Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section C

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $928,920,000 (continued).

The Chair: I’d like to start by recognizing that I am participating today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, now known as the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations. We extend our appreciation to them for the opportunity to do our work on this land.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to ask the critic if he could give some guidance on which way he’s going to be going this afternoon. We have some people here who are from…. We still have people from B.C. Transit available to help answer any further questions. We also have some staff who’ve come in from Vancouver. I wanted to see whether there were going to be any questions on major projects that he might be wanting to talk about and, if that is the case, whether we could do them a bit earlier rather than later.

M. Hunt: What I had planned is to focus the afternoon on highways and roads and start at the north and work our way down. So anything from the Lower Mainland is going to be late in the afternoon over to after the break. That’s sort of my guestimate at times right now. Would that work for the minister?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. We will make that work. But we are finished with B.C. Transit. So the nice people from B.C. Transit who’ve been so helpful can leave. Is that okay?

M. Hunt: Yes, Madam Minister. That is correct. We’re focusing on roads and highways.

With that, I would cede the floor to the member for Peace River North.

D. Davies: Good afternoon, Minister.

I’d like to, first of all, thank my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale for allowing me a few minutes of his estimates time to ask a few questions.

I’d like to, first of all, start by just pointing out the hard work of the rural roads task force, an organization I know the minister is aware of and has been in communication with. They’re doing a lot of great work in looking at all the rural roads in the North Peace. Of course, I just want to also…. I know that times are different now with travel and such. But the invitation is still open for the minister, when time permits, to come up and do a tour of the rural roads up in the North Peace.

I also want to recognize the Gotta Go project — again, which I know the minister is aware of. I remember talking a little bit about it last year in estimates. Again, great work done by that committee, which is basically allowing pullouts and washroom facilities north on the Alaska Highway, where you may travel for four hours with no pullouts or washrooms.

I want to thank the ministry. I know there’s been some great cooperation with the provincial government and the federal government, as well as the Northern Rockies and the Peace River regional districts. I know there’s still lots of work to do. There are many miles of highway that are wide open in the north that still need cellular coverage or booster spots, as there is no cell service for about 12 hours north of Fort Nelson. That would be a lot of work that’s coming up in the next little while. Again, thanks to the ministry for their cooperation on that.

I’ve got a couple questions here. I’d like to, first of all, start…. I know the minister…. I thank you for the meeting that we’ve set up on Tuesday to have a discussion around the Old Fort situation. I know that you’re very aware.

[1:35 p.m.]

I don’t want to ask all of my questions now, but it’s pretty desperate times for that community of about 150 people. The road that was built last year, as a result of the slide last year, has now slid and is sitting approximately 100 metres downhill. It has now trapped all of the residents of Old Fort. We had an emergency yesterday where someone had to seek medical help and had to be put on a quad, using the ATV to get out of the community to get medical attention.

We certainly can’t have this going on very much, so I am looking forward to that discussion moving forward. I’m not sure if the minister wants to make a comment on the Old Fort situation or not, but I’ll leave that up to you if you want to comment on that, Minister.

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

I just wanted to update. There are people to introduce in the room. We have now Kevin Richter, the associate deputy minister and responsible for highway operations, as well as Scott Maxwell, the executive director for the northern region.

I’ve got to say that my thoughts are obviously with the people of Old Fort. It is the second time that they’ve seen this slippage happen, and it’s very, very concerning. The ministry is monitoring the situation. The slide is moving quite quickly. It had been moving two metres an hour, but we are monitoring it. When it stabilizes, and we feel comfortable, the road will be rebuilt. But obviously my concerns are with the people of Old Fort, and we want to maintain their safety too.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. Like you say, I know we’ll have a much further conversation, as well, on Tuesday.

I know you’ve never heard about this before, the Taylor Bridge — all tongue in cheek. Of course you know we’re moving into a time when the federal government as well as the provincial government are looking for really good, important infrastructure projects. I’d like to remind the minister of the importance of the Taylor Bridge.

I see my colleague from Peace River South has just signed on, and I’m sure that he’ll be talking about the other part of the Peace Valley there. The bridge has moved from what was at one time annual maintenance planning. Then it’s gone to monthly maintenance. And now it seems like a couple times a week they’ve got a lane closed down just to keep the deck on the bridge safe for vehicle traffic.

I know that the ministry is talking about moving into a consultation phase here, which I think was already supposed to start but I believe that COVID has probably delayed that a little bit. I’d just kind of like to get some idea here of when we could see this on a capital plan for the province. I know I probably ask on behalf of everybody who lives in the whole Peace Country as well as the thousands of Americans that travel across it and Yukon residents that rely on that bridge (a) to travel on and (b) to get all their commerce back and forth.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. I’m very, very aware of how important the Taylor Bridge is for the whole of the north and for Yukon as well. As minister, I’m very well aware of its importance for everyone in the north. It is significant. It is the one bridge across, and there’s a very long diversion if you’re not using that bridge. I’m aware of that.

I’ve got to underline, first off, that the bridge is safe. There’s no question that the bridge we have is safe. If it weren’t, we’d be acting immediately. We were just discussing Old Fort. The member lives in the area. He knows the very difficult conditions of the land; it’s very challenging. In the work that we are doing, we’re doing all our due diligence to make sure that when we do replace the bridge, we’re getting it right. The bridge, as is, is safe.

We are working towards getting a replacement, but we want to make sure that we are being accurate. This summer people will be able to see some geotechnical drilling to get a greater assessment. Then there’ll be some work on the pier areas in the fall, when the water levels go down. Yes, the member is right that a public consultation is planned. It’s now going to be…. We’ve devised a very good virtual public consultation system. The ministry has got a very robust virtual consultation system, and that will be rolling out in the late summer or early fall.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. I certainly look forward to further conversations on this — and to the survey, as well, that’s coming out. Just a note, as well: of course, we had some significant flooding in the last few weeks in the North and South Peace. There are three routes, actually, that can get you into the North Peace. One is Highway 97 across the Taylor Bridge. Highway 29 through Hudson’s Hope is the other route. Then the highway — it’s left me — is the one that comes back in through Cecil Lake through Alberta.

During the water event we had a few weeks ago, all three of those, at one time, were closed. All three of those, at one time, were down to single-lane traffic. I believe that they’re all back open and have been fixed. It’s just to show you the importance of these roads and of having good infrastructure set up. The last thing, certainly, that we want is to lose any one of those routes in there.

Just changing gears a little bit here, on the rural roads and resource roads. A number of years ago, there was a significant amount of money put into a number of the resource sector roads up in the Peace River. It made a huge, positive impact on the industry and promoted a lot of activity up in the area. Of course, it also benefited the people that live on those roads — farmers, in moving their product.

[1:45 p.m.]

We’re now 30-plus years into some of these roads. We need to start looking at a plan to do some resurfacing and repair, as well as for some of the roads that aren’t paved. One that comes to mind is the Baldonnel Road, which I have mentioned before. It, at times, is impassible. Emergency equipment can’t get down there. School buses — not as much now, of course — can’t even go down to pick the children up that live on some of these roads.

I’m hoping that there’s some sort of a bump in the budget for the funding for North Peace roads — for the rural roads — so that we can start targeting and fixing and repairing some of these resource roads that are so valuable and so important to not only the residents but to the economy of British Columbia. There are so many goods and services that do move out of those roads, whether it’s agricultural goods, forestry fibre moving or natural gas and oil products — very important. If we could have a comment from the minister on those roads.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Chair. Through you to the member, I appreciate his advocacy for the roads in the region. I’d say that it’s important for the whole of the province that we have safe travel and that both people as well as industry can get around safely.

We are investing, I think, significantly in the North Peace. We have a budget of well over $20 million for roads in the North Peace. It’s not just the ministry saying that we want to do this road or that road. I know that the member talks about the Baldonnel Road. It is on a ministry list. It’s not going to be this year. But we’re working with the rural road task force to make sure that we’re targeting those roads that are in need and that will effectively make the biggest difference. We are, I think, doing significant investment as part of our provincewide rural roads strategy.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Minister, for taking our questions.

Let me just very quickly…. Like a lot of our colleagues, I want to thank the staff within the ministry — always one of the ministries that I can say I really enjoy the relationship, the answers and the support at a local level and a regional level that we get from the staff. It’s always important as we move forward.

As my colleague from the North Peace alluded to, obviously we work hand-in-hand on a lot of the issues here in the Peace region, because it supports us. I did want to kind of continue on with, probably, hopefully, just one question — well, depending on the answer I get, of course, if it’s the one I’m looking forward to.

But the minister, if she indulges me for just a second…. Almost every year for years, we had improvements being made to the Alaska Highway between the Alberta border and Fort St. John, whether it was passing lanes, four lanes or intersection upgrades and improvements, most of those based on studies that were done because of the unfortunate fatalities and injuries that we’ve been receiving in the area. Our goal was, obviously, to make the highway safer.

[1:50 p.m.]

In the last three years, under this government, we have seen, to the best of my knowledge on the Alaska Highway, zero new dollars spent on new projects. Two years ago, I asked during estimates of yourself, of the minister, about the final phase — I hope final phase — of the South Taylor Hill. I did not push on any other improvements because my assumption was that we were moving forward with that final phase of the South Taylor Hill.

When I followed up on it, I was also told that there were federal funds allotted to assist with that. Two years ago I was told that we were moving forward and that it was funded. Last year I was told it was delayed, partly because some geotechnical work needed to be done — which, I was told, delayed it by that construction season. We are now in the third construction season under this government.

I’m just going to put this one question on this issue because this is one of the most important stretches that we’ve been waiting to have fixed, for safety and for commerce. I’m just curious, Minister, then, as to where we are at on the final phase of the South Taylor Hill, considering that for the last couple of years, I’ve been told that it was moving forward, funded and just waiting for some final improvements. I don’t see anything happening there right now, but I’m hoping that she can advise me of where we’re at with that project.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I hear his frustration. There’s frustration, I’ve got to say, from my ministry too, because it was funded and we were going to be starting work on it.

As we were starting work on it, literally starting to develop the next stage, we found, as the member well knows, that it’s a very challenging area. As we were developing the next stage, we found that the ground was moving. We had to stop and do what we are doing now, which is slope stabilization. They’re doing some drainage and some ground stabilization because it is a challenging area.

I know the member is very eager. I’ve driven through the area and understand the challenges and the demands for people, both in Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, and everyone else who’s using that highway. They want to get it fixed. Again, it’s a very challenging area, so we had to be able to stabilize it. Having hoped that we could move ahead with it, we found we had to stabilize it before we could start on any sort of project.

S. Bond: Good afternoon, hon. Chair. Good afternoon to the minister and the ministry staff.

I would like — this seems to be one of the all-party things that we talk about — to express how much I appreciate the regional staff that work for the Ministry of Transportation. They do a fantastic job. They work very hard. I certainly want to recognize the team that works in the area that I represent.

[1:55 p.m.]

Having said that, I do have some questions. I’m wondering if the minister can outline for me what the current plans are for additional investment in the Cariboo connector.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is very well aware that the very significant Highway 97 investment started, obviously, in the early 2000s when there had been 27 projects that had cost more than $440 million. About 50 percent of the highway is now either three or four lanes.

I know there’s always an eagerness to do more, and we are doing more. We’re continuing to do work around Quesnel, around Hydraulic Road, which we’ll be tendering soon. We’re doing planning work as well. I’m sure that the member’s colleague from Cariboo North has been talking about the work that we’re also doing on the alternate route around Quesnel.

S. Bond: I take that to tell me that the investments of the past are the investments that we’re going to get. Highway 97 is an absolutely critical corridor for trade in British Columbia. It’s not just about people using it for recreation or for getting to work. It is a trade corridor. So I’m going to remind the minister that yes, while we have seen $440 million of investment over a period of time, that, frankly, can be a drop in the bucket when you’re talking about the kinds of projects that are being considered for urban British Columbia.

I want to make sure that the Cariboo connector and continued improvements along Highway 97 are not lost with this minister. I got the answer: there’ll be some work around Quesnel. But we’re going to continue to press for ongoing investments along that absolutely critical corridor.

My second question: could the minister describe for me the budget for the transportation region that I represent? Is there an increase, is it static, or is there a decrease in investment in roads along Highway 16, Highway 97, in this highway district?

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted some clarification from the member. Does the member mean the Fort George district under the ministry or the member’s constituency, Prince George–Valemount?

S. Bond: Both are fine; I’m happy to get numbers for either. What I want to understand is whether or not the investment in highways in northern British Columbia is increasing, decreasing or staying the same. I’m happy to have both numbers.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, thank you for the question. I absolutely understand the importance of rural British Columbia. Whether it is the Interior, southern Interior or the Island, our highway network is vital for people who are living and working right across B.C. Yes, a lot of people live in cities now, but a lot of the wealth is still generated in our rural communities. I understand the member’s concerns there and hope that we reflect that.

We don’t have a specific district number, but in the member’s riding, the funding is stable. It is $8.9 million.

S. Bond: Would the minister then…? I’m assuming the minister will commit to getting me the numbers that are related to Fort George so that I have a sense of how it compares to 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Perhaps the minister can just lay out what the pattern of funding has been in this particular region.

I appreciate the minister’s comments about northern B.C. In fact, the majority of wealth is still generated in this part of the province. One of the critical pieces is making sure we have road infrastructure that actually serves the economy of the province. So I’ll look forward to receiving those numbers.

I’m very cognizant of the fact that I have many other colleagues who have questions, but I do want to raise another issue which is very significant when we’re considering the economy of our province. That is airports. I want to give a particular shout-out to Gordon Duke, our new CEO at the Prince George Regional Airport. He and his team have done a really great job during difficult circumstances throughout COVID.

I’m sure the minister will have received briefings on the hit that the airline industry took. The numbers, for example, for Prince George in the month of April — they saw a 95 percent reduction in air travel. They are expecting May to be worse. It is a very grim picture for airports in the province, yet they’re absolutely critical. I want to thank Gordon Duke and the team at YXS.

I want to ask the minister, specifically. First of all, I’m assuming she’s been briefed on the circumstances for airports right across the province. Is the minister aware of the asks that are being made by Canadian airports? They have some very specific asks, and while she may not be responsible for the specific answers or solutions, certainly the province lobbying the federal government on our airports’ behalf is critical.

First of all, is she aware of the presentation that the Canadian Airports Council has done? Three things in particular. Airports are asking for immediate relief through loan guarantees, elimination of ground lease payments and access to interest-free loans. Is the minister actively lobbying the federal government on behalf of airports in British Columbia, which, like airports across the country, have been absolutely extremely hard hit by the pandemic?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The issue of smaller airports and access is significant in British Columbia, and it is reflected across the country. We had a joint federal-provincial-territorial meeting not long ago, and this was an agenda item that was discussed very deeply. It’s something that affects many areas. I was obviously advocating on B.C.’s behalf for B.C.’s smaller airports — both the airports and also those that are unconventional, whether it’s Dease Lake or other ones that don’t necessarily fit the category.

I’m aware of the demands of the aviation industry. I have comparatively regular meetings with the aviation sector, and we have been talking about the impacts of COVID on their sector. We also meet with the Aviation Council, and my staff are engaged on a weekly basis with the Aviation Council to work through what can be done. It is something that we are very alive to and working with the federal government to try and find some solutions.

S. Bond: Thanks to the minister for that answer, I appreciate it.

We’re going to need to continue to press hard, because there are going to be a lot of demands on the federal government, as well as on the provincial government. It’s going to be essential that we continue to recognize….

In the latest numbers — certainly the briefing that I received — airports are suggesting that the recovery period for them to reach even 2019 levels could take until 2024. So there’s going to be an extended period of support required As I said, airports are — I know the minister is well aware of that — a critical part of economic growth in our province.

I just would like to point out that the federal government did announce rent relief for 21 airports — and that did include our own airport of YXS — that rents would be waived from March 1 to December 31. But the total amount of savings for the Prince George Airport was something like $29,000, which is 0.5 percent of operating expenses over the same period of time. So, great that the federal government is paying attention, but, to be honest, the challenges on the ground are absolutely significant for the airports in our province.

Perhaps the minister could just outline what initiatives the provincial government is going to engage in. What will the province be doing to support airports, both on an operational and, more importantly, perhaps, from the provincial side, an infrastructure perspective?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Two pieces on capital. Of course, the member is aware of the B.C. air access program, which continues. I know that some significant dollars have gone into the Prince George area over the years.

I know we’re talking about Restart. We continue to invest in capital through that and also to work with the federal government on their airports capital assistance program to ensure that we are getting money out the door to regional airports.

We’re also very engaged with the Aviation Council on the restart plans for airports around the province. We want to make sure that it’s being done safely. All airports had a significant hit with COVID — a huge falloff in passengers. Who knows when regional flights will start again?

This is something we are very engaged in and, as I say, working with the Aviation Council on trying to help airports build up.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I just wanted to be sure that the issue is one of the top priorities on the minister’s to-do list.

The minister is correct. We still have very limited flights in and out of Prince George. I know that some airports have virtually no flights. We had one flight a day for a period of time. So the impact, both operationally and from an infrastructure perspective, has been very challenging.

I know that YXS has done a fantastic job of trying to balance the needs of having staff and service and all of those things. I do think there are significant demands. I know that our airport, for example, has a number of projects that they have looked at, in terms of bundling and ways to try to get work done during this period. So I’m very hopeful that the air access program and investment in infrastructure will be a priority.

Two final things. I know I have a number of colleagues that have questions.

[2:15 p.m.]

I don’t want the minister to lose sight of the Dunster turnoff. I know that we continue to hear that that isn’t doable or on the list, but I want to continue to bring that forward — obviously an important corridor along the highway.

My last question relates to a section of highway which really only traverses part of my riding. I share it with my Kamloops North colleague. That’s Highway 5, from Kamloops to the Alberta border. I would very much — and I know my colleague would — like an update on any progress that’s been made along there. I know that, certainly, when we were privileged enough to be in government, we were looking at additional passing lanes. We were looking at improvements along that corridor. Anyone who has actually driven that corridor frequently knows how challenging that highway is and can be.

I’m wondering if the minister could give us an update. I think there was some work that was going to be done during the course of the last year. Certainly, my colleague and I are very interested in an update and continuing to see investment along the Highway 5 corridor as well.

With that, I’ll wait for the answer and thank the minister and her team.

Again, for the regional team, I appreciate the constructive way they approach the work they do where we live.

Hon. C. Trevena: We have been pretty active on Highway 5, as the member mentioned. We have done a number of passing lanes. The most recent are at Darfield and Vinsulla, but there have been a number of passing lanes built. We are also doing work for improvements that can be made for a passing or climbing lane in Barriere. Work is starting on that. There’s also planning for intersection improvements at Clearwater. I know that some of these may be in her colleague’s riding. There’s also resurfacing work happening at the moment between McLure and Louis Creek. Then there are a number of bridge rehabilitation projects underway as well as wildlife fencing.

T. Stone: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple of questions. Good afternoon to the minister. I will continue the tradition of acknowledging, very emphatically, the exceptional work of all of the men and women in the Ministry of Transportation and the great work that they do in my part of the province and around all of British Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

Minister, there are two sections of road that I wanted to ask a few questions about. The first is Agate Bay Road, which connects Adams Lake with…. It comes out just in and around, sort of, the Barriere area.

As a little bit of context for this particular issue, as the minister would know well, when the Vavenby Canfor mill shut down, there was a subsequent tenure transfer that was done between Canfor and Interfor. Interfor owns the Adams Lake mill. It’s a fairly new, state-of-the-art mill, in terms of all the upgrades and investments that have been made. And that mill employs hundreds of people, folks who work and live in the Adams Lake, Chase and Kamloops areas, predominantly, not to mention all of the contractors that feed into that mill.

Interfor expects to be moving about 450,000 cubic metres of wood along that road, which, again, connects Highway 5 to the Adams Lake area and ultimately connects to the road just in front of the mill there. The issue for Interfor here is that they have a proposal in to the Ministry of Transportation to complete a number of, I think, fairly reasonable safety upgrades to Agate Bay Road that would facilitate the use of wider bunks on their hauling trucks. They would like to be able to accommodate 2.9-metre-wide bunks. As we all know, the standard maximum legal width at the moment is 2.6 metres. The ability to have the wider bunk, which many of the mill’s competitors are able to do in select cases on select sections of road, becomes a viability issue for this mill and being able to cost-effectively, as much as possible, get that fibre into that mill and sustain those jobs that are there.

Huge safety benefits and a critical economic imperative for those jobs — and it’s something, I would add, that mayors and councils from Clearwater through Barriere and to Chase and regional directors and so forth are all in unison on, in urging the Ministry of Transportation to complete these safety upgrades. So my question is this. Can the minister provide any sense of what the ministry’s direction is at the moment on this particular project? Is it indeed seriously being considered in the ministry? And I think as important, if not more, if the answer to that is yes, then is there a timeline on when this work would be done?

The ministry has been really good in meeting with Interfor and all the other stakeholders, but again, the frustration is beginning to build that while the meetings have been good, there hasn’t been a clear indication yet as to when a yes-or-no final decision will be made and when work would actually start, if the decision is a positive one, which we all hope it will be.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question. Obviously, if the road was widened, it means that there’s the possibility that the wider bunks could operate. But we are taking this very seriously, obviously. I can’t give the member a yes or no at the moment, because we’re assessing the implications of widening it — not just, obviously, the costs but a number of issues.

One is safety. It’s a road that is not just used for logging and for mills. It’s residential. It’s agricultural. It’s a road that’s used by tourists. So it is well used. Safety, as the member very well knows, is the priority of this ministry.

There’s also, as we do, an assessment, whether there are any Indigenous indications, archaeological issues or anything else. So we are assessing it. We are not ruling it out. We’re not saying yes. We’re not saying no at the moment. It is being thoroughly assessed, about whether this is an appropriate and safe thing to do.

T. Stone: I appreciate that, Minister. I would just like to, one final time on this particular section of road, really underscore the critical importance from an economic perspective, from a jobs perspective, for this road to actually have the safety upgrades made to it in order to be able to accommodate 2.9-metre-wide bunks. I couldn’t agree more. Safety is absolutely critical, and Interfor and everyone else is obviously of that view as well. It just, I believe, is one of the few mills that doesn’t have the ability to feed at least some of their operations with 2.9-metre bunks. So it is a competitiveness issue, and there’s a whole bunch of jobs that are attached to this mill at the moment. I’ll leave it there.

I guess, actually, one final point. Nobody at Interfor, the local governments, myself, is asking for 2.9-metre bunks to be allowed on holding roads, which is what Agate Bay Road connects to. It’s just on Agate Bay Road, for absolute clarity. Again, I strongly urge the minister to move this along as expeditiously as she can in her ministry with the hundreds of jobs in mind that are potentially at stake.

The other issue that I wanted to touch on is the Trans-Canada Highway east of Kamloops. As, again, we all know, very recently there was an announcement made that a section of the Trans-Canada four-laning projects was going to tender and specifically the Chase Creek to Chase West section. I just have a series of questions on this.

[2:30 p.m.]

First off, can the minister confirm the length of the two phases that were detailed in the announcement when the tender was recently announced, those being Chase Creek to Chase West as well as Chase West to the Chase Creek bridge — that the total length of four-laning and the total number of kilometres for those two sections combined will be 4.6 kilometres?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. In fact, it’s a perfect time to be asking this question, because the job was awarded today. I don’t know whether the member has heard yet, but it’s gone to a Kamloops company. It is going to be very much keeping the jobs local, which is also part of the community benefits agreement under which this is being built.

Particularly at a time…. It’s good at any time to be ensuring that local companies get the work and that local people get hired, but I think at the moment, as we are starting to rebuild out of COVID, even though construction and highway construction have remained an essential service, there really is that added impetus to be building now and to be getting people to work, getting people trained and moving on. The total kilometrage, rather than mileage, of the project is 4.9 kilometres.

T. Stone: Thanks to the minister. It’s 4.9 kilometres. I would note that previous iterations of the project would have actually provided for a cumulative 6.4 kilometres for those two segments combined. I think the main reason for the reduction is that the design no longer includes the four-laning component of the highway that would have come down from Jade Mountain to the Chase Creek bridge. There were some access improvements originally included in the design, up at Mattey’s Road at the top of Jade Mountain, which are no longer included.

The second question: can the minister confirm that, again with these two segments combined, there will be a full-access interchange — the news release refers to a grade-separated interchange; I want to make sure that we’re using the same language here — at Brooke Drive in the village of Chase? That’s the only grade-separated interchange that’s included in the current design of the project, with respect to those two segments that span the distance from Chase Creek to the Chase Creek bridge.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I know the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has been quite frustrated with the time it’s taken to get this to the stage it is at. It has been a lot of consultation with community. We’ve had a lot of input. It’s taken some time. Obviously, we’ve been dealing, as well, as the member well knows, with the Indigenous communities.

We have had a huge amount of community input, and as part of the community input, there has been change in the scope. The member is correct: there is one grade-separated interchange, full-access interchange.

T. Stone: My next question is: can the minister confirm that the third segment that was always part of this section of highway…? It is one that will span about five kilometres that would go from Hoffman’s Bluff, where the four-laning ends today, through to Chase Creek, which is the new segment that has been tendered and awarded today. That segment in the middle, which is largely through Neskonlith Band lands, is no longer in the construction schedule?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, that section that has been removed is within Neskonlith territory. The whole section is in Neskonlith territory. There is still no agreement with the Neskonlith on this. We are still having conversations, still talking with them about this. Going to obviously be using this conversation to have the best outcomes and the best design.

But it’s also a section 35 agreement. So as the member very well knows, having worked through this himself…. He knows that this is absolutely important that we get it right. That’s why it was withdrawn from this project at this time.

T. Stone: My next question actually relates to a concern that the village of Chase has. The minister and I have talked about a broad range of these…. The scope, features of this entire project for the last three years, and I think even previously for a couple years before that, when our roles were reversed.

The village of Chase is very, very concerned that in the section between Chase West and the Chase Creek bridge, the design may no longer include an underpass, even if it’s just for emergency vehicles — an underpass at Coburn. There, I believe, is talk about there being emergency access from Coburn to the highway, but it would only be in a westbound direction. Emergency vehicles which originate in the Coburn Street area would have to all the way through Chase and around to the Brooke interchange in order to be able to head out east on the TransCanada Highway.

[2:40 p.m.]

The concern here is that a tremendous amount of valiant effort and work is done by first responders from Chase along that entire section of TransCanada Highway, between Chase and the Shuswap and heading into the North Shuswap area. Two minutes, three minutes, five minutes of difference can make a real difference.

On behalf of the village of Chase, I would like to ask the minister if she can confirm that as it stands today, there is no plan to include an underpass at Coburn to facilitate emergency access on and off the highway in both directions — a feature, by the way, that had long been promised and had been committed to and was in many versions of the design through all the engagements and the town halls and everything that was done over the years with the people of Chase.

Is that emergency underpass from Coburn under the Trans-Canada Highway no longer in the design for this stretch of four-laning improvement?

Hon. C. Trevena: I should mention that in the room now, we also do have Jennifer Fraser, who is responsible for the whole Trans-Canada Highway project — the executive director on that and doing an amazing job as we’re moving ahead with this.

The team that’s working on the Trans-Canada Highway and each specific project has been working extremely hard. In fact, there have been six meetings in the last two months, through COVID, with the administration of the village of Chase to talk about this access point.

The member is correct that there will not be an underpass. But in meetings as recently as today…. There was a meeting with the fire chief. We continue to meet to work through the issues. But it was mutually understood that the present configuration that we’re looking at adds 60 seconds to a response time. That’s something the fire chief is cognizant of. We’ve been having discussions with him on that, as well as discussions with the administrative staff for the village of Chase.

T. Stone: Well, thank you, Minister. I would point out, however, that as recently as this morning, the village administration in the village of Chase has expressed again to me that while their issue is not interaction with the MOTI staff, Jennifer Fraser and everyone else that has been working on this project….

[2:45 p.m.]

As I said at the outset, I have tremendous respect for all of them. They’re working very, very hard. Our concern is not there at all. Access to the MOTI staff is not a concern either.

What our concern is, is the decision — which ultimately is yours, at the recommendation of the folks that determine how much money is available to do what in the budget — whether or not this emergency access would continue to be included in the project as it had been up until quite recently. I’m disappointed to hear that, at the moment, it’s not there. It would be part of the next phase that would go to tender.

I know that it’s not too late for any final design changes. To that extent, I would just say, from an emergency perspective, to please consider taking another look at that emergency access. Talk to the mayor and council again about that, and first responders as well.

The next question relates to the project budget. The revised or current project budget is now $260 million for this segment. That’s up from $199 million, a 30 percent increase. I’m wondering if you could provide me with a breakdown and allocate that $260 million as specific to each of the three segments: again, Chase West to Chase Creek, which was awarded today; Chase West to Chase Creek bridge, which would presumably be the next phase that would go to tender; and the third component, which is Hoffman’s Bluff to Chase Creek. Can you provide me with a breakdown of the $260 million total project costs by allocating those costs to each of those three segments?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The first section is now not going ahead because we’re still working with Neskonlith. As the member is well aware, having an agreement with the Indigenous community in whose territory this is operating…. Literally, the whole segment is within their territory. That’s not going ahead. That had been budgeted at $52 million.

The first section, which the member would know is Chase Creek to Chase West, had been $54 million. That would be $54 million, and now that is $138 million. Chase West to Jade Mountain had been $92.6 million and now is $122 million.

T. Stone: I just want to be absolutely clear that you are saying, Minister, that the rescoped project, which had been a 9.9-kilometre contiguous section of four-laning highway from where it ends at Hoffman’s Bluff today to the top of Jade Mountain, 9.9 kilometres, is now a 4.9-kilometre project that will have a two-lane section stuck in the middle between Hoffman’s Bluff and Chase West and then open up to a four-lane at that 4.9-kilometre contiguous section that goes from Chase West to the Chase Creek bridge. A 4.9-kilometre section for $61 million more than what the previous budget, previous scope provided for with a 9.9-kilometre contiguous segment of highway for $199 million.

I just want to make absolutely certain that that’s what you’re saying. The scope has been reduced by five kilometres, one less full-access, grade-separated interchange, no emergency access at Coburn underneath the Trans-Canada Highway, for $61 million more than what the previous budget provided for.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question. With all due respect to the member, who actually was in this seat at the time of the announcements, when the project was first announced back in 2015…. I think that the member would be well aware that it was a conceptual design. It was at very early stages when it was announced.

There has been a robust amount of work done since then. It’s basically geotechnical work, archaeological work and engineering work — looking at the sections contiguously, rather than the first two segments and then the third segment. There has been a huge amount of work done between that first 2015 announcement….

I understand the pressure that was felt at the time to try to ensure that there was going to be access to federal funding, but in doing that…. The figures were definitely not solid. In the number of years since that first announcement, there has been a lot of work done. The member well knows there has been a lot of work done.

As I say, I know that people around the community…. There’s a sense of frustration. They just want to get it done. But that amount of work — all the geotechnical work, the archaeological work that will need to be done, the safety aspects of doing it and how we do it best for the community to make sure it’s safe…. As well, we have to account for the fact that up until the last couple of months, it was a very, very robust market. Things were costing a lot more. As everybody says, it was a hot market.

I think that there are a number of reasons why we are faced with what is an increase in the budget. I think what we have now is the realistic budget. I think what was proffered before, unfortunately, wasn’t grounded in a foundation.

Our government is working very hard to make sure that as we move on with these — whether they are the projects that have been on the drawing board, conceptually or however, for a long while — we actually do a lot of that work. We’re making sure that we are doing a lot of the preliminary work before we’re going out to announce. Nobody wants to get caught with a big jump like this. I think it is really….

We’ve got a responsibility to the people of B.C., and we want to make sure that we get it right. Unfortunately, it came out…. I think it was announced too early. It would be nice to get a bit more preliminary work and have a bit more basis before having made the announcement.

T. Stone: With all due respect to the minister…. This project was, indeed, first announced in the summer of 2015. I remember the day well. It was a beautiful sunny day.

The project and all of the engineering, the accommodation and engagement work with First Nations…. Every aspect of that project went through rigorous, rigorous work inside the ministry — through 2015, through 2016 and into 2017 — such that the first segment was tender-ready in the summer of 2017. We are now in the summer of 2020.

[3:00 p.m.]

In the laundry list of reasons why, in the minister’s opinion, this project has ballooned in cost by 30 percent — $61 million more for half of the highway, 9.9 kilometres to 4.9 kilometres, one less full-access interchange and we still have to pay $61 million more — it is interesting that you failed to mention, in your last response, the fact that your government opted not to move forward with a tender-ready project in 2017. That’s not the project as it existed in 2015 but the project as it existed, tender-ready, in 2017, that you opted not to move forward with and, rather, have delayed the project to the point that we’re now three years later.

Of course the costs are going to go up when you delay a major highway construction project by three years. You failed to mention that. You also conveniently failed to mention the union-only requirements, the so-called community benefits agreements that are wrapped around this project. I just want to be really clear here that you are confirming today that a project that was budgeted at $199 million for 9.9 kilometres of four-laning, contiguous from Hoffman’s Bluff all the way to the top of Jade Mountain, would have included a couple of full-access interchanges and included safety and access improvements at Matteys Road.

We’re now down to half the total number of kilometres, and we’re down to one full-access interchange, no emergency access at Coburn and no improvements at Matteys Road. The four-laning doesn’t even go up the hill to the top of Jade now. That’s a big chunk of…. That’s one of the kilometres that’s missing from this revised project.

Is the minister willing to acknowledge that the three-year delay that she is responsible for is a large part of the reason for the cost escalation on this project and the need to also significantly downscale the scope? Is she also willing to acknowledge that the union-only requirements have helped balloon this cost? What component of the $61 million…? Let me rephrase that: what is the total cost of the overall project budget, the $260 million, that relates to the requirement for the NDP’s chosen unions to work on this project?

Minister, I hope you’re prepared to look the people of Kamloops and the surrounding region in the eyes, tell them what that cost is and confirm that it was your delays — three years’ worth of time — that has resulted in this project being far, far inferior from what it originally was. It’s three years late at $61 million more cost to the taxpayer.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that the spring of 2017 was a rough time. There was, obviously, a change in government during that time. And the member, as the former minister and the representative for the area in which this project is going to be occurring — the member for a project which was still in a conceptual design…. Yes, there was a design in place, but there was no consensus with the village of Chase. There was a desire to ensure that the village of Chase…. This is back in the spring of 2017, through into the summer of 2107. There was a real desire to get consensus and to get the village of Chase on board.

I understand that that started in the previous government and continued through our government, because you want to make sure that local government is as much in agreement. It took time to get an agreement with the local community. And I think that the member should also remember that at that time, there was no accommodation agreement. The member is very well aware that you do not do significant highway construction projects through traditional territory without an accommodation agreement. There was no accommodation agreement. It was not a matter of a new minister saying: “We’re not going to do it.” The project was not ready to go out of the door.

The project has now gone out. It has been tendered; it has been awarded. For the member’s elucidation, there were six bidders. It is a community benefits agreement. I’m very proud that it’s a community benefits agreement, because community benefits agreements make sure that when we are doing any construction, we’re investing not just in the infrastructure, but we’re investing in the people of B.C.

I’d hope that the member is happy, because the successful bidder is a Kamloops company that’ll be hiring local people, Indigenous people, less-representative communities — whether it’s women or others who don’t usually work on these projects — and they’ll be getting trained. They will then be trained people in the member’s own community. I think it is a very significant win for the member that his community will have this opportunity.

There were a couple of meetings with the bidders. It was organized very well. There were meetings with the bidders to discuss any questions that they may have about community benefits agreements. Out of that, there were four very administrative questions about community benefits agreements.

[3:10 p.m.]

It seems that while the opposition wants to get very concerned about community benefits agreements, the sector is working with this structure. It seems to be able to work with this structure and seems to have very few worries about the way that our government is working. I’d just like to let the member know that we’re very pleased with the tender results and look forward to the work starting.

T. Stone: Again, just to put some facts on the table, the previous projects of the Trans-Canada corridor that were done by the former government east of Kamloops were all done with appropriate accommodation agreements in place. They were all done by companies that employed a heck of a lot of local men and women. The last segment of the Trans-Canada through Hoffman’s Bluff that was done employed a whole bunch of people locally. In fact, it’s good business sense that a company is going to hire employees that live as close to the project site as possible. That’s good business sense.

The Hoffman’s Bluff project also had the highest percentage of Indigenous employment on it. We reached a high-water mark of 25 percent. We’re very proud of that. We didn’t need a union-only requirement to be attached to the agreement in order to make that happen.

I would say that the minister’s comment about there being no consensus on the design is just preposterous. It’s ridiculous. I can tell you that there was tremendous consensus of the entire community, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, that it be a 9.9 kilometre, four-lane corridor. There was consensus that it include two full-access interchanges. There was consensus that there be an emergency underpass at Coburn. There was consensus that there be access and safety improvements at Mattey’s Road, at the top of Jade Mountain. There was consensus in all of that.

What there was not consensus on was cutting the total number of four-laning down from 9.9 kilometres to 4.9 kilometres, removing an entire interchange, removing the safety improvements that would allow for an underpass at Coburn for emergency access and removing the improvements at Mattey’s Road. There was no consensus for that. For $61 million more, I would add, and three years late — no consensus for that.

Minister, it’s very, very disappointing that this project is one that’s going to cost the taxpayers $61 million for a heck of a lot less. I know people out there are thinking long and hard about what government could do with $61 million. The challenges that people are facing in the midst of COVID in health care and education, not to mention the additional four-laning you could do and the safety improvements on highways you could do for $61 million…. Yet it’s going into, largely, pumping up this union-only requirement of the NDP, on top of these ridiculous delays in the highway project to begin with. Three years of delays — that’s on you, Madam Minister.

My final question is this, and it’s totally unrelated to the Trans-Canada Highway. It’s Highway 5A at Stump Lake. Once I finish this question, I will cede my place for one of my colleagues.

As the minister is likely aware, there has been a tremendous amount of frustration, anger and anxiety amongst residents at Stump Lake. Increasingly, over the last number of years, it’s come to a head at this freshet, as the lake level at Stump Lake has risen each year over the last three years. People’s homes are all flooded out. That’s not your issue.

But the Highway 5A that runs along Stump Lake has been raised three times. There have been three separate projects to improve that road and raise it so that it’s not literally underwater. There was a significant closure of the highway as a result of that this year while the work was underway.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would like to know how much the Ministry of Transportation has spent on those safety improvements over the last three years on that segment of Highway 5A along Stump Lake. How much, total, has the ministry spent to do that work? What does the minister have in her budget for work for the balance of this year on that section of highway? I think it’s really important to understand the costs associated with what’s happening with this lake and the implications it’s having on the highway, which is obviously a critical artery for many, many people in and around the Stump Lake region.

With that, I will move on and thank the minister and, importantly, her staff for their time today.

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to follow up on the member’s comments…. Before I go into Stump Lake, I want to touch on a couple.

Our government is completely committed to the community benefits agreement. We really do believe in investing in the people of British Columbia when we are investing in our infrastructure. We know there is a skills shortage, and we know that at this time, post-COVID, that it could not be a better time to be using this sort of approach, and we will continue to be using that on our Highway 1 projects as well as, at the moment, on the Pattullo Bridge and when we move forward with the Broadway project as well as others on a case-by-case basis.

Our government also appreciates, before announcing a project, that we do get as much preliminary work done as possible so that nobody is shocked by the final ticket price — that we have done the work. We are also committed to making sure, as I mentioned to one of your colleagues earlier, that we are working fully through UNDRIP and that we have absolutely the needs of First Nations and the accommodation of First Nations before we move on projects.

On Stump Lake, the first flooding came in 2017. Hadn’t seen the road flooded before. There was some minor work done, which is basically armoring the edge of the roadway. This year, there’s been more significant work building up the roadway. This, at the moment, is $2½ million. But it’s likely to be a little bit more, because there’s going to be some paving. It’s not coming out of our rehab budget; it’s coming out of the emergency repair budget.

G. Kyllo: Welcome, Minister.

I was just wondering if you might be able to share with us the total value of expenditures for money spent on Trans-Canada Highway improvement projects for the fiscal years ’15-16, ’16-17, ’17-18 and ’18-19.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. It’s interesting — the history that we have on four-laning the Trans-Canada. It actually started in the 1990s, and here we are in the 2020s, and we’re still discussing four-laning the Trans-Canada. There have been various iterations of it.

But moving through, whether it was Cache Creek to the Rockies or Kamloops to the Alberta border, however it is now phrased, it is definitely a project that has been under many governments as we move forward to make that highway safer. I think, whichever stripe of government we are, it is a commitment to make that highway safer.

To the member’s question, in ’15-16, it was $18 million; in ’16-17, $32 million; in ’17-18, $46 million; and in ’18-19, $37 million.

G. Kyllo: Could the minister also share with us: what was the total expenditure set forth in the capital plan for the year ending March 31, 2020, our past fiscal? How many dollars were set aside in the transportation capital plan that were not actually expensed? These would be dollars that were assigned and developed to be spent in this last fiscal that represent projects that did not get out the door.

Hon. C. Trevena: That will come out in public accounts.

G. Kyllo: So is the minister indicating that she is not familiar with the financial performance of the ministry for which she has responsibility?

Hon. C. Trevena: The ministry hasn’t finished the audit yet, so we have no audited numbers. This will come out in the public accounts, as it usually does.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister, then, able to share, with those that are on the Zoom call here today as well as those listening at home, the total dollars that were unspent that were identified in the capital plan for fiscal 2018-2019?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Since this isn’t about this current year, we will just check that figure and get back to the member.

G. Kyllo: Okay. If the minister does not have that number available, will the minister commit, then, to providing that in writing, back to myself, at a future date?

Hon. C. Trevena: Absolutely. Of course we will.

G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you very much.

I just was wondering if the minister may be able to share with me if there are any plans for the resurfacing of Mabel Lake Road. I know that last year, during estimates, we had a conversation about Mabel Lake Road. That was one of the areas of concern. It’s in pretty rough shape. I know local residents are certainly looking for some work to be done on that roadway.

I’m just wondering if the minister is able to share if Mabel Lake Road is identified for significant works in either this fiscal or in the years ahead.

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies for the time. We were just trying to track down and make sure we got it right for the member.

[3:30 p.m.]

There is resurfacing of Mabel Lake Road this year. It’s Mabel Lake Road, Trinity Valley Road and Springbend. It’s a $4.4 million project.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I know that residents of the Shuswap will be very excited to hear that news.

There was another project that we spoke about last year during estimates that is in and around the Sorrento area. There’s a creek called Newsome Creek, which flows underneath the Trans-Canada Highway. There’s a significant amount of erosion that has happened in the creek. Basically, it would be to the immediate north of Highway 1. I know that it was initially identified as a project for either a new culvert, a box culvert or, potentially, a clear-span bridge. I know there was significant work that was undertaken for engineering.

The residents, though, have yet to hear back whether there’s been a final decision on what is going to happen with it. Residents were initially encouraged by the thought that work was going to happen last year. That work did not happen over the winter months. I’m just wondering if the minister might be able to share with the residents of Shuswap, specifically in the Sorrento area, if that project, indeed, has been identified, what that project looks like and when it might get underway.

Hon. C. Trevena: The engineering is underway there. It’s a constrained site. I think the member is aware. There are obviously hydrological issues. It’s water. Staff will follow up with you. Regional staff will follow up with the member to let him know when things are moving along. But at the moment, it’s still in engineering on how to make sure that whatever goes in there fits.

G. Kyllo: If I may just follow up with the minister. Thank you for that answer. I’m certainly happy to have an opportunity to speak further with ministry staff.

You indicated it’s currently in engineering. I know that engineering work has been underway for going on close to six months now. I’m just wondering. Is the minister able to indicate when that engineering is complete, if the project would actually be underway and constructed prior to next season’s freshet?

Hon. C. Trevena: The good news is it’s in engineering. The bad news is that — I’ve been advised by staff — it’s a complex project. They mentioned that it’s a very tight location. With it being a tight location, they’re looking very closely at the effects that whatever goes in there is going to have both upstream and downstream. So the ministry is working closely with the regional district and don’t anticipate that it’s going to happen before the next freshet season.

[3:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: That is very unfortunate to hear. Residents in the Newsome Creek area have been very concerned. As the minister is well aware, there is significant erosion that is happening in the creek banks below it. There were a number of houses that were on evacuation orders last year. I know the area director for the region, Paul Demenok, has been very vocal about his concern about the lack of progress on this particular area.

I certainly would encourage the minister to do what she can to see that the necessary funds are set aside in order to address this very important area that’s of significant concern, obviously both for the health and welfare of residents in the area as well as the travelling public.

One additional question would come to the area of Highway 97A. I know there’s been a considerable amount of work contemplated around Highway 1.

Before I get into a couple of the big projects on Highway 1, I just wanted to quickly ask the minister if there’s any projects identified for highway upgrades in the Enderby area, specifically around the intersection with Canyon Road.

Splatsin First Nation have considerable business interests in that immediate area. It’s an area that’s highly congested during the summer months. I know that there has been a lot of discussion with the local mayor and council about the potential for highway upgrades through that area. I’m just wondering if the minister might be able to identify or advise or indicate to local residents if there’s any further engineering design work that would be going on in and around Highway 97A and Canyon Road in Enderby.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, just to let him know that, at the moment, there’s a corridor planning study happening for the area. There are a number of needs for that whole section, so we’re looking at it corridor-wide. We’ve got meetings with both the community, with the Splatsin. We’re doing it virtually at the moment, obviously because of COVID, but I’m looking forward to having those discussions.

While I’m at it, I’ve got to admit that I haven’t introduced one of the staff members in the room, who is assisting on this. That’s Paula Cousins, deputy director for the southern Interior region, who’s been helping here. I’m sure the member knows Ms. Cousins very well, a great professional.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Minister.

At this point in time for the Highway 97A corridor, it’s still just fairly high-level discussions and has not got to the point of actually doing any detailed planning or design work. Certainly, I would entertain that that also would mean that no capital expenditure is planned for that region in the current capital plan. Would that be correct?

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, no, we are doing the corridor planning study. We want to make sure that we can address as many of the concerns as possible, so we want to make sure we get it right. We’re doing the study. We are engaging with communities and engaging with Splatsin, trying to answer some questions.

[3:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister. My understanding is that you guys typically work on a three-year capital plan. So residents of the area can anticipate that there would not be any work starting for at least three years at a minimum.

I just had two other questions. I wanted to thank the minister for finally getting the bid tender out for phase 1, the first segment, of the Salmon Arm west highway construction project.

My comments are kind of similar to those of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson — in that I was very proud, back in 2016, to stand and make the announcement for a significant highway project in the Salmon Arm area. This project is something that local residents were looking for, for over 20 years. I was really happy to see that the project was announced and fully funded, with a significant contribution from the federal government, back in 2016.

Not unlike the Chase project, a lot of the land acquisitions had all been acquired through 2016-17. By 2017, the tender for the first portion of the first segment of the construction project was actually identified and ready to go. That, unfortunately, did not happen in 2017. Although it was the anticipation at the time that the first segment of this three-phase project would have been completed by now, it is now just finally getting up and running.

My questions are kind of more specific to what the estimated budget cost is for segment 1 — which, I believe, is phase 1 of the project — as well as segments 2 and 3. There are three main segments to this project, for four-laning and a replacement of the Salmon River Bridge. I’m just wondering if the minister can share with us what the new budget is for those three different segments of the project.

Hon. C. Trevena: For the member, just a point of clarification. The fact that we’re doing a planning study now and that it’s not on the capital list at the moment doesn’t mean that the member would necessarily have to wait for three years. We have, basically, a rolling plan.

Once we start work on engineering on something…. As I have mentioned to his colleague, we are very thorough in our preliminary works, because we don’t want to get caught out on figures that are not accurate. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t happen for three years. He can assure his constituents that this is definitely on our radar. We’re having the planning study for a reason. We know that there are concerns in that area.

As far as the Salmon Arm tender is concerned, I too am very pleased it’s going out. We want to move ahead with the four-laning of the Trans-Canada. As mentioned before, this is something that has been going since the 1990s. We’ve all been trying to get on with four-laning the Trans-Canada. As the member said, it was first announced back in about 2015 or 2016. Similarly — I’m not sure if he was listening to the discussion with his colleague from Kamloops–South Thompson — when it was initially announced and initial figures were announced, these were preliminary figures.

Unfortunately, they didn’t have the full engineering work, didn’t have the awareness of the archeological impacts and didn’t have the agreement with Indigenous communities. So we have now scaled this back down to two segments. It’s two segments now. The first segment, which is First Avenue to 10th Avenue, is $144.9 million. The second segment is $39.84 million.

[3:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: This is a bit surprising in that the project, when it was initially announced, was a full three phases. The minister has now just indicated that it is down to two phases.

I understand, in reading a column by Vaughn Palmer here a few weeks ago, that the federal government has also reduced their funding commitment from $48.5 million. They’ve reduced that down to $31.4 million. That’s $17.1 million of reduced funding they’re contributing towards this project. Also, we now learn that the third phase has actually been removed from the construction schedule.

Can the minister indicate how that in any way, shape or form correlates with her ministry mandate, which is to advance and accelerate the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway? We have the current Salmon Arm west project, which is significantly behind the original construction schedule, and now a significant portion of that project has been actually pulled or eliminated from the capital plan.

Hon. C. Trevena: To clarify for the member, the reason that we no longer have the federal funding that he mentioned is because we don’t actually have an agreement with the Neskonlith for that first section. That funding is linked to having agreement.

[3:50 p.m.]

As I mentioned to his colleague the member for Kamloops South, we absolutely have to make sure that we have agreement. We’re working well with the Neskonlith on this, and we have very regular conversations with them on it, but we still don’t have an accommodation agreement. That amount of federal dollars was linked to that segment. I think this is one issue that we have to be very cognizant of, working throughout this: that we do have agreement with First Nations.

The member is aware that the tender for the preload went out last year or the year before, and we do have a preload there. Work will get underway very quickly, once this contract is awarded. It’s going out now to bid. The contract is out now.

I think the other aspect for the member is that again, like all our Highway 1 projects, it’s going to be a community benefits agreement project. It will be focusing on ensuring that we’re doing the work, that we are building the infrastructure, but our focus is on people.

We’re absolutely making sure that we get the best infrastructure possible, but we’re training people in B.C., and we’re hiring locally. I think the member would be very supportive of this at this time when we’re hoping that we’re coming out of COVID and we’re trying to rebuild and restart our economy to get as much local employment and as much training as possible and to make sure that we have a strong workforce so that we’re ready to deal with the future.

G. Kyllo: I must say that I’m a bit surprised by the minister’s answer, indicating that they do not yet have an accommodation agreement in place with the Neskonlith First Nation for phase 1. Now, the minister had indicated that they want to make sure that they have all the accommodations in place before any work is tendered, in order to have a full, comprehensive idea of the overall cost.

Yet she’s indicating that the construction tender for what I understand to be phase 1 of the project — which is the replacement of the Salmon River Bridge, and it just went out here about three weeks ago…. Can the member just confirm and clarify that she does not have an accommodation agreement in place with the Neskonlith First Nation for the construction tender that was just released here last month?

Hon. C. Trevena: Absolutely, we have an accommodation agreement for the tendered project. We wouldn’t move ahead without it. It was the piece that we are not moving ahead with at the moment when we have gone down…. There were three segments; we have two segments. The section that is not moving ahead is because we don’t have an accommodation agreement.

If I might take the liberty to read into the record, Madam Chair, a comment from Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson of the Neskonlith. I think it reflects our commitment to working with the Neskonlith. She says:

“The province has been working with us on the process for it, but Neskonlith — we want to make sure all the CP holders along the highway, and the band members overall, are well informed and have all the information and appropriate studies that are required to make informed decisions when the time comes.”

She goes on to say:

“If you ask me what’s the difference in this process today compared to even ten or 20 years ago, is that our bands are actually involved. By doing the heritage studies, we’re involved in doing environmental studies. We’ve been doing all kinds of different studies along the highway to ensure that we make informed decisions. And also, in regard to our self-determination, where our communities will decide on what’s the best path forward.”

I think that this is significant — that we are working so closely with the Indigenous communities along this corridor. We cannot move ahead unless we are working in this way. I think this is the way that it will be going forward.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister. When I’m asking questions, I’m certainly not asking just on my own behalf. I’m asking questions on behalf of residents of Shuswap. It’s interesting, Minister. Last year in estimates — when I asked the question specifically about the lack of action and the continuous delays on this particular project — you had indicated that when you shared this information, it was certainly not just with me. I’m assuming you were also speaking and sharing with the constituents of Shuswap.

[3:55 p.m.]

You confirmed by saying: “Yes. To repeat my previous answer, spring of 2021 for the second two phases.” Now, this was in conversation about when the second two phases of the project would be undergoing. You’re now indicating that one of those second two phases is off the construction schedule.

I fully appreciate that there needs to be accommodation agreements and good proper consultation with our First Nations communities prior to work going to tender, but the minister seems to somehow indicate that because the First Nations accommodation is yet to be done, that gives the right or the reason why the Transportation Ministry can pull the project entirely from the schedule.

I think that as much as we all respect the need for consultation, the need for proper engineering, it’s also important that we have respect for taxpayers. These delays have cost significant additional dollars to the cost of the project.

When this project was initially announced, it was 6.1 kilometres of four-laning, and the announced project price in 2016 was $162.7 million. Now, that equates to approximately $26.6 million per kilometre. The project has now been scaled back to 3.3 kilometres. One segment has been cancelled, and the project price has gone up to $184.7 million, which equates to $55.9 million a kilometre.

Can the minister explain how this project has gone so wildly over budget, going from $26.6 million a kilometre to a whopping $55.9 million per kilometre and three years late?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not going to split hairs about what I said last year to what is happening this year. Just going through the Hansard of last year, I was six months out. I said fall for it to be tendered. It was spring that it was tendered. It’s out on the market now. Looking forward to seeing the bids come in.

I go back to the discussion I had with the member’s colleague. The original announcement for this was in 2016. That was based on costings from 2015. Having seen what has come from some…. We wanted to do due diligence. We wanted to make sure that when we’re doing a project, any sort of project, we get an accurate figure.

So that’s why we have done due diligence, making sure that the figure we are looking at and the figure we are putting to a project actually reflect reality. I think that is very responsible. It’s very responsible for the public of B.C. People want to make sure that they are getting good projects.

During the time, we have seen that the construction market really rose. When we were putting this project together, it was a very hot construction market. I think people are very well aware of that.

I’ve got to say that I’m very encouraged by what we’re seeing in the market now. Even despite COVID — or, perhaps, because of COVID — we are seeing a very healthy market. Hopefully, we’ll get very healthy bids for this project now that it’s out on the market.

The Chair: Members, we will now take a short recess of five minutes. Thank you.

Hon. C. Trevena: Madam Chair, might I ask that we take a ten-minute recess, because we’ve not had a break at all, if that’s okay.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Yes.

We will take a ten-minute recess, Members. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:02 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to follow up on a question from the member for Shuswap. He wanted to know some figures from ’18-19 and ’19-20.

To let him know, the figures he was looking for from ’18-19 are in the ministry’s annual report, which is available online, and ’19-20 will be issued in July and will also be available online. Just to save him waiting for a letter from us.

The Chair: The member for Skeena.

E. Ross: Thank you, Chair. I welcome the Chair to this portion of the proceedings.

Thank you to the minister for participating, as well, and for her answers to these questions.

I’m going to make this relatively short and relatively easy, I think. Mainly, my questions are around projects that are on the radar but are projects that would like to get beyond being just on the radar. The ministry has been notified of these projects — in particular, in relation to what’s happening here in Skeena. The tremendous amount of activity and the pressure being put on the services and the infrastructure up here in Skeena, specifically Terrace, through the LNG development as well as activities that are happening in Prince Rupert.

I’ll start with the city of Terrace. Terrace has been pretty consistent in asking for support and help on their issues that they have with the existing railway line through Terrace. We’ve known for quite some time that it has been a safety issue. There are many parties involved in this equation. There is CN. There is the federal government and, to a certain extent, the provincial government.

The Terrace council has been participating in the budget hearings and the consultations. They would like to close the loop in terms of the process they’re currently following versus what people are thinking down in the Legislature. They want to know if the minister is aware of their request for a second railway crossing, preferably an overpass. Is there any effort being made on the province’s part to get in line with the federal government as well as CN?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for his question. Yes, I am aware of the question.

I’ve met with the mayor a number of times. It has been raised at UBCM. I know this is important for the community. Trains go through Terrace. There is a concern about safety. We have been working with the city. We have been working on various studies with the city because we do maintain the crossing, and we maintain the arterial roads.

To be honest, it’s not on our priority list. I know it’s very much on the city’s priority list. We’ll continue to work with the city on where we can go with it, but we are not going to be moving ahead with it in the foreseeable future.

E. Ross: I understood this. There are a lot of players in this kind of equation. I think what Terrace city council is looking for is more of a team effort between the different levels of government and the different entities involved. I knew that’s what the answer was going to be. But given the COVID crisis and the need to kind of address infrastructure needs, Terrace council was hoping that maybe there was going to be some new energy put towards their request. But I totally understand the answer.

Another concern of the Terrace council is one that’s also kind of locked up in who’s responsible when, and that’s the Cranberry connector. I know that this has been an issue for the last 20 years. It usually comes up in the conversation about emergencies, because when the highway gets washed out outside of Terrace, there’s no other way to get out of Terrace and out to the rest of B.C. In the past, it’s been used as an emergency connector, but it’s an old logging road. I’ve looked at some of the studies myself in terms of what it would take to actually bring it up to highway grade, and that’s quite the price tag, in my own estimation.

The request from Terrace council as well as from Nisga’a is: is there at least an opening step that the region could take with the province in terms of maybe a seal-coat, or at least something to kind of smooth it out, so a 20-kilometre ride doesn’t take an hour? This is currently not on the books, officially, of the province, but it has been brought up annually, from year to year. I was wondering if there’s anything else that we could be doing as a region in terms of Ministry of Highways to kind of get this at least as a conversation piece.

Hon. C. Trevena: Member, thank you for this. It is very much on our radar — very well aware of this. It’s a Ministry of Forests road, the Cranberry connector, but we are working with the Ministry of Forests to see what we can do jointly to move on this road. We know of its significance. I’d say that the prime responsibility is the Ministry of Forests, but we are working on a study with the Ministry of Forests.

E. Ross: For everybody’s information, this will be my last question.

This is kind of a different conversation at it relates to First Nations. I’ve listened to the conversation a number of times over different infrastructure projects, and there is always this question about whether or not consultation has taken place.

[4:25 p.m.]

Well, in this case, we have a First Nation that’s not looking for consultation but is actually driving a proposed upgrade to B.C. highways. They are following the process. They are fully understanding the idea that they have to pay for all the studies that are related to the highway upgrades. They’re fully aware that it’s up to them to pay for any more future studies, and they’ve got to provide the rationale. They’ve got to provide it all, which they’ve been doing.

They’ve been working in cooperation with CN Rail, and they’re basically doing it because of the overwhelming response to their business side — the logistics park in particular. Their business is growing. It’s growing to the point where they will be feeding the Port of Prince Rupert as well as feeding the existing LNG operations in Kitimat. Terrace being the hub, the Kitsumkalum First Nations band is becoming almost like an inland port. What they are seeing is that because of their operations that are going full speed ahead, it seems to them that the B.C. highways are not keeping up.

What they would really like to see — and what they’re currently paying the cost for — are all the studies to review the upgrades to the highway, as well as the bridge upgrades, that can handle all the traffic, including the weight load of all these trucks that will be passing over the highway and over their bridge. They’re looking for ways to widen the entranceways. As well, they’re looking for the bridge upgrades.

They are following the process. They are working with the ministry for highways as well. They are doing their bit. They’re going out to get bank loans. They want to be kept apprised of any processes that they’re not aware of that might happen in Victoria. You talked about the Legislature. They’re fully aware of what they’ve got to do with the staff. They’re fully aware of what they’ve got to do with the department. But they want to be given a heads-up in terms of what they could be doing to be proactive to kind of speed this up, because their operations are not slowing down.

That is my last question, Chair, to the minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the question, Member. Obviously, we want to work with First Nations wherever possible and to work with Indigenous communities wherever possible. I’m very aware of what Kitsumkalum is doing. I know that they are working at the district level and moving ahead on permitting and so on. I think we can carry on being engaged on that level because we do want to make sure that we are fully engaging where it’s possible.

[4:30 p.m.]

P. Milobar: It’s good to be back. To start off, I have one quick question from the member for Shuswap. He apologizes. He had to, with these strange travel times, get from Victoria back home, and it was the only flight he could get. He had to leave before he could ask his last question.

The Bruhn Bridge in his area has been going through planning and different iterations for quite some time now, and the member’s request is actually quite a simple one. He’s just hoping that the minister would commit to and direct the local ministry staff to give a full briefing to the member back in the riding so that they can be fully apprised and understand exactly where everything is at under its current iteration.

Hon. C. Trevena: If you could pass on to your colleagues that the ministry met with the member for Shuswap very recently, just before the COVID shutdown. They’re doing a bit more archeological work, and when that is complete, I’m sure there will be the possibility for another briefing.

P. Milobar: Thank you. I’ll pass that along, and I’ll make sure he checks out Hansard as well.

I know the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has already raised this, but I just wanted to also lend my voice and reiterate how important the decision around the Interfor bunk width on the roads is. Certainly, the Vavenby Clearwater mill shutdown was a big blow to Clearwater and the North Thompson Valley that I represent. With the fibre baskets still being harvested in that area, however, and being processed by Interfor in Adams Lake, it is critical still to those local contractor jobs and a lot of work in the forest industry. So I put in a plug for that as well to make sure our area mills are as healthy as possible.

Another area that I wanted to inquire with the minister…. I’m not sure if she’ll be able to give an answer today or not. Under the theme of today, it’s really been…. I’ve heard “due diligence” said a lot by the minister this afternoon. Certainly, that seems to be a speaking point for the day, and that’s fine. I think it fits well into this next area of concern.

I have a constituent who runs a mining operation off the Red Lake Road in my riding. And when I say mining, it’s more of an earth-type absorbent-product mining. It’s not some big, massive open-pit copper mine.

They did their due diligence. They’ve been going quite well. They’ve been in operation for several years. They did their due diligence and signed an agreement with the Ministry of Transportation that would carry them through 2044 to use a storage area at the side of Red Lake Road so they could stockpile material. So when load restrictions went onto the road, they were past the load restriction area, and in those times of the year, they could reload from the stockpile area and continue to supply their customer base. It’s important to their overall operation.

Last year the ministry decided to terminate the 2044 expiring agreement a full 25 years early, which has created a lot of extra financial hardship for this company. They had to spend a lot of money to refigure the area. They are still using part of the area. It was that the ministry decided to shrink the area that they were using. It’s around 12,000 square feet, believe it or not, that they shrunk down.

[4:35 p.m.]

So when I say this is not a massive mining operation, this is, literally, the size of space we’re talking about. It’s about a 30-some-metre-by-30-some-metre area. No one can quite figure out why the Ministry of Transportation has suddenly decided that this is critical to their operations well up Red Lake Road.

Is the minister aware of this? Why were steps taken to terminate an agreement of such a small magnitude to the ministry and a large magnitude to the operator, especially one that had so much time left on its agreement?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member for the question.

It is an unusual situation, as the member says. Effectively, it’s a private company operating in a ministry gravel pit. We have been working with the operator to try to come to some agreement and have…. As the member said, the agreement is to reduce the size. The thing is, Member, that we as a ministry need access to that gravel for the use of the ministry for our public highways and the works of the ministry. To do it safely, we do need to reduce the space of the private operator.

P. Milobar: I’m fairly familiar with the various gravel pits that the ministry has around Kamloops. They have swap-and-share agreements with the regional district and with the city.

Can the minister, then, tell me where the material from this gravel pit, which is a fair ways away from any of the major highway networks within our area — where exactly the critical timing, let alone the consistent volume, needed to be making that, essentially, an operational gravel pit again for any regular basis — would be going to?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies for the delay. We were getting back in touch with the folks in Kamloops just to clarify here.

The gravel that is in the pit is used in the Tranquille–​Criss Creek area for the side roads there. It is, effectively, a very cost-effective source for the roads in that area and makes sure that we’re not hauling aggregate from a pit in a vastly different location. It is a provincial gravel pit, and we are wanting to maximize the best public use of it.

P. Milobar: I’ll definitely follow up with the gentleman. Hopefully, this is the end of any further unilateral changes by the government. One would think that when people sign agreements, if they’re going to change, the person changing them would be the one paying the bill for the physical changes to the area — not the operator, who endured tens of thousands of dollars of changes and is now having to lease other property a quarter mile down a road instead of being right next to a road.

That will add further beating up, of a different road now, to try to circumvent those load restrictions in the area. Everyone understands why they’re in place, but obviously you need to try to have a 12-month supply operation, especially with absorbent products and other products that are used in the agricultural industry.

I’ll move on, though, to the Highway 5 corridor, Highway 5 north from Kamloops to the Alberta border. I know my colleague from Prince George–Valemount had asked a question earlier as well. Last year when I asked about what works were being done around safety improvements, passing lanes or anything of that nature, the minister indicated that the corridor would be going under a year of study.

Now, it is a corridor that has had multiple studies done on it by the ministry. So one would think it would’ve been studied. I’m not sure that the highway has changed much since the last study — in terms of where it’s located or of the valley it’s running through — but that’s fine. We studied it for another year.

Can the minister update us on what new projects are in this year’s budget — not routine maintenance spending, but new projects of expansion of passing lanes or the straightening of corners?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To let the member know, we actually study corridors of this standard, as you might say — not high-volume ones but of this standard — about every five to ten years. It’s important to make sure that they are, in ministry language, performing well. That means that they continue to be safe and that with changing traffic patterns and changing trade patterns, they continue to work in the way that they should. The member must be very pleased to know that the corridor is performing well. The study did identify some opportunities for the future. They won’t be happening immediately.

I mentioned to his colleague the member for Prince George–Valemount that we are doing some engineering work on a passing lane. That’s in Barriere. Also on the radar — not urgent, because it’s still safe — is the Clear­water intersection.

I know the member didn’t really want to know about the rehabilitation. It is really essential for our ministry to make sure that our roads do perform well and continue to be safe. It’s not just the big projects. It’s making sure that that rehabilitation is invested in. Part of that rehabilitation is that we’re doing some resurfacing around McLure.

P. Milobar: It’s not that I don’t have an interest in resurfacing, to be clear to the minister. Certainly, in the city of Kamloops, we have a PQI, a pavement quality index. Yearly, city staff go around and check. They re-rank and reprioritize roads. They take those roads, and they come up with a plan to use the dollars most effectively. A lot of it is about resurfacing before you lose the roadbed. It’s a lot cheaper to do that, and you get a lot more kilometres.

I would assume, if the ministry is being run properly — certainly, the local staff do a great job of keeping up on the local roads — that that is happening. Routine resurfacing, anywhere in the province, should be happening. That, of course, is always good to see, wherever you happen to be driving.

My concern along this corridor, though, is that there were safety concerns when I raised it a year ago. The minister said that there had been, year over year, passing lanes and corners being straightened out in that corridor for several years. The last project of any consequence seemed to be the Darfield passing lanes, which the minister referenced to my colleague from Prince George–Valemount.

[4:50 p.m.]

I would point out that the Darfield passing lane started long before there was an election, so that was a finishing up of a project. The answer last year seemed to indicate that there would be a study. Then there would be an identification, and there would be moneys ready to go for more works in the corridor.

What I’m hearing now is that there’s a bit of engineering happening with no definitive timeline for when those works may actually happen. Passing lanes will be involved. Will these works also, within this corridor, require the consent and the accommodation for the Simpcw?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. I’m glad he understands the importance of good roads and the investment. I’ve got to say a couple of comments and a response to the question.

I think that a lot of the work of the ministry seems to be unnecessarily politicized. The member talked about this happening before the last election. As the member for Kamloops–South Thompson would acknowledge, the ministry is professional. They are not working on election cycles. They are working on safety for British Columbians and making sure that the investments provide safe roads. What we’ve found is that the investments over the last number of years on Highway 5 have provided a safe road.

So our priorities. Yes, we’ve done the study. Yes, we have identified a couple of projects that will need doing, but there are other priorities in the region. I think the member is fully aware that there is not an unlimited budget. We need to make sure that public money is spent wisely. We are looking to invest the public money in areas such as the Trans-Canada that we were talking about earlier.

I believe the member was in the committee when we were talking about that. It’s not that there is less…. There is less of a need on Highway 5 at the moment. We have identified areas that will need doing in time but not urgently. I think that’s because, over a number of years, the ministry very professionally has been working on safety in our corridors.

P. Milobar: I can, I guess, refer to dates instead of election cycles. However, I do find it interesting. If we want to talk about urgent safety infrastructure pieces that need to be done, it sure as heck seems like a certain tunnel replacement project was somewhat of a political decision, especially taking over a bridge that was owned by municipalities, sight unseen, with an open chequebook by the province. That seemed like a fairly political transportation decision made by the Minister of Transportation and her government, not local staff.

A bridge that was owned by TransLink is now owned by the province of British Columbia. A tunnel that is owned by the province of British Columbia still is nowhere near having any work done, both of which have major public safety concerns attached to them as well. I could go on and on about the list of the projects.

The question, though, was around the Simpcw and the design work that you say will be getting done. Consultation 101 says you start to talk to and engage area First Nations right at the very front end. That’s usually their biggest complaint — that projects and design are well underway before they get brought to the table to be talked to, to try to figure out what issues and concerns they may have. So the preliminary design work that’s being done on these passing lanes and other stretches within that Highway 5 corridor…. The Simpcw’s territory runs all the way from Barriere up to Jasper. It would be one First Nation you’d be talking to.

[4:55 p.m.]

Have they been brought in from step one of any of these design works to have discussions and consultation, or will we be looking at further delays, as the minister was trying to cite as a reason for delays along the Trans-Canada corridor?

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies to the member. In my enthusiasm to talk about the professionalism of the ministry, I didn’t respond to that.

Of course, we are going to be talking to the Simpcw. We are engaged with First Nations immediately. It’s absolutely part of reconciliation. It’s part of working together. It’s part of making sure we get, really, the best results for all our communities. It really is absolutely the only way that we can work in British Columbia.

I’d just like to note that it’s nice to see the member advocating for the Lower Mainland this year. I know that he was very concerned last year about money being diverted to the Lower Mainland.

P. Milobar: As a provincial politician, I’m concerned about all areas of the province. I’m also concerned that decisions are being made with the best value for taxpayers at heart. Certainly, staff do a professional job. However, staff do that professional job based on a budget that they are handed by politicians. They can only do so much work with the amount of money they’re given.

Again, just to get clarification, the minister indicated in the previous answer that preliminary design-and-engineering-type work was already initiated on the passing lane stretch around Barriere. The answer around consultation with the Simpcw…. I was asking if they were engaged from the very first step. The minister’s answer was that they will be engaged, which seems to be sometime in the future, not as the project was first being envisioned and first being engineered. I take it, then, design work is underway, but no consultation has actually started.

Hon. C. Trevena: The Simpcw have been involved throughout the project. In fact, they’ve also been doing some archaeological work, and it’s very likely they’re going to be doing more archaeological work.

P. Milobar: In keeping with some other works that directly impact the Simpcw in the area, I was at a ribbon cutting, an unveiling or a commitment for works to be done on Dunn Lake Road along some of the band area. The local staff were there. They obviously have very strong relationships with the local First Nations, and that’s good to see. This was a project that was a long time coming.

If it will put the minister’s mind at ease, it was 40-plus years, so it spanned a whole heck of a lot of different governments. It was good to see that it’s finally to a point that some agreements were being signed. That said, even that day, in discussions with some of the band councillors and leadership within the band, there is a concern that they’ll believe it, ultimately, when they see where the money is in the budget and in this year’s budget in particular.

How much money is in this year’s budget for the work to be initiated and done on the Dunn Lake Road section of that agreement with the Simpcw?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re absolutely fully committed to this, Member. We are working with the Simpcw all the way through on this. This year there is some brushing and some clearing and some minor grading. The majority of the project will happen next year. We’re still working with the Simpcw on that part. It will be going through. So $2 million has been allocated for this year’s work. As we finalize the work with the Simpcw for the next year, we will be finalizing the budget on that. If the member wants, when we have that, local staff can come back to him on that.

P. Milobar: Thank you. I would appreciate that — keeping me updated on that. The local staff generally do a very good job of keeping me updated on some localized projects so that we can reduce the back-and-forth of constituents and their concerns.

In terms of the project’s scope and potential dollars, is the minister committing today, then, that once that design work is done, money will not be a hurdle or an impediment to the work actually being completed and done? Or is there a cap on the potential dollar value of works that may be done on that corridor with that agreement?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s part of the agreement with the Simpcw that it will be done.

P. Milobar: I’ll just close off with one last general question, I guess. I know some questioners after me will have very similar, more localized and bigger localized concerns on the same theme as this.

I’m just wondering, in terms of side roads — the chip sealing on roads, the regular grading of some of the more dirt roads and those of that nature that we have in our parts of the world here — has there been an overall uplift in the budget for that?

The ministry budget is fairly static, overall, year over year. In fact, I was going over that with the minister earlier this morning, and it seems to not have had much of an uplift. Some areas, like transit, have seen a cut. Others, like ferries, have seen a bit of a bump. But overall, it seems to be a bit of a wash for a budget.

Was there any significant uplift, or any uplift whatsoever, to provide for the maintenance of those areas where we’re seeing extreme runoff events — or we’re seeing from the effects of fires, from pine beetle and other issues like that — where the hydrology has changed dramatically and is creating much bigger problems on this road network out in the back area? What type of budgetary considerations were put into that for this year?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. It’s a very interesting one because, I think, for his question, there are three specific areas. He mentioned, as did one of his colleagues further north, about the investment in our rural and side roads. That investment is obviously very important. B.C. is a very large, rural province that needs to ensure that all our roads are kept to a good standard. It is important not just for the people who live in the communities, for the businesses and for the communities themselves; it’s of value to the province.

Our side-road investment remains stable. We’re happy with that. We also have our rehab budget. The member knows the little phrase — I’m sure he does; we’ve just had this conversation about the need to have rehabilitation — that good roads cost less because you’re investing in the long term. Over the three-year service plan, there has been an increase of $185 million in the rehabilitation budget and also the preventative work.

The member talked about some flooding and so on. We have, very successfully so far, been able to access the federal disaster assistance program. We incorporate — I don’t know if the member is aware — the Sendai principles of building back better, of making sure that when you are rebuilding any infrastructure, you are building up to the best standards possible.

[5:10 p.m.]

We are incorporating climate change mitigation and making sure that what you are building isn’t just perhaps putting in a culvert that replaces one culvert with another culvert but is looking to the future, where you may get bigger freshets or you may get bigger rainstorms and that when we do any rebuilding, we are looking at it in that way.

In three areas, we are absolutely fully investing, I believe, in rural road infrastructure and making sure that it is resilient and it will sustain, because this is what the people of B.C. need.

C. Oakes: Thank you for this opportunity. I am very familiar with the Sendai principles and will be spending a significant amount of time talking about rural side roads, road rehabilitation and preventative work, specifically.

The minister delivers the culvert installation program through the road rehabilitation program. How much was in the budget for this program this year, and how much was in the budget for last year?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Member, for the question. Culverts come under two separate categories in the ministry. For the member’s elucidation, it comes partly under the rehabilitation, obviously, and it also comes under our maintenance contracts. They are not separated out as a budget line for X number of dollars spent on X number of culverts.

C. Oakes: The minister completed drainage studies to understand the need for future upgrading of culverts. In fact, the minister, in a recent letter to myself, acknowledged that, and she said earlier: “We’re fully invested in making sure that our communities are resilient.”

Will the minister share the plans, the drainage study plans, for both myself and the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, and identify the culverts that will be upgraded? I recognize that she may need to be…. What I’m looking for is a commitment from the minister that she will provide us with the information based on the drainage studies that identify the prioritized culverts that will be upgraded in both Cariboo North and the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development take the lead to doing hydrological studies when there has been a forest fire or wildfires. Our engineers, obviously, share these hydrological studies with us, and our engineers work with them.

As my correspondence to the member said, our staff would be happy to talk to the member about this and explain to her how it works. But put quite simply, the ministry takes several factors into account — basically, looking at the age of the infrastructure, the potential risk, the volume of work needed as well as a budget. It’s not as if we have an annual plan to do, as I mentioned in my last answer, X number of culverts, and you replace this culvert, this culvert, this culvert. It’s done very much on the risk basis, if there has been a lot of freshet, if there has been a fire that has changed the hydrological impact.

There are a number of different approaches. So I’m very happy, as I mentioned in my correspondence to the minister, for the executive director Paula Cousins, who is here with us today, and Todd Hubner to meet with you to walk you through a little bit of how we prioritize.

C. Oakes: I certainly do understand the process. Like I said, we’ve got letters coming back to us that talk about: “The ministry delivers culvert installations through our local rehabilitation program, also in concert with major capitals.” I have in the past been provided an outline of what the major projects will be. Again, to the minister — and you can get back to me on that — what are the major projects in the Cariboo North and in Cariboo-Chilcotin planned? What are those projects.

The second thing. I and the constituents of Cariboo North and Cariboo-Chilcotin have every reason to be asking you these very important questions. We have 200 sites that were impacted this past year — 200 sites. The number one issue that my office faces is from constituents that have significant challenges with roads.

In your mandate letter…. Mr. Chair, through to the minister. you talk about what is identified in your letter as making lives more affordable for the families and the people of British Columbia. It identifies how you want to make sure that the roads are safe. What I’m saying today on behalf of my constituents…. Having 200 sites that were impacted this past year, having detours on almost all of the major routes leading into our economic community of — in the Cariboo North’s case — Quesnel, almost every road network is currently or potentially could be compromised.

[5:20 p.m.]

We are seeing significant damage. In your letter, only 20 to 30 percent….

The Chair: If I might, and I’ve provided considerable leeway, the appropriate form to direct questions to a minister would be “would the minister,” as otherwise the questions are being directed to the Chair.

I’d also remind the minister that in referring to the critic, it would be “the critic,” as opposed to using “you” as a form of address. Thank you.

C. Oakes: I apologize to the Chair, and I apologize to the minister. As you can tell, this is something that obviously has significantly impacted the lives of a significant number of my constituents. Quite frankly, the reason why we’re asking what future projects have been prioritized in our area, how much money will be allocated into these roads…. It’s critically important because this one year, 200 sites were impacted.

The ministry has been identified as a national leader because of the prioritization that has been set forward. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister, the minister has identified that they follow the Sendai, about the challenges and the needs to make sure we’re adapting to climate change and what that looks like. I also heard that they’re fully investing in resilient road networks, when almost every single network of transportation in Cariboo North is compromised.

My question is: how did we get here? How did we get to the fact that we have such compromised roads in Cariboo North and the Cariboo-Chilcotin? What is the plan to make sure that we don’t continue on this path of having such compromised transportation networks?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say to the member that I do understand the concerns of the member and the concerns of her constituents.

[5:25 p.m.]

It’s been a bad year. I mean, we’ve seen one-in-200-year events in the Cariboo this year. There have been 500 sites provincially that have suffered from the impacts of flooding just this season. I’m not diminishing the member’s concerns. We do take it very seriously. We, as a ministry, take it very seriously. That is why the ministry is recognized internationally. We do build climate adaptation into all our projects. Whether it is the 97 going into Quesnel, the Trans-Canada Highway or an intersection in a community, this is part of the way that we work.

I give the member the confidence or comfort that staff will meet with her and will walk her through how we are making these decisions and how it is going to impact her constituency.

C. Oakes: To the minister, I thank you for recognizing and for having staff contact both myself and the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin on what that looks like.

There are currently three areas that I’m aware of between Soda Creek and just before Hixon on Highway 97 that are of significant concern. Highway 97, of course, is the major transportation corridor for British Columbia and for goods and supplies into the north. As well, it’s critically important for people to access health care.

We have witnessed significant challenges, like I said, at Soda Creek, Alexandria and Cottonwood. What are the plans for being more preventative and for making sure that these areas don’t become further compromised? If they are compromised, what is the egress plan for all of the constituents living in the Cariboo?

Hon. C. Trevena: I wanted to give the member the assurance that ministry engineers are engaged and that they are looking at what is happening. When the member has a conversation with ministry staff, she’ll be able to go through a bit more of the details of what could be happening. But engineers are engaged. They’re looking at what is happening and what can be done.

[5:30 p.m.]

As far as the evacuation is concerned…. The member raised that as the worst-case scenario, and it is always the worst-case scenario. Obviously, we work with both emergency management B.C. and local governments to make sure that people are safe and, if they have to evacuate, that there are evacuation plans in place. This is something that we do effectively, on an automatic basis, and we will continue to do so.

C. Oakes: Will the minister, then, commit to having an overall strategic plan for Cariboo North on what the emergency egress plan is, considering the fact that almost all of our major routes currently are either compromised or have detours?

It was raised a month and a half ago with emergency management B.C. I know that they were in conversation with the Ministry of Transportation, and there was a commitment to come back and to provide an overall strategic plan for transportation infrastructure in the Cariboo.

Hon. C. Trevena: I can understand the member’s concerns. However, if I might suggest that some of these questions….

As I referred to before, emergency management B.C. is the key on this — emergency management B.C., working with the regional districts. Obviously, our ministry is involved. EMBC used to be under our ministry, but it’s now with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. So I think some of these questions might be better addressed to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General in his estimates. While we work with them, the planning is with EMBC. It is with the regional districts.

Let me give the member the assurance that if the community is, for some reason, cut off by a flood…. I mean, this is one of our highest priorities. We would work with our maintenance contractors immediately and diligently to try to get alternative access into the community. We’ve done it before, and we will do it again. But if I might suggest, the member might get more answers on this specific part of her question with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[5:35 p.m.]

As I have mentioned a couple of times now, and gave the assurance in the letter to the member only a couple of days ago — I’m sure she’s got it, because she has referred to it — staff will have conversations with her and will walk her through how we program our replacements and our rehabilitation.

C. Oakes: It is very relevant that I raise this with the minister, because it comes down to the fact that any of the capital investments that need to be made are in the Ministry of Transportation’s infrastructure. I would just walk the minister through.

At one point several weeks ago, Highway 97 at Cottonwood House was compromised and was down to one lane. They were paying very close attention to it, because there were significant fears that that road could go. The backup road for that is the Quesnel Hixon Road, which is the old Prince George highway. That’s where you would reroute people, traditionally, if something happened on Highway 97. That road had been compromised in three areas several weeks earlier to that.

The thought of the ministry is: “Well, we’ll just reroute people.” They started to do significant work on this road out by Baldy Hughes, which is on North Fraser Drive and Blackwater. Blackwater is currently compromised. While it is travelable…. We all know that Blackwater Road has suffered an embarkment failure due to the Knickerbocker slide. I recognize that geotechnical studies have been done. That would be the backup road for Highway 97, and we’ve known throughout this entire spring freshet that that was a challenge.

The backup road for that, which is Baker Creek, was also compromised and closed. That leads you to West Fraser Drive and several areas on that. That’s a detour. We lost that road in 2018. We had raised challenges with the minister prior to 2018 about the fact that drainage maintenance was required on that area. We lost that road. We have a detour. It’s now costing $104 million to fix because proper drainage maintenance has not occurred. That road might get fixed in 2023, I believe. So it’s several more years. We’ve got folks that have to travel. They used to live half an hour from town. Now it’s multiple hours from town.

Let me walk over now to Quesnel-Hydraulic, which also went down this year. Quesnel-Hydraulic is a key route that heads out to the Cottonwood area. That is a major area that goes out to Barkerville and Wells. That area also got compromised at Wingdam.

At one time, almost every road leading in and out of our community was either at risk or compromised. My question to the minister…. I’ve been in this role long enough to understand that the replacements happen when the road damage happens. It’s not the preventative side, where we look at: “Okay. Well, we recognize that we have major landslides. We have ancient slides in the area. Preventative work needs to happen.”

I just don’t think that money exists in the budget, which is why I think it’s important to canvass this, on behalf of my constituents, to the minister. I’ve asked several times about…. What’s the budget for culverts? What’s the budget for maintenance around drainage? What is the budget to make sure that we are doing the proper rehabilitation so we don’t find ourselves in a situation like this year, where there are 200 sites that are impacted?

I will say that it wasn’t just this year. We had issues last year. We’ve had issues since 2017. This is an ongoing issue. Year after year my constituents are significantly impacted. Quesnel-Hydraulic. I have seniors that used to live 30 minutes from town that, because of that landslide, are now faced with several hours to get into town. So what happens with an ambulance? What happens for kids going to school?

When these roads get compromised because the proper drainage maintenance and the investment doesn’t happen up front — there isn’t preventative work that happens — it has long-lasting consequences on communities, on families and on people.

[5:40 p.m.]

Some have to move. On West Fraser Road, they have found themselves in the situation where they’ve had to move, pull their kids out of school, or while they wait for the road to hopefully get fixed, they have quit their jobs. Some of them work in health care. They contribute very much to our community.

Again, when I’m asking for the types of investments in the identified areas on a strategic plan of where we have risks in and out of the Cariboo, it’s for a very real reason. I think we need to make sure that there’s capital and that there are funds that are going into those projects.

I’m trying to find a specific question to the minister that will help my constituents feel confident in this minister’s decisions around how things get prioritized and the work that’s getting done. Right now they don’t feel very confident with the amount of damage that they’ve witnessed and experienced and have been impacted by.

What is the capital investment that will be made in the Cariboo to ensure that public safety continues and that our road infrastructure network is maintained?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I apologize if it feels like it’s taking a long time. The member is raising some very serious questions, which, I think, are serious for her constituents, obviously, and serious for her communities and serious for the whole of the province.

I mean, what she’s talking about, what we’ve seen in the member’s constituency and across the province, are the effects of climate change. What we’ve seen this year is a one-in-200-year event, but we’re seeing them more often than in 200 years.

Climate change is with us. It’s having an impact. We are working with EMBC. We are working with the Ministry of Environment, and we are working with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources to mitigate and work preventatively as best we can.

I think that, on a local level, it is necessary for communities to feel safe. There is that engagement with EMBC, with our ministry, with the regional districts to have that sense of security.

I would like to raise one point that the member suggested. I’m sure she said that…. She’s obviously very passionate about this, and it’s something that is important for all of us to recognize: the impacts of climate change. But she suggested that the West Fraser washout was an issue of drainage. I think the member is fully aware that with that West Fraser Road, it was more than drainage. That is also a result of climate change, the impact on that road. I know it has an impact on communities, and we can have a discussion on that later, in the estimates, if there is time.

But I do encourage the member to take up the offer that I’ve made of talking to staff about how we’re dealing with this. It is a provincial issue. It’s a national and international issue. I think that it is something that’s of concern to her constituents. It’s a concern to, I think, all of our constituents.

I would also like to acknowledge the work that is always done when there is an event, when we do have people out there, when people are cut off, when access is lost. The maintenance workers and our ministry staff I do think work above and beyond what most people would do, and I do thank them for that.

But again, I ask the member if she would — as I suggested in the letter, offered in the letter to her, dated a few days ago — like to meet with ministry staff to talk through how we can best move on this. I’d be very happy for that to happen.

C. Oakes: I appreciate all of the work that the contractors and the ministry staff have done through year after year of challenging times. But it is also my job to advocate for them. It’s one thing for me to sit down and have conversations with them. I know that both myself and the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin really appreciate the ability to sit down and have these conversations with staff. If there aren’t funds allocated to fixing the problems, we’re going to continue to have these conversations and to put your staff, contractors and our communities in this situation year after year.

What I hope to get to are policy decisions that identify ways for us to get ahead of some of these problems, to start investing in more preventative types of measures. I just went through what happened in Cariboo North. I can easily go through that conversation of how the southern part of the Cariboo, of my riding, that feeds into the Cariboo-Chilcotin was also impacted.

[5:50 p.m.]

When you look at Soda Creek, that, year over year, has had issues. I know that there are hydrology reports, and I know that there’s geotechnical work that’s being done. The challenge becomes that they have to prioritize, and when you have an area like ours that has so many areas that are impacted, what we see year after year is we’re not getting the necessary investments to fix these areas. That feeds into the Likely area, and it feeds into Big Lake, and it feeds into Horsefly. All of these areas, to 150 Mile, year after year, get compromised, and they get cut off, and these roads continue to see significant damage.

What I’m seeking from the minister is that there will be an increase in resources, an increase in capital, an increase in money that we can expect, recognizing that the minister has acknowledged that they are a national leader. Acknowledging that climate change is really real, can you invest in our areas? Can you make sure that year after year, we don’t see the significant damage that we have?

Earlier I asked how much capital was being invested in the Cariboo. I didn’t get an answer back to that question. I look forward to the opportunity of getting an update on West Fraser Road. I understand that a critical part of the service plan maintains that the ministry is responsible for ensuring strong communication happens. So I look forward to the ministry communicating very clearly with the residents who are impacted by the detour of West Fraser Road what those next steps are. They’ve been incredibly patient, since April of 2018, to understand what they can expect and when investment will start being made, so that people do not have to travel that detour.

I think that the folks who are impacted by the Quesnel-Hydraulic Road and the detour deserve to have a clear, crisp communication from the ministry on what the next steps are for that. I feel that the folks who live in Soda Creek and Lyne Creek and Tyee Lake and all of those areas deserve to understand what the plan is from the ministry on improving those areas, similar to Likely and Horsefly. I think communication is critical. People need to understand that they can have confidence in this government.

The final question is…. Quesnel requires a long-term plan to address the industrial traffic through the community. Currently there are road restrictions on Johnston Bridge. While I understand that this is a municipal bridge, other provinces are utilizing the federal funding, the Infrastructure Canada disaster mitigation…. Well, there was a fund that was announced: “Canada and Ontario Invest in Roads and Bridges for Rural Communities in Northern Ontario.”

I’m asking that the province consider utilizing that partnership with the federal government to support Quesnel with the support we need for the Johnston Bridge, because currently traffic is being detoured onto Maple Drive. That now means that you’ve got — prior to COVID, of course — 40-plus industrial trucks each day on that road, and Maple Drive was never set up to be the major road leading to the plywood plant. It puts pressures on that road network. It has a daycare, an elementary school and a middle school.

Engineers were reviewing options for the minister. Could I kindly get an update from the minister? Will she commit to considering ensuring that municipalities have access to funds to fix bridges? Then perhaps, in writing, the minister can provide me an update on the interconnector project.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Member, I apologize if I don’t answer all the questions. The member did put quite a substantial number of questions into her piece there. Hopefully, we’ll get through them all.

On the issue of the bridge in Quesnel and the concerns of whether the province will assist with the funding. This is an issue that I have talked with the mayor of Quesnel about. It is something I’m very aware is a concern for the community, the concern of the cost and the concern of access. As the member is well aware, it is a piece of municipal infrastructure, and it is a municipal responsibility. However, as I have mentioned, I have talked with Mayor Simpson about this — and I do regularly, on a number of issues that relate to Quesnel.

The member mentioned the interconnector section. Planning work is underway on that. The member is already aware that we’re starting construction next year on Racing Road. On West Fraser Road, for the member, I know that we’ve had a lot of back-and-forth about this. We are just finishing redesign on the bridge for the road. We are finalizing an agreement with First Nations. There’ll be public engagement this summer — obviously, virtual public engagement because of COVID — and it will be going out to tender in the fall. So we’ll see movement there.

Also, I’ve advocated very strongly with the federal Infrastructure Minister, both verbally and in writing, about the need to put roads into infrastructure packets that the federal government are offering post-COVID. This is something that we continue have discussion with the federal minister about.

On rehabilitation. I’ve got to say that it’s one of the biggest budgets for rehabilitation that the ministry has ever had. I know that the member is very well aware of the issues of climate change — it’s impacting her community, as it is impacting everywhere in the province — and adaptation is built into all the ministry’s work. Whether it is building new, doing rehabilitation or expanding existing infrastructure, we ensure that adaptation to climate change is built into everything. We couldn’t work without doing that.

[6:00 p.m.]

I hope that has answered the member’s questions. If not, I’m sure, as I’ve mentioned, that the member can meet with the staff about specific concerns. If there are any further issues that were not…. As I say, it was a very full question. If I have missed something, I do apologize. I’m sure we can catch up on what the concerns are.

D. Barnett: First, Minister, I would like to say what a great job your staff do in this region. Our contractor, Dawson contracting, does an amazing job. The last two to three years have been a nightmare for the road contractor and for your staff. They are amazing.

Last year I asked about gravel. If I remember correctly, I think you mentioned $1 million in capital funding for gravel.

Minister, we do not have one rural road left in this riding that has any gravel. From the fires, no place for the water to go and a lack of seeding…. The water, the rain and the snow have just desecrated the roads. Our contractor is out there as quick as they can doing everything they can, but we need capital money for gravel.

The busiest calls we get every day are the roads. The contractors go out, and they grade them to the best of their ability, but there’s no gravel left. They grade them on Monday. By Wednesday, they’re full of potholes.

To the minister, what dollars and capital expenditures for gravel can we expect for the Cariboo-Chilcotin and for Cariboo North — for all the rural ridings but, in particular, for the Cariboo-Chilcotin?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for acknowledging both the staff and the maintenance contracts. They do work extraordinarily hard. They’re the ones who are out when everyone else wants to stay in. They’re the ones out fixing things up when it’s been snowing, when it’s been flooding. They’re doing a lot of hard work. I would like to thank you for acknowledging them.

The gravel budget this year is…. We’re just trying to finalize the figures. This is why I’m going to come with a…. It’s at more than $1 million. We’re just working out whether…. It’s approximately $1.2 million. But we can get a clearer figure for you either, potentially, later this afternoon or next week when we resume.

D. Barnett: Minister, that is nowhere enough. I would love to invite you to come up here. I would take you on a drive. My constituents, their cars, their access to home…. Sometimes, because there’s no gravel, they can’t get home. I know there are funds in the rehabilitation fund.

I know the culverts, too, are another problem. The culverts need replacing in many places. I know there are 1,600 linear metres a year that get done throughout my riding, Coralee’s riding and Jackie’s riding. They do all that. We need rehabilitation, and we need it now.

I thank you very much for announcing $500,000 for the district of 100 Mile for bike trails. My phone started ringing. They said: “Bike trails. Where is our road gravel?” Honestly, I’m like Coralee; this is a passion. When you have the situations that we have and what we’ve been through, we really and truly need some rehabilitation funds for culverts and gravel, and we need it now.

My question is: can we re-evaluate this situation and get some proper rehabilitation done so that next year…? Not only next year; people are living with it right now. We’ve had the wettest spring that I’ve seen since 1999. Last year was also the same.

Minister, we have to fix this. I ask: can we not get some assistance and some funding to get this done?

The Chair: Thank you to the member for the question. Just as a general reminder to everybody, of course with questions, the appropriate form would be “would the minister” or “would the minister join me on a trip to whatever part of the riding” as opposed to “would you,” since “through the Chair” is me.

I would love to join the member for a tour of the Cariboo-Chilcotin — beautiful country. But in future, if the member could remember to refer to the minister as “the minister.” But she’s welcome to invite me to come for a ride with her at any time.

Thanks, Members.

D. Barnett: My apologies.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin yesterday, I had a fantastic vacation in her constituency last year. It’s an absolutely beautiful place.

I just wanted to clarify one thing for the member. I know that there may be some concern about the announcement about the active transportation grants that were awarded to communities in her constituency. It’s because the communities have applied for them. We’re not just handing out the money randomly. It is on an application basis, so there clearly has been a desire for these in the community.

As far as the gravelly aggregate issue goes, I know that this is clearly a concern for the member, and the member is clearly passionate about it. We have programmed for this year. We always re-evaluate year by year about what is needed. We, obviously, work with community, work with the maintenance contractor, work with Indigenous communities. But it is programmed for this year, and we will be re-evaluating for next year.

D. Barnett: Yes, the district of 100 Mile, I guess, applied for the funding for the trails, and people are quite happy about that. But the rest of the people want to know when and why their roads are not being fixed. Where is the gravel?

You say that the district applied, and they got the trails. Great. How do we apply as citizens to get gravel on our roads?

Hon. C. Trevena: Like the member, I live in a rural community and know the conditions of roads. Obviously, there aren’t quite as many gravel roads where I am, but there are a number, and it’s always a concern. As we see the standard erode, and it gets worse…. I was talking to the member for Cariboo North about climate change and how that’s impacting communities, impacting our whole province and having a severe impact on our infrastructure. We cannot get away from the fact that it is having a very severe impact on our infrastructure, and that includes the deterioration of our roads.

As I say, we have programmed our money this year. I have mentioned — I think it was to the previous questioner, to the member for Cariboo North — that I am in very regular contact with the federal counterparts.

I am advocating that when the federal government is looking at stimulus money, when the federal government is looking at its programming, it does build in the idea of ensuring that money goes into our roads, that we can be rebuilding our roads. So while we have programmed everything that we have this year, and we’ll be looking at it again next year, this is something that I am also advocating strongly for assistance for from a high level of government and talking to federal counterparts.

D. Barnett: I will go back to my constituents and say there is no money for extra gravel this year. You have to wait for the federal government.

There’s lots of money for other things out there. Minister, I would just say: please, let’s look at these infrastructures and rehabilitation where the damage has been done.

[6:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: I’ll make this quick. We’re almost wrapped up here, and we’re heading towards the long weekend, which kind of is particular to my question. As we get to the long weekend, travel will be ramped up a little bit, and volumes, of course, will be higher. No different in my constituency, where we’ve got some really close ties with the Alberta border.

As we enter phase 3, the Premier has now extended restrictions a little bit. He’s been on record here saying, “Be mindful of what B.C. has done to get us to a position where we can welcome people from other parts of the country,” including Alberta. The Tourism Minister has also stated the same types of relaxations on travel.

As we go into the long weekend, we are seeing some conflicting types of statements out there. One of them is on the Drive B.C. website which, on their advisory, says to avoid non-essential travel over the B.C.-Alberta border. That was last updated on April 14. Now, I understand April 14 was a different world than where we are now. That was phase 1. We were trying to get control of the curve and flatten it and actually bend it downward. We’ve done that. Businesses have done everything they can to make it legit. It’s come at great expense.

I’m just asking a quick question of the minister before we wrap things up. Will the ministry update its Drive B.C. website to eliminate the statement that only essential travel is recognized across borders?

Hon. C. Trevena: There was a pause because everybody pulled out their phones and went onto the Drive B.C. website with great concern. We believed this was changed on Wednesday, when the Premier made the announcement that we were in phase 3, because we do want to make sure that people are safe and are cautious when they travel but that they can travel. I know that we also had that sign on our overhead signs and some pixel boards that you see on the sides of the highways. Likewise, those have been changed and note that you should still stay six feet apart and that you wash your hands and be safe. But they should be saying not to avoid non-essential travel.

However, as I say, we have senior staff in the ministry thumbing their phones and making sure that there is a change. If it is still anywhere on the site, it will be changed. Thank you very much for highlighting that.

T. Shypitka: It’s obviously a time-sensitive issue. The long weekend is coming up. These advisories are fairly critical to people who travel. People check the advisories often. So can the minister make a commitment that this update will happen well before the long weekend starts, which is actually probably in the next day or two?

Hon. C. Trevena: We were also having the discussion of when, actually, a long weekend starts when the stat is on a Wednesday. But this is something…. We’re pleased we’re in this position that we can go into stage 3, that we can start opening up our communities.

[6:20 p.m.]

I think people have behaved extraordinarily responsibly in B.C. It’s very gratifying to see how people have limited their contacts, have stayed at home, have shifted their whole way of living. It’s been quite an extraordinary event. And now it really is the time to start opening up very cautiously.

Obviously, tourism is a very important factor for B.C., but it’s going to be cautious. If there is any reference still on any of our websites, it will be updated immediately, because we know that this is something that people do look at. It’s one of the very handy tools that the ministry puts out, the Drive B.C. tool. So we will make sure that this gets out quickly because we all want to be safe and have a good start to a summer in a very strange year.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister. I don’t know how much time we have left, but I understand the minister is making a commitment to make sure that’s updated. It has been a crazy time. It has been unprecedented, and there have been a lot of sacrifices made, especially in our business community and our tourism area. The area of Kootenay East has been greatly affected by the trade that we usually have with people from outside our province.

If I could ask one more question, it’ll be a quick one. I’d just like to know the update on the Lizard Creek Bridge in the great community of Fernie, where we are. It was supposed to be completed last fall, and we are still seeing construction in progress. What can we look forward to on that completion?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. We are working with a contractor and anticipate that the contract will be wrapped up by the fall.

I move that the committee rise and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thanks for your time today, everybody, and for your good work. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 6:24 p.m.