Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Trevena: In this House, it will be the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation. In the Douglas Fir Room, it’s the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture.

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, $890,092,000 (continued).

T. Shypitka: I want to circle back a little bit to highway maintenance again, specifically to my region, region 11, in the East Kootenays. I wanted to examine some of the comments that were made on oversight. The minister made a comment that oversight needs to be improved. I think that was the actual quote. She also has made mention that standards need to be increased as well.

I want to go back to that just for a second to understand fully where the minister is going as far as the contractor is concerned. Is it oversight or is it standards that need to be addressed, or is it both?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member for this. I look forward to having a full discussion later this week on this. We’re going to be continuing the conversation later this week.

We are working on how we can work with contractors and how we can make sure that our oversight is very rigorous for our contractors, both in the member’s area as well as the whole province. I’ve said a number of times that this is something that is a priority for me. The standards that we have are the ones that his colleague the member for Kamloops–South Thompson read out and are the ones that his current contractor is working to.

These are the standards that we’re working on. They’re standards that the contractor is meeting, according to the metrics that the member himself read out. So we are making sure that those standards are met and that, where possible, we exceed them. We want to make sure that safety on our highways is…. Well, it is paramount, and we want to make sure that it happens.

T. Shypitka: To the minister again. She made comment just now that she wants to make sure oversight is rigorous. I believe it’s the word she used.

Would it be a valid question to ask the minister if an independent audit would be a good way of making sure that the oversight is rigorous and that the oversight is being conducted properly? That would be my first question, I guess. I’ve got another follow-up to that. The question is: would an independent auditor be a reasonable measure to ensure that oversight is being performed rigorously?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, it’s rigorous oversight. We’re hoping that we’re going to make it more rigorous. What happens at the moment is that their local staff members of the Ministry of Transportation do training so that they can go and audit another area. They have got oversight in doing audits in their own area, but they also do a five-day training so that they can go and audit in another area and have that oversight.

When they go into another area…. For instance, somebody from, let’s say, the Island comes into the member’s area to do an audit, which is approximately five days of auditing the maintenance contractors’ work. It happens every year. That person has had, themselves, thorough training in the auditing process. They are not briefed on anything about that maintenance contract or the history of that contractor. They come in, and they do the audit independently.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister tell me, then…? When was the last time an independent or a ministerial audit was done to the Kootenay East region, service area 11?

Hon. C. Trevena: An audit was conducted last month, and I was right. It was by somebody from Vancouver Island.

T. Shypitka: We’ve talked about standards being raised. We heard from the former minister a few minutes ago, talking about some of those standards that were going to be put in place — all good stuff, really good stuff. However, service area 11 just tendered a couple of years ago. They’re not back up till 2024, so they’re essentially being left out of the loop of some of these new standards that are coming forward. Is there…?

I see the minister shaking her head. My question to her would be: is there an avenue? Is there a hope that service area 11 would be elevated to those new standards through the contract that they have right now? I know that the former minister actually mentioned about $180 million left in the kitty from some of the stuff they worked on last time with the contracts. Maybe some of that money could be used, be dumped into the contractors’ contract to bring those standards back up.

It’s just, basically, a simple question. Is there hope for service area 11 to be elevated in the standards?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The standards of the contract in the member’s area are very close to the standards that are going to be in the rest of the province and that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson read out. It was seen as a pilot area for those standards.

There are very minor differences between those and what the rest of the province has. If there is any feeling that the rest of the province is getting much better treatment or that the standards are that much higher, it is something that staff will look at, about how to make them match. But at the moment, it’s so close that it’s hard to see where the differences are. There is a bit of a difference, but it’s not significant.

T. Shypitka: So the standards have been raised, but they’re a non-issue. This is what I’m hearing. They’re significant but not really. The question is: can service area 11 be raised to the standards that are being implemented for the rest of the province? That’s as simple as it gets.

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s as simple as the answers I gave — that the standards in service area 11 were seen as a pilot for the rest of the province. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who read off all the new standards, read off pretty well what service area 11 already has.

It’s not that service area 11 is being badly done by in this. It is obviously a concern, right across the province, about the standards, but the standards that the member’s riding already has are what the rest of the province will be getting under the new standards. If there is any difference, according to staff, it’s a minor difference. It is a difference that we will be trying to reconcile through enforcement, through monitoring, to make sure that service area 11 is getting the same treatment that the rest of the province is getting.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions here today, and I look forward to some of the answers.

Just to say thank you to the staff that are here today. They’re certainly the knowledge behind all of this, and I appreciate them. Also, I just want to do a quick shout-out to Ron Sharp and the MOTI crew back in the area. They are phenomenal people — they really, really are — and very responsive, and they’re doing a great job. I know he’s monitoring this. I’m assuming he’s on his device. Hopefully, he hears that we do appreciate all the work that he and his staff do.

[1:50 p.m.]

To the minister: when the estimates started yesterday, you made a statement, and it’s that word again that I’ve got to tackle a little bit here. When it comes to the Trans-Canada Highway, we’re all aware, where I live, that the highway runs through it. It’s a big deal. You used that word yesterday again: “accelerate.” When I look at the budget, I don’t see any new money in that budget, and I don’t see any new timelines in that budget.

To the minister: can you explain to us what “accelerate” actually means? Right now it just seems that it’s kind of like status quo.

Hon. C. Trevena: We have invested $191 million more in this project over the three years than the previous government did.

D. Clovechok: Just to clarify, then: the timelines are exactly the same as they have been? So 2019 for a start date would be the timeline there?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, which project is he talking about? We’re talking about it. Just to help him along, the previous government looked, as we perceived it, to be dealing with it too slowly and pretty well, as we saw it, in talking to engineering staff — not necessarily now — going from west to east.

The acceleration is moving from east to west. So we’re adding projects there. We’ll get the details of those for the member if he wishes. But I just wanted to know what 2019 one he was referring to specifically.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that question. That’s my bad. I should have been more clear on that. That’d be the Kicking Horse Canyon.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. Yes, the Kicking Horse is on the same timeline. Procurement will start in the fall of this year, construction starting next year and anticipated completion in 2024.

As I say, the acceleration, because this is on the same timeline, is using the other projects in the member’s own riding, where we know that there are, as he has said many times, very nasty incidents…. Everybody knows somebody who has died on that highway. That was a real concern to our government.

We know that this is a hugely important highway for the people of B.C. It’s obviously hugely important for his constituents, but for the whole of the province, it is our link from Alberta to the coast. That’s why we want to accelerate the work.

That’s why we’re looking specifically at areas between Golden and Revelstoke, around that area — how we can make sure that that section is as safe as possible. I know that every time I’ve come to visit the member’s riding, I hear stories about people who know someone who has lost someone on that highway. Nobody should be living in that sort of scenario.

D. Clovechok: Just to clarify, then, the Kicking Horse Canyon piece of the highway will not be accelerated — from what I’ve just understood you to say, Minister. What parts between Golden and, basically, Sicamous will be accelerated, then, in the course of time?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we can quibble about whether the Kicking Horse is accelerated or not accelerated. It’s a massive project. It’s on schedule.

What is very exciting…. I’m very proud of our government for taking this on. It’s something that I think really needs doing, and I think the member should be in accord with us. It is the improvement of that highway at a faster rate. At the previous government’s rate, it was going to take…. I think it was estimated at more than 100 years to eventually four-lane from Kamloops to the Alberta border. We, obviously, don’t think that’s rational.

We’re looking at a number of additional projects. We’re working with the federal government on up to nine projects, which are in addition to all the ones that have already been announced and were already in planning. So we’re looking at getting up to nine projects with the assistance of federal government funding.

Obviously, because we’re looking for federal government funding, we can’t enumerate which of the projects they are, but I give the member every assurance that this is something that we are absolutely and completely committed to. This is why the Premier put it in my mandate letter, and this is why we’re working extremely hard. I think that it’s one of these that is not and should not be a partisan issue. It is about talking about safety on our highways, the free movement of people and goods and, particularly in this section, safety in the member’s riding and for all the travelling public.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The nine projects that you’re mentioning — are those inside Columbia River–Revelstoke?

Hon. C. Trevena: Those are between Golden and Sicamous, but these are in addition to the ones that we were already working on.

D. Clovechok: To move on from that, then. The minister is very much aware of, unfortunately, the lives that have been lost between Golden and, basically, Three Valley Gap over this last winter.

It’s been unprecedented — the amount of snow that has happened in the winter events that have been there. Revelstoke is an incredibly, as you know…. It’s probably the most unique community in British Columbia when it comes to these winter events. The highway runs through it. It gets closed down at Three Valley Gap. It gets closed down, heaven only knows where, in Rogers Pass, and everything starts to stack up.

In Revelstoke, kids can’t get to school because their buses can’t get across the roads. People can’t get to their medical appointments. People can’t get to work because of all this stacked-up traffic. To the minister, I just recently sent a letter to your office outlining some of these concerns — communication, lack of flagging. To the credit of the MOTI staff, they have been very open and are working on this.

My question around this is for the city of Revelstoke. I’m wondering when I might be able to get a reply to that letter. In that letter, there was a request for myself; yourself, the minister; and the mayor of Revelstoke to sit down and have a good, long conversation about this, because I do agree there needs to be a non-partisan approach to this. People are dying, and we need to fix this.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies if we haven’t responded to the letter yet. I know how frustrating it is, but as the member for Kamloops–South Thompson will attest, there is a lot of correspondence that comes in. I know this is very important, and I’d be happy to sit down with the member, like I’m sitting down with his colleague from the East Kootenays later this week, to talk about these issues. As he well knows, I met with the mayor of Revelstoke to talk about this.

We are investing in the area because we do know the importance of the area and the importance to the community. We have put in $6 million worth of remote avalanche control on the highway. It’s one of the things that we’re doing which should make things that bit safer there.

We are working on some simple things like changing the signal timing. We’re working very closely with first responders. One of the reasons that we want to accelerate the work is to make it safer as we move along. We’re working…. One of the projects that we’re going ahead with is Illecillewaet, where we’re going to be looking at where there’ll be more space for staging for commercial vehicles, which will get them out of the community. It’ll be safer.

It’s how we can move vehicles through the corridor, as well as, obviously, ensuring that the corridor is that much safer. It’s also how we can get vehicles out of the community and get them into safe places, how we can really deal with that whole area. As I say, it really is vital for the member’s constituency but, also, for the safety of people across B.C. and for commercial traffic.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for the answer. I’ll get my people to talk to your people, and we’ll set up a meeting. That’s what we’ll do there.

Just moving along very quickly, then — Three Valley Gap. You did mention the extra avalanche control towers there. I think that was an initiative that was already in place when you took the reins of government.

I just would like to find out very quickly from the minister: what measures have you now decided on to prevent the rock falls? You know that Shannon…. I spoke to the Premier, actually, in his estimates last year. He said he was going to give this his own personal priority. Well, nothing has really happened there yet, with the exception of the avalanche control.

As far as the rock falls go, what’s the plan there, and when is that plan going to be implemented? When can we actually tell people that they don’t have to try to speed through there so that they don’t get wiped out?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. Obviously, because of the topography, it’s something that we’re very conscious of. It’s going to be difficult to fix, so we’re looking at doing a pilot remediation this summer, which would be fencing. It’s a pilot because we need to make sure it works because it’s such a sheer section. It’s got to be able to withstand, through the winter, any avalanche blasting that happens. So we’ll be putting fencing up in one section this summer and see how it works through the winter. Hopefully, it will work, and then we can proceed through.

I know it’s slow, but we don’t want to be investing a ton of money in something that isn’t going to work and that has to be redone. So we’re going to work in one section, see how it works and then move on.

D. Clovechok: Thanks for that answer.

Moving along from Three Valley Gap. Highway 23 south from Revelstoke to the ferry, heading over to Nelson. Because of these winter events, Revelstoke, with Highway 1 being closed down…. All resources go to Highway 1, yet Highway 23, which is a class B highway, doesn’t get the maintenance.

What the problem is, is that people who get stuck in Revelstoke will take that highway, go to the ferry, go across the Salmo pass, trying to find a way around it, because you don’t know how long you’re going to be stuck there.

I guess my question to the minister is: do you have any plans to try to help mitigate the snow problem on that road? Logging trucks have struggled this winter, getting down to the ferries. We’ve had lots of accidents because of the heavy snow, and they just haven’t been able to clear it to the specs of a class B highway.

Are there any potential solutions that you could offer as to: when these winter events happen, can we somehow apply a different measure to Highway 23 south to make sure it’s still safe, because of the increased load of traffic?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for that. Obviously, it’s a very long diversion if people are wanting to avoid the route we were just talking about. It’s a beautiful route in the summer but really, obviously, very hard in the winter.

The member is quite right. The classification is lower classification for the road. The maintenance crews are working at a different standard because it is a lower classification. But I’ll talk to my staff and see what we can do in those weather events where we know that people are going to be diverting around, what we can do with resources. Obviously, people have got to be really determined to go around, to actually take that road, but we’ll have a look and see what we can do.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for looking into that.

Just one last, quick question for you. In the Columbia Valley last year, we lost Greyhound service to our community. The Columbia Valley Chamber kind of helped pick up the ball a little bit. We got a private sector bus involved in it.

Many of our constituents in the Columbia Valley have to go to Calgary for medical appointments. Calgary is closer than Kelowna, and their doctors send them to Calgary for those medical appointments. Now there’s no particular way for them to get there. So transportation in rural British Columbia is a huge issue. You’re from there, too, so you understand that.

I guess my question is: is there money available in your budget for the Columbia Valley to look at continuance of some sort of a transportation mode that they’ve already got in place, in partnership with the private sector? Are there dollars available to help support and develop new transportation opportunities for our constituents in what is a remote, rural area?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member. I’m, obviously, very aware of the loss of Greyhound service right across the province. The member’s constituents lost it earlier. My own constituents lost it earlier too. We had a private sector company that came in and took over the routes.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s something that we’re very worried about right across this province now. We’ve lost Greyhound service or are losing it at the end of May — Greyhound service in the north, much reduced in the Interior. I know this is a problem for many people.

I am committed to making sure that we have safe, accessible ground transportation for those who have no other options. I’m happy to work with the member. I’ll talk to his organization, although as I understand it, he’s talking about a bus route that goes over to Calgary. Then there is the interprovincial jurisdiction, which does slightly complicate matters, because when we’re looking within our own jurisdiction, we can put a real focus on it. When it goes over to Calgary, it might be a bit more difficult.

Again, I’m happy to sit down and talk with the member about ways that we can work together to ensure that people have safe transportation.

D. Clovechok: I just want to say thank you for your time today, and I look forward to setting up the meeting.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and her staff for being here for estimates. As you know, Minister, the Central Okanagan is a fast-growing place in British Columbia and in Canada and, indeed, year over year, marks one of the fastest-growing communities.

My first question to the minister has to do with public transit. Is there any money in the budget? If there is, to what extent does the government plan on increasing access to public transit services for the Central Okanagan?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the question, Member. B.C. Transit is a real joy. It’s wonderful to have such a unique organization. There’s nothing quite like it anywhere else in the country, and I think we should be very proud of the work it does. I know that the mayor of Kelowna is a very avid transit proponent, so it’s good to see that there is a real commitment from the member’s own communities to invest in transit.

At the moment, Transit is working on its transit future plan of the area, which is a 25-year vision, so it’s really looking at the long term. That’s what we have got to be doing when we’re looking at transit.

I know that in Kelowna, you’ve got the new highway, the new bus lanes there, which will really encourage people to use transit. In fact, you’ve got the bus coming from Vernon right the way through. It makes the corridor transit friendly. I was at the opening of the transit exchange at UBC Okanagan last year, where, again, you’ve got…. It’s not just the fact that you’ve got an exchange there, encouraging people to use transit, but getting young people to use transit and that they continue to use transit. I think it’s very dynamic. I think that you are in a transit-friendly hub.

We are working on the transit future plan with the community about just what that vision for the future is. In addition, there are 5,000 extra hours scheduled for Kelowna in the coming year, and a further 2,750 hours for Lake Country. So there’s a significant increase in the amount of transit that’s going to be available for the member’s riding, and it’s a riding obviously committed to transit, which is great to see.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and her staff for the answer. I’m actually looking for broader for the Okanagan — so West Kelowna, Peachland, towards Vernon. But I’ll get that answer another time, since I have limited time to ask questions, if that’s okay.

My next question has to do with the medians between Peachland, all the way up to Vernon. The previous government did a really good job of putting new medians along the highway. Just one stretch of highway is left, and I’m bringing it to the minister’s attention because we had many fatalities along that highway before the median went in place. But we have one stretch that’s still not divided. The highway is divided, but there’s no median in place. That’s a part between Kelowna and Lake Country.

I was just wondering if she and her staff had any idea as to when we’ll see that stretch of highway have concrete barriers in place like the rest of the highway.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m sorry. Because we’re in the big House, it’s a bit harder to switch staff in and out. I have failed to introduce — but I’m sure he’ll be coming back in — Silas Brownsey, who is the ADM responsible for transit. We now have Patrick Livolsi here, the ADM for infrastructure, and Manuel Achadinha, who is the CEO of B.C. Transit. As members are asking questions, it does mean a turnaround. Kevin Richter, the ADM for highways, is now back. There is a bit of a fluid thing, of staff. So apologies.

We’ve got a bit more of an answer on the member’s question about transit, making the most of the head of B.C. Transit being here. There are a further 250 hours for West Kelowna, which includes Peachland, and 3,500 hours for Vernon, but that might be a bit far north for the member, for that.

[2:30 p.m.]

On the medians, we’re still doing…. The Central Okanagan planning study is still underway, so we’re looking at planning and engineering for other works and looking at the median itself.

N. Letnick: My last question has to do with the planning study the minister has talked about. I just noticed on the website that the latest posting there was March of last year, 2017. It went through phase 2, part 1, according to the schedule, and phase 2, part 2 is recommendations to go back to the public.

It’s been a year. My question is: when does the minister plan to continue with the study, or is the study stopped now with the new government?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The reason why I ask is that one of the big priorities for the area…. We have Highway 97 six-laning, which is moving forward. It’s almost completed, which is great. However, the big bottleneck for safety as well as movement is access across the highway at Beaver Lake Road. Maybe the minister would have seen it when she visited UBC Okanagan.

That is a very high priority. Because of the highway right now, it’s even worse, because a lot of people are taking Glenmore Road to get access to Lake Country, and that’s becoming a bottleneck, especially during the summer. I imagine it will get a little better once the six-laning is complete, but it still will revert back to a very difficult access point.

I know that the district of Lake Country, as well as the city of Kelowna, as well as the ministry have been looking at different options to replace that intersection at Beaver Lake Road and Highway 97, but every time I ask about it, I get the answer, “Well, it’s under review under the Central Okanagan planning study,” which has now been in hiatus for a year since the last time it was reported out.

I guess I’m asking the minister: can we continue with the work of the planning study, get it done and go to the public? We’ve had thousands of people who’ve contributed comments on it. It would be nice to get it moving to the next step. If we’re not going to do it, if the minister is shelving the planning study, then can we move forward on the other priorities, like the intersection, without waiting for a planning study that’s not going anywhere?

Hon. C. Trevena: A very, very good question. The Central Okanagan planning study is on hold. It’s on hold at the request of the city of Kelowna, who are doing their own work on studying traffic and doing their own studies. It’s on hold at their request. There will be public consultation, hopefully, later this year, when Kelowna has done the work that it wants to do. But rather than duplicate that and carry on, Kelowna requested that the province hold back on continuing the Central Okanagan planning study.

N. Letnick: I appreciate that the city of Kelowna asked the minister to put it on hold, and the minister has chosen to put it on hold. Did the minister consult with the mayors of the district of Lake Country, of West Kelowna and all of the other cities up and down the Okanagan that are impacted by this delay?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apparently, there is still work going on. Going out to consultation will be later this year. It is not as intensive work as has been going on in the past, because of Kelowna’s work.

All elected officials throughout the Okanagan and planning officials all sit at the same table. The acronym for the planning table is called STPCO. I imagine it’s Planning Central Okanagan. All the mayors are at that table and are all in agreement with the way forward.

It’s nothing that has been imposed from anywhere. It is by consensus that everybody wants to work for the smoothest planning and the smoothest transit for people possible. So it’s a coordinated thing.

J. Rustad: I’ve got a couple of questions to ask, but I’m going to try to condense them, if I can. In particular, I want to ask about the budget for highway improvements, side-road improvements for my riding and work that is proposed to be done here in this next year along the Highway 16 Corridor and the associated ridings.

Specifically to that, it’s what the overall budget would be — whether or not within that budget the work to expand the passing lane on the Cluculz Lake hill on Highway 16 is scheduled for this fiscal year or not.

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we’ve had a change of staff here. Now we have Scott Maxwell, who I’m sure the member knows, as a regional director of…. He deals with the north. He’s very, very good at dealing with the north. I’m sure the member knows him very well.

[2:40 p.m.]

To give the member the assurance, the Cluculz Lake hill is in design. There was a public open house a couple of weeks ago. It had a positive response. It’s part of a package, as I’m sure the member knows, of five passing lanes and an intersection along the highway.

As for the side roads, there is no change in side roads. We’ll be assessing the work that goes on, and we are still working, investing in our side roads. Earlier on in these estimates, I was talking to his colleagues. As a rural member, I’m very well aware of the need to be investing in our side roads and not to neglect them. We need to invest in our numbered highways, obviously, but we also need to be ensuring that our side roads are maintained and looked after. There is no change in the plans for side roads.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. I just am curious, though. Maybe you don’t have the number on hand, but if you could perhaps get me the number, in terms of what the spend within the Nechako Lakes riding is. Over the last 15 or 16 years, it has been anywhere between $10 million and $16 million a year that has spent annually on road improvements, resurfacing, passing lanes, safety improvements, side roads, etc. I’m just trying to gauge as to whether or not that same level of spending will be happening. If you can get me some information on that, it would be great.

I want to move on to the next question, though. Specifically, north of Fort St. James there’s a highway, which is called the North Road. It goes between Fort St. James and Germansen Landing. It’s a gravel road. It is part of the Ministry of Transportation’s inventory. There is a proposal that has been moved forward between Transportation and FLNRORD to look at turning that road from a Ministry of Transportation road to a forest service road. There are, of course, communities — Germansen Landing, Pinchi Lake — and others along the way. People have expressed concern around it.

What I’m wondering…. You may not have this information at hand. I get that this is a very specific case, so I’m happy to receive this information in writing, if that would be beneficial to the minister.

Who, within the ministry, did the assessment on the road that suggested that what is known as the Germansen Landing Road or North Road could actually be turned into a forest service road? What was the process that went into making the decision to be able to engage in the consultation? What is the process of consultation that will be undertaken as part of it? How will safety concerns be addressed for the residents that live up through that area, if it were to become a forest service road, as opposed to a transportation road?

Then the last piece of that question. I’m glad when I’m able to get this on Hansard so that you can go back and pull it up in terms of being able to have the response. If it does end up becoming a forest service road, once the large volume of harvesting that is proposed for the next ten to 20 years takes place, whether or not the road would be turned back to being a Ministry of Transportation responsibility so that the road and maintenance would be assured — and standards for the residents up there, of course, in terms of it being plowed and maintained and safety conditions.

That’s a lot associated with North Road. Like I say, if you’ve got a quick answer, it would be great, but I’m happy to take a written response.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member wrote to me — I appreciate this — last year about this issue, and I did respond. Things have, obviously, moved a little bit since then. It’s clearly a concern for him and the communities.

The ministry, at the moment, is staying neutral. It is our road.

Canfor is out doing public consultations. They’re the ones who are driving this, really. Excuse the analogy. They are the ones who are pushing it, and it’s up to them to have full consultations and then come to the ministry and, basically, argue their case — that they have complete buy-in, if that is the way they’re going to move forward. Then it’s up to the ministry to decide what to do. They are, at the moment, having their consultations. I understand they’re talking to stakeholders. They’re talking to First Nations. They’re talking to community members about that.

If it were to become a forest service road, that’s quite easy. The standards for a forest service road are a lot less than for a highway, but it does mean that you don’t get CVSE. CVSE doesn’t work on a highway. That, obviously, would have an impact for residents as well as the logging trucks going on it.

If Canfor is successful in its public discussions, and it convinces the ministry that this is a good thing to do and the road then becomes a forest service road, it is up to Canfor or whomever Canfor is at that stage…. They’re talking a number of years hence. If Canfor is still Canfor, fine. But who knows what forest company it might be by then? It’s up to them to return the road in highway condition at the end of its use. If it’s using it for a set limit of time…. Let’s say for 15 years of heavy logging. At the end of 15 years, it’s up to Canfor to turn it back into a highway-standard road.

If the member wants anything more, we do have the question on Hansard. We’re happy to give more answers to that, but that’s where we are at the moment. If he wants answers by letter or further discussion here, I’m happy to do either.

J. Tegart: The Highway 99 ten-mile slide project is incredibly important to the Xaxli’p Indian band and the people of Lillooet. This slide area is continuously moving and has caused extended closures to Highway 99. It appears that this project has been pushed out another year.

Can the minister indicate when the project will be completed so I can share that with my concerned constituents?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. The question…. I can sense her frustration and the frustration of her constituents.

It was supposed to start last year. Unfortunately, the reason it’s not happening is there are geotechnical problems. Engineers are working to solve those problems. They can’t get on with the work until those problems are solved.

Meantime, we’re carrying on talking with the First Nations, ensuring we’ve got full agreement with them. We’re hoping that those geotechnical problems will be solved to allow a start later this year.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I am just going to make a statement on behalf of my constituents because I have to leave right away.

[2:55 p.m.]

We are the gateway to the interior of British Columbia. We host, in Fraser-Nicola, Highway 1, Highway 5, Highway 3 and Highway 99. When we’re closed, the province is closed. I’ve heard, from constituents who drive all of those highways, concerns about road maintenance, safety and winter conditions.

I just want to be on the record to ensure that the minister knows that these are areas of concern in my riding, and they continue to be areas of concern. If there’s anything that the minister can do to address those concerns, we would welcome that. Thank you very much for your time today.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to thank the member for her advocacy for her community. Obviously, we’ll work as hard as we can to make sure we understand. You are the gateway, so we want to make sure that we have safe roads and that our system works for everyone. So I thank the member for her advocacy.

T. Redies: Minister, you may remember that in October, myself and the member for Surrey South and the member for Surrey-Panorama attended your offices to talk about the problem with respect to the BNSF rail lines that are going through White Rock and South Surrey, heavily populated areas — rail lines that have increased from two trains to 24 trains a day, carrying heavy oil, hydrogenous ammonia and other caustic chemicals through heavily populated areas.

At the time, we asked for the ministry’s help in working with the cities of White Rock and South Surrey to fund a feasibility study to look at moving these rail tracks. I asked the Premier in estimates and in a personal meeting to help with this, because this is a severe risk to our community. The Premier offered to help and said he would help in this, but then in January the ministry indicated to the cities that there would be no funding for this feasibility study.

On what basis was that decision made? Why is the ministry prepared to take significant risk with the people who live in the ridings of White Rock and South Surrey?

[3:00 p.m. - 3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. Obviously, with the issue of the mudslides, this has really heightened awareness and heightened concern for the member, for the community. I have talked with the mayor of White Rock the other day when UBCM was in town. We had a conversation about this. When I was in Ottawa just at the end of January, I did raise this with Minister Garneau. It was on the top of my priorities to ensure that we got the federal government’s engagement on it.

It is something that, obviously, we are concerned about. It isn’t provincial jurisdiction, and that’s one of the issues that we’re trying to basically square the circle, because railroads are federal jurisdiction. That’s why I did go and have this conversation with Minister Garneau, to really get them to engage on this. I think that there does seem to be some engagement from them, but I’m not going to speak on behalf of the federal government.

We will be looking at things in light of safety as well. So we are aware of that. Having seen what’s happened with the mudslides, we’re concerned about that and still, though, urging very strongly that we get the federal government to play its full part.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I am glad that she has spoken with the mayor of White Rock and that she has finally spoken with her counterpart at the federal level. We have been having conversations with our federal counterparts for many months now. I think there is a willingness to participate.

I get the fact that the minister is indicating that this is federal jurisdiction. But as I said in my letter to the Premier in January, the Premier and the government are responsible for the safety of all British Columbians. So I don’t think they can sit on the sidelines and pretend that this is a federal matter, not a provincial matter.

It’s absolutely important, imperative that the provincial government takes action with the feds and the cities to start a process whereby we can get some mitigation happening for the residents of White Rock–South Surrey. We do not want — I’m sure every member in this House does not want — to have a Lac-Mégantic happen in the city of White Rock or South Surrey.

I have a letter here from the Premier asking that the minister work directly with me on this issue. This was dated February 6. We’ve been trying to get a meeting but have had no such luck. So can I assume now that we will be able to have a sit-down conversation about the go-forward, because as of yet, we have not had any response from your office?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re not ignoring safety for the people of B.C. This is something that our government is obviously very well aware of and myself as the minister am very well aware of. We know that there is an issue of safety on the line.

The railroads are federal jurisdiction, and that’s where we have the federal responsibilities. The management of the railroads, the operation of the railroads…. This is a federal jurisdiction. That’s why I talked to Minister Garneau, to get him to engage. However, we are not ignoring the safety of the people of British Columbia.

I’m not sure about the meetings with the member. I know that there was a request for a meeting. I’m meeting other members of the opposition on a regular basis. So if that member wants to have a meeting with me, I am sure we will facilitate that.

Also, like every other member of the House, I’m available during House duty time. So feel free at any stage to come over and have a chat. We can have a conversation informally in that way. We can have a conversation more formally. But I think that your colleagues have found me most open. I’m always willing to have conversations, because we’ve got to work together. But in no way are we undermining the safety of people in British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Redies: Thank you to the minister for her answer. The ball is in her ministry’s court to come back to us with a date that she can meet with us again. I will take it from the minister that she will instruct her people to set a date. I know she’s very busy, and it’s not very easy to catch her in the House. This is a very important issue that we need to keep on top of.

My final question, I guess, is: given all of the situation that has happened with this government and the Kinder Morgan pipeline, is there any concern that the federal government may not be willing to participate in helping us with the BNSF rail line because B.C. is being difficult with Kinder Morgan?

Hon. C. Trevena: No.

C. Oakes: In March of 2017, we announced the third phase of the Cariboo connector, and I know a lot of contractors, First Nations, are waiting for that to be tendered. Can the minister kindly update us on where the tendering is for Highway 97 south, near the ?Esdilagh Reserve, south of Fort Alexandria — if that money is in the capital budget? And when can we expect the project to move forward?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, could she just repeat that section, the specific section, so we can double-check on that.

C. Oakes: It is Cariboo connector, phase 3 — $200 million that was announced. It is specifically Highway 97 south, and it’s the ?Esdilagh Reserve, so it’s south of Fort Alexandria.

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we’ve had a switch around for support staff. We did have Deborah Bowman, the assistant deputy minister responsible for policy development, in. We’re now back with our highways team, whom I have introduced before. But just to keep people afresh and make sure that they know which of their excellent public servants are working on trying to find the answers for some of these specific and quite detailed questions. Obviously, we don’t have them all on the top of our heads.

This section of highway that the member has asked about. Yes, it…. The reason we had to double-check it is that it’s not one that was imminent. It is still in the planning stage. Because it’s going through First Nations land, we’re working very closely with them, understanding from them their needs and the impact it’s going to have for them.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’ve got to say that our government committed to the United Nations declaration of the rights of Indigenous people and Truth and Reconciliation. We want to make sure that we’re working closely and ensuring that those fundamental principles embody everything we do.

This ministry — and I think the member for Kamloops–South Thompson would attest to it — has had longtime, long-standing good work with First Nations. But we’ve got to make sure that both the work the ministry is doing and has been doing, as well as our commitments to UNDRIP and commitments to reconciliation, are fully met.

When we’re doing the planning for the highway, we want to work with community, and we have to make sure, because this is going through a First Nation reserve, that the First Nation’s needs are fully understood and that they are also understanding the needs of the province.

C. Oakes: I am speaking on behalf of the ?Esdilagh First Nations, who came to me with significant concerns about the delays that they now understand are happening with this project because of the planning. They had intended to have several development projects moving forward in alignment with this very critical piece of infrastructure. This will have a significant impact on First Nations in my community, and it will have the impact around the Cariboo connector.

My next question. Our region has been significantly impacted by the wildfires, and we have several side roads that have been significantly damaged as a result of the wildfires, particularly Spokin Lake, Horsefly and West Fraser Road. I noticed that there has been a change in the side-road program. We are having difficulty between FLNRO and MOTI ministries, each suggesting that it’s the other’s responsibility. I’m bringing it forward just with the fact that we have unsafe roads, and it is a public safety concern.

To the minister: I hope you can be an advocate and a champion for side roads that have been decimated by the wildfires.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member and her response to the answer for the first question, there never was actually a date for this work to start. We are still in negotiation on acquiring the reserve land. We are obviously committed to working closely with the First Nations. But there is obviously some misapprehension on the member’s part or maybe some of her constituents’ part. We haven’t actually set a date for the work to start, and we are still in the process of acquiring land.

As for the side roads — absolutely. Side roads, as I’ve been mentioning to her colleagues in the opposition, are a priority. It’s extraordinarily difficult for her in a constituency which went straight from fire season to winter. We weren’t able to get in there and fix up the side roads and put the emphasis on the side roads that was needed. We have got riprap there to help to protect the roads against the freshet. As soon as possible, we’ll be out assessing where we can work.

[3:20 p.m.]

We’re working closely with FLNRO — excuse the acronym, Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — on the roads. Obviously, when there is a fire, this impacts the soil. It impacts the stability, and it changes the land. There is a potential for more erosion. We want to be able to go in there and make real repairs rather than go in and patch it up and have problems in the future.

We’re working closely with our colleagues in other ministries to ensure those repairs, but we are very conscious of the impact that the fires have had, and we’ll be working to try to mitigate them into the spring.

C. Oakes: Back in 2015, the former Liberal government announced a study about the Highway 97 Quesnel transportation plan. That has now been completed. We had 850 people at a public open house two weeks ago. Is it in the capital plan to support what has been identified in the Highway 97 Quesnel transportation plan?

Maybe just a final comment. I was incredibly disappointed, as this process moved through the technical-operational in the fall, to be the only elected official in the region who, all of a sudden, became uninvited. I don’t think that is a good way to gather information when all other levels of elected officials are invited and, in fact, the provincial representative is unelected.

To the minister: can you provide an update on where we’re at around funding for the Highway 97 Quesnel transportation plan?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that there was a very successful open house in Quesnel, hosted by the Ministry of Transportation, after the failure when there was a big dump of snow last month. We had one, I think, a couple of weeks ago, where about 900 people turned up for this. There’s obviously huge interest in the member’s community to make sure that this is effective and that it works. I’m very eager to see how we can move forward and make sure that we do make improvements on Highway 97. I think that the sign of about 900 people turning up for an open house shows that there is a really engaged community there.

Looking at the open house, the areas that were looked at, it was all of the work. Whether it’s Front Street, Racing Road, and the north-south interconnector, I think that it was all up for discussion.

[3:25 p.m.]

Where we are at the moment is Front Street with signal improvements and the other work happening there — junction improvements, signal improvements. That’ll be happening this year. Staff are looking at the business cases for the subsequent projects.

We know that 97 going straight through the community has been both a boon and a problem for the community. I think that we will be working closely with the community. There is big engagement, lots of advocacy for improvements in the community, and we’ll carry on working with Quesnel.

The Chair: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

J. Isaacs: Chair, thank you for the opportunity.

Minister, we spoke during the last estimates regarding the Brunette interchange, and at that time, I reminded you of the previous discussion that we had at UBCM with the Coquitlam mayor and some of the Coquitlam councillors. We confirmed that this interchange is the last part of the Port Mann/Highway 1 project that needed to be done in order to complete that project once and for all.

Minister, you agreed that the Brunette interchange is important to complete. You also recognized that it’s a key part of the infrastructure that’s needed to get goods moving in and out of the area.

There were three options on the table and a fourth option, which was from Coquitlam and New West, which had come in late. The fourth option was being assessed. At the time, Minister, you advised that there would be a further meeting later in the week that would take place between the ministry staff and the municipal staff, as well as TransLink, to discuss this.

So two questions, please. Would the minister advise if the discussion did take place, and if so, what was the outcome? A second question is: has there been any decision by the ministry as to which option will move forward?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: There was a meeting in February, and another one in April is planned. There was a meeting in February. Another one is planned in April, and in May, there is going to be a workshop which will bring together our staff, TransLink staff and municipalities, New Westminster and Coquitlam, to work through some of the ideas.

[3:30 p.m.]

In the meantime, ministry staff are reviewing the fourth option, because we want to make sure that we fully understand the implications of it and that we do the full due diligence. As the member knows, it is a big project. It’s very important to the communities and to the region to get it right. So we’re looking at that.

We’re hoping that…. We have the problem.… I think people in the House are aware that you want to move on with things, but you also don’t want to get caught out. We have the municipal elections in the fall. It’s likely we won’t be going out for public consultation until after the municipal elections, but we’d be looking to be doing public consultations later in the autumn or into the new year.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for the answer, Minister. At the time of our discussion, the Pattullo Bridge replacement was not on the table. In light of this sudden Pattullo Bridge replacement announcement, can the minister confirm that the Brunette interchange will not get pushed down the road?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. I understand her advocating for her community.

The Pattullo Bridge replacement wasn’t actually a sudden one. It’s been on the books for the communities for at least eight years — 2008. So for almost ten years, it’s been on the books. There’s really been a push to get this done. It’s been there as part of the Metro Vancouver…. The mayors’ vision…. They really wanted to see this happening. I know that for the member’s community, it might feel like it could go one way or the other, but this was clearly a priority for many, and that’s what we are committing to.

We have many infrastructure projects in the province that need dealing with. We will be looking at them and seeing what we can do and when we can do them. We have a commitment to investing in our infrastructure, to rebuilding our infrastructure, whether it is in the Lower Mainland or, as we were talking to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke about earlier on, in the east of the province. We have to invest in our infrastructure right around the province.

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Minister, for that. Again, I will advocate for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and the Brunette interchange. That’s also a longtime project to come to conclusion, and this is the final stage to finish that project. So I would say it’s just as important as the Pattullo Bridge.

M. de Jong: I heard, in an earlier exchange, the minister express her concerns regarding the shipment of hazardous or potentially hazardous material through the corridor into White Rock. It prompted me to think about another situation that I’m sure the minister has at some point turned her mind to.

I’ll describe it this way, in a personal way, although it reveals itself in different ways elsewhere in the province, all the way along a very lengthy national rail corridor.

I live in a place called Matsqui Prairie. The CN main line operates about 50 feet from my living room in my farmhouse. Over the past number of years, you can really track the evolution of our economy. What I have noticed is that the trains carrying petroleum products, in particular bitumen, have been increasing dramatically, and the trains that used to be a kilometre long are now, arguably, twice as long, and they come by with much greater frequency than was once the case. In fact, I was showing a colleague a video I took a month or so ago….

Is that something that…? Insofar as mine is a microcosm of what we see…. The member from Kamloops has those trains go right through the downtown core — also the member for Chilliwack, if they were here. That traffic, and the shipment of that product via rail, is increasing dramatically. I say that on the basis of firsthand, daily observations. Is the minister concerned about that?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. It’s always interesting to see how rail lines grow, and trains grow exponentially, through the years.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Trevena: The trains grow. The member is quite right. It’s the trains that grow, and you see them grow longer and longer and get higher, carrying the grain and other products to the port. We actually see a lot of activity on our rail lines, which, as the member is well aware, are federally regulated.

As I mentioned to the member for Surrey–White Rock, this is one of the issues that we face when we’re talking about rail. It is a federal regulation. It comes under federal jurisdiction. I have talked to Minister Garneau about the specifics of the BNSF and the application for the funds to have a study to relocate the rails. That is the engagement we’ve had there.

On the greater picture of what is being carried on the tracks that go through B.C., as I say, it is a federal responsibility. The federal government is, at the moment, reviewing the Railway Safety Act. As a province, we are participating in that review and stating what our views are on the Railway Safety Act.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister repeating her earlier statement regarding the jurisdictional authority of the federal government. Maybe to forgo any confusion or ambiguity, are there any regulatory instruments, any at all, available to the Minister of Transportation or the provincial government in general to regulate the volume of bitumen that’s carried on federally regulated rail lines like the Canadian National line that I’ve been talking about?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. It provoked quite an interesting discussion here.

Commodities that are moving on federally regulated tracks come under federal legislation. Ministry staff, going through this, are not aware of any way, through the Ministry of Transportation, that that could be restricted. It is under goods being transported on federal tracks, federal jurisdiction.

M. de Jong: Does the minister accept my proposition as factual — that the volume of bitumen being transported on federally regulated rail lines has increased significantly?

Hon. C. Trevena: We don’t have those figures. We can try and track them down for the member, but we don’t have those figures at hand.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I won’t expect the minister to have them at her fingertips. May I ask, however: does the ministry track the volume of bitumen being transported? Again, my question is, in general terms: is the ministry and the minister aware that the volume has been increasing significantly?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, thanking him again for the question. We are trying to find the answer for the member. In the interest of time…. I know that we only have a limited amount of time in this estimates briefing, and I wondered if we wanted to come back to this later and if the critic wants to move on, because we don’t have that information at the moment.

M. de Jong: I’ve tried to be fair to the minister. I haven’t asked for specific numbers. I have asked: in general, is the minister and the ministry aware that the volume of bitumen being transported by rail within British Columbia is on the increase? I’m not asking for the specific numbers at this stage. I should think that the minister does have that information available to her.

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand that the member isn’t being awkward or asking specifically hard questions. It’s a question that we are trying to make sure that we answer correctly for the member. We don’t want to come in and say…. If I said, you know, off the top, “Oh, I think this” or “Oh, I think that,” it would be unfortunate.

I think we want to get the correct answer. That’s the joy of estimates. We have a number of hours where we can go through issues. If the member is patient, we will find the answer and either relate it to him later this afternoon when we’re back in estimates or in writing for him.

M. de Jong: Maybe I can come back to the question that I think I asked off the top, which doesn’t require any research whatsoever. Is the minister concerned about the transportation of bitumen by rail within the province of British Columbia?

[3:50 p.m.]

She is the member of a government that has expressed ample concerns about the transportation of that product. Is she concerned about its transportation via rail link?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think this is more appropriate as a question for the Minister of Environment, when he comes up for his estimates. He can proceed with that line of questioning when it comes to the Ministry of Environment’s estimates.

M. de Jong: Well, let me, then, ask a question that does…. I would argue that seeking a response from the Minister of Transportation about her views on the transportation of goods within the province is entirely appropriate. I think, quite frankly, that the minister is trying to sidestep the issue. This is the Minister of Transportation, and I have asked a question about the transportation of goods within British Columbia. The minister is saying that she doesn’t want to or feels incapable or is unwilling to answer? That’s extraordinary.

I’m actually going to give the minister one more chance, because I’m sure that upon reflection she would not want British Columbians to be left with the impression that their Minister of Transportation is unwilling to proffer her views on the transportation of goods within British Columbia.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve tried to be as clear with the member as possible on this. I think that we are talking about a federally regulated system. The line is federally regulated. I’m not in a position to talk yes or no, whether the federal government should be allowing certain products on the line. There is a federal regulation.

We are working with the federal government to make sure that the safety is improved on our rail lines. We are participating in the Railway Safety Act. But as I say, it’s a question, perhaps, that needs directing — whether it’s to the federal minister about how it is covered, whether it is, as I say, for specific goods, to the Minister of Agriculture for the transfer of lentils or the Minister of Mines for the transfer of minerals. But we are working under federal jurisdiction when it comes to this. I’m not going to say that one thing is good and one thing isn’t good. But it’s a federal jurisdiction.

With that, may we take a five- to ten-minute recess? Is that okay?

The Chair: This House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

M. de Jong: When we left off, I had asked the minister whether she professed any concerns about the transportation of bitumen through the province of British Columbia. I think her answer — or, I guess, more accurately, non-answer — will attract some attention. So I want to make sure, to be fair to her, that when I and others subsequently characterize that answer, we do so accurately.

What I heard was the minister saying that she did not want to render an opinion or a view on a federally regulated activity, an exclusively federally regulated activity — to wit, the interprovincial transportation of bitumen products. That’s what I thought I heard the minister say. I don’t think it’s a valid or strong answer, but if that is her answer, I want to give her an opportunity to verify that and confirm it.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member for Abbotsford West, as the minister, I want this to be clear because I know this is a very sensitive issue. I want the member to feel comfortable with what I am saying. As the Minister of Transportation, I am pretty well agnostic about what is transported on federally regulated lines.

However, like any British Columbian — and part of a government that is concerned about our environment — I am, of course…. If there is any accident that impacted…. The member talks about the rail line going right by his house. The member for Surrey–White Rock talks about the rail line going through White Rock and the concerns of that.

Like any British Columbian, I’m concerned about safety. If there were to be any spill of any commodity, it would be an issue that we’d all be working on. The responsibility would be for emergency management B.C., if the worst-case scenario. It would be with the Ministry of Environment, and we’d all be working on that. But as I said earlier, it is a federally regulated system, and we are working as best we can with the federal government for safety on those lines.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Right. So this won’t surprise the minister. We have been talking about the interprovincial transportation of bitumen via rail line, which the minister points out — repeatedly and, I believe, accurately — is a federally regulated activity. The term she used just a moment ago was “agnostic.” I could substitute the word “pipeline” for “rail line.” I’m not sure the minister would apply the same term. Maybe she would. I’ll sit down and find out.

Hon. C. Trevena: If we’re talking pipelines, the member would be in the Ministry of Environment’s estimates, not the Minister of Transportation’s estimates.

M. de Jong: I thought that the minister would point that out. But it is helpful to know that she is apparently agnostic.

Does she, as Transportation Minister, recognizing that bitumen products are transported not just on federally regulated rail lines in B.C. but, also, on lines that fall within the jurisdiction of the province, profess a preference or — well, let me start — a concern with increased shipments of bitumen products on provincially regulated lines?

Hon. C. Trevena: At this moment, I would like to introduce Gord Westlake, who is the CEO of B.C. Rail. We’re having a very interesting discussion about whether there is any bitumen transport on any B.C.-regulated lines, provincially regulated lines. We can’t work out anywhere where this would be. If the member has more information that he might want to share with us….

[4:20 p.m.]

We haven’t been able to track that one down in the limited time that we obviously have in estimates. I’m happy to come back to the member with an answer to this and other questions as time goes on. Otherwise, we can carry on having the conversation now.

M. de Jong: Maybe our time would be better spent by pursuing the determinative issue here.

I think what we’ve learned over the course of the last few minutes is that the minister would have the House and the people of B.C. believe that as minister, she is, to use her term, agnostic about the transportation of bitumen by rail in British Columbia and presumably agnostic about the prospects for that increasing.

The other thing we have learned, I think, via the minister’s own answers — I do want the minister to correct me if I am incorrect or if I am putting words in her mouth, because this is important — is that there is nothing she or the provincial government can do to limit the volume of bitumen that is transported through British Columbia on federally regulated rail lines. That’s what I think I’ve heard.

If that is incorrect, and the minister believes there is something — there is a regulatory function for her or the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia — now is the time for her to say it.

Hon. C. Trevena: As the Minister of Transportation, we have been having a lot of discussions here with the senior executives of Transportation. The ministry is not aware of any way in our regulatory framework in which we could limit the transfer. It’s a federal jurisdiction, and we are working within that framework.

[4:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: It follows, then, simply to test that proposition — which I’m not arguing with, by the way.

Were the Canadian National Railway or, I suppose, the CP, for that matter — although I think it’s more prevalent on the Canadian National, by virtue of the direction they travel in or the volume of trains carrying bitumen through Kamloops, Blue River and along that to Mount Robson, the small towns along the line into the Fraser Canyon…? Were they to decide to increase that from present numbers, to double the number of trains or double the length of the trains, although that would be hard, given their length today…? I simply want to confirm what the minister is saying — that the province would have no means whatsoever, through any kind of a regulatory process, to stop that from happening.

Hon. C. Trevena: The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s regulatory framework, as far as we’re aware, does not allow us to do anything. I would suggest to the member that he canvass further with other ministries, the Ministry of Environment and others. Within the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s regulatory framework, we are not aware of anything that we could do.

M. de Jong: Again, to complete the thought, therefore, with respect to the authority of the Transportation Ministry…. Absent some other intervention on the part of the provincial Crown or government, the prospect of a dramatically increased volume of bitumen travelling, for example, through the Fraser Canyon on federally regulated rail lines is a distinct possibility.

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not going to speculate about what may or may not happen on rail lines that are not within our jurisdiction. As I say, I’m not going to go down that line.

M. de Jong: I’m not asking the minister to but simply to confirm…. I think she said this a moment ago, but I want to be crystal-clear. There isn’t a thing that the Ministry of Transportation could do to limit the volume of bitumen travelling on those federally regulated lines through the Fraser Canyon.

Hon. C. Trevena: I repeat what I’ve said before to the member. Within the Ministry of Transportation, we are not aware…. Given that these questions are new to us at the moment, we’re discussing these now and trying to find answers as we talk. In the Ministry of Transportation, we are not aware that there is anything, within our regulatory framework, that we could do.

We obviously will work with other ministries in government. I suggest that the member uses this…. This is, I think, the third set of estimates that has been up. I would encourage the member to go and take the questions to the Ministry of Environment’s estimates and to other ministries’ estimates about what can be done — even the Solicitor General, for emergency management, if he’s very concerned.

M. de Jong: Well, if it’s any consolation to the minister, I was in cabinets long enough to know when a minister is trying to pass the issue off to another branch of government. Don’t worry. There are members of the opposition who will be very happy — if not me, others — to pursue the matter with some of the minister’s colleagues.

I am going to take issue…. I’ve tried to be fair. My purpose here today was simply to elicit some information from the minister about what she and the government believe their role is. But to describe the issue of transportation of bitumen as a new issue? The fact that I may have differing views on some of this is fine. The minister and the government are entitled to their views. But the question of transporting a certain product through British Columbia would hardly be new.

I would say this. We get to the crux of the matter here. The minister must surely be aware, given what she has said, given what she has confirmed today, that the delays associated with the Kinder Morgan pipeline inevitably create a pressure that will lead to increased volumes of bitumen being transported on federally regulated lines.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now, I’m going to stop there and ask for the minister to at least indicate to British Columbians that she understands and accepts that point. In a circumstance where there are two ways to transport a product interprovincially, if one of those ways is limited and the second option is available — and that second option exists, notwithstanding the views of the Ministry of Transportation — inevitably, volumes will gravitate to that second option. I presume the minister is prepared to at least agree to that proposition.

Hon. C. Trevena: When I described this as new, I was talking about it in the context of these estimates. We are talking, primarily, about the Ministry of Transportation’s estimates. The federal regulation of rail lines is not really part of the ministry. We work with the higher level of government to deal with this, but this is not something that is core to the Ministry of Transportation. It’s core to the federal Ministry of Transport. So I would suggest that the member take some of his questions to the federal minister, rather than expect instantaneous answers from this side of the House.

I would say that I am not going to speculate on what a corporation decides to do, anywhere in this country or in neighbouring provinces, about how they transfer goods.

It would be foolish to stand here and say anything is inevitable, Member. I am not going to speculate. I’ve given the member my answer, to the best of my ability, but I am not going to go down a path of speculation. [Applause.]

M. de Jong: Well, notwithstanding that overwhelming applause from her colleagues, I’m not….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Oh, settle down. Settle down.

I understand, sometimes, these inconvenient questions. I’m not asking the minister to speculate. I’m asking her, as Transportation Minister, charged with the task of overseeing transportation policy….

By the way, I am grateful to the minister for the exchange today. She put it on the record, in ways that, quite frankly, colleagues of hers have been unwilling to do. I’m grateful for that. She has made clear the limited — or, in her case, non-existent — jurisdictional authority that she and the Crown in right of the Ministry of Transportation have in this matter.

I’m not asking her to speculate, as Transportation Minister. The department, I know, tracks these matters. I would have thought, given her abiding interest…. I don’t actually believe that she’s agnostic on the issue. That’s the term she used, and I suspect that it’ll come up again and again in the future. I don’t think she’s agnostic. I think she has an abiding interest in this. I think she knows that volumes have already increased. She reads the same newspapers I do. If she isn’t aware of that, she should be, as Transportation Minister, at a minimum on an issue that has been so central and that her government has made so central.

I think British Columbians will draw their own conclusions about a minister who stands in the House and, on the one hand, says, “We have no authority to regulate a particular form of transportation in the province,” and then asks those same people to believe…. “But I’m not going to speculate when the evidence is clear that the volume of bitumen that will shift to rail traffic….”

Some people might think that’s a preferable way to do it. I mean, I can ask the Transportation Minister that. Maybe I should. As Transportation Minister, does she think transporting bitumen via rail is a safer way to do it than through a pipeline in the ground? She’s the Transportation Minister; I’m not. I don’t think she’s going to answer. I don’t think she’s going to want to say that. I think she’s going to leave it to the people in towns like Kamloops and others up and down that line. I think her government has staked out a position on this matter, and they don’t want people to know what’s already taking place in terms of the increased volumes that are being transported on rail.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’ll let people draw their own conclusions from the exchange. As I say, I am grateful to the minister for having made clear here, and I think she has, that there is nothing within her legislative constitutional authority that can reverse that trend, which — I think it’s clear — is going to accelerate in the absence of an alternative that she and her colleagues seem bent on delaying even further.

For those people and families and communities that live along those rail lines and who are aware of the inherent dangers associated with that, never mind the dangers associated with a derailment through an environmentally sensitive area like the Fraser Canyon, they’ll draw their own conclusions.

I’ll thank the minister for at least being candid about the jurisdictional authorities. Hopefully, some of her colleagues will take their lead from the Minister of Transportation and be equally candid in ways that they have not been. I thank the minister for the time today.

S. Bond: I’m almost feeling like I’m interrupting a fantastic dialogue and debate here, but I will interject with some questions of my own.

I want to begin by recognizing the men and women who work on highways across British Columbia. Certainly, in my part of the province, we still have a very large deposit of snow. There have been challenging road conditions. There have been surprising winter storms — all of those things. I just want to say a special thank-you to the crews who work very hard to keep us safe — those of us, particularly in my region, who live in rural parts of the province. Maybe I’ll start there.

Can the minister tell me…? We certainly were very pleased when our government designated Highway 16 a class A highway. It requires a significant set of standards to be in place. Can the minister just remind me about how those standards are monitored and if that is taking place along the Highway 16 corridor?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I agree with her — the hard work of the crews around the province. It has been a particularly hard winter. We’ve been discussing this throughout the estimates process.

[4:45 p.m.]

Yes, Highway 16, as the member is well aware, as is Highway 97 in the north now…. Both are class A highways. The difference is that it increases the patrol time on the highways, it reduces the time that is expected for snow clearance, and it limits the maximum accumulation of snow on the highway. All of this, obviously, as the member is well aware, will make things safer for drivers on these highways.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. The question was, actually: how is the success of the contractor managed against standards? In other words, are they meeting the standards that are expected? If they are…. I have no reason to believe they’re not. In fact, I’ve seen some fantastic and amazing work done during very difficult winter conditions.

I think British Columbians want to be reassured that when you create a class A highway, there are certain expectations that exceed what they were previously. The question is: is that monitored, and how is that reported out?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, apologies. I missed the other part of the question the first time around.

The maintenance contractor is meeting the specifications set out. As the member, having been in this role herself, is well aware, I’m sure, there are several ways that this is done. Staff monitor what is happening. They go out during events, when it’s snowing — they go out in the bad weather too — to make sure that there is compliance.

In addition to that, there are regional audits which happen, to double-check that the contractor is doing the work. In any given service area, there are 32 audits per season. In the member’s area that she’s been looking at in her constituency, they are at about 25, which is on track to get enough audits done through the season. Throughout the north, there are, within a year, about 3,000 audits done to ensure that there is compliance of the contracts.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that clarification. I certainly recognize the good work that is done by the Ministry of Transportation office in our region as well. They’re always very cooperative and helpful, so I want to recognize them today as well.

I want to move on to the Cariboo connector, obviously an important project from my perspective. We’ve had a member prior to me ask a specific question.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’d like to ask a more broad-based question. I guess I want to ask that question in the context of a little bit of disappointment. I certainly know that budget speeches can’t talk about everybody, but when we look at the heading in the budget speech, the 2018 budget, the headline is: “Supporting economic growth: transportation and agriculture.” I looked there optimistically, hoping to see some recognition that, actually, the majority of wealth and economic strength is part of northern B.C. Part of the need is to be able to move goods and people, and investing in that part of the province is critical.

It was, actually, disappointing, as someone who lives in that part of the province, to look at a section that talks about supporting economic growth, the vast majority of which takes place where I live, and there’s not one word about rural British Columbia, rural roads or anything. It talks about B.C. Ferries. It talks about freezing fares. It talks about the Pattullo Bridge, the Fraser River and a number of other things.

I would really appreciate it if the minister could outline for me the current status of the Cariboo connector. An additional $200 million was announced in phase 3. One question was asked about it today, and it was all about planning.

What projects have been identified to look at the $200 million announcement that was made? I’m assuming those projects will continue to be tendered. And I would like to know whether there’s been contemplation of a phase 4.

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is, basically, well aware, there are three projects still ongoing. That’s Stone Creek to Williams Road, Williams Lake I.R. to Lexington and Carson to Toop. Let’s see. We’ve got another 10.6 kilometres of four-laning there. About $30 million is being spent on them this year.

The next stage is…. I’m sure the member will not be happy with this, but they are in planning. They are in development. We’re looking to see the ones that are going to be the best to move on with.

I hear what the member says about the needs of rural B.C. and the needs for good infrastructure in rural B.C.

[4:55 p.m.]

As a representative of rural B.C. myself, I’m very aware that we need to have good links, whether it is highways or other forms of transportation, to ensure that we can not just move our people but move our goods and really ensure that there is the connection there, because we do need to allow the growth of all our rural communities. So we are looking at the next stage, and we are planning on where we’ll go next.

S. Bond: Thank you, Minister. Could the minister be more specific and identify the timeline at which we would see the next projects of the Cariboo connector identified?

As the minister would well know, I fully expect snow is probably going to be there for several more months. We have a very short construction window, and planning is obviously an essential part of the process. When does the minister expect to have the next phase of projects identified?

Hon. C. Trevena: I don’t really want to be presupposing which projects will be going ahead. As the member knows, having been a minister with this portfolio, you don’t want to get ahead of yourself. So I’m not going to be saying which areas, but we are in the planning stage for a number of areas. We are committed to looking at these.

As I mentioned to the member for Cariboo North, we are looking at…. We are talking actively with First Nations, where the plans involve First Nations, but we are looking at a number of different projects in the area and how we can advance them.

S. Bond: The question was actually more straightforward than that. I wasn’t asking for specific projects. I was asking: at what time and what timeline will the minister be able to tell the people of northern British Columbia which projects? So it is about timing and about moving from planning to actual construction.

Hon. C. Trevena: When we have things to talk about, we will be announcing them, Member. At the moment, we’re in the planning stage, and it would be inappropriate to be saying: “We will be doing this, this year. We’ll be doing that next year. We’ll be doing that the year after.”

We are working on the planning stage, and we will be announcing as we get closer to the time and we have something to announce. Obviously, as the member is well aware, we have quite a lot of sensitive negotiations when we’re talking about a lot of this work, and we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves in that.

[5:00 p.m.]

We are working on the planning. If the member would like, I can let her know ahead of her constituents when we get to the announcement stage. But we are still on the planning phase.

S. Bond: I can’t imagine that the planning phase would take next year, the year after that and the year after that. The issue here is making sure that when we are talking about transportation investments in British Columbia, it is about the whole province. We’re freezing ferry fares. We’re doing the Pattullo Bridge. Amazingly, we can get that done within five years. Here, I’m hearing from the minister that I can’t even be given a date as to when we might be able to suggest that some specific projects will move forward.

What is the planning window? As I said, I’m not interested…. I fully understand the way the ministry operates, which is why I’m a bit surprised we can’t have at least a window of time in which I can assure my constituents that the Cariboo connector remains a priority and that there will be specific, targeted projects announced within the next year, 18 months. Perhaps we can just narrow it down to a window of opportunity for announcing something happening.

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand the member’s frustration, having lived for a number of years with equal frustration about when things were going to be happening in constituency.

Not to shortchange the member, we are doing the planning. I don’t want to set specific expectations that this will be ready in one year, in two years or what have you. We’re working on the planning. We’re refining projects.

I would anticipate, the way the ministry staff is working…. They are working very hard around the province. I’m not sure the member was in the House when we were talking about what’s happening on Highway 1 and what’s happening in other areas, but we are working solidly around the province. It is not just the Lower Mainland that is getting investment. I’ve been very clear about that.

As a rural MLA, I want to make sure that rural areas, many of which have not been getting investment, do get investment, and those that have been getting investment continue to get the investment, because we have got to maintain our infrastructure. I would hope that within 18 months, we’ll have a set of projects that we will be refining and be moving on.

S. Bond: That will bring little comfort to the people in the region where I live, but let’s move on. I will certainly, probably for a series of estimates, be coming back to ask about the Cariboo connector, which is a pretty important highway corridor for the movement of goods and people in the province.

Maybe we could speak for just a moment about the investment in rural roads. Obviously, again, it’s really hard to identify exactly what is being done. I’d like to ask specifically about things like budgets for brushing. All of those kinds of things really matter in northern communities. When you’re driving on long stretches of highway, often without cell phone coverage, brushing and things like that matter.

[5:05 p.m.]

Could the minister please update me in terms of the investments that will be made in my region of the province related to maintenance, upgrading, brushing, those kinds of things.

Hon. C. Trevena: The investment is the same as last year. Again, I don’t want to keep harping on the fact that I, too, represent a rural area. Brushing is one of my bugbears. It’s one that for our communities, where we’ve got dense forest as well, you’ve got animals jumping out. It really adds to, very much…. It’s a huge safety issue.

We are investing the same as last year. The maintenance contractor also gets involved in doing that. There’s money that we are spending specifically on it, and there will be money that the maintenance contractor will be investing.

As I mentioned to your colleagues earlier on in this debate, the side roads are fundamental. The member talks about the Cariboo connector. I recognize that four lanes are absolutely vital to transfer goods and services. You can see that anywhere around the province. That’s why we are looking at Highway 1 and how we can intensify that, particularly out in the eastern section.

The side roads are the ones that people live on and the ones that they’re travelling regularly, the ones that you know where every pothole is, where every crack is. You can see how it’s sinking because it’s on a former logging road and so on. We are absolutely engaged in ensuring that we maintain our budget and, where possible, increase our budget investment in side roads right across the province.

S. Bond: I do appreciate the minister’s familiarity with the issue regarding brushing. People don’t think that’s a big deal until you actually live where we live. Then they would realize how important that is.

The only thing I want to confirm, and then I’ll just move on to another couple of quick issues, is that the minister would certainly encourage her regional staff to continue to meet with MLAs to outline the projects and program that will be in place for the years that lie ahead. That’s always been an incredibly important part of the relationship between MLAs, no matter where you sit in this House.

Could the minister just confirm that she will be encouraging regional staff to meet with MLAs to outline their spending and project plans for the year?

Hon. C. Trevena: Having a good relationship with the Ministry of Transportation office is…. I think the member started on that. I think most members have talked about this. I know that as a constituency MLA, it’s vital. I would encourage the conversations to continue, that we carry on and that elected officials, MLAs, are informed about what’s happening in their constituencies.

[5:10 p.m.]

S. Bond: Again, recognizing the staff in my region. They’re always very proactive and incredibly constructive in terms of helping us stay informed.

I want to ask, just briefly, about the Highway 16 corridor that goes through Prince George. Obviously, there have been some challenges there, and there has been some work done jointly between the city of Prince George and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

A very constricted corridor, with little room, without some creativity, to sort out what we’re going to do there, because traffic volume is extremely high. In fact, we’re continuously worried about the flow of traffic, the number of people and the constriction of that corridor.

Could the minister just confirm that that work is continuing, constructively, with the city of Prince George? And if there is any sense of when there might be some discussion about steps that could be taken, whether or not there will be some public discussion about that — basically, the Highway 16 corridor running through the city and the work that’s being done with the city of Prince George.

Hon. C. Trevena: There has been a joint planning study, as I’m sure the member is aware, with the city of Prince George, and that is near completion. It’s looking at both highway and municipal infrastructure. There is apparently quite a lot of municipal infrastructure, which the city will have to deal with — obviously, trying to work in partnership. After this is finished, it will be going to consultation with First Nations and then public consultation. The hope is that work can actually start later this year on it.

S. Bond: I appreciate that. That is positive news — a corridor we’re very concerned about.

I want to quickly ask about two specific files, and then I have one last issue. I know the critic has been very generous with his time this afternoon, and I want to recognize my colleagues. There’s a long lineup.

I sent a letter to the minister in November on behalf of my constituents in Dunster. A lot of people won’t know where Dunster is, but it’s an incredible little community off of Highway 16. The concern…. And I share the concern, and I know the minister was very receptive to the letter that was sent. I just would like a bit of a status update, whether any work has been done on that.

It’s about a turn lane. There’s a lot of industrial traffic up and down that corridor. We experienced the same concern at the Ancient Forest, where lots of people were attempting to turn off the highway, and you see a semi truck barreling down behind you.

The residents of Dunster are very concerned about the ability to safely sit and wait to turn off on a major highway corridor. I’m wondering if the minister could just reassure me that that issue is being looked at and whether or not there has been any sort of feedback to the residents of Dunster.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: No community is so small that it doesn’t deserve safety. I understand the advocacy on behalf of the community.

Ministry engineers have gone to look at the site to try and work out the different options and start to consider what options could work for that location. They will be going back. They haven’t set up dates yet, but they were looking at going back to talk with the community, likely next month. No dates have been set up for that yet, but they are going to engage with the community and make sure that that does happen.

S. Bond: I appreciate that, and I know the residents of Dunster will. I would certainly appreciate a heads-up when that meeting is going to take place so that I could at least…. If I’m not there, if I’m here, then certainly, my staff, who are fantastic, may well be.

I want to raise one other file, and then just a quick conversation about Greyhound, before I turn it over to my colleagues.

I wanted to bring to the minister’s attention an area, a place, called Kenneth Creek. Kenneth Creek is home to a salmon run. The reason I would be bringing that to the minister’s attention is that there is a tendency for people to go to Kenneth Creek. In fact, there are concerns about potential poaching, those kinds of things.

The Spruce City Wildlife organization has come to me with what, I think, is a very reasonable ask: to look at whether or not there could be consideration for a viewing platform — it is under this minister’s purview — and also signage about the importance of reminding people that it is a salmon run. It’s not a place that people should be simply going to, to access fish.

I’m wondering if the minister could at least confirm for me that ministry staff are prepared to work with the Spruce City Wildlife organization to look at what I think would be an incredible enhancement for that particular stretch of highway. We pass it regularly as we’re on our way to the Robson Valley.

I know that there has been a very thoughtful request. I’m wondering if the minister or her staff are aware of that and whether there is a conversation going on about the importance of that.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s interesting being a rural MLA, isn’t it?

This came to attention, I think, not just because of what the member’s saying, but there was a failing culvert. We were replacing it with either a new culvert or a bridge.

There has been conversation with the association about what can be done. We obviously recognize it’s a valuable asset and important to the community. There are some concerns about safety at that location, but staff will continue to work with the association to see how we can best optimize both a new build and the association’s desires.

S. Bond: I think the organization certainly understands that. They’ve been very reasonable in their ask. I think it’s just an important discussion to have, because not only are there safety issues, this organization is working very hard to ensure that salmon actually have the opportunity to be as successful in their run as possible. So I think there’s a mutual benefit there.

I would just ask — and I won’t ask for a response, because I’ll move on to my last item — that signage be considered. I know that it’s important. We did some of that in the Valemount area when there was a concern about boaters and how they were behaving. I know that the ministry is exceptional at building signs and looking at how that’s done, having had experience with that in the ministry. So I’m hopeful that, at least, we could look at signage as a sense that: “We hear you, and we’re going to do something about that.”

Lastly, I would like to just ask the minister to give me any thoughts that she’s had or actions that she’s taken since the Greyhound Line decision was made. I know she knows and is aware — because we’ve had those conversations, which have been appreciated — that there are very many vulnerable citizens along that corridor for whom this was their only safe and regularly scheduled form of transportation.

I was grateful to see that the end of the Greyhound routes in my constituency, at least, is being extended, as I understand it, to cover the winter period, which is incredibly important. But I’m wondering if the minister has had a chance to talk to northern leaders to start to formulate what kinds of options we may well be considering. It is an enormous loss, and there is deep concern being expressed across not just that region but others.

I would just ask the minister to perhaps provide me with an update and what her next steps might be.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question and for giving me the opportunity to talk a little bit about what’s been happening with Greyhound. I think every member who lives with Greyhound going through their communities, or lack of it now, is disappointed with the decision. The tribunal is independent. There is nothing we can do about their decision, but what we can do is try and find solutions for communities.

I have made contact with the member herself and hope to be sitting down with MLAs from the north to talk about how we can jointly try and work to solutions. I’ve been reaching out to elected officials and First Nations across the north.

During one of the break weeks that we have, I’ll be coming up and talking with communities about the options that they see. I think we all know how vital this is for our communities — the fact that many people don’t have an option. They felt that their options were already being limited by the approach Greyhound had. They’d pick you up at four in the morning and drop you off somewhere else — completely at hours that didn’t work for people who are looking for transportation.

We are talking with communities, looking forward to sitting down and talking with them in a couple of weeks, and looking at models that are used elsewhere in B.C., looking at other jurisdictions. What model could we use? We can bring ideas to the table for these meetings.

There is still the Passenger Transportation Board acknowledging the fact that this is sudden and difficult for communities. It has said that it would fast-track applications from commercial operators if there was a commercial operator who wanted to come in to pick up the slack. I know that when Greyhound pulled out a few years ago from northern Vancouver Island, from Port Hardy, which I represented, a commercial operator did move in. But, obviously, the scenarios are different in different communities. So whether or not that happens….

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I’ve heard some community leaders talk about maybe we should be looking at some sort of…. Whether it’s a not-for-profit or some other mechanism, I think that there are ideas. Time is limited. Greyhound has got until the 31st of May.

It would be wonderful if we could find something that’s a seamless transition. I don’t know whether that will be possible, but the member has my commitment that I will work hard with her and her colleagues and representatives from her communities and the communities of her colleagues across the north to find solutions and make sure that we are not leaving people stranded. I think that it is something that has been disappointing for everyone.

We talk about the north losing routes completely. More than half of the province will have lost land transportation service in that way. Likewise, though, members from the Interior are concerned about the reduction in service as we see, basically, the attrition of this commercial enterprise.

I have said I will work with the member, and I continue to work with the member. I look forward to our meeting, hopefully before the break. And then when I am in her communities, if she wants to be part of those meetings, it would be very useful too.

S. Bond: I just want to thank the minister and her staff for their answers this afternoon, and I want to thank the critic. With that, I’ll pass it on to my colleague.

B. Stewart: I just want to say how welcome I am to be here in front of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and I look forward to seeking some answers from her ministry.

First, I want to concur with the former speaker that I have to thank all of the people that work in the ministry, the wonderful women and men that keep this operating. As tough a winter as it has been, and the criticism, I know that they’ve been trying hard, and they continue to do a great job for British Columbia.

I want to just talk a little bit more about the transportation objective to create mobility and of the movement of goods and services and people within British Columbia and how that relates to the Okanagan Valley corridor.

[5:30 p.m.]

One of the things that…. Having lived in the region my entire life, I’ve seen it grow and where the population continues to grow. It’s currently the fastest-growing urban or metro centre in all of British Columbia.

It’s surprising. Last year there were over 9,000 new jobs created just in the Central Okanagan regional district, and that’s creating unprecedented pressures on the infrastructure and systems that have already been put in place.

I know that the ministry continues to do great work. The six-laning project from Highway 33 out to Sexsmith Road is nearing completion, and I’m sure that that’ll be a welcome improvement. But more importantly, we still continue, with these progressive improvements, to see congestion and gridlock. It is not only affecting businesses within my riding but the entire Okanagan corridor.

I think that with the Okanagan corridor vision, it was clear that we wanted to look ahead because of the fact that it’s a narrow valley bottom, and really, there are limited places to build roads. Of course, for the growth that continues to come, not just from people moving there but people building businesses there — to be able to make certain that their businesses are competitive.

Access to health care. Of course, the government of British Columbia has invested significantly in the Kelowna General Hospital.

Education access for some of the schools that are specialized, like Kelowna senior secondary, which specializes in the delivery of French immersion and other programs….

I wanted to ask the ministry and the minister about the work that was previously being done on the consideration of a second crossing and where the minister and the ministry see that project in terms of moving ahead. I see that they talk about the next phase as “charting the course.” I am sure that this is no easy project, being that the magnitude of it is staggering. However, I look at the population numbers and the forecast that the W.R. Bennett Bridge will be at capacity in less than 20 years, and I suspect that with the continued compound growth rate, we may see that happen even sooner.

What I’m really wondering about is this. I want to find out whether the ministry has a concrete next step in terms of the second crossing across Lake Okanagan.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for his question. I’m not sure whether this is his first question in estimates since he’s come back. I’d also like to welcome him back to this place. It’s good to see him back. I hope that there are many engaged questions from him in this estimates and others.

When he was away, that’s when the Central Okanagan planning study started. It was in 2014. A study team was brought together with local governments from across the Okanagan. It includes Peachland, West Kelowna, Kelowna–Lake Country, the Central Okanagan regional district, the North Okanagan regional district, the Westbank First Nation, the Okanagan Indian Band, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, as well as B.C. Transit. It’s very much a long-term plan. It’s a visionary plan.

His colleague from the northern part of the Okanagan, Kelowna–Lake Country, was asking questions earlier on today about what’s happening with it. This is a big-scope planning study. It is looking at the whole corridor, literally south from Peachland up to the north end — about how the communities want to develop it and how it can be best enhanced. That work is ongoing and has been ongoing since the member last sat in this place. It started in 2014. It is still underway.

As I mentioned to his colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country, Kelowna itself has got some work it wants to do. It is with the agreement of the other parties that it needs to do its planning work. It has slowed some of this planning, the bigger vision planning, down. It is still ongoing, but it has slowed it down. There will be further consultation later this year.

Obviously, the ministry is continuing to work on projects while that plan is going ahead. I’d say its planning is looking at the needs and the requirements from the communities’ points of view. In the meantime, we have announced — in fact, I think it was yesterday or today — a $5.7 million safety project on Westside Road which is looking at widening the road and realigning it. So we are continuing to invest in the region while the communities work on the planning study.

B. Stewart: I did want to mention that project that your ministry has made a further investment in. I want to make certain that we thank you for that. We’ll come back to that in just a minute. I know that it was a difficult project, when I was earlier the MLA for Westside-Kelowna — being able to get the ministry to see it the way that the residents see it.

On the Okanagan corridor, the bridge included all this long-term planning. Of course, one of the key reasons for wanting to come back to Victoria was to help make certain that the lasting legacy in that region — something that I can look forward to passing on to my grandchildren and their kids — is something that…. We had a great vision in terms of longer-term planning. I’m not convinced that that has always happened. I appreciate the fact that the city of Kelowna wants to further study some of the impacts of this particular issue.

Are there funds still available in this fiscal year to do the next phase or continue the work on the second crossing?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you. It’s great to have a project that you really feel passionate about, that you want to leave as a legacy and have the reason to come. I think everybody’s got their own reasons for coming to this place, and if that’s what the member wants to leave as a legacy, I think that’s a great sense of attainment.

As I say, the Central Okanagan planning study is a community-driven study. So it’s what the communities want to see out of it for the results, what they can be looking at. There has been some emphasis on the highways. We’ve seen the six-laning happening. There’s now more focus on transit, but it’s on all modes.

I’m sure the member knows that there is a community working group formed to bring together the key stakeholders, the special interest groups — they say cyclists, but as a cyclist myself, I don’t think we’re special interest — environmental groups and community members to review the work as well as having a big table, which is, obviously, the elected officials and planning department.

It is a community-driven project, and it is up to the community to decide where their focus should be and what modes of transportation it should be.

B. Stewart: I think that these exercises, community consultations and planning — and, of course, the city of Kelowna, which has been growing rapidly and has its own share of transportation issues and is a big part of the problem with congestion — really do have to address that. I think that they’re probably the ones that have the heaviest lifting to do, because it’s going to affect their community the most.

[5:45 p.m.]

When I look at this infrastructure that we built — $140 million that was just opened in 2008…. I think one of the things about the W.R. Bennett Bridge which was always a bit of confusion for the local people was how it ended up being built with five lanes, two going north and three going south with a divided barrier down the middle.

The time-of-day travel or the alternating lane that we used to have on the former Okanagan Lake Bridge provided for an awful lot of opportunity to be able to relieve congestion. I believe that there is a simple interim solution that I think might be something that the ministry has considered.

I’m just wondering if the counterflow lane into Kelowna has been considered. I don’t know if it’s feasible, because of the nature of the bridge deck, but I know that there is a single piece of property that’s on the corner of Abbot and Highway 97. Those that travel it will well know that corner, because it gets constricted back down to two lanes, then widens back up to three on the other side. So is that an option that is being contemplated in the short term?

Hon. C. Trevena: The idea was looked at, but there’s a capacity issue on the Kelowna side, whether Kelowna could absorb extra traffic.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m not trying to circle back, but it does come back to the COPS, the Central Okanagan planning study, on what communities want to see. If Kelowna wants to see expansion there to allow for the absorption of the extra traffic that would come in if it was three lanes going into Kelowna. That is something that will be coming out from discussions.

It was looked at initially, and it was decided not to move with it because Kelowna doesn’t have the capacity, but still it is now part of this planning study, about how best to make sure that we get traffic moving comparatively easily in what are obviously growing communities, densely packed communities and communities that are using single-person vehicles or cars, as well as buses. You know, there’s a lot of bus use in Kelowna, too.

B. Stewart: I appreciate that. It sounds to me like it is a feasible option. I’ve heard that argument about the choke point in Kelowna, and I know there were significant discussions some ten or more years ago, when the bridge was being built, about the idea of what could be done about that. I go back to my earlier comment that I think the city does have an important role, and it’s going to have to address this issue.

The Central Okanagan planning group that you referred to — does that include the Highway 97 corridor from just outside of Deep Creek, where Greata Ranch is above Peachland, or from Peachland all the way through Peachland, right into and through Kelowna?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

B. Stewart: That’s excellent. Having chaired the RTAC for a number of years, I know that it was one of those kinds of projects that was left out of it just because there was no community agreement. The MLA for Penticton to Peachland, Dan Ashton….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Sorry. He’s concerned that we do bring this up and that we work together collectively.

I think that the other thing that certainly comes into that is the design work that’s being done on the at-grade or grade separations, which is mentioned on your website, at Westlake Road and Boucherie Road. I’d just like to know the time horizon as to when the city of West Kelowna might expect those improvements to occur.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The preliminary engineering design work, Member, is happening on Boucherie. We’ve got that underway. But I refer back to what we’d been talking about before. We’re talking about a number of communities, as the member well knows. He grew up in the area, he lived in the area all his life, and he’s now representing the area for the second time around.

We’ll be circling back to communities. We want to make sure that there is community support for whatever happens. Again, I come back to the use of the Central Okanagan planning study to get the big picture and how this fits in the big picture. It is about seeking support from communities and making sure there is that buy-in. But the planning work and the preliminary engineering work are underway.

B. Stewart: I think this is my final question. I mentioned earlier about…. Well, first, thank you for your answer there on the last question.

Westside Road. I’m very pleased to see that the ministry has followed through and today made that announcement of $5.8 million to help upgrade a further section of Westside Road. I don’t know. I’m sure the people within the ministry will remember the notorious title — it being named “British Columbia’s worst road.” It still continues to carry the reputation — maybe not quite the worst because it’s had significant improvements.

I know that one of the things that made it a priority for myself is because it links two of our most important provincial parks together.

[6:00 p.m.]

In many of the sections of road, the local manager in the Central Okanagan and I did extensive work, in terms of work that was done with lidar in terms of the road. Many sections truly aren’t wide enough for two large vehicles to pass one another. Sections are falling into the lake. So it is really needed.

I know it’s difficult to justify, but as the Okanagan continues to grow — the northwest side, Killiney Beach, Westshore — there’s a growing number of families. These people are putting their kids on those buses every single day, sending them to West Kelowna, to elementary, middle school and post-secondary. That concerns me with the type of weather and the fact that it’s not a priority road for, maybe, snow clearing and things like that. I certainly don’t want to be the MLA if something does happen there.

What I would like to just ask is that the last phase, which hasn’t been announced yet…. I just want to make certain. I want to ask if the government is committed to the last phase, which is the Pine Point section, the last phase of this whole upgrade, and if they have a timeline on when that might be expected. I know it’s on the website as being “in design”. I’d appreciate it if you can give the residents of Westside Road some sort of certainty on the horizon on that.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I think the member is aware that it’s quite a complex project. There are a lot of geotechnical issues that we are facing. It is in design. There is planning work being done for it. Because of the geotechnical issues, I don’t want to foreshadow a date on when we might be ready with it.

We had discussions earlier on today about work that was anticipated to be done some time ago, and we got caught with geotechnical concerns of land. Our engineers are working through those. Hopefully we’ll be able to get something happening soon, but I don’t want to foreshadow just when it would be.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for fielding all these questions and answers. Just a couple of short questions — hopefully simple to answer, I’m assuming.

I’m just wondering, first off: is there a provincial program under development, or currently in discussions, around the transferring of municipal transportation infrastructure corridors back to the province for the province in general?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: No.

P. Milobar: I’m asking because, obviously, there are a great many, much like the centennial hockey rinks that got built all through British Columbia and all of Canada in 1967. A little before my time, but I’ve been told that’s when they were all built. All those recreation facilities started to hit a certain age where they all needed to be rebuilt — a major expansion, major retrofits or a rebuild completely.

I would suggest to you that we have the same problem with the bridge network within municipalities across this province. Several millions of dollars — hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars — are going to be needed for municipalities to fix and repair and make sure that bridges within their municipal control are in a safe operating function for the travelling public.

Is there going to be a provincial program in place to make sure that municipal-owned assets, specifically bridges, moving forward, will be properly repaired and maintained with the support of the provincial government?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question.

As the member knows, there are various federal pots of money that municipalities seek for assistance. Whether there are going to be any new ones coming up…. We’re obviously working with the federal government.

As a former mayor, I’m sure the member is well aware of gas tax money available to municipalities for infrastructure. I’d suggest he ask the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for that information.

P. Milobar: Frankly, that’s a surprising answer. I would note that there is no federal money going in, at this point, to the Pattullo Bridge replacement. There are gas tax funds available for the TransLink communities, yet we see a 100 percent funded, municipally owned piece of infrastructure, a bridge, being replaced at a cost of, currently, $1.4 billion. I’m sure it’ll rise over time.

The reason I ask the question, though…. As the minister pointed out, as a former mayor of Kamloops…. We spent $8 million just recently, retrofitting our bridge to make sure it was still passable for the travelling public. It’s a major connection point. It handles about half the volume, on a daily basis, that the Pattullo Bridge handles, and it is a four-lane bridge. The citizens of Kamloops paid that full shot, without any federal help and without provincial help, to repair that bridge and make sure it was still passable for the public.

The reason I’m asking this question of the minister is, to be very clear, when I’m talking with other communities…. Just outside of my riding, in Fraser-Nicola, we have a bridge that has been washed out, outside of Cache Creek, since the floods. It was the bridge that unfortunately cost the life of the fire chief in Cache Creek. That bridge has yet to be replaced. It’s not a municipal bridge. We don’t see any action on that bridge moving forward, yet we seem to find $1.4 billion in very short order.

I guess I want to confirm with the minister what she is saying to the other municipalities across this province that are outside of the Pattullo Bridge area — that there will be no provincial money for any bridges within the province of British Columbia, other than the Pattullo Bridge, when it comes to a municipally owned bridge.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. I’m pleased to talk about the Pattullo Bridge and the investment in infrastructure right across the province. I know that the member may feel shortchanged, as the former mayor of Kamloops, and I regret that.

We are investing in the Pattullo Bridge, as it is a major piece of infrastructure for the region and for the whole province. I know every municipality’s infrastructure is extraordinarily important to the municipality and, oftentimes, to the province. I don’t intend to belittle that. But we’re talking about 22 municipalities involved in the Lower Mainland, 22 municipalities that are involved, to create what came to be the mayors’ vision.

Back in 2008, ten years ago, the mayors found that that bridge was wanting — it was a number one priority for the region — so had been pushing this. It was a priority because, like many bridges…. I mean, the member references bridges built in the 1960s. Pattullo Bridge was designed in 1929. It was built in the 1930s. It’s getting well beyond its natural life, if you can have a natural life for a bridge. It’s an important link for the region and for the province.

I say this without, really, belittling any municipality’s desire and investment in their own infrastructure. This was a decision made by the province to work with 22 municipalities of the Lower Mainland to ensure that this piece of infrastructure, which links two municipalities directly and then the broader scope of the Lower Mainland together…. It was seen to be a priority for the communities. It’s a priority for us, and we are applying to the federal government for federal funding for it.

T. Stone: I think the question was: is it the government’s intention to actually invest in municipal bridges in other parts of the province, recognizing the significant financial burden that many of these bridges represent for local communities?

The Overlander Bridge in Kamloops — the mayor of Kamloops and the mayors of the surrounding communities had a vision there too. That was to ensure that that bridge was safe and reliable for the 40,000 or 50,000 people who use it every single day, which, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson pointed out, is roughly half of the passenger volume that travels over the Pattullo every single day.

[6:20 p.m.]

I would suggest that it’s a bit of a flimsy argument to suggest that there is some greater good being achieved with the Pattullo replacement, considering it only moves about twice as many people over that bridge as move over the Overlander in Kamloops.

What the people of the Interior and the north really hear through that answer from the minister is a feeling that is becoming increasingly prevalent in people in the Interior and the north — that this government is looking after its political base. That is in the Lower Mainland. That is in New Westminster and north Surrey. The Pattullo happens to touch on both of those communities. The folks around the rest of the province want to know that this government is going to be there for them as well.

Recognizing that we have very little time left, I did want to pose a question with respect to commercial trucking safety. I think we can all agree that whether it is due to the extreme weather that we have seen on a lot of our highways this year or if there are other factors, it seems anecdotally, anyway…. The number of incidents that have been taking place on our main highways that have involved commercial trucks — and, in particular, that seem to involve commercial trucks that are not putting their chains on — seems to be more prevalent this winter season than, certainly, any I can recall while I was minister.

This is not a critical comment, at all, about the existing government, to clarify. I really believe it’s due to the weather. But British Columbians, particularly in Kamloops and Kelowna, folks who regularly use the Coquihalla Highway, are really quite concerned and worried about what the heck is going on.

Now, I would suggest the vast majority of commercial truck drivers are very, very conscientious, professional and respectful drivers, and take the time, as required by law, to chain up. But it seems like there’s an increasing number of truck drivers who are not making that same choice.

Again, we’d hear over and over about stories of trucks sliding out of control. What ends up happening…. Thankfully, in most situations this winter, there haven’t been a bunch of fatalities, but our main highways end up being closed for hours — in some cases, days — as a result of drivers making poor choices.

My question to the minister would be this. What is her plan, what is the government’s plan moving forward, learning from lessons of this winter to apply to whatever is left of this winter in our high mountain passes and certainly for next season’s winter window to ensure that commercial truckers are actually putting chains on?

As part of that plan, is the minister considering hiring more CVSE officers? Is it a resourcing issue, with respect to CVSE? Is the minister considering more patrols, more hours for CVSE? Is the minister considering requiring truckers to actually stop at checkpoints at the bottom of the mountain passes to be inspected before they actually set out to climb over those passes?

Finally, is the minister considering, as part of any plan to crack down on this, any changes to the fines and the fees associated with non-compliance? This is a matter of safety, and I think British Columbians really want to know what this government’s plan is to make sure that commercial truck drivers are actually putting chains on their trucks in order to more safely traverse over our high mountain passes.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I know it’s an important question, and we are short of time.

I’d also like to respond briefly to his supposition that all our investment is going into the Lower Mainland. Unlike the previous government, when he was the minister, we are actually investing in all of B.C. and investing in the highways of all of B.C., including the Island and including — if the member was around, and I think he was — discussing about accelerating the four-laning of the Trans-Canada, Highway 1. We are investing right through this province and not just in certain areas.

The member raised some important issues, including about what’s happening on our highways. I will not make political points about the weather. We couldn’t do that. However, I think the member knows that the ministry has been under-resourced for many years. I’m very pleased to see that we have injected more money in, and that money will be going to staffing.

We’ll be looking at how best to deploy that staffing, whether it does include more CVSE. We do get CVSE out in force when there is a snow event, as it is so called, to make sure there is safety there. But we are also…. I’ve been instructing staff to look at all the different ways that we can make our highways safe.

CVSE is looking at the protocols for chaining and for other issues that are involved. They’re looking at the levels of fines. We’re looking at driver training. We are, obviously, working with the Trucking Association on driver training and driver awareness.

Making sure our highways are safe is essential, and it is a priority of mine to make sure that that does happen.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.