Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. In Committee A, Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Families.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $925,616,000.

Hon. C. Trevena: If I might, before we start on the estimates debate — I know there’s a lot of interest and a lot of questions that are going to be coming up — I would like to just talk a little bit about some of the great work that this ministry is doing.

Last year I was talking about how, all around the province, the ministry staff work so extraordinarily hard on behalf of British Columbians to ensure that our infrastructure is working, that we have the infrastructure we need, that our highways are fixed and working and working well within communities and between communities, that we have transit working within our communities, that we have long-distance bus service working. I know these are some of the issues that will be raised through the coming days of the estimates debate.

They also work to ensure that we have a good relationship with B.C. Ferries and that we have a ferry system that works for the coastal communities as well as the ferries that work in the Interior. The whole gamut of aspects that are involved in transportation, in making sure that peoples’ lives are better, are well-serviced.

I can’t thank the ministry staff enough. I think that every MLA in this House knows their ministry workers in their jurisdictions, has a good relationship with them. There is an ability to have questions answered and have one of the very basic things, our constituent’s concerns, dealt with very quickly. On a grassroots level, I’m extraordinarily proud of their work and very happy of the work they do. Going up through the ministry, it’s a great team.

I will introduce my colleagues, the staff who are around me, in a moment, but I just wanted to comment on some of the things that we may be talking about during the estimates debate. The ministry is investing more than $5 billion in transportation improvements over the next three years under the 2019 service plan. There’s another $1.692 billion in partner contributions, which means our three-year investment is $6.7 billion.

I think that people are aware that there are investment plan supports for both preservation of highways and side-road assets. We’ve got the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge on the books now, construction of the Broadway subway and continue to work on four-laning to the Alberta border. As I mentioned, we’ve got public transit investments, the trade network that is so important to British Columbia and the country to make sure that our trade networks are reliable. We’ve got Bike B.C., air access. We have just launched an active transportation consultation.

We are doing many, many projects. I’m anticipating that there is going to be some interest from the opposition. I really look forward to explaining the work that our ministry has been doing on the community benefits agreement, which is a fantastic way of dealing with the skills shortage that British Columbia is facing, ensuring that young people and people who have not had access to this sort of work before — Indigenous people, women and others — will have access to high-quality training through the investment in our infrastructure. I anticipate a lot of questions about that, and I look forward to that.

[1:40 p.m.]

I know that the opposition is very interested in app-based ride-hailing. We were able to pass legislation last year. After app-based ride-hailing has been around for seven years, within just over a year, our government was able to pass legislation which brought that in. I know there’s some interest in how that’s evolving. I anticipate answering questions about that.

Our ferry system. I know there’s a huge amount of interest on the opposition side for the coastal ferry system. The opposition, when they were in government, created the construct that we now have. We are, obviously, working with that construct and had a report by Mr. Blair Redlin delivered to me last year, which we’ve been acting upon. I’m sure that there’s going to be a lot of interest in the coastal ferries.

I’ve mentioned B.C. Transit in general, but I know their critic has some specific questions about B.C. Transit and long-distance bus service around the province.

Last but definitely not least, the trucking sector. I anticipate there are going to be questions about that too. With that, I’m going to once again thank the absolutely diligent staff around the province and use this opportunity to introduce those staff who are with me today. I know the two here, and I haven’t looked to see who’s behind me.

Next to me we have Grant Main, my deputy minister. Behind him is Alan Thomas, the CFO of B.C. Transit. On my right is Nancy Bain, the assistant deputy minister for finance. Behind her are Deborah Bowman, assistant deputy minister for policy, and Andrea Mercer, who is the executive director for B.C. Transit.

With that, I will take my place, in the anticipation that we have a very healthy afternoon’s debate and be able to move on with the estimates.

D. Ashton: I would just like to thank the Minister of Transportation, the ministry staff, especially the ministry staff in the city of Penticton, and the contractors that did an exemplary job of rectifying a rock slide north of Summerland.

Again, if I could ask the minister if she would pass along the gratitude, not only on behalf of myself but all the citizens that utilize that corridor to go back and forth to work.

There were some examples of where people had to detour, but again, the staff and those contractors did an incredible job during that exemplary weather that the Okanagan was facing. My hat’s off to the ministry, the minister and all those involved in that.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for having that recognition. Too often staff in any ministry do their work, and they’re not recognized. I will absolutely make sure that the thanks are passed on.

I think they did do an exemplary job. Within a month of a massive landslide, they were able to make sure that road is now safe and open for use again.

I thank the member for his patience and his community’s patience as that work went underway and his help in making sure that people knew what was happening. So thank you.

The Chair: Sea to ski, Member.

J. Sturdy: West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

The Chair: Okay, let me redo that.

J. Sturdy: We do ski, but it is Sea to Sky.

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for her opening remarks and for having the staff. I think we will, as I mentioned to the minister, focus largely on transit to begin with — B.C. Transit and transit around the province.

I do have one question to start, and that is that historically, as we entered into a new budget cycle, the Premier would issue a new mandate letter or an updated mandate letter to the minister. Has that, in fact, been the case this session?

Hon. C. Trevena: No, the ministers did not get new mandate letters.

[1:45 p.m.]

We obviously have a mandate from the Premier for work that we need to be doing. We continue to work assiduously on that, making sure UNDRIP is involved in everything that we’re doing. Truth and reconciliation is there. We are working to make life more affordable and accessible and working on building the economy. The Crowns that are under the ministry did get mandate letters.

J. Sturdy: We’re going to start off with B.C. Transit. I think I’m going to take this opportunity, as the critic, to focus a little bit on B.C. Transit in my neck of the woods.

As you know, the previous Liberal government invested significantly in the Sea to Sky, in terms of the Sea to Sky High­way improvement project. This project…. I think what it has done is it has demonstrated the value of good investments — well-planned, well-thought-out and well-executed investments. It really has changed the region in many ways.

I’m sure the minister has travelled the Sea to Sky, hopefully beyond Whistler, because it does actually go all the way to Highway 97. She has indicated that she has driven all the way around, so that’s good. She’ll understand that there are communities up and down the Sea to Sky corridor. Obviously, the highway starts, essentially, in Horseshoe Bay, but Lion’s Bay is impacted, and Lion’s Bay is a community that has some concerns around how the highway impacts their community and the feel of their community.

There’s development potential at Porteau Cove, which is beginning to re-emerge. Britannia Beach is a community that has a history of over 100 years and an industrial history. The province has a significant stake in it, and there has been new investment in Britannia Beach. Hopefully, the minister has had a chance to visit the B.C. mining museum, because it is a spectacular entity.

Macdonald Development has reconfigured the old town­site of Britannia Beach, which is growing rapidly. The population is growing, and there are a number of different proposals for that.

Squamish, just a little farther up the road, is a community that has really, I think, felt the brunt of the development on the Sea to Sky. It is forecasted to double in population in the next 15 to 20 years and is well on track to do just that, which puts tremendous pressure on the community at a whole variety of different levels.

Then, of course, when we go up as far as Whistler, we’ll see that the visits in Whistler have increased dramatically. We’re over 3 million annual visits in Whistler. Then, of course, Pemberton, where I’m fortunate enough to reside…. That has changed the community. The access to that community is changing the community. In fact, in many ways, it has changed my business and my family farm, in that now, because of that capital investment in the Sea to Sky, our farm is able to deliver fruits and vegetables to 25 or 30 restaurants in Vancouver on a weekly basis, without having to stay overnight. It has really changed the game.

One of the areas where there is certainly very much an impact that is, in fact, globally recognized…. Other than the fact that the Sea to Sky is one of those ten highways you have to drive in your lifetime sort of thing is the impact that traffic and transportation has had on the region. When we look just beyond Pemberton, beyond Mount Currie, up into the Joffre Lakes, we went from seeing dozens of people a day to literally 4,000 people in a single day just because of that ease of access and the quality of the infrastructure.

Why I mention all of that is because I like to talk about the Sea to Sky, obviously, but beyond that, there is a recognition which wasn’t there not more than a few years ago that the capacity on that highway is not infinite. We’re seeing cases now where there are traffic delays. There are backups. There’s a need to steward our capacity.

[1:50 p.m.]

Transit is one of those initiatives which has now become important to the collective. Historically, it wasn’t necessarily quite as important. There is a transit system. There is B.C. Transit, which does contribute and partner with the Lil’wat Nation, with the village of Pemberton and with the regional district, in terms of a Mount Currie, Pemberton and Whistler commuter — for those three local governments and First Nations contributing to a partnership with B.C. Transit. That was the extent of regional transit in the Sea to Sky. Whistler had its own internal transit system with B.C. Transit, as does Squamish.

There wasn’t historically, necessarily, the desire or the feeling that the time was right to invest in a regional transit service, But that has changed, and that changed a number of years ago. Our government, the previous B.C. Liberal government, agreed with the outcomes of the B.C. Transit futures plan and agreed to participate with local governments in the area to fund on the standard funding formula for regional transit services.

Since that time, obviously a change in government…. I wondered if the minister could tell us whether that’s something that she has the same sort of commitment on. What is her perspective on how we move forward on transit in the Sea to Sky?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question.

We are absolutely committed to high-quality public transit throughout the province. I know that there’ll be questions later about what is happening as a replacement for Greyhound. We moved very quickly to get B.C. Bus North operating in northern communities — from the centre of B.C. north, from Prince George north — to fill a gap that was left at really short notice. We are a government that is committed to a good public transit system.

Sea to Sky is obviously part of that general development of public transit. I know that all communities will benefit from the establishment of a B.C. Transit service from Pemberton through down to Horseshoe Bay and then linking with the TransLink service. I know that B.C. Transit has been doing extensive work in making sure that it can work smoothly, that there will be a smooth transition when it hits the TransLink area. I think that with the significant engagement they’ve been doing and the commitment from communities and our commitment, as the government of the day, to make this happen, it will be happening as soon as we can.

[1:55 p.m.]

On that note, I’d just like to acknowledge that there’s a group of school students who’ve come into the Legislature. I’m not sure where they’ve come from.

What you’re watching today is the debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. We’re going to be talking about how much money, I, as the Minister of Transportation, can spend in British Columbia. On this side of the House, there is an opposition member who’s asking me questions about why we’re spending the money and how we’re spending the money. This is really how the Legislature works, in action. I hope you enjoy your visit.

J. Sturdy: Well, I’m glad to hear that the minister is committed to transit on the Sea to Sky, a regional transit service on the Sea to Sky, and its integration with TransLink. It would intend, in fact, to go from, just to correct the minister, Mount Currie, rather than just Pemberton.

There were meetings with the regional board, the Squamish-Lillooet regional district that struck a transit commission, or a transit committee, to develop principles around which this service would be based. They struck an MOU, and out of that MOU, they determined that the commission model, rather than a service model of a regional district, was the model they chose to pursue.

They were looking for seven members on that commission: a member from Pemberton; a member from Whistler; a member from Squamish; a member from the regional district area C and the regional district area D; and two members from the local First Nations, the Squamish First Nation and the Lil’wat First Nation.

Now, this MOU was adopted by all parties, and there was discussion with the minister. In fact, I believe this group or many from this group had meetings with the minister at UBCM last year to talk about this. The feedback this group received was that what was important was that there were nominations put forward with regard to the commission, to appointments to the commission.

It was awkward, obviously, because there was a municipal election in the middle of it. Not the least of which, there were some people who chose not to run that were not expected not to run. All of a sudden, there’s a whole new group of people at the table. However, they paid attention. They recognized that they needed to act as was suggested was in their interests by the ministry staff.

I don’t actually know quite who was making these suggestions. But this was the feedback that I received — that they needed to appoint these members in order for an order-in-council to appoint these members to a commission, in order that that commission could make recommendations around funding of the service. Then there would also likely need to be some amendments to legislation to allow for First Nations to serve on that commission, because at this point, I understand, it’s only local government elected officials that are allowed to serve.

They did this. They struggled. They complained. They looked for extensions. That wasn’t forthcoming. They did get the recommendations for appointments put forward to the minister sometime back in November, I believe. When can they expect to have the appointments through order-in-council completed so that they can get on with their work as a commission?

A. Olsen: I just wanted to take the opportunity, while the minister is preparing an answer, to indeed introduce the students. May I seek leave to make an introduction?

[2:00 p.m.]

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Indeed, the school group that’s here — and they may be able to nod — is from the Langley Christian elementary school. Their teacher is Tim VanHemert. They’re a grade 5 class. There are four classes, actually, here today.

Welcoming you to this chamber, the chamber that represents you and your future. Everything that we do in here is with you in our minds. Thank you very much for coming and joining us today. Indeed, as the minister suggested, we’re working through Transportation estimates today. So enjoy, and enjoy your day in Victoria.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, members of the region presented me with an MOU. I think it was at UBCM last year. As the member notes, there was a civic election since then. The nominations, actually, were after the civic election, so it was post the civic election.

B.C. Transit has established the B.C. Transit board, has established the commission, and we are working through the process. We are working through all the considerations. Because of the nature of the service, the governance of the service, there are many issues that we are working through at the moment. But this government and myself, the minister, are committed to making sure that we get the B.C. Transit system working along the Sea to Sky, from Mount Currie — apologies for early on — all the way through the corridor.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister, then, perhaps let us know what some of those issues are that are being worked through?

[2:05 p.m.]

The MOU and the local governments have nominated people to serve on that commission. Are there some other issues that they should be aware of as to what the minister is working through and why they haven’t yet been appointed?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to tell the member that there is nothing to worry about. As I say, we are absolutely committed to making sure that this happens.

I think that the member is also aware. He’s had many discussions. He’s a former mayor of one of the communities. He knows the communities. He knows there’s a lot of transit in the area already. So he’s aware that what is being worked on is, basically, a new governance model. It will be a unique governance model.

That leads into a lot of other considerations on funding, on the business model, on the relationships with other jurisdictions. They were mentioned earlier — about with TransLink. There are a number of issues that are still being worked through. But I can give the member my commitment that we are absolutely determined to make sure that this gets up and running.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister describe the new govern­ance model?

Hon. C. Trevena: Well, the region wants a regional transit commission, a regional model. That is what we’re working on, as the member knows. It’s not an overnight process. As I say, we’re working on this regional transit commission that has been asked for by the region, a seven-member transit commission.

[2:10 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: The members in the region have let me know that it’s been suggested to them the next steps are appointment through order-in-council to the commission. They would then, as official commission members, make recommendations around funding to…. I’m not quite sure to who, actually. I suppose it’s to the minister. Perhaps the minister could clarify that. Then there would be some legislation, potentially, as a fallout of that, depending on what the funding formula looks like. Is that accurate?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the member’s sequencing is correct. A request will come to our ministry — to myself, as the minister, and our ministry — to make the decision. Obviously, there are a number of issues at play, and we want to make sure that this can move as smoothly as possible.

J. Sturdy: When would the minister anticipate or hope — maybe stick with; can she promise, perhaps — as to when these members could be appointed so that they can get to work on their commission?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I said to the member, we are doing due diligence. We are working as hard as we can to make sure that we get everything sequenced smoothly and in place. So we’re doing due diligence, and we’ll be taking each step as quickly as we can.

We know that there is a community desire to have this up and running as soon as possible. I know that. I’ve talked to the communities. I know there is eagerness to have this.

It’s going to service the whole corridor. It fits very nicely with CleanBC. It gets people out of their cars. It makes sure that we are getting people travelling through the corridor by bus. It makes travel affordable in an area that is not necessarily the most affordable, as the member knows as the representative of the area.

For us, as a government, it is something that really is…. It fits what we want to be doing as a government in getting people out of their cars, getting people onto public transit, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, making sure that life is affordable and that it is helping that regional economy.

So once again, I give the member my assurances that we’re working as hard as we can to get things in place so that we can move ahead with this.

J. Sturdy: Are there other commissions in the province that would be reflective of what is being considered for the Sea to Sky, or are there other examples in the province of commissions that would be doing essentially the same thing?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. I know his eagerness, and I know the eagerness of his colleagues who also want to ask questions. I’m trying to give the member assurances that there is absolutely nothing nefarious going on here. We are working as hard as we can.

Directly to his question, no, there is no other commission like this one. There is one other commission in B.C., and that’s for Victoria regional transit. It’s not the same model that’s within Victoria. This is between communities. It’s a longer distance. We want to make sure we get it right because it may become a model for other jurisdictions.

As I say, I’m very committed to making sure that B.C. Transit is able to work across B.C. We’re already seeing different B.C. Transit services. We’ve got — whether it’s the Highway 16 one that finally started after years of pressure to make sure it started — the Highway 16 service. We’ve got B.C. Bus North. We’ve got a different system in the Okanagan. We’ve got from Vernon down through to Kelowna. And now we’ve got Sea to Sky.

We want to make sure that when we’re dealing with something like this, we do get it right, so we can be looking to the future rather than trying to reinvent it every time we get the possibility of another service.

J. Sturdy: Would the minister be able to describe what she anticipates the role of a commissioner to be? What areas of responsibility do they have? What types of decisions will they be able to make?

[2:20 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

R. Coleman: This afternoon, cycling through, are four groups from the Langley Christian elementary school in my riding. It’s a great school. I’ve been to it many times over the last 20 years. It’s always engaging to be with the students. I’d like the House to make them all feel welcome this afternoon.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Trevena: The role of the commission is set down in the B.C. Transit Act. We’re just trying to find out, really, how far back the B.C. Transit Act goes. It’s been around for at least 25 to 30 years. It’s an established act. The act gives the commission the ability — with the advice and cooperation of B.C. Transit, obviously — to look at the routes, the rates, the levels of service, the logistics and also how to raise the local-funding portion of the cost of their service.

J. Sturdy: It is interesting that it’s been around for 25 or 35 years yet not used, really. Well, you said the commission model hasn’t been used, historically, other than through the capital regional district. Interesting.

Could the minister describe to us what the standard funding formula with B.C. Transit for local services is and whether that would differ in a regional setting?

Hon. C. Trevena: Under the traditional model, the local governments pay 53 percent, and we pay 47 percent. Those are operating and capital costs under the traditional one for each individual community, whether it’s Campbell River or Pemberton or whatever. That’s how the breakdown is.

[2:25 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I understand that the local governments in the Sea to Sky are interested in a transit fuel levy. Is that something the minister is considering? If so, how would that work? How does that factor into the standard model?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. This is, again, one of the reasons why it’s taking a while: because yes, we are considering this.

As the member knows from his own experience in local government, in the traditional model, for the community’s side, for the local administration side, it’s funded by property tax, by fares and by advertising. There has been interest in a regional fuel tax, but we are looking at all models to ensure that…. We’re still working through this. There is an interest in a fuel tax. We know that there is a lot of pressure in that region on the property-tax side, so we’re looking at this.

This will be a new model, and, as I said to the member before, we want to get it right because it is a new model.

J. Sturdy: The local governments in the region have suggested, with the fuel tax levy that was collected, that that revenue would come off the local government’s share. Would you agree with that assumption?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is, again, one of the reasons why we’re examining how it’s all going to fall into place. The only other place where there is a commission, where there is a fuel tax in the B.C. Transit system, is in Victoria, where they have a 5.5-cents-per-litre fuel tax. Under that, we as a province pay 31.7 percent, and the communities pay 68.3 percent.

[2:30 p.m.]

It is trying to get it right. This is part of the many things that we’re working through when we’re working through what will be a new way of doing transit within British Columbia that we can potentially use as a model elsewhere.

J. Sturdy: Have there been any calculations done on potential revenue generated through a fuel levy in the Sea to Sky?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, it is part of the ongoing work that we’re doing. You can look at roughly how much gas is sold in the region, put a figure on what you could tax it at and work out how much revenue would be generated.

This is part of considerations, going back to the member’s initial questions when asking about why we have not got everything in place right away. There are many different things that need to be considered, and we do. As I have told the member before, we want to get it right. We want to get it right for the communities who are going to have the transit system. As I said to the member before, they are going to have the transit system. We are committed to it. We do want to get it right so that if this comes up in other regions, we can use it as the potential model.

We’re doing two things at once, but our main thing is to get this right and to make sure that we are able to move ahead with it.

J. Sturdy: Well, fair enough, Minister. I think we all want to get it right. But I think that there’s also some angst amongst local government and the community, who are looking to have a service put in place. I’m just trying to help provide clarity to those local government members and community members who are anxious.

The minister earlier mentioned that there was, or maybe in passing…. She might not have actually meant it but suggested there was a variety of other transportation or transit options in the corridor. We can go back and check Hansard. I take it that it was not there to suggest that there was a satisfactory level of transit solutions. I did want to point out that there are services but they are limited and very specific and don’t serve the whole corridor generally.

Naturally, people are anxious. People are finding that their options have been diminished as a result of Greyhound departing the corridor, and it has caused problems for people. The regional hospital is in Squamish, and that is challenging for many people. It’s a long way to Squamish.

[2:35 p.m.]

Again, to go back to my previous question. Can the minister be specific around the calculations, in that, can she tell me how many litres of fuel are sold in the Sea to Sky in a calendar year?

Hon. C. Trevena: Sixty million litres is the last figure we have.

J. Sturdy: Sorry. Was that 60 million litres gasoline and diesel, all transportation fuels?

Hon. C. Trevena: Those are the litres sold at the gas stations. We’re obviously not taking into account the electricity used in electric cars.

J. Sturdy: So 60 million litres of transportation fuels. Is that inclusive of on-reserve sales? Is that counted in the number?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is the latest number that we have. Staff don’t have a breakdown of that. We’ve got the basic generic number for the region of 60 million litres.

J. Sturdy: There are currently, I believe, transit-oriented taxes or levies on transportation fuels. Perhaps if the minister could clarify what’s on those fuels in the rural parts of British Columbia — so not TransLink areas but B.C. Transit areas. Is that consistent around the province?

The second part of that question is: where is that levy collected? Is it collected by the retailer, or is it collected at the distribution point through wherever the bulk sales are? Where is it collected?

Hon. C. Trevena: Can I just ask the member for clarification? He’s asking about the gas tax, like the price per pump when you’ve got the extra taxes of provincial carbon tax and so on. Is that what the member is looking for — and who collects them and how they’re distributed?

[2:40 p.m.]

Is that the question? Sorry, I just want to make sure that we get this right.

J. Sturdy: Fair enough. The reason I asked this question is…. It seems common wisdom, whether it’s accurate or not, that in Metro Vancouver or in the TransLink catchment, there is approximately a 17- or 17½-cent transit levy collected. In the non–TransLink area — for example, in the Sea to Sky — it’s understood that there is a transit fuel tax, or a fuel tax associated with transit, that is collected in the Sea to Sky that’s in the neighbourhood of three or four cents.

I’m wondering. Is that accurate? Is that a number that is applicable right across the whole province? Where is that fuel collected? Is it collected through the wholesaler, or is it collected by the retailer as they sell at the pump?

Just to give it a little bit of context here, recognizing that there’s a 17½-cent fuel levy collected in the TransLink catchment and a much, much smaller, if at all, fuel levy collected for B.C. Transit in the rural areas, theoretically there should be a 13- or 14-cent difference between Squamish and Vancouver. You know what? There’s not. Amazing. There’s not. Who would have thought?

I’m trying to get a handle on the accuracy of those assumptions and then understand where the taxes are collected. Then perhaps the minister has some suggestions for me in terms of how we can provide a little more equity to the taxpayers in my region.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I wonder if we could just defer the full answer here, because we’re trying to get figures. Because it’s a tax issue, it includes the Ministry of Finance. It might end up being a Ministry of Finance question, because we’re just working out who has responsibility for which piece. We want to make sure that, obviously, we do get it absolutely accurate.

I understand what the member is saying, that his constituents feel that it is absolutely unfair that they could be paying the same in downtown Vancouver for gas as they are paying in Squamish or Whistler. That is much less a tax issue at the moment than the greed and ability of corporations to charge that and know that people will feel that they have to pay that because they have no option. So the parity of costs of gas in the Sea to Sky corridor to what they’re seeing in the TransLink area has more to do with the gas companies charging what they feel they can get away with.

On the other question of the amount of tax, I would really like to defer until we get clarity through the Ministry of Finance.

J. Sturdy: Fair enough. Is there any answer in terms of where the tax is collected?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we’d like to get clarity from the Ministry of Finance. It might be a question best asked during Ministry of Finance estimates. They were supposed to be before ours, but they’re coming up soon, I believe.

J. Sturdy: The reason I ask you is it does tie into, ultimately, the decisions around what taxes would be acceptable in terms of supporting local transit. The question of on- and off-reserve sales of fuel also ties into that, so it’s an important question to answer.

I’ll hand the floor over to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands for a question around CRD appointments.

A. Olsen: As I was listening to the member ask questions about the potential for a regional transit commission in his riding, it sparked in me a question that I have for the minister about how the — it kind of fits in with the line of questioning that he has — members of the regional transit commission for the metropolitan area of greater Victoria are selected.

I note that from my riding, one of three mayors — it’s in the legislation — is selected to sit on the regional transit commission. In the past, it’s been noted that there’s been kind of a regular rotation of these mayors. We did some investigation and were not able to figure out how it was that those mayors were selected or what the process was.

Perhaps, since the member was asking about the establishment of a regional transit commission in his riding, I’d just ask the minister for some clarification on how it is that the mayors of my riding, the one seat that is representative on the regional transit commission, are selected.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. The appointments are prescribed under the act. At the moment — and there is no formal policy that they rotate — we have: two representatives from Victoria, the mayor and a councillor; one from Sooke, who is the mayor of Sooke; a mayor and a councillor from Saanich; I believe the mayor of Oak Bay; and the mayor of Colwood. It is at the minister’s discretion. The names come to the minister, and decisions are made on that.

A. Olsen: I note in the act that it is very prescriptive with respect to the mayor of Victoria; a councillor from Victoria; Esquimalt; a mayor from Saanich; a councillor from Saanich; one of the following from Sidney, North Saanich or Central Saanich; and then one of the following: a mayor of Colwood, Metchosin, Langford, View Royal, the Highlands or Sooke.

I note that there are two from the Western Communities currently sitting. I’m just not sure what the mechanism is which…. I recognize that it’s not formalized in any way, that it rotates. That has been the practice. I recognize, also, that it’s an order-in-council that formally approves these, and we were notified that the approval happened. But I’m just wondering what the mechanism was.

We were asking about this prior to the decision being made, and it was never made clear to us what the process was to determine whose name is on that. Furthermore, while I don’t have any quibbles over the fact that there is a member of…. There are two, in part (g) of the act. I’m just wondering how that happens? It seems like a bit of a mystery, frankly.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member, and I understand the desire for clarification.

Names are put forward, obviously. We have a Crown agency board resourcing office that helps ensure that we get names. They look at that and talk to people about that and come with recommendations.

The concern, I understand from the member, is, potentially, that there are two from the Western Communities. I think this reflects, really, the growth of the Western Communities. Sooke is no longer a quiet backwater now. I’m not sure whether the people of Sooke like that or don’t like that. But I think it’s very important to have them engaged in transit decisions, because we are hoping that more people are using transit from the farther west we go, rather than be driving in.

S. Bond: Good afternoon, Minister. I appreciate the opportunity.

I want to thank my colleague the critic for Transportation.

We’re going to talk a little bit about buses, but it’s going to be about those that used to run across northern British Columbia. I do want to recognize the team of people that work in the Ministry of Transportation in northern British Columbia. They do an excellent job every day. They work very hard They’re very collaborative. I really appreciate the work they do on behalf of northern residents.

Minister, I’m wondering if you could give us an update on B.C. Bus North. I would like to know, specifically, what the intentions of the minister are when the contract ends in just a few short months.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. I know that she’s obviously concerned about the service to her community and communities around the north.

I’ve got to say that I’m extraordinarily pleased with the success of B.C. Bus North. B.C. Transit and our ministry moved extremely swiftly when Greyhound pulled out. Within about six weeks, we got a service going in across the whole of northern B.C., which is really quite extraordinary, given the size of the area and the complexity of the routes and everything else.

We’ve had more than 3,000 passengers in the first seven months. Just as an aside to the member, I know there were some concerns about the Prince George–Valemount section. The route has been changed, so it will be more reflective of what people really need.

I’ve got to say that I’m extraordinarily pleased with what has happened so far. There was a real desire to make sure that people were not left stranded. We did not want people to be without affordable ground transportation. That continues to be my commitment.

We’re aware of the year coming to an end in June, and we are, at the moment, looking at different options. We continue to engage with communities and will be engaging with communities in the coming weeks and months. We’re also working with the federal government to see the commitment that they’re providing, because we’ve got both the B.C. Bus North as well as what was there in the rest of the province when Greyhound pulled out. Actually, it’s pulling out from the whole of western Canada. That’s when we, as a province, engaged with the federal government to get the federal government working on what was a national issue.

I am absolutely committed to making sure that people have access to safe and affordable ground transportation. B.C. Bus North has been a great success. We do continue to look at what will happen after June, when the first year comes to an end, and to make sure that we can still provide good service to people or that people can have good service.

S. Bond: Well, I appreciate that. I think there are some issues, which I will raise, with the service as it exists, although there’s been some flexibility added in the last week or few days, at least.

Is the minister prepared to say today that should there not be a private sector provider that is going to run along Highway 16 — obviously, a pretty significant rural part of British Columbia — she will be prepared to continue the existing B.C. bus service beyond its one-year contract?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I just want to clarify one thing. The B.C. Bus North is more than Highway 16. The member mentioned Highway 16. We know that Highway 16 is a vital route for many people, and that’s why we’ve got the Highway 16 action plan, which eventually came after much pressure. It was started, it has been extraordinarily successful, and we will be committed to continuing that.

My commitment to the people in the north is that…. We came very quickly last time, when Greyhound pulled out, and ensured that people were not left stranded. We are working with communities. We are working with the federal government to try and find alternatives. I want to give people the assurance that, come June, they will not be left stranded. They were not left stranded last year, and they will not be left stranded this year.

S. Bond: My constituents will be, I assume, relieved. There will still be uncertainty until we know that there has been a permanent solution put in place. We recognize that this has been an investment on behalf of the provincial government, and it was a necessary one. You can imagine that for some people, it is their only method of transportation in northern British Columbia. They don’t have the option of a variety of other services.

I will certainly be keeping in touch with the minister to make sure that we understand what the process involves and what the options are that are being considered so that a service remains in place. I do have a concern about the existing service. I shared that with the minister via correspondence after meeting with a number of advocates in my community who speak on behalf of persons with disabilities.

I’m sure the minister is aware that the bus service that currently exists is not accessible. That is a challenge for northern residents. Frankly, in the day and age that we’re living in, it’s unacceptable. We need to sort out, in whatever model of service is going to be provided across northern B.C., that it is inclusive of all residents.

The minister knows that we had a situation at Christmas where B.C. Bus…. The schedule and the companion schedule that run with the Northern Health bus didn’t work. In fact, we had northern residents, some with disabilities, and others who simply were trying to travel during that period of time and could not do it.

Is the minister, in the work that she’s doing, looking at options or a continued B.C. Bus North or whatever it is? Has the team been made aware of the need to look at inclusive bus services, which means accessible buses?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I understand the member’s real urging that the vehicles be inclusive for residents. This was set up, as the member well knows, very quickly. B.C. Transit was not able to source wheelchair-accessible buses at the time.

I have to say Northern Health Connections really did help out. There may have been some glitches, but they’ve changed their criteria for allowing who could be using the buses. They are accessible and allow for companions to be part of that ride. I think that was a very good move, because we want to say…. I think that, like the member, representing a rural community, we know that there aren’t options for many of our constituents. We want to make sure that they can travel safely and affordably, and that’s what we’re committed to.

I also assure the member that, as we move along with decisions, we will be talking with her and her colleagues about what can be done next. The inclusivity is obviously a concern. We will be working as best to address that.

S. Bond: Thanks to the minister for her response. It’s critically important — you know, when we talk about the issue of mobility, not being able to get home for Christmas or a variety of other things, back and forth. The minister is correct. Northern Health Connections has played a critical role, but those schedules aren’t as well aligned as they could or may be moving into the future.

I have two other questions. Again, I thank the critic for the time. I want to ask about the scheduling issues that have been raised. Again, I brought that issue as a result of concerns that were expressed from my constituents. First of all, grateful, of course, that there is a service at all, but for communities like Valemount, for example, it was very difficult to find a way to make B.C. Bus actually work for them. You’d end up having to stay a day or longer to actually get to and from. So there were issues related to convenience.

Now, I know that the schedule has been adjusted very recently — in fact with, I think, a departure coming out of Valemount early in the morning. There have been some changes made. I am encouraged by the fact that there’s been some flexibility introduced there.

I’m guess I’m wondering: what is the mechanism that the minister and her staff use to hear from local residents about what’s going to work best for them? One of the arguments that the bus company makes — for example, that Greyhound makes — is that buses are empty, and we’re not getting capacity. Part of that is because of the scheduling issue. They rarely run. If you expect someone to get on a bus in rural British Columbia at midnight on the side of the road, I’m thinking that utilization numbers are probably not going to be at their maximum. So it’s been encouraging to see some schedule changes.

I guess I’m wondering: does the minister have a mechanism in place to hear feedback from local residents about what will work for them? I know that the mayors of my communities have spoken up.

I’m encouraged that there’s been some change, but how, moving forward, will those changes be monitored to see if they actually meet the needs of residents? Otherwise, we’ll be back here in the next year’s estimates with the message that nobody used the bus. That’s because it has to fit into the lifestyles and sort of the ebb and flow of people getting to and from Prince George and other locations.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I hear what she’s saying about Greyhound only running at night. The stories you’d hear about people who are stuck trying to catch a bus at four in the morning with a kid or something…. It’s just ridiculous. It’s no wonder that people didn’t want to ride Greyhound.

I think that the very fact that we have had more than 3,000 passengers in the first seven months is a testament to that, that people do want access to this service and to safe ground transportation and affordable ground transportation, if it’s provided at a time that suits regular life.

To the member’s specific question on the feedback, obviously, I, as minister, am talking regularly to community leaders. Our ministry is talking to people within the community. There is a customer service portal on the B.C. Bus North.

The very fact that we were able to change the Valemount one — I know it may seem to have taken a long while — is because of customer concerns. I think the member knows as well as anybody that it’s a huge area and, doing twice a week on two different routes, round trips, to make adjustments isn’t easy. B.C. Bus North is trying to be as flexible as they can when they get feedback.

I’d like to just add for the member that one of the reasons we put B.C. Bus North in place, obviously, was to meet the need of people in the north, to make sure they had that access to safe, affordable ground transportation. But it is also an opportunity to find out what the ridership numbers are.

When I talked to community leaders and I had meetings with mayors from around the north, one of the things that everybody felt they needed to know before going on to the next stage is: what is the ridership? How well used will it be? What routes really do we need? This has really provided a lot of information for that next stage, for when we are looking at how we roll out a next stage, what happens in June. We have a lot of information here that we have gathered, and we are very much listening to those who use the service.

S. Bond: My last question in this section…. I know that I’ll hopefully be getting some time at a later stage in estimates to talk about rural highways in my area.

I do want to say that I think that the work that’s been done with the Northern Health Connections bus and B.C. Bus North is important work. I think rationalizing those services, trying to find ways to….

[3:20 p.m.]

I have, many times, visited with the Northern Health Connections team and seen the service that’s provided there, and it’s exceptional. The drivers are well appreciated by the people who actually use the service. So I hope that that relationship will continue and will serve northern residents the way it has since we, obviously, heard the terrible news about no bus service.

I just want a simple confirmation that the Northern Health Authority, through its partnership with the ministry, is not subsidizing important health dollars. Obviously, they provide services to patients. There are fees attached with that, and there is a grant provided to Northern Health. But I want to be sure that additional funds for that partnership arrangement are not coming from health care funds when we’re actually talking about a transportation issue.

Are there discrete budget lines? I just don’t want to see an increased subsidization by Northern Health when we’re talking about a transportation issue. Could the minister just give me some assurance that that’s not happening.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to thank the Minister of Health for the work he’s done — well, a lot of work around the province — on the Northern Health Connections, because he did work with them to have their criteria expanded. They will transport people based on social determinants of health, on age — just over 60 — on accessibility.

B.C. Transit pays for B.C. Bus North. Ministry of Health, through Northern Health, pays for Northern Health Connections. I’m not sure how their budget line works, so don’t take it as read that it is through Northern Health. But that is through the Minister of Health’s estimates — how much it would cost. It’s one service provider. It’s the same bus company that’s providing buses for B.C. Bus North as for Northern Health.

The company knew the region, and I’m sure are able to bring in economies of scale. But it’s two discrete budgets — the Northern Health Connections budget and B.C. Bus North budget.

J. Tegart: First off, I’d like to start by saying thank you to your staff.

We have seen nothing but good relationships with the staff in our area. As you’re aware, all the main highways go through my riding. When highways are closed, Metro Vancouver is closed. So we’re pretty important, or so we think.

[3:25 p.m.]

It is a pleasure to be able to pick up a phone and arrange a meeting and ask our questions in the local office. That is unusual, because so many of the ministry offices have been closed off to us. So thank you for letting your staff do that.

Transportation is a huge issue in my riding — very rural. As you’re aware, Greyhound pulling out was devastating to our area, even though the schedule was horrendous.

My first question is: has the ministry done a comprehensive study of which communities do not have any ground transportation available to them at this time?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the thanks to staff. I’ll make sure they hear that.

As I was saying…. I’m not sure whether the member was here when I made my opening remarks. Our transportation system is essential for everyone in this province. I know everything is essential for everyone in this province, but I’m pleased that the member, herself, as well as her constituents are getting that service. That’s what they deserve, and that’s what they should do.

[3:30 p.m.]

As far as the question of…. What was a simple question got into quite a lot of debate when asking have we done a provincewide assessment. So assuming that the member is meaning rail, transit service, long-haul bus and everything that is there, we haven’t.

We’ve been focusing on the most recent Greyhound pullout — last year’s Greyhound pullout — which left us with needing to fill in the north and then when they left western Canada. Since they left western Canada, we’ve engaged with our federal counterparts and have been leading…. We co-chair a national working group.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

We’ve made sure that the federal government is extra­ordinarily aware of the needs of rural communities, that there is a huge gap for rural communities. I know that in the member’s own region, with Greyhound pulling out, at the moment, there is a gap. There are gaps right across northern and rural British Columbia that we need to be addressing.

I’m very pleased that we, as a province, are taking a lead on this and that we are co-chairing this federal working group and continue to work on ways that we can ensure that there is affordable ground transportation for people across the province.

J. Tegart: Thank you for your response. The minister talks about the support for B.C. Bus North. Could you give me a figure of how many dollars go into subsidizing that service?

Hon. C. Trevena: So $2 million was budgeted for. We budgeted for…. We didn’t know, at the stage when we were setting this up very quickly, what the ridership was going to be and the uptake. The budget was $2 million. We can break that down to the exact where we are today, if wished. But that was the amount earmarked.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. Are all those dollars provincial, or is there a federal-provincial partnership in those dollars?

Hon. C. Trevena: They are provincial dollars. This was, as I was mentioning to the member’s colleague and to…. I’ve got to say, I’m very proud of B.C. Bus North. It came in so quickly. It was dealing with an immediate emergency of Greyhound saying: “We’re going in a few weeks.” We needed to get the service up and running.

That’s why we worked with B.C. Transit to get a B.C. Transit service working in the north, something that was out of B.C. Transit’s usual business model, out of its usual delivery model. It was a very quick response. Within six weeks of making the decision, B.C. Transit buses were up with a schedule and stops and ready to go. It was a very quick response, and it has proven to be a very good response to an immediate need.

J. Tegart: Are there any federal dollars available to assist in hard-to-service rural bus routes?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the federal government has said that they will be offering a subsidy. We are working very closely with the federal government on how we’re going to fill the gaps, both in our province and across western Canada, to ensure people have that transportation — and also, obviously, on subsidy as it applies to British Columbia.

I think the member is well aware that a number of private companies came up and were able to fill the gaps that were left by Greyhound or fill some of the routes that Greyhound had vacated. After that, there were a number of areas that were still uncovered, at which point we, as a ministry, put out a request for expressions of interest. We got four companies that could fill those gaps. Staff are working on the next steps in how that will roll out.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I guess when I look at B.C. Bus North and I look that we’ve invested $2 million and we’ve had 3,000 passengers, it’s pretty clear that for public transportation in rural B.C. to be successful, we’re going to need to subsidize it. I don’t know how a business could get a return on investment running a bus route with those numbers, unless I’m off base.

[3:40 p.m.]

When we look at southern B.C., and I look at my riding in particular, which includes the Fraser Canyon, which has been devastated by the Coquihalla, and I look at some of the communities which are desperate for ground transportation, I’m not sure that the number of people who live in the canyon would be able to make it — a profit — to run a bus down the Fraser Canyon.

When we talk about the discussions with the federal government, I certainly have had a constituent in my area looking at providing service — and very, very excited about that. But with the announcement that there are discussions with the federal government, how do you put in a request for proposals when you don’t know what the dollars are? That’s the challenge.

If there is discussion about subsidy, then if I were a business person, I would be waiting to see what those numbers are so that I could put my business plan together and be as successful and sustainable as I could be. The difficulty is that because we don’t know what the numbers are, and they’re not out there, how do you put your proposal in? When do you think that we will know what the federal dollars are?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I can answer it this way. When Greyhound pulled out, we went to the Passenger Transportation Board and worked with them — as the member knows, they are the organization that gives the licences to bus operators in this province, as well as taxis and other operators — and asked them to fast-track an application. Because we knew that there was going to be vast swaths of the province without bus transportation, and that was not acceptable.

The Passenger Transportation Board agreed, and we got quite a number of applicants coming through who wanted to operate a bus service. At the time, this was all done on a commercial basis, this whole application fast-tracking. Every applicant who applied was applying to run a bus service on a commercial basis, independently. The Passenger Transportation Board is still getting applicants through, who want to operate service for a long-distance bus in British Columbia.

Just last week there was an application for a company that wants to run a bus from Surrey to Prince George. It was posted at the Passenger Transportation Board. These were all ones that wanted to work on a commercial basis. That left us with…. We could look at the map. After the first round of fast-track went through, we could see where this service was that would be able to operate on a commercial basis, and where it wasn’t.

The majority of routes that Greyhound pulled out of in the last round…. I know that they’d been, like, death by a thousand cuts. They’d been pulling out from Highway 3 and other areas for some time. In the majority of areas where Greyhound pulled out of, there was coverage. Where there wasn’t coverage is where we put out a request for expressions of interest from those providers who felt they might be able to provide some service there.

As I mentioned to my previous question, we’re still working on the next steps of that, with the RFP, at the same time as working with the federal government on their commitment, and what their public commitment translates into, basically, in dollar amounts. We are on the phone daily with them. This is in addition to our continued work with the federal government on how we can look at ensuring that across western Canada, communities do have access to safe and affordable transportation, with the loss of interprovincial transportation companies such as Greyhound.

J. Tegart: I guess one of the things that those of us who live in rural areas talk about a lot is how many people live in our communities without vehicles. It’s a challenge, not only for the long-distance bus routes, etc., but also locally. When we talk about ride-sharing, it is not just an urban issue. We see it as a possibility, in our small communities, to not have to buy buses and to actually provide opportunities in our small communities for ride-hailing. I’ll just make that comment.

[3:50 p.m.]

The other thing, while I have the floor. It was interesting to listen to the critic talk about the capacity issues on the Sea to Sky. I’d love to talk about capacity issues up the Fraser Canyon, because there’s endless capacity. I call it the forgotten highway. I want to just put it on the record that I’ve made the Fraser Canyon my project this year. I’m giving you lots of notice.

I drive the Fraser Canyon every week. When I drive the Duffey, out the Sea to Sky, and I see all the signage, all the pullouts, all the opportunity for people to hike…. We have all that without signage, without pullouts, without a highway that’s overly well maintained and with very little traffic. So if you want to come up and visit for a day, it’s a great place to come.

I’m wondering…. I don’t know if this is the time or if the minister could answer it when other staff are here. I’m looking for dollars around signage, around pullouts and around maintenance in the Fraser Canyon so that we can start to bring that highway back to life. It is a wonderful opportunity for people who live in Metro Vancouver to do day trips. So when that member’s…. When West Vancouver–Sea to Sky has overcapacity issues, we have another route that we can invite people to take.

I’m not sure if this is the time that the minister could make some comments on what my constituents can do and can expect in the budget around the Fraser Canyon, but at some point during the estimates, it would be wonderful if we could get some response to that.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member and to the member for sea to ski. It’s going to stay. I’m sorry. It’s going to stay.

Are we moving off transit? We can get other staff. Other­wise, I can give the member a very high-level response. Obviously, we will have the opportunity…. We’ll have our highways folks in later on in the estimates process, and I think it’s worth having a greater discussion.

I have to say I think there are lots of people in rural British Columbia, and I count myself among them, who are very aware of transportation issues — of people who don’t have cars, people who are too old to drive, who are trying to find a way without bus service and how you make a community work without that. I’m very aware of those issues.

I’m also aware of the amount of money that went into the Sea to Sky. It’s a lovely road — a decision made before the 2010 Olympics by a previous government. I’m not going to get into all of that at the moment. The need to be able to invest in our highways to make them safe and make them…. Really, when you talk about pullouts, yes, there are the tourism opportunities, and yes, there’s all the hiking and everything, but for me, it’s an issue of safety, ensuring that people have a place to rest, a place for trucks that need to pull out.

Yes, those sorts of issues continue to be a priority for me and for the ministry. When we have our highway section, if you want to connect with your critic about when we’re doing the highway section, I’d be happy to go into more details about specific highways in the member’s riding.

J. Tegart: Just one more. My apologies to the critic. I’m very pleased to see the ten-mile slide still in the budget and look forward to the completion of that project.

Thank you very much for your candour today.

D. Barnett: As you know, I have questioned before about how we have no transportation. There is a licence that was held up, and it was supposed to be by the 21st of November, according to the Passenger Transportation Board. There were supposed to be two buses en route. There were no buses en route, so the licence is extended again and again. Now I hear on the radio it’s been extended again, until the 8th of March. We have had no transportation from Williams Lake, from Anahim Lake, all the way through my colleague behind me who just spoke’s riding.

[3:55 p.m.]

Minister, this is unacceptable. When Greyhound gave their notice, your ministry said you were working on this; you would work with communities. There has been no dialogue. There has been nothing throughout my whole region.

I have senior citizens who can’t get anywhere. I’ve sent you a package of letters this big last week. When are we going to be able to have this licence available — I see somebody else has now put in an application — so that we can get our people moving to doctors, to schools, to families, to places they need to go? This is an emergency. We have absolutely nothing. When can we expect the ministry to move forward with this?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the question. I think the member is well aware that Greyhound, over the last number of years, started pulling back service in some of the routes that the member is talking about — earlier withdrawals of service previous to our government. As soon as we had the loss of Greyhound service under our government, we acted immediately.

Our initial loss was all of the northern routes, where we brought in B.C. Bus North as an immediate response. For those routes south of Prince George, where Greyhound pulled out in this latest round — as I say, they were pulling out from the early…. I’m not even going to cite when they started pulling back, but it was definitely before we formed government.

When we formed government, we made sure that we could fast-track applications. We could see where Greyhound was pulling out from the whole of western Canada. They made their announcement in the summer of last year, 2018. We fast-tracked applications through the Passenger Transportation Board. As the member well knows, the Passenger Transportation Board is the organization that deals with…. It’s an arm’s-length tribunal that deals with applications for licences, whether it’s buses or taxis or…. It will be the organization that deals with app-based ride-hailing.

The Passenger Transportation Board had the ability to fast-track applications. They got a number of applications to fill the services that Greyhound had pulled out of at that stage.

[4:00 p.m.]

When we realized they hadn’t got enough to cover all the routes that Greyhound had pulled out of in 2018, when they pulled out of western Canada, we did a request for expressions of interest to get other applicants who might be able to operate on some of these routes.

We’ve had, since then, four other applicants. We still have applicants coming through who want to operate on a commercial basis. The Passenger Transportation Board is still dealing with companies that want to operate on a commercial basis through some of the interior of B.C.

We are working as assiduously as we can to ensure coverage. I am very concerned when people do not have access to safe and affordable ground transportation. Some of these are historic cuts that we, as a government of 17 or 18 months, would still try to be covering. What we are definitely trying to cover are those cuts that came under our watch, as government, when Greyhound pulled out from western Canada.

Just as an aside, I do know that some of the members, elected officials, held a meeting — it must be about ten months ago now — in Prince George. I know there were some representatives from the member’s constituency that came to that meeting to discuss long-distance ground transportation.

D. Barnett: Minister, the issue, in a nutshell, is we lost Greyhound at the end of September of 2018. Prior to that, we had adequate service for our communities.

My issue is the fact that the transportation board took an application. There was an obligation to be on the road by the 21st of November. That obligation was not met. Therefore, that licence was extended, extended, extended, so nobody else would put in an application. I have been in contact with them. We still have no service.

We now have a very dangerous situation. We have a hospital with no nurses. We have no transportation for these mothers to go to Kamloops or to go to Prince George early so they can go and have their babies. We have a serious situation here. When will we get some assistance? When will a licence be given to somebody who has a bus, who has a service, who is willing to provide it throughout the region so that my constituents can be safe and move on with their lives?

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand the member’s frustration. We are just checking — the reason it took a little while to come back — what Interior Health has to offer. They obviously have their bus, but it is limited. I’m aware of that now.

As I say, I do understand the member’s frustration. The Passenger Transportation Board is independent. They have decided to extend the requirements on their licence. We now have until this Friday, the eighth.

[4:05 p.m.]

I know that the member…. I, myself, hope that we do get resolution, because there is, obviously, huge concern. I’ll continue to watch. But the Passenger Transportation Board is an independent body that has issued a licence and has issued an extension to these licences.

D. Barnett: Minister, I do know that the Passenger Transportation Board is a separate entity. I also have been around for a few days, and I do know the minister can make changes if they so choose. Changes need to be made. We are in desperation. We thought maybe we’d have ride-sharing, and that would’ve been at least something.

We have no taxis. We have nothing. Fortunately, we have the Northern Health bus. But that is one that basically comes through and picks up people and takes them for health care meetings, if they meet the time the bus is coming through.

This is a very serious situation, and I cannot tell you how serious it is and how upset and frustrated people are. We’re trying to encourage people to live in rural British Columbia, and every time we take a step forward, we seem to take a step backwards.

I’ll wait till Friday and see what happens. I do know there are other companies waiting, have been waiting since November 21. But the licence keeps getting extended. These companies have told me they will not put an application in and go into a bidding war with somebody. Nobody should be able to hold a licence up, Minister. We’ll leave it at that and see what happens.

I do know that if there’s help in northern British Columbia, why is there no help in other rural communities in British Columbia? We had the same situation that they’ve got. My riding backs onto my colleague’s behind me, and we all have no service whatsoever.

I’ll leave that there, but I do have another question or two. My question is: the funding for Highway 16 — what dollars and cents go into that highway passenger service project?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, this is something I’m very pleased that I’m able to talk about, because for a number of years after the former Attorney General, Mr. Oppal, presented his report, there was absolute inaction from the then government on Highway 16.

Eventually, after much pressure from my colleague on this side…. Well, we were then on that side of the House. But my colleague from the North Coast, among them, really pushed to make sure that there was actually service on Highway 16. We now have it, and we are fully committed to it.

It has been, over the number of years for the five-part plan, because of the vulnerability there…. That includes transit, transit shelters, community buses, as well as driver’s education. Over the life of the project so far, it’s been $8.1 million. That is a cost-share between the communities as well as the province, with the province providing capital funding.

D. Barnett: What portion of that is the province, for the funding of the $8.1 million?

Hon. C. Trevena: The province is paying for this. It was started by the previous government, after much pressure, as I say, from my colleague the member for the North Coast, who put a lot of pressure on the previous government, who failed to enact the actions of the Oppal Commission.

Finally, government acted and the provincial government is doing the right thing. Our government continues to ensure that people on that very vulnerable stretch of highway have access to safe and absolutely affordable ground transportation. I think that everybody knows the history of Highway 16 and the importance of investing to make sure that people are safe travelling on that highway.

D. Barnett: It was my misunderstanding. The question was: is the $8.1 million all by the province? Because I thought I heard you say that the communities were participating in it also.

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies to the member. Yes, the $8.1 million is provincial. That’s our portion that has been budgeted for over the years, up to now. Approximately $800,000 for this year.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for answering the questions. I, too, would like to say the staff of the Ministry of Highways is one of the agencies that is very cooperative with all communities, with local governments, with MLAs. Most of the ministries are shut off from our MLAs, as my colleague has said, and to our staff. So we really sincerely appreciate your openness and transparency.

D. Davies: I’ve just got a couple of questions. I want to thank the critic for allowing me the opportunity to ask some questions. I also want to start out by thanking the minister and thanking the ministry staff for the time today, as well as the ministry staff around the province for MOT.

Katherine Styba up in Peace River does a fantastic job for all of you. Certainly have a good dialogue with her and myself. I also wanted to thank MOTI for the work — I did this earlier — getting access to Old Fort. Of course, there was the devastating slide up there which closed off the whole community. So I want to thank the ministry. The residents certainly thank you for getting access in a fairly reasonable time into that community once it was deemed safe. I want to thank the minister for that.

I also want to thank Yellowhead Road and Bridge, YRB, which, of course, is no longer the contractor moving forward. It’s Interior Roads. I want to thank YRB for their many years of incredible road maintenance that they provided to the North Peace. I look forward to working with Interior Roads as they move.

Minister, my question is around bus service again in the north. I know we have B.C. Bus as a temporary measure. It seems to be working decently. It wasn’t scheduled as well as, of course, Greyhound was. But it is something for the time being.

[4:15 p.m.]

My question is, though: what is the long-term plan? I understand that we’re looking for contractors. Is there anything? Have we got any contractors that are lined up, kicking the door down, trying to get into this market?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I thank the member for his recognition of ministry staff. They do work extraordinarily hard. Really, whether it is in the day-to-day running of operations or it’s in an emergency, such as the slide in the member’s own constituency, they are there all the time, working for the community. It’s their community too.

Likewise with the road maintenance contractors. People love complaining, except that it is your neighbour who is running the plow or whatever. These are our neighbours. They are our colleagues. It’s nice that they have the recognition. I thank the member for giving them the recognition.

B.C. Bus North. I had a bit of a conversation about it with the member’s colleague from Prince George–​Valemount. It is something I’m extraordinarily proud of, extraordinarily proud that B.C. Transit and the ministry were able to get this up and running so quickly when Greyhound pulled out. B.C. Transit got it operating within about six weeks of having decided to move with it. We now have, in seven months, seen more than 3,000 passengers using it, so it has been successful.

I think the member knows it’s very affordable: $35 or $45 for a ticket. I think one of the reasons for its success — as well as, obviously, the cost — is the fact that it’s operating in the hours that people want to travel. It’s largely operating through the daytime. People don’t have to wait around at four in the morning in the cold, by a gas station, hoping that the Greyhound is going to pull in for them. So I think that it has been a big success.

We now are, obviously, looking at next stages. This was put in very much as an emergency solution to a very worrying problem. When we put it in, I had many conversations with the mayors of the region and elected officials of the region and continue to do so. It was agreed that this was going to be an opportunity to really assess what the need was, what did and what didn’t work.

We’re still looking at that. We’re still sort of gathering that information. Obviously, we have a few months to get to the next steps, but we are working. It’s very much in our sightline that June is the anniversary of the start of B.C. Bus North. It is when people are anticipating something else to happen, and we are working assiduously to see where we can go in the next stages.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister, for that. From what I understand, then, we’re still in the assessment stage, looking, gathering information. My only worry is that around B.C., we’re kind of seeing piecemeal deals happening. I guess the people of Peace River North, certainly up in Fort Nelson and those remote areas…. They need that access to come to Fort St. John and have a baby or even just access specialists at the hospital. I get a lot of questions when I do travel up to Fort Nelson. “What is the long term? Are we going to be able to rely on some sort of bus service?” I guess the question back….

[4:20 p.m.]

It sounds like maybe around June — I’m not sure if that’s what you were saying — we could be looking at an announcement of some sort, moving forward. Is that what I understand? If not, what would be a date for something like that?

Hon. C. Trevena: There are a number of things at play at the moment. We’ve got B.C. Bus North and what happens in the north for bus service, which is, absolutely, on an immediate agenda. In fact, I think all ground transportation is on an immediate agenda, but this is an immediate agenda because we’ve been running for about seven months. The contract was for a year. We’re hoping that we are in a stage, sooner rather than later, to be able to move on to a next stage.

There is a desire to have…. Are we going to still have B.C. Bus North? Are we going to have a different service? The member for Prince George–Valemount asked a similar question. It’s something that we are still working assiduously on — what the next stage is, what the next steps are. We’re talking to local communities about that, as well as working through what we have.

The gaps in service. We call them the gaps, the areas where we had coverage for former Greyhound routes. I know that when we put out the request for expressions of interest at the end of last year, one that came back was for Fort Nelson up to Watson Lake, to provide a service up there — that section. I know it’s not the other way around, but there is clearly an interest there.

We are also working with the federal government. We are co-chairing a committee with the federal government to look at, effectively, ground transportation, rural transportation across western Canada.

I think the fact of Greyhound’s withdrawal alerted our federal counterparts that the interprovincial bus service was no longer in existence and we needed to do something. It didn’t all rest on us as a province. We are the province that has the largest amount of ground transportation routes, followed by Alberta. It doesn’t rest on the two most westerly provinces; it is a federal issue. So we continue to work on that and co-chair that group.

We’re looking at a different group of answers to try and deal with the same problem, which is ground transportation in the north and across the whole of B.C. This continues to be…. At the moment, it’s an evolving solution, but I hope that soon it will be an integrated solution.

G. Kyllo: I would like to give thanks to our Transportation critic, my colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, for an opportunity for myself and some of my colleagues to pose some questions to the Transportation Minister.

As the MLA for Shuswap, some of the rural communities have significant transportation challenges, and I just wanted to highlight for the minister the fact that some of our communities, actually, are not serviced by Greyhound now, obviously, and are not serviced by B.C. Transit either.

So for small communities like Malakwa, Sicamous, Grindrod, Enderby, Falkland, Sorrento and the entire North Shuswap, there is no public transit that’s provided currently. Residents, clearly, relied heavily on Greyhound. I think, for the most part, Greyhound provided a great service that was of significant benefit to the rural parts of Shuswap in providing consistent and convenient access to points around B.C. and into neighbouring provinces.

[4:25 p.m.]

The Greyhound bus service provided a minimum of two buses a day, and during the holiday seasons and summer months, they provided three buses a day that actually came through the Shuswap. In talking to some of the previous operators of the Salmon Arm depot, they indicated that it was not uncommon for 20 or 30 passengers, on average, to be making the stop, actually getting on or off the bus in points like Salmon Arm. Their estimates were that about 100 to 150 passengers per day were actually utilizing the service through the Shuswap. So there is a significant demand and significant utilization of that service.

The question that I have for the minister is: what due diligence was undertaken by the B.C. transportation authority in granting a permit to a company called Rider Express that is now providing limited service in Shuswap?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. The deci­sions on that were made by the Passenger Transportation Board, which is an independent tribunal. It is not a decision by the ministry.

G. Kyllo: Did the minister not believe that there was importance to ensure that there was rigour applied in determining who would be actually provided with these licences to provide bus services for communities where Greyhound had pulled out?

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll provide the answer and then beg the indulgence so we can have a ten-minute recess, according to the critic. But I’ll give the member an answer now and provide him more fodder for his next question.

A couple of things. I’m quite concerned that…. The member clearly appreciated the role of the long-distance bus service in his constituency, in his communities, but I did want to underline that he does have B.C. Transit service. There is Shuswap regional transit that operates in the member’s constituency.

I’ve got to say I’m…. It’s one of the things that one learns when one becomes a minister — the breadth and depth of the role of government and government Crown corporations. B.C. Transit does an amazing, amazing job, I think, unlike any other province — to have a transit system like we do. It’s in 130 communities. Really, in small communities, in larger communities, there is this network.

I was talking to the critic, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, earlier on today about the possibilities of regional transit and how we can grow different transit systems. So I’m really pleased to say that we do have B.C. Transit, and while the withdrawal of Greyhound obviously was hugely impactful for our province, we didn’t suffer quite as badly, although I know that the people who used Greyhound felt that they suffered. In comparison to some provinces, we didn’t suffer as badly because we had B.C. Transit. I know that doesn’t deal with the long haul, but it is there, and it is growing regionally.

To the member’s question about specifics on the application for taking over one of the Greyhound routes…. As I mentioned to the member, it’s the Passenger Transportation Board that makes the decision, and it is following very clear guidelines in the Passenger Transportation Act.

They have to ensure that the applicant passes what’s really described as a three-point test. That means that they are fit and proper to provide the service, that there is an economic need and that there is a sound business backing for it. So we’re looking at issues such as: that they are fit and proper, that they have the financing and the capital, that they’ve got a good reputation. The board looks at the economic need, assesses the need in the region for the service and, obviously, the sound economic and business case. It looks at that.

The Passenger Transportation Board operates in a very transparent manner. They do due diligence. They post applications and decisions on their website. When they’re posting applications, they take in letters of, I guess, support and letters of concern and, as an independent tribunal, make the decisions on the service, whether it be a bus service, a taxi service or soon to be an app-based ride-hailing service. They make those decisions independently and independent of this ministry.

With that, Mr. Chair, if I might ask that we recess for ten minutes. Would that be okay?

The Chair: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Chair: We’ll continue with the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

G. Kyllo: Minister, thank you very much for the response. What I heard is that it was clearly the Passenger Transportation Board that vetted all applications. You indicated that there was a three-point test, which included due diligence to determine the business case that the actual service provider was fit to actually provide the services, the economic need, as well as business backing.

Did the minister have any direct conversations — I guess either conversations directly or through senior staff — with the Passenger Transportation Board to evaluate, I guess, or to have a look and give consideration to the evaluation criteria by which companies would be vetted and potentially granted licence to take over from the services that were retracted from Greyhound?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the break.

Yes, the ministry wrote a letter about expediting applications. That was the only contact the ministry had with the Passenger Transportation Board. The Passenger Transportation Board works independently as an independent tribunal.

G. Kyllo: So if I understand correctly, although we have certainly heard the minister talk about the concern for the replacement of bus service for rural communities largely or negatively impacted by the retraction of services by Greyhound….

If the minister could provide some further clarification that there was no direct contact with the ministry to provide any direction to the Passenger Transportation Board, with respect to ensuring that the review and the vetting of those applications clearly took into consideration the need for those companies to have the financial ability to actually meet the service provision by which they made application and made a commitment through the application process?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board is completely independent. The board has its own staff that looks at applications. The board applies the three-part test. But it has nothing to do with the ministry.

[4:55 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: So let me get this straight. Although the minister acknowledged the negative impact that the retraction of Greyhound service was having on rural communities, even though she expressed grave concerns about the continuation of service, largely for rural communities around the province, the minister did not avail herself of, I guess, or have conversations directly with the Passenger Transportation Board to, I guess, instill upon them the importance of ensuring that the applications were thoroughly vetted, such that those that were going to be provided the opportunity to provide services to replace the services that were retracted from Greyhound actually had the financial ability and the commitment to ensure that they were providing the services that they had set forth in their applications to the Passenger Transportation Board.

Hon. C. Trevena: I mean, obviously, yes, I was absolutely concerned about Greyhound pulling out and leaving people stranded, and I still am very alive to the situation. The urgency of the matter did mean that we wrote a letter to the board asking to expedite their process.

But to remind the member, Greyhound had to apply to the board. The board did consultations, very thorough consultations. They went out and had hearings around the province. They then accepted Greyhound’s decision to pull out and allowed Greyhound to pull out. They did tell Greyhound they had to wait three months to pull out. At that stage, they were then going to be fast-tracking applications. That was, I believe, partly as a result of our letter, but also the board was aware, from the hearings, of the urgency.

Then the board, as I’ve mentioned to the member before, used its three-part test on assessing any applicant that was wanting to cover the service. As part of the test, people have the opportunity to either support an application or to oppose an application, to raise concerns on an application.

The board, as an independent body, applied the tests, came up with the results that we have seen coming out across the province, translated into the service that we do have in certain areas. I know there’s concern in the service we don’t have in other areas.

G. Kyllo: So the minister acknowledges that the direction provided from the ministry to the Passenger Transportation Board was for them to expedite the processing of applications.

[5:00 p.m.]

Can the minister elaborate if there was any consideration given to the level of service that was being provided by the different applicants in vetting and coming to a final determination before granting such licence?

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s a decision by the independent Passenger Transportation Board.

G. Kyllo: The minister felt, I guess, incumbent on providing direction to the Passenger Transportation Board to ensure that applications were expedited but did not have any concern with respect to the service level that was being provided.

The communities that I represent definitely are negatively impacted by the withdrawal of a very robust service that was previously provided by Greyhound. The Passenger Transportation Board, in vetting applicants to provide what we hoped would be a full replacement service…. It’s my understanding, if the minister can just clarify one more time for the record, that there was no direction provided by the Minister of Transportation or any concerns expressed to ensure that the Passenger Transportation Board took into consideration the level of service that would be provided by applicants in their vetting process.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I reiterate that it is a decision of the independent Passenger Transportation Board, the tri­bunal, to decide on the applications. Part of their criteria when they posted for the expedited service was that they highlighted the fact that the applicant had to be fit to provide this service, but the applicant is the one that suggested or applied for a certain level of service as part of the application, as it would do.

It is up to the Passenger Transportation Board, which I again say works without our hands on it, as an independent tribunal. They went through the applications and decided the appropriate ones.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that response.

Well, here’s what we do know. Rider Express made an initial service commitment of 14 trips per week between Calgary and Vancouver. For the period November 1 to November 3, the commitment was actually honoured, with two buses a day coming through the Shuswap.

However, November 4 to 5, service was not provided for two days, citing bus breakdowns and service issues. From November 6 onward, the service changed to just two trips per week: Fridays leaving Calgary at 8 a.m. through to Vancouver and then coming back on Sundays, leaving, again, Vancouver at 8 a.m. and ending up in Calgary. On November 29, the service was adjusted yet again — these changes were totally at the whim of Rider Express — dropping the service down to one trip per week.

Their application and commitment to the Passenger Transportation Board was for 14 trips per week between Vancouver and Calgary. As of November 29, that service reduction is down to one trip per week. There’s no coordination with other service providers in the province.

Does the minister feel that an application by a company that sets out a specific service requirement or a service standard that they’re going to actually provide, that it is just and right for that service provider to adjust a schedule as they see fit, at the detriment to those persons and those communities which that service is intended to serve?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much to the member. Sorry about the delay on this. We’ve just been trying to track down the information. We can’t track it down at the moment. We don’t want to be giving inaccurate information, so I’m wondering whether it would be acceptable for the member if we can go and find out more information about what may or may not have happened and be able to provide an answer to the member — I know this is not the end of our estimates debates; in fact, it’s only just the beginning — and be able to bring it back at a subsequent opportunity at estimates, if that suits the member.

I do know that it is up to the Passenger Transportation Board. For instance, when Greyhound wanted to withdraw its service, it had to go through the Passenger Transportation Board to make that change. I honestly don’t know, because the Passenger Transportation Board is independent, what sort of discussion there has been with the provider and the board. But if it’s acceptable to the member, staff will be looking at this and will come back with a more complete and robust answer.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that and would welcome a bit more of a fulsome report as far as what the Passenger Transportation Board has to reveal. But my question to the minister is: does the minister feel that it is acceptable for a company that makes application and is granted a permit to provide service delivery at two trips per day, at 14 trips per week, to have the ability of reducing that service to one trip per week without any repercussions?

If the minister could just maybe share with the House what her personal feelings are with respect to a commitment made by a service provider that is no longer meeting that commitment and whether she believes that is acceptable or not.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: If what the member is saying is accurate, it’s obviously unfortunate. But I have asked staff to come back and give both a fuller answer to the member as well as give me a fuller picture of what may or may not have been happening with this particular applicant, the Passenger Transportation Board and the service provided. When I have that, I’ll be happy to answer the member’s question.

G. Kyllo: Well, thank you to the minister for the response.

The reduction in service has a significant negative impact on communities across British Columbia, especially in Shuswap. For a family living in a community like Malakwa or Sicamous that may need to have transportation to go to Vancouver for Children’s Hospital, with only one service provided per week on Greyhound, even though they may only need to be in Vancouver for a day or two for an appointment, they actually are required to stay in Vancouver for a full week in order to get the return trip back to the Shuswap.

I can’t impress upon the minister enough, with all due respect, the seriousness and the impact it is having on small communities. The number of passengers that were utilizing the previous Greyhound service was significant. We are finding in communities throughout British Columbia, where there’s a lack of B.C. Transit, there is now a huge void that’s been created by the retraction of service delivery by Greyhound.

The minister, in her own admission, in providing a letter of concern, a letter of direction to the Passenger Transportation Board, said the only objective and the only criteria was to expedite applications. From what the minister has shared with us, there was no concern raised, at least in that letter, about the service delivery levels and the amount of rigour that would be put behind ensuring that those service deliveries that are actually committed by the applicants were actually maintained and fulfilled.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

To the minister: thank you very much for the time.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for raising this issue. However, I did want to clarify, before we move on to the next questions, that our concern was not only expediting the applications. That was a concern. That’s why a letter was sent to the Passenger Transportation Board, which is unusual.

The criteria on which the Passenger Transportation Board makes its decisions, as I have told the member, is the three-part test. They are that a company’s fit and proper, that there’s an economic need and that there’s a sound economic business case. These are the criteria that the Passenger Transportation Board uses when assessing an application.

[5:20 p.m.]

It is incorrect to frame it that the only concern that I had was…. It had nothing to do with that. But the application was expedited, and that was what we told the board — to use the judgment. The board would’ve continued to use its three-part judgment while expediting applications.

I have to say to the member that I absolutely understand concerns and appreciate his addressing his constituents’ concerns about access to long-haul transportation and ground transportation. This is something that is being felt right across the province, right across western Canada. We in B.C., although it may not feel like it at the moment, are actually taking a lead in the country on ensuring that we get affordable and safe ground transportation operating across the country and B.C.

A. Olsen: Just a few more questions on B.C. Transit, I think, to wrap up this section. I’m given the opportunity for a few minutes here just to ask some questions with respect to Saanich North and the Islands and on behalf of my colleague in the Cowichan Valley.

One of the things that my colleague from the Cowichan Valley has talked about is a lack of connectivity, both north and south, I think, from her riding — from Duncan south to Shawnigan Lake and, as well, from Duncan north to Nanaimo. She has asked me to raise the issue and to ask the minister for a response about increasing B.C. Transit connectivity with the Cowichan Valley.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member.

I’ve got to say I love seeing the buses go through the whole region, particularly over the Malahat. I’m sure that the member will have questions about various highways, and his colleagues will have questions about various highways later. It’s a real pleasure to see B.C. Transit taking passengers over the Malahat. Likewise, I was coming back the other day in the snow and saw B.C. Transit very efficiently travelling. So a lot of safe journeys there.

[5:25 p.m.]

As far as any expansion of service, either increasing the very successful Cowichan-Duncan-Victoria route or going north towards Nanaimo, it is a request of the local governments. The municipalities talk to B.C. Transit. If the municipality sees the need, it will talk to B.C. Transit about potential plans. B.C. Transit will start talking with communities about ridership.

One of the services in the corridor expanded to include a Saturday service recently, which again came from that genesis of the local government talking to B.C. Transit. The local government here is obviously Duncan or Cowichan or the capital regional district. If B.C. Transit finds that there is a business case for it, it will then come into their expansion plans, which come to us as a ministry for when we’re looking at their expansion plans in the budget.

I know that your colleague has talked a lot about this and is a very strong advocate of this. I really am very pleased that she is such an advocate, but we need to get that conversation going from the municipalities with B.C. Transit.

A. Olsen: One of the things I note coming back down here to the south Island and into Saanich North and the Islands…. Recently you attended a celebration — I unfor­tunately wasn’t able to be there, but the minister was able to attend — on Saltspring Island and very much appreciated the transit on Saltspring Island.

The mayors and councillors on the Saanich peninsula, specifically in Central Saanich…. In the last municipal election, I think the ballot box question, the most important thing, and perhaps to my questions earlier, was transportation and B.C. Transit connectivity.

There are substantive concerns that the Highway 17 bus doesn’t stop in Central Saanich. It drives straight through. There have been some requests — we’ve sent a request to your ministry and some requests from people that I know in the municipality — to have a bus stop at Mt. Newton Cross Road. I know there was one built into a project there, and we’ve had the discussion.

I’m just wondering if there are any plans to take a look at that a little bit deeper — something along the lines of what happened at Sayward, for example, where buses can actually escape the side of the highway and then be able to connect people there at Mt. Newton Cross Road and Highway 17.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is well aware that Highway 17 has been identified by the Victoria Regional Transit Commission as important as a transit link, a transit highway. Development on it for transit, obviously, depends on funding partnerships from local governments as well as through our ministry.

[5:30 p.m.]

The specific that the member is talking about is something that…. I know that B.C. Transit has conversations with municipalities all the time, and municipalities have conversations with Transit. If municipalities are in a position to start looking more formally at this, to start engaging in a more formal discussion, I’m sure B.C. Transit would be happy to start those discussions also.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

There are both the informal discussions about communities saying “we need this,” and then it gets into the formal process. I think we’re still at the informal discussion. It’s been raised through various people from communities to B.C. Transit. Then it just sort of needs to move on to the more formal level and see whether there is the public appetite as well as the community appetite and that there are then, obviously, the dollars for it.

A. Olsen: I think, at this point, it was important that…. This has been an issue that has been raised with me dozens of times since getting elected, an issue that residents in Central Saanich really want to have resolved specifically at that intersection.

I think what I’m going to do, though, is I’m going to take this off line and have a further conversation. My understanding was that a development had secured a certain amount of investment in adding bus stop infrastructure and that Central Saanich had that as part of a development, from what I understand. It wasn’t B.C. Transit but the ministry.

I’m going to leave it at that, because we can probably have a conversation about it off line and move it forward. I know that my members opposite here would like to continue on this. So let’s just leave it for that, and then we can have a more direct conversation with the people around the table.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Member. The staff here are very happy to engage. It might be a matter for our highways division as well. They’ve been engaged in this. Happy to have that conversation. We’ll make sure that happens.

D. Clovechok: A quick question on transit. I was just reading today that there was a recent Poparide survey done that is claiming that there are two million British Columbians that have been left out in the cold by the loss of Greyhound. We all know the profound effect that that’s had. I won’t get into the Greyhound issue right now, but what I can say is that this is felt so severely in the town of Golden, where they have absolutely zero transit.

I just wanted to call into recollection the conversation that we had last time we had this. “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 appreciate that.

The time has come that we need to work together because these people, the seniors in Golden, have absolutely nothing. The medical bus to Cranbrook goes twice a week. That’s it. There is absolutely zero transportation for seniors in Golden — nothing. Other than riding in a horse and buggy, I don’t know what else can be suggested.

I guess what I’m saying to the minister today is: will she commit to looking and examining this right away? It is at critical mass in the town of Golden for the seniors that I represent.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question from the member. It’s, obviously, absolutely concerning for the member, for his constituents.

As I understand it, Golden used to have B.C. Transit but lost it almost seven years ago now. So for seven years, I assume, there has been nothing. I’m unclear, because if Greyhound did stop in Golden, then it should be captured in our unserviced areas. Because it’s on the Alberta border, it’s that much more difficult to get the expression of interest — to get across the border.

Yes, I will work with the member to see what we can do. We are still…. We’ve got the request for expressions of interest out. We’ve got a number of companies that have come back and said they would be interested in covering the gap service beyond where we got the expedited applications at the end of last year. So we have a number of companies that have come forward and said that they would provide service. They understand there is none that is looking at that particular section. So we’ll follow up on that, because it is a gap.

As I’ve mentioned to some of your colleagues in this discussion, we’re also working with the federal government on how we can ensure that ground transportation is available for rural communities. With Golden being pretty well on the border, we’ll look interprovincially about what opportunities arise there. But I’d be happy to work with the member to see what we can do to find what ground transportation there would be available. I see that it seems to have fallen through everybody’s cracks, which is not acceptable.

[5:40 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. A couple of things. Just to help clarify for me why the transborder issue — or the comments that you just made…. I’m not really clear on how that affects the people in Golden, what happens in Alberta. So you could help me with that. Then, also, what’s the best way for us to move forward on this, between myself and the minister?

Hon. C. Trevena: The only issue about the border is that we’ve been looking at those providers…. Many of those providers are just working within B.C., and the applications were to work within B.C. There have been one or two that have said they would do across the border, but they’ve not been flooding in. So that’s the only issue about the border. It’s that we look within our own province.

The next stage is…. My staff are obviously aware of this now, and I’m aware of it, and I’ll be working with my staff and keeping the member informed. If the member wants to sit down and talk with me about the situation with staff, we can make that happen too.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that opportunity. I will take you up on that, and maybe we can facilitate a meeting for that.

In the interim, while these companies are looking at potentially providing those services, is there any way that we could look at B.C. Transit filling in some sort of a service until such thing is done? Again, I stress the fact that the seniors, especially the seniors in Golden, have absolutely nothing in terms of transportation — nothing. The town of Golden is very aware of that. They’ve done what they can do, but they’re in a conundrum as well. This is really a provincial issue.

I guess my question is: is there any interim gap that could be filled by B.C. Transit in the short term to try to service this community?

Hon. C. Trevena: The question of B.C. Transit getting involved is…. Again, I was talking to the member for Saanich North and the Islands of a community having to approach B.C. Transit and ask for service and the limits of the service and the ability of the community to assist in financial delivery of that service. As I said to the member, I’m very happy to work on his and his community’s behalf, as I committed last year. I feel that that commitment still needs to be met, absolutely. I still believe as fundamentally about it. So, as I say, I will work with the member to try and ensure that we can find some service there for the people of Golden.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for the commitment. We can, hopefully, get going on that as soon as we possibly can. I’ve got some other ideas, but I’ll save those for the meeting.

Thank you very much for your time and your comments.

J. Sturdy: I think we’ve canvassed transit, so we can move on to rural highways.

Interjection.

The Chair: Yes, a five-minute recess. Is that enough?

Hon. C. Trevena: Perfect, thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:45 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: It’s great to be up again. Good to see you again, Minister.

I want to welcome the new staff here and thank you for all you do. Without you guys, it doesn’t work.

[5:50 p.m.]

I also want to recognize, on the record, back at home in our region, Ron Sharp and his staff. Outstanding work. They’re consummate professionals. I just wanted to say that out loud in front of his bosses. I say it only because it’s the truth.

I’ll talk a little bit about something that’s near and dear to both of us. That, of course, is the Trans-Canada Highway and the Kicking Horse Canyon section, which is about to become the most expensive highway project in the history of this country. Just wanted to know if she could update us as to where that RFP sits today. What’s the timeline of that in terms of concluding who’s going to be getting that contract?

Hon. C. Trevena: Nice to be continuing the conversation. I, too, would like to acknowledge the praise of staff and introduce some new staff who’ve joined us to talk about highways. On my right is Scott Maxwell, who is responsible for the north of the province. Over on my far right is Mike Lorimer, who is responsible for the whole interior of the province. Behind me is Kevin Richter, associate deputy minister with responsibility for highways.

A long introduction, a bit confused. My answer will not be either so long or so confused. We are on track to start the procurement later this year.

D. Clovechok: Hopefully, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Had to say it.

Could you just maybe explain exactly, to find out what that procurement looks like, in terms of a timeline?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We had a changeout in staff, because, luckily, the project director for Kicking Horse was awaiting for just this question — Murray Tekano, who is now on my left. I just wanted to get clarity, obviously, and to make sure that the member was not misdirected.

We’re doing an RFQ, RFP process. The RFQ is going out late spring, summer. And RFP, we anticipate, end of the year, winter 2019-2020. Is that winter? The way you describe winter is wherever winter comes. It’s been a long winter for people, so I’ll leave that one with you.

D. Clovechok: Welcome to the new staffer. We’ll be seeing a lot of each other when you’re building that highway.

Just a clarification point for me, then. From what I think I just heard is that there won’t be shovels in the ground until next year. Or is it going to be this year?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’ll be next year. We’ve got the request for qualifications, where we’ll get the proponents, an array of different companies that want to bid on it, this spring, summer. Go through those. Do the selection process down to those who will be successful to go for the RFP, which we’re anticipating late fall, winter, with a plan to get shovels in the ground by next year.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer. Hopefully, in the spring of 2020, we might be able to see some shovels in the ground. I’m just putting that out there, because it’s needed to come.

Another question that I have around that, and it’s a multiministerial question. When that construction project starts to happen, it is, as we all know, going to be one of the most major construction projects in the history of this country around the Trans-Canada Highway — incredibly expensive.

[6:00 p.m.]

With that, for the town of Golden, which is around 3,500 or 3,600 people, there’s going to be a huge influx of new folks in the area. That’s going to put some significant pressures on the town itself, from social services to policing to….

To the minister: I’m just wondering if your ministry and other ministries have already taken steps towards forecasting these kinds of issues and working with the town of Golden to try to get prepared for what’s coming their way. It’s exciting, and everybody is excited by it. But there are also issues that come along with this, as I’ve mentioned, from policing to whatever. I’m wondering where we are with that, in terms of where your government might be.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s very interesting. For almost a year now, since spring 2018, there has been a community liaison group working in Golden. We, as the ministry, are the main provincial government agency at that meeting, but it includes the municipality of Golden, the community of Golden, the emergency service, the chamber of commerce and economic development branches, the hotels and bed and breakfasts and people who could provide accommodation for the influx of workers, if there is an influx of workers. It’s looking at, as the member is well aware, the pressures of a big project descending on a small town and how to maximize those, how to create the benefits and how to ensure that it doesn’t disrupt the community.

We’re very well aware of that. Having this community liaison that meets every couple of months means that the project…. You can craft it so that those pressures can be addressed when it’s starting to ramp up, through the project, and then ramp down.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer. It’s encouraging to hear that it’s already ongoing.

Would it be safe to say that as that project unfolds and up to — whatever that number — 300 to 500-some-odd construction workers roll into the Golden area…? Would it be safe to assume, then, that the province would be considering looking at maybe, as just one example that comes to my mind immediately, staffing one or two more members of the RCMP? Are you looking at that kind of thing — to put some resources in that way?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The RCMP have been involved in discussions. The head of the detachment apparently is part of the group. At the moment, their main focus has been on traffic control, rather than the potential impacts that that upheaval of society could have on a community. But since there is this liaison committee, and the RCMP is involved in it, it could well become a discussion. If it does become a discussion, the RCMP has its channels to talk to the Solicitor General about staffing, through its own channels. But we’re very alive to this and to impacts on communities when you have a big project coming to town.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much. That’s reassuring — that this is ongoing and that there’s future potential as this unfolds. It’s not only within the town of Golden itself but the multitudes of traffic that come through the Kicking Horse through summer programs. So it is going to be an interesting watch. To the minister: I’m pleased that you’re getting ahead of that.

The last question that I would have around the Kicking Horse Canyon. We all know, through your budget and looking at your budget, that there is X amount of dollars that are budgeted from the province and X amount of dollars budgeted from the federal government. That’s how much there is, and you’ve got to stay inside those budgets.

My question to the minister is: given the new community benefits agreement, do you foresee any additional costs in terms of the employees that will be working on this under that community benefits agreement? And will that create some variance in the amount of money that is required to do that project?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for raising the community benefits agreement. I can talk for the next 20 minutes, until we shut out, on the community benefits agreement.

It’s an ideal project, the community benefits agreement, because there’ll be a benefit to Golden, no question — the opportunities for training, the opportunities to engage people in meaningful work and the apprenticeships that can come from something that is so complex. I think it really is a very exciting project. Obviously, the project has been around for many years. Nobody has wanted to proceed with it. We are proceeding with it.

[6:10 p.m.]

The CBA, the community benefits agreement, is new to the project, but any costs that do result from that will be accommodated into the budget.

D. Clovechok: Just a point to note that nobody wanted to do this. This project is on line in terms of the timeline that the previous government actually put out there. So to the minister: we thank you for staying on our timeline.

Just so that I’m clear, then, there will be no project overruns based upon the community benefits agreement.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. As I’ve just said, it will be accommodated within the budget.

D. Clovechok: One last question. I’m getting the eye roll over here, but this is an important day for Columbia River–​Revelstoke. One final question around the Three Valley Gap issue. I know that I canvassed the minister last estimates and also canvassed the Premier on this on his estimates as well, around Three Valley Gap.

A new rock attenuator system has been placed in the Three Valley Gap, and I’m very pleased to say that it’s working — very pleased to say that so far, it’s done a really, really good job. I know that the feedback that I’ve gotten from my community there is very positive. Going forward…. We certainly appreciate having the opportunity last time to canvass the minister and the Premier, who said he was going do something, and it actually happened. Whether that was him or the minister, it doesn’t matter.

Is there any long-term planning around Three Valley Gap? So many of the folks that I represent say this is great. The rock attenuator system is great. It’s working, but it is a “band-aid issue” in the situation for that area. Is there any long-term planning that is ongoing in terms of what we can do with that stretch of highway over the long term?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: thank you for the question. If I might first just address the issue of the fencing that’s being put up. This is in addition to the remote avalanche controls that were installed as well. I know the member doesn’t mean it in a derogatory manner, saying it’s a band-aid. It’s in the scope of the….

This fencing should last at least a decade. It isn’t a short-term measure. It is something that, we have some comfort, will be there for a number of years. In fact, my staff say — I was just reading my notes — “last decades,” plural. It will be there. That will give the member no comfort when he’s hoping for us to say: “It’s okay. We’re going to fix the whole highway and fix the problem of Three Valley Gap.”

As the member well knows — he lives with it, he drives through it, and he’s got friends and family and colleagues who drive through it — it is extremely complex. We have had previous studies done on this section, which we are reviewing to see whether the technology has changed and what possibly could be done. I think that the member is well aware. We’ve just been talking about the Kicking Horse, and this is of the same order of magnitude for complexity in engineering approach as well as magnitude in cost.

We are looking at what we could do, from the previous studies, but this is a very major project. That’s not diminishing the need, but it is there. It is on the radar. There’s not going to be immediate movement on this, but we’ll continue to ensure safety along that section of highway. That, obviously, is paramount — that people can drive feeling safe, feeling secure on the highway.

P. Milobar: I’ll maybe jump the minister back to Kicking Horse, as the minister just referenced, the CBA. It sounds like there’ll be no more money for the project with the CBA — that’s what I took from that answer — than what was previously announced, in spite of the minister, on the record, saying that CBAs are going to cost, at a minimum or around, 7 percent. Then we’re not sure what all the other side deals within the CBA will cost.

If there’s no more money being added to the overall project, can the minister confirm that the Kicking Horse project will not see one reduction of any stretch of road, not one metre less road than was originally designed for any passing-lane opportunities, any four-laning, any pullout areas, any side-road access or egress points, any rest stop areas — anything, any scope, scale or anything within that Kicking Horse project than was originally envisioned? Will it all be delivered within the same funding envelope under that CBA?

[6:20 p.m. - 6:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Member. Obviously, this is a very important project, and this is a very important approach for our government, having the community benefits agreement. I just want to give the member assurance that we’re not going to be reducing the project’s scope to accommodate the CBA as we prepare for the request for proposals, working on design specifications. It’s due diligence. It’s all part of the process to develop the reference concept.

The RFP, as the member is aware, is going to be a design-build RFP, which means the successful proponent has the ability to innovate, but as I said in my initial response, we’re not going to reduce the project scope.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. C. Trevena moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.