Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. In section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

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 2:48 p.m.

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

J. Sturdy: Nice to see you, Minister and staff, again, back in the House here.

I think we just want to try and wrap up a little bit here with the rural highway piece. Just a few sort of general questions. I understand that historically, the projects, in terms of side road rehabilitation…. The metrics on it were the number of projects or kilometres covered in a given year. The minister indicated that that was going to change to an as-needed basis versus the 30 projects or 500 kilometres per year of side road rehabilitation.

[2:50 p.m.]

The minister is looking quizzically at me, so perhaps she’s not familiar with those metrics. Fundamentally, I suppose, how many projects or kilometres were covered in side road rehabilitation improvements in the ’18-19 fiscal?

Hon. C. Trevena: Under the former government’s plans — obviously, we’ve developed our own plans; we’re not following the former government’s plans, because we are a new government — there was the aim of doing approximately 500 kilometres of highway. In the last year, we completed 741 kilometres of highway.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. Could the minister break that down into various regions? I think there are four highway regions in the province. Could you break that 741 kilometres down into where that took place?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s safe to say that in every region of the province there was investment in side roads. If the member does want a breakdown, we can get back to him in writing.

J. Sturdy: Yes. That’d be great if we could be provided with the number of side roads, specifically, that were resurfaced in what regions in the province.

The 741, to follow up — was that side road rehabilitation, or did that include provincial highways?

Hon. C. Trevena: It was all side roads.

J. Sturdy: How many kilometres of provincial highways were resurfaced?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Under the rehab category, there are 514 kilometres. That’s 1,310 lane-kilometres. That is just rehab. That’s not any other works that we’re doing. Major projects aren’t rehab, but road building, highway building, obviously would extend that.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister provide us with the same breakdown, in terms of regions, where those 1,310 lane-kilometres ended up happening? Did that include concessions — for example, the Sea to Sky Highway?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, we will provide the member that information. We’re just going through it, whether there might be some on Sea to Sky. We’ll provide the member that information in writing.

J. Sturdy: Would the minister also provide us with the value of those 1,310 kilometres, in terms of the cost to the taxpayer for how much it costs to resurface that number of kilometres?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s $146 million.

J. Sturdy: I take it that the $146 million would not include concession resurfacing.

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s correct.

J. Sturdy: How does that compare with the number of kilometres resurfaced in the previous year? What’s the forecast for this year?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Bearing in mind the time constraint we have, I just wanted to let the member know that we’re still trying to track down that number but, again, letting him know that we are at the moment doing our spring assessment for what rehabilitation and repair work needs doing. There’ll be a list compiled. When we have that list, obviously, funding is allocated to it, but the funding is consistent with previous years. There’s absolutely no reduction in funding.

J. Sturdy: Okay. So it will be consistent — ’17-18, ’18-19, ’19-20 — in terms of the budget of $146 million that will be expended? Is that what I’m hearing the minister saying — give or take? Then what I’d be really interested in is how that relates to kilometres resurfaced — how it relates to the amount of money we’re spending versus the amount of kilometres covered.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, the dollar figure is consistent. As he’s very well aware, B.C. is a very vast and diverse province. I’m not going to specify the kilometres. If you’re doing work on one of the arterial roads in the Lower Mainland or you’re working on Highway 37, it’s different as to the amount of work that you can do. As I mentioned in my previous answer, we are doing our spring assessment at the moment. We’ll have a list compiled, which we can later on share with the member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. I’ll look forward to receiving that.

Last year the minister mentioned that there were 2,900 structures, including bridges, culverts, retaining walls, etc., which the government inspects on an annual basis — which is a significant number, certainly. I see that in the highways maintenance section of the ministry website, it references 2,800. Is that just an oversight, or are there some pieces of that infrastructure that are inspected and managed by somebody else?

Hon. C. Trevena: Well spotted. There are 2,933 bridges, culverts and structures inspected annually. We still stick by that figure. However, the 2,800 number doesn’t include the concessionary ones. As the member is well aware, there are lots of bridges, retaining walls and everything along the Sea to Sky and other concessionary pieces of highway.

J. Sturdy: Yeah, I suspected something along those lines.

Last year with regard to fires, the minister noted: “When there is a fire, this impacts the soil. It impacts the stability, and it changes the land. There is a potential for more erosion. We want to be able to go in there and make real repairs rather than…patch it up and have problems in the future. We’re working with our colleagues in other ministries to ensure those repairs, but we are very conscious of the impacts that the fires have had, and we’ll be working to try to mitigate them into the spring.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Given that set of circumstances and another issue last summer, could the minister let the House know what specific steps, what actual steps have been taken by her ministry? What cross-ministry discussions and actions have taken place to mitigate such erosion occurrences?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s following up a little bit on our discussion of last week, I believe, on building resilience into the infrastructure. That has become a priority for the ministry. This is now really a standard of building bigger and better, preparing for the likely climate change, the culverts and so on.

There are a couple of things that we’re doing specifically. We are doing a lot of active monitoring. We are, then, doing extra work on clearing culverts, making sure that areas are free of debris. There’s a lot of work being done there. There is working with other ministries, such as Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, on making sure that the high-priority areas are…. I was going to say protected. But we are working in conjunction with them, whether it is on clearing culverts or ditch clearing or revegetating slopes where there has been a fire or, again, a flood, because we, obviously, also know the problems of slides.

[3:15 p.m.]

We are also working with the federal government, through the DFA, for mitigation work. So the federal government will give a certain amount of dollars, a certain percentage of dollars, to look at how we can mitigate and prevent future problems. We are maximizing that availability too, to ensure that we are looking to the future there.

J. Sturdy: Is there an actual budget that has been allocated for this type of work, for the issue of extra cleaning, for reveg or for whatever else — cooperation, identifying high-priority areas, this sort of thing? Is there any actual budget associated with that?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I explained to the member for Cariboo North last week — she was asking about the fires and culvert replacement, and so on — it is impossible to put a dollar figure on this, because it comes from a number of different budget lines. Some comes from maintenance. Some comes from rehabilitation. Some comes from side roads. There are also the federal dollars that we get.

It isn’t a specific amount allocated to climate change resiliency. It is pulled together from our other budgets when we know that we need to do the work, whether it’s done through rehab or through the maintenance contractor or whatever it is. It’s built into the budgets.

We are looking at all our work now through a climate change lens, with the need to build resilient infrastructure. It is just part of our general thinking as a ministry.

J. Sturdy: Okay. I guess we had expected that there was going to be an allocation towards the issue of mitigation and prevention and the impacts of climate change versus trying to cobble things together within existing budgets. But we’ll move on.

Just one question specific to my region in terms of highways. We have a road in the north part of my region called the Highline Road. Would the minister let me know if there’s an actual technical classification, or is there a number? I understand there’s a road classification matrix. I wonder if the minister could make that available to me, and could the minister identify what the Highline Road is classified as?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d first off like to disagree with the member. We don’t cobble together spending on climate change resilience. This is something that’s very important to the ministry. We’ve seen devastating floods, devastating forest fires. We make sure that there are dollars on hand to deal with that resiliency when we’re rebuilding.

To the member’s question about the Highline Road: basically, with 47,000 kilometres of highway, each road and each section of the road is classed on a usage and volume basis. We can get back to the member about the specific classification on that specific piece of highway, but it is classed on the use of the road and the volume of use of the road.

J. Sturdy: The ministry doesn’t have the current classification on hand. Is that what I’m hearing?

Hon. C. Trevena: Right at this moment, no, the staff do not have it. That is to say, we have 47,000 kilometres of highway, and different sections of the different 47,000 kilometres have different classifications. We’re not able to say what Highline Road is classified as right at this moment, but we can get back to the member and let him know.

J. Sturdy: Thank you. I’d certainly appreciate that.

[3:25 p.m.]

In terms of resiliency and cobbling together, one would imagine that if it were a real focus, then there would be a focused budget. Otherwise, it comes from here and there and in bits and pieces. I think we all understand what the definition is there.

The Highline is a MOTI responsibility, but there are many other communities across the province that are very much reliant on the road system — often FLNR roads, as I’m sure the minister is well aware.

I could use an area in my region that is perhaps emblematic of it, a road called the In-SHUCK-ch Forest Service Road. There are three First Nations communities — Samahquam, Skatin and Tipella — that are reliant on that road. There’s Blackwater Road, there’s Miller Bench Road, and there’s Squamish Valley Road. All of these are FLNR roads that all have significant populations adjacent to them.

My understanding, and I’d love to hear the specifics if the minister has them available, is that the contribution that MOTI makes to the maintenance of those roads — somewhere between 150 and 200 kilometres of road, some of which have contractors or prime tenure holders, and some that don’t — is about $85,000.

As I think the minister well understands, the standards to which industrial users use these roads are not the standards which communities feel are needed. In fact, in one case, the In-SHUCK-ch Forest Service Road, we’ve got a First Nation running a school bus all year round on that road and relying on snow clearing, dust control and grading.

I think the minister would understand that $85,000 in that kind of situation is not a particularly significant amount. I guess I’m not looking for an answer here, so much as more generally: is the ministry in discussions with FLNR and others to look for solutions to some of these remote communities and the challenges that these communities face, recognizing that the interests of those communities are not well served, exclusively by the resource tenure holder?

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. You’ve got everybody talking about this “cobbling together” piece, where everybody is really concerned that that’s what the member takes away from it, when we actually do take a comprehensive look in our planning when we’re doing any work — and looking provincewide.

It really is building this into everything that we’re doing, as I mentioned. Whether it’s rehabilitation or expansion, we are considering climate change. It wouldn’t be appropriate to have a separate pot that just says: “That will deal with climate change.” It is in everything. I think it is in everything that a lot of people are looking at. The analogy that’s given is if you are doing a seismic upgrade for a school, you’re also doing…. You may be building new. You may be building extra classrooms or what have you, but this is built in.

To answer the member’s previous question about the Highline Road, it is a 6D. That is not a shoe size; it is a road. On the forest service road, I understand the member’s concern about communities at the end. I, in my constituency, have Indigenous communities and other communities living on forest service roads and expecting the same quality of roads that everybody else has. But they are forest service roads. They are maintained by Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Our ministry does invest $900,000 across the province in forest service roads. Whether it’s in the member’s constituency…. I know in my constituency…. I know that the member for Mid-Island–Pacific Rim has some communities on forest service roads. I think right across the province, there are communities, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, along forest service roads, most of whom feel that they are not getting the quality of road that they would like to have. It is a Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development issue, so I would suggest that the member also canvass this in the estimates of FLNRORD.

J. Sturdy: Okay. Well, $900,000 for…. I think there’s something in the neighbourhood of 1 million kilometres of FLNR roads. But that wasn’t really the question. The question was: has the ministry been in discussion with FLNR or other agencies as to how to better service these communities? Or is the minister suggesting that the responsibility for community access, now that the name has changed from FLNR to FLNRORD — that that responsibility is now the responsibility of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development?

[3:35 p.m.]

To say it again, is the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in discussions with the other ministries about how these communities can be better served?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. We’re often in discussion.

I’m sure the member is aware for his own roads. I know that for the roads in my constituency, there are road-user meetings bringing together the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, often the licensee and the communities and the Indigenous communities.

I know that is how it works in my constituency. I see it work in other constituencies in other parts of the province. It’s a constant conversation. We do invest in those roads, but they are the ultimate responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.

J. Sturdy: In our case, of the Sea to Sky, where we’re looking at 150-plus kilometres of roads to communities that these communities rely on, does the minister feel that $85,000 is an adequate contribution?

Hon. C. Trevena: I spent many years in opposition asking the Minister of Forests pretty well exactly what the member is asking me about the standard of forest service roads serving communities, and frustrated because…. You have a number of communities with people who are living there. Is there any access? You’ve got emergency services using it. You’ve got school buses using the roads.

There is that expectation from people that they want to be on a Ministry of Transportation standard, which, as we know, is a high standard, wider roads. You don’t get the off-road logging trucks and other vehicles on Ministry of Transportation roads. So I can understand the member’s frustration. These roads are built because they are Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operation roads. They are built to that standard.

We are working as a ministry to improve the standard with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. This is something that we are very cognizant about — that we do need to bring both ministries together to find out how the Ministry of Forests can potentially improve the standard when there are communities there, but also being cognizant that they are roads that were built for industrial use, for logging use primarily.

So it continues. Contributing to these roads is important for us. There are communities there. But we also have to look at the whole province and the needs of the whole province. We continue to contribute to Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development in their roads, but this is something that we have to weigh against other investments.

[3:40 p.m.]

L. Throness: I have a few questions about my riding, and I’m sure the minister will be able to help. Maybe she has travelled on Highway 9, the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge, which is an aging bridge. A couple of years ago there was an announcement that there would be seismic upgrades to that bridge of about $36 million. Really, nothing much has been done yet.

About 7,000 people live north of that bridge, and there is a lot of tourist and business traffic on that road. So it’s very important to them, because one lane will be blocked off for a period of two to three years. This is going to be a huge imposition on all those who live north of the bridge. So their MLA is very concerned about it.

I’m wondering, instead of asking questions today — specific, factual questions like cost, timeline, public consultations, results of engineering studies, which have been ongoing, and work — could the minister commit her staff to give me a transparent briefing of these issues on the bridge?

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to clarify for the member, there has been a contract awarded for the seismic work on the bridge. That is getting underway pretty well immediately. That’s a $2.6 million contract that, as I say, has been awarded, and that’s going to be upgrading the piers on the bridge. I know there is some discussion about a second phase.

Yes, ministry staff can give the member a briefing.

L. Throness: I would also ask the same about a roundabout just south of the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge. It was an early roundabout and really made that corner, which is a very dangerous intersection, much safer. But it has become too small. It’s inadequate for the traffic volume.

There are no appropriate places for large trucks to park. They’re parking everywhere. It’s a chaotic situation and an unsafe situation.

I’m wondering what the minister’s plans are to upgrade the roundabout and to deal with associated parking issues. Perhaps this could also be left to a briefing from staff, but I’m concerned about that roundabout.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Staff are aware of the problems that the member has raised. They are looking at them, and if it’s fine with member, it can be part of the briefing — looking at the bridge and the roundabout. But staff are well aware of the concerns.

L. Throness: Just one final question for the minister. The No. 1 is becoming potholed in a number of places on the No. 1 Highway between Chilliwack and the Mt. Lehman Road exit in Abbotsford. I would remind the minister that there are 19 million trips on this westbound portion of the highway, and it is becoming a safety issue where people swerve to avoid them. When will the ministry be doing some upgrades and improvements to this part of the highway?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re obviously very well aware that this is a heavily travelled corridor. Maintenance staff have been looking. We’re doing assessments of the level of potholes. I hear the member’s concerns. There are no safety issues. He can be guaranteed that there no safety issues, but there will be some significant patching work done to ensure that there is a smoother and, as they say in this ministry, more efficient ride through that section.

S. Gibson: A privilege to be here today. I think we all, as representatives here of our constituents, advance causes or things that are troubling to the folks that live in our ridings. I know the minister will not be surprised that I bring up the widening of Highway 1. It’s been a lament that she has heard a number of times.

People approach me in the community, and I guess they’re bewildered because they don’t really understand the criteria involved with regard to widening and not widening. Clearly, it’s a safety issue. If the minister has had the opportunity to go out to the highway, through Langley and Abbotsford in particular, she’ll notice extraordinary bottlenecks that are frustrating for travellers, expensive for commuters and irri­tating for truckers. I’m wondering what criteria might be involved.

As she will know, the previous government had plans in place, working with the federal government for funding and with the township of Langley in particular, but the whole enterprise seems to have ground to a halt — very frustrating for local people who have to leave the community and commute far distances along Highway 1. So my request is for maybe just a bit of an update on the criteria. What can local residents in Langley and Abbotsford expect in order that we might expedite this highly congested Trans-Canada Highway through our province?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member asked about criteria and what sort of criteria we use when we’re assessing where work is going to be. There is, obviously, a limited number of dollars available. The public purse isn’t never-ending. We have a lot of different priorities that we are looking at as a government. But the criteria when we’re looking at our highways…. Safety is, obviously, the first and foremost. Anything that we do on our highways, we’ve got to put safety as the number one. That goes without saying.

We also look, when we’re looking at whether or not we’re going to be expanding highways and working on highways, at mobility — people’s ability to move. It’s not just people in single-occupancy vehicles but buses and every other vehicle. Also important, obviously, is the commercial sector — that trucks can go. That is an issue.

I think part of that is traffic volume. I hear, obviously, and I’m very aware of the whole of Highway 1, basically out towards Chilliwack. I often hear from people concerned about this. So there is that.

We also look at greenhouse gas impacts. As I mentioned to the critic, everything we’re doing has a lens. We have to in this ministry, which is, sadly, such a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. We have a climate change lens and a greenhouse gas emissions lens when we are looking at our highway system and our investments in transportation through B.C.

As the member is aware, we are working at present on part of the Trans-Canada, on 202 to 216th. We’re working on that project, and we are in discussions with the federal government about the corridor.

S. Gibson: I appreciate the minister using the word “safety” in her remarks in response to my earlier queries. Clearly, safety is a concern when it’s brought to my attention by travellers who go along that route virtually every day.

[3:55 p.m.]

The minister will also know that there are bottlenecks there, which are safety factors where, especially in the wintertime, you’ll suddenly get a cluster of cars and rear-enders. It’s my understanding that safety issues have reached your desk, and there are some issues that are worthy of canvassing.

I think the other point I would like to make — and I appreciate this opportunity to speak today to this and ask the query — is that there are no alternatives to Highway 1. If you put on the traffic channel…. If you’re going into town or following that route into the Metro, there are no alternatives.

If somebody finds themselves in an accident, which is fre­quent along the highway…. The minister can get that information with ease from her staff. If there is an accident or bottleneck at 264th or 232nd, there’s no alternative. The cars just sit there, congested, polluting the air. Of course, trucks delivering — perhaps they have refrigerated goods — make it really problematic.

The 216th interchange, as the minister will know, is proceeding. It’s coming along well. However, that creates additional problems because the cars are now dumped onto Highway 1 in east-to-west direction, creating even more problems on the artery, which was built in 1962 for traffic for that era and which, of course, is vastly out of date.

The question that I would like to ask, on behalf of my constituents and also those in Langley township, is: when would the minister feel that that study would be completed? As you’ve mentioned, there is some studying going on. Likely, at least the bottlenecks on Highway 1 would be addressed, particularly at 264th and 200th, where the bottlenecks are the most problematic. The request is: when could those bottlenecks be addressed in preparation for rebuilding the entire highway between 208th and Whatcom?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think on one of the things that the member is frustrated about — the lack of options — I’d say that there are two alternatives to Highway 1. They’re not perfect. There’s Highway 7. We are working, reinvesting in Highway 7, at the moment, on four-laning much of Highway 7. That is underway. Also, around Langley, there’s, obviously, Highway 10.

[4:00 p.m.]

For the ministry, one of the things is to ensure that people are aware of potential problems and options that are available to them in any part of our road network. We’ve got the dynamic messaging system. That’s the big boards over the highway which will tell drivers where there may or may not be problems and inform drivers of alternatives and alternative routes.

There’s also social media, although I would plead with people not to check the mobile Drive B.C. on their phone as they are driving. But we do have social media that is very quick, very responsive to problems and directs people to alternate routes.

The member cites 200 Street, congestion there. The work that is being done on 216 at the moment should be dealing with that sort of congestion.

S. Gibson: I just want to thank the minister. Thank you for your interest in our area. Traffic circulation on Highway 1 is critical, and I want to thank you for anything you can do to improve the situation on Highway 1, particularly in Langley township and in Abbotsford.

I. Paton: To the Transportation Minister: I’m actually not going to talk about what you think I’m going to talk about. Shocking.

Interjections.

I. Paton: I might fit it in.

Going back a few years was the building of the treaty at Tsawwassen First Nation and the building of this massive mall, Tsawwassen Mills, Tsawwassen commons. And then Tsawwassen Springs is across the street. Before the mall actually went ahead and got built, they decided they needed to do some major upgrades to Highway 17.

Originally, Highway 17 at 52nd Street in Tsawwassen was 35 metres in width. At the end of the renovations, it became 60 metres in width. It went from five lanes to nine lanes in width. It takes — it’s been timed — an average person approximately 60 seconds to cross from Tsawwassen Mills across the street, nine lanes of traffic, to the other side to catch buses to go back to Richmond or Vancouver or Surrey, wherever.

Could I ask the Minister of Transportation if there is the possibility of an overhead pedestrian walkway to take place at that intersection of Highway 17 and 52nd Street in Tsawwassen?

One other thing I’ll add to this is, just for information, there are several pedestrian overpasses as examples. Such as, Highway 17A and Ladner Trunk Road is nine lanes, which has a pedestrian overpass for bicycles and wheelchairs. Upper Levels Highway, West Vancouver, five lanes wide, has a pedestrian overpass. Lougheed Highway at Dewdney Trunk Road in Coquitlam is only five lanes in width. However, they have a pedestrian overpass for bicycles and, I believe, for wheelchairs or scooters. Lougheed Highway at Shaughnessy Street in Port Coquitlam is seven lanes wide. They have a pedestrian overpass.

As I drive from Swartz Bay to downtown Victoria, I see endless pedestrian overpasses on the Pat Bay Highway — endless. I’m thinking that there are so many of them, why can’t we see one in Tsawwassen, going from the Tsawwassen mall across the street at Highway 17 and 52nd Street?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Member, the engineers and staff have done a number of traffic counts and pedestrian counts in the area and would like to assure the member that that is a safe crossing. It may be frustrating to time it for the minute, but it is something that has been revisited a number of times to make sure that it is safe. This is not new for us. We’re aware of it, but I definitely want to tell the member that it is a safe crossing.

If we were to build a pedestrian overpass, it is typically done through a cost-share arrangement. We have ministry staff who have talked to the municipality of Delta about this, also reaching out to Tsawwassen First Nation to talk about it. It would be something that would be cost-shared. There would be the discussion of the precise location of it.

This is something that ministry is exploring with Delta, with Tsawwassen First Nation. But, just to assure the member’s constituents and other people who are using that crossing to get to the buses, it is, according to our engineering staff, safe at the moment.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. My next question does move on to the George Massey Tunnel replacement.

I think I’d like to take credit for the 600,000 tonnes of sand terminology, because I actually went to a good friend of mine in the trucking industry that I went to school with that was part of the project. I said: “Could you estimate how much sand is actually piled up on the side of Highway 99?” He got together with some of his trucking buddies and came up with the figure of 600,000 tonnes. I think that’s where it, basically, came from.

The question I’m asking doesn’t really need an answer right at the moment. I have the farming community in Delta, which is currently planting cranberries. Traditionally, cranberries were planted in peat, and then they felt that sawdust was a good medium to plant cranberries in. But now they all want to plant cranberries in sand. They’re asking: if and when the sand is going to be removed, could that sand be made available to local farmers for cranberry planting?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Cranberries or using it for golfing? Unfortunately, it has actually been identified. It will be used on ministry projects. One of the ones that it will be used on is Highway 91/17. The preload has actually settled. I know that sometimes there has been such a rush to build that the preload hasn’t settled. In this case, the preload has settled, and it will be very valuable for other ministry projects.

I. Paton: I’ll throw, perhaps, two questions in one. Question 1 is: what is the timeline for removing all the sand on the side of Highway 99, on the Richmond side and the Delta-Surrey side?

For question 2, I’ll move on to something a little bit different. The former government’s Massey Tunnel replacement plan included plans for improvements to the 17A interchange, including a new bus stop. Currently, workers transiting to Tilbury Island, our big industrial area in Delta, from north of the Fraser have to take the bus all the way into Ladner and then all the way back up to River Road, adding at least 20 minutes to their daily commute. Will the $40 million temporary upgrades to the Massey Tunnel include a new bus stop at Highway 17A interchange to assist the many Tilbury workers struggling to commute to work from north of the Fraser every day?

Hon. C. Trevena: For the preload to be removed, we’re looking at possibly this fall — hopefully, no later than next spring — to stay well settled. As far as the member’s question about transit, transit options are being looked at as part of the improvements, in discussions, obviously, with community and with TransLink about the improvements to transit in the area.

I. Paton: Again, maybe I’ll throw a quick question in with the next one. When the Transportation Minister says, “In the next spring,” I’m thinking spring of 2020, not this current spring.

Hon. C. Trevena: For the project, if it’s 91/17, it will be removed…. We’re hoping for this fall. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be removed through the winter; it would be removed in the spring. But we’re anticipating that it will be this fall.

I. Paton: I guess the shortened question would be: will the new replacement of the George Massey Tunnel contain plans to…?

[4:15 p.m.]

Sorry. Has any thought been given to extending the Canada Line or putting rapid transit into the new crossing as a component of the replacement in the future?

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is well aware, in the report that Mr. Cowdell produced, he cited the very ade­quate levels of transit and that the proposed ten-lane bridge, at that time, was overbuilding transit.

The rapid bus is very popular and very successful at the moment, but that doesn’t preclude the fact that the question of transit is very much a part of the conversation when we’re looking at what the replacement will be. Obviously, we want to get people out of their cars and into transit as much as possible, for so many reasons — environmental as well as just the health and well-being of people.

We are talking — in the present discussions that are going forward, as well as continued discussions with TransLink. This is very much part of the conversation on the replacement.

I. Paton: My final question would be this. Already the George Massey Tunnel is the worst traffic bottleneck in B.C. It is very difficult for businesses to move goods and workers across the region as a result of this. If the Port of Vancouver’s Roberts Bank terminal 2 project moves forward, we could see hundreds of thousands of extra trucks on Delta roads within ten years. On the current timeline, there will be no Massey Tunnel replacement until at least 2030.

Do the potential disastrous effects of congestion or the potential closure of the tunnel due to an earthquake worry the minister?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Looking at the area south of the Fraser, I think the member is aware that, looking at it as a whole, yes, there is…. I understand peoples’ frustration about the Massey, but we are making safety improvements at the Massey. We already have the seismic warning system built into the tunnel. In the worst-case scenario of an earthquake, that would prevent traffic going into the tunnel in the event of a seismic event.

As I say, we look at the area as a whole. The member knows it very well. We’ve got the Alex Fraser Bridge there as another alternative, and we’ve been doing upgrades there. There is also the work that we’re doing on the 91/17. That will ease traffic there. We’ve removed the last signal on the 91/17, which has eased traffic. It is, in many ways, sort of a balancing act of trying to get traffic moving in different ways — through different corridors, through different highways and across either the Massey or Alex Fraser.

We used — I think successfully, but we continue to streamline the use — the dynamic messaging system that I was talking about earlier, which gives people early warning of where routes are clogged, where there could be potential problems, to give drivers the opportunity to choose which route to take as quickly as possible. We obviously have, also, mobile apps to do that. We continue to work, again, with TransLink to coordinate the different options.

Safety is number one. As the minister, I have to put safety number one and look at things through that lens. But I also look at things regionally, and we are trying to alleviate traffic congestion as a region as well as in the specific area.

T. Redies: I’m really surprised that my colleague from south Delta didn’t ask a question that I feel now very compelled to ask, being from South Surrey–White Rock, on behalf of my constituents of south Delta and North Delta, who, every day, are experiencing significant traffic jams at the George Massey. Frankly, the upgrades to the Alex Fraser are not going to help that significantly, particularly when you look at the building that is happening out in the South Surrey area.

The obvious question is…. To the minister: you’ve had the report since last summer. When we saw you in Surrey, you said you were undertaking consultations. When will the citizens of South Surrey, White Rock, North Delta and south Delta learn about what the solution is for the George Massey Tunnel?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We are right on schedule. In December, when I released the very, very comprehensive and very useful report from Mr. Cowdell on the overplanned and overbuilt bridge, one of the things we said was that there was going to be consulting with communities and with Metro board — with individual communities, including the member’s own, with White Rock and with Surrey as well as with Delta. This has been going underway, with finalizing this month, as was explained back in December, and that’s to get, really, to the fundamental options.

We will be starting our safety improvements in the area in the summer, and by this fall, we’ll have a shortlist of crossing options. I’m anticipating that that will be a short shortlist. I think everybody has had enough of talking about it, and they want to move on with it. We will have the business case, the long-term solution, by fall 2020, as was said in the news release back in December when we issued the, I think, very good analysis by Mr. Cowdell. I’m sure the member has read it and has appreciated it.

T. Redies: Thank you for the answer. I can tell you that the citizens south of the Fraser who have to use Highway 99 will be very glad to see what the government is putting forward, because these are the people whose lives are affected on this every day.

I’d like to change tack now and talk about another subject that’s very important to my community. Of course, I’ve been speaking with the minister about this for, probably, at least 18 months, I think — that is, the increasing number of trains carrying hazardous chemicals through the cities of White Rock and South Surrey along the BNSF line.

This is an issue of high risk to our community. We have many mudslides annually during the winter rainy season. We’ve had many undesirable emergencies or UDEs, far more than is normal for a rail line of this distance. Worse, and most concerning, we’ve had 20 people die on this line, including three people in the last five years — in particular, a young man who was 15 years old who lost his life on the rail line last summer.

Minister, as you know, the cities of White Rock and Surrey — and I’ve confirmed this with the current mayors, the new mayors — want to complete a feasibility study to look at the long-term options of moving the BNSF tracks. They’ve asked the federal and provincial governments to put up $300,000 each to support that study, but despite all the issues the communities are facing, and the risks, the province has not provided funding. Even funding under the emergency preparedness program was turned down.

[4:30 p.m.]

Minister, can you explain to me and my constituents why the Ministry of Transportation cannot find $300,000 to support the cities of Surrey and White Rock to ensure the safety of their citizens?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is well aware — we have met quite a lot and canvassed it quite a lot — and as the previous government indicated to the previous member from White Rock when they were in government, this is federal jurisdiction. It was federal jurisdiction under the former government, and it still is federal jurisdiction.

I know that the federal government held a working session. The member was there. It was to talk to MPs, First Nations, local MLAs and the community about safety. I believe that the member participated in that.

As I understand it, the federal government isn’t interested in being involved with this. We look at it very much as a federal government approach. There are various actions that came out of that meeting for the city of Surrey, for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and for the member and her federal MPs to have a look at.

[4:35 p.m.]

Really, it is…. I come back to the view of this government and, as I understand it, the former government — that it is a federal issue.

The member asked about emergency preparedness and the fact that there is no money available for that. That is a local government ask. Our ministry has worked very hard with the local governments in the area, preparing submissions for the federal government. If the local governments haven’t had a positive response, it is an issue to take up with the local governments — so the city of White Rock, the city of Surrey — to be taking those on.

I understand that there’s going to be a tabletop exercise this spring, if it has not already happened, about the area adjacent to the tracks on the Nicomekl River and Mud Bay. I know that this continues to be a discussion between Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Surrey and, obviously, White Rock. That is where the situation is at the moment.

With that, Mr. Chair, if I might beg a five-or-so-minute recess, I’d appreciate it.

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

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Redies: To the minister: thank you for the previous answer. You referenced the federal jurisdiction, the meeting with Transport Canada and a bunch of stakeholders last summer. I will ask you some questions with respect to those comments.

First, I actually want to ask the minister…. It is my understanding — and I have the former Minister of Transportation sitting right in front of me — that the $300,000 that was requested by the cities of Surrey and White Rock was actually agreed to and approved. I believe there are some people behind you that know that.

My question is: did you revoke it and, if you did, for what reason?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson might remember that it was contingent on the federal government agreeing to put in money for this, and the federal government will not put money into this. So it was not a question of whether this government revoked it. The former government didn’t actually put the money in.

T. Redies: I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that, based on conversations I’ve had with my colleague who was there.

[4:50 p.m.]

Minister, you referenced the issue with respect to federal jurisdiction, which you’ve mentioned many times in our discussions. The province and the federal government collaborate on multiple things, including the airport. It’s my understanding that the province has put millions of dollars into the airport. That’s federal jurisdiction.

What we’re asking for is just $300,000 to fund this study. I would also make mention of the recent announcements, the two announcements, of the funding of high-speed rail between Washington and B.C. That study, I presume, is also federal jurisdiction.

Can the minister explain to me why the government is prepared to fund a study with respect to a high-speed rail line but is not prepared to put in any money on a study that is really about trying to figure out a way to ensure the safety of citizens in my constituency?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. I know the member is very interested in this. In fact, she wrote to the Premier about this, and I responded. I’m not sure she has received my letter yet. I’m sure she has. Just to read into the record, she was asking in the letter about an apparent, as she perceived it, contradiction there. But as I wrote to her…. Unfortunately, I don’t have a hard copy. So if it’s okay, I’ll read from an electronic version of it.

“With respect to high-speed rail, Premier Horgan and Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee signed a memorandum of understanding in October 2018 ‘to act jointly to grow the region’s innovation economy, protect the environment, combat climate change, promote trade and improve transportation connectivity.’

“One of the areas of collaboration identified was to examine the possibility of a new multi-jurisdictional ultra-high-speed rail corridor authority. Governor Inslee’s budget request of $3.25 million and Premier Horgan’s recent pledge of $300,000 for this next phase of ultra-high-speed rail work is consistent with the MOU commitment.

[4:55 p.m.]

“While the work underway is very preliminary, I understand the Washington State Department of Transportation has advised that consideration is not being given to relocating the BNSF rail line as part of Washington state–led ultra-high-speed rail studies.”

I think the member is well aware that we’re looking at this very much as an economic generator, working with our neighbours in the south. The funding has come from the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. It is something that we continue to be committed to, looking at new and innovative ways of linking connections and making sure that we get the corridors working. I’m sure the member for Kamloops–South Thompson also has some ideas about this.

T. Redies: Minister, I can read your letter. The reason I’m here is because I still have not got a decent answer from your ministry or, frankly, from the Premier as to why the Premier could commit B.C. taxpayer dollars to fund a high-speed rail line when they won’t even look at helping the citizens of South Surrey and White Rock stay safe.

As I understand it, the number one goal of the ministry is to keep citizens safe. I should think that it’s the number one goal of the Premier to make sure that citizens are safe. Here we have the government funding a pie-in-the-sky high-speed rail line, giving B.C. taxpayer dollars to Washington state, yet the province won’t support the cities of White Rock and South Surrey in this venture.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It certainly makes no sense to my constituents, who see the government as basically telling the citizens of Surrey and White Rock that they don’t care about the risks that they’re facing with these hazardous chemicals.

Minister, if something happens on that rail line, which could very well happen, what are you going to say to my constituents — that it’s federal jurisdiction? “Sorry, we didn’t fund the $300,000 because we thought we had a better option with a high-speed rail line”? That is just not acceptable.

Minister, again, we are facing a potential disaster on that line. It would be really good if you could come out and talk to the mayors, walk around the rail line and see some of the challenges we’re having with mudslides, etc. I think maybe it might help you understand just some of the concerns that the cities are facing.

My question. I sent an email to you, a number of weeks ago, about a meeting with the mayors, the new mayors, myself, the Premier and yourself on this matter. Would you take that meeting?

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to clarify, the member is obviously a strong advocate on this issue. As I have suggested in the past, it is federal. We need the federal government at the table for the dollars’ reallocation.

I would suggest, as I have suggested in the past, that the member talk to her MP, who used to be the MLA for the seat she now holds, and that he also advocate for the federal government to come to the table. Until the federal government comes to the table, we as a province cannot consider it.

T. Redies: Of course we’ve been talking to the MP for this area, who’s very supportive of the federal government providing funding. I guess, maybe, just the question to the minister: if the feds put up their part of the study, will the minister find the $300,000 in her budget to fund this study?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. If the federal government reconsiders — it hasn’t indicated that it’d reconsider — we’ll obviously look afresh. I think the member is also sort of confusing apples and oranges. The high-speed rail line and the BNSF line are two very different creatures, as it were.

If the member is lucky with her colleague the MP for the area — whom we can now name, actually, in this House, Gordie Hogg — and if you can convince MP Hogg to convince the federal government, in this time before an election, to suddenly come up with the cash, we obviously will have a look at it. At the moment, our view is that Transport Canada hasn’t been interested in this. This is not in our jurisdiction, and we’re leaving it at that.

T. Redies: Minister, the feds aren’t putting any money into the high-speed rail, as we understand it at this point in time. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Trevena: If the member would canvass the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology. They are the lead on that; we’re not the lead on this. The member may be upset about that, but we are not the lead on that. It is Jobs, Trade and Technology.

T. Redies: Well, that’s quite the deferral of an answer. All right.

My question. The minister referred to the meeting with Transport Canada last year, at which one of the action items was that there was to be a disaster drill with BNSF in August. It was cancelled; it didn’t take place. In the letter that the Minister of Transportation sent to me with respect to my questions around this, she indicated that there had been a disaster drill undertaken on the other side of the border in Washington state, and she seemed to imply that that should be sufficient for our purposes.

I guess my question is: does the minister actually believe that a disaster drill undertaken in another jurisdiction with different laws, different practices and different stakeholders is the same thing to doing a disaster drill in the city of White Rock and in South Surrey?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I understand it, BNSF, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, was leading this exercise. They were the lead on this. As I say to the member many times over, we, as the Ministry of Transportation, have no jurisdiction over rail. It is a federal jurisdiction.

T. Redies: That is a very insufficient answer, because at the end of the day, this government is responsible for the safety of British Columbians. The fact that you can’t even answer a basic question like that without referring to jurisdiction just shows how you really don’t care…

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

T. Redies: …about the citizens — how the minister doesn’t care about the citizens of Surrey or White Rock in this respect.

The minister did not answer my previous question. Would she be willing to take a meeting with the new mayors of White Rock and South Surrey with her and her staff and myself on this issue?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m always happy to meet with people.

J. Thornthwaite: Before I get into my couple of questions, I just wanted to reiterate what my colleague from White Rock had said with regards to the comments on the high-speed rail to Seattle. I can tell the minister and reinforce that the folks from North Vancouver — quite frankly, the North Shore — are just as frustrated as the folks from Surrey that there’s money going to a study for high-speed rail to Seattle, whereas the traffic situation in the North Shore is super intense.

I’m proud that before the last election, I was able to get the $200 million Lower Lynn interchange project funded, and it’s merrily going away. In fact, they opened up a lane on the new Mountain Highway interchange, which was kind of fun, this week. So I’m really pleased that that’s continuing on. But that’s not a long-term solution. Everybody knows it’s not a long-term solution.

I’ve got some comparisons for the amount of traffic that goes over North Shore bridges, and it’s well over twice what has been quoted with the Massey Tunnel. We have a huge bottleneck there at the foot of The Cut on the north end of the Iron Workers. Certainly, when we start talking about high-speed rail to Seattle, it irritates the folks from the North Shore, because it’s our turn to get some rapid transit on the North Shore.

Having said that, I’ve got two questions. One of the questions is about the Iron Workers Bridge. We expect that it’s going to have…. Its useful life is 65 years. Structurally speaking, as I said, it handles roughly four times as much traffic as the George Massey. My question is on behalf of my consti­tuents: what steps is the ministry taking to replace, expand or supplement the Iron Workers Bridge?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. On the Iron Workers Bridge, we continue to ensure that it’s in good shape, and it is in good shape. In nearly all our bridges, there are constant inspections and rehabilitation, but the Iron Workers is in good shape.

My colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for TransLink, the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale — I’m not sure if the member is aware of this — started a process called INSTPP, bringing together the communities of the North Shore, TransLink and the ministry to the table. As a result of the work that she was able to do on that, very successfully, we now are looking at better connections to the North Shore. Obviously, the Iron Workers is part of this and how to ensure that the transit options are there, as well as the highway options.

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, I’m very well familiar with the INSTPP report. I’ve got it sitting here right in front of me. The majority of my questions on the INSTPP will be directed to the Minister of Housing, because I know that it’s under her jurisdiction.

There is a mention on page 4, and I’ll read it to you: “Road congestion can constrain goods movement leading to significant impacts to the regional, provincial and national economies. The movement of goods from the port terminals on the North Shore is primarily by rail, and forecasted growth for the port will rely on available rail capacity to minimize impacts to the road network and congestion.”

Then on page 15, there is a discussion on adapting the CN Rail bridge to include transit, walking and cycling: “The CN Rail bridge cannot be used for buses or bikes because part of the bridge raises and lowers to accommodate marine traffic. It is also most often in the raised position. Future planning to replace the CN Rail bridge should address the potential for transit and multimodal transportation, in addition to rail transport requirements.”

It has been suggested by a very prominent professor at SFU, Dr. Stephan Nieweler, that the best way of getting SkyTrain to the North Shore is actually on a new CN bridge, so that you could have trucks, obviously rail, bikes and alternative modes as well as rapid transit.

My question to the minister is: what plans are there, or what talks are happening, about the CN Rail bridge with regards to upgrading? I understand its forecast of life is considerably less than the Iron Workers Bridge, which, as you said, is in pretty good shape. What about discussions of getting SkyTrain to the North Shore to connect Phibbs Exchange to the SkyTrain network via the CN bridge, which will eventually have to be replaced in the near future as well?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. Yes, the issue of capacity to the North Shore is obviously a concern. It’s a concern for trade, and it’s a concern for the port.

I recently did a port tour, looking at all of the various constraints and trying to get rail over. I know that the port is looking to the federal government for assistance to maximize it. It is hugely important, not just for the province but to the whole of Canada, that we have a healthy port and we have healthy trade networks. I know that they are working hard on doing that.

I’m not going to satisfy the member, I think, but the CN Rail bridge is something that is the responsibility and the awareness of CN. We’ve just been checking back and can come back to the member with a more detailed answer. But it hasn’t been coming in as a big issue for us.

Whether it is a big issue for the port, the port hasn’t mentioned it to myself. When I was meeting with the CEO just about ten days ago, it wasn’t raised. When we talked about the access to the North Shore, it wasn’t raised then. My staff haven’t had it flagged for them as a serious issue. CN hasn’t brought it forward to us as a serious issue, and they would do if there was something concerning. Maybe they’ve been talking to the federal government, but it hasn’t been brought forward to us.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I’m paraphrasing here — that somebody in your ministry will get back to me about that with more information. Is that…? I see nods. Okay. That’s great.

My final question, then, is, just to reiterate…. I understand that if you are having discussions with the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, you know that traffic is absolutely the number one issue on the North Shore and that we absolutely want to ensure our residents are taken care of with regards to not just the traffic we have to deal with, which is North Vancouver to North Vancouver to West Vancouver or whatever….

[5:20 p.m.]

We are a thoroughfare. We’re a thoroughfare from ferry traffic, from Squamish, from Whistler to Burnaby, across to Vancouver, etc. It’s not just local traffic that is on that highway. It’s Highway No. 1, and it’s a huge, huge issue in the entire North Shore.

I wanted to make sure that the minister had those two issues on her radar — one of the interest of the capacity of the Iron Workers Bridge itself as well as the issue on the CN bridge. I will be looking forward to getting a response on that.

R. Sultan: I have three questions. One concerns a local intersection problem we have in West Vancouver–Capilano. The second concerns the proposed UBC subway line. The third concerns the process by which decisions occur in this vast complex empire the minister plays a key role in.

My first question. The minister is perhaps not aware…. It is my impression that the views of certain MOTI engineers concerning the intersection between Highway 1 in my riding, West Vancouver–Capilano, and the access ramp from Capilano Road in my riding could be described as one of the sharpest, least accommodating and most accident-prone on-ramps of the entire Trans-Canada Highway system in British Columbia. At least, that statement has been made to me. It’s a virtual T-intersection, which is very unusual for an on-ramp to our — after all, from Victoria to Newfoundland — Trans-Canada Highway.

The risky situation is further compounded by an exceedingly sharp turn on Highway 1 when immediately passing the on-ramp when travelling westbound — say, you’re going to the ferry — as it proceeds over the Capilano River and curves northerly through West Vancouver. This sharp curve was a prime cause a number of years ago — many, many years ago when I was starting out as an MLA — of a logging truck losing its load on that very curve, crushing to death two prominent members of the Ismaili community in West Vancouver. The tragedy, for me, particularly attending the very moving funeral service for these two victims of, frankly, bad highway design, is vivid even today.

My question is: what steps is MOTI taking, beyond the recent installation — and it’s an improvement, I grant you — of a blinking yellow light, as a precaution to mitigate the dangerous conditions created by this almost T-intersection of Capilano Road with the Trans-Canada Highway and the subsequent sharp curve northward once across the highway?

It’s really quite a complex system we must consider. It’s more than just an intersection. It’s a bridge. It’s a curve and so on. Lives are put at risk on a daily basis. Many of us experienced users of the highway avoid that on-ramp if we can. Of course, aside from the risk to life and limb, there’s regular — I’m talking daily — property damage.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. I think people are well aware of the intersection and the tightness thereof. Ministry staff are also well aware of it.

One of the things about the…. How difficult an intersection it is means that people do think about it as they’re going through it, as they’re driving it. Whether you’re coming along the highway and you’ve got the blinking light or you are actually using it, it does engage your mind. You can’t not concentrate on that section.

Luckily, although it is a difficult intersection…. I know the member cited a very sad incident, and there have been incidents there. Ministry staff say that there is not a high volume…. It’s not an accident black spot because you have to really engage in your thinking.

I hear what the member is saying. It’s always extraordinarily sad when…. For me, as the minister, somebody getting killed on a highway is just awful. When you have it personally, in your community, it really brings it home. But I do underline for the member that it isn’t one of the really bad spots.

There has been some work done on it. There has also been more in-depth study on what could be done. I know the member is an engineer, and the member could look at it himself and say: “How did we get to here, and how are we going to get out of here?” Unfortunately, getting out of here — to do a complete fix, to straighten it all out — would mean extra lanes on the bridge. It would mean potential impacts…. You’ve got the river there. It would mean likely acquiring property. It would mean a minimum price tag of $100 million.

We’re working as best we can with what we’ve got and hoping that, also…. I mean, it’s putting faith in the drivers of B.C. and the drivers who are going through the member’s constituency of West Van and the Lower Mainland that they are driving literally according to the complex part of that intersection. We can update the member if there are going to…. Obviously, if there was going to be any major work or even minor work, we can update the member on when that’s happening.

[5:30 p.m.]

R. Sultan: Thank you, Minister. As the minister has hinted, being an engineer, I actually redesigned the intersection for them and submitted my drawings, which caused great hilarity over there. They suggested…. “What? Are you looking for another career, Ralph?” Unfortunately, my scheme didn’t quite pass muster. I was almost going to require some semi-trailer trucks to go through a 90 degree intersection myself.

Moving right along, the UBC subway. The board of governors of UBC recently indicated that they’re willing to provide financial support for a proposed UBC subway line to be built for TransLink. Since UBC is a provincial institution — and TransLink exists, to some degree, on the favour of the MOTI apparatus — has the minister considered their generous offer? What are the views of the minister on this rather important question?

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: yes, thank you for the question. It’s something that continues to engage everyone, I think, on how best to provide good transportation in the Lower Mainland and out to UBC. The extension up to UBC, as I think the member is well aware, isn’t part of the mayors’ ten-year vision. That is what we as government have been working closely on with the Mayors Council — on how to implement that ten-year vision, the first stage up to Arbutus.

As the member is well aware, the ten-year plan is broken into phases. Phase 2 is what we’re dealing with at the moment. I would guess that putting it out to UBC…. I know there are many advocates for it, right across the political spectrum and from within the community. It would be, I imagine, phase 3. We do take our lead from the Mayors Council on how we’re going to be moving forward.

I think that the member is aware of the cost of the present extension, and extending it even further is going to be, obviously, even more expensive. Even with UBC’s generous offer, there is the need for the mayors to find their portion of the funding, as well as the province and the federal government. We’d obviously, again, be looking to the federal government to help assist.

[5:35 p.m.]

I also do work with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who has responsibility for TransLink under her portfolio. For some of this discussion, we as the ministry tend to fund…. Her ministry is the one that deals with some of the more day-to-day dealings on TransLink per se.

R. Sultan: I thank the minister. One final question. The minister’s response was the perfect segue into my third and final question, which does relate to funding by the various entities and, in fact, housing.

My question is…. It appears the city of Vancouver is planning to capture the uplift in land re-evaluation for its own purposes concurrent with the construction of the proposed Broadway subway line.

Because provincial policy and guidance, it would seem to me, is crucially important in this area — and, in fact, probably, at the end of the day, decisive — does the minister agree with the NDP mayor of Vancouver that the land value uplift created by this huge public investment by all British Columbians — including, one must presume, the province of British Columbia, the government of Canada and all of the other communities in Metro Vancouver — should accrue to the exclusive pleasure of the city of Vancouver and not accrue to the financing of the line itself? Would the minister please comment.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member. We, obviously, work closely with the city, with TransLink and with other cities when looking at transit and how land is used. It is a partnership. We try, obviously, to get alignment between the transportation corridor and the best use of the land.

I don’t know if the member is aware, but we introduced, last session, legislation which allows for rental zoning to certain areas that should be just zoned for rental accommodation. Whether that is within the floors of a building, within a few blocks or however it is done, that is a designation that can be done. We do work in partnership on this. We want to make sure that everyone is getting the best use of the investment.

[5:40 p.m.]

I’m not going to go into the specifics of Vancouver and what Vancouver may or may not be getting. I know Vancouver has invested in this project, along with other jurisdictions. They have invested in kind in this project, with land. But I would defer, for more specific answers for such a specific question, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, whose actual responsibility this is.

R. Sultan: Thank you. No further questions.

A. Olsen: I have further questions. I just would like to ask the minister a few questions here with respect to the south Island transportation strategy. I note that in January, the ministry announced a request for qualifications for the design of a multimodal transportation plan for the southern Vancouver Island region.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide some high-level remarks or some specifics with respect to the consultants. Has there been a consultant chosen? What’s the process for that? I’ll just kind of lump some of my concerns here and the minister can work through them.

With respect to consultations with Indigenous nations. There is a note that the consultant was going to be selected by the end of March, so I’m just wondering if the minister can provide some frame for that.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very excited by the south Island integrated transportation plan because it’s looking at the region as a whole and looking at all the different modes of transportation. That’s why we have gone beyond the ministry to get a consultant involved. The RFP closes on the 11th of April, so three days’ time. The consultant should be beginning by the beginning of May, we hope.

The member asked about First Nations consultation. They’re integral to this. We have got to make sure that everybody is part of this. There is a strategy that embraces the different forms of transportation and the different needs of the south Island — as I say, long neglected — but it has ownership from people who live and work in the south Island.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I look forward, as do many people in the south of Vancouver Island, to seeing the result of that work.

Just with respect to the Malahat highway. We’ve received quite a bit of correspondence with respect to potential routes and the watershed and the Malahat alternative routes. We know how disruptive it is when an accident occurs on the Malahat, and the work that’s been done on the Malahat to improve the flow of traffic has certainly been welcome.

Again, just maybe some comments from the minister with respect to the potential concerns that have been raised. I’m sure the minister has heard them from folks, around the Sooke Hills watershed, and the impact of potential future routing of traffic through that. Then, maybe, just what safety upgrades are currently being explored for the Malahat?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question because it lets me put the record straight in some ways. I know there’s been a lot of concern from people. I, too, have had a lot of correspondence about the watershed and am absolutely aware of the importance of that watershed. I think everyone is aware of the importance of protecting watersheds.

I think it’s really important to underline that what we’re looking at here…. We’re not looking at building a road. We’re looking at an emergency detour route, so as much as possible using existing roadways — old logging roads and others. We’ve got a number of different options that are being looked at. We are working with the CRD. I know that there was a resolution that came out about the Sooke watershed, but we are working with staff at the CRD, continuing to discuss the different possibilities.

It is planning work. We’re not into engineering, because we’re not wanting to engineer. This is just for those — and, I have to say, comparatively rare — times when the Malahat is closed down, for whatever reason, and there needs to be an emergency route. In that planning, it’s looking at, I think…. One of the discussions will come: “Is it going to be an emergency route that’s open when the Malahat is closed because of snow?” Well, that would be a completely different route than if you’re looking for an emergency route that can be used in September when the Malahat may be closed because of an accident.

I just say, luckily — knock on wood — it’s rare occasions that it is closed. But I know that there is huge frustration when it is closed. We continue to work with CRD on this, just assessing what it will look like. No final decisions have been made at all.

On the Malahat itself, I know that a lot of investment has been made in the last number of years in trying to make that section of highway as safe as possible.

[5:50 p.m.]

I also know that…. We’ve got all the new road in there, and your colleague for Cowichan Valley will attest to this too. You’ve got the 80-kilometre speed limit. You’ve got four lanes, and people use it, a nice fast road now. So they’re going at 100 through there. There is that concern. But we are also working with the RCMP to ensure there’s enforcement where we have made it safer, if people are driving as they should be driving.

One of the last sections…. We’re looking at short-term measures to make the bottom part safer, down through Goldstream, when you come down the hill and you hit Goldstream. We’re looking at what we can do in the short term. We’re doing engineering this year for a longer-term solution.

It will be longer term, and it has to be thoughtful, because it is through the park. It’s narrow and bendy at that section because it is through the park. I’ve said many times that to improve safety through the Malahat, you are between a rock and a hard place. You’ve got the cliff there, and you’ve got the stream, Goldstream, there — salmon-bearing. So anything that is being done there has to be done extraordinarily thoughtfully.

While there is engineering work there, it is going to take a little time to get to the stage where we can do the safety improvements on that stretch. In the meantime, we’re looking at what we can do to mitigate in that same stretch in the short term.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the answer. You also answered the next question on that. So that was well done. Also, I did find out that you knock on wood as an insurance policy.

I’m going to take it to some B.C. Ferries questions, and I believe that the members of the official opposition are going to follow up. I’ve just got a few questions about the Redlin report, and then the members will be taking it forward from there. Just in case you need to change your staff over, I’ll take it to some questions about B.C. Ferries.

Would you like me to wait, Minister?

Hon. C. Trevena: Please start, and we can fill in staff. I know that we’ve only got a little bit of time left, so we should make the most of it.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister.

The Redlin report recommended that if the government chooses to continue with the current governance model of B.C. Ferries, that the government take proactive steps to help the public better understand how the model works.

Just a couple of questions here. First, will the government be actioning this recommendation in this budget year? And will the government be establishing a broadly representative independent advisory panel, as was also recommended?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member knows, I’m always happy to talk about B.C. Ferries. I’ve got to say that I’m very proud of our government. We have done so much, really, in such a short time in both keeping fares down, freezing them for two years now, and, this last month, literally last week, reinstating routes and schedules that were cancelled. I think this has a real impact on people’s daily lives and on communities.

I say that because…. Mr. Redlin, in his report, talks about explaining the system better to people. It is a hugely complicated structure, the way that the previous government designed B.C. Ferries — with its arm’s length, with its two boards and which board is accountable for what. The Ferry Authority board has the oversight of the Services board, which has the oversight of the management, but you get it operating almost like a private organization — this quasi-autonomous non-government organization, as I cite to people, the quango of B.C. Ferries.

I think that in explaining how B.C. Ferries works…. What people really want to know is that fares are as affordable as possible. People want to know that they’re still going to…. When they hit 65 and they get their gold card, they’ll be able to travel on the ferries for free. They want to know that they’re going to get the service they need. They do look askance at some of the spending on the different amenities on the ferry, which I think are…. Many of us regular users of the smaller routes wonder why it is there.

That isn’t…. I don’t think people necessarily need to or have a desire to know how the model works. I think that there is…. I’m not being patronizing. It is extraordinarily confusing. People want to know that when they pull up at the ferry, they’re going to be able to pay for their ticket, whether it’s one of the big ferries…. They don’t have to worry about a reservation. They can just pull up and pay for their ticket. If it’s one of the little ferries, they know that it’s going to be going back and forth, and the 7 a.m. on a Sunday morning isn’t going to be cancelled. Whatever it is, they know there’s that reliability of service.

That’s my focus. I think one of the…. People who are interested will learn more about it through other ways. The member mentioned the advisory council, and we are going to be starting to work on setting up an advisory council. This is beyond the ferry advisory councils that we have in each of our communities. It is more of a coastal council.

It’s looking at involving, for instance, the Trucking Association, industry, organizations. It’s a higher level. It’s not a re-creation of what happened in the 1980s and 1990s, which blew up in the early 2000s — of that coastal ferry advisory council. It’s going to be something that helps give a voice for the greater economic development of our coastal communities. That’s why I look at the associations and the municipalities rather than just the ferry advisory committees that, while they have some of those chambers of commerce and so on involved, are much more locally focused. This is a broader focus.

Finally, one of the things that we’re going to be doing is…. I think this will also engage people and help people understand what the vision is, how B.C. Ferries operates and what the model is. When we start having that engagement about the vision…. I think that’s very exciting — about how we stop replicating the approach of the 1950s and the 1960s, where we have a parking lot moving cars to another parking lot. We start being a bit more innovative about routes and communities and approaches for the ferries — whether we’re looking at passenger-only, whether we need to start looking at different routes while still serving those communities that have grown and evolved under the current model.

A. Olsen: As the minister knows, I’m very excited about the idea of passenger-only, specifically in some areas around the southern Gulf Islands, Saanich Inlet, Royal Bay to Victoria. I think there are real opportunities for us to…. Of course, the mindset of the ferry user has to change as well.

[6:00 p.m.]

I have two more questions. One is very, very straightforward, and one will be…. It’s about pollution, basically. It goes to the environmental aspects of it. I’ll ask the really straightforward, basic question first. What is the current debt of B.C. Ferries?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s $1.3 billion.

A. Olsen: I’m going to clump a few environmental concerns that I have around B.C. Ferries, and maybe you can provide a narrative like you just did with the other aspects of it.

One of the aspects of the Redlin report was some suggestion that we need to start moving to…. Indeed, B.C. Ferries, with their LNG, diesel engines are now starting to move to a cleaner emission at the combustion source. That is kind of, I guess, their transition.

There’s also been, I think, a lot of talk around the electrification. I know the Redlin report talks about making sure there is firm power. Perhaps that’s done at the procurement stage as well, getting B.C. Ferries to purchase their next ten vessels that they have to purchase…. How does the government encourage or incent them to take the next step?

Of course, the recommendation in the report suggests that they need to be encouraged to have the cleanest ferries that they can, yet the government, as you were pointing out, is at this arm’s length and can’t require them to do it. So there’s that. Then there’s also this sound pollution aspect of it and the southern resident killer whales. I’m just wondering if….

I recognize that these are very broad. I’m intentionally being broad because there are a lot of questions here, and I want to kind of cover some ground without taking up too much time. So I recognize that we can talk about this offline in more specifics, but just wanted to give you the opportunity, on the record here, to talk about some of these issues that I think are pertinent to coastal communities and that coastal communities are concerned about, with respect to sound and with respect to air pollution.

Potentially, how does the ministry move and help the ferry service move towards a much cleaner vessel in all of those areas?

Hon. C. Trevena: A couple of things, Member, that we can do. One is that I’ve got a bill tabled in the Legislature, and one of the amendments is that ferry operators — i.e., B.C. Ferries — are to be encouraged to meet provincial greenhouse gas emission targets in their operations and when developing capital plans.

We can’t, as a government, say to B.C. Ferries: “You must meet them.” But we can encourage them to do, I would say, not just best effort, but there is, I think, in today’s climate, literally an obligation to meet them. We can’t put that obligation on B.C. Ferries. Our vehicle is through the Coastal Ferry Act.

[6:05 p.m.]

B.C. Ferries is making the shift to LNG, citing that it is a cleaner fuel, that it means there is going to be less diesel emissions. This is good. I would like to see a move to…. I get a get a lot of people saying: “Why not electric? We’ve got electric in Europe.” The Ministry of Transportation ferries, the inland ferries, are going to be moving to all-electric by 2040. We can do that for the lakes and the rivers.

It would be good to see that B.C. Ferries is also moving that way, but is it something that we can assist with? Again, I think the best description is that we are a mediator, that we work with B.C. Ferries. We can talk to B.C. Hydro. I think there’s going to be a great move on electrification. There are going to be huge demands on B.C. Hydro for people switching to electric vehicles, the vessels switching, wherever they can, to electric generation. I think there will be a demand there.

Our role as government…. If we can’t tell B.C. Ferries, “This is it; build electric,” we can work with Hydro to ensure that there is the infrastructure in place to allow B.C. Ferries to have the opportunity to move that way rather than to LNG, which is their preferred option.

As far as the southern resident killer whales are concerned, I know that Transport Canada is being very proactive about this. They’re in discussions with B.C. Ferries at the moment. It’s a federal issue.

I’d like to, again, use the opportunity to correct the record. I know there’s concern from Transport Canada. Their report on the southern resident killer whales came at the same time as we were saying that we’re going to be increasing, reinstating routes. There were headlines of those 2,700 new routes, or the reinstatement of routes. Most of those routes are not in the area where the southern resident killer whales are and where their habitat is. These routes are mainly in the northern islands and up in the north.

Obviously there is a marine wildlife concern, and it is something that I believe B.C. Ferries takes seriously and is responsible about. Luckily the increased sailings are not in that area. I’m happy to talk with the member off line at any time about this.

J. Sturdy: How many of those 2,700 routes are in the territory of the southern resident killer whales?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s 2,700 round trips; it’s not routes. As far as we’re aware, none of them would be impacting, I think. Yeah, we can’t think of one that would have an impact.

J. Sturdy: Okay, interesting to note.

The Redlin report — how much did it cost? Why did it take eight months to release?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The cost of the review was $330,000. I know that there was some frustration from people who wondered why it landed on my desk end of summer and it wasn’t released until late winter, early spring.

I think the members read it. It was a very detailed and valuable report that has helped our government develop a good focus for working with B.C. Ferries — the legislation that we’ve tabled, the ideas that come out of that.

I’ve also got to say that one of the things that we were able to do during that time when we had the review and were working through the review…. It wasn’t just sitting on the desk. One of the things we were doing was working with B.C. Ferries, negotiating with B.C. Ferries to have the service reinstatement that we were able to announce in February. That came into effect just last week. So that obviously didn’t come overnight. It was a lot of discussions with B.C. Ferries on making sure that we could do that and they could do that. That was one of the aspects of why it took a while for the review to come out.

J. Sturdy: The publish date on the Redlin report says June 30. Is that not accurate?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, it was June 30. It was the date that it was completed. It was sort of in transition. He finished it by June 30. I know I was out of the country for a bit of the time and got it, I think, later in the summer.

Yes, I know it felt like a long time for people to wait. But as I say, I think it was a very comprehensive review and worth considering. Rather than just putting it out there and people saying, “Now what?” we’re able to put it out there and say this is what we’re doing. We worked with B.C. Ferries to reinstate service. We’ll have legislation.

We’re going to be working on the vision part of it, which I think is really…. I know the member has large and small aspects of B.C. Ferries in his riding. I think the vision piece will be important to communities in his riding, as well as starting to work on other aspects that the report has given. We have legislation that we were able to table just last week as a result of Mr. Redlin’s review. So it took a while to absorb, to work through and then to be able to just come forward with: this is the report, and this is what we’re doing as a result of the report.

J. Sturdy: How many times did the minister meet with B.C. Ferries with regard to consulting, as the minister had referenced, on the Redlin report in order to then generate the legislation or whatever other initiatives the minister is referring to that came out of the Redlin report?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Redlin had lots of conversations with B.C. Ferries as he was preparing the report. I know he was there very regularly — lots of conversations with all levels at B.C. Ferries.

After we received the report, ministry staff were talking with B.C. Ferries about reinstating service and just continuing working with B.C. Ferries. Staff, I would say, meet with B.C. Ferries…. To say “very regularly” is an understatement. Sometimes it’s a couple of times a week. Sometimes it’s once a week. Sometimes it’s once every couple of weeks.

There is a regular conversation between our ministry and B.C. Ferries, particularly when we’re talking about such things as reinstatement of service, when we’re talking about, as we were last year, the freezing of fares and reintroducing the seniors rate. These are things that obviously need to have good conversation between our staff and B.C. Ferries. Because we, as the member well knows….

Going back to what the member for Saanich North and the Islands was saying about how to explain the construct of B.C. Ferries, simply put, B.C. Ferries is this quango. There is a contract between us, as a government, and B.C. Ferries, which has all the routes and the service we expect B.C. Ferries to provide. We, as a government, pay B.C. Ferries to provide that service. So it is a contract, and we have that continuing negotiation of a contractor and contractee to make sure that the service that is expected is provided to the public.

J. Sturdy: Has the minister met with B.C. Ferries? Or did the minister meet with B.C. Ferries subsequent to the issuance of the report and in advance of the recommendations? How many times?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Redlin had lots of conversations with B.C. Ferries in drawing up the report. The report is public, and I know that B.C. Ferries has read it.

My contact was not directly with B.C. Ferries on this. We had staff working with B.C. Ferries. I talked to the provincial representatives on the authority board. The authority board, I’m sure the member is aware, is the provincial shareholder for the province — holds our share. I’ve talked with the authority board, and I’m meeting Mr. Collins later this week.

J. Sturdy: Yes, I do understand that governance structure. I do recognize that it is complex. We will have a chance to talk about Bill 25 later, because my contention would be that it’s going to become even more complex with the introduction of Bill 25, but we are not talking about Bill 25. I recognize that.

How long does the minister intend that the reduced passenger fares and discounted fares remain in place? What is the mechanism for ensuring that the ferry corporation is whole in this? What is it costing? Where is that money coming from, I guess?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that I’m extraordinarily proud of our government for starting to deal with some of the exorbitant fare increases that came under the previous government. There are certain routes, in my riding alone, that went up 140 percent. Nobody, nobody could afford to travel. It has a devastating effect on individuals, communities and businesses.

Likewise, I’m extraordinarily proud that our government was able to work with B.C. Ferries and reinstate routes that were cut. Look at Alliford Bay and Skidegate. It’s going to be a while till it gets back, but we’ve got a community that was completely isolated, thanks to the action of the former government. That’s my political piece off the chest. Very pleased that we were able to do that.

Very pleased that we were also able to bring back the free seniors’ fare. That has had a tremendous impact for people travelling on our coast. We were able to do that. We were able to reduce fares last year and keep fares down this year. We were able to freeze fares on the major routes, which has had a great impact for just regular users. We weren’t able to reduce fares, but we were able to keep them there. It cost us $32.5 million for this year. Again, very pleased that we did that.

For any subsequent years, I think the member is well aware that we have the Ferry Commissioner looking at performance term 5. We have, every four years, a new performance term. We’re heading into performance term 5, and the Ferry Commissioner is suggesting a 2.3 percent price cap.

[6:25 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Does the minister support the Ferry Commissioner’s recommendations? Does the minister feel that at the end of that performance term, where I think the revenues over expenditures show about a $1 million surplus on a $1 billion operation, is that the…? Is there confidence that that is a number that’s going to allow for the corporation to carry forward with their robust and aggressive capital plan?

I would be curious about that $32.5 million, where the breakout of those revenues are coming from. I take it’s not all from the province — the $32.5 million that was the extra cost associated with the reduced fares and the extra sailings.

Does the minister feel that there’s good rationale, that it’s a sound practice and that it is well worthwhile to regularly run routes that have more staff on them than, in fact, passengers? I recognize that we are running short of time, so I’ll be happy to take those responses in writing.

Hon. C. Trevena: If the member wants to take them in writing, I’m very happy to provide them in writing.

I think that we are committed to making sure that B.C. Ferries continues. This is part of our marine highway. We, on this side of the House, recognize it’s part of our marine highway. We’re willing to invest in it to make sure that it continues to be part of our marine highway and not leave communities and individuals, people who live and work on the coast, paying for the service. We are willing to invest in it.

That’s why the $32.5 million that I referred to, that the member…. That’s $32.5 million from the provincial government to B.C. Ferries for the frozen fares and the reduction in fares for this year, so to keep that in place. As I say, we’re willing to make an investment because we believe that the coast — the people who live on the coast, the communities on the coast and the businesses on the coast — needs a vibrant marine highway. We want to make sure, obviously, that it’s fiscally viable.

I look forward to continuing some of these discussions when we get to Bill 25. I’m sure that the member has lots of questions. With that, we will give the member the answers in writing.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $925,616,000 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, 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. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.