do know that in discussions with the village of Chase, the concerns that they have expressed have always related to access, ensuring that…. I’ve heard the minister speak about this before in the context of projects in other parts of the province. When we do highways projects, we always want to ensure that access is not compromised, that in fact, the highways projects facilitate better access.
The village of Chase is like so many communities around the province. They want people to stop in their community. They don’t want a major multi-million-dollar highways project to actually make it easier for people to just whiz on by. Originally, the design provided for an interchange at Coburn. Based on feedback from the village of Chase, they felt that that might have huge implications on municipal infrastructure into the village of Chase at that location. Therefore, they suggested moving that interchange to Brooke. I guess my second question would be: is it still the ministry’s intention to proceed with Brooke versus Coburn?
The third part of my question would be, based on the additional feedback that the ministry is seeking from the village and, indeed, from the people who live in the village of Chase — and we do appreciate this additional public opportunity to offer public feedback — is the ministry open to moving the interchange back to Brooke, if that’s what the public…? If the public overwhelmingly suggests in their feedback to the ministry that they would rather the interchange be at Coburn versus Brooke, is the ministry willing to entertain that or have a discussion?
I guess the fourth piece would be emergency access. It was one of the key considerations. If the ministry is not willing to consider moving the interchange back to Coburn, would the ministry consider implementing some kind of limited access for emergency vehicles only, to be able to come out where the ambulances and paramedics are based, for example, which is closer to Coburn Road? To be able to perhaps…. Maybe there’s a locked gate there that could be opened and the emergency vehicles could access the highway, either heading east or west, to more quickly respond to incidents that may have taken place at some point nearby on the highway itself.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to just add another introduction. I have here, again assisting, Mike Lorimer, the regional director for the southern Interior region. I did get his title wrong yesterday, so I apologize to Mike. But I’m sure the member knows him very well. He’s yet another extraordinary public servant working for our highways system, and he knows the area very well.
To the member, yes, he does have the sequence right. Actually, looking at the segments on the map, it’s segment 2, segment 3, segment 1. So we’re going from the middle out east and then back to the west as we work through it.
The ministry isn’t fixed on whether it should be Coburn or Brooke. Willing to entertain either. This is one of the reasons that we’re continuing to engage with the village to have these discussions, definitely having these public meetings, because we’re serious about public input.
As the member knows, having the best ministry that there is to possibly have, the ministry staff don’t take this lightly. They are doing public consultation seriously. So when they’re engaging with a village, this is serious.
On the question of emergency access, yes, obviously emergency access will be a priority. Safety is always a concern when we’re designing roads, as the member well knows. So safety and emergency access will be built in to this.
T. Stone: I have one final, two-part question. I’m wondering if the minister could advise whether or not the federal funding which is associated with the Chase Creek to Jade Mountain section, the section that actually really deals with the access issues in and out of the village of Chase…. I’m wondering if moving the interchange from Coburn to Brooke or Brooke to Coburn impacts, in any way, the federal contribution that is associated with this particular segment.
I’m assuming that there is some flexibility built in to the design that we’ve put forward with the federal government, which I believe was originally based on a Coburn interchange and subsequently redesigned for a Brooke interchange.
Would there be any further delays — I guess that is really my question — that the minister would anticipate relating to the federal cost-share component if, indeed, the wish of the village is to move the interchange back to Coburn? That would be question 1.
The second and final question…. Again, I do appreciate the great work that the minister’s team does, particularly in the Kamloops area. On the third segment, which is the westernmost segment which runs entirely through the Neskonlith reserve, I’m fully aware of the section 55 process and the additional time required to not just engage and consult with the Neskonlith but, indeed, to properly facilitate appropriate accommodation for the band itself and also for the individual members of the band, the locatees.
Could the minister provide some insight as to how things are progressing with the Neskonlith and the discussions with those locatees? There’s quite a number of locatees. I was very proud of the fact that overall, the relationship with the Neskonlith has, for quite a number of years, been dramatically improving. That engagement has been getting better and better. I would expect that would be continuing to be the case today.
But could the minister speak to how things are going in their discussions with the Neskonlith and the locatees and if she’s anticipating that 2022 date for that final segment, if she’s thinking that that date could be in jeopardy somewhat? Are there any anticipated delays as a result of the extensive engagement and consultation work that’s still required with the locatees in that final segment?
Hon. C. Trevena: We don’t anticipate any problem from the federal government. If there’s a change, it’s like for like. We’re hoping that they’re going to just accept that it can just continue. That’s our anticipation.
As far as how things are going with the Neskonlith, they’re going well. It obviously takes…. We’ve been engaged with them, as the member well knows, for a couple of years now, working on this. And we’re working with them on a land use plan, so assisting on a land use plan and providing some funding for the community.
Where there is active engagement, there are scheduled biweekly meetings with the Neskonlith, and there are other non-scheduled meetings that come up. So we’re meeting very regularly throughout — literally every month. We meet very regularly with them. So there is no anticipation at this moment that there would be any delay in the 2022 completion of the project. We’re hoping that it will happen, and as I say, our government is committed to accelerating where we can the four-laning. We want to make sure that we are working as well as possible to get this done on time.
The Chair: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.
D. Clovechok: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Glad to be back.
I just want to follow up from yesterday, if I might, the question around Radium Hot Springs. I was grateful that the engineering study is on its way, but you did mention yesterday that it won’t be until next summer. So the point of clarification that I’d like to have is: is the report going to be completed by next summer, or will it start next summer?
Hon. C. Trevena: It will be completed by next summer.
D. Clovechok: That’s the answer I was hopeful for, so thank you for that.
One last question just on that. Will this study — I’m just confirming this, because I’m assuming this is true — look at all possible options, including potential roundabouts, lights? Whatever that application solution would look like, is it going to take all of that into account?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, we’re going to be looking at all the different options there, whether it’s lights, roundabouts. There’s obviously the question of impact to property and to businesses on that corner. It’s quite busy, as the member is well aware.
Engineering staff will be looking at how best to make things work — you’ve got the grade as you’re coming from the north that goes uphill — and how things such as lights would work on that section of the highway. But it’s the engineers who will come up with the different options for the community.
In the meantime, the flaggers who are working there at busy times will continue to be working to ensure that the traffic does move as smoothly as possible until we can find a solution that works well with the community.
D. Clovechok: Thank you, Minister, for that. That’s exciting. We appreciate it.
I just have a couple more questions for you. One is more of a local issue. One is around Fairmont Hot Springs. You would have travelled through Fairmont on your way there. Tiny little community — 300 or 400 people. It’s not too far from where I live.
In the summertime, it gets incredibly busy there, and the speed limits are reduced to 80 kilometres. It’s a class A highway, so you can’t really reduce it any lower than that. But we have had several meetings with your ministry. Four engineers from Kamloops came out and your regional manager. I really want to commend them on the work that they did, because it was really helpful.
I just want to ask the minister…. We met with their engineers and the regional district of East Kootenay and Wendy Booth — she was here yesterday — and the Fairmont Business Association and the Fairmont Hot Springs Resort.
What we want to know is…. There was a commitment made to find some applications and solutions to reduce the speed. There’s congestion there all summer — 30,000 extra people on the roads, with their rafts and everything like that. It’s absolutely amazing that there hasn’t been a death. We would like to know where that is and how we are going to long-term reduce that speed limit — whether it’s signs that flash and all that fun stuff. But it’s very serious. So I’m just looking for a solution on that.
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, thank you. It’s a lovely community. You live near there. It’s a very nice place to be based. But I can understand concern about high volumes of traffic and speed, people’s frustrations — both the community’s as well as those going through the community or those coming to the community — and, again, the question of safety.
One of the things that we are doing is looking at signage through the corridor to make sure that people are very well aware of the speed, whether that be regular signing or, as the member says, the flashing signs, which are very effective. People see it, and they do suddenly slow down. They realize that they are going much faster than they had thought they were going or at least should be going.
So that’s one of the things we’re going to be looking at. But, as I said, I’ve got the regional director and the highways ADM with me. They will be following up with staff who had the meeting to see just what else we can be doing, what the staff felt came out of that meeting and how else we can work to make sure that people can both travel through safely and people who live there can feel comfortable and safe.
D. Clovechok: Thank you very much for that. It’s certainly appreciated, because it is a dangerous spot.
Let’s start talking about the Trans-Canada Highway. There you go. That’s the most important one. The Kicking Horse Canyon — I know you’ve travelled through there, and I do on a regular basis — is probably one of the toughest stretches of highway anywhere in Canada in terms of what needs to be done. There are four kilometres there. I think it was about, if I recall, around $110 million per kilometre — one the toughest stretches, as I mentioned, with a total cost of about $440 million just to do that four kilometres.
One of the things I’ve liked so far, what I’ve heard, is that you’re using action words, and those action words are “expedite” and “accelerate.” Those are definitely action words. I’m an action guy, and I like to hear that. My questions are going to be around those action words.
First, is that $440 million budgeted still in your budget for that piece of highway? If so, I’d like to hear about that. Also, I think I’ve just heard from a previous question that you are in discussions with the federal government. Is the federal government still on track in terms of their matching dollars associated with that $440 million?
Hon. C. Trevena: Chair, the reason we were huddling a bit longer is that staff had just been notified that in Fairmont Hot Springs — I don’t know whether the member has managed to get back over the last week or so — the Ministry of Transportation has just put up signs warning people to slow down to 60 when there are pedestrians on the highway. They’ve oversized the actual speed-limit signs so that people cannot miss what the speed limit is. I know that people still do ignore them. So there’ll be continued discussions with the community about how to ensure that we can reduce the speed.
Yes, the final piece of the Kicking Horse Canyon is going to be continuing. It’s very impressive what has happened already. It’s an extraordinary piece of engineering. And to look ahead about what is going to be happening in the coming years is really extraordinary. It is, as the member said, just the final 4.8 kilometres, and the preliminary engineering is complete. We’re hoping that we get construction started in a couple of years. The federal government is on track for cost-sharing too.
It is still very much a part of our plans. That’s why we’re looking at what the previous government did, how we can work with those plans, as well as accelerating. As the member quite rightly says, we are talking about accelerating and expediting the improvements to the corridor. This one is very significant and will be continuing.
D. Clovechok: Thank you, Minister. It’s great to hear about Fairmont. I haven’t been home in two weeks.
Just to drill down a little bit on the timeline. You said it’s maybe in a couple of years. To the minister: do you have any understanding of a specific time when there might be some shovels in the ground on this? Rather than generalities, can we kind of focus in more on a specific time?
Hon. C. Trevena: I apologize. I was thinking federal dollars, rather than specific timelines, for your previous question. I’ll give you specific answers to both. The project, as the member says, is $450 million. We’re getting $215.2 million from the federal government, and $234.8 million of our own money is going to be invested in this. It’s a significant investment from both levels of government to make this happen.
At the moment, we’re expecting construction to begin in 2019, and if all goes according to plan, we’re hoping that it will be completed by 2024. It seems a long time to do just under five kilometres — five years — but it is a very challenging piece of highway. The member knows it well, and I expect that every member in this House has driven that.
It’s no longer really as white-knuckle as it was before the work was done, but there are still sections that obviously really desperately need improvement. It is our trade card. It’s our link with the rest of Canada. We see trucks coming through there all the time, the heavy traffic usage, and then in summer, you’ve got the combination of trucks and tourists.
It really is a significant problem. It’s a significant issue. There is a lot of investment, and we are committed to making sure that it happens and that we can do that final easterly piece of the link.
D. Clovechok: Minister, thank you for that. I’ve been getting a lot of questions around the construction of the Kicking Horse section.
I would just ask what the tenure process is going to look like. Obviously, there’s a great potential for jobs in my communities around that. I would be very interested to hear what that’s going to look like. I know that the Premier had spoken about not necessarily the lowest but the best bid. I’m just wondering how that’s going to apply to that process in getting those tenures out to people.
Hon. C. Trevena: As the member heard in question period and has heard before, our commitment and the Premier’s commitment is to really building B.C. and the best build is the way that we want to do it. It’s the best bid. The best bid is a bid that will really build on everything, so not just the infrastructure that we so much need — I’d say this is a classic piece of infrastructure — but how we’re going to be ensuring that we are training people, that we are really making the apprentice system work and bringing in apprentices.
On certain projects, I know you can start your apprenticeship and finish your apprenticeship working on one project, if you’re in a long-term project. I don’t know whether that would refer to this. We’re looking at how we’re going to get the apprentices working, how we’re going to make sure that local people are hired, that we are using local businesses and turning to local resources, how we’re going to really include and embrace working with Indigenous peoples and how we’re going to make sure that we get a full investment in the province.
I mentioned to your colleague from Vancouver-Langara yesterday, when he asked me a similar question, broadly, for the ministry. It is, obviously, a policy that is still being developed, and how we’re going to implement it is still being developed.
There is an absolute commitment from this government to invest in all of B.C., not just the physical infrastructure of B.C. Not just building the hospitals, the schools or the highways — lots of hospitals, I understand — but making sure that we’re training people and that we’re using local businesses so that we are investing, literally, in the full fabric of British Columbia — the physical fabric, as well as, as the Premier said in question period, those people who are going to be taking us forward when we are no longer working.
We’re going to need to have young people who are engaged, active and well trained and who can really make sure that we get a very healthy province and a really healthy economy in all ways. When we’re investing in our infrastructure, we are investing in our economy. When we are investing in our people, we are investing in our future. That’s what we are going to be looking at.
We are still developing the fine details of the policy. I’m sure it’s going to be a continued matter of discussion — and I hope healthy discussion, because it’s fundamental for the whole province.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. As a past general manager of a community college, I think that’s exciting.
The question that I have for the minister around that policy is that, in two years’ time, we’re going to have shovels in the ground — potentially 2019. My assumption, based upon what you’ve just shared, is that this process is going to happen right away so that these people are trained and ready to work when that project starts. That would be something that I would be concerned about, if it wasn’t that way, because then the project would be stalled. So if you could help me out with that, that would be great.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his interest in this. As a former president of a community college, it is very exciting. There’s a lot that’s going to happen. I think there is a lot that will evolve in the province. I think people will really see huge growth by this policy. I’m very excited by it.
Some of it they’ll obviously be taking…. I can’t prejudge exactly how it’s going to work. They say it’s a policy still in development. Obviously, hiring locally will be part of that, and using local business. On the training aspect, part of it will be training on the job. That’s the ideal about apprenticeships.
If we are working with apprentices, there will be people who are literally learning from day one of a project until the project ends. On certain projects, if they’re well structured, you can take your apprenticeship through, right from literally your starting date till the completion of the project, when you complete your apprenticeship.
I think there really is a huge amount of opportunity that can be had. I would hope that we’re all proponents of a very strong and robust apprenticeship program, because it’s the workforce that will take us into the future. It will make us, once again, really, the beacon for a well-trained, strong workforce. I’m very excited that we, in our various ministries that are going to be building infrastructure projects, will also be building our trained workforce, will be encouraging our local economies and making sure that we do get that real, healthy future.
With that, Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
On Vote 31: ministry operations, $40,890,000 (continued).
The Chair: I’d also like to say Happy Halloween.
[Laughter.]
D. Ashton: I would just like to say, again, that I’d like to thank the minister for his answers yesterday and also the staff behind. It was greatly appreciated. They were forthcoming. We had a limited amount of time, so to have that happen in that time scale really makes a difference. Thank you, Minister, I really appreciate that.
The Chair: A question.
D. Ashton: Has the minister spoken with his federal counterparts on UNDRIP?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to my critic opposite for the question, and thanks for his kind words too.
Yes, I have spoken with Minister Bennett a number of times on the UN declaration and a number of other issues. I met with her once or twice — I’m trying to remember now — in person.
I have not yet made that similar contact with Minister Philpott. I have sent her a letter of congratulations on her new appointment, when the federal government basically did a split of INAC. But that’s coming, and I think we’re planning that. I think that’s in the works for Minister Philpott also.
D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister for his answer. Could he tell me why the federal ministers at this point in time have pulled back from UNDRIP in the context of Canadian law?
Hon. S. Fraser: In my conversation with Minister Bennett, it was around how to implement UNDRIP and how to work together to do that, and we agreed to try to break down barriers and move forward. So I don’t know what he’s referring to, but I think if he’s questioning the federal minister, that would be the thing to do — question the federal minister on that. Because there’s no pullback as far as I know.
D. Ashton: I’d like to thank the minister for that. I would see they’re asked. It’s my understanding that negotiators have been tasked with including some of the principles of UNDRIP in the negotiations with First Nations. Could the minister explain to me what that entails?
Hon. S. Fraser: In response, as the critic knows, my mandate letter includes implementing the UN declaration. That’s happening within and without the treaty process, so UNDRIP involves full collaboration with First Nations and Indigenous peoples, and that’s the direction that I’m going as minister — and the entire ministry is going as well.
D. Ashton: Again, thank you for that answer, Minister. Have there been extra resources allocated for this new directive from the minister? I’m referring back to my previous question about initiating the principles of UNDRIP.
Hon. S. Fraser: The implementation of the UN declaration is about an approach, and we have not added new resources for that. We have a change of approach, which is, I think, in keeping with my mandate letter. But no new resources have been added.
E. Ross: Good morning, Minister. Thanks for the question-and-answer yesterday.
For agreements with First Nations that are looking to engage to address their own social issues…. We’ve got a number of agreements in B.C. already, specifically around pipeline agreements, IBAs. In the event of…. I’m still not quite sure how UNDRIP gets applied in these circumstances.
For instance, in the pipeline agreement going to Kitimat, there are 15 out of 16 First Nations that are signed on to the pipeline. There’s been a tremendous amount of work put in by the proponent, by government and First Nations themselves to resolve as much as they could to achieve an FID. What will your government do differently to ensure that the pipeline gets full engagement and, hopefully, gets full agreement on the pipeline itself?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. I’m certainly aware of the agreements that were in place. We are continuing to honour those agreements. Government is a continuing body. As the member knows, there’s no final investment decision that’s been made by any proponent yet. So we’ll have to see how that unfolds. There is still potential for that, of course.
We know there are still several projects that still may go ahead. Markets change, so we’ll have to see how that plays out. We are continuing to honour those agreements as they apply.
E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. The record on consultation for the pipeline is extensive, whether it be consultations from the proponent or from government itself and other First Nations that tried to address some of the issues raised. So given the extensive consultations — and perhaps there’s something else the government is proposing that I’m not aware of to address the issues — will UNDRIP be applied in a certain manner to try to achieve full consultation, and perhaps accommodation, in this situation to get that last remaining First Nation on board?
Hon. S. Fraser: As I’ve mentioned, there are a number of pipeline agreements in place. We will honour those. We will continue to work with First Nations who have these agreements and those that do not. Not every nation is interested in such agreements. We will honour the nations as they choose, and we will work with them towards reconciliation.
We are implementing the UN declaration. I’m not sure how that will apply to agreements that are in place. They are agreements that we will continue to honour, and that would happen with or without the UN declaration. But our work with First Nations will be informed by the 46 articles within the UN declaration. I’m not sure how that applies here. I know there have been no final investment decisions made by any proponent.
E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. Those agreements were based on consultations, based on the case law of B.C. and Canada. In the case of an FID…. You’re correct in saying that there’s no FID currently in B.C., especially in my region. But there’s nothing really left except market conditions, economic conditions, in B.C. and Canada.
In the event of an FID being announced — and there are still maybe one or two First Nations that don’t quite agree, given the extensive consultation record to date — will the government allow the FID and allow the project to happen, even though there are still some First Nations that might not quite have signed on yet?
Hon. S. Fraser: As I mentioned before, regardless of a final decision, we will continue to work with First Nations. If there is a change in market conditions and we have an FID before us, we have committed to working with industry.
We have four conditions that need to be met. I can cite those if the member wishes. One is that LNG projects must offer jobs and training for British Columbians, especially jobs for local people. The people of B.C. must get a fair return for their resources. LNG projects must secure full partnerships with local First Nations. And LNG projects must complete a made-in-Canada environmental assessment and respect our commitments to combatting climate change.
Then I’d like to close on this answer by just reminding…. I think it was yesterday when we did touch on this. The UN declaration is not a veto.
C. Oakes: First of all, congratulations to the minister. Just one question I have. It’s on behalf of the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance. You met with them on September 6 and 7 in Vancouver. It’s a wildfire question. We all know how critically important it is for our First Nations communities to have safe access out of their communities in the state of emergency that we’ve had.
The Southern Dakelh Nation, particularly Lhoosk’uz Dene, so Kluskus, has been working for many years on a bridge and three kilometres. We had previously put aside $7 million to make that project happen. We are waiting for an OIC from the new government. The minister stated when he met with them that it’s a priority to make this happen. We need that road built now, in the fall, so that it sets in time for next year. Can the minister tell us where that project currently is?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. Yes, we did meet, and I’ve agreed to work with them on the project. I understand the importance of the project. My deputy has spoken with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, who would be responsible for doing this project. I do not know their timelines, but rest assured that I have followed up with them, and this is in the hopper, so to speak.
A. Olsen: Hello. Good morning, Minister.
I just have a couple of questions, as we intersperse my questions here, around the structure of MIRR, formerly MARR. The commitment that the government has made in order to change the relationship with Indigenous people across the province is going to need to be reflected throughout government, not just within a single ministry. It’s going to need to be reflected through every ministry and through how government operates on a whole.
I’m just wondering if you could maybe provide some feedback as to how you foresee this going forward, where all ministries are tasked with…. Rather than having maybe a centralized location within MIRR but how all ministries, and how your ministry, are going to interact with your colleagues in order to ensure that all of government, a change in the whole of government, is going to occur with the relationship with Indigenous people in our province.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. He’s right. I don’t believe that reconciliation can happen in isolation, and certainly not housed with one ministry.
I have a pretty specific mandate letter from the Premier, but I’m not alone. All ministries, all ministers have mandate letters that refer to applying UNDRIP and the TRC calls to action within their own ministries.
Actually, the pickup on this is very, very good, regardless of whether it’s a ministry that deals with the land, with the resource use, or whether it’s a social ministry. The questions that we’re getting in our ministry…. We help to advise on that. They’re good questions. Ministries are heading in the right direction. There is big pickup not just at the ministerial level but throughout the civil service.
I believe, to go a step further, it’s important we break down barriers between governments too, so working with local governments. At the UBCM, I had a lot of pickup. We have those meetings where mayors and council meet with individual cabinet ministers. My ministry and myself had a lot of requests for meetings about doing just that, having local governments interested in and showing examples of how they’re working with local First Nations in trying to apply the UN declaration — and also with my federal counterparts.
I think the timing looks really good for actually moving this forward to true reconciliation and partnership with First Nations, with respect and recognition. All the moons are lining up at all levels of government and within government itself.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for his answers this morning and particularly for the quick responses. It’s much appreciated. I hope you can give some lessons to the Minister of Forests, for future estimates.
A couple of quick questions. First, during various comments to assemblies by the now Premier of the province, there was talk about reinvigorating the treaty process. Could the minister please explain what he means by reinvigorating the treaty process?
Hon. S. Fraser: The mandate that I do have to reinvigorate the treaty process is something that we will not do unilaterally. This is being done with First Nations.
We started those conversations in September at the leadership gathering, working closely with the First Nations Summit, which represents the treaty members, of course, and the Treaty Commission and our federal counterparts as part of that.
We are continuing with the multilateral engagement work that’s been done that was already set in place. There’s good work there that’s already identified some bottlenecks within the system. We’re continuing with that work. We’re not throwing it out. We acknowledge the work done previously — previous minister, thank you. But we’re improving on that, and we’re asking for open dialogue with First Nations in the treaty process to learn from them about where they see the bottlenecks too.
J. Rustad: I look forward to next estimates to see how that has progressed. I can see the minister isn’t providing a lot of direction in terms of what he thinks needs to be done in terms of reinvigoration, but he’s engaging. I’m happy about that. That’s good.
I also want to thank the minister for his comments, both now and of course in his opening comments, with regards to the work that has been done in previous years and progress that has been made. It’s nice to see, although when he was in opposition, he did belittle some of the agreements and approaches that were taken, which I find a little bit interesting. But I get, also, what the role of opposition is with regards to this.
Specifically, I want to go into a question or perhaps a couple of questions with regards to agreements. A treaty is one approach to long-term reconciliation. There are other approaches to long-term reconciliation.
The mandate letter and comments from the Premier talk about reinvigorating the treaty process, yet the vast majority of nations are not in the treaty process or have given up on the treaty process and are exploring other avenues of long-term reconciliation. How does the minister’s hopeful reinvigorative approach to treaty impact on other agreements? Will there be an additional type of effort to the majority of nations in this province that would like to find long-term reconciliation and that are not in the treaty process?
Hon. S. Fraser: I would note that there are nations within the treaty process and those without. Not exclusively, but those members of the summit are members within the treaty process. Some have disengaged, and some have stalled. Part of the idea of rejuvenating the treaty process is to see if we can address the concerns and to fix the problems that have led to people leaving the treaty process.
Inside or outside of the treaty process, though, I’ve been meeting every day with nations from all over the province. In the last 100 days, pretty much every day in this place, we’ve had meetings, and there’s a different feeling of optimism. It was reflected at the number of meetings we had at the First Nations leadership gathering.
There is optimism, and there is re-engagement inside and outside of the treaty process. We’re seeing people and nations that are interested in moving forward with the new mandate of this government. It includes applying the UN declaration and the TRC calls to action as part of our mandate.
It’s an optimistic place right now, inside and outside of the treaty process. I know a lot of the work that was done before outside of the treaty process was quite transactional in nature. We’re broadening the scope of our work with First Nations outside of the treaty process too. We’re making progress, in both inside the treaty process and out, I believe. Certainly, I’m hearing that in the attitudes and the excitement that’s being generated at the meetings we’re having.
D. Ashton: UNDRIP says that First Nations have the right to own and benefit from resources. My question to the minister: what does this mean to the minister?
Hon. S. Fraser: I’m interested in working in close partnership with First Nations and ensuring that they are full partners in projects, that they are receiving fair benefits from the resources within their territories. That’s, I think, in keeping, as my critic has stated, with the UN declaration position on getting fair and equitable treatment. I believe that’s a key to unlocking the economy of this province — making sure that those partnerships occur and that wealth is shared appropriately and fairly with First Nations in their territories.
D. Ashton: I want to thank the minister again. How does this change revenue-sharing agreements that are in place at this point in time, with the implementation of it?
Hon. S. Fraser: I would note in the meetings that we’ve had — the many, many meetings we’ve had with First Nations at the leadership gathering in September and certainly here in Victoria…. I’ve travelled some of the province, too, when we weren’t sitting. I’ll be doing that again on the next break week. But we’re learning and listening what works within revenue-sharing and what does not work.
We will be using that to inform us on how to address fairness within revenue-sharing agreements. My mandate actually specifically goes to one type of revenue-sharing. That’s in dealing with gaming — the gaming funds within the province. Gaming revenues, as I’m sure my critic knows, are actually…. There are formulas in other parts of the country and other provinces where the proceeds from gaming are shared with First Nations. That’s something that’s part of my mandate letter.
We have begun a process of that. We are working on a process to move that forward and ensure that First Nations do have a share of gaming revenue. It’s a revenue stream that can help close the gap, if you will. It’s difficult to find revenue streams within the province that can be used in this way.
I know in all my time as critic previously — 12 years, since 2005 — I have heard that same sentiment from First Nations. We’ve done a lot of work already on potential models for revenue-sharing with gaming revenue. We’re going to be looking at all of those and working closely with First Nations to make sure that we do have a formula that will work and, I think, provide the most benefit possible for First Nations.
D. Ashton: Penticton has an agreement in place. It’s a bit of a different one, but it might be something for the future to take a look at. I’m quite sure staff are aware of it.
Where does the minister believe that the ownership of resources should be at, and does it apply to subsurface rights, to mineral rights, to water rights, to foreshore rights, to title rights, and specifically, to air rights?
Hon. S. Fraser: We’re working in partnership with First Nations to ensure that benefits flow from resource use within territories. That’s a bit of an open question there. I’m not sure of the specifics, but those discussions are open discussions, so we’re looking for a partnership in resource use, in the benefits from resources, I guess, within the territories. I’m not sure that some of the specifics that the member is asking about are actually defined.
D. Ashton: I was being specific about two articles — article 28 and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2 in the booklet that I have. And specifically…. I was a bit troubled by this. I heard the minister’s comments yesterday about: consent is not a veto.
I actually went this morning to Webster’s, and it says “to agree to do or allow something; to give permission for something to happen or to be done” is consent. So if we do adopt and go down this route that I think the minister and myself have similar thoughts on, and this is put into place, who has the jurisdiction, and who is responsible for saying yes or no?
Hon. S. Fraser: It was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip that said that the UN declaration is a blueprint, and I certainly take it that way. I agree, and I believe that you cannot take the UN declaration and the 46 articles and pull it apart and try to work each one in a silo, like we’re trying to break down between ministries.
We will be working with First Nations, Indigenous people, Métis and all British Columbians to develop an implementation strategy. If you look into the prelude on this from the United Nations, it confers that it’s not designed to pull individual articles out. Many of the articles within the UN declaration are specifically human rights initiatives that have already been accepted by the world community.
Indeed, the entire UN declaration as a whole has been accepted by the world community, and it’s never been broken down — it was never intended, in my opinion, to be broken down — into its individual parts. It detracts from the meaning and the intent of the UN declaration.
D. Ashton: I thank the minister for his answer, but in my career, the devil was always in the details. The minister yesterday said that this is a holistic approach — the document — but they are adopting it for implementation. So when I go down to article 26…. I’ll read it. It says: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”
My preceding question was…. We have resources attached to those, and nobody else, other than myself or maybe the minister ahead of me, wants to be able to share these resources on a continual basis. It will come down to who actually owns them. We know that there’s been cross-ownership issues with the various bands and tribes within the province.
So who is going to be the authority to say yes or no on that? Where does the ultimate authority rest if a request comes in or a permitting, etc., comes in? Who is the ultimate authority to say yes or no if something can proceed?
Hon. S. Fraser: I think I see where my critic is going. I do not believe pulling individual articles out of the UN declaration is fair or accurate. I believe it amounts to fearmongering. I don’t see it as being helpful.
I’ve had experience in local government, as many of us have in this place. There’s a process called rezoning, which is well known to most of us. If you have a development project and you want to get rezoning to do a development in a community, in a municipality, you have a process that you go through. It includes involving the public. This is a quasi-legal kind of judicial process. It’s called a public hearing. In those cases, the public are invited to give their opinions on a project, and the mayor and council would make a decision based on what they hear from those deputations.
I would note that it’s never considered a veto when it’s a non–First Nations community. So taking individual articles out and trying to deal with them separately is not helpful. I would note that in the prelude to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, it affirms the inherent collective rights of Indigenous people as well as the human rights of Indigenous individuals. It provides a framework for justice and reconciliation, applying human rights standards and specific historical, cultural and social circumstances of Indigenous peoples.
We have adopted this, and we are moving forward, as is the country, the nation of Canada, as are 148 other nations in the world that represent the world community through the United Nations.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada