Second Session, 41st Parliament (2017)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 49
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Orders of the Day | |
J. Sturdy | |
Hon. C. Trevena | |
M. Bernier | |
M. Lee | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
A. Olsen | |
Hon. S. Fraser | |
D. Ashton | |
J. Rustad | |
E. Ross | |
D. Barnett | |
P. Milobar | |
Hon. K. Chen | |
L. Larson | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2017
The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. After that, if we get through that, then we’ll also call Children and Families.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 1:35 p.m.
On Vote 42: ministry operations, $843,545,000 (continued).
J. Sturdy: The question we were canvassing prior to lunch was the issue of the Kicking Horse, which I think we all understand is a highly complex and difficult project that will take place. I think the minister mentioned construction in 2019 and completion in 2024.
Is that timeline changed at all, or is this the same timeline that has been proposed for some time now?
Hon. C. Trevena: It’s the same timeline.
J. Sturdy: In the mandate letter, it does suggest that the minister is instructed to accelerate this project. How do we square that same timeline with the commitment to accelerate?
Hon. C. Trevena: The mandate letter is to accelerate the Highway 1 upgrades to the Alberta border. It’s a commitment that we are very determined to make sure happens. That means looking at what we already have and making sure that the projects on the table can move forward as expeditiously as possible, as well as bringing in new projects.
I’ve travelled the highway many times, and most recently a few weeks ago, going through it with ministry staff, looking at what the existing projects are and what’s been happening, literally, from Kicking Horse. We did it east to west, from Kicking Horse to Kamloops, looking at what is planned, what has happened and areas that we could be expediting — so bringing in new sections of the highway to be working.
At the moment, apart from the Kicking Horse Canyon, much of the work has been on the western section of the corridor. So it’s how we can bring the two sections together — working from east to west as well as working from west to east.
Also, ministry staff are looking very clearly at which sections. All the engineering work, where engineering work has been done in some sections that aren’t yet on the list — how we can bring that knowledge forward.
There’s a huge amount of work coming from the ministry looking at the highway corridor as a whole and how we can, literally, move along what we’ve got. We were talking about the Chase project before lunch, and the Kicking Horse project. So these are ones that we have set timelines on, but we do want to bring more projects into this to accelerate it.
J. Sturdy: Has the minister, at this point, identified any sections that the ministry would think they could accelerate?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. One of the reasons that I went on the trip with ministry staff was to look at the whole highway and to see, just from the politician’s point of view, what pieces of highway look good and what doesn’t look good. It’s very different from the engineer’s point of view, obviously, and we all have our own interpretation of which piece of highway could be fixed really easily and which piece of highway must be really difficult.
It’s very interesting to actually have that conversation, over the two days on the road with staff — going through, literally, with a map and cross-sections, both in community and out of community — about the potentials and the difficulties. I have talked a lot, particularly on the eastern section. One of my focuses has been on that Golden to Revelstoke area, because that’s where we see a huge number of accidents. That’s where you hear people in Golden and in Revelstoke always talking about…. Both communities know the danger of that piece of highway, that people die on that highway. That is really what is literally driving the need to improve it.
The reasons we’re doing this work are for safety, for commerce and for ensuring that we get that really good corridor between B.C. and the rest of Canada and make sure that we’re doing it right. I don’t have specific sections yet which we would be highlighting as new sections. We did announce one project a few weeks ago, the Donald to Forde section. As mentioned earlier on, we had the discussion about the area around Chase, and there will be one going out soon on that section.
We will be working very closely on trying to find the specific sections of highway so that we can ensure that we really do get the project moving, because this is a commitment. It is a way of making sure that highway is safe, making sure that highway is really up to the standards that the Trans-Canada should be, that our main artery should be.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Does the minister have any estimates of timelines when she may be able to identify areas for acceleration?
Hon. C. Trevena: The trip was very much a first blush for me as the minister to have a look at it from the ministerial point of view. I have done it as the spokesperson — to go through and to have a look at it as spokesperson — and, obviously, done it personally, to go through the highway.
The timeline for specific projects and when we’re going to be announcing them is as we get them ready. The plan is in place that we are working on. We’re working through that. New projects, as we identify them, as we pull them up, as we see whether they are going to be really feasible, we’ll be announcing them at that time.
We’re also, obviously, engaging both local governments and the federal government — local governments because of the impact. We’re engaging the First Nations all along the corridor. We’ve got good relations with First Nations, so engaging with First Nations, and obviously engaging with the federal government, too, reminding them that it is the Trans-Canada Highway and that it would be nice to get a little bit of support there too.
We are working on a lot of different levels at the moment to ensure that this very important part of my mandate letter is fulfilled in a timely way. I mean, it’s not going to be something that would be completed in three or four years. We know how long this goes on for. We talked about 11 kilometres, earlier today, that’s going to be finalized in about 2022, and that’s that one section.
At the same time, we have the commitment to accelerate it. That’s why I’m looking at other projects that we can bring on board, working with ministry staff, making sure that we are looking at the corridor as a whole and looking at those places where we can really make a difference — reduce the accident rate, make the highway safer and make it a highway that people really feel comfortable to drive on without the worries that I think a lot of people have.
I’m sure the member has talked to people who drive along that corridor. People do not like it. We get people driving from Salmon Arm to Calgary or wherever. People are not happy driving it. We want to make sure that it is a highway of high quality, high standard, that is safe and does open B.C., allow B.C. to remain open, to the rest of Canada.
J. Sturdy: I certainly understand that. I think we all feel the same way. We all want a safe, efficient highway system. But the mandate letter is quite specific about accelerating the four-laning of Highway 1 to the Alberta border.
I’m trying to better understand how that would happen and how we measure that. How do we determine, at the end of the day, that the minister is successful in achieving that condition of her mandate letter? Is there anything that the minister could provide to us that could help us better understand how we judge her on this commitment?
Hon. C. Trevena: As I said, we are looking at the projects that are on the table now and looking at new projects with the lens of the acceptability of the highway, the driveability of the highway and the safety of the highway.
The previous Minister of Transportation asked some questions — I think that it was the previous minister; it might have been yourself, Member — about the Chase section, the four-laning of the Trans-Canada. There’s been a long history of commitment to four-laning of the Trans-Canada. It was, I believe, from Cache Creek to Alberta. There’s the four-laning that we’ve had recently. But we need to make that commitment that we will be making an investment in all aspects of it.
I’m not going to say we will finish it in X number of years. What I am saying is that we are going to be looking at projects, how we can fast-track some of the projects that have already been identified and that we already have the preliminary designs on, how we can fast-track those and how we can work on new projects. Whether it is to deal with the safety issue…. Say there is a certain section of the highway, Golden to Revelstoke — whether there are big safety concerns.
So whether we’re looking at the safety aspect of it, to bring those on board, or whether we’re looking at the commercial aspect, where we are ensuring that we’ve got safer passing for trucks on some of the mountains, we’re going to be looking right across this, because it is a matter of bringing that highway up to conditions that everybody would be expecting to be driving in the 21st century.
You see other sections of the Trans-Canada in other parts of the country. Admittedly, our geography works against us, but it’s because of that geography that we have to make that investment and make that commitment. We’ve got to make sure that people driving that corridor, whether it is the trucker coming from Calgary to the port or the tourists in their RV, can drive it safely and can drive it without hindrance. The best way to do that is to make an investment and make a commitment to fast-tracking the four-laning. So that’s what we’re going to be doing.
We started day one, July 18, when I was sworn into government. This was in my mandate letter. It will continue to be a priority as long as I’m the Minister of Transportation, and it will continue to be a priority as long as this government is in power.
J. Sturdy: I’m not feeling any closer to understanding how we can judge here.
We understand that the consultations necessary with the First Nations take the time that they take. The design and tender periods, again, don’t tend to be rushed. They are pretty standard, in many respects, depending on the complexity of the project.
The construction periods would tend to be difficult to accelerate. I can’t imagine how, in the Kicking Horse, you’d add more trucks or more equipment, given the physical constraints there. I take it, then, that really, the only way that you would be able to accelerate would be to add additional projects that were not already on the books — or advance those timelines that are already proposed to an earlier timeline. At this point, have there been any projects that have either been prioritized that weren’t planned for already or that have been advanced?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I can hear his frustration. I apologize if this is frustrating, but it’s very important that we get it right. We are talking about Highway 1. We’re talking about the Trans-Canada. We’re talking about our main artery, our link to the rest of Canada. It’s for use by everybody, and that’s why we want to get it right.
As I say, I went out on the highway with staff recently. We looked at all the existing projects. We looked at the highway, with geotechnical engineers and others, to see what areas they were suggesting we could start looking at for planning. As the member knows from previous discussions, we are always talking with First Nations about including them. We are talking with communities.
We are looking at how we can work on the existing projects, making sure that they come up and get moved on as quickly as possible, as well as bringing new projects in. I’ve got the priority, as I say, of that area between Golden and Revelstoke, where there are a number of accidents. The member can talk to his colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke and others about the impact that that section of highway has on the two communities of Golden and Revelstoke. It’s huge. It really is a big concern. There are other sections that likewise have a big impact.
That’s why staff have gone out with me. I was working with them. They’re going to be drawing up the list of those projects that we’ve got underway, those that are in planning, those that could be brought up to the next level, ready to start working on, and we’ll be working through them.
It’s there in my mandate letter, to accelerate the four-laning of the Trans-Canada from Kamloops to the Alberta border. We will be doing it. I’ll be making sure it’s one of my….
I know the member was very briefly minister and got a mandate letter. When you get that mandate letter, you look at it seriously, that those are your priorities. The member asked me yesterday when we were starting this debate: what would be my top three? These are my priorities — what is in front of me: that acceleration and making sure that we are building on the projects that are already there, working on getting those through, as well as bringing new ones into the stream and pushing ahead with this.
We will ensure that we are actually very serious about this and not just doing, sort of, some of the more visible sections. We want to do as much as we can as quickly as we can, without shortchanging people as well.
That’s the other thing. If we’re building a highway, it is a big investment. I’m not being trivial here, and I’m not trying to belittle it. It’s a huge investment to be investing in this highway. We want to make sure that we get it right, and that we’re building a highway that will last and won’t just deteriorate. There are a lot of different things that we’re looking at. But on the question of accelerating: we will be accelerating it.
We’re looking at the existing projects. We’ll be bringing in new projects, and the member will see that there will be a lot of work happening along Highway 1 in the next three years.
J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I understand that there is a certain degree of uncertainty at this point, and we’ll be looking to the minister in the future for some more concrete response in terms of commitments.
When those are made or as they are made, recognizing that accelerating projects…. Bringing more equipment on to that project or trying to make it happen faster has implications. It clearly can have implications in quality, although one would hope…. I think we all recognize that something that we would strive to avoid is quality concerns around accelerated construction. I guess the other piece to this was adding new projects that weren’t otherwise or previously identified and on the workplan.
Can the minister speak to any estimated cost implications of accelerating projects or adding projects to her budget? Where is she anticipating additional budget resources in future years?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think that we may be speaking a little bit at cross-purposes here. I’m not sure. But we’re talking about not necessarily compressing the timeline on individual projects, of sort of rushing through a project to get it done. Bearing in mind there are often very real reasons why a project is going to take so much time…. It’s not just from the engineering work on but weather and geography and everything else. Then, there are the unknown issues which can come up, whether it is an environmental issue or, at times, an Indigenous archeological concern or something like that, that will obviously impact the individual project.
We are talking about, when we’re talking about accelerating…. It’s accelerating the program, accelerating the whole four-laning of the Trans-Canada. It’s not individual projects, but it’s bringing more on board, bringing more on stream. Ministry staff do give me assurances that there is capacity with industry to do this, to make sure that we can be bringing more on stream.
When you do, as the member I’m sure is aware, there are often efficiencies. If you have more projects going at the same time, there are economies of scale. There are ways of getting, really, literally more bang for your buck, so you’ve got more projects working at the same time in an area. So there is that.
Because you’re accelerating the program, it doesn’t mean an added cost to any individual projects. You’re not compressing the timeline on that project. You are moving projects on, either concurrently or consecutively, but bringing more of them on.
We’re talking about the length of the Trans-Canada. Instead of project A finishing and project B starting and so on, you’re doing A, B and C, G, H and whatever, all the way through the corridor. That’s how I’d like to see it happen. I would to see it move as fast as we possibly can, but without cutting corners.
Again, we have very serious issues. One is that we are building our main artery. Two, we’ve got issues that we’ve got to make sure it is going to be safe, that the design work does suit the needs and that we’re not making shortcuts in our acceleration — shortcuts that will, in the end, cost the province — but that we are actually investing properly in this really major project for B.C.
J. Sturdy: I guess I’m not…. I can’t imagine how we can move forward, add projects, and not add budget. I think the question I asked earlier was: do you anticipate additional budget resources for the addition of projects which weren’t otherwise on the workplan?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, we are obviously talking about the September update at the moment, which is a consistent line. Looking to the future, we are looking at projects. We are doing the costings for them, and that will be reflected in future budgets.
As we move on with the acceleration, we’ll be looking at the budget line as we get the costing for the projects, both the existing projects and whether they’ve gone up in costs — which, as people know, happens — and for the new projects that we want to bring on line. We’ll be looking at that, and that will be a matter for future budgets, which I look forward to talking to the member about maybe next spring.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for allowing additional people, obviously, to come forward with regional questions. Let me start, first of all, by acknowledging and thanking not only the minister — and congratulating her — but her staff.
I think a lot of other colleagues have stood up as well and said how appreciative we are, especially within the Ministry of Transportation. The relationship that we have on the ground with our staff…. I look at Scott Maxwell, the regional manager in Prince George, and all the staff I have up in my area. The relationship over my dozen years in politics has been incredible. Because of that, it makes it a lot easier when it comes to estimates for me to bring forward questions such as this.
I have a couple of things I want to bring forward. First off is…. I understand the timelines that it takes to go through everything from the engineering to the geotechnical to the drafting to the costing. I appreciate that. But there’s also the understanding in the regions, especially in ours, with the amount of activity in the oil and gas sector that we have right now — making sure that we have the continued commitments within government for the ongoing work that needs to be done.
The two — and they’re tied together — that I’ll ask…. Maybe I’ll lump them into one question for the minister to make it easier. One is the South Taylor Hill, and the minister will probably be aware of this one. We just did, very successfully, I would say, after years of trying to work with the federal government…. We had some cost-sharing that took place to have four-laning for the lower section.
It’s my understanding that we have some possible commitment from the federal government to partner with us for the second phase to complete that project. I just want to find out from the minister, if I can, first of all, on the South Taylor, if and when we’re going to be starting to see that.
I understand on the ground there might be a little bit of work, but of course, the people in the area, specifically our truck drivers in the area, need to know that that’s going be done and done properly. There were some challenges with one corner that was done many years back where the grade was not done properly. It was on a corner. It went to a 10 percent grade, so of course, every truck spins out on there in the wintertime. It needs to be adjusted and fixed, and hopefully, that will be part of the either the second or third phase.
The South Taylor Hill is part of, as the minister would know, the Alaska Highway — the commitment from the past government that was working toward four-laning from the Alberta border to Fort St. John and possibly beyond, because of the oil and gas activity.
Just to remind the minister…. It’s one of those topics I almost hate to bring up. The reason why we looked at it is because it is so unsafe. The amount of fatalities that we have on that highway, annually, is unforgiveable in a lot of ways, and we need to be continuing to make those investments.
The reason why I bring that up is we’ve just finished another project of four-laning on the Alaska Highway. The public in the Peace region has been used to seeing, as one project was being finished, the next section…. Of course, we understand it’s not going to be start-to-end four-laning and that there are areas identified, for safety reasons, that are prioritized, and then those ones are moved forward.
I was just wondering if you can give me the timeline, then, on South Taylor Hill, if we’re still working with the federal government for that next phase? And when will we see the next announcement for the next section, however large or small that will be, for four-laning on the Alaska Highway between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John? We’re used to seeing a next phase starting every year, and so far, we haven’t seen anything.
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I’m aware of the South Taylor Hill. I’m sorry. The staff here have obviously got a lot of knowledge. I don’t know the area as well as I know some areas of the province, and I apologize for that. Staff do know it very well, and as you know, your local staff are very much on top of this.
The tendering for part of the road — the midsection, from what has just been completed up to, effectively, the bottom of the start of the hill — is going to be in 2018, so it will be starting next year.
There are, as I’m sure the member is well aware, huge geotechnical issues all the way through there. That’s really what’s slowing the work down on the…. Obviously, I understand the real concern of the hill and the grade.
Planning work is happening there. Engineering work is happening there. That won’t be in the scope of this work starting in 2018, but ministry engineers and staff are looking at the plans of how to move on with it and how to do it. As the member says, you don’t want the record of accidents. You do want to be dealing with this.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that. If she could maybe just follow up with the other part of my question, which was just around the Alaska Highway in general, because, as I was mentioning, of course, we’ve been accustomed to, after the last commitment, seeing at least a few kilometres of either passing lane or four-laning done every year, understanding that we can’t four-lane the whole thing all at once.
The public is just wondering when or where they’ll see that next phase, because we’ve gone through, now, a summer of no announcements. We were told that this fall there might be some more, and we’re just kind of curious if that’s true or what’s happening.
Hon. C. Trevena: I understand the member’s desire to see the continued moving as we’re pushing along with the four-laning. At the moment, it’s in the planning stage. There is going to be continuing planning towards Dawson Creek and planning the other side of Taylor Hill towards Fort St. John. That’s what the ministry is working on at the moment — to get in a position where we can be ready to move, if possible, in the near future.
J. Sturdy: A few more of these local issues, if I might. Mile 28 Level Rail Crossing on Highway 16, the only level crossing between Alberta and Prince Rupert. I trust the minister has…. I don’t know if she had an opportunity this year to do that drive. It’s an amazing drive along the Skeena there, but this is a problematic crossing. I understand that it was due for construction tender this winter, according to the ministry’s website, planned to be finished by the spring of 2020.
Could we understand the status of that tender at this point?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m sure the member has done that drive himself. It is spectacular. I’ve done it a number of times, and I never lose the awe of driving along the Skeena. Either whether you’re going west or you’re going east, it’s still a monumental drive.
On the specifics of that grade crossing, yes, we are continuing with it. It’s going to go out for tender this winter. Work is intended to start spring next year. It’s anticipated it’ll take three years for construction, so it will be complete in 2020. Hopefully, it’ll make things that bit safer along that road. Obviously, as the member knows, it’s a beautiful road, but at times can feel not the safest of highways. You’ve got the change in climate from the Pacific right to the Interior, when you get to Terrace, so you’ve got all of that as well.
But on that specific question, it should be complete, with the target to finish it in 2020.
J. Sturdy: That’s great news. Thank you to the minister. We want to do all we can to avoid people racing trains, as well, don’t we?
Moving on to the North Shore. I know it was canvassed to some degree yesterday, but I did want to just get a sense of the status of the Highway 1 lower Lynn interchange. It was funded at almost $200 million, including $66 million from the federal government. If we could get a bit of a status update on where that project is at. Is it on time? Is it planned to be completed for next fall, as was planned for?
Hon. C. Trevena: I could hear, from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, her concerns. As I mentioned at that time, I’ll be working with my colleague for North Vancouver–Lonsdale on the issue, the whole congestion issue of the North Shore. Obviously, it’s extremely frustrating, but we are hoping that the work that is being done will alleviate some of that congestion.
There are four phases of the project. We’re aiming to have them all complete by 2021. The first, which is under construction and is due to be completed by next year, is the Mountain Highway interchange. That is, as I say, under construction and should be completed on schedule by next year.
Then it’s being done sequentially, so the Keith interchange is being designed at the moment. There will then be public input into next year. That should be ready to go when the preceding one finishes. So when that completes in 2018, the next section should start. Again in sequence, Dollarton will be the next one. That will, hopefully, be coming in on stream just as the previous one completes. Then finally, it’s the Lynn bridges that will be dealt with.
Obviously, there’s a lot of work with the Squamish First Nation to make sure that this is done appropriately and that there is full involvement with them; also, people involved with it — necessarily, TransLink because of the location. So TransLink is involved. Local government on the North Shore are also involved, and the cycling community.
As I’m sure the member knows, there’s a very active cycling community both in the North Shore and across the Lower Mainland. I’m sure he is on their email lists, as am I, and gets all the information about what they’re doing — last week’s Bike to Work Week and all the other successful initiatives. We want to make sure that we integrate the cycling community in our developments anywhere where we’re working. But when you’re talking about a congested area like the Lower Mainland, we want to make sure that alternative modes of transportation are considered as well.
