The committee met at 2:02 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good afternoon. My name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, a committee of the Legislative Assembly that includes MLAs from the government and opposition parties.

I acknowledge that I am joining today’s meeting from the traditional territories of the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations.

I would like to welcome everyone listening to and participating in this virtual public hearing for Budget 2021 consultations. The committee typically visits communities around the province to hear from British Columbians about their priorities for the next provincial budget. Of course, due to the pandemic, all of our public hearings have become virtual this year.

Our consultation is based upon the Minister of Finance’s budget consultation paper that she released on June 1. We invite all British Columbians to participate by making a written submission or by filling out the online survey. The details for that are on the website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The consultation closes at 5 p.m. on Friday, June 26, 2020.

We’ll be carefully considering all input to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be in Budget 2021. The committee intends to release its report sometime in August.

For the presenters, in terms of format, this time presenters have been organized into small panels based on theme. This afternoon we’ll be discussing Indigenous peoples followed by transportation.

Each presenter has five minutes for their presentation. Following the presentations from each panellist, there will time for questions from committee members. We’d ask that you please stay within the five-minute time limit.

Today’s meeting is being recorded and transcribed. All audio from our meetings is being broadcast live via the website, and a complete transcript will be posted.

Now I’d like to ask each member to introduce themselves. We’ll start with Ronna-Rae Leonard, please.

[2:05 p.m.]

R. Leonard: Thank you. I get to go first.

Welcome, everybody. Hi, Roger.

Ronna-Rae Leonard, MLA for Courtenay-Comox. I’m sitting here in the traditional territories of the K’ómoks First Nation.

M. Dean: Hi, everybody. I’m talking to you from the traditional territory of the Songhees, Esquimalt and Scia’new Nations. I’m very happy to be here with you. I’m the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, Mitzi Dean.

D. Barnett: I’m Donna Barnett. I’m the MLA for the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I am here on the traditional territory of the Secwépemc people and the Williams Lake Indian Band.

R. Coleman: I’m Rich Coleman. I’m the MLA for Langley East, and I’m with the Kwantlen over here.

D. Clovechok (Deputy Chair): Good afternoon from the Kootenays. I’m Doug Clovechok, MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, and I’m sitting here on the shared territories of the Shuswap Indian Band and the Ktunaxa Nation.

N. Simons: I’m Nicholas Simons. I’m the MLA for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and I’m currently in Tla’amin territory.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. We’d like to start. Just a reminder that we will be going from panellist to panellist.

The first is Geoff Rankin from the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

Geoff, could you please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 1 – Indigenous Peoples

B.C. ASSOCIATION OF
ABORIGINAL FRIENDSHIP CENTRES

G. Rankin: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. My name’s Geoff Rankin. I’m the director of policy at the B.C. Association. I’ll start right off.

The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and its umbrella organization represent 25 friendship centres throughout B.C. We are the largest service delivery organization for Inuit, Métis, urban and off-reserve Indigenous people, with 1,200 employees providing over a million points of service annually.

During COVID-19, friendship centres remained open, adapting to the acute need of our people. Our centres were deemed essential and were accessed at double and triple the normal rates, addressing basic needs such as food insecurity.

Friendship centres evolved to address systemic racism, and it included racialized exclusion from mainstream providers. We continue to plan and remain essential elements in our communities as the needs remain high. We need to address the systemic and structural racism Indigenous people continue to experience. We require equitable, flexible, stable long-term funding. The pandemic highlights holes in services and a need for more responsive, robust funding to ensure urban Indigenous people are not ignored.

Based on work and feedback from our 25 friendship centres, funding is our biggest issue. We require funding that reflects the current off-reserve population, at 85 percent and growing. Our friendship centres have highlighted these issues as priorities and, at this time, are requesting $16.35 million.

Mainstream service providers hold much of the funding for the Indigenous community without accountability back to our people. Friendship centres have never had the opportunity to be involved in mainstream proposals for mental health, anti-violence and family supports. These are priority areas that became acute during the pandemic and where mainstream providers continue to retain the majority of funding without accountability back to the Indigenous community.

While these services have failed over the years, they were continually funded. It is time to address this entrenched racism and exclusion with funding to Indigenous people for the provision of culturally safe, appropriate and relevant services to Indigenous people by Indigenous people.

Provincial core funding. For government to recommit to ongoing core funding for our friendship centres in the amount of $5.625 million distributed equitably through the association’s funding model to ensure the clients’ centre’s needs and that the clients’ care is met.

Health, mental health and wellness funding. We require an influx of new dollars to meet the new and challenging needs of our clients while also modernizing and updating funding to reflect current living standards. Many friendship centre contracts pay just above minimum wage and lower than other non-profits. We’re requesting mental health supports for every friendship centre. We are requesting $2.5 million for a full-time mental health worker in every one of our friendship centres.

Emergency supports. We are requesting funding in the amount of $1.25 million to address pandemics, floods and wildfires for our centres.

Anti-violence and women fleeing violence funding. Many of our centres do not receive funding in this area and have provided services out of pocket. Instead, mainstream agencies are funded without accountability to Indigenous women. We are requesting that current Indigenous-specific funding come to the association to be flowed to our centres. We’re requesting the equivalent of a full-time employee per centre in the amount of $2.5 million.

Affordable housing. Affordable housing and low-income housing is a crisis throughout B.C. We know that the Indigenous housing call for proposals disappeared. The association requests funding for a provincial housing officer to work with the province, our centres and housing organizations to collectively address urban Indigenous needs. We’re requesting $100,000.

[2:10 p.m.]

Food security and meal program. Access to healthy, nutritious food is an issue that has been painfully highlighted during the pandemic. The province provided 25 centres with surplus milk during the pandemic. That’s it. Our urban populations continue to struggle to meet the basic nutrition needs as the cost of food has risen dramatically. Many of our centres have been delivering food boxes, meals to Elders and have developed their own food programs during the pandemic.

With this ask, we are also allocating funding to an Elders program that would deliver meals within centres. We are also requesting that this funding be flexible to allow centres to retrofit spaces for industrial kitchens. We are requesting $4.375 million.

The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres would like to thank the province and the Finance Committee for this time to present on our needs in funding in the amount of $16.35 million for Budget 2021.

The hope of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and other Indigenous organizations is to be properly funded to break this history and address systemic racism within funding. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Geoff. I appreciate that.

Next up we have Roger Kishi from Wachiay Friendship Centre Society.

WACHIAY FRIENDSHIP CENTRE SOCIETY

R. Kishi: Good afternoon. I wish to begin by acknowledging that I’m presenting today from the unceded traditional territory of the K’ómoks First Nation.

My involvement in the community housing sector includes my work at Wachiay as director of homeless and housing programs, but I’m also the board secretary for M’akola Housing Society and the M’akola Development Services and a member of the Aboriginal Housing Management Association’s Nə́c̓aʔmat Leləm̓ committee.

Locally, I’m involved with the leadership of the Comox Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the community health council. I appreciate being able to present on the opportunity for the government to build on a plan for a permanent and sustainable end to homelessness.

Before COVID-19, we already had a disaster unfolding in our communities. The pandemic has laid bare the homeless and housing crisis. Over 7,000 individuals in B.C. experience homelessness. Research suggests that actual rates of homelessness are three to four times greater than what is captured through point-in-time counts. People who are more likely to be amongst the hidden homeless are women with and without children, youth and Indigenous people. Indigenous individuals were 32 percent of the 2018 Comox Valley point-in-time count.

The recently completed housing needs assessment for the Comox Valley regional district identified that over 2,800 households were in core housing need. Of that, 1,355 were in extreme core housing need. Equity-seeking groups, including Indigenous households, senior households and households with at least one person with an activity limitation reported higher rates of core housing need compared to other households within the region. For example, Indigenous community members, although only 6 percent of the Comox Valley population, represent 12.2 percent of households in core housing need. Households with an activity limitation made up 73 percent of households in core housing need.

The report also found that there is a need for more non-market housing. In January of this year, the B.C. Housing registry had 270 applications for subsidized housing in the Comox Valley.

Rent subsidies were also not keeping up with housing costs. In 2016, 10.8 percent of renters in the Comox Valley received a form of rent subsidy. Accounting for inflation, the purchasing power of rent subsidies has decreased while rental prices have increased, leaving those who rely on rent subsidy to access and maintain housing with few options available to them, putting some of our most vulnerable community members in precarious housing situations.

I have provided the committee with background info­graphics from that housing needs assessment report.

[2:15 p.m.]

As we begin to reopen the economy and society, we must be mindful that the emergency measures that have been put in place are not a replacement for a home. Challenges remain in sustaining protections over the longer term and the very real dangers posed by a second wave.

There can be no going back to normal. The time is now for us to act urgently to move people into housing as fast as humanly possible. We’ve seen how urgent actions created results in the opening up of modular supportive housing throughout the province — 46 units here in Courtenay.

The government needs to speed up its Homes for B.C. plan and invest in affordable housing now. We have an opportunity now to do things differently and better — to accelerate progress on ending homelessness, address the housing crisis, create jobs, achieve long-term cost savings, have better social policy and stimulate the economy. We have an opportunity to build recovery for all.

Thank you for your time. I would welcome any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Geoff and Roger. We appreciate that.

N. Simons: First of all, I want to thank both presenters. I just wanted to make sure Geoff saw that there is a drum on the desk behind me, which I look at regularly. It was a gift from the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres many years ago when I worked with the shíshálh Nation.

Thank you for your advocacy on behalf of so many Indigenous community members who live away from, perhaps, their home territory, in many cases. Thanks for your advocacy.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentations, both of you.

I have a question around the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. This $16.35 million ask — is that an increase of that much, or is that the total that you are looking for? And compare that to what you are receiving in this past fiscal year. I understand there was a commitment from our government to have sustainable, reliable sources of income from the province. Just wondering how that’s playing out in terms of operations.

G. Rankin: Thank you for your question. The majority of the funds that have been requested here in my presentation are new dollars. The $5.625 million in core funding is a commitment for…. Right now we’re in our last year of our three years of funding from the province. We’re hoping that a continuation of core funding will continue.

Right now if you’re to equally distribute the current funding that we’re receiving from the province, it’s about $80,000 in core funding per centre. Our EDs have communicated to us very adamantly and strongly that that isn’t sufficient right now with the amount of need.

D. Barnett: Thank you, both, for your presentation.

To Geoff, if I could. These are new dollars. Do your centres get any funding from any other ministry or from the federal government to assist them?

G. Rankin: We get funding through the NAFC, which is our national organization — primary funding through them. So, yes, we do receive federal dollars. And then we receive different sources of funding, in particular, for us, the association, with my department, mainly through the Ministries of Health, and Mental Health and Addictions.

[2:20 p.m.]

Until recently, we haven’t received any new funding from MIRR, but we do receive MIRR…. Outside of my area of policy.

All of our friendship centres are independent from the association, and they buy in collectively for us to advocate on their behalf. Specifically to each friendship centre, I can’t speak without my program manager here. But we do receive different types of funding from different ministries for all of our friendship centres, including our office here in Victoria.

R. Leonard: Thank you for allowing me a second question. This is a question for Roger.

You had made reference to speeding up the rapid response for housing or, just generally across the board, all of our affordable housing projects. The question: has the coalition been putting together any proposals to be considered? I know there was, just recently, a call.

R. Kishi: Yes. Well, the Homes for B.C. plan, when it was first launched, I guess, at the beginning of 2018, was a ten-year plan. We’re now into the second or third year of that, and we’re just seeing the results of that in what we’re seeing right now.

Here in the Comox Valley, we’re seeing at least 80 homeless people who are in hotels right now. Some of them are scratching together what they can to pay for their way there. Some of them are being supported through the Ministry of Social Development. Some of them are being supported through funding that’s been provided to the Coalition to End Homelessness, and Wachiay Friendship Centre has actually received some of the federal Reaching Home funding for Aboriginal individuals. We’re hoping for compressing the time line of ten years. Let’s do some of that faster and build more units sooner.

R. Leonard: Thank you for that. I just have one other quick question. We need to be re-elected, of course, to be able to do a full seven years. Just saying.

The question that I had is around the subsidies for market rents, if that is part of the ask. Is that within what you’re making reference to?

R. Kishi: Well, I guess the friendship centre has been delivering the homeless outreach and the homeless prevention program for B.C. Housing for probably close to ten years now. In those ten years, there has never been an increase in the amount of funding for rent subsidies, and the maximum amount has never increased either.

We’re having to prioritize for families who are receiving those subsidies. We know that the need is greater than what it is, with the rents that people are paying. Some families are paying over $2,000 a month. Our maximum for the rent subsidy is $450 a month. So it’s both the amount and the number of subsidies, we would hope, that there would be an increase of.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions from members?

All right. Seeing none, thank you very much, Geoff and Roger, for your presentations and everything you do. I know it’s been a difficult time, particularly during the pandemic. We appreciate everything that you’ve done for your community and for the province.

We will stand recessed until 2:35.

The committee recessed from 2:24 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): First up we have Corey Burger from Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition.

Corey, please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 2 – Transportation and Transit

GREATER VICTORIA CYCLING COALITION

C. Burger: Good afternoon. My name’s Corey Burger. I’m here today speaking on behalf of not only the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition but also the Greater Victoria Bike to Work Society. Our collective mission is to get more people cycling more places more often.

Today I’m here to ask you to extend funding for biking in our great province and talk a little bit about the history of how the provincial funding has changed biking.

Over the past 30 years, we’ve seen massive changes here in the region and across the province — changes we’ve been part of, we’ve championed, we’ve supported or even we’ve led. Today we have some of the highest rates of biking on the continent because of our advocacy work in bikeways, because of celebration events like Bike to Work Week and much more. But throughout that entire time, one thing has remained constant. Without provincial dollars, not much would have been possible.

To take you back a little over 30 years ago, the spine of our now world-renowned regional trail system is the Galloping Goose. That and then the Lochside were built by the province as the beginnings of our bikeway network. Then 26 years ago, we started a little celebration called Bike to Work Week, which was just a few people getting together to celebrate the fact that we ride to work. Now it reaches over 10,000 people here in the capital region itself and tens of thousands beyond in the province, and it has spread throughout the continent.

Bike to Work Week happened because the province, the provincial government, believed in the idea. They funded it. They provided support. When Bike to Work Week expanded to schools more recently, that was also due to provincial dollars. Throughout that time, as it waxed and waned, there has been provincial funding for new bikeways, new bike lanes, new trails, all the way down to new bike parking all across this region. Big projects and big things like the Pandora protected bike lane in downtown Victoria to small things. Then we’ve also had provincial funding for things like bike skills training in schools and much more.

To provide a little bit of perspective about how that provincial funding has impacted and how it’s been leveraged, in the region, since ’96, the number of people who ride to work has nearly doubled. Recently, a survey was done last year that found that Victorians…. About half the population ride once a year.

The history has been amazing, but one thing has become very clear, and it’s been true. The small amounts of money that have been offered up to support Bike to Work Week or bikeways haven’t been enough. Bike B.C., which are now the active transportation grants, are routinely oversubscribed. Many municipalities don’t even bother applying because it isn’t worth it, as-is, because they won’t get it. Bike to Work Week funding has largely frozen, and as Bike to Work Week has multiplied in 160 communities, I think, throughout the province, the slice of pie that each of us get has gotten a little thinner.

Last year the province committed to bold goals in advancing active transportation as part of their active transportation strategy, which is part of the larger CleanBC strategy. I’d be remiss to mention that COVID, the reason we’re all sitting in our own home offices right now, has also seen a massive change in how people travel. There has been a rise in the number of people biking both for transportation and for recreation.

We know that as we slowly return to normal, as we come out of this, in these early phases, people want to keep on biking. We know, from that same survey, that people absolutely want to keep on biking. We also know that many are concerned about taking public transit.

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s shifting people from public transit to biking which will help those people who absolutely have to take public transit. But that requires funding from the province to help make that happen — to support not only building the bikeways but also bike training for those who are taking up biking for the first time or for the first time in many years.

What we need is a sense of renewed investment, taking the great work with the active transportation strategy and its parent design guide, looking at what we did in the ’90s. The ’90s was a bold time for biking in this province. We built the Goose. We started building the first of our bike lanes. A survey last year, which I mentioned — the one that shows that half the people in the region ride their bikes — also shows that many, many more would do so if there were safe places to bike. The top reasons why people don’t bike is because they lack those spaces.

The market is huge. People want to do it. Our municipal governments are stepping up. So it’s time now for the provincial government to help step up and go beyond the small ways they’ve helped and go much bigger. Thanks very much. If you have any other questions, I’ll take them.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Corey.

Next up we have Navdeep Chhina from HUB Cycling.

Please go ahead, Navdeep.

HUB CYCLING

N. Chhina: Good afternoon. My name is Navdeep, and I’m representing HUB Cycling. We are a charitable not-for-profit advocacy group, and our mission is to get more people cycling more often. It is no surprise that just like the speaker before me, Corey, I am going to request the province to dramatically expand funding for active transportation — for infrastructure, for education, for promotions and for safety.

Research from around the world suggests that encouraging more people to cycle more often generates multiple benefits, well beyond those impacting road use. In fact, increasing the growth of cycling could help us address so many problems we are facing these days, including the current COVID-19–related pandemic.

Encouraging more people to use active transportation is an integral part of the province’s CleanBC climate plan and the poverty reduction strategy. But in order to make any progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve affordability, a dramatically significant investment will be required.

For example, the Netherlands spends $48 per person on active transportation. Denmark invests $34 per person, and New Zealand recently announced an investment of $24 per person on infrastructure, education, promotions and safety. B.C. currently spends about $1.50 per person, per year, on active transportation — yes, $1.50 per person, per year on active transportation. Our first recommendation is that the province commits to investing at least $21 per year on infrastructure, education, promotions and safety-related active transportation.

The lack of high-quality, connected cycling facilities across Metro Vancouver, in particular, has increased inequity, as relatively well-off communities where cycling infrastructure investment has attracted higher-income people who like to walk and cycle and typically have the time and resources to advocate for local facilities suited to their needs. This results in those with lower incomes having fewer mobility options and a decreased opportunity to be physically active. We must build well-connected networks. We must seek to support diversity, equity, inclusion in all so that we can encourage all types of people to choose active transportation for more trips, no matter what the barrier be — physical, financial, attitudinal or otherwise. People from all walks of society must be able to cycle whenever and wherever they wish, whether it be transport, leisure or exercise.

The province has been doing a great job funding programs like Bike B.C., Bike to Work Week, and last year we launched, collectively, a new program called Everyone Rides, Grade 4-5. But these programs need to be updated in accordance with the new provincial active transportation design guide in order to ensure that all ages and abilities facilities are prioritized over projects that are comfortable for only some or few.

Every child in the province should finish elementary school having received cycling education, much like they do in European jurisdictions. