Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued third reading debate on Bill 10. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. I would suggest we check quorum quickly.

I notice that some opposition members are coming in. I believe we now do have quorum. So I will remove the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Quorum is present.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

A. Olsen: I rise to continue the debate here at third reading on Bill 10. I recognize that we’ve had a protracted experience here with this bill.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

It is an important discussion that we’re having in this province right now and that we’re having in this House on behalf of the people of this province. I’m speaking today at third reading to ask my colleagues to reconsider. I voted some dozen times on this bill. That is a unique situation, in which I and my colleagues from Cowichan Valley and from Oak Bay–Gordon Head have asked for the members of this place to vote numerous times on this bill because of the importance of the decision that we’re making.

During the second reading debate of this, I raised some very substantive issues around climate change. I discussed the deep concerns that I have with adding the single largest point of emissions in British Columbia — or, indeed, in the Canadian context — to a situation in which we’ve been told, very clearly, we can’t add more emissions. Indeed, we have to find ways to reverse the situation that we have. We have to find ways to reduce the amount of emissions.

[1:35 p.m.]

I highlighted the power of our youth with the youth climate strike. We see, on the very steps of this Legislature and at legislative and parliament buildings around the world, the youth standing up and asking their legislators to make different decisions than the decisions that we have in front of us and that this House collectively, aside from the three Greens, has made a dozen times now on this bill.

My colleagues moved three amendments at second reading stage of this debate. We’ve called division at every single section of this bill. We’ve been very deliberate in that, because we’re asking our colleagues in this place to consider the impact that this decision is having. I get here at third reading, in speaking to the bill that we have in front of us, and I reflect back on the committee stage of this legislation. I mentioned this in my comments to the amendment moved by my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I’ll talk a little bit more about it now.

The reality is that as we moved section by section through this bill, the members of the official opposition — some folks that have been in this place for a very, very long time, extremely skilled legislators — pulled apart this legislation with the questions they asked in fine detail, and did an incredible job of highlighting the substantive challenges this bill has.

That is the role for the committee stage of this bill. It’s the role of the official opposition to deconstruct the bill we have. We do this on behalf of British Columbians so that indeed, British Columbians can be certain about the legislation this House is passing on their behalf, so that we can be certain about the kind of future this House is locking in not only for us as current legislators but for future legislators. The impact of this bill is going to impact the operations of this place for decades to come — four decades, as has been pointed out.

I raise my hands to the member for Abbotsford West, the member for Langley East, the member for Surrey–White Rock and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. They’ve done a tremendous job of highlighting the substantive issues that we’re now faced with voting on here at third reading, in this bill — the issues that were not responded to clearly in the responses.

I want to raise my hands for the work that was done. I want to highlight, very clearly, that going through the papers, going through the debate that happened here at committee stage, I’m frankly shocked and disappointed with the quality of the responses that were given to the questions that were asked around temporary foreign workers — or the lack of responses given to very substantive questions — about agreements that may or may not have been signed and suggestions that we have to go outside of this debate.

We have to go outside of the debate at committee stage into a different room to find out information that should be forthcoming in this debate at this time when we’re voting on third reading of this bill, when we’re taking the time to pass this legislation, so that we can be certain that the commitments made by this government — the commitments to meeting climate targets, the commitments to jobs for British Columbians, the commitments to real partnerships with First Nations, the commitments to a fair return for British Columbians — these four conditions pushed forward by this government, will, indeed, at third reading here of this bill, have been satisfied through this debate.

I can say I am left with little satisfaction that, to the good questions that were asked, any answers were given. There were, indeed, responses, but they left a lot to be desired.

[1:40 p.m.]

We’ve been critical of this legislation, all aspects of this bill, whether it be the natural gas tax credits, the changes in the calculations, the cost-of-natural-gas calculations, the administrative penalties, the natural gas sampling aspects of this bill, all the way through, which are highlighted in this bill.

We’ve definitely been critical about the decision of government to proceed with an incentive to attract an industry which is adding 3.5 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to a climate, to an environment, that cannot withstand further emissions. Indeed, in order for to us to be able to live up to our commitments for climate action, we need to be reducing. From an environmental perspective, there’s very clearly a challenge. It was highlighted by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who stood a couple of times during the debate at committee stage — I was reading through it last night — with respect to the first condition of meeting our climate targets.

The responses to those questions…. The fact that we have to wait until June 30 for the Minister of Environment to complete his consultations with industry, the fact that we have to wait for that time or we have to canvass those questions with the Minister of Environment in a different House at a different time at a different section of the work that we do this in this place — at budget estimates — is really a troubling aspect of what’s gone on in this House this week.

The fact is that we have disconnected this information. We’ve disconnected the information about this bill and the benchmarks that are being set. I would imagine that probably LNG Canada is quite concerned about that. But I and my colleagues in the official opposition and my colleagues here in the B.C. Green caucus are also quite concerned about the fact that this has been disconnected.

That the information about those consultations, the information about the clean growth industrial incentives, needs to be canvassed during budget estimates should be deeply considering for all sides of this House. All 87 of us in this place should be very concerned that we’re not being satisfied with those very substantive and, in fact, important questions as to the aspect of this agreement.

One of the most frustrating parts through the documentation that I read last night was the interaction around temporary foreign workers — the documentation that the member for Abbotsford West highlighted and brought to the awareness of the people of this place. I thank him for that. We don’t necessarily agree on a lot, but on this, I have to raise my hands to the work that was done yesterday with respect to finding the documentation that an agreement was signed that perhaps opens up LNG to accessing more temporary foreign workers.

Indeed, and I know that my colleague would like to speak to this a little bit more, we got emails from people who are working in the area up there, who own companies that are working on LNG. They’re very concerned that while their people are sitting idle, folks are coming from all across the province to work up there and getting jobs before locals. I know that there’s more about that coming.

The fact that we have to go to the Jobs, Trades and Technology debate on estimates to get information about the temporary foreign workers contract that potentially the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology signed…. That’s going on in a different room right now, completely disconnected from the debate around Bill 10. That’s going on in a different House.

We’ve had deflections on jobs. We had deflections on the clean growth industrial incentives program. So now what we have in front of us is Bill 10, which has survived dozens of votes during second reading and all the way through — stage by stage, section by section — at committee stage. We have a bill that survived all of that with very little information informing us as to what it is that we’re actually voting on.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’ve been around the local government tables, now the provincial government tables, for a decade. There’s nothing that drives me more crazy than when I’m sitting at these tables looking across at the people around me and knowing that the homework wasn’t done. And in some cases, the information was all in front of them. That’s really a frustrating experience, when everybody around the table had access to all of the information, yet people were not reading their agendas and reading the briefings and reading the information.

That’s not the situation we have here. The situation we have here is that the good work of my colleagues in the official opposition has been frustrated. The information they tried to seek to get clarification…. They were told: “In order to get it, you have to leave this House, go to another House and have a different discussion.” It won’t be on the record as part of the second reading and committee stage debates. It’s not, in fact, available to inform us about the decision that we’re going to be asked to make.

When we had the decision in front of us as to whether or not we were going to indeed stand and debate at third reading, while we have stood at every opportunity to oppose this bill, it became very clear to me that, indeed, yes, it’s necessary to stand at third reading and have this debate. It’s necessary to challenge the assumptions that have been made, the statements that have been made that: “Yes, trust us. We’ve met our climate targets.”

Well, how? We have a CleanBC program that’s got 75 percent of the way there, meaning 25 percent of it, a quarter of it, is yet to be identified. So how can we say that we’ve met it? The benchmarks for the clean growth industrial incentive have not been yet set. We have until June 30 in order for those to be set. So we’re being asked — members on all sides of this House — to vote on a bill which, in fact, we don’t actually have all of the information from.

In some respects, I think that the frustration around the table when I could identify that my colleagues had not done the homework that was in front of them…. I can set that aside for this debate. What I can’t set aside for this debate is that we are about to vote in favour of a bill — we’re not, but the vast majority of the people of this place are — in which the information has not been made available.

I ask: how can we possibly turn and say to British Col­um­bians, “Yes, we’ve done a responsible job,” if, in fact, we haven’t taken the time to ensure the information is in front…? That’s the reason why, at this stage, I’m going to be moving a hoist amendment to this bill: because I believe that, in fact, there is an opportunity for us to be informed.

I’m going to be moving the hoist amendment, because I think that we have the opportunity to get the information. We have the opportunity to be able to ask the questions that need to be asked if there is more time and to get the answers to the questions that have been asked that have been left unanswered.

I’m not necessarily even asking that I be satisfied. I’ve got quite strong opinions about the direction we need to be taking on LNG, and I know that’s not lost on any of my colleagues in this House. I recognize I may not be satisfied on this, but I think there are members of this place that are far from satisfied with the answers they’ve been given. I ask them to stand with us and take this opportunity to delete….

I’ll move this amendment:

[That the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 10) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Please proceed with your remarks on the amendment.

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: I have had the opportunity to speak a couple of times here at third reading — to the amendment moved by my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head and then now to my comments at third reading.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’ve been quite clear that I feel that there have been substantive questions raised. The challenge that I would like to lay down here, for all of my colleagues in this place, is if we were to set aside the politics of this and look at it from just a business perspective, would we be entering into providing these tax breaks?

I recognize the Minister of Finance has been saying this is a long conversation that’s been happening. I would like to say that the long conversation that’s been happening has been outside of this place, for the most part. It’s only been in the last couple of weeks that the long conversation has been happening in this place. The people of British Columbia deserve to have these questions answered on the record, and they deserve to have these questions answered on the record in light of the fact that we are committing them to 40 years.

Forty years, four decades. I am 43 years old — I think. I might be just close to that. I’m wondering: how old am I?

Anyway, the point I’m making is that it’s my lifespan, essentially. The point I’m making is that it’s my lifespan that we’re committing to. And a lot has changed in my lifespan. I remember my mom was debating, as the PAC chair, as to whether or not we should just agree to the Apple IIe’s that they were offering to our school for free.

That’s a long, long time ago we were having that debate. A lot has changed. A lot has happened. Do we really want to be leaving these gaps open? This is a long conversation. This is a long conversation that we’ve had.

Indeed, the members across the way in the official opposition started this conversation a long time ago. The depth of knowledge that the member for Langley East demonstrated yesterday in his questioning of the Minister of Finance was substantive. That conversation has been going on a long time.

I ask the members across the way…. In light of the fact we’ve gone this distance, in light of the fact we have a final investment decision that has been made with so many questions left unanswered, I think we owe it to the corporate interest that’s made this agreement to us that we seek those answers out and get them, for them and for the people of British Columbia. Primarily, that’s the most important group I’m responsible for standing up for, the people of British Columbia.

I ask the question: what is six months? If in fact this is everything that it’s been said that it is, then we should pay respect to the people of British Columbia and seek out that information. And those questions were good questions. The answers left a lot to be desired.

For me, I believe there is a really good case to be made here. We are not going to be able to get the information around the temporary foreign workers and just exactly how many jobs are going to be British Columbian jobs, how many jobs are going to be coming from outside this jurisdiction. Indeed, we’re not going to be able to get the answers about the clean growth industrial incentive until at least June 30, 2019. Even as long as December 31 was the answer given by the Minister of Finance. So I think actually there is a very good case to be made.

This is my last opportunity to speak to this bill, so I’ll just leave it at this. I place the challenge in front of my colleagues. I place this challenge in front of them. Do they want to be able to say that yes, in fact, we have supported a good deal? If so, then we have the responsibility to make sure that we have all the information to be able to say that.

The case becomes extremely weakened when the points have been made that in fact we don’t have all the information, yet we vote for it anyway. So I ask my colleagues to really deeply take this time to consider the fact that we have not been given answers to the questions that we’ve asked and that we have an opportunity right now to take the six months, to reconsider this in six months and to say: “Yeah, you know what, member for Saanich North and the Islands, we did get the answers. You might not like them, but we got the answers.”

[1:55 p.m.]

I think that that’s a worthwhile endeavour, to make sure that for the next four decades, we’re able to say to the people of British Columbia: “Yeah, we did the work.” And we didn’t just do the work in the back rooms here. We did the work where it’s supposed happen — under the lights, in front of the cameras, on the record, in Hansard so that you can actually go and see the information. Right now, I’ll tell you, the information that’s on Hansard…. I would imagine it’s going to cause British Columbians some deep, deep concern.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this, and thank you to the members of this House for listening.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak very briefly in support of my colleague’s, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, hoist amendment on the bill.

My colleague, I think, has made a very, very compelling case as to why we need the additional six months’ time to reflect upon it. More so, I would suggest, members in this House have not received the information that they need to make a decision. I’ve heard many talk about the importance of evidence-based decision-making. It’s something that’s fundamental to who we are as members of the B.C. Green caucus. I’ve heard others in this place talk about the importance of that. Yet we know that the information, the evidence on which to make such a decision, has not been presented to us here in committee stage.

We know that this bill has three components to it. It has a component to repeal the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. There’s a component to repeal the LNG Income Tax Act. And there was, at the same time, a component of the bill to retain the tax credit, the corporate welfare on steroids, that existed within the LNG Income Tax Act.

We know, in what has got to be described as a bizarre set of things that have happened here, that we’ve broken precedent in this place. We’ve broken historical precedent in Westminster parliamentary democracies during the course of these debates, not once, but twice during the course of these debates. That, in and of itself, I would suggest, should give us pause to reflect upon this bill with the additional time that we would get through this hoist amendment.

We had an amendment put forward by the B.C. Liberals, an amendment to quibble about where the deck chairs on the Titanic should be prior to the Titanic sinking to the bottom of the ocean. We had an amendment that actually led to a tie vote, 41 to 41. With respect, in the long, rich tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracies, we had a precedent set that goes directly against the historic nature of this building where a Chair votes out of conscience in a partisan manner with the opposition.

This is outrageous. It’s outrageous, given that we, at the same time in the U.K., had the ruling set out why the Speaker in the U.K. ruled with government. That is the role in a Westminster parliamentary democracy of a Chair, to ensure that the debates flow forward. That was our first precedent-setting decision — very, very unfortunate. But that was not the only one.

The second one, too, gives reason to pause as to why we need to reflect upon this bill for a few more months, because clearly the process in this place leaves a lot to be desired. That was my colleague from the Cowichan Valley, who spent many, many hours going through the media to determine what information was missing, in order to inform members on the decision that was going to be made today — information that was not present, not given during committee stage, information that she took upon herself to find and bring forward. She was shut down at third reading. The member was told to sit down. Her voice was silenced. Outrageous.

[2:00 p.m.]

Two times during the course of the last 48 hours — two times we’ve had such statements. That is why it’s critical for us to reflect upon this.

With that, I’ll take my place and suggest to members opposite that this is the time for us to actually reflect upon the implications of this. I certainly hope we’re joined in voting in support of my member’s amendment.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the opportunity to support the amendment put forth by my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, an amendment that delays this bill by six months.

I would suggest that given the enormity of the decision being made with this legislation, given the very significant impacts that we are actually choosing to bring into the entire world with approval and, even more gallingly, the subsidization of the single largest point source of emissions in Canada’s history, at a time when, as I was pointing out this morning, on a daily basis, every single day in the media the news about the impacts of climate change is getting more frequent and more alarming….

While we were debating this bill in this House, the first city was lost to climate change. While we were debating this bill in this House, scientists came out to identify that we will be seeing far more tropical infectious diseases in Canada because of the warming. While we were debating the bill in this House, we learned that Canada will, in fact, warm at twice the rate as the rest of the world and, in fact, northern Canada and B.C. even faster than that. While we were debating the bill in this House, we learned that Canada, overall, is failing to address climate change while at the same time we are some of the biggest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

This absolutely requires a pause. This absolutely requires of us, all 87 of us, to reflect at length and in depth on the choices that we’re making in this House, the implications of those choices and the signals that we are sending to the rest of the world and to future generations.

If we look even at the four conditions that have been laid out…. A fair return for the resource. There’s no way of guaranteeing that. How do we determine a fair return when we’re supposedly in a free market economy? We’re supposedly supposed to be letting the market determine what can and cannot be economically viable, yet we choose to insert ourselves, in the wrong ways, into this.

Respect and make partners of First Nations. Well, while we were debating this bill, the people up in Wet’suwet’en territory have announced that they’re going to be building a new camp to be protesting this. Not protesting; I take that back. They’re going to be building a new camp to be asserting their territorial rights. That’s happened while we were debating this bill.

The condition to protect the air, land and water. Well, while we were debating this bill, we got more information about the impacts of fracking from the doctors who have been touring this province and telling us that they are seeing symptoms and conditions up in the area where there is intense fracking in B.C., symptoms they can’t explain.

[2:05 p.m.]

Rates of brain cancer, here on Daffodil Day, that far exceed statistical norms. Respiratory diseases, respiratory conditions, that they make a connection between flaring of gases and the expansion of these symptoms. That happened while we were debating this bill. Those doctors have been sharing their stories.

I think there is only one responsible thing for us to do at this point. I know we’ve been speaking for days now, the three of us. Our pleas and our requests and our arguments and everything we’ve brought forward — it has felt like they’ve fallen on deaf ears, yet we keep trying.

For us, this is a deeply distressing and sad time. We have this extraordinary province, these extraordinary potentials. Imagine what we could do with $6 billion. With the outcomes of those investments, we could be providing education and training opportunities to fill those 30,000 tech jobs that are unfilled in B.C. right now — jobs that could contribute to increases in medical technology, maybe jobs that would eventually be the source of solving cancer.

But we’re not. We’re not going to spend our $6 billion that way. So it is with a truly heavy heart that I, too, speak to this, which I think will be for the last time as well. While I recognize that this vote will likely go the same as every other vote on this bill has gone, I hope that our words have resonated with some of the members in this House.

I know that they will be recorded, and we will be looking back at them. I think what is important for us to communicate at this point is that this is a sad defeat, but in no way do we give up on what we believe to be an extraordinary potential and a vision for a different future for this province that isn’t about dragging us backwards into the 20th century.

On that note, I will hope that there will be members who will vote with us on this amendment to take six months.

Hon. C. James: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I rise…. I’ll only speak for a couple of minutes. This amendment is basically the opportunity to push off for six months, as the previous amendment was, so I don’t think I need repeat myself. I think we’ve had a thorough discussion.

I say thank you again to the members who’ve taken part in the debate — and certainly my Green colleagues, who have raised their issues and their concerns. I understand they’re passionate about this issue. I understand their feelings about the issue. Will we be held accountable for this decision? No question. It’s why I felt so strongly about the four conditions we put in place and why I feel so strongly about being held accountable for those four positions.

We will, as a government, be judged by making sure that we move ahead with climate action. We will be judged by making sure that we put in place the good work that hap­pened around CleanBC. We will be held accountable as a government for ensuring jobs are here for British Colum­bians. The job strategy, in fact, was released.

I understand the debate that occurred, but in fact, we do have a job strategy from LNG. We do have a track record around the work that’s going on for local first — B.C. resi­dents, Canadian workers.

I think it’s important to note, as well, the work that has been done with First Nations. I recognize the work that the company has, still ongoing, with the hereditary chiefs, but there is work, as well, with the First Nations along the route as well.

[2:10 p.m.]

Again, I come back to the importance of our climate action, so I will be speaking against the amendment.

Deputy Speaker: The question is the third reading hoist amendment of Bill 10.

Division has been called.

[2:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment “that the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 10) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence,’” as put forward by the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Speaker’s Statement

RULES FOR THIRD READING DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before proceeding, I would just like to make a statement here, and that is I wish to state for clarity that the Chair has been fairly lenient with the third reading debate that took place on Bill 10 today. As the Deputy Speaker noted earlier, debate at third reading is not common practice in our House, though it is a decisive stage in the legislative process, and members are within their right to speak on debate on a motion for the third reading of a bill and to propose certain amendments as this stage of a bill’s consideration.

I wish to affirm that the direction provided by the Deputy Speaker earlier today was correct. Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, states, at page 220: “Debate on third reading is limited to matters which are contained in the Bill.”

This is also reinforced in other procedural authorities. Erskine May’s 24th edition states, at page 595: “Debate on third reading, however, is more restricted than at the earlier stage, being limited to the contents of the bill.”

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at page 792: “Debate at this stage of the legislative process focuses on the final form of the bill.”

The Deputy Speaker properly upheld this recognized practice.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

Hon. C. James: With that, I move third reading of Bill 10.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of the bill.

[2:20 p.m.]

Division has been called.

House Leaders, waive the time here?

Interjections.

[2:25 p.m.]

Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued debate in the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

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

Hon. C. Trevena: Before we get underway, we had a number of questions in our last get-together, and our get-together before, that were unanswered. I know that the critic had asked in our last get-together about whether he was going to get an answer. So I’d like to read into the record some of the answers provided and give us the opportunity to follow up.

One was transit-oriented taxes on transportation fuels. It was from the critic regarding the taxes and levies on transportation fuels and about the point of collection of these taxes. There is a comprehensive tax bulletin published by the Ministry of Finance. It is bulletin MFT-CT 005, just updated on April 1, which outlines the various tax rates on fuel.

The motor fuel tax is made up — as I say, this is about transit-oriented taxes — of both provincial and dedicated taxes. The provincial tax rate varies by region and by type of fuel. The proceeds for this tax go to general revenue, and the rates are listed in the bulletin. Dedicated taxes apply in certain regions in the province. They go to three organizations: the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, which is TransLink; the British Columbia Transit Authority; and the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority.

The current tax rates are as follows. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, or TransLink, gets 17 cents a litre. British Columbia Transit Authority, which is assessed in the Victoria regional transit service area, receives 5.5 cents a litre.

BCTFA, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, receives 6.75 cents a litre. This is charged across the entire province, including the Sea to Sky region, the critic’s own area. A portion of the 6.75 cents per litre that goes to the BCTFA is used to fund transit capital across the province.

In regard to the question about the collection of tax, at the general level — without getting into the nuances of motor fuel taxation, which we obviously had a heated debate about earlier on today — security in the amount of the tax is applied at the time of the first sale of the fuel in B.C., after it’s manufactured in or imported into the province. There’s also a tax bulletin for fuel sellers available from the Ministry of Finance.

I would urge, if the member has any other concerns or questions regarding motor fuel taxes to direct them to the Minister of Finance during her estimates debate, which I believe are following ours in this chamber.

[2:35 p.m.]

Then there was a request from the MLA for Shuswap about the intercity bus service, the Passenger Transportation Board and Rider Express. I know there was a lot of concern about that.

I would like to first correct the record regarding my response on my engagement with the Passenger Transportation Board. At the time, I said that I had written a letter, that the ministry had written a letter. That letter was not written, primarily because the Passenger Transportation Board took very swift action to address the issue without such a letter. They took the initiative, and the board and the province issued news releases about the fast-track process, to ensure that industry and the general public were aware of the new process.

In terms of the member for Shuswap’s specific questions regarding Rider Express and the state of the intercity bus operator, I can confirm that as of April 1, 2019, Rider Express is operating daily between Vancouver and Kamloops and is providing three round trips a week from Kamloops to Calgary along Highway 1, as per their licence requirements.

Rider Express does have an application before the Passenger Transportation Board to reduce its service, as the member knows. They have to apply both to have the service and then if they want to reduce it. As of right now, they are providing the service as outlined in their licence.

I can share that there have been a few issues with this particular service provider, including reducing service levels without Passenger Transportation Board authorization. But this has been rectified after a verbal order was issued from the Passenger Transportation enforcement officer late last year.

Finally, a question from the Transportation critic of the Third Party, for Saanich North and the Islands, regarding Highway 17 and a bus stop at Mt. Newton Cross Road. The ministry’s transit branch has already engaged with our highways department on this matter to ensure that Highway 17 is used to its full potential for all communities along the corridor and for both automobile and transit users.

There was a question from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on options for Golden. I can confirm that depending upon where Golden residents are wishing to travel, there are two options. One is the Interior Health bus, which is available to the general public, which makes a round trip between Golden and Cranbrook along Highway 95 twice a week. And as of April 1, 2019, Rider Express is providing those three round trips between Kamloops and Calgary, with a stop in Golden.

There was a question from the member for Fraser-Nicola, which was again about transportation options for residents in the Fraser Canyon. I really appreciate people’s engagement on this. This is very important, the safe, affordable ground transportation. The member was pointing out the challenges that rural residents have faced when it comes to transportation.

There has been another new applicant to the Passenger Transportation Board to provide service in the Fraser Canyon. On March 27 of this year — so just last week — the Passenger Transportation Board approved an intercity bus application from Gertzen Ventures to provide two round trips per week between Prince George and Surrey travelling on Highway 97 and one through the Fraser Canyon.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin provided a letter of support as part of the Passenger Transportation Board application, and Gertzen Ventures now has until April 15 — so just ten days — to obtain a licence from the Passenger Transportation registrar.

I hope that clarifies some of the questions. If there are any answers that weren’t given, we will follow up, either in writing or verbally, at our next session of estimates.

However, just as we start, I’d like to introduce the people who will be supporting me through this process. On my left is Grant Main, the Deputy Minister for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. On my right is Nancy Bain, assistant deputy minister for finance. Behind me on my left is Ashok Bhatti, who is the executive director for the southern region of the ministry. Then on my right is, first, Mike Lorimer, who is the executive director for the southern Interior region, and Kevin Richter, who is associate deputy minister with responsibility for highways.

With that, let’s move on.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for those responses, Minister. Unfortunately, we had a little emergency over here. We will read through Hansard so that we make sure we’ve covered all that we need to cover.

Interjection.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Because this is our third day now, I think we might as well extend it into four or five.

We will continue on here. We had started with northern and Interior highway issues, mostly focusing on various MLAs and the issues in their ridings. We will carry on with that, just to let the minister know in terms of staffing. Then we’ll move into the Metro Vancouver Highway 1 issues.

I’ll pass it on to my colleague from the Cariboo.

C. Oakes: I raise a question that I’ve canvassed multiple times with this minister. It’s been a year since West Fraser has faced a significant landslide as a result of the 2017 Plateau fire. It has been a year. The communities continue to be travelling a forest service road — the communities of ?Esdilagh First Nation and Buckridge.

We have over 200 people. We have a doctor. We have care aides. We have professionals and small business owners that have to travel that road every single day. Further, we have children that are getting on a school bus at 6:30 in the morning. They are travelling two hours each way to attend school.

My question to the minister. The community was advised by the Ministry of Transportation they would be receiving an update. First, they were told they would receive an update in September. Then they said they would get an update in the fall. Then it was delayed to late fall. Then the community was told by the Ministry of Transportation there would be an update in December. Then a communiqué went out to the community, and they were told the Ministry of Transportation would come out in January. That got moved to the spring.

The community continues to wait. It is appalling that local Ministry of Transportation staff are required because this minister or senior officials will not come to the community to answer community questions. When will the minister follow up, take leadership and come out and respond to the community’s concerns about when West Fraser Road will be fixed?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question, and I can quite understand the member’s frustration and that of her communities. I have had a number of letters from various people within the communities — the school district and so on. It is, as the member well knows, a massive problem and a massive fix. If there has been a lack of communication, that is unfortunate.

I can tell the member there is going to be a public meeting where senior staff will be attending on May 1. But just to give the member some comfort, I did write to her in the beginning of last month about what is being done on the road. The fact that it is…. As I say, fixing the main road is a major project. We have the equivalent of…. As the member I’m sure is well aware, 28 million cubic metres of soil slid. To put it in perspective, that’s 11,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. I mean, it’s huge, what has happened.

The detour road, the road that is being used at the mo­ment…. The member calls it a forest service road. It isn’t a forest service road. It is a Ministry of Transportation road. I underline that because there are different standards. Forest service roads have a very low standard. Ministry of Transportation roads have a much higher standard. I know that from my own constituency, where I have Indigenous people and communities with health care needs and schools and everything else at the end of forest service roads. They are frustrated because they don’t get the same standard as the ministry roads.

The roads the member’s constituents are using are ministry roads. Given that they’re ministry roads, there has been an increased level of service on those roads. We know children are travelling on them, and we know this is the only route that is available at the moment. So the ministry has put in that extra level of both maintenance and upkeep on them.

I can give the member that assurance, and as we speak…. This isn’t just waiting for the big fix to happen. We are working. I mean, as we speak, we’ve got geotechnical engineers working on the slide area, trying to find the best way forward. It’s a serious issue for the member’s constituents, and I recognize that.

C. Oakes: I do thank the minister for the information.

I am very pleased to be…. I will be making sure people in my community understand that on May 1, there will be a community meeting, and there will be senior-level representatives from the Ministry of Transportation. I think the greatest frustration is that there was a commitment to talk to the community, and that just has not happened in a year or short of a year. That’s the sense…. People need to be planning for their lives. I understand it’s a difficult project. They just need to have some answers. So I appreciate that.

I guess the question before that I’d like to bring up…. I raised in March the concern of the after-effects of what we saw with wildfires in the 2017 Plateau fire. Then we experienced the floods of 2018, and then we headed into another wildfire year in the same areas that continue to be decimated because of soil erosion, because of the hydrology changes. We had canvassed that at last estimates.

[2:50 p.m.]

When we do not have the resources to address it, we find ourselves in situations such as West Fraser Road and the significant challenges we have. I imagine that project is…. I believe it’s at an estimate right now of about $95 million, so it’s a significant project to fix, and I understand that.

My question to the minister. One of the challenges that we have are culverts in the area. Many of our culverts were put in place in the 1960s and 1970s when the land base was significantly different, when the roads that were put in had different climate challenges than we have today. In the Cariboo region, we have 7,800 kilometres of roads and 40,000 culverts. What is the budget that currently exists for the province to be replacing culverts?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. I think that the member, living in the Cariboo, is very aware that fires have fundamentally changed our landscape. It’s not just the burn but, as she mentions, the hydrology. Everything has changed. As a result, we are both responding and preparing for climate change. So we’re working in a number of areas.

I’ll be quite frank. It’s impossible to say, “We spend this much on culverts,” because we’re spending on culverts and rehabilitation under our side roads. It’s part of our maintenance contract, for instance. At the moment, maintenance contractors are going out to make sure that culverts are clear ahead of the fire season, so that becomes part of it. It’s part of our side-roads budget, and it’s part of our capital budget. It is spread across the whole ministry.

The ministry is working very much with the awareness of climate change as a reality and building in resilience into our infrastructure. In fact, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has been recognized by the Auditor General as leading on this within government because of the need, whether it’s to upsize culverts or just fix the situation before it gets worse. And I think that’s been highlighted over the last two years.

I’ve got to say: accolades. I know that the member was disappointed with what she perceived to be a lack of communication from the ministry on the specifics of the West Fraser Road. Our ministry has some extraordinary people who work extraordinarily hard. The recently retired chief engineer, Dirk Nyland, is recognized across Canada for revising the standards for resilience. The standards that have been developed by our ministry, by the ministry’s chief engineer, are now being adopted across the country. So I think that we are doing a lot of very important work.

Unfortunately, we can’t rip out all the old culverts at once and put new ones in, but we are working on those four areas to make sure it happens. We are recognized across Canada for leading the way on climate change resilience.

T. Stone: I, first, want to just say it’s always great to see the familiar faces of the hard-working men and women of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I know the minister continues to be very well served by the professionals in her ministry.

I just have a couple questions on a couple different topics. The first one relates to passenger commercial bus transportation and service to and through the village of Chase, in the east end of my constituency. We are, obviously, very grateful, as I think all MLAs from the Interior and the north have been, with the enhanced service provision that was provided as a result of the expeditious granting of licences by the Passenger Transportation Board in October of 2017. That was very good news, with Greyhound’s departure.

Insofar as the withdrawal of Greyhound impacted the village of Chase, it was good news that Rider Express stepped up to the plate and was granted a licence to provide service from the Alberta border to Vancouver along Highway 1 and Highway 5.

My understanding is that the grant of the licence, which again was about five months ago, was for 14 stops from the Alberta border through to Langley, including the village of Chase. This is a reservation service that the company has, which is good.

[3:00 p.m.]

They were granted a licence to operate for, I believe, seven days a week and two departures per day. Unfortunately, only a matter of weeks ago the village of Chase learned that the operator, Rider Express, had submitted an application to the passenger transportation folks to amend the licence, stating low ridership. Unfortunately for the village of Chase, part of what the company is asking for is the permission to no longer stop at, I believe, four locations, including Sorrento and the village of Chase. I believe there may be two other locations in the Lower Mainland.

Obviously, that’s of grave concern to the village of Chase. As part of their application for a revision to their licence, they’re also asking for permission to be able to provide service on other routes in the area — from, I believe, Kamloops to Vancouver, Kelowna to Vancouver and Kamloops to Kelowna — though we do note that those routes are well served at the moment by other operators. I completely understand that Rider Express probably is looking at higher ridership on some neighbouring routes and looking for an opportunity to compete there, potentially, to subsidize less profitable routes where there’s lower ridership.

The issue that I have with this, on behalf of the people of Chase, is as follows. The minister can please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that a condition of the licence that was originally granted — one of the conditions — is that the operator has to publicly advertise their schedule. They have to make sure that the public has easy access to what the schedule is. I have been advised by the village of Chase — the mayor and council as well as citizens at large — that no one has ever seen any advertising or any publication of the schedule for the village of Chase.

If a schedule had been published somewhere and if people were seeing that schedule and were choosing not to use the service, that’s one thing. I would understand the operator’s desire to no longer be forced to stop there. But no one has ever seen them stop there. No one has ever seen a schedule. It’s hard to have sympathy if the operator isn’t making a good-faith effort to advertise Chase as a stop. So on behalf of the mayor and council of the village of Chase and on behalf of the people of Chase, I’m wondering if the minister could offer some comment.

Is she aware of this application for a revised licence? Can she indicate whether or not she’s aware of any schedule that’s been published? Would she be willing, through her staff, to engage with the village of Chase to make sure, as part of the Passenger Transportation Board’s consideration of this application for a revision to the licence, that, indeed, the concerns of the people that we’re all trying to serve here with these transportation options — the people of Chase and their concerns — are heard loud and clear about what’s actually going on in the village with respect to Rider Express’s service to this point?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to introduce — I know the member knows her well — Deb Bowman, assistant deputy minister for policy, who is advising here on intercity bus.

Yes, Chase is not listed on their schedule — quite right; nor is Sorrento. Right at the beginning of my remarks, when I was reading into the record some of the answers for previous estimates, your colleague from Shuswap had raised the issue of Rider Express. I mentioned at that time that they have an application in, to reduce the service.

I think the member knows that the passenger transportation registrar can review complaints about service to ensure that they are upholding their licence. When I read into the record at the beginning, I mentioned the fact that there had been a warning to the company from the passenger transportation registrar. That was at the end of last year. The next stage of increasing the pressure on the company would be to possibly have an administrative penalty.

I can ask my staff to engage with the registrar to follow up on what has been happening. As the member says, if the company is trying to have applications on other routes that they may think more profitable, is neglecting the route that they have their licence for and not even advertising for two stops that you might have estimated were going to be there, there is clearly a problem there. I’ll ask my staff to work with the registrar to find out what can be done.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Stone: Just one quick follow-up on that. Again, I just really want to underscore, from the perspective of the people who live in the village of Chase and who are really depending on there being a bus service comparable to what Greyhound used to provide…. They were very hopeful that Rider Express would be that company.

Indeed, Rider Express may be a great company. I’ve never used their service. This is not about whether they’re a good company or a bad company. I’m not suggesting the minister’s saying that either. But one of the conditions of licence is that they have to publicly post their schedule. People have to know that the service exists in order to use it.

If I’d heard this concern just from one or two people, you might chock it up to a whole number of things. When you’re hearing it from a lot of people in the community and then when the mayor and council actually get exercised about this, as they have, it tends to suggest to me that there’s probably something to the concern that this company has not met that condition insofar as posting their schedule in a manner that is easily and quickly available to the public.

I would hope, and I would ask, that the minister would ensure in her direction to staff that that be central to the further engagement with the company, not just in the consideration of other routes. That’s a totally separate matter. I really liked the way the minister actually phrased that a moment ago. Before you’re worrying about adding new routes, maybe knock it out of the ballpark on the routes that you already have. Completely agree. Let’s put that over here. The routes that they have, which go through Chase, we want to make sure are meeting the needs of the people who live in the communities along that route.

One last time, if the minister could just confirm for me that she’ll ask her staff to please engage with the registrar on that, and please make sure that’s central to the discussion with the company. Yes or no? And then would the minister be willing to ask someone on her staff to actually reach out to the village, to the mayor and council — even a phone call — just to make sure that your staff are able to hear it in the words of the village of Chase so that those concerns are adequately incorporated into the consideration of this licence moving forward?

Hon. C. Trevena: I can give the member confidence that my staff have already got in touch with the registrar as the member was speaking. Absolutely, we’ll connect with the village of Chase and follow up. I thank the member for raising this and bringing it to our attention.

T. Stone: Thank you very much, Minister.

The second issue should be a really quick one. The gentlemen sitting behind you, both of whom live in Kamloops, travel through the Valleyview corridor of the great city of Kamloops as often as I do. So they would be well aware of the increasing congestion that has really taken hold through the entire corridor — from Valleyview, which is on the valley base next to the river, right up as you climb out of Kamloops to what’s called Aberdeen.

That entire section has an incredible amount of conflicting traffic movements and a big volume of commercial trucks. The Highway 5 connects there. Highway 5A connects on. There are on-ramps and off-ramps to get to downtown in different locations — a very, very busy section of the Trans-Canada Highway.

My ask is not: when are we going do something about it? My ask is this. I want to make sure, as we receive concerns from constituents in our constituency office, that we’re discussing this issue in the context of facts, what’s actually happening. Could the minister commit to asking her staff to engage with me on sharing some of the traffic volume information about what’s actually happening in the corridor?

[3:15 p.m.]

My understanding last year was that there might be some early consideration being made to a corridor study. Again, just having been there and done that in your role, I understand that you can’t make decisions until you really understand the contiguous corridor in question — what’s happening and what the projections look like. This is a section of a corridor that really needs that high-level analysis of what’s going on today and what those projections look like into the future.

Could the minister provide some comfort to me that she may be willing to ensure that the staff are engaged with me and my office and keep us in the loop on timing and scope and what that corridor analysis might look like and if, indeed, it’s something that we might expect could begin to happen sooner rather than later?

Hon. C. Trevena: The good news is that work is already starting. We’re starting to collect data and considering a corridor study. That is already starting, getting the data to see how much is needed for a corridor study. As you mention, two people are Kamloopsians and very acutely aware of the growing congestion there.

As the member is very well aware, having had this role, once you’re doing a corridor study, you look at everything: traffic volumes, intersection improvements, on- and off-ramps. You need to get the community engagement. This is all something…. We are on the first stages of getting that traffic data. Obviously the people who live there and work there see the volumes, so just to ensure that that is right and worth doing the corridor study.

I understand there is a meeting already scheduled between the member and the executive director in about three weeks’ time. This is right in the member’s backyard and obviously sharing information on issues such as this.

T. Stone: That’s much appreciated. Thank you to the minister.

The last topic that I wanted to touch on is an oldie but a goody. It’s obviously a pet project. Well, perhaps I’ve been accused of it being too much of a pet project over the years. The Trans-Canada Highway four-laning projects east of Kamloops are obviously very important, not just to Kamloops but to, you know, folks throughout the region. I know that the minister knows that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Just a few questions. First off, I’m wondering if the minister could advise whether or not the previously an­nounced project, which was to be delivered in three different segments, with a price tag of $199 million…. Is it still the ministry’s plan to deliver this project in three different segments? If so, could she confirm that the middle section will be the first one to go, followed by the easternmost section and followed by the westernmost section which, the last time that we talked about this opportunity for interaction, was the plan?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. It’s middle, east, west.

T. Stone: Could the minister confirm that the original budget, which was announced at $199 million for those three segments, is still the budget that the ministry is working with today?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, this is still the budget that we’re still working with. We are, obviously, still engaging with communities and First Nations as we move forward.

T. Stone: Can the minister comment on whether or not there have been any scope changes to the project over the last year? The last set of maps that I was privy to about it — it might have been even six months ago or nine months ago — that the village of Chase had still reflected a full interchange in and about the Chase Creek area. There was a full-access interchange at Brooke. There was talk about the potential for an underpass at Coburn.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know that the former mayor and council and the minister and I all met at the UBCM last year. That was important to the council. There was emergency access on and off at Coburn as well, recognizing that their paramedic station is right there. Then there were to be some safety and access improvements — not a full interchange but safety and access improvements — at Mattey’s Road, which is right at the top of Jade Mountain.

I just want to understand if any of those significant features of these three segments from Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain, from a scope perspective, have in any way been modified.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not sure if it’s an advantage or disadvantage talking to my predecessor about these issues, obviously seeing when this started.

As the member knows, any major project like this is an evolution. I think the member is aware that we continue to be in dialogue with both the community and with First Nations.

[3:30 p.m.]

Everybody wants to deliver the same ends, which is four-laning of the section of highway — we want to get four-laning all the way out to the border but, on this specific project, four-laning this section of highway — and ensuring that there is safe access for the community of Chase. We are continuing to talk, as I say, with the community and with First Nations. I think that the member is most likely very well aware from his conversations with the village, that the biggest issue for Chase on this is that safe access, and we are talking about how we can make sure that while we’re working on the four-laning, there is safe access for the village of Chase.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

T. Stone: I would say that with all of the staff that you have, you definitely have the advantage here, Minister. But they’re all good people.

I will add that in addition to safe access, the village really needs access. They’re really concerned about, as most communities are when there’s a four-laning project that bisects their community…. There’s obviously a tremendous amount of, I think, well-placed concern and anxiety, to a certain extent, about: “Is this actually going to make access in and out of our village easier, or is it going to make it more challenging?”

This is a small village. The minister has been there. It’s beautiful, nestled on the Shuswap Lake, Little Shuswap. Folks that live there and small business people that have little businesses there…. People want people to stop off the highway and go in and spend some money and time and so forth.

I understand what the minister is saying about ongoing discussions with First Nations. I am in contact with the chiefs involved on a regular basis as well, as I am with the village and the regional district.

Is it still the ministry’s intention to have a full-access interchange, as has always been the plan at the Chase Creek Road, and another one at Brooke?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I forgot to introduce another excellent ministry staff member, who is now sitting where Deborah was sitting, on my left. Kevin Volk is the assistant deputy minister for major projects. I know that he had a different role when my colleague was in this role.

We know how important this whole project is for the community. The member was talking about bisecting the community, the concerns about a community being cut off because of a major highway. Absolutely aware of that. That’s why we continue to have discussions, both with the village and with the Indigenous communities — to really understand what is important to the village and to Indigenous communities, what will be safe and how we can really make sure that we are providing that safe access in a way that reflects what the village and what the Indigenous communities are saying to us. We continue to have meetings with the village and Indigenous communities about specific aspects of the project.

T. Stone: The lack of specificity on the question around the full-access interchange here and there, which, in terms of Chase Creek and Brooke, have been in the plan for years and which I know were very much the design preferences of the ministry…. The ministry has been working for years — going back to my tenure as well — with the village of Chase and with First Nations. I’m just trying to understand if those full-access interchanges still feature in the ministry’s preferences that are at the centre of the discussions that the First Nations and the village of Chase are having with the ministry.

The interchange at Brooke, in particular, if indeed the middle section is the first one to be tendered…. If it’s the intention of the ministry to likely tender that one first, then one would have to extrapolate from that that the design would be pretty tight at this point. So certainly, on that project, I would hope the minister would be able say: “Yeah, it is still our intention. Unless there’s some major issue that comes from First Nations or the village at this late date, it is our intention to proceed with a full-access interchange as part of this middle project at Brooke.”

Again, can the minister illuminate this a bit more for me or alleviate the concerns that perhaps I’m expressing as to whether or not full-access interchanges are still the ministry’s preference at Chase Creek and at Brooke?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It is still the ministry’s preference to do an interchange at Brooke. It is seen as the safest and best option for the community and for the highway to move forward. We are obviously still engaging with the community — when we talk about the community, that’s with the village — and First Nations about elements at both of the locations. But it is the ministry’s preference to have that interchange at Brooke.

T. Stone: Okay. I appreciate that. That will be viewed as good news in the village of Chase. I do know that there are, I think, lots of concerns that have been expressed about a few businesses in the area. So I appreciate the work that the ministry will continue to do to work with the community and the small business folks, in particular, who would be most impacted by the final design.

I suspect that the minister’s response will include some variation of “We’re still talking to the Neskonlith and the other First Nations, Adams Lake and Little Shuswap,” and so forth. Whether the design is 100 percent exactly what it has been for a number of years or will be modified a bit, am I safe to assume that it is still the intention of the ministry, assuming buy-in from First Nations and the village, that there will be a full-access interchange in and around where the Chase Creek Road is at the moment?

[3:45 p.m.]

Maybe just to expedite this process a little bit, again, I would like to ask the minister if the emergency access on and off at Coburn, which has been a top priority for the village, is still an intended component of the project, as well as a simple underpass at Coburn that would go underneath the highway, which would therefore connect both sides of the village as a result of these improvements?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We are, as the member quite rightly said, continuing to engage with community and Indigenous communities about Chase Creek.

As far as Coburn is concerned, our engineers are looking at how best to accommodate emergency access to the highway along that section. Again, working with the village and Indigenous communities, we are still looking at how to ensure we get the desired outcome for access through the underpass or whatever is so desired. We’re still working through that one. That’s why I prefaced my original remarks with….

As the member is very well aware, it is an evolution. We are continuing to talk. We do have a new council in place. We haven’t restarted with the new council, but we are continuing to talk.

T. Stone: I appreciate that from the minister. What I’ve heard here this afternoon is it’s still the intention of the ministry to, ideally, proceed with a full-access interchange at Brooke. Discussions are still underway with the village insofar as trying to address the village’s previously stated need for an underpass at Coburn and emergency access at that location on and off the Trans-Canada. That’s appreciated.

I guess I want one last time on the scope here to, again, clarify with the minister that it’s still the ministry’s intention for there to be a full-access interchange just west of the village, roughly known as the Chase Creek Road area. If the minister could just address that point — that that’s still the intention of the ministry, notwithstanding ongoing engagement that is taking place with First Nations and others — I would sure appreciate that.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: It is our intention to accommodate all movements at Chase Creek Road. The consultations that I’ve referred to with the village and with Indigenous communities will flesh that out.

T. Stone: All movements. That’s good. Full access. I appreciate that.

I had almost forgotten, but I wanted to also ask about the safety improvements that had been planned for Mattey’s Road. That’s right at the top of the hill, at the top of Jade Mountain. That would be part of the segment from Chase West to Jade Mountain. Again, those safety improvements, that access…. It was not a full movement interchange by any stretch, but there were to be some safety improvements there in terms of accessing Mattey’s Road.

Could the minister just confirm that, again, it continues to be the ministry’s intention for those safety improvements to continue to be delivered as part of this overall project?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that’s a very busy intersection. I know there’s a logging company down there. It does remain our intention to have safe access there.

T. Stone: Okay, that’s good. We’ve covered the scope aspects of this project. Again, I’m pleased to hear the minister confirm that it remains the ministry’s intention to deliver on a full-access, full movement interchange at Brooke as well as at Chase Creek, an underpass at Coburn, emergency access on and off at Coburn and the Mattey’s Road safety improvements. That’ll all be good news to folks in the village of Chase.

I would now quickly like to turn our attention to the timelines. As the minister knows well, the middle section originally was intended to be tender-ready in 2017. The overall project, I believe, if memory serves me correctly…. I believe that I made the announcement in 2016. It might have been a bit earlier than that, but I think it was either late 2015 or early 2016. We were working hard to be tender-ready for 2017, the summer of 2017. Obviously, there was an election, a change of power and all the rest of it.

[4:00 p.m.]

In previous interactions, the minister had indicated it was her ministry’s intention to get that tender out for the first segment in 2018. It’s now 2019. Obviously, the folks of Chase and Kamloops and users of this segment of the Trans-Canada are hoping that this first tender is going to go out soon.

I’m wondering if the minister could comment on any update that she might be able to provide insofar as the timing of the first tender process beginning for this first segment of this piece of highway.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member knows that it’s a project that he announced. We want to deliver on it. We know the importance of four-laning the whole of the Trans-Canada, picking up and moving along with it. We want to get it right. I think the member is very well aware that there has been a lot of discussion, a lot of community input. We’ve been negotiating with Indigenous communities. We do want to ensure that this is right. We are anticipating tendering it later this year.

T. Stone: The middle section. Government’s intention is to tender it later this year. Can the minister indicate if she’s shooting for the later spring? Is it the summer? The third week of October?

Again, in all seriousness, I know she knows how important this project is. I think folks would really look forward to and really hope that it’s the government’s intention to get this tender out as soon as possible this year. Is the minister able to be a bit more specific? Can we count on a 2019, fall of 2019, tender for the first project? Is that a reasonable expectation that folks could have with this first project?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies for the long discussion. We were going through all of the calendars and trying to ring which date. Well, I was. But staff really are reluctant to give a precise date because they’re asked about ongoing discussions with communities, Indigenous peoples. So don’t ring the calendar. But our intention is no later than this fall. Absolutely 2019.

T. Stone: The last aspect of the questions that I have for this project relates to the community benefits agreement requirement. I’m just wondering. We know that the minister and the Premier, on the record, indicate that the four-laning projects for the Trans-Canada Highway, Kamloops to the Alberta border, will be subject to the community benefits agreement requirement.

First off, can the minister confirm that, indeed, a community benefit requirement will be attached to this project that we’re talking about here today, the Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain Trans-Canada four-laning?

Secondly, it has been confirmed by the minister and others in government that the community benefits agreement requirements will add, likely, around 7 percent of additional costs to the project estimates. Some have suggested a bit more, but if we go with the 7 percent, then 7 percent on $199 million is not an inconsequential number. So we’ve spent a fair bit of time here trying to understand mutually…. Has the budget overall changed for this project? The minister very clearly indicated no. The $199 million was still in the budget that the ministry is working with, and that’s great.

[4:10 p.m.]

Then we spent a fair bit of time going through the scope. Notwithstanding continued engagement with First Nations and local communities and so forth, the minister has indicated that it very much continues to be the ministry’s intention to not see any scope reductions in terms of what has been the ministry’s intentions up to this point around the full movement interchanges at Brooke and Chase Creek and the other scope features that we’ve canvassed here today.

I’m just wondering if the minister could, again, confirm that there’s a CBA requirement attached to this project. Secondly, how will the ministry incorporate a community benefit agreement that’s anticipated to add an extra 7 percent of cost to this project if the project budget isn’t going to change and will remain at $199 million and if there won’t be any scope changes?

It would seem to me something has to give. Either the budget has to be lifted a bit or less cost has to be incurred in terms of scope, yet the minister has confirmed the budget will remain the same and the scope won’t change.

Could the minister provide some thoughts on those community benefit agreement questions that I’ve just posed, with respect to this project?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, our intention is that it will be a CBA project. As was mentioned, the Premier has made very clear that he would like to see all of the Trans-Canada four-laning projects be part of a CBA, so that is our intention.

As a result, we’re doing our due diligence on this. I’m wary about going into all the different levels of cost because, as the member is aware, that is going to go out for competitive bid. We are, as I say, doing due diligence. The budget remains the same, and that due diligence includes continuing doing some design work, engineering work and making sure that we are getting this right.

[4:15 p.m.]

The community benefits agreement is, we believe on this side of the House, a very worthwhile approach. It will benefit people in the member’s own constituency, because we’re looking at local hires and local training. If this is a community benefits agreement, as the intention is, it will be of great benefit to the member’s communities, as well as to the province as a whole. But we are still working with the existing budget. We’re still doing due diligence. We’re still anticipating a full tender.

T. Stone: If I understand the minister correctly, then, she’s suggesting that it is her ministry’s plan or government’s plan to tender these projects with the scope that we’ve talked about, ideally, recognizing that there will be some cost pressure on these projects or at least added expectations relating to the community benefit requirements, which will add some additional costs that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.

Is it the minister’s hope that the tender process will result in contractors sharpening their pencils to make up the difference, so as not to result in scope reduction or in the minister having to go back to Treasury Board for approval for a budget lift? Is that what I’m hearing — that she’s confident that the tenders will come in for less than what the ministry has previously projected they would be?

I’ll back up. The context for this is I went through this exercise over and over and over. I get it. The costs go up and down, particularly in relation to First Nations engagement and so forth. I understand fully that whether a four-lane project comes in at $10 million a kilometre or $12 million a kilometre can depend on a lot of different factors. Even a hot economy and lots of projects and scarce contractors, as a result, can lift the price of the bids that come in.

At the end of the day, the ministry, in my experience there, never put together…. When I was sent out behind a podium and I announced a project with a dollar value, the ministry was signing off on that number with a very high level of assurance and some buffer built in, so as not to find myself or the ministry in a position months or years down the road of blowing the budget and therefore having to reduce scope or go back to Treasury Board and ask for more money.

If the scope isn’t going to change and the budget isn’t going to change, is the minister saying that she’s relying on…? In light of an added 7 percent cost that’s related to the CBA requirement, is she saying that she’s counting on the contractors, the folks who bid on these projects, really sharpening their pencils and putting in proposed project values that fit within that $199 million?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re taking all this into consideration. There’s absolutely no question. The advantage of a member having been in this position is that he knows the hard work that the ministry and the ministry staff do in preparing project budgets, in getting to that position of putting a project out to tender — announcing it and putting it out to tender.

It is very important that we be aware of all contingencies. I think that the ministry staff — I know that the member opposite supports me in this — do extraordinary work to get to that position. They are doing that at the moment. Whether it is, as we were talking earlier, about engaging with community, engaging with Indigenous communities, it is all part of getting ready.

We’re doing the due diligence on the technical side, continuing to work through all the scope and to make sure that it is ready. We do want to have, obviously, good bids. We would love it if those who want to bid on it are sharpening their pencils, are aware of this and are ready to come in with good bids. But this is something that as a ministry, as the member is well aware, we take into consideration. We anticipate that everything will be ready, with a budget in place, for full tender.

T. Stone: Well, I guess we wish the ministry good luck and hope that the ministry is successful at receiving some pretty spectacular bids on this, because I just don’t…. I have started and run several businesses. I’m a former tech CEO. I understand my way around financial statements. I was the minister for four years. I just don’t see how you can take a project that four years ago was estimated at $199 million and say that in today’s dollars….

If you apply even a very modest discount rate to that $199 million value from four years ago, you’re probably, in today’s dollars, talking about $220 million. You take that factor, coupled with, likely, a 7 percent cost escalation related to the community benefits requirement components…. We can agree to disagree on whether that makes sense or not, but I’m just trying to run the numbers here.

Then you layer on top of that no scope changes from what has been the ministry’s intentions, for the better part of the last four years, with respect to this project and say it’s all going to continue to be delivered within the original budget, 2015 dollars — same budget, no budget lift, same scope and an added 7 percent cost for the community benefits.

[4:25 p.m.]

I fail to see how the minister would believe that this is going to be accomplished simply because she expects good bids, as she said, to come in from contractors. I will leave it there insofar as my concern for this project. Obviously, we’ll all be paying very close attention and hope that if the minister does get…. Maybe I’ll phrase this as a question.

If the ministry finds itself in a place where, because we’re talking about a 2015 project estimate budget; because we’re talking about no changes in the scope and the importance of that for the community that this project would really impact and serve; because the minister and her government would likely continue to be committed to the community benefits requirement component…. If the ministry finds itself in a place where, because of the added 7 percent costs that the community benefits agreement will result in on this project, that drives up the overall project cost beyond the $199 million project budget….

I would like to know if the minister can assure the people of Kamloops–South Thompson, and British Columbians generally, that her choice in those circumstances will not be to reduce the scope of the project in any way but rather to lift the budget, if necessary, to make sure that this project is delivered as originally spec’d, to meet the needs of all of the people that will be depending on the ministry and the government to actually build the right project that will best suit the southern Interior and folks who live along the Trans-Canada Highway east of Kamloops.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I don’t want to speculate about the outcome of this. As I mentioned in my previous questions, staff are doing due diligence on all aspects of the project. That means they’re continuing to consult with the community and with Indigenous groups about the design of it, doing the technical and the engineering work-ready. Part of the due diligence is assessing the community benefit aspect. They’re working to the current budget and doing the due diligence around the current budget.

I have every faith in the public servants doing the work and doing that due diligence to make sure that the people of British Columbia get a project that really reflects what is needed, that meets the requirements of both the community of Chase, the member’s constituents, and the people of B.C.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Trans-Canada, as we all know, is an important piece of highway, and we want to make sure that the four-laning is done and is done in a way that benefits everyone in B.C. Again, that comes back to why our government is using, where possible, the community benefits agreement, because we see that as an added benefit to the people of B.C.

With that, I’m wondering if we could take a five-minute break.

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

The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Stone: I just have one final question for the minister that relates to the Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain Trans-Canada four-laning project, and that would be this.

I was certainly very proud when I was the minister and we delivered on the previous segment at Hoffman’s Bluff itself, as well as Monte Creek to Hoffman’s Bluff. One of the reasons I was really proud of that project was: my understanding all along was that we always had a very significant level of Indigenous workforce participation on the project. I believe — the minister can check with her staff; they will know for sure, because they always gave me the current number — that we were often well in excess of 30 percent Indigenous workforce participation on these segments, which is great.

For the Neskonlith Band, the Adams Lake, Little Shuswap, Kamloops, Skeetchestn — all of the First Nations in the area — if you wanted to work on these projects, you were going to be able to get a job. In part, that was because it was a priority in the ministry, but it was also a priority for the contractors, who really have developed a culture — the companies that I have in mind, in particular — of building strong relationships with Indigenous peoples and First Nation communities to ensure that those opportunities can be well tapped into by those Indigenous folks.

[4:45 p.m.]

With that context, and now with a community benefit agreement requirement wrapped around the project, I’m just wondering if the minister could address a couple points. What is the ministry’s target for Indigenous employment on these Trans-Canada projects? There must be a target. We were somewhere around 30 percent on the previous project, so I would assume the targets are higher. What is that target? And at what intervals will the ministry be measuring against that target and reporting out on the achievement or where the ministry is actually at in delivering on those targets?

I ask this because it’s been one of the key components of this community benefit agreement requirement. The minister and the Premier and others in government have said these community benefit agreements are needed to really drive more women’s employment, which is great, and more Indigenous employment — certainly, local employment. Every contractor will tell you their number one priority is to hire local if they can, and then you kind of go out from there.

I really want to hone in on the Indigenous peoples aspect of this, because I think that there’s tremendous opportunity for Indigenous peoples and the contractors to continue to deliver world-class projects working in partnership. But in order to do that, you need to have some targets. So I’m wondering, again, if the minister could advise: as part of the community benefit agreement requirement, what is the target for Indigenous employment on the Trans-Canada projects from Kamloops to the Alberta border?

I’m assuming they’re all going to be bound in one community benefit agreement. The minister could clarify if I’m wrong on that. What is the target, and how is the minister going to be measuring against those targets? And at what intervals will the performance be articulated or released to the public so that we can measure the success of the community benefit requirement, insofar as Indigenous employment is concerned?

With that, I will thank the minister and all of the staff for their professional courtesy today and a job well done.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to correct the record: as I understand it, there never has been a target. There has always been a desire to ensure that Indigenous groups have strong representation, and the high level of workforce, I think, is to be applauded on the previous project. But there hasn’t actually been a specific target.

I’ve got to say that our government’s approach…. We have the CBA, but the CBA is among many other approaches that we have with Indigenous peoples. We’ve talked very openly about the U.N. declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, of ensuring that those principles are embraced by government and the work that we do. Likewise, the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ensure that those are embraced as we work on true reconciliation….

This ministry, as the member is very well aware, has a lot of direct opportunity of working with Indigenous peoples, and when we do, it really is terrific. Whether that is…. The relationships are very different, depending on the project, but there are direct opportunities for Indigenous groups. There are the benefit agreements. There are accommodation agreements. There are many different levels, depending on the Indigenous community, depending on the location, and depending on what that community wants. On top of this, now we have community benefits agreements, so it’s yet another level which gives priority to Indigenous workers. So when we’re talking about the….

I stand up here very regularly and talk about, with great pride, our community benefits agreement, the fact that we are going to be dealing with the skills shortage, training people, training women and other groups that are not regularly represented. The first people at that table are Indigenous, the First Nation workers. So that is going to be the first level of hire. This is going to be the first level for when we’re talking about dealing with that skills shortage, the level of apprenticeships, and so on.

[4:55 p.m.]

While there has never been a target, I think our approach of embracing reconciliation, working on that and building in the community benefits agreement on top of everything else that this ministry has been doing for many years has been breaking ground and doing it. I think the member would recognize that — that this ministry has been working with Indigenous communities for a long while and building in that good relationship. This is another layer, another step and, I think, really another benefit for the communities and for the province.

T. Stone: I told you that I would have one more question. The minister is correct in saying that there was not a target, previously, for Indigenous employment on, certainly, the Trans-Canada Highway projects that I’m referring to here. The 30 percent number that I referenced in my last question was, again, unless I’m corrected…. The people that know the answer are with you. My understanding is we were around the 30 percent mark most of the time on those projects — 30 percent Indigenous employment.

That wasn’t a target. That was what we were achieving on an ongoing basis, which is great. We all agree that that’s good. Continued work with Indigenous peoples, First Nations communities, to ensure that every single person in those communities that wants to work on these projects is given the opportunity to get the training and become engaged in this work is a good thing.

What I didn’t hear in the minister’s response is that in the context of a community benefits agreement requirement on these projects, which have primarily been sold to the people of British Columbia as a necessity in order to drive more employment opportunities for women and Indigenous peoples, in part, one would then be led to believe that there must be targets in order to measure the success. If you’re going to layer an additional minimum 7 percent cost onto a project, and a large part of the reason you’re doing that is to drive more employment with Indigenous peoples and women, surely there must be some targets that the ministry will be seeking to achieve that will be a part of this community benefits agreement.

That’s the piece that I didn’t hear in the minister’s last response. Are there actual targets for Indigenous employment on this project that will be part of this community benefits agreement? If not, why not? If yes, what is the ministry’s target for Indigenous employment related to this particular project? Recognizing, again, that that has been one of the primary selling points all along that the government has wanted to point British Columbians to as the reason that these community benefits agreements are required.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To explain to the member a bit about the CBA hiring process and the CBAs…. Though, yes, the CBA, obviously, is to ensure that we have Indigenous people having the opportunity to have training and work, as well as other equity-seeking groups, it is taking it to the next stage. It is also dealing with the skills shortage and with apprenticeships. Through the CBA, we are increasing opportunities.

The hiring process is done to prioritize Indigenous hires. We, obviously, work with First Nations on the capacity, but we are looking at how we can increase opportunity. That’s really part of the CBA.

The hiring process. You have the accommodation agreements, but the CBA has several levels. The first people to be hired are local First Nations. So in an example like the member is talking about…. In the previous project — similar First Nations, the same Indigenous peoples working on the projects — we would anticipate that they would be hired. Initially, the hiring process, under the CBA, is, first, qualified First Nations, then other equity-seeking groups and then other local people.

If we can’t find enough people through that…. It is a hot market, and we know there’s a lot of construction happening, including our work on the Trans-Canada and our work in the Lower Mainland and so on. So if you can’t find enough people locally, within that 100 kilometre frame, you go regionally. Again, it’s first regional First Nations, then equity-seeking groups and then other local people. If that doesn’t fill the pool — I believe on this project it would — you get to B.C.-wide. Again, those three tiers.

The purpose of the CBA, as I say, is to ensure that we do maximize opportunities for First Nations, for women and for other equity-seeking groups, to deal with the skills shortage and, really, to invest in those local hires and in First Nations when we are building our infrastructure. So we’re not just building that infrastructure. We are building up the capacity of Indigenous peoples throughout this.

[5:05 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the onset here. When you first took the floor, Minister, you…. It seems like hours ago. Oh, it was. You mentioned Rider Express coming through Golden. I’m pleased to hear that. I’m looking forward to our meeting, which seems to be a moving target these days, about the north-south thing. We’ll figure it out, and we’ll get that all sorted as well. Good to hear about Rider Express, because it will take a little bit of angst away.

I want to talk a little bit, of course, about the Trans-Canada Highway. It seems that in my riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke, I have the smallest sections of improvements but the most expensive that go along with that — from 4.5 kilometres, approximately, in the Kicking Horse to the one I want to talk about today, which is about 2.5 kilometres. That, of course, is the Illecillewaet section.

Just to start off and kick this off, if the minister wouldn’t mind confirming that the Illecillewaet brake check and the four-laning project is proceeding in 2019 and when the start date will likely occur.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. Yes, good news about Rider Express. It’s interesting, because we were talking to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and concerns about Chase and Sorrento not getting stops. We looked at the schedule, and they’re not mentioned on the schedule, whereas Golden is mentioned on the schedule. So added surety there, but we will follow up for the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

On Illecillewaet. Yes, we received the bids — closed last week. We have the bids. The ministry staff are doing due diligence on those bids, and we anticipate a summer start on the project.

D. Clovechok: Well, that’s great news.

Just a quick question on the concept of scope. Has there been any significant change in the scope of the project? I believe it was going to go from a five-truck stop to around a 15-truck accommodation there with acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes associated with that. I want to check in on that scope. Has that pretty much stayed the same? No changes?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the scope is the same as that which was tendered. It is four-laning two kilometres, and then we’re upgrading the brake check at Illecillewaet, significantly expanding the capacity for commercial vehicles, which is very important. We hear this a lot from truckers. So it’s expanding the capacity, and also we’re going to be improving bathroom facilities and lighting, which, again, is very important for people who are trucking and need to stop. It’s something that you hear a lot about. So yup, same scope as in the bid.

[5:10 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: To the minister, thanks. I know the industry will be happy with that, as well as the folks that travel along the Trans-Canada Highway on their way to the Shuswap or to the Okanagan for the holidays, so the trucks can pull off and do what they need to do.

The minister just confirmed that you’ve received the project tenders. That’s great. I’m wondering if you can confirm for us today what the value of the low bid for the project was.

Hon. C. Trevena: This is all on B.C. Bid. The low bid comes in at $51.5 million. It is an unverified bid. As I mentioned in my preceding answer, staff are doing due diligence on this to go through the bids that have come in — literally, do the due diligence they do on every bid before it goes out, when it comes in, to make sure that the people of B.C. are getting real value for money.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer.

The next question I have…. Will the minister confirm the original budget for the project that was announced back in the spring of 2017, if you wouldn’t mind?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member. The budget that was announced with, in fact, the press release announcing it’s going out to tender is $62.9 million, of which $15.5 million is coming from the federal government.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer. But I don’t believe that that was — certainly, correct me if I’m wrong — the announcement that was made in 2017 in Revelstoke by the member for Shuswap, where he announced that it was a $35 million budget, $19.5 million coming from the province and the $15.5 million from Canada. So I just wanted to confirm that was the announcement that was actually made in Revelstoke in 2017, not the figure that I was just given.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I am advised that in 2015, it was still very early in the process to be making such announcements, to say what the value would be. After the an­nounce­ment, we were still doing some engineering work in the area and a lot of geotechnical work. As the member is aware, there are a lot of issues that keep geotechs well occupied in his constituency.

That geotechnical work found there was acid rock, which is very problematic. So the design had to be modified after the very early announcement was made. That is why there is a reflection of an increased provincial budget — early announcement, lots of issues of the geotechnical problems that needed to be addressed.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that, Minister. I believe I heard the minister say 2015. It was actually 2017. But if I misheard you, then I apologize. Let’s just go with that number. You’re quite correct. This is a moving target. There’s no question about that.

Let’s use that original 2017 funding announcement, which was made by the member for Shuswap on behalf of the then Minister of Transportation, in his stead. It’s a $35 million budget. I believe you just said that the total estimated project now is $62.9 million, from $35 million, which is about a 47 percent price escalation, based upon acid rock.

I’m wondering why that has gone up as much as it has. Forty-seven percent is a significant increase. I’m wondering why that is and if this has anything to do with the CBA agreement. If you could shed some light on that, we would really appreciate it.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. I beg to differ. I’m with the ministry staff. The ministry staff know when the initial announcement was made. They do convince me, and they have even shown me a press release that says August 1, 2015. But that’s fine. Okay. The member accepts that.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’ve got to say that because that was early and because there was further investigation and because geotechnical problems were found that did require extensive design changes in the project…. There were a suite of changes, including the need now for walls that hadn’t been there, and walls that include concrete and steel are expensive. There was a suite of changes that needed to be made because of the geotechnical work that was done after the announcement. I mean, that’s really what bumped up the cost.

We are building CBA into budget pricing. CBA is our preference. This is something that we were aware of, and we don’t want anyone to be surprised by the fact that we are looking at as many projects as possible to be included in the community benefits approach. As I say, it hires local people. It trains local people. It ensures we’re dealing with the skills shortage. It ensures that people in Revelstoke will get the benefits of this project, not just while they’re doing the project but long term, because there’ll be well-trained skilled labour as well as skilled tradesmen.

D. Clovechok: Minister, I was wrong once last year. It’s happened to me again this year. It was 2015. It was my mistake, so I do apologize for that and recognize that.

Just on the math itself. I accept the answer around the new $62.9 million and the changing landscape on what you’ve just said. I’m just wondering, though, if you’re on budget…. So $62.9 million…. I’m assuming that the $15.5 million is still coming from the feds. I’m getting a head nod, so that’s a good thing. I believe, then, $47.4 million kind of works out to what the province is doing.

If you could just explain to me, then. Since 2015 to 2019, today, that’s a significant increase. Where will the province be getting that money from? It wasn’t initially budgeted for. Is that in the budget this year?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, it is in this year’s budget, the 2019-20 budget.

D. Clovechok: Let’s talk a little bit about the training and the CBA agreement. The previous speaker, the former minister, had mentioned that about 30 percent of the working force, the labour force, that were in projects in British Columbia, especially associated with the Trans-Canada Highway, were already First Nations employees. They were given the first opportunity at all levels, skilled or unskilled, and some training.

I’m wondering if the minister would explain how the CBA agreement is going to take it…. It’s supposed to enhance and create more jobs and more opportunities, which is great, especially for the First Nations communities that I serve. I’m wondering how the CBA…. What strategies are you going to be putting in place, as an old college guy — the training and so on? How are you going to increase that number, which was already 30 percent of the employees?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to give the member some certainty about the budget figures, it is in the budget and fiscal plan, page 48, bold, because it’s new. The figure, anticipated total cost, is $63 million. So it’s $62.9 million, rounded up.

What the community benefits agreement does…. We continue to have accommodation agreements with Indigenous peoples. First Nations will have accommodation agreements with us, and that’s what we have seen and used in the past. There has been some Indigenous hire.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

What the community benefits agreement does is two things. It builds on that, but even more than that, it creates the first opportunity to Indigenous people.

The first hires at a community benefits agreement project are Indigenous. If there can’t be enough local Indigenous people, so people from the Revelstoke area, we go to, then, local equity-seeking groups, as they’re described — that’s women and other people who don’t traditionally get work — and then other local hire. If there’s still not enough of a pool there, it goes to regional — First Nations first, then equity-seeking groups, then other working people. Then if that isn’t enough, we go to the B.C.-wide. So it’s spreading the net, and each time, it is Indigenous people who get the first opportunity.

We’ve had some good success with accommodation agreements, but this is a much more formalized way of ensuring that we can create opportunities for Indigenous people in a way that they may not have had that opportunity before. It’s a way that we will be building not just the opportunity to work, but there is the opportunity for training, too, whether it is just general training or red seal training. We want to build up the number of apprentices, we want to build up the skilled workforce, and we want to give Indigenous people that opportunity. That’s why they are first on the list for hires through community benefit agreement projects.

[5:35 p.m.]

I think it builds on what we as a province are doing with Indigenous people, with the real need to deal with the issues brought through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with the principles of the U.N. declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, which are embedded in the work that we’re doing. Every single cabinet minister has that responsibility in their mandate letter. This is one way that we are able to truly effect it, by actually having people first up, first hires, through that formalized community benefits agreement.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I’m just going to make the assumption that those first hires will be either status, non-status or Métis. Maybe if you could answer that just directly.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s Indigenous peoples, non-discriminatory. Indigenous peoples.

D. Clovechok: I actually agree with you on that, but there is the status. Be it right or be it wrong, it’s a reasonable question.

Also, I want to talk a little bit about what you just mentioned, the expansion area. I could talk forever about the training. How are you going to do that? Who have you talked to? Have you talked to College of the Rockies? Have you talked to Selkirk? But we’re not going to go there. Maybe later on next week we can chat about that.

The scope of the hiring that you just mentioned is interesting. If the work pool is locally not large enough, you expand, and that’s a good vision. My question, then, would be: would the 100-mile rule apply to this project? Or 100 kilometres, sorry. I’m still thinking in miles. The 100-kilometre rule.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s the 100-mile diet you’re thinking of. But yeah, the 100-kilometre rule will still operate for this project, from its location out — Revelstoke, Golden, other way.

D. Clovechok: Just so I’m clear, then, the expansion to a First Nation Indigenous person in Vancouver…. If that pool is not large enough, they would be exempt from applying for this position if that 100-kilometre-rule applied.

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned, we start off local — we’re talking a 100-kilometre range — Indigenous first, equity groups second and general pool of workforce third. If that doesn’t fill the workforce, we go to a wider pool, a more regional pool. I know 100 kilometres seems regional but a broader, maybe a southern B.C. pool that is looking at…. Again, first call is Indigenous, then women and other equity-seeking groups, and thirdly, general workforce.

If we still are finding that we are not filling the jobs, we go B.C.-wide — again, B.C. Indigenous peoples, whether it’s from Port Hardy, wanting to work out in the Revelstoke area or Fort Nelson. It’s B.C.-wide Indigenous first, equity-seeking groups, women and others, and then the general workforce. At each level, from the first 100-kilometre radius regional level and then the broader B.C. level, Indigenous comes first in each opportunity.

This is on top of the other opportunities that we’re giving through accommodation agreements, benefits agreements and other practices of our ministry when we’re working with Indigenous peoples. For instance, if we’re doing some archeological work, it’s obviously hiring Indigenous peoples to do that. That isn’t part of the community benefits agreement.

That’s one of the real joys about it. It’s on top of that. It’s doing that training, and I know the Minister of Advanced Education would be very happy to talk to the member about what the different colleges are going to be offering and how we’re going to be building up that apprenticeship and making sure that we get that skill training and apprentices in place.

[5:40 p.m.]

I know the member is passionate about Selkirk College for right reasons, so I think that we will….

Interjection.

Hon. C. Trevena: Oh sorry, the College of the Rockies. I apologize.

I’m sure he would have a very good conversation with the Minister of Advanced Education about how that’s all going to fall into place.

D. Clovechok: It’s great. I look forward to a conversation with the Advanced Ed Minister.

Just so I get my head around this 100-kilometre rule. If there’s a young woman in Vancouver, and the pool’s already been expanded to First Nations, and so on and so forth…. If that young woman in Vancouver wants to move to Golden to work on this project, she’s going to be allowed to do that.

Hon. C. Trevena: First, I’d like to correct the record. I’ve been saying that we do this locally and then regionally and then B.C. It is actually locally in 100 kilometres, then B.C., then the three western provinces and then Canada. That’s how it is spread out.

However, for the 100 kilometres, to answer the member’s question…. The person who is wanting to take the job, if they move from Vancouver to Golden, would have had to live in Golden for six months. There is a residency requirement of six months to qualify for the 100 kilometres in that.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer.

Noting the hour, I will move on and come back to this on Monday, if that’s okay with the minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.