J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I would hope that she would find opportunity to work with all of us who represent the North Shore — West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, West Vancouver–Capilano, North Vancouver…. Oh, and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast also, because I think the ministry is planning on building a bridge over there. Isn’t that right, Member?
Interjection.
J. Sturdy: Just so I’m clear, we’re talking about the right…. Just if I could summarize here. The functional design for the Keith Road interchange was planned to be finished this year. This is what I have here, and then, I guess, construction next year. The construction of the Mountain Highway interchange — complete next year. And the Lynn Creek connectivity functional design was planned to be completed this year. Could I get the minister to correct me on any of those timelines? Happy to repeat if I need to.
Hon. C. Trevena: Just to again make sure that we’re talking about this same things — and yes, there are a number of members from the North Shore, although sometimes I think of the member more as sort of Sea to Sky and Pemberton-based, even with a touch of the islands, with Bowen.
The first phase is the Mountain Highway interchange, which will be completed next year. That’s on schedule. Then the next one is the Keith Road–Mount Seymour interchange and the Lynn bridges. They’re being tendered at the same time. That will be next year, and the intention is for them to be complete in 2020 — so two years on that one. The engineering work is going on at the moment on those, and then there will be open houses and public consultation on those.
Then the final phase, if you’re putting the Lynn bridges in with phase 2, is the Dollarton one, Dollarton–Main Street, which will be completed by spring 2021. Obviously, the tendering will be a couple of years prior to that — engineering work, a couple of years prior to that — so it can move sequentially.
J. Sturdy: My riding, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, just so you know, starts at 29th Street in West Vancouver, so it’s about a quarter or a third of West Vancouver.
I want to also provide acknowledgment to the member opposite — I should have probably consulted him, actually — for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, because he did remind me of something, and that is the Sunshine Coast fixed-link assessment. I wondered — again, thank you, to the member — when we would expect to see that assessment being made public.
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I’m glad he remembered this very pressing issue. At the moment, the report has been completed. It is with staff who are reviewing it. I am anticipating seeing a copy by the end of next month, and after that, obviously, we’ll be talking more widely about whether any of the initiatives in that report are going to be followed up or not. I know that my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast is anticipating it as eagerly as the member himself. And I apologize for getting his constituency wrong.
J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. Can I take it, then, that we will see a public presentation or public access to that report in — would it be fair to say — January, February?
Interjection.
J. Sturdy: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is lobbying with me to have it produced earlier.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. We’re still in October, so when I’m talking about the end of next month, we’re talking about the end of November. I’m hoping that we’ll be able to be discussing it more widely before Christmas — that it will be out there. I think everybody wants to see what is involved, but staff are doing due diligence.
I know that there’s some frustration about what it’s going to be saying or why it’s taking so long to find out what it’s saying. But staff are doing due diligence to make sure that everything is correct before we go more public with it.
J. Sturdy: One last local issue here in the Lower Mainland — Highway 7 improvement project is expected to be finished for next winter. Is that on time and on budget?
Hon. C. Trevena: We’ve got a few pieces of highway improvement on Highway 7. I just wanted to clarify which the member was talking about. We’ve got the section from Nelson to Silverdale. We’ve got the section around Harris Road, and we’ve got the Haney Bypass. If the member could just clarify whether there’s any one section or if it’s the package he wants, the information. The big picture? Got you.
The first one. I’ll start on the Nelson-to-Silverdale section. It was delayed. It is the four-laning. Very necessary safety improvements are being planned. The four-laning through here was an issue. As the member is aware, every year there are certain fish windows that have to be worked around. The fish window for this year was missed. Really, as the member is aware, if you are working around streams and fish habitat, you’ve got to be very, very cautious if there are specific times when you can be working so you don’t destroy the habitat.
Having missed this year’s fish window, if we were starting later in the year, it would cause real problems when you’ve got the high-water season. So it was decided to delay it. However, it will still be finishing.
It’s starting now, in the summer of 2018, which is obviously later than had been anticipated when it was announced March 2017. It is a bit later than anticipated. But it will be still completed in 2019, despite the late start.
The other two pieces that are going to be done are…. In Pitt Meadows, the extension of the right-turn lane, from Allan Way to Harris Road, to allow commercial vehicles to get on to Highway 7 from Allan Way. It’s an acceleration-deceleration lane. That is going ahead. That’s going to be starting in 2018.
The Haney Bypass in Maple Ridge. There are intersection improvements which are also going to be happening. They should all be finished about the same time, in 2019.
M. Lee: I’d like to just continue the discussion that we’ve been having through estimates regarding a new way of looking at the bidding process. Certainly today, in the answer to the questions that we were asking in the House, the Premier continued to talk about community benefit arrangements as another way of looking at best bids.
I’d like to ask, first of all, in terms of the apprenticeship aspect of this. There’s been a desire to build capacity there. What is the capacity, from the ministry’s point of view, that’s needed for this province in the area of apprentices for Transportation?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased that the member has brought this up again, because the community benefits agreement’s policy, I think, as the Premier was saying during question period, really is very exciting. There’s so much that we can be doing for the whole province and our communities via any of our infrastructure projects. Whether it’s in transportation, health, education, we are investing not just in the physical fabric of our communities and our society but in the fabric of our people, making sure that we are truly investing in our people.
As the member knows, in transportation there are many, many trades that are involved in road-building and construction, in work, whether it is carpenters, machinists, heavy-equipment operators — all of which we can be working on apprenticeships. It is absolutely full of opportunity.
We can be bringing more and more young people into the field and all the people who want to retrain. The apprenticeship system is not always just for young people. We’re looking at how we can engage people, employ people, make sure that people get high-quality education and get a qualification that is recognized and renowned. We have a good, quality apprenticeship. That is one of the things that we can be extraordinarily proud of.
We spend hundreds of millions of dollars around the province in this ministry. It’s not just in the Lower Mainland; it is right around the province. Having a community benefits agreement approach, ensuring that we are using local procurement, local businesses and building into the apprenticeship system, I think, will be a fantastic advantage.
The member’s colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, when we were talking in estimates earlier on today, was talking, as somebody who had been working in community colleges for many years, about how important he saw this approach to be. I think that across the province, people will be seeing it, embracing it and looking at it as a real way forward.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response. Obviously, I’m raising this again today in the context of estimates because, as we’re hearing from our colleagues, including my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, there is a shared concern that we have in this House in terms of the number of projects that this province needs to build and the acceleration that the government would like to put towards it.
I appreciate that in government we have trade-offs. We have things that we need to put priority on. I’ll just ask one more time. In terms of the apprentice area, I appreciate that we need to continue to find opportunities for young people and to retrain others who are not so young anymore, but what is the need in terms of looking forward?
I know that the B.C. Fed has had a goal of 25 percent apprenticeships, for example, on job sites. Is that a measure that we’re looking at? What’s the particular target that government sees? I mean, how many apprentice positions are going to be needed on these projects in Transportation?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara. I appreciate the question. It is something that, as I mentioned yesterday, the policy is still being developed on. As the member is new to the chamber, I’m sure he’s learning quickly that policy is never written on the back of a napkin. It is something that is done thoughtfully and working for the best interests of the whole of the province.
My ministry is working with the Ministry of Advanced Education to ensure that we will be developing the framework so we can implement a policy that brings apprentices right to the level of any infrastructure construction that we’re doing — whether it’s in my ministry or whether it’s in the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education, as the main industries that have infrastructure.
In both our ministerial responsibilities, there is that commitment. The Minister of Advanced Education, I know, is equally committed to implementing effective apprenticeships for all government-funded infrastructure projects, as are we. We’re going to be together on how we make sure that we get those skilled trades both in the classroom and out on the job sites and working on the specifics of the policy for the percentage of the apprenticeships.
We’ll also be working on policy on looking for local sourcing. We’ll be working on the policy for Indigenous involvement. We’ll be looking at the policy, really, to ensure that all the communities benefit, that it’s not just one area that benefits but that we get communities really getting the full benefit of any construction that we are doing in the province.
M. Lee: My last question on this particular point is just in terms of the nature of the organizations that do apprenticeship training. This wouldn’t suggest…. Nonetheless, I appreciate the policies are under development, but just to get a sense of the indication of where this may be headed…. Apprentices will be able to find their roles in these companies, regardless of whether they’re union or non-union positions. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a very interesting question from the member. I think that any business in British Columbia, or any organization looking at this new policy of a community benefits agreement, would be welcoming the opportunity to hire apprenticeships and to train our new workforce. I think this is the really great encouragement of this policy — that we will be encouraging businesses to take on apprenticeships and that we will be having the space in our colleges to ensure that apprentices can be trained. As I say, the Minister of Advanced Education is obviously working closely on the file, and I’m sure that this is a subject you’ll be bringing up in that minister’s estimates also.
M. Lee: So I think I heard that there wasn’t going to be a preference for a union versus a non-union company in this hiring practice. But just in terms of the local company focus as well, what does that mix currently look like for companies that are bidding on transportation contracts? Is there an issuant, in the sense that we don’t have enough local companies doing that?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member will agree that we want to really maximize the benefits for British Columbia when we are doing infrastructure projects, when we’re doing any capital construction, that it’s B.C. that gets the benefits and that B.C.’s people get the benefits.
I think this is something that is fundamental to any person who is in government in British Columbia, that it is British Columbia and British Columbia’s people and the people who will be growing with British Columbia that really get that benefit when we are investing large amounts of money in our capital projects. The community benefits agreement will allow us to do that.
I’ve got to say that it is also part of my mandate letter to be encouraging this. I’ll just quote. I know that the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky very generously quoted much of my mandate letter into the record yesterday. But I will just add a section of it. One of our key commitments is “to build a strong, sustainable, innovative economy that works for everyone.” We want to “create good-paying jobs in every corner of the province and ensure that people from every background have the opportunity to reach their full potential.”
I can think of no better way in my ministry, working on community benefits agreements, to ensure that the reach of government in our infrastructure and our investment in our communities reaches every corner of the province. I would expect the member for Vancouver-Langara, although he’s from the Lower Mainland, would also welcome that and would welcome that sort of investment right across the province.
M. Lee: Well, since you mentioned your mandate letter, I actually wondered…. Another question that I was just going to ask was just whether you would see this implementation of the best-bid policy or the community benefits policy to be a new priority to be added to your mandate. Or do you see that as just being something that truly affects what you just quoted from your mandate letter?
Hon. C. Trevena: I would say that it’s built into the very philosophy of what we are doing as government, and it is absolutely built into what I as a minister should be doing when I’m working on developing projects, when we’re working at investing in our province.
As I have repeated, there is no better investment in our province, when we’re looking at the capital investment in our transportation infrastructure — that we have the ability to reach every corner of this province, bring well-paid, family-supporting jobs to every corner of this province and make sure that we can ensure that our communities can be vibrant.
As I say, I know the member is from the Lower Mainland, but this is a real need right across the province, across rural areas. Whether they be rural areas on the Island or rural areas in the Interior or in the Kootenays, we need to make sure that we are getting people trained, getting vibrant communities right across the province.
I think that this approach really underpins the requests or the demands within my mandate letter, and I would expect that every member of this House will be as excited to see it roll out as we are on this side of the House.
M. Lee: I appreciate the comment. Certainly, with my work experience for 20 years in this province before coming to this House, with companies in the forestry, mining and energy sectors all over this province, I understand the importance of the infrastructure and the need to encourage and continue training.
Can I ask, in terms of the current arrangement, TILMA, with the province of Alberta…. How will this province meet its agreement with that province for free movement of services, goods and employees across our mutual border? How will this square with that agreement?
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the estimates debate.
As we’ve mentioned in the past and I’m happy to talk about, the policy is still, obviously, being developed. We are fully aware of our agreements, both interprovincial, like the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, and other agreements. As the policy is developed for the best interests of British Columbia and investing in the best interests of British Columbia, this is something that will be looked at — how to make sure that we are able to have that investment in, as I say, the best interests of our province.
We are, obviously, very mindful of all our various interprovincial and international agreements. That will be taken into account as we develop the policy.
M. Lee: I thank you for that response. I just wanted to come back to community benefits. What was mentioned, both yesterday and today, and also in response to these sets of questions, is just how this government sees community benefits — not only just apprentices, local companies.
There are other considerations and benefits for local communities to come from this new policy of bidding. Those would include…. I’d like the minister just to comment a little more on the other potential categories that will be considered in this early stage of policy development. It would include First Nations, women — so gender requirements, presumably. What are the other categories of community benefits that this government would see being part of this policy?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I’m glad he is interested in the community benefit agreements, as are we, and I’m hoping that he’s going to be a strong advocate for them. It really does give the opportunity, as we are discussing, to invest in our communities no matter where they are, no matter where the infrastructure projects — whether it’s a hospital or a school or, in my case, highways and bridges — are being built.
While the policy is still being developed and the details will be forthcoming in the coming weeks and months as we progress, I think it’s pretty safe to say that when we’re looking at what is going to benefit the communities, we’re obviously looking at involving First Nations there. As the member is well aware, we are fully committed to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and implementing that, so any community benefit agreement, I’m sure, will be reflecting that. That is, again, underpinning this government’s approach for the future of B.C. We think it is fundamental to be working in partnership.
There will also, obviously, be…. We’re likely to have…. I say “obviously be.” This is a policy under development, so I’m not going to prejudge what the specifics will be, but I’m expecting that there will be reference to under-represented groups, to equity-seeking groups, to women. Again, this is a shopping list for a policy that has not yet been developed. These are some of the things that I would hope would be there, but I am not saying that they are going to be there.
We’re going to be looking at, I would anticipate, local procurement wherever possible — that we’re investing locally, that we are looking at local companies for supplying and that we are, obviously, looking at hiring locally.
Then the member said that we’ve been talking about apprenticeships. It’s not just the people who are being trained as apprentices. This obviously has an impact on our post-secondary sector and our local community colleges and other institutions and the benefits they will have from having the increased commitment in training — in training apprentices and in training others who are going to be working on these projects.
I think that when we’re looking at it…. As I say, this is a policy in development. It is a policy that will be coming forward from working, as I say, with the Ministry of Advanced Education, our ministry and others. I’m sure the Ministry of Finance will be involved in it too. But it is something that is being developed. Without wanting to belittle it, I think that we’re all going to have some patience on just exactly what those specific benefits are going to be while that’s developed.
The final point I have on this, which I think is important to say, is that you’re going to see different needs in different areas. I mean, what is necessary, for instance, in my constituency may have a different translation in a different constituency. What we’re talking about in a certain area may have a different interpretation. But I think that the policy is going to be fully fleshed out over the coming weeks and months. At that time, we’ll all be very eager, I think, and I’m hoping that the member opposite embraces it as much as the critic for Transportation and becomes a strong advocate for it.
M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for walking through that. Just as a point of reference, in the meantime, for those of us on this side of the House to understand, while the government does its work: are there particular models that the government sees in other jurisdictions in this world for this sort of community benefit arrangement that they see as particularly successful, that they would model this arrangement after? Or are there other studies that they’ve looked at that would support the approach that they’re taking?
Hon. C. Trevena: This is something that we believe in — that we should be investing locally and should be ensuring that all our communities across B.C. get the best benefit and really do, as they say, get the best bang for the buck. The money that we’re investing in B.C. stays in B.C., is invested locally in B.C., and ensures that we are investing in our people, because they are the best investment we can have. If we’re not investing in people, we are letting our whole province down.
How other jurisdictions work in similar veins will be, obviously, something that we’ll be looking at when we’re developing the policy. It’s not something we’re going to be doing a cut and paste of from another jurisdiction, but looking at how other jurisdictions work will be something that we are doing as the policy develops.
With that, Mr. Chair, could we take a five-minute recess?
The Chair: The House will be in recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
M. Lee: Just to bring these sets of questions to a conclusion, I have a few more on this area, if I may. Just before the break, we were talking about the determination of community benefits. The minister made a comment regarding how, in some cases, community benefits will be defined specific to the community, depending on which community we’re talking about — presumably a rural community or an urban community or some other community in this province. That may change how community benefits may be defined on a particular project.
My first question is: who makes that determination? Is that the community itself or the government? Secondly, what other considerations could the community also take into account — issues, of course, as we talk about on this side of the House, regarding congestion and safety?
Hon. C. Trevena: I really do appreciate the member’s enthusiasm about this, and I’m really glad that he is asking so many questions about it. It’s great to have boosters on all sides of the House to make sure that this is really an effective policy.
As I mentioned to the member and the member is very well aware, it is a policy that is under development. The examples I gave were ideas that I had but were not written into policy. They are not guarantees that this is necessarily the way forward. This, I believe, is a dialogue. I appreciate the member’s ideas that he’s putting forward. Whether he thinks that congestion or safety or other issues should be brought forward as part of a community benefit approach is something that I’m sure that those sitting down, working out the policy will take into account.
M. Lee: Thank you for the response. I just wanted to then ask — since we’ve had this further discussion today, and I appreciate the time we’ve spent on this — with the continued status of the early stage of this policy development by the government, how will this affect, if at all, the current contract awards by the Ministry of Transportation?
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. Unlike the previous government, this government is not one that tears up contracts. It’s a government that respects what we have in place, and it’s not going to just go and tear up contracts as the previous government did.
This is a policy that we are evolving. It’s something that we believe in. It’s something that we do think will be of benefit for all of British Columbia, that we’re going to be investing in all parts of our province — physically, in the infrastructure that we’re building; logistically, we’re going to be reaching all parts of our province; and we’re going to actually be investing in the people of our province, who are really the most important part of our province.
M. Lee: Obviously, we can have a discussion, as we could have yesterday, about what a fair wage is. We won’t get into what commitments a government makes and what commitments a government backs away from, like this current government.
Having said that, I want to ask, then…. That suggests that there is no change to current government contracts the ministry has entered into by nature of this new bid policy.
Secondly, then, in terms of new contract awards, the system that will be utilized by the Ministry of Transportation is the current system, which presumably does not include best bid community benefit considerations. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Trevena: Without belabouring the point, I know the member wants to get down to the real details, and I’m sure that when we are working on the real details, he’ll be really happy to see them and be, as I say, boosting them. I know that he is running for the leadership of his party, and it would be great to see him embrace this policy as part of his leadership campaign. I look forward to that.
In the meantime, it is, as I have mentioned several times, the answer to several questions: a policy in development. We will be working on it. It is part of the mandate letter for the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. It is going to be involving the Minister for Advanced Education. It’s going to be involving this ministry. It’s going to be involving, I’m sure, the Ministry of Finance.
The Premier has said very clearly that this is the way that this government is going to be moving forward. I think it’s extraordinarily exciting that we can be investing across the province, and I’m very pleased that the member opposite, as a leadership candidate, is so interested and I hope will embrace the policy in his campaign.
M. Lee: I must say that any reference to leadership activities, I think, is separate and outside this House. I’m standing here as the member representing Vancouver-Langara, a member of the B.C. Liberal caucus, and I just want to get an understanding as to how this process is going to work for this province.
As we go forward here, we have a number of projects, of course, that are on the books — what we’ve been spending the last day and a half on discussing in this House. I’m concerned, as well as all my colleagues in this B.C. Liberal caucus, as to the amount of delay that this new process is going to introduce to this contract-award process.
We have a situation now, since last Friday when the Premier made his comments and today in the House. We have uncertainty as to how contracts will be awarded and how they’ll be evaluated. What measures, what criteria, best bids and community benefits are to be adhered to, what are they supposed to meet? I’m hearing weeks and months, I understand that.
In the meantime, presumably, any contract that is being considered will be under the current rules, which don’t include those considerations. Going forward, as bidders look at their bid materials and put in the kind of cost that individual companies did on the George Massey Tunnel replacement project, for example — sunk costs these firms put into place…. They will not recover millions and millions of dollars.
I think this government needs to take its role seriously. All I’m asking at this point, then, is: what is the timing expectation on the implementation of these new rules? When can we expect that new bidders will understand when the rules will be in place and what they need to adhere to and mean?
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. I can understand his concerns, but it is going to be a cross-government developmental policy. It will obviously take some time to get in place. We have a ministry that is working and will continue to work in the coming weeks and months, as the policies develop, but as the policies develop, the ministry has a job to do and will continue doing its job.
M. Lee: Thank you very much. That completes my questions.
J. Sturdy: Just one more question along these lines. For instance, if we’re talking about a number of contracts that need to be tendered right now and that will be out there for proponents to look at and bid on, would the minister’s advice be to those proponents that they should move ahead and submit bids based on the criteria they have been used to providing with those bids? Or should they be, in fact, considering the suggestion that best bid will be adopted in an incremental way or that there’ll be some sort of definition? Do they have to pay attention to it right now? Or do they carry on with the same process, the same approach that they have been using for the last number of years?
Hon. C. Trevena: Procurement is done by the public service. They will continue to do procurement in their professional way, as the public service works in a professional way, and they will work under the direction of whatever policy is in place at the time.
J. Sturdy: Well, let’s take the opportunity to move on to B.C. Ferries, if we might. I know that this is one of the minister’s passions. She has been very vocal on this subject for quite a number of years.
If I might start out by…. I’m led to understand that at the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities conference this spring, the now Premier said — this is a paraphrase, but I understand it’s a pretty accurate one — “If we are elected, the first thing I will do is throw out the Coastal Ferry Act.” Is that in fact the case? Is that the intention of government?
Hon. C. Trevena: Just before I answer the member’s question, we’ve had a change in staff, as a new subject comes up. I’d just like to introduce again Deborah Bowman, assistant deputy minister on policy branch, and Kirk Handrahan, who is the executive director for the marine branch as well as having a number of other portfolios.
I know that the Premier is also passionate about B.C. Ferries, and in my mandate letter he gave me very clear instruction on three areas involving B.C. Ferries. One is the fare-reduction strategy to make sure that we can reduce fares across the board on the minor routes and the northern routes, that we freeze fares on the majors and that we bring back the seniors rate, the free travel for seniors Monday to Thursday. He also instructed me to have an operational review of B.C. Ferries, as well as looking at procurement for the building of B.C. Ferries in B.C.
Those are the commitments that the Premier gave me to fulfil, and they are ones that I am working on fulfilling along with the other areas in my mandate letter.
J. Sturdy: Specifically with regard to the Coastal Ferry Act, does the minister have any intentions around amending or abandoning the Coastal Ferry Act?
Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, we are doing an operational review of B.C. Ferries. There is nothing in my mandate letter about amending the Coastal Ferry Act nor about the comments that the member made in his first question. But we will be doing an operational review that will be, I hope, comprehensive. That will be coming out…. We’re planning to be doing that, I believe, into the spring.
J. Sturdy: Well, that’s interesting. If I might, I could quote the now Premier on CFAX saying: “My position is that we should return B.C. Ferries to its status as a Crown corporation or, in consultation with coastal communities, particularly those I was talking to over the weekend, bring it back into the Ministry of Transportation.” This was a quote on CFAX from the now Premier. Does the minister have any comments on that position?
Hon. C. Trevena: I again thank the member for the question. I know that if we’re going back to early spring, the other opposition party, the Green Party, had it very clear in their party platform that they wanted to bring B.C. Ferries back as a Crown corporation. Our commitments in our platform reflect the commitments in my mandate letter — that we want to have an operational review of B.C. Ferries.
We also want to make B.C. Ferries more affordable for people. It has become — I think the member is well aware — incredibly expensive for people to use what they regard as their marine highway. We’ve seen fares go up by 140 percent on certain routes, and that is absolutely untenable for people.
You’re looking at the cost of living going up by a few percent, inflation a very low level. People’s wages aren’t going up by 140 percent. People’s bus tickets aren’t going up by 140 percent. Yet the cost of using their marine highway, their only access for their communities and the only access for the business in their communities, has gone up 140 percent, which is why we have that very firm commitment to be rolling back the fares by 15 percent as well as freezing the fares on the major routes.
J. Sturdy: Perhaps the minister might like to enlighten us as to what’s happening with trends in terms of passenger and car volumes over, say, the last year or two?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I thank him for the question. It’s always an interesting discussion for Ferries people about where traffic is and what’s happening with traffic and what the passenger count is and so on.
It’s been an interesting more than a decade on B.C. Ferries. We are still much, much lower in traffic in passenger usage on our routes than we were back in 2003-2004, 2004-2005. For instance, on the northern routes…. And I’m sure the member is well aware of the impacts of the costs on the northern routes and the impacts of the change in schedule to the northern routes.
For instance, the passengers travelling on the northern routes were at a peak in 2004-05, 2005-06, at more than 117,000. Now there are still only 86,000. That’s over a year. I think people correlate that to the cost of travelling. I mean, it’s not like the population in Haida Gwaii has diminished so considerably that they would lose that many people travelling on B.C. Ferries.
I think we are facing a serious reflection of the cost of ferries, which is why our government is absolutely committed to reducing fares by 15 percent and bringing back the free seniors travel. Likewise on the minor routes, we have seen a decrease from the peak of ’04-05 to where we are now. If you include all the routes, we are still down on what they were. It was roughly 22 million in ’04-05, and we’re at 21 million.
One million people is significant. I think that we are seeing that this is a reflection of both the cost of ferries as well as the changing routes. But when you are seeing fares that have gone up by approximately 140 percent, it is really significant. That being said, as people know, I, too, live on one of the islands, and I’m very well aware, very cognizant that when you get into the summer season, the peak season, you get into overloads.
It was very busy on B.C. Ferries through this summer, I think, partly because of the rate of our dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. I think also partly because of the wildfires. The forest fire situation in the Interior brought people to the coast. But also, you see the reflection when you get into the overloads, the fact that schedules have been so severely cut. I know there is a real urgency among coastal communities to see a reinstatement of routes back into the levels they were before 2013, when the previous government cut them.
To put it short, ferry usage is going up. It is going up. Each year you see a few more people, but we think that there is a much greater potential when we do look at ensuring that the fares are actually affordable rather than the cost that they are at the moment.
J. Sturdy: My understanding, though, from the annual report this spring was that they’re at levels not seen since the famed ’90s in terms of the number of passengers and volume. I was just trying to find the annual report here in front of me so I could quote it directly to you. I’m sure I will be able to find it in a minute.
Having understood and experienced the circumstances over the course of the last months with the Port Mann Bridge toll removal, is the minister anticipating a similar type of surge in volume when the proposed 15 percent price reductions come into play? And perhaps the minister could confirm when those are coming in. I believe it’s April 1, but maybe a confirmation on that would be great. Is there any forecast on overloads? And what is anticipated in terms of increased volumes?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, to the member. I think it’s pretty well inevitable that there’s going to be an increase in use when we reduce the fares and when we’re freezing the fares, particularly when we’re reducing the fares, and we’re bringing back the free seniors rate.
When the seniors rate was removed and the seniors had to start paying, you saw a 13 percent falloff in seniors using the ferries. These people are obviously on fixed incomes, who have been using the ferries to visit grandchildren or family. They just simply found that they couldn’t afford it.
We’re anticipating that there will be an increase in use, that suddenly people, whether it’s seniors who will, I think, many of them or some…. You get into a habit, or you’re looking at wanting to travel on the weekend. But there’ll be a redirection back to the Monday to Thursday where they can travel at no charge for themselves. Obviously there’s still cost to the vehicle but no charge for themselves. That will, I think, be lightly increased there.
There will be others who will start travelling — those who simply have found it unaffordable for a long while. And when we’re talking on the northern routes where the cost is that much more, a 15 percent reduction is significant. Whether it’s people in Bella Bella or people in Haida Gwaii who want to travel, it will enable them to travel more easily. It’s still going to be a very expensive trip, but it will allow that to happen more easily.
So whether you’re going off to see your kids play in a tournament somewhere, that’s going to, again, make it more easy. I think that there will be, initially, an increase in traffic. Obviously, we’re bringing this in, in April. It’s the start of the busiest season for B.C. Ferries, so we’re likely going to see an increase in traffic in that respect too.
It comes down to…. The reason we’re doing it is not whether it is going to increase the traffic on B.C. Ferries. I find it interesting that the member recognizes how good B.C. Ferries was in the 90s — that we had a lot of people travelling on B.C. Ferries.
It is a question of affordability. It is absolutely a question, that when your fares have gone up 140 percent to use your highway to travel on your transit, which is what B.C. Ferries is…. It’s that hybrid between a highway and a bus. You have seen those costs go up, and you’ve seen the services reduced. You feel that you are being sidelined, and you simply cannot afford to…. It’s an added cost, with hydro going up and ICBC going up. These things have been going up.
Our commitment, as a government, was to make life more affordable. In my ministry, this is one very concrete way that we are going to be making life more affordable — by making sure people living in the coastal communities have access to their highway. It’ll also be making it more affordable for businesses. I know that certain businesses have faced…. We’ve had businesses facing real problems in coastal communities. Others have seen a dramatic shift.
I use, again, the experience in my own backyard. One of the businesses on Quadra Island is Walcan Seafood. They had a long-standing agreement with Grieg Seafood to process the fish from Grieg’s fish farms on the west coast of the Island. It was a huge budget cost for Grieg to be using the ferry over from Campbell River to Quadra and then over to the Lower Mainland. They changed their location for their fish processing because of the cost. It was one of the main reasons that Grieg pulled out from their contract there. It was because it was adding to the cost of their product.
Now, that’s a major player. There are lots of small players, and there are bigger players who have been facing — for many, many years, year upon year upon year — cost increases. This is a way of making it more affordable for families and making the coast a better place to work for businesses.
I think the member, as a representative of coastal communities, is well aware of the impact and the concentration of people living in coastal communities and the importance of B.C. Ferries to those coastal communities and to our coastal economy.
J. Sturdy: Then is it is fair to say there has been no work done on forecasting impacts to traffic volumes?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, there has been work done. B.C. Ferries has used its elasticity modelling to forecast what the increase could be. They’re, obviously, very conscious of this because this is their business. They’re estimating that it is going to be a less than 5 percent increase.
They’re also anticipating a redirection of people using it. It’s not necessarily that everyone will continue to use it. But the redirection, as I mentioned…. Seniors will again have the potential to travel at no cost for four days of the week. It’s anticipated that they’ll be moving to the…. Some discretionary travel, as B.C. Ferries likes to put it, will be moving to other days of the week.
I think it’s going to be very exciting to see people actually able to use their highway system again without feeling they are being exploited every time they get on it.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Is that public information, the forecasting in terms of volume increases and their impacts? I take it they won’t be spread evenly throughout the system. There will likely be some pinch points. Is the minister aware…? Can she fill us in on that?
Hon. C. Trevena: The modelling is not published information. It’s part of when B.C. Ferries is working on the pricing and the price cap model with the commissioner. This elasticity modelling is part of that. What would be the impact of a fare going up by X percent or going down by X percent?
B.C. Ferries reports out publicly, quarterly, on statistics, on actuals, on how many people are actually on the boats and how many cars are on the boats — the real day-to-day metrics. This is a modelling that goes to the commissioner as part of the continuing discussion about price caps and the fare levels.
I think it’s fair to say that there has been…. They’re doing the modelling. They’re looking at the recent increases, over the last months and years, and looking at what will happen here and anticipating that there will be an increase — approximately 5 percent or less.
I think one of the things that the member, I’m sure, is well aware of — but it’s worth reminding — is that some travel will change. If we’re thinking about the fact that it’s going to mean all the vessels will always face overloads…. I think it will average out in different places. As I mentioned before, some seniors may move to different days of travelling. Some vessels will obviously get busier, but some other routes that had faced a real decline might actually start seeing people using the routes again because they can finally afford it. So a long answer to a short question.
It is not published information. It is information with the commissioner. What is published is the actuals on what happens every quarter: how many are people using the vessels and how many vehicles are using the vessels and how much money B.C. Ferries has been making.
The Chair: Members, I would like to remind all members on both sides to have your electronic devices on mute when you are using them inside the House, please. Thank you so much.
J. Sturdy: What is the anticipated revenue gap, then, with regard to the impacts of the fare reduction?
Hon. C. Trevena: Actually, ministry staff are having negotiations with B.C. Ferries at the moment. Obviously, any changes will be reflected in the contract. It’s an ongoing discussion.
J. Sturdy: So if there is a revenue gap, then, that would typically require additional taxpayer resources to contribute to make up the gap, in conjunction with, I suppose, additional reinstated services, if the minister and the government decide that that’s the direction they want to go.
Would the minister, then, confirm that if there is a revenue gap, it will be taxpayer dollars that’ll fill those gaps?
Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, there are discussions going on between the ministry and B.C. Ferries. I don’t want to prejudice anything that is being talked about between ministry staff and B.C. Ferries at the moment. As the member is well aware, there are lots of pieces in play — whether traffic volumes…. As we’ve been talking about, traffic will be going up.
What is going to be happening with the fare reduction? I think that it is something that ministry staff are talking with B.C. Ferries about. There may or may not be a gap there. But whatever change in the service fee there is, if there is one — because, as I say, we’re still in discussions — it will be reflected in the contract.
J. Sturdy: If I might, why only the minor routes? Don’t the people who are on the majors have the same challenges that the people on the minor routes do? Why would it only be a fare reduction on the minors?
Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a valid question, and I thank the member for it. The reason why we’ve got the minor and the northern routes is because, particularly for the minor routes, these are people who are using ferries very regularly, who are living, very often, in smaller communities and face greater challenges.
For instance, I represent North Island, as the member is well aware. And we’ve got the Alert Bay–Sointula route out of Port McNeill. We’ve got people who are living in more remote communities or First Nations who are living, perhaps, in Alert Bay, who may be unemployed. There is a greater pressure on people living in the minor route communities.
Likewise, my friend from Powell River–Sunshine Coast would be able to talk very eloquently about the pressures that his constituents face. And they, too, will be able to feel this fare relief, as will your constituents on Bowen Island.
The major routes. There was a sense that while there is, obviously, very regular use, it is not so much that lifeline for people. It is oftentimes more the general traffic, whereas if you are talking about Denman, Buckley Bay, that is a lifeline — literally. You’ve got people who need to get to the doctor, need to get to the hospital, and so on, day in, day out. It was looking at that.
It was also the northern routes. As I say, it’s the minor routes. We encapsulate it all in the minor routes. It’s those and the northern routes, because the northern routes have been severely impacted both by the increased costs and the decreased service.
I’m sure the member has heard — as the spokesperson, as the critic for the ministry — from the people in Alpha Bay, who have not got service in the evenings. They’re also facing the huge cost and the limited ferries from Skidegate to Prince Rupert.
Really, it’s an issue of affordability for those communities, and those businesses working in those communities, to ensure that their economy is a boost to the individuals, a boost to the economies in those communities, whereas the major routes were seen as more stable. Major routes often attract many more tourists. They are oftentimes a much more discretionary use.
J. Sturdy: I think it’s a fairly arbitrary distinction, in that there are people who are reliant on the majors, as well, that are suffering from some of the same challenges.
At the risk of being provocative here — not that that’s not our job — the comment has been made that the ferries are part of the highway system, like bridges. The comment has also been made that it’s unfair to punish people for where they live, which was the logic and the rationale behind the removal of tolls on the bridges over the Fraser River.
Wouldn’t logic dictate the same sort of policy? We’re punishing people for living on the other side of a ferry, so why not just eliminate the ferry fares? It’s a similar type of argument. It just seems that 15 percent is a fairly arbitrary number that it is being applied unevenly, and it is not consistent with the overall logic around punishing people for where they live.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question and the discussion. I’ve got to say that there’s sort of a bit of a Looking-Glass sense about this. The member opposite, if I understand him right, is suggesting that we actually eliminate fares on B.C. Ferries, which I find a fascinating approach from an opposition member who was part of a government who created the problem that this side of the House, this government, is now trying to address by rolling back the fares.
I would like to remind the member that it was under his government’s watch that B.C. Ferries, the model that we are discussing now, was created. We have this very convoluted system where we have the price-cap model for setting fares under the commissioner’s office. We have the two-tier boards in B.C. Ferries. We’ve got the arm’s-length relationship, which is why ministry staff have to sit down in discussions with B.C. Ferries about changes to fares or changes to the contract.
This is the beast of what the opposition members in government…. He was there for four years when they were in government and was clearly supportive of the model, because he was part of that government. To be now saying that perhaps we should be eliminating fares, I think, is quite a turnaround. I’d be very interested to know if that is going to be the new policy of the opposition, the B.C. Liberals. It would be a complete turnaround.
We have been extremely clear in our approach throughout — when we were in opposition, when we were campaigning and very much so since we’ve been in government — that our focus is trying to make life more affordable for people and to boost our economy in a sustainable way. The reduction in fares is fundamental to making life more affordable for people.
The member, I know, grew up on the coast. He’s aware of the differences between the major and the minor routes. We call them that, the major being, obviously, for those who aren’t aware, the three ferry routes from the Island that go to the Lower Mainland: Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen, Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay and Duke Point to Tsawwassen. Those are the three routes that are the majors.
Duke Point to Tsawwassen was established initially as a route for commerce, very much a truck route. It has become a more mixed route, but when it was first established in the 1990s, it was going to be a route for trucking, and the other two are very much the general link.
Yes, it is a highway, and yes, we do see the free ferries in the Interior, and perhaps that’s what the member is thinking of modelling his ideas on. I’d be very happy to sit down and talk with him about that, if that’s his suggestion and that’s his idea. I think it would be very, very interesting to see what ideas he has of making that work, seeing as it would be a complete change.
The majors, these three ferries, are different from those regular routes that people are travelling all the time. Whether you are living in Sointula and teaching in Alert Bay and you are on the ferry the whole time, whether you are living, as I say, on Hornby Island and you have to run errands in Courtenay or Comox, you are using the ferry system for your life. Your businesses are using it to get supplies onto your islands.
This is literally the highway link, so it is very much the lifeline for people who are…. It is the roadway. It is the bus. Yes, sometimes the bus runs empty, and sometimes the bus runs with standing room only, but you still have the bus going there. It is that hybrid.
For the northern routes, as I say, it’s some of the areas where there has been a huge economic downturn, where you have a lot of poverty, and people have been conversely faced with routes that are much more expensive and fares that have gone up extraordinarily. So that, again, is why we’re going to be reducing fares across the board on these routes, accepting that the major routes are different. They don’t have that regular daily use. You don’t have the daily commuter.
Even B.C. Ferries acknowledges that. They do promote the major routes. You get, as has been described, the cruise ship experience on the major routes. If you use your experience card…. I don’t know whether the member has an experience card, but the experience card is the prepaid card, where you put $115 on it, and then it is deducted every time you buy your ferry ticket, and you get a slight reduction in the cost of your ferry ticket. You don’t get the benefit of that on the major routes. So B.C. Ferries themselves acknowledge it is a very different route system.
There are a number of reasons, but the real fundamental reason is to make life affordable for people who have not been able to travel with ease, who have literally had to count the cost, as they’ve been facing increased costs of living across the board. By reducing the fares by 15 percent…. It isn’t arbitrary. It has been a thoughtful approach to get to the 15 percent across the board. By bringing back that very, very important….
I’m sure the member, as the critic and as a constituency MLA, particularly representing one of the islands — Bowen — has heard very loud and clear the real urge from the senior population to reinstate the free ferries.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
I’m sure they are asking him to be lobbying myself as minister to bring it in immediately. I know that I’m hearing that. “Minister, why aren’t you doing this right now? You should be doing this right now. You did the tolls right now, so why the wait?”
The wait is…. We are looking at long-term strategies. We are going to be bringing it. We’re committing to it. In our platform campaign, we committed that it would be in the spring of the next year, which is 2018, which is when we’re going to bring it in. So we are absolutely consistent with that.
At the same time as bringing the fares, we are having this operational review, which I think will be very interesting for many people. We’re still working.
I know the question came up in question period about terms of reference for reviews. We are working on the operational review, the scope of it and how it’s going to develop. As I say, it was a campaign commitment. It was very clearly in my mandate letter. That is something that we’re also looking forward to getting to.
I do look forward to talking more with the member, who is clearly in the opposition and has maybe walked not just across the floor to the opposition but has walked the road to Damascus and sees B.C. Ferries as we on this side of House have long seen B.C. Ferries.
J. Sturdy: No, I don’t want to give the impression to the minister that I was advocating for complete fare reductions on B.C. Ferries. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of this approach. To say that the experience card is for daily commuters, yet it’s applicable to the northern routes, which are hardly daily commutes….
The logic all the way through…. The arbitrary fare reduction had little consultation with B.C. Ferries or the Ferry Commissioner, I imagine, in terms of the decision that this was going to happen. It’s being applied unevenly. It’s disjointed logic, especially with your other tolling criteria, your tolling logic. They’re creating overload issues, creating additional demand issues, additional revenue requirements, additional taxpayer subsidies, targeting constituents that I’d argue, in some respects have….
I think it would be worth looking at who most needs additional fare reductions or subsidies. I think it would be easy to argue that families with children that are in ferry-dependent communities need this type of approach. But to say that you’re targeting one sector but not others, where seniors are eligible for this and others are not…. The logic just is fairly disjointed. It clearly seems to be pretty much satisfying a political agenda more than anything else.
I’m glad the minister brought up the governance operational review, what I believe she called it. Could you tell us about timelines, about budgets, about what the consultation plans are? Who is involved — stakeholders, First Nations, ferry advisory committees? Perhaps the minister would like to let us know how this is going to work.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to respond, initially, to the member’s arguments or comments about disjointed logic. I’ve got to say: this, from a member of the opposition that was government that brought us the chaos to communities of B.C. Ferries — the iteration of B.C. Ferries that that government created — really is quite risible. The cost to our communities across the coast has been devastating.
The fact that we are actually taking a step to try and make life more affordable for those many, many people in coastal communities…. They have felt, over the years, that their link to the rest of B.C. and that their links to their own communities had been cut by the increasing in fares. It’s just outrageous.
The member travels the ferries. I’m sure he does. I’m sure he’s gone to many communities, as he was the parliamentary secretary for ferries, I understand, in the previous government, and he is the spokesperson, or the critic, for Transportation and ferries. I’m sure he has gone, like I have done, and talked with ferry advisory committees and talked with communities about the impact of the high fares on their communities.
This is why we are looking at reducing the fares on most of the routes except those three major routes, where we’re freezing the fares. We are also saying there will be no fare increases on those.
I’m not going to belabour that one. The member did ask me a second question about part of the mandate letter — the second part of that point in the mandate letter — which is the comprehensive operating review.
Again, I’m sure that the member, in his conversations with ferry advisory committees and others in coastal communities, with their elected…. I’m sure he sat down with the regional directors from coastal communities, about the increasing in costs and the problems that their communities have been facing, and that these issues have come to his table, these issues that we have heard consistently for the last, effectively, 15 years since B.C. Ferries was established — and their impact on communities. There have been a number of reports written.
What we’re looking at now is finalizing the scope of the report. But the themes have been consistent from communities and from the issues of affordability and the issues of service levels.
The impact of B.C. Ferries on communities is significant. The impact of B.C. Ferries on our economy is significant. We are at the moment finalizing the scope, and we’ll be moving on the review when that scope has been finalized.
J. Sturdy: Can the minister provide us with some sense of when the terms of reference for this review will be made public and whether there is any budget associated with it?
Hon. C. Trevena: When the scope is finalized, we’ll be ready to start on the review. We want to make sure that the scope is thorough, that we’re encapsulating the spirit and intent of a comprehensive operating review. We’ll be moving on it when we have that scope finalized.
J. Sturdy: Will that scope be finalized this year? Or will it be finalized sometime next year? Could you give us a sense of when we expect to see that scope?
Hon. C. Trevena: It is a commitment. It’s something, as the critic is aware, for which I have advocated strongly for many years and continue to advocate strongly.
It is something that will be happening as soon as I possibly can make sure that it happens, but I don’t want to be shortchanging the ferry-dependent communities either. They have been anticipating something like this for a very long time and have been hoping that there would be a thorough operational review, which is what we will be doing.
J. Sturdy: I guess I won’t be getting…. It probably won’t be this year; maybe not next year. Couldn’t even commit to next year, but anyway, we’ll move on.
The minister has a long history of suggesting that all ferries in the B.C. fleet should be built here in British Columbia. Could the minister let us know how she intends to make that happen?
Hon. C. Trevena: Building ferries in B.C. — a number of ways, looking at a number of things, but obviously, engaging with stakeholders, with those involved in shipbuilding for various levels and having discussions with B.C. Ferries. That’s some of it.
I think that you’ve got to recognize the great capacity we have in B.C. for building vessels, the great opportunity we have. Again, we’ve been talking about benefits to communities. This would not be necessarily linked in with that — because we’re talking about B.C. Ferries, which is its own entity — but as soon as you start building things like ferries in British Columbia, you are creating the skills and the jobs. You’re getting a trained workforce.
I mean, we have, over the last number of years, seen a number of ferries being built in B.C. — the inland ferries. WaterBridge Steel has built some excellent vessels in Nakusp. They’ve built them right on the edge of the lake, ready to launch. That has been something which, sadly, wasn’t celebrated by the previous government, but I think it’s a real testament to some of the skills that we do have. We have skills on the coast as well as in the Interior for building ferries.
I think the member is aware that it’s something I have advocated for a number of years, as opposition, looking at ways we could do it. Part of the inspiration I got was when I was travelling around Washington State and seeing Washington State’s absolute commitment to building its ferries in-state. They have, I think, just one prime shipyard that is building Washington State Ferries.
In the past, we have looked at ways of building ferries, whether we are doing the consortia of shipyards or looking at one specific contract to do it. We’re getting a lot interest from people who are very excited about this, of seeing that this could be a whole new industry, of how we can really be pushing the envelope here and making sure that we are building high-quality vessels in B.C.
It really has rankled people — B.C. Ferries offshoring of the vessel procurement, the fact that we’ve seen the vessels being built in Germany, in Poland and now in Romania. A Dutch shipyard is going to be building vessels in Romania. People really see that that’s a big problem, that you’ve got the jobs leaving our communities that could be here if we had been encouraging that shipbuilding industry, which we did have for a long while. I mean, the Spirits were built here, and they’re fine vessels. They’re now being shipped over to Europe for their mid-life — well, almost end-of-life — refit to make them LNG compatible.
There is the potential here. I won’t say there’s a huge capacity at the moment, but there is the potential. I think we need to be exploring those potentials to make sure that we are able to create opportunity.
As I say, people are still very upset about the offshoring of our shipbuilding, our ferry-building, and the fact that you’re investing in the German economy and the German workforce, or you’re investing in the Polish economy and the Polish workforce. Now we’re investing in the Romanian economy and the Romanian workforce.
There is a time when we have to stand up and say we should be investing in our economy, in our workforce, and making sure that we are for something as integral as building part of our marine highway. We’ve had this discussion. That network links our communities. We should be making every effort to be building them in B.C. with the skills that we have in B.C. to make sure that we have those ferries. They’re fitted out in the interiors. B.C. Ferries can choose whatever interior it likes putting in its ferries, but we should really be trying, as best possible, to be building our ferries here in B.C. rather than having them offshored.
I think that we look at the experience of the inland ferries, where they are building ferries. We look at the experience of some of the ferries that were built here. We’ve got B.C. Ferries’ commitment to doing the upgrading here in B.C., not just its own Deas Dock, but it uses other shipyards to do some of its refits.
B.C. Ferries acknowledges that there are the skills in B.C. What I would like to see is that being built on and that we are really helping evolve a sector that was once vibrant and could well be really vibrant again. I think that there is a great opportunity.
Conversations have only just started. It is in my mandate letter, but as the member is aware, out of the items in my mandate letter…. We’ve just been talking about the freezing and reducing of fares, which will take place next year, the operational review. This is part of my mandate letter, but we’ve also had other areas in my mandate letter which have been acted on almost immediately.
This one is one that we are working on. It will, obviously, take time to come into play. It is a difficult part of my mandate letter but I think one that the Premier is clearly committed to. The fact that it is there as a highlight for a Minister of Transportation to be doing this shows that the Premier is also committed to seeing this. I think that’s very exciting, and I hope that the opposition will celebrate this industry in B.C. as much as we will.
J. Sturdy: Actually, the mandate letter says to provide a fair and open “competitive bidding process that is open to B.C. shipyards.” I don’t believe that the process was ever closed to B.C. shipyards.
I’d be curious if the minister could tell us how many shipyards in British Columbia currently exist that were capable of building the Salish class vessels.
Hon. C. Trevena: Building vessels in B.C. is, as we’ve just been discussing, a wonderful opportunity. One of the things that we’re going to be looking at is finding out from the existing players what the problem has been. Because I hear from a lot of people on the coast who run shipyards and work in shipyards that there is an inability to bid on B.C. Ferries procurement.
One of the reasons being is that… Again, this is what has been playing out over the last number of years. B.C. Ferries effectively frowns on the possibility of consortia building ferries — so one shipyard take a lead, but others come forward to work on building ferries, which is the way that the ferries were built for many, many years in British Columbia. It’s a way that I’m sure that the member has travelled on the Spirit class vessels. It’s the way that those were built. It’s the way that other ferries have been built.
For many years, it was very effective. B.C. Ferries, in its present iteration, has not been allowing that sort of bidding process. So that sort of consortia, that group process to be building B.C. Ferries, which has limited the number of shipyards available to be bidding on the ferries that have gone out to tender…. Which is why, in the end, B.C. Ferries has gone overseas because it has — as is understood — limited that.
One of the things that I’m hoping to be talking to B.C. Ferries about is its procurement practise, because it’s fundamental to the building of vessels in our province and making sure that we have the maximum possibility for a good, healthy industry that we can have shipyards bidding on those.
It would be wonderful to be in a position today for shipyards to come together and say: “We could bid on the vessels that are being built in Romania.” I mean, there are two vessels out of a six-vessel fleet, I understand from B.C. Ferries. The first two have gone to contract in Romania, but we’ve got four more. It would be a great position, if we have got to that situation in B.C. — in discussion with B.C. Ferries, in discussion with other shipyards — to work out how they can get together to be bidding on the next four vessels.
I think it’s the hypothetical…. Rather, not the hypothetical; we have had the industry in the past. We can have the industry in the future. But at the moment, the structure has been such that we don’t have the industry at present, and we have not had the industry for the last 15 or 16 years.
I think that is a major loss for B.C., the B.C. economy and B.C. Ferries. I think that we need to be having a conversation with the shipyards and other people who are in the industry to work out how best they can engage and how best B.C. Ferries can ensure that the system is open to allow a really healthy development of our industry.
It’s not going to be an overnight panacea. We’re not going to sit down and suddenly say: “Okay, these ten shipyards are suddenly able to do build X number of C-class ferries.” We are looking at how we are going to rebuild an industry we once had but, for the last 15 or 16 years, has been laying in abeyance.
In the last 15 or 16 years, the costs to B.C. have been enormous in the fact that we’ve had…. Was it five ferries built overseas? And we bought two ferries from Greece. There has been a huge investment by B.C. Ferries offshore for our ferry system. What we’d like to see is the opportunity for B.C. and for our shipyards to be able to invest in the future of B.C. Ferries by being able to participate in the building of B.C. Ferries.
It’s not an overnight solution, but in 16 years, the situation has, really, become dire for many shipyards that could be working very productively — employing people who are paying taxes in B.C., employing people who are shopping in B.C., employing people whose kids are going to school in B.C. and employing people who are paying the exorbitant ferry fares in B.C. but are investing back in our economy. That’s what we’d really like to see with this. It’s not going to be an overnight solution, but we certainly need to be starting on it.
J. Sturdy: My understanding was that Seaspan declined to enter into the bidding process last time because they didn’t have the time and the space. It’s not as though companies situated in British Columbia haven’t been participating. I actually had the privilege of seeing the Baynes Sound Connector being manufactured in North Vancouver. So it’s not as though they’re not participating.
Will the minister consider mandating that ferries are built in British Columbia — directing B.C. Ferries along those lines? How does she define an open process — the mandate letter again, “open to B.C. shipyards” — as opposed to where it is now?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s comment, Seaspan pulled out the bid because it was busy with the federal contracts and the Coast Guard. My argument has been that other potential opportunities were lost because of the lack of the ability to work in consortia because of B.C. Ferries procurement policy.
The member asked whether we would mandate B.C. Ferries to have to build in B.C. I think my mandate letter is very clear that we would ensure that their procurement practices “provide for a fair and a competitive bidding process that is open to B.C. shipyards.”
While I would love to see every single ferry built in B.C. and I think it would be really beneficial to the province, being realistic…. B.C. Ferries has a plan to build a lot of vessels. I don’t think that B.C. shipyards are going to be in a position to bid on every single vessel. But I think that B.C. shipyards — and all B.C. shipyards, not just the major ones but smaller shipyards — should be in position to work together to be able to bid on B.C. Ferries procurement.
This is something of working with B.C. Ferries, working with the shipyards and with others in the marine industry to develop this policy and develop the ability. I think it’s the way forward. It is definitely making sure that we are working together for the best interests of B.C. That’s what this is about. It’s working together for the best interests of B.C.
B.C. Ferries is our marine highway. It is our link. Shipbuilding has been our forte. It can be our forte again. I think working with shipyards up and down the coast, whether it’s in Victoria or Prince Rupert or Campbell River…. Let’s try and get this together so they can all have an opportunity to bid on the procurement process and new B.C. ferries.
J. Sturdy: Thank you for that answer, to the minister.
With regard to the capital plan, does the minister anticipate any significant changes to the capital plan? One project that I’m particularly interested in, as I sit often under the upper deck of the Horseshoe Bay terminal…. I understand it needs a very significant seismic upgrade. Perhaps you could give us an update on changes overall and, specifically, any questions or any plans with regard to Horseshoe Bay.
Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Ferries presents its capital plan before every performance term to the Ferry Commissioner. It’s an agreement. It’s the process that happens. It’s not the ministry; it’s B.C. Ferries working with the Ferry Commissioner. They have their capital plan. It was last filed, I think, about 2014. The next one will be 2019-2020, when the next performance term comes up. It’s discrete. It’s between B.C. Ferries and the commissioner.
J. Sturdy: I take it that between now and then, the minister doesn’t anticipate any changes to the governance structures with B.C. Ferries that would take the Ferry Commissioner out.
I understand the Ferry Commissioner was just reappointed for all of four months. Could the minister perhaps let us know why such a short appointment?
Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Macatee has been the Ferry Commissioner for a number of years, and I’m very pleased that he actually agreed to stay on an extra four months. His term was extended by the previous government by just four months earlier in the year. I think that Mr. Macatee, like much of British Columbia, was expecting that, in May, there would be a very clear result to the election and that he would be staying till November to give stability there. Obviously, we had the very prolonged interregnum between the election and ourselves forming government.
He was due to step down in November. I’m very pleased that he has agreed to stay for an extra four months, so it’s basically eight months beyond when he wanted to step down. It’s not exactly a task that you get a great deal of thanks for, being the B.C. Ferry Commissioner, but he’s put a huge amount of effort into it. I think he is very widely respected by people who are involved with B.C. Ferries, on all sides.
I’m pleased he’s going to be there to help transition in a new B.C. Ferry Commissioner when we move to the next round of price caps.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.
If I might, perhaps we can move on to our favourite topic of ride sourcing for the next little while. As we know, there was a commitment to implement ride sourcing this fall, which changed. The minister engaged Mr. Hara, an expert on taxis and modernizing passenger-directed vehicle services.
The first milestone here was November 29, for a progress report, and then a draft report due on December 31. When will we have the opportunity to receive an update on either the progress or the draft report? When will that be made available publicly?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the member is quite correct. Dr. Hara is at the moment doing his outreach, working with community, working with different stakeholders, getting information together. He will be presenting a progress report at the end of November, and he remains on schedule.
J. Sturdy: The terms of reference in the mandate letter talk about working with taxi drivers, taxi companies and ride-sharing companies to create a truly fair approach to ride-sharing in B.C. Sorry. This is in the terms of reference for the study, I think.
Not included with the stakeholder groups were the ride-sharing companies. Has the minister since directed Mr. Hara to engage in discussion with those ride-sourcing companies?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, Dr. Hara is engaging with the taxi industry. He’s going to be engaging with ride-share. Also, there have been meetings with ourselves and with ride-share. I think it is moving ahead. Hopefully, it will all be, as I mentioned in my previous answer, on schedule, and we can move forward.
J. Sturdy: To the minister: you say that “you have met with ride-sourcing companies. Could the minister let us know who has met? Has the minister met with some of these sourcing companies? Has staff? Let us know who has talked to who.
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, my staff have met with Uber, and they’ll be meeting with other ride-share companies as the weeks go ahead.
J. Sturdy: The minister has stated on multiple occasions that ride-sharing will require six pieces of legislation to be changed, potentially. Could the minister confirm that and let us know what those pieces of legislation that require amendment are?
Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies for that. We just wanted to make sure that we got all the relevant acts correct, and we were having a little discussion there.
To make it clear for the member, it isn’t that a number of acts will have to be changed to bring in ride-share but that, at the moment, taxis and limousines — the passenger-directed vehicle sector, as it is known more esoterically; the passengers are actually very cross-sector — are regulated by six pieces of legislation.
When ride-share is brought into British Columbia, it’s not necessarily meaning that all these six pieces of legislation will have to be changed, and I have made it clear in my remarks, I hope. Obviously, the member didn’t quite pick it up. But there are six pieces of legislation dealing with the current situation — the current taxi situation, not ride-share. Obviously we don’t have ride-share here yet.
Those six pieces of legislation are the Passenger Transportation Act, 2004; the Commercial Transport Act from 1959; the Motor Vehicle Act from 1924, which people have reminded others, has been updated in the 1990s; the Local Government Act, 2000; the Insurance (Vehicle) Act of 2007; and the Vancouver Charter of 1953.
As I mentioned to the member, those are relevant to the taxi and limousine sector at the moment. Whether or not they would need to be amended for ride-share or whether they need to be updated for refreshing the taxi and limousine sector is still to be determined.
J. Sturdy: Well, thank you to the minister for that clarification.
I actually do, at this point, want to jump to something else, because some new information has come to our attention relative to the Massey Tunnel replacement. The minister was pretty clear today that this study, assessment, was being figured out — the terms of reference. We never got a clear answer on that. But we understand today that in fact the Minister of Transportation confirmed late Tuesday that it has already hired somebody to conduct the review, and the person has started examining materials as the government puts finishing touches on terms of reference.
Could the minister let us know, let the House know, when this contract was signed, when it was initially approved and who this consultant is?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, we have not signed a contract with an individual yet, nor have we finalized terms of reference.
J. Sturdy: This is according to the Vancouver Sun this afternoon. “The Ministry of Transportation confirmed late Tuesday that it has already hired an individual to conduct the review, and that the person has started examining materials as the government puts finishing touches on terms of reference.” Would the minister say that that is not accurate?
Hon. C. Trevena: It’s quite usual procedure for an individual who is going to be carrying out a contract such as this to have an initial meeting necessary for the next steps before finalizing that contract. That’s the situation we’re in. As I mentioned before, the terms of reference are being finalized and will be signed off on very shortly.
J. Sturdy: The article goes on to suggest that the minister intends to brief Metro mayors before discussing this in the House or tabling the terms of reference and allowing other members of this Legislature to understand what is in those terms of reference.
Will the minister commit to tabling those terms of reference immediately or this week, perhaps, so those of us who are in this Legislature understand what those terms of reference actually are, prior to her putting it out to everybody? It’s quite a challenge to see this type of suggestion. When would we see the terms of reference? And who is the consultant that is engaged in this contract?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll just answer the question, as a courtesy to the member, obviously.
I’d just like to note that we did have a change of staff in the chamber for this discussion. Executive director Lisa Gow is in the chamber assisting here as well.
As I’ve been very clear, I want to continue having a good relationship with the mayors in the region to talk about what is happening. That’s why I will be talking to them about what is happening.
With that, Madame Chair, noting the hour, I report….
The Chair: Progress.
Hon. C. Trevena: No. Report the committee rise and report completion. I’ve heard it’s completion. We’re completing tonight.
Vote 42: ministry operations, $843,545,000 — approved.
Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the committee rise, report completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Trevena moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 Wednesday afternoon.
The House adjourned at 6:27 p.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); D. Routley in the chair.
The committee met at 1:36 p.m.
On Vote 31: ministry operations, $40,890,000 (continued).
A. Olsen: I just want to follow on some of the narrative that’s being developed here in estimates around creating certainty and the fear, really, of uncertainty. I personally think that UNDRIP creates certainty. From White and Bob all the way through to Tsilhqot’in, we have these constitutional court cases that have been building pressure to do something.
As you mentioned yesterday, the courts have been instructional. “Do something about this at the governance level. Don’t leave it to the judiciary.”
I come from WSÁNEĆ territory, and we are a Douglas treaty First Nation. I just want to talk about pre-Confederation treaties and where your government may, hopefully, take a departure from previous governments, which have forced the pre-Confederation treaties — specifically, the Douglas treaties — into continual constitutional battles in the court system. Maybe you can talk about your ministry’s approach to the pre-Confederation treaties and, perhaps even specifically, the Douglas treaties.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you for the question. I recognize the injustice of past treaties — certainly, the Douglas treaty. I met with many of the nations as a critic and know that, in many cases, it’s been very difficult for the nations to actually exercise their treaty rights. Urban sprawl and other issues in modern history have also exacerbated that too.
I’m committed to breathing energy into negotiations to address that. Some Douglas treaty nations have indicated — or already have a history in the treaty process, some outside of the treaty process — to try to get to reconciliation on this. I have asked staff to open the conversation up where limits were before so that we can address those needs and past injustices.
D. Ashton: Mr. Chair, through yourself to the minister: Minister, just before lunch, a comment was made from you over to myself, I’m assuming, about fearmongering. I just want to say to the minister that I’m not here to fearmonger. I’m here to ask questions in estimates. My questions are based on what we get to read, what we get to see and what has been published.
I’ve read your engagement letter on numerous occasions. It says that as part of your commitment, the government will be fully adopting and implementing the United Nations declaration of rights of Indigenous people. Yesterday you had stated: “We’ve adopted the UN declaration without qualification.” Then it says it’s to fully adopt and that principles are involved and that “certainly, it is my mandate to adopt the UN declaration.”
Then it said — and I’ll end it: “I…want to reiterate. My mandate is to fully adopt the UN declaration….” And at the very bottom of that is: “So all 46 articles are the plan.” My questions are being based on what I read in the articles, just to ensure that there is some certainty. The last thing I think anybody wants to do, especially in government or on our side of the House, is cast uncertainty.
What I’m trying to get are some answers on the direction that government is going to take in the implementation process and who is going to be able to decide when issues arise. Is it going to be the government? Is it going to be bands? Is it going to be the courts again? That’s just one of my concerns.
My question, again, is: with the implementation of UNDRIP, and with all the articles being adopted, who will be able to decide, when there are occurrences of dispute, which I’m quite sure, unfortunately, will come up?
Hon. S. Fraser: While I appreciate my critic’s qualification of this line of inquiry, I will go back to my statement that I made just prior to when we recessed for lunch. There’s a process in place for local governments, for community members, to inform local government of their opinions on development that will affect them. It’s known as a public hearing process. Through that process, developments that are being proposed that are not in the public interest, as stated by the public, affected by the community affected. The local government may well stop a project if it’s a bad project, if it’s not in keeping with community values.
When the UN declaration offers a similar set of rights to Indigenous people, we’ve been spending four or five hours having the opposition suggest that that’s a problem, that it’s going to bring the province to a halt, that it’s a veto. Well, what that is, is a double standard. One standard for First Nations; another one for non–First Nations — a double standard. There’s another word for double standard. I won’t use it here, but the opposition members are getting dangerously close to it. If that’s not fearmongering, I don’t know what is.
D. Ashton: Well, I am not going down that road, and I never would go down that road, hon. Chair. But the minister has just given an analogy about local government, and I came from local government. A decision has to be made. The minister made reference to a public hearing. Then when it comes back to a council or to a regional board, a decision is made. Who’s going to make the decision?
Hon. S. Fraser: In answer to the question, government has a role to make decisions. As the members opposite know, in some cases, in many cases, decisions have led to conflict, to litigation, to uncertainty and unpredictability on the land base. Utilizing the UN declaration is a way of working in partnership with First Nations to get around those negative pieces of decision-making, to involve First Nations as partners, Indigenous peoples as partners, in decision-making and to move us to certainty and predictability on the land base, not the opposite.
J. Rustad: To the minister: unfortunately, his previous statement, I just have to say, was complete nonsense. The intent of the line of questioning here is to determine certainty, to determine what will be happening on the land base, by asking these questions around UNDRIP, by asking these questions around what’s being done. It’s not questioning the doing of it. It’s trying to find out how things are going to be done, so that certainty can be created.
I have a question or two around UNDRIP, but I want to go back to something that the minister said, prior to our lunch break, when I asked about treaty and when I asked about non-treaty agreements in particular. He made the comment — I’m paraphrasing — about his hope in that through the reinvigoration of treaty, it might draw people back into the treaty process.
The question I have on this really is: are you saying to nations that are looking for long-term reconciliation that do not want to go down the treaty route that they have to go back and consider treaty? They have entered into many types of agreements — many types have passed — to find long-term reconciliation. I asked specifically whether those would be reinvigorated as well, and the minister pointed back to the treaty process. So I’ll ask again about that.
The minister also said that at the meetings that he had with regard to All Chiefs, meeting with many, there was such optimism and stuff. I heard the same thing around many of those meetings. Many of the chiefs were very optimistic. But I’ve had an opportunity to talk to many chiefs from around the province since then. Their comment, particularly on stuff that wasn’t treaty-related, was that things are not going well. And I asked: “Oh, have things slowed down?” They said no, that the more appropriate word would be that things have stalled.
Given that, and given just the comments from the minister about the reinvigoration of treaty and that, hopefully, it would draw people back in, is there any hope for nations who are not in treaty to be able to find a path for long-term reconciliation with this government?
Hon. S. Fraser: The answer is yes. We are working closely with First Nations inside and outside of the treaty process, and we respect the rights of nations to work inside or outside of the treaty process. That is their choice. If they’ve left the treaty process because it has been ineffective for them or they felt that they have been dismissed from the process, we are trying to address that so that it doesn’t happen again, and may well provide an avenue to return to the treaty process if that is the decision that’s made by the nation.
I understand there are some nations that feel that things have stalled. They’ve signed agreements on LNG and such, and the LNG projects that they were promised by the previous government did not come to fruition for whatever reason. I understand their frustration on that.
Of course, I made a point of being in contact with all the First Nations involved with…. When major projects’ proponents were announcing that they were cancelling those projects, I was on the phone, spent a lot of time on the phone, addressing those issues with First Nations, assuring them that their pipeline agreements and such would still be honoured by the current government and that we understood the issues that affect their communities in the fallout of major projects being backed away from by proponents.
J. Rustad: The minister seems to have missed the question. The question wasn’t about a project or a project agreement. The question was around agreements of long-term reconciliation outside of the treaty process. Maybe he’ll have an opportunity to answer that in his follow-up response.
The question to the minister, once again, is around these agreements both within treaty and without treaty. What steps has the minister taken to explore existing mandates and to seek any changes to those mandates? And if he has made any steps towards changes to mandates, would he be willing to share where he sees those mandates going for First Nations both in agreements within treaty and agreements outside of treaty?
Hon. S. Fraser: In answer to the question, I would note that by us embracing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, it has opened up all the options inside and outside of the treaty process.
That’s why nations that we’re working with, nations today, this morning, this afternoon, after we’re finished in this process — again, working with nations that are outside of the treaty process, moving forward on agreements…. It’s a sense of excitement, enthusiasm and a recognition that we will be moving together in partnership in ways that haven’t happened before. So it’s an exciting time in the province of British Columbia.
J. Rustad: I will re-ask the question. Have mandates changed? Is the minister moving forward any mandate changes to treaty and to agreements in non-treaty?
Hon. S. Fraser: I guess on mandates, I have a mandate to engage in discussions to bring about revenue-sharing with gaming revenue. But we’re not ordering mandate changes in negotiations. We’re doing that in partnership. It’s a new way. We’ve changed the way government is looking at our relationship with First Nations, fundamentally changing that. So we’re not imposing new mandates.
As a matter of fact, using the UN declaration, we are opening up the conversation. That was actually a specific direction I gave to staff — that we open up the conversation and take the limits off, where there were limits before. That will help inform us, if the term is “mandate,” on what mandate changes we need. But we’ll make those decisions together in a free, prior and informed way.
J. Rustad: I’d like to read into the record, if I may, article 26 of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. This is article 26(1): “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” And point (2): “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.”
I apologize for using technology to read that. I know it’s not supposed to be used, but being able to blow it up makes it a little easier for reading from this.
The reason for reading that into the record…. The minister has just stated that UNDRIP, which originally was described as being a human rights document, is now going to guide negotiations and mandates and the potential for much broader discussion, which I find quite interesting.
Specifically to that article, could the minister please explain how that article will be implemented in negotiations with First Nations?
Hon. S. Fraser: The individual articles within the UNDRIP are open to interpretation, and I’m sure the member has his own interpretation. I have mine. But the whole of the UNDRIP, which is considered a pathway to reconciliation, is about ensuring that First Nations are true partners in addressing how wealth is distributed in the province and how we work together to close the socioeconomic gaps so that First Nations can be true partners, economically and socially, in this province, which will make us a better province.
Again, you can pull apart individual articles. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip called it a pathway, a blueprint, if you will, towards reconciliation. I agree. That’s how we’re treating it, and that’s how First Nations are viewing it. We’re working together. We have opened the conversation up towards minimum standards of human rights for First Nations, addressing language issues, addressing issues of fairness, of the right to not be discriminated against, the right to be able to get health care, education.
The basic rights that most British Columbians often take for granted are being reflected in the sum total of articles that make up the UN declaration. It’s something that we’re all very proud of. Certainly the world standard is…. This is the minimum standard for human rights for Indigenous peoples, and we’re certainly proud to be part of that. It’s opened up the conversation in a way that hasn’t happened in many, many years.
In our meeting in the Legislature two weeks ago with First Nations leaders, including Grand Chief Ed John from the First Nations Summit…. He said there’s a sense of optimism that he’s never seen before in this province right now, and they’re very supportive of the direction that we’re going.
This is something that we bring all British Columbians along with, including industry and local governments and, as well, the federal government and, of course, the international community as well, who have fully embraced the same concept that we have here with the UN declaration.
The Chair: While I appreciate the member’s correction of himself, I must put it on the record that when the members have the floor, they shouldn’t be using electronic devices.
J. Rustad: Thank you very much for that, hon. Chair.
I’m just going to pull one little quote out of this because I need to re-ask the question. Clearly, the minister was not interested in answering the question and gave me some nice platitudes and other fertilizer. But that’s fine.
Specifically, what I’m looking for here is…. In that article, it says: “The right to the lands they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used.” Does that mean their traditional territory? What does that mean?
Hon. S. Fraser: I’ll just refer back in the form of a question. What does the member opposite believe happened with the Tsilhqot’in decision? That interpretation was a court decision. It was 1,700 square kilometres of land that was designated as title land — the first time a court decision actually determined that. So there are many interpretations that we could come up with. Probably as many people have as many interpretations. Certainly the courts are coming up with interpretations repeatedly.
This government believes that we are better served as a province, First Nations and non, to work to embrace the UN declaration and move us together in partnership, as opposed to having a dictated-arbitrarily-by-court decision, which may or may not be a benefit, often causes more trouble than was anticipated and doesn’t prepare communities, First Nations or non, for how to deal with the realities of the court decision.
J. Rustad: I’m not sure whether it’s worthwhile asking the question a third time, because clearly the minister is not interested in answering the question.
In any negotiation in any situation around the province, whether it’s with the Tsilhqot’in on the title lands or whether it’s with any nation around the province, you need to sit down with nations, and you need to develop what a mandate would look like. You need to develop these sort of components. But the province needs to come to the table.
Is the province saying that their entire traditional territory is on the table as part of that negotiation?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. In my discussions with First Nations — and, certainly, my staff and negotiating staff, that are doing great work inside and outside of the treaty process — First Nations want to be partners in the province and partners in decision-making on the lands that they have inhabited for millennia.
We do, as a government, recognize that rights and title exist. We’re doing that as a starting point. It’s a step forward. Historically, that’s not always been the case, even though the courts have continued to tell us over and over again that, certainly, rights exist. Now it’s been established that title exists also.
The specific details of the question are…. I don’t think there’s an answer for that. I think this is a question about negotiating. The First Nations that I’ve been in discussion with today, yesterday, last week, the week before — since I’ve been minister — all want to move forward in partnership with the province.
E. Ross: I’m not trying to fearmonger. I’m trying to figure out exactly what UNDRIP means when it comes to certainty for First Nations who want to get involved in economic development and use the proceeds to benefit their people.
I told the minister yesterday that the way I measure success is if a member of my community gets a job. I never did it for leadership. I never did it for my council. And in doing that for 13 years, I participated in referral processes that came from the federal and provincial governments. I participated in environmental assessments. I even went to court to address Aboriginal title with a goal to get us included. It was around the rules that were already in place.
I’m just trying to understand how UNDRIP basically changes that or complements it or makes it better. I’ve heard a number of times that it’ll possibly expedite the process, which is great. But in terms of the ongoing discussions, consultations or whatever it’s going to turn out to be….
I understand that your government and your ministry will go out and talk to First Nations who haven’t yet, or feel they haven’t yet, been fully consulted in terms of projects in their territory, which is great. The back-and-forth, meaningful consultation is important. But is there a plan from your ministry and other ministries to go out and talk to the First Nations who have already signed on to these projects and have signed IBAs either with the province or with the proponents in question?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for Skeena for the question. Not only is there a plan, I’ve been doing it. As I mentioned earlier, when some of the proponents for major projects, natural gas projects, withdrew from their application process and from the province as a major project, I immediately went on the phone and spoke with First Nations chiefs that had signed benefit agreements with the province. I assured them that we were still here — that we’re working with them, and we honour these. We’re aware that this may cause problems in the communities. Expectations were high.
There was a plan, always, to work with First Nations who have existing agreements, certainly. I have already been doing that, as minister.
E. Ross: So the 41 First Nations who have signed on to Kinder Morgan you have met with or you plan to meet with. You’ve also met with or plan to meet with the First Nations Limited Partnership in connection with the natural gas pipeline in our part of the province. Do you have any expectations from these talks or a timeline in terms of when you see these consultations to begin or end?
The Chair: Could I remind the member to direct his comments through the Chair? Thank you.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. Just for the record, I will engage with any and all First Nations who request it. I believe that engagement early on can actually avoid the process of, as the member had stated earlier, having to go to court. I think that’s one of the tools we have through the UN declaration that gives us guidance to make sure that we engage early. That’s my interpretation of “free, prior and informed.” It’s being involved from the very beginning.
If any of the First Nations have signed agreements around pipelines — Kinder Morgan or other pipeline agreements, which we were talking about earlier, for projects that have fallen through — I’m happy to speak with and engage with any of those nations. I have with the ones that have received some bad news. I made that overture myself.
I’m meeting with First Nations on all kinds of issues — resource issues, social issues, pipeline issues, mining issues, forestry issues. My day here at the Legislature is often back-to-back meetings of that nature, and we are continuing and building relationships based on that. I’m feeling that that is actually bearing fruit, being involved early, engaged early, as opposed to a consultation process that’s often happened in the past — not citing any government — where consultation means ticking a box somewhere well down the line of a project proposal. I think that’s fraught with problems and destined to failure, in many cases, and/or litigation and forcing nations into court.
The Chair: Member.
E. Ross: Thank you, Chair. Sorry for not going through the Chair for the question. I also say “you” often, and I try to correct myself.
Hon. S. Fraser: I forget too.
E. Ross: To the minister, through the Chair. I guess what I’m getting at is: will the interests of First Nations who believe they’ve been consulted fully be given the same amount of emphasis as those who have not signed on to linear projects such as Kinder Morgan and LNG pipelines?
Hon. S. Fraser: Could you just repeat that?
E. Ross: I understand there will be an emphasis placed on those First Nations who feel they haven’t been consulted yet, and then that’s where the priority will be for the most part. It was part of the reasoning behind the Kinder Morgan intervention.
I’m just wondering if there will be the same emphasis placed on the interests of those First Nations who have signed on to linear projects and are not really opposing linear projects, such as LNG or Kinder Morgan. If there’s a plan to do that, is there an opportunity to see that plan on how to address First Nations who support major projects?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member, again, for the question.
If I did, I withdraw it. I don’t believe I said that I gave emphasis to any First Nation if they were a proponent or not of a project. I don’t believe I did say that. If I did, I did not mean to.
I recognize the great work the member did in his community, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate there are many perspectives amongst First Nations. There are many opinions on, if we’re dealing with a specific project, whether the project is good for their community, whether it’s good for their nation or not. I don’t make any priority on that. My door is open to all, and I will listen and learn and hopefully work towards accommodation and reconciliation on the individual nations and how they see their needs being met.
D. Barnett: I’m going to change the topic a little. I have a few questions. I would like to know: does the government intend to continue on with the Nenqay Deni accord?
Hon. S. Fraser: Yes.
D. Barnett: What is going to happen, and how is it going to be resolved — the access within the title lands in the negotiations with the Deni accord? The issue is, we have over 300 private landholders within the title lands, and there have been negotiations going on for quite some time that aren’t resolved.
There now are bigger issues, Minister, and I would like to know who has the rights to access. The roads into the title lands were given to the First Nations by the Supreme Court of Canada, is our understanding. What is going to happen with public access to the private lands and the lands beyond the title lands?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The province is continuing to negotiate with the Tsilhqot’in national government in accordance with the Nenqay Deni accord. We’re hoping that that will help resolve uncertainty for the Cariboo-Chilcotin residents, stakeholders, neighbouring First Nations and anyone that’s concerned about land use. Those are ongoing discussions.
D. Barnett: I have one more on this title, and then we’re going to move on. I’ll come back to it.
A question that I do have: what is going to happen to the private lands in the title area? And does the ministry now intend to compensate landowners at proper value and turn the freehold land over to the Tsilhqot’in?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks again to the member for the question. This situation has occurred…. It’s an example of what happens when courts can make a decision, as opposed to it being negotiated. And we know that it’s created uncertainty on the land base.
It’s one of the reasons that I believe embracing the UN declaration is important. Following the guidance of the UN declaration and involving First Nations from the very beginning, it gets us out of the potential court decisions and litigation that can drop a decision on the province and on a nation without any of the preparation that comes through a negotiated settlement. Let me put it that way.
As far as a direct answer to the member, I’m not going to presuppose the result of the discussions that are happening now. They are happening now, and they have been since we met a couple of weeks ago. There are discussions ongoing.
I would note that the Nenqay Deni accord was signed by the previous government, and we are trying to deal with it in the best way we can under the circumstances.
P. Milobar: Thank you, Minister, for taking our questions today, and that was a good segue back into UNDRIP there. To follow up on a couple of the other questions…. And it really, truly isn’t meant to be in the spirit of trying to fearmonger or anything. We merely are here trying to convey back to government what we are hearing out in our communities, what we’re hearing from businesses and companies doing business on the land.
To that end, there’s a lot of nervousness, I guess, right now with current tenure holders in terms of how UNDRIP will play into existing tenures and renewals of tenures. I just talked to people in the forestry industry yesterday that do business on the coast and on the Island, and there’s great concern within their industry as well. It’s around future tenures, from straight to cutblock tenures to all sorts of tenures that they hold — foreshore rights, everything.
Is the intention that UNDRIP will become part of provincial law as it relates to tenures, or is UNDRIP just merely more of a guiding document and not actually enshrined into new tenure permitting? If that makes sense. They’re wondering: is it now a legislated piece of their tenuring process to get a renewal, or is it a “nice to do” that they should be striving to do but is not part of the new tenure experience for them?
Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. The UN declaration, as I’ve described it before, is a blueprint — that’s how Grand Chief Stewart Phillip puts it — towards reconciliation, adopted by 148 nations. It’s not a law. It’s not a piece of legislation. It’s a blueprint. But it should be noted that there are many businesses, corporations and big and small entities that are actually implementing the very values that are within the UN declaration.
I say big and small. I know small companies that are working closely with and providing benefits for First Nations, involving them from the very beginning. Even in my constituency, the Huu-ay-aht First Nation has joined in a partnership with Steelhead LNG. They’ve been working together right from the very beginning on the idea of a project that they’ve developed together.
Many companies are seeing the value in that, in bringing certainty to their business and their business cases that they have forward. I would also note that corporations, big companies like TD Bank, Suncor — mega-companies — have been actually urging governments to get on with recognizing that free, prior and informed consent is about bringing certainty and stability to the land base.
P. Milobar: Just to be clear, then, because this is where the uncertainty comes in. I totally agree and I think most responsible companies agree that the world has changed — that you need to be consulting with all facets of people on the land base and, certainly, First Nations first and foremost. I haven’t heard apprehension around that.
I guess the apprehension is that if you have a checklist with your tenure paperwork and you think you’ve checked all the boxes off and you think you’ve negotiated or tried to negotiate in as best faith as possible with a First Nation…. If you haven’t been able to fully check off the “free, prior and informed consent” box, is that now being inserted into tenure applications, or is it meant to be more of that guiding document where it’s not the final piece of it? That’s where the uncertainty in….
As I say, it’s not us in opposition that are…. I mean, we’re obviously confused. As you mentioned earlier, it’s been five, six hours on this already with you. But that’s emanating back from what we’re hearing in the broader public, because there’s not a clear understanding of what level of engagement with First Nations is truly being asked for with this adoption of the ideals of UNDRIP.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. This ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, doesn’t actually issue resource tenures — at least, that I’m aware of. It’s my fourth month. But I don’t think we do. I’m not aware of any other ministries that have added any new boxes to their tenure requirements.
A. Olsen: Mr. Chair, I’ll do my best to direct my comments to you. I’m sitting here thinking back how many times I’ve referred to the good minister.
I think part of the challenge we’re facing here is that government has embraced a proactive approach rather than waiting for the courts to determine the track which we’re on. I think the message to be sent is one that the government is going to take a proactive approach to this. That’s a good thing, one that I think we should be celebrating, as we’ve sort of taken a deep dive into UNDRIP.
Now, I just want to circle back around to the structure of the ministry, if I may. And if I may, I have a few follow-ups here so that we can just dig down into this.
As I mentioned before the break, I think it’s important that we have a ministry that has its tentacles in all parts of government to ensure that all levels of the government and all ministries are thinking in the context of a new world that is trying to be created so that we can have the certainty that my colleagues in the opposition are looking for.
I’m wondering. Would this be led by the Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Ministry in order to bring on side all the other ministries or to bring them in and to lead the discussion? Would MIRR be the ministry that is going to lead that within government?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. By the nature, I think, of our Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, we are a lead in addressing reconciliation.
I would also say that we’re not the only lead. All ministries have, and all ministers have, a requirement through their mandate letter to also be leaders in their own right in their own portfolio, if you will, whatever the ministry is responsible for.
All the resource ministries, as well as the social ministries, many of them already have significant practices and mechanisms in place to address the mandate letter. But we do play, I think, a strong advisory role for all the ministries. We provide them with guidance, when requested. And sometimes we lead with that in committee meetings and such. We take our position very seriously as being responsible for Indigenous relations and reconciliation.
My experience, so far, in the first 100 days of this job is that all the other ministries are coming up very quickly. They’re embracing their new role. They’re not just relying on us, in any way. Many are taking leadership roles themselves. I think that’s a good sign.
I mentioned this earlier, but I saw examples of that at the local government level, too, at the recent Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting and of course, in my dealings, so far, with my federal counterpart.
It’s a good time now to move things forward. We have a lot of things lined up. It’s exciting for me as the new minister, but it’s exciting, I think, for all First Nations. They see hope where there was not some before and actually moving beyond a dark colonial past. This is a time for making that milestone, not just to show the province how we can all benefit from a strong partnership and relationship with Indigenous peoples in this province, but I think we should show the country and the rest of the world how to do it too.
A. Olsen: While I fully embrace the Premier’s decision to have these principles enshrined in each of the mandate letters, one of the concerns that comes up or one of the challenges that I think the new government and each minister would have is that they’re each tasked with action on this.
I guess I’m canvassing the notion of: who’s the lead, lead? As the government is advancing this notion of embracing UNDRIP, the TRC calls to action and the Tsilhqot’in decision and other decisions, how are we ensuring that government is together on this? Because there’s a chance that it could go 20 different ways, right? What’s the glue?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for that very good question. I guess I should take a step back, because I kind of indicated that I was the lead, but I should defer to the Premier. The Premier wrote the mandate letters, not just to me but to all the ministers. In essence, for the Premier, this is his decision to move our government into a different direction, a different partnership, a fundamentally different relationship with Indigenous people in this province. The Premier would be the lead on this, I think it would be safe to say. I hope we got that on Hansard.
There are other mechanisms in place. There are checks and balances that I guess I could muse about. The deputies meet on a regular basis — I think every week — and they talk about this. This is the reality, the new direction we’re heading into. The senior bureaucrats in each ministry are meeting on a regular basis to make sure that we have open communication about where we need to go. We’re informing each other to make sure that the mandate is being met. If it’s not, then it’s caught. There are a number of checks and balances in the system.
Then our committee system also helps deal with that, too — the cabinet committees. I’m on four different cabinet committees, and Indigenous Relations is a part of all of them. The social and the resource committees alike are all…. The discussion, when we’re making decisions, is being informed by the mandate letters too. We have a few mechanisms in place that I’m pretty excited about. They haven’t existed before.
We reserve judgment to see how it’s working, but I’m telling you right now that things are not slipping — are being caught. If I miss something, another minister will inform me about it, too. I think that’s a good sign. It bodes well for the future.
The Chair: I’d remind the minister to direct his comments through the Chair.
A. Olsen: I guess one of the things that is interesting is that as governments change from one government to the next, the new government could very easily just sort of adopt the same kind of siloed approach that the former government took.
Even though there’s lots of talk about change…. And I think this is one that Indigenous folks in the province have been concerned about. Lots of governments talk about change but then don’t change. We have these ministries in silos, and they view them as vertical. There are opportunities, I think, to flip it on its side and to maybe put MIRR horizontally through all the ministries — if you can visualize what I’m saying — so that it’s not just this silo up here; it’s horizontally through all the ministries. It’s that common thread that holds some of the ministries together in this piece.
One of the action pieces that I would really like to see — I know I’ve talked to the minister; I’d just like to canvass it here very quickly — is the committee structure. We’ve had a committee. It’s been called. It’s called the Aboriginal Affairs Committee of this Legislature. People have been put on that committee, and then nothing happens with it. I think that this is an action piece.
To my colleagues in the opposition who’ve been asking about UNDRIP or the TRC or Tsilhqot’in, how we deal with this or how it’s going to be dealt with, I think the committee is a great place for that. What is your ministry’s view and your view, as the minister? What’s the view of the use of that committee as a way to see the action of a new mandate?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We did have a discussion about that in the hallway after the member introduced his private member’s bill the other day. I must admit I’m a fan of the idea of empowering the standing committees, as needed.
I would note…. I’ve been doing the opposition job for 12 years before this year, and that committee has not sat under the previous government at all. The last time it sat was a very inflammatory referendum on minority rights. That was under Gordon Campbell. This was before he arrived at the new relationship, and it was a very divisive process.
Going back historically, into the ’90s, the committee, I think, met 28 times, if I recall. It was to address the Nisga’a treaty, which was controversial at the time. It was the first modern-day treaty. It was before the actual modern-day treaty process had begun. I would note that it was a bipartisan committee, as they are. I like the makeup of that committee system. In this case, it could be tripartite. We only had two parties in the House at the time.
As I read back on that, the Liberal members disagreed with the conclusions of those 28 sessions. They addressed public concerns around an interest and input around doing the Nisga’a treaty. There was a divergence between the Liberal members and the government members. The Liberal members did a minority report. Everyone was allowed to have their say in that process, which I think is wonderful. At the end of the day, of course, the Nisga’a treaty became…. It’s a matter of history now.
I would be happy to work with the member. I know we need to…. My understanding of the committee system is it needs a specific mandate. We talked about the Heritage Conservation Act and the burial site, the private member’s bill that the member put in. I’m supportive of that. I want to acknowledge that the member acknowledged that a previous member, Maurine Karagianis, had entered that bill into the Legislature a number of times.
It’s eminently supportable, but it would be another minister. It’s another ministry that holds that…. It’s Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development that would be addressing that section, the Heritage Conservation Act. There are other players that have to be involved in that.
I’m not sure, but I believe it’s the Premier who makes the decision to empower a standing committee and gives it its specific mandate. I’d be happy to meet and work with the member on that.
D. Barnett: Back to the discussions around the Deni accord. Is the plan still to identify A and B lands in the entire Tsilhqot’in traditional area as part of the accord? And is it still the plan to grant co-manage authority over all category B lands to the Tsilhqot’in?
Hon. S. Fraser: The answer, I think, is yes. We’re following the terms that are within the Nenqay Deni accord.
D. Barnett: More questions around the Deni accord. What will be the process to establish the value of category A and category B lands?
Hon. S. Fraser: There’s nothing in the accord that says how to value the land, so that will have to be worked on. That’s still outstanding.
D. Barnett: Will the Deni accord be the template or model for future First Nations traditional territories? How will lease- and licence holders in both the title and traditional territory areas be affected by the accord? How will they be compensated, or are there no plans for compensation?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The Nenqay Deni accord — I don’t see it as a template. It’s somewhat unique. It came out of a unique court decision. I’m not sure if it’s applicable in other situations. I don’t see it as such. I wouldn’t deny that it could be, maybe, but I don’t perceive it as something that’s a template.
I can remind that this is an accord that was signed by the previous government. I acknowledge there are challenges with the accord. I believe government is a continuing body, so we are moving forward with it. But we have a lot to work on, still, within the accord, and we are committed to doing that closely with the Tsilhqot’in National Government.
D. Barnett: To the minister: thank you for that. But how will the lease and licence holders in both the title and traditional areas affected by the accord be…? Will they be compensated, or are there no plans for compensation?
Hon. S. Fraser: The member is a member of the opposition, who was a member of the government that negotiated this. Those would be questions, I think, that need to go to those that negotiated that.
The plans are not in place in the accord that she’s referring to. The accord did not contemplate that — as written by her government when they were government.
We will continue to try to work and continue to negotiate with the TNG, in accordance with the Nenqay Deni accord, to resolve the uncertainty that’s occurring in the Cariboo. We’ll work with stakeholders and neighbouring First Nations. That, again, is a work in progress. I don’t have any answers for you.
D. Barnett: The Deni accord was an agreement signed between the government and the First Nations. They agreed to that agreement at the time. So I’m just asking these questions on behalf of the public.
The last question I have on this topic is: will there be public meetings to let the public know how the accord is moving forward as the accord proceeds?
Hon. S. Fraser: We’ll be working with all the communities — other First Nations, stakeholders — as part of this process. Whether it’s through a public hearing process or not, I’m not sure. I think there were public hearings held before. I believe they were, maybe, during the creation of the accord, but I’m not sure about that. So that hasn’t been decided yet. But be assured that moving forward with the accord will require a full public consultation and involvement.
D. Barnett: I have one more question. Thank you, Minister. Does that mean just First Nations, or does that mean the public at large, at public consultation meetings?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We are committed to working with all stakeholders, adjoining communities and other First Nations and engaging with them. How we will do that has not yet been determined.
Again, this is a process that was put into place by the previous government. We know that we need to move forward together and that we need to engage all stakeholders, all local communities and other nations. Again, what form that will take I don’t think has been determined.
D. Ashton: Article 19 states that prior to passing legislation that affects asserted territory, affected groups must be consulted. What are the processes of engagement being utilized? And are you consulting on the budget, as this legislation affects groups in asserted territory?
I was very interested to hear about the tentacles going through the ministries and about opportunities where you talk amongst each another. So that’s a question for myself. Thank you.
Interjection.
D. Ashton: Okay. The processes of engagement are being utilized because of article 19. One of my questions is: are you consulting on the budget? This legislation affects groups and also asserted territory. It’s article 19….
I’m just curious. The question is being derived from what I heard earlier, where there’s cross-ministry communication on direction that the government’s taking. We all know how important the budget is for whatever government’s in place. So is there consultation regarding the budget process with those that are going to be affected with it, which encompasses most First Nations?
Hon. S. Fraser: I just apologize if I got it wrong. Is the member referring to this budget? The ministry budget?
D. Ashton: No. The budget of the government. We’ve had one adjustment made in September, and you have a new budget coming up in February. So is consultation taking place with all those that can be affected in First Nations with the budget process?
Hon. S. Fraser: I do not believe that the question is something that I can answer. I think any questions on the larger government budget and how it addresses the public consultation-wise need to be levelled with the Minister of Finance.
D. Ashton: It just intrigued me that you had said that there was cross-ministry communication and that tentacles were through it, and you had explained how you would like to…. Or it was actually proposed by another member how MIRR might be able to facilitate itself, because of all the engagement letters through all the ministries. So my question was based on: is there consultation with First Nations around the budget? But I’ll leave it at that.
I just want to scoot to resource development at this point in time. There are First Nations that are looking to develop oil and gas assets. How will this government support them?
Hon. S. Fraser: There are already a number of First Nations that have agreements on oil and gas in the province. There’s no template for this. Any First Nation that wants to move forward on economic initiatives, whether it’s oil and gas or mining or forestry, just needs to contact us. We’ll try to work with them, as we have previously. I’m sure we’d be involving the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in that conversation.
D. Ashton: So there will be support for the oil and gas initiatives by First Nations from the ministry?
Hon. S. Fraser: A question back, if I could get clarification. What does the member mean by support?
D. Ashton: Is the government there to help First Nations that would like to develop some of their resource assets, which can include oil and gas?
Hon. S. Fraser: We’ll work with any nation on economic development initiatives. It’s a great way to close the socioeconomic gap, so we’re open to any suggestions on that. There have been agreements made with First Nations on numerous resource development initiatives already. We look forward to being approached on anything that will help close the socioeconomic gap.
[R. Kahlon in the chair.]
D. Ashton: Will UNDRIP affect First Nations benefit-sharing agreements for LNG and the pipelines? Has that been considered by the ministry?
Is there anything in UNDRIP that the ministry sees that could be cause for concern that certain First Nations have signed benefit agreements? Is there anything in UNDRIP that the ministry sees could affect those benefits?
Hon. S. Fraser: I don’t see anything in any existing agreements that the UNDRIP would influence. I guess that’s it. We have existing agreements. We’ll honour them. I don’t see a role for the UNDRIP in those.
E. Ross: Fundamentally, you’ve stated that your relationship and the way you deal with native issues is going to change, which is great. We can speed up these processes to get these projects going. Will the statutory decision-makers then have a new process to follow to implement, with the new mandate given to the ministers?
Hon. S. Fraser: The role of the statutory decision-maker remains the same today as it was before. No change.
E. Ross: That kind of answers my next question, but I’m going to ask it anyway. There’s no need, then, to change any regulation for the statutory decision-makers to implement the mandates?
Hon. S. Fraser: The role of creating legislation is a dynamic process of any government. How and if that will affect the statutory decision-maker in the future is something I can’t answer. That’s something…. I mean, all governments change legislation. It may or may not affect the role of the statutory decision-maker.
E. Ross: Thanks for that, Minister. I’m going to get away from UNDRIP now.
The Nisga’a treaty. Are there any plans of this government to deal with Nasoga Gulf? It’s pronounced na-so-ga or na-su-ga, depending on who you talk to.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. I mentioned before that the government is a continuing body, and we will honour agreements, any agreements made by the previous government with First Nations.
E. Ross: I wasn’t aware there was an agreement made around Nasoga Gulf. The Nisga’a, like any other treaty band, need an economic base to sustain or support their treaty. That’s basically what the Nisga’a are going at. That’s why they want the Nasoga Gulf resolved.
In the same light, there are a lot of surrounding forestry licences and tenures surrounding the Nisga’a treaty lands, and the Nisga’a would like new arrangements, new agreements and new relationships with those licence holders surrounding their borders. It was conveyed to them that that would be looked into on a recent visit by your Premier. I was just wondering about any proposed processes that the government is considering to deal with this issue.
Hon. S. Fraser: As the minister, I have not received any requests from the Nisga’a to discuss this issue or to work on any initiatives around land or land use or this Nasoga agreement. But I would welcome the opportunity if they wished.
E. Ross: To the minister — through the Chair, of course — it was based on a meeting that the Premier had with Nisga’a where they brought these issues up. I do recognize this is a huge file across B.C. — 203 bands, and probably three times as many issues. I can understand if you haven’t gotten to it yet. I will pass that message on to Nisga’a to contact you directly.
Ambulance services for the Nisga’a as well. They’re interested because of the proximity of their villages in relation to the closest town and hospital. I’ll understand if you haven’t yet looked into this issue, but the Nisga’a are interested in terms of bringing ambulance services to their communities. Is it possible to look into that from your ministry?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. I’ll look into it, and I’ll also consult with the Minister of Health, maybe, on this too. But I would be happy to work with the Nisga’a on that. I understand that they might have discussed that with the Premier. I will commit to looking into that and see if I can get to the bottom of it.
E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. I’ll relay that message on to the president as well as their CEO.
The last question is: in terms of the budget, in terms of looking at these issues for the Nisga’a — the Nasoga Gulf and everything that entails, as well as the ambulance services and the process it’s going to take to deal with the surrounding forestry licences and tenures — would those be included in your budget? Or would you have to go into February’s budget to ask for additional funds to deal with these issues?
Hon. S. Fraser: I’m not sure of the details of the issues that you’re talking about, so I’m not sure if that’s going to be a budget issue or if it’s something that we’d need to go to Treasury Board for. I just don’t know. But I’d be happy to work with the Nisga’a on that. I just don’t have the details on the issues and if there’s a monetary request that I would need to go to Treasury Board for.
J. Rustad: A couple of quick questions. Private land and private land holdings…. When the ministry is in negotiations through treaty or other components, is private land and the rights of private land owners upheld and avoided as part of negotiations?
Hon. S. Fraser: The answer is yes.
J. Rustad: Maybe I could also confirm…. I believe it was with the Maa-nulth treaty that there was a particular private land parcel, and there were some access issues that were associated. I think that was ultimately resolved through negotiation.
Part of the protecting and part of the integrity of private land and private land owners’ rights, of course, is access. I wonder if the minister could confirm…. I believe it was through the Maa-nulth treaty, but there are other treaties and negotiations, of course, that talk about access and access roads and whether or not access is something, as well, that would be maintained as part of a right of a private land owner.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. Any negotiations with First Nations — we’ll consider the importance of private land. As I mentioned with the previous question, also access to the private land, obviously, is just as important.
J. Rustad: Specifically, I want to ask about the court case and the Tsilhqot’in ruling. I recognize this, but I wanted to get this last question in before we have a quick break. I’ll try to ask it as quick as I can.
Specifically associated with the Tsilhqot’in case, there are private land holdings which were excluded from the court case. Obviously, they’re still there as private land. However, this past spring the private land was devalued by about 80 percent from B.C. Assessment because of access issues.
I understand, obviously, being in that portfolio, that access was a key piece of the negotiations with the Tsilhqot’in for the last couple of years. It is clear, in my mind, that those negotiations haven’t gone anywhere, having been out and actually visited those pieces of land just this fall and seeing the fact that the airport runway strip is not allowed to be upgraded or repaired. It’s left simply to degrade.
There are roads that are left to be in their natural state and not allowed to be graded and repaired to be able to allow access to these private lands.
The question comes in: will the ministry enforce B.C.’s position of the right to access those private lands, or will British Columbia be compensating those private land owners for the denied access through the Tsilhqot’in case?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We continue to work with the Tsilhqot’in and the Xeni Gwet’in and specific…. I would note they do consent for continued access, through the title lands, to private property. I also note that this is another reason why we’re embracing the UN declaration and getting us out of court decisions that can throw some confusion onto the land base, for First Nations and non–First Nations, without the benefit of a negotiated settlement on land issues.
J. Rustad: Thanks for that. I have a follow-up question, but I want to call for a quick recess.
The Chair: Okay. Members, we’ll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 3:26 p.m. to 3:34 p.m.
[R. Kahlon in the chair.]
J. Rustad: Just a quick question, a follow-up with regards to the Tsilhqot’in and road access.
What’s currently going on, on the ground is that, yes, they still can access their land, but there are rangers that harass people that go down the roads. There are rangers — Tsilhqot’in rangers — that harass people on the water who are out doing lawful activities on the water. They are not allowed and graders and other equipment that’s needed to build and maintain the roads are not allowed to actually go in, even though there’s a grader sitting right there. They’re allowed to come up to a certain point, but they’re not allowed to go beyond that because of what the Tsilhqot’in have decided that they want to see happening on this.
Which begs a question. First of all, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, because this is infringing on the private property owners within the title area that have been excluded from the title case. But more importantly, it begs the question: who has the authority on these roads? Is it the Tsilhqot’in that have the authority on these roads, or is it the province?
If it is the Tsilhqot’in, how will this be dealt with in terms of either compensation or a way to be able to maintain these roads so that these people have access to their properties? And if it’s not the Tsilhqot’in, how is it that the Tsilhqot’in are being allowed to treat private land owners in this manner?
Hon. S. Fraser: To the member opposite, I hear the allegations that he’s raising here. I’ll look into it. We continue to work closely with the Tsilhqot’in. I’ve heard allegations on both sides of this too. So I will commit to looking into this and working with the Tsilhqot’in to address any concerns.
J. Rustad: Thank you for that.
Could I also ask the minister, when he has looked into it, to be able to provide us with information on that in writing — to be able to provide feedback, the information that you look into, in writing back to the opposition?
Hon. S. Fraser: Yes.
D. Barnett: Minister, I would like better clarification, if I could. Who has the jurisdiction for the law within the title lands? Is it Tsilhqot’in law, First Nations law, or is it the law of Canada?
Hon. S. Fraser: It’s complicated. This has never been done before. The Supreme Court of Canada came down with the decision that designated title land for the first time. My understanding is that provincial law applying to the greater public interest still applies — like criminal law. But there are other things that are being negotiated as part of the accord that will continue to happen.
There are some grey areas with the court decision. The court did not inform on all elements of this when it came down with its decision — again, another reason to work to negotiate settlements with respect and recognition from the very, very beginning, as opposed to forcing nations to spend 25 years in court and then having a decision that actually can cause some confusion, to say the least.
D. Barnett: I’m still very confused. If there is a criminal incident, who enforces the law — the province, the federal government or the Tsilhqot’in?
Hon. S. Fraser: The province has the responsibility to administer the Criminal Code on title lands.
D. Barnett: Could the opposition get that in writing, too, please, from the minister?
My other question is: will the province also be implementing all provincial statutes within the title area, such as the Wildlife Act and other acts that are provincial statutes?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you to the member opposite. Just on the last question you asked — if we could put the answer in writing. I would suggest that’s best coming from the Attorney General. We’re not lawyers here. We try to answer questions as best we can, but we’re not legal experts on this.
As with that, the next questions coming forward are complex. Again, the Supreme Court identified title lands for the first time. They did not clarify a whole bunch of things. That’s why, I’m assuming, the previous government, your government prior, entered into the accord — to try to work through these issues, which are, again, another call for negotiating settlements rather than allowing the court to make the decisions for everyone.
But individual laws of the different acts…. We’re not the legal experts here, and I don’t think we’re qualified to answer those questions.
D. Barnett: To another topic. To the Northern Secwepemc treaty, which is in process. Stage 4 has been signed, as you know, some time ago. Where are the treaty negotiations at this time?
Hon. S. Fraser: The NStQ are at stage 4. The community, the nation, has signed the agreement-in-principle. Currently they’re awaiting the province and the federal government to do the same.
D. Barnett: So has the province not signed the agreement yet or the federal government?
Hon. S. Fraser: I’ll confirm the province has not signed. I’m pretty sure the federal government has not signed also.
D. Barnett: The question I have is: why has the province not signed the treaty?
Hon. S. Fraser: I’ve taken over this file, and I’ve met with the NStQ already. My understanding is it was the previous government that did not sign the AIP. I’ll be working with the NStQ, with ranchers and with affected stakeholders and will move this process forward.
D. Barnett: Does that mean the AIP will be signed shortly by the minister?
Hon. S. Fraser: I think I just answered that. I’ve just taken over this file. I can’t predict the future, but I’ll be working with all parties and will proceed.
D. Barnett: Well, Minister, I would like you to clarify your response. The AIP, agreement-in-principle, is in the public domain. The citizens of the region who have vested interests in these treaty negotiations have got some grave concerns. We all want to see it resolved. We all want harmony. We want certainty on the land. People within the Cariboo-Chilcotin are pleased that these different negotiations have been going on, because they do want certainty. They want inclusion and certainty.
The AIP that has been made to the public domain: is that going to change? It’s my understanding that the First Nations were in agreement with it, and there are some issues that need to be resolved with ranchers and other private landowners. If it is not the intention of government to sign it, then where do we go from here with this treaty?
Hon. S. Fraser: I was surprised. I’ve never seen an AIP that was negotiated before by the province and a nation where the province did not sign. This is sort of a unique situation to be in. I understand the uncertainty that that’s created, and I appreciate that. But I am new at this file. I’ve had one meeting with the NStQ. I need to consult with ranchers, stakeholders, and that’s what I’ll be doing. I have no intentions besides that. I can’t answer the question.
As for the AIP as part of the public domain, yes it is. It was negotiated by the previous Liberal government, and there it sits. So I sort of walked into this one. It’s an unusual, if not unique, situation, as far as I’ve seen.
D. Barnett: All these situations are unique, Minister, and we need to resolve them. We have been working on them for years. We all know that, and we all know that we have to have certainty — certainty in the Chilcotin, certainty for First Nations, certainty for all citizens of British Columbia. This is a partnership between all peoples, and we know that we have to move forward.
The concern is the uncertainty, which we all are concerned about, naturally, where we live in these particular regions. Will there be public meetings to explain the treaty in the near future — the Northern Secwepemc treaty — with all stakeholders?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. I agree that we need to work with all the stakeholders on this. I am new to this file. I’ve only had one meeting with the NStQ. We’ll be doing work with all stakeholders, as well as working with the NStQ.
I agree with her statement about uncertainty, but I would submit that this uncertainty has been created by the previous government who negotiated an AIP and then didn’t sign it. That’s left, certainly, uncertainty for the NStQ — because that’s an unusual situation, to negotiate with government and then the government does not sign — and also I’m sure it’s causing confusion amongst some of the stakeholders, for people on the land.
We’ll be working with all stakeholders, and certainly the NStQ, to move this forward.
D. Barnett: Minister, that is my last question, at this point in time, but I would just like to make a point.
Negotiations for treaties, negotiations with First Nations, are very complex, very complicated and very sincere by this side of the House. We have spent a lot of time, and we can’t keep putting blame where there should be no blame.
Minister, you will realize through your term in this position that it is complex and complicated, and everybody wants to have certainty on the land. We all live together. We all work together. We all play together. We all pray together.
This is something that we would like to see resolved, and you would like to see resolved. It is time we stop blaming people, and we sat together and worked together with all stakeholders and First Nations and came up with a resolution to have certainty on the land for all peoples of British Columbia.
D. Ashton: It’s my understanding 41 First Nations have signed on with Kinder Morgan. Has the ministry or the minister been in contact with them as of recently?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. We had the leadership gathering in September. I had like 60 meetings, so I’m not sure. I don’t have a list of the different First Nations. I can’t remember them all.
I’m certainly willing to meet with any nation on any topic. In this case, I think the member is referring to nations that have had agreements, resource-sharing agreements, with the company, not with government. I think he’s nodding, so yes. Again, I haven’t had any specific requests for meetings, I think, around that subject.
D. Ashton: I thank the minister for his answer. Did the minister consult or did the ministry consult with these First Nations before the Attorney General joined the Tsleil-Waututh court action against Kinder Morgan?
Hon. S. Fraser: The minister and the ministry did not consult.
D. Ashton: Thank you for the answer, Minister.
Is there some rationalization that the minister could bring forward to myself and those who are interested in these proceedings about trying to stop groups who have signed benefit agreements with a company like Kinder Morgan from benefiting?
Hon. S. Fraser: I haven’t, as minister, made any statements about these agreements between nations and Kinder Morgan.
D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister, for that comment. But a question: has staff or the ministry met with these apparent 41 First Nations that have a signed agreement with Kinder Morgan since the court case has been initiated by the province of British Columbia?
Hon. S. Fraser: The staff may have met with some nations relating to consultation around permitting around this project. It’s possible. I don’t have any specifics on that.
I think the member previously suggested that the government initiated a court case. I don’t believe that’s accurate. I don’t believe the province initiated a court case.
D. Ashton: I do stand corrected on that. But you joined a court case that was in process. I do apologize. That was my Freudian slip-up.
Are there minutes or documents from that meeting that would be available to be released — the meeting that we just talked about, i.e., with the members, the various First Nations? If there have been meetings by ministry staff, is documentation available or are minutes available as to what took place in those meetings?
Hon. S. Fraser: Ministry staff, as I said before, may have attended meetings that were dealing with permitting. There would be individual ministries that were doing the permitting, but these are not…. We had no staff present for negotiations with the proponent as far as the impact-and-benefits agreement. I don’t believe we had any staff there at all.
D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister for that.
As these proceedings continue, is the minister or ministry going to be meeting with the 41 nations to keep them up to date on progress on the action?
Hon. S. Fraser: If Kinder Morgan were to make an application, it would require more permits. Then the statutory decision–maker would be required to engage in a consultation. If there was a request for ministry staff to attend that to assist, we would do so.
D. Ashton: Just further to that, would the government support these 41 First Nations if they looked to overturn the tanker moratorium on the coast?
Hon. S. Fraser: Any discussion about a tanker moratorium, or removal of a tanker moratorium, is not the responsibility of this ministry. I don’t have an answer.
D. Ashton: The government — specifically, the Premier — promised the Tsilhqot’in National Government, during the election process, that there would be a tribal park. Is the minister going to be moving forward with this commitment?
Hon. S. Fraser: I’m not aware of the Premier making that commitment. I haven’t made any such commitment.
D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. Could I ask that that be researched and maybe get back to us or back to myself. It was my understanding that a park was promised, and I’m just curious about the timeline on it to complete, if it is going ahead. If not, I’m just curious about the answer to the First Nations. I would just ask if the minister could update us in the future on that. Are First Nations involved in the softwood negotiations through the ministry?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. To the extent that First Nations are involved in the softwood negotiations…. I think you’d need to lay that question with the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. I’m not aware.
D. Ashton: We’re just going to swing over now. Can the minister update the House here on the engagement between First Nations and B.C. Hydro at this point in time — BCUC deliberations and where First Nations sit on that?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. As the member knows, the province has asked the BCUC to assess the economic viability and consequences to British Columbia of the Site C project, in the context of the current supply-and-demand conditions prevailing in the B.C. market.
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and my ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, are providing Treaty 8 First Nations an opportunity to provide their views on the future of the Site C project in a parallel provincial engagement process. The provincial engagement process will be looking forward and will be focused on potential new impacts to Treaty 8 First Nations.
I just would also comment that when the decision was made to involve the BCUC in a process, which they were actually supposed to be mandated to in the first place, I did make contact with a number of Treaty 8 Nations to let them know that that was going to be happening.
D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister for his answer. Could he explain this parallel process that is taking place with First Nations?
Hon. S. Fraser: I would note that the BCUC process was a priority process. There was quite a tight timeline on it. It was not designed specifically to engage. It was mostly dealing with the current supply-and-demand conditions. We’ve opened the door for conversations with Treaty 8 Nations, and that’s continuing. That’ll help inform us.
The BCUC report that comes down today or this week will inform any decision made by cabinet. It will not be the decision. We will be including the input that we have with First Nations in that decision-making process.
D. Ashton: Could the minister provide information on the process and who’s involved in this parallel process and the terms of agreement that have been probably set up for the parallel agreement?
Hon. S. Fraser: The BCUC process actually did engage First Nations. There was an engagement process there. I don’t think I said that before, so just to clarify. I’ve been working with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. We are taking submissions by phone, by email, in person, face to face. That was the offer that we gave immediately. Right at the point where we announced the BCUC process, we made that offer. That’s continuing today. It’s still continuing, and our meetings still occur.
J. Rustad: The minister just talked about a parallel process. Obviously, given the heightened sensitivity to Site C and the BCUC process around Site C, it’s certainly news to this side of the House that there is a parallel process that is going on. Maybe if the minister misspoke, that would make things a little clearer. But if he hasn’t misspoken with regards to a parallel process, can the minister provide the terms of reference to the process — who’s being engaged, whether this is public, both as part of the process and the meetings — and the list of people they’ve been with? Will there be a report produced from this parallel process? Will that report be made public?
All of these things are important components, obviously, around a very sensitive issue that the people of British Columbia have a significant interest in. The minister has raised a spectre of something else going on in the shadows that may ultimately influence the decision, rather than just the BCUC information. Whatever details would be much appreciated so that we wouldn’t have to go through FOI to find out just what was going on.
[N. Simons in the chair.]
Hon. S. Fraser: When I said parallel process…. The BCUC are engaged in a process looking at, basically, supply-demand issues around the construction of the Site C dam. That’ll help inform cabinet on making a decision. That process is ending. I believe the report is due out this week. It didn’t have, necessarily, a specific, detailed engagement process with First Nations affected, potentially, by the Site C dam.
It’s the hallmark of this government, my ministry and myself, as the minister, to open the conversation with First Nations on…. We’ve been discussing that for two days now around the UN declaration and the new relationship that that is creating — opening the conversation and ensuring that First Nations are involved in decision-making processes and are brought in right from the beginning.
As we initiated the BCUC process, which is largely dealing with the numbers end of the project, I called a number of First Nations chiefs of Treaty 8 Nations and informed them that we were beginning that process with BCUC and that it would not be a comprehensively inclusive process with First Nations specifically — that we would continue the government-to-government discussions.
We have asked for and been receiving input via phone, email and in person. We have meetings coming up. That process is continuing. It is a process that is, arguably, parallel to the BCUC process. It’s different from the BCUC process. The BCUC process actually did engage First Nations also, but to the extent…. I wanted to make sure that that government-to-government relationship was still strong. The BCUC process does not have a requirement for a government-to-government process.
The Chair: Member for Nechako Lake.
J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, nice to see you in the chair.
Nechako Lakes. It’s “lakes.” There are many lakes in my riding. I would appreciate the member coming up and touring them sometime. It’s a beautiful area of the province.
Obviously, I’m aware of the day-to-day operations and ongoing work that the ministry is required to do, needs to do and should do with regards to relationships and so on. I fully expected that would be the case. What surprised me was this comment around parallel process. So if the minister is saying that that isn’t what is going on, but that the day-to-day work of the ministry is going on, that’s fine. Maybe he can clarify with regards to that.
I think the important piece here, though, with this, is…. The work that you’re doing.... Will there be any specific report that would be tabled to cabinet with regards to your conversations, or your parallel work, that is going on while the BCUC thing is going on? Would that, ultimately, be a piece of something that’s reported to cabinet that may sway the decision or may be part of a decision that cabinet would make? If that is the case, whether or not that information can be made public….
Hon. S. Fraser: These discussions with Treaty 8 Nations will be informing the decision-making process. Any report out to cabinet, as the member knows, is not public information. So that will not be made available.
D. Ashton: What does the minister foresee happening with the tripartite land agreements and impact-and-benefit agreements, among others, with the direction that has been taking place on Site C right now? Are First Nations being kept up to date and accounted for underneath these discussions?
Hon. S. Fraser: The impact-and-benefit agreements that do exist — and there are a number of them with First Nations in the region — continue.
I don’t want to speculate. No decision has been made on Site C. I certainly will be working closely with First Nations and Treaty 8 Nations who are affected by whatever the decision is. However it comes out, I’ll be in touch with them and working closely with them in partnership.
But the commitment is made. The impact-and-benefit agreements continue, unless there’s some change in decision-making around the Site C project, which, I guess, we’ll have to wait and see.
J. Rustad: Just a quick follow-up on that. The tripartite land agreements, of course, committed cash and land and other benefits as part of those agreements. That’s all predicated on Site C moving forward and First Nations signing off on support of Site C.
If Site C were to be cancelled…. I suppose that’s speculation. I guess we may have to find out next year. But what I’m concerned about is that these agreements have made commitments, and there’s a certain amount of expectation. So will that be brought forward as one of the considerations within cabinet?
As well, will First Nations be informed that those agreements would be cancelled upon a cancellation of Site C and that the benefits would not be provided to First Nations, if Site C were not to go forward? If there were any cash or land commitments that had been made in advance or as part of those agreements being signed already, will the ministry be asking for those components to actually be paid back to the province on the cancellation of Site C?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. I don’t want to engage in speculation. I mean, we don’t have a decision, so cabinet will be informed about what it will be informed of when it’s informed. But speculating on a decision that has not even been made yet — I’m just not prepared to do that.
D. Ashton: Due to the wildfire situation that has taken place this past summer, and the considerable burnt lands in the north, is the minister open to renegotiating the lands for First Nations within the AIP?
Hon. S. Fraser: There is a lot of devastation to the land, as the member knows. A lot of people have suffered a lot here. It’s certainly something that’s going to be discussed with First Nations affected, when there are land agreements — part of treaty or non-treaty agreements — and lands involved. Obviously the value of the land is an important piece of that conversation. So we’ll be having those discussions with the First Nations affected for sure.
D. Ashton: To the minister: as far as consultation and revenue sharing with the First Nations, can you tell me where the negotiations are on these files at this current place and time?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member. There are currently 156 First Nations participating in FCRSA program. We are continuing with that. As they come up for renewal, we are renewing them. We’re expecting to share…. It’s over $44 million through the FCRSA program this fiscal year, based on the current negotiation forecast. I mean, that could change, but that’s the data we have right now.
D. Ashton: I stand corrected. I guess it’s FLNRORD now, because RD has been added onto the end of it.
Interjection.
D. Ashton: No kidding.
Are these agreements a priority for the minister?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. Any agreement we arrive at with First Nations — benefit-sharing, revenue-sharing agreements — that benefit First Nations, we embrace, especially if they close the economic gap and provide needed revenue streams to the nations. I reiterate that we’ll be negotiating revenue-sharing agreements around gaming revenue also.
D. Ashton: It’s my understanding, though, that some First Nations are not happy with these FCRSA agreements. Within the mandate of the minister, is the minister looking to renegotiate some of these agreements?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. The revenue-sharing agreements — in this case, the FCRSA with forestry — the terms of those were developed by the previous government. We’re honouring those and continuing those.
But I’ll tell the member, it’s early days. I’m looking at everything in the ministry that has been negotiated as far as revenue-sharing or other agreements and seeing if there are ways to make them better. Like I say, it is early days, but I’m open to looking at all the agreements we have and seeing if they are meeting the needs of First Nations, and I’ll continue with that.
J. Rustad: I want to ask a couple of questions about First Nations in my riding, First Nations that I have the honour of representing. In particular, one of the nations, the Cheslatta Carrier Nation, is obviously in significant negotiations with the province. We got to a term sheet. We were targeting for a final agreement, final discussions, with them this fall, so I’m curious as to the current status of those negotiations.
I know, obviously, you can’t negotiate in the media, so you can’t tell me all the details, but obviously, we’re getting into late fall now, and I’m curious as to whether or not the Cheslatta Carrier people can expect to be able to reach a final conclusion of that agreement with this government in the near future.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for that question. Actually, I met with the Cheslatta Carrier recently, and we’re trying to make up for lost time. Through the election, we lost about six months, unfortunately — just the reality of the situation. There are a number of things that stalled during that necessary period that we all go through every four years, but the term sheet is still alive, and we’ve kick-started those negotiations. Like I say, I just met with them, I think last week.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. I’m encouraged that that will be re-engaging, in terms of that. It’s an important piece for the Cheslatta, and it’s an important piece for all the people, all the constituents in my riding.
I’d also like to ask about the negotiations on Lake Babine Nation. It was on a significant path outside of the treaty process to reach long-term reconciliation. There were some phases to be implemented and, obviously, more to come in the future. I was wondering what this minister’s approach will be to working through that agreement, but more in particular, how the minister will look at continuing on that agreement to the advancement of that 25-year reconciliation approach with the Lake Babine Nation.
Hon. S. Fraser: It’s a similar question and a similar answer, actually. Within the last two weeks I have met with Lake Babine also. And the member is right. They’re working outside of the treaty process in innovative new ways, and we’re trying to kick-start that process. We’re continuing with that process also. And as I said, we just met recently. We plan on continuing with this relationship and moving forward.
J. Rustad: I have the great honour of having 13 various nations in my riding and several others that overlap, of course, into my riding. There were many things that were going on amongst those nations, and I’m curious as to how things are proceeding.
In particular, now…. Moving on to the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, the seven nations — I think it’s seven — that comprise that particular council entered into a significant agreement, which was only a one-year agreement. It was predicated on — the potential that carrying on was predicated on — being able to engage and look at potential changes for mandates. As you know, that’s Grand Chief Ed John. One of the nations is where he’s from. So there were obviously some very significant discussions and negotiations.
What is this minister’s approach going to be with regards to the continued negotiations with the Carrier-Sekani, the mandates that are required to be looked at and the fact that the one-year agreement comes up, I think, in February or March of this year? Obviously, it would be pretty significant in terms of certainty on the land base for forestry and all of the people up in my area of Nechako Lakes should that agreement not be able to carry forward. So I’m just curious where things are at and what the minister’s approach is going to be with that negotiation.
Hon. S. Fraser: I’m going to seem like a broken record. We met just two weeks ago also with the Carrier-Sekani. I note also that Terry Teegee is now the regional chief for the Assembly of First Nations. So we are carrying on. We’re just moving forward. We had about a six-month gap there, too, so we’re all anxious to move forward, and we’ve begun that process.
D. Ashton: The Te’mexw treaty group on the lower part of Vancouver Island is expecting a final offer. Has the minister moved forward with that at this point in time?
Hon. S. Fraser: A land and cash offer was tabled just a couple of weeks ago.
D. Ashton: That’s good. It’s very nice to hear that. I’ll just wrap up really quickly with 1½ questions. The Haida court case just came forward, and there was a ruling where the Haida Nation does not have to inform landowners up there and give notice to landowners on it. Your thoughts on it, Minister?
Hon. S. Fraser: We actually had a scheduled meeting with Haida not long ago. It had to be rescheduled at their request.
The litigation issue. I’m sorry, but your question should go to the Attorney General.
I just want you to know that we value that relationship with Haida. It’s a strong one. We appreciate the work that was done by the previous government to maintain and strengthen that relationship, and we want to continue and grow on that.
D. Ashton: I would just hope, through the Attorney General’s office and through your ministry, that if the province doesn’t appeal it, the opportunity of notice…. The province steps up and gives notice.
There have been many questions around private land owners, and we all want to work together on this. On how the judgment was delivered, that’s with the courts. But to the minister — he’s been very, very forthcoming on it — this is a change, and we want a change. So we need to all work together to ensure that people are given their rightful notice on the direction that is taking place.
Mr. Chair, to you and your peers, I want to thank you for your thundering, velvet hands — that you’ve put up with myself and my first ministerial questions. You’ve been very gracious when I have not used the Chair the way I was supposed to use the Chair, in talking to the minister directly.
As always, with the committee staff, thank you, again.
Minister, if I can talk to you directly at this point in time, through the Chair, I just want to thank you for your answers. You know, it’s a phenomenal file. It’s a phenomenal file for all British Columbians.
There was a lot of very good work done on that file before. One of the gentlemen that’s been involved in it a long time is sitting right beside me. And another person that’s been involved in it, sir, is yourself. I’ve heard you mention, on numerous occasions, the 12-plus years. I’ve heard the Freudian slips of ministerial names on this side, but that comes with those years and that incredible dedication that you’ve had.
There’s a lot to work with going forward, and it’s something that we all in British Columbia want to see come to some very good conclusions. We can’t wrap it all up and put a bow on it. We know that. But with the support of not only your ministry staff but with the people in the province, this is the right direction to go.
When I mention ministry staff, I want to thank each and every one of you in here today. I really appreciate the promptness that you’re able to deliver back to the minister and the way the minister has put it towards a neophyte like myself.
It’s people like you that make the difference, and the minister and myself and all members of this incredible House take far too much credit when individuals like yourself are the real troops on the ground in making the difference. So for myself, I want to thank each and every one of you.
Minister, it’s been a pleasure. I look forward to working with you together on this file. I look forward — and with, as I started this conversation off, what my dad said: “Never walk behind anybody. Never walk in front of them. Walk beside them for mutual benefits in the future.”
Minister, thank you very much.
Hon. S. Fraser: I want to thank my colleague for his comments. I very much appreciate them, and I want to reiterate what he said about the staff here. I mean, we come and go and go back and forth and say “minister” or not “minister.” The staff are the constant that keeps this place working, and I have never forgotten that. It’s been like drinking out of a fire hose, getting a handle on what you’ve experienced, too, as the previous minister.
I just want to thank you for the tone of these estimates. It was respectful. And it is an exciting time. We need to do this together. I do believe in the check and balance of our parliamentary system. You’ve done a great job in doing that role, and I thank you so much.
With that in mind…. Then I’ll just sit down.
Vote 31: ministry operations, $40,890,000 — approved.
Vote 32: treaty and other agreements funding, $41,002,000 — approved.
The Chair: We will now recess for 7½ minutes.
The committee recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.
[N. Simons in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,595,922,000.
Hon. K. Chen: Well, good afternoon, everyone. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are here today on the unceded traditional territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, including the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations.
Before we get started, I would like to introduce my ministry’s executive team, including our deputy minister, Allison Bond; and also our ADM from policy and provincial services, Christine Massey; and our ADM from finance and corporate services, Anne Minnings. Anne is retiring this week, and I just want to thank her for her services. Happy retirement. Thank you.
I’m proud to serve as the Minister of State for Child Care. My top priority, underpinning everything else, is to make life more affordable for B.C. families. We know that for many parents, child care has been out of reach. Life has become really unaffordable, and there is a child care crisis in B.C. It costs too much, and there aren’t enough quality licensed spaces available.
I’m committed to changing that. I’m honoured to work for a government that is focused on improving people’s lives in British Columbia, and this starts with our youngest citizens.
We know that when we invest in a child’s early years and support their families, we greatly improve the outcome for everyone. Evidence shows that a child’s first six years have a major impact on their personality, brain development and future prospects. In fact, about 90 percent of the brain development happens in those important first years of life. As a mother of a three-year-old, it just amazes me every day to see how a young child can learn and grow so quickly.
Investments in early learning and quality child care are vital to keep our kids healthy emotionally, physically and mentally. Early learning and quality child care programs and services help to prepare our children for success, not just in schools but in life as well.
My mandate from the Premier is clear: we need to implement a universal child care system. We need to speed up the creation of new licensed child care spaces throughout B.C. communities and also to support quality child care by investing in the early childhood educator workforce through training, education and fair wages. We need to make sure that when we are introducing universal child care in B.C…. It will become, ultimately, one of the most significant new social programs in B.C.’s history. Investing in child care and early learning is the right thing to do, not only for our kids and families but also for our economy.
A new Conference Board of Canada report finds that there are close to $6 in economic benefits for every $1 spent on expanding early childhood education enrolment of children under the age of five years old. I’m working with my colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development, as well as many partner groups, to decide how best to implement a new child care system — one that provides affordable, accessible and quality care for every family who needs it.
In closing, I would like to thank the ministry’s hard-working and committed staff, along with our many partners and parents in B.C. communities, for working with us to make sure that our vision for universal child care becomes a reality in B.C.
L. Larson: I’d like to just make a couple of comments to begin with. I would like to congratulate the minister of state on her position. It’s a new position, and I’m new at asking questions, so we’ll hopefully work this through.
Child care certainly has become a major topic of conversation in British Columbia over the past six months, and advocates from many agencies have been very clear in asking for a sustainable program to help support working parents in accessing and paying for child care. The previous government did recognize the need and the challenges, and there was $90 million put into the budget for operating expenses to keep child care costs more affordable and to continue to support some of the programs.
I would like to start first, though, with some questions relating to the new ministry itself. To the minister: can you describe the function of your office in terms of the number of staff and the roles that they currently hold?
Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the member for asking the question. My budget comes as part of the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s budget, and just like any other minister’s office — and for my office, in particular — I have a ministerial assistant and also an administrative assistant.
L. Larson: The only increase to the Ministry of Children and Family’s budget was to the minister’s office budget, for $258,000. Can you just tell me exactly where that $258,000 is being spent?
Hon. K. Chen: Thanks again to the member for asking the question. Basically, the increase that you’ve mentioned, the $258,000, goes to the base salary and also benefits. It mainly goes to that and minor adjustments.
L. Larson: Child care spaces. Currently there are approximately 110,000 of them. I’m just sort of rounding out the figure. Can you tell me how many more spaces your ministry is focused on creating?
Hon. K. Chen: Thanks again for the question. As of March this year, we have 116,000 licensed child care spaces. Part of our budget update, and also our government is committed to create, 4,100 licensed child care…. We’re going to announce that by the end of this year.
You’ll see that in our February 2018 budget, there will be more creation of child care spaces as part of my mandate letter and our commitment to accelerate the creation of child care spaces in B.C.
L. Larson: Can you tell me what the cost will be of that extra 4,100 seats?
Hon. K. Chen: It’s $33 million.
L. Larson: More child care spaces, obviously, need more child care educators, so have you looked at how many more child care spaces for early childhood educators you will need in our educational institutions? And have you had any discussions with the different institutions going forward, about seats that will be available for early childhood educators that aren’t currently already filled?
Hon. K. Chen: I really want to thank the member for the question, because supporting the work of our early childhood educators is crucial. It is part of my mandate to make sure that we enhance the quality of child care through support of our ECE workers with training, wage enhancement and also through educational programs.
Ever since we became government, we’ve already started a conversation with important stakeholders, including providers, child care workers, ECEBC, and also parents, to make sure that we are putting together a plan to enhance the quality of child care throughout B.C. In terms of supporting ECE workers, we need to make sure that we’re trying to keep the current workforce.
As the member may know, a lot of ECE workers work low-wage jobs. They don’t get paid very well. They work long hours, and also they tend to stay in the workforce for about a year and a half or two, and then they leave the workforce, sometimes because of their own child care needs. So there is definitely a lot of work that we have to do to support them. We need to make sure that we provide training, wage enhancement and look for incentives to allow them to keep in the workforce.
There are also a lot of inactive members, ECE members, who are registered with ECEBC but are not currently working as early childhood educators. We need to make sure that we find incentives to attract them back to the career that they love.
I’ve also been working closely with the Minister of Advanced Education to make sure that we put together a plan by February 2018, to make sure that we do everything possible to support this workforce and make sure that the quality of child care services is good and also that there is a long-term plan to continue to support them through bursaries, education programs and wage enhancement in the coming years.
L. Larson: Can you tell me if you’re going to continue the bursary program that currently exists for those who are wanting to pursue a career in ECE and what the budget is for that?
Hon. K. Chen: Through the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., ECEBC, we do administer approximately $3 million in funding that has been used to support over 1,500 bursaries since the beginning of the program in the fall of 2014, and an additional $1.1 million was also added to the contract for 2017 and 2018. This is definitely an area that we are continuing to look at to see how we can continue to invest in this program.
L. Larson: I’m not sure I quite understood. Is this program continuing in 2018?
Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the member, again, for the question. The bursary is definitely a way and a very important tool that we’re using to make sure that we enhance the quality of early childhood education and child care. Of course, it is also a great way to support our ECE workers. From my understanding, ECEBC currently still has funds available to continue the bursary for 2018, and that is definitely an area that we are continuing to look at and work on as we build our universal child care plan.
L. Larson: Right now, 20,000 B.C. families are benefitting every month from the child care subsidy program. Can you tell me if that is going to be continuing in 2018?
Hon. K. Chen: Subsidies are definitely a great way that we can use to support parents who are in need. In 2018, I can assure the member and also all the parents, they can continue to count on the financial support that they are receiving from the ministry. At the same time, we’re also looking at other, more effective ways to make sure that all the families in B.C. are being supported as we put together our universal child care plan.
L. Larson: Another one is the B.C. early childhood tax benefit. It currently is supporting 180,000 families with children under the age of six. Again, are you continuing that program, and is it budgeted for in 2018?
Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the member for the question. It is a tax question, so the question has to be redirected to the Minister of Finance.
L. Larson: I’m going to touch on something that’s slightly more political next — $10-a-day daycare, certainly a major platform promise that seems to have dropped off the list at the moment. Many, many child care advocates had supported this government on that issue alone. That was their number one most important issue. The Minister of Finance has said it’s about choices, and we know that the Green platform didn’t support $10-a-day daycare.
I would like to know: are you consulting with the Green Party, through your secretariat, on this $10-a-day daycare issue, and will you be moving forward on that?
Hon. K. Chen: Thanks again to the member for asking the question about the $10-a-day plan, how we’re working together with our colleagues in this House.
We always supported the $10-a-day plan, and that is still our goal. The $10-a-day plan talks about affordable, accessible and quality child care, which is crucial to B.C. families. The plan has been endorsed by many municipalities, school districts, business organizations, the board of trade and many large community organizations as well. That is something that we have to keep looking at and making sure that we’re working hard with all the stakeholders, providers, parents and partner groups to put together a plan that will work for all B.C. families.
Of course, as the member has mentioned, we are in this minority government situation. British Columbians really expect us to all work together to make sure that we find the best solutions possible for B.C. families, and that is exactly what we’re doing right now.
We have been working hard on the implementation plan since we became government. We are having a lot of conversations with municipalities, school districts, organizations, parents, advocates and also with members from this House to make sure that we bring forward and put together the best ideas possible.
We’ll get this plan ready for the February budget in 2018, making sure that we can make some significant changes for B.C. families in the coming years.
L. Larson: The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. and the Early Childhood Educators of B.C. have presented many plans to the government during the past election, during the election, since the election. They are still sending letters, sent one just recently again, copied to the Minister of Finance, asking for action because they’ve already presented plans to government.
Where are their recommendations being reflected in your plans as you move forward? They are certainly not in your mandate letter. Could you tell me where the recommendations from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. are in your plans moving forward?
Hon. K. Chen: If you look at my mandate letter, you’ll see that the $10-a-day plan and some of the core ideas of the $10-a-day plan are reflected in my mandate letter, especially when it talks about accessible, affordable and quality child care. Also in my mandate, it talks about that we need to accelerate the creation of quality child care spaces throughout B.C. and also support ECE workers through wage enhancement, training and education. All those ideas and plans are coming from part of the $10-a-day plan.
During the past few weeks and months, I’ve been having a lot of conversations with stakeholders and parent groups, including advocates, community members, municipalities, school districts and parents. It’s all about: how do we work on the implementation plan together? The question is not about: what do we want to do? It’s about: how do we implement this plan? How do we make sure that the ideas and the plans that we have to create universal, affordable quality child care can become a reality for B.C. families?
I really want to thank all the parents, advocates, stakeholders, ECE workers and providers, municipalities and school districts who I’ve been having meaningful conversations with. I’ve been learning a lot myself, and I really want to thank our ministry staff for working so hard during the past few months to make sure that we can get this plan ready by the February 2018 budget.
L. Larson: The minister has mentioned that there have been some consultations this fall with various groups, as per the Speech from the Throne, which basically said government will consult with families and child care providers this fall on the best way forward. Could the minister please list some of those organizations and groups that she has met with in the last two months?
Hon. K. Chen: I’m very thankful that the member asked this very important question. Meeting with parent groups, stakeholders, community organizations and also municipalities has been a very important part of my life during the past weeks and months. Some of the groups that I’ve met with — and I’ll give you some examples — would be child care referral centres.
I’ve met with Westcoast in Vancouver and Options in Surrey. In Richmond, I’ve met with the child care resource centres to see how they’re different from each other and the services that they’re providing on the front line. I met with West Coast LEAF as well. They provided a really good report on child care needs in B.C. Also the Single Mothers Alliance, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and many family child care providers or large child care providers like the YMCA. I also met with a great group of child care providers from Burnaby and from the North Shore, North Vancouver.
Also I met with Aboriginal and Indigenous communities, including the Aboriginal Mother Centre. At the First Nations Leaders Gathering, I had so many meaningful conversations about how child care may be different for their communities — that their needs may be more diverse and how we work together with our Indigenous communities and First Nations to make sure that we address their child care and their family’s needs.
At UBCM, I met with a lot of mayors and councils from various communities throughout B.C., including Delta, Whistler, Fort St. John, Haida Gwaii. I also have visited Surrey in person. I went to Richmond and met with their staff who are working on some very creative child care plans. We are really hoping to work together in the future.
There are so many other groups. Actually, I probably wouldn’t be able to give you the full list. But of course, some of our key partner groups, including ECEBC, Early Childhood Educators of B.C. — they’re a very important part of our conversation to make sure that our universal plan has all different types of voices, especially from the workers.
Most importantly, I’ve met with many, many parents from communities throughout B.C. who have shared with me their child care struggles, for many, many years. I’ll give you some examples.
There were parents who shared with me that they’ve been waiting on the wait-list since the mom was four months pregnant. Now the child is eight or nine months old, and the mother really wants to go back to work. The employer has been waiting for the mother to go back to work, but she just couldn’t, because she could not find child care centres that were available. She is currently waiting on 14 different wait-lists. One of the centres even told her that she may not get a chance to get a space until probably the summer of 2018, which is way too long for this family.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
For some families who are lucky enough to find a child care space, the cost is most likely too high in many, many communities throughout B.C. It could be as high as your mortgage or even more than your rent or mortgage payment.
Like one mother who shared with me. She’s a hard-working single mom, a professional who works really hard to support her two kids, and she calculated her child care cost — that it could cost about $100,000 when her youngest child is going to kindergarten. That is unaffordable, and that is not acceptable for B.C. families.
B.C. families are finding it really hard to make sure that they can live and work and also raise their child in the same community that they want to raise their child. That’s why we’re committed and working very hard every single day to put forward a plan that will create affordable, quality and accessible child care for B.C. families who need it.
L. Larson: A study commissioned by those early childhood educators to establish the real costs of $10-a-day daycare noted that the public cost to start up and support $10-a-day daycare from the early childhood educators was $1.55 billion, which only covers children under six and not the full cost of the government plan, which also covered school-aged children.
While there were forecasted benefits in the study that they did, as well, to the GDP and some money coming back to government by 2030 from more parents working, there is no plan and no budget that I found that up-fronts that first $1.5 billion.
As the Minister of Children and Family Development has stated in her response to the budget that $10-a-day daycare would be implemented, can you tell me where in the budget there is a provision for the $1.5 billion estimated to be the start-up costs done by the study commission by the very early childhood educators that the minister has met with?
Hon. K. Chen: Thanks again to the member for asking the question. We believe that a budget is about choices. The child care crisis has gone out of control for many, many years, and the previous government had failed to acknowledge that there was such a crisis and that there was more that needed to be done, many years ago, to make sure that we support our B.C. families. We believe that our new government…. Ever since we started in power, we’ve been focusing on investing in people, investing in B.C. families. Investing in families is definitely the right thing to do for our community and for our economy for the long term.
Regarding the $10-a-day plan and the budget that they proposed, the $10-a-day plan is a ten-year plan, and the advocates have done a lot of great work to make sure that they’ve put forward ideas that would be great for a universal child care system. I believe the $1.5 billion that the member has mentioned is really for when the plan is fully implemented in ten years. It’s not a start-up cost.
What we’re really looking at, and what our ministry staff has been really working hard on, is to see how we make sure that we can work on a universal child care plan that fits within our fiscal framework. Right now we’re looking to make sure that we have a detailed implementation plan for the next three years that works with our budget and also to make sure that, after that three years, there is a plan to make sure that we reach a universal child care system in ten years.
That is something that we’ve committed to: to make sure that we continue to invest in B.C. families. You’ll see that investing in child care is really a huge support to B.C. families, and it will be benefiting our community, and it will benefit our economy at the end of the day.
L. Larson: During the campaign, the Premier stated that his plan was to divert existing money, as the minister has said, from current services to daycare. “On the daycare question, there is a whole bunch of pockets in Social Development, in Education and in MCFD. We’re going to consolidate that in year 1, and then in year 2, grow from there.”
As I have just asked on the question of the costs — up to $1 billion to get this rolling up and over the next ten years, as the minister has stated — can you tell me how much is coming from each ministry, and which programs will be cut that are currently being funded by those ministries?
Hon. K. Chen: As the member could probably appreciate, when we’re talking about a universal child care system, it is a pretty big project. It could take a lot of work to make sure that we’re working with everybody — including all members from this House and also our stakeholders, child care providers, parents and the education community — on a plan that will work for all B.C. families.
This is going to be probably one of the very significant social programs that we’re going to have in B.C. In order to get this work done and get it ready for the February 2018 budget, we need to make sure that we’re working with all the ministries. That would be including, of course, MCFD and also the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Now, we are already having meaningful conversations and making sure that we’re looking into ways to put this significant plan together.
At the end of the day, what we really want to do is to find ways to make sure that families are supported in British Columbia, that British Columbian families can live, work and learn in the community that they choose to live in, in B.C. While we are working on this very important project together, we do want to make sure that we’re working with our communities hand in hand, together.
Many community members have shared with me that they’ve been waiting for a long time to make sure that this conversation can start. They’re very excited to see that we’re working on this implementation plan that will make universal child care a reality in B.C.
L. Larson: Again, while the Premier did state, very specifically, to take it from somewhere else…. That’s where the money’s going to come from. I can appreciate that there are conversations between ministries regarding this. But it is also important to note that those same programs that will have to be cut in order to pull money from these other sources are currently supporting children and families in other ministries. Any money out there is already currently providing services.
Again, I ask: what will be cut and from where?
Hon. K. Chen: I just want to make it clear to the member that the quote that you’re quoting does not talk about cutting programs. We have not said that there’s going to be any program that’s going to be cut.
What we’re really doing, and especially since our new government has come into power…. Since we became government, we’ve always been talking about investing in people and investing in the services that people count on.
That is why we’re working so hard on this universal child care plan that can support B.C. families — to help make their life more affordable, to make sure there are services they can count on — and also making sure that it’s good for the economy.
There are so many — the business community and employers — who have also been having conversations with us to say that they want to see a universal child care system that works for their employees, because so many employees are forced to move further and further away from their workplace.
So many families are moving away from B.C. because of the high cost of child care and the fact that they cannot find quality child care in their communities. That is why our government is focusing on investing in people and investing in the services that people count on.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Votes 31 plus 32 of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and progress in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Chair: Thank you, and have a happy Halloween.
The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.
Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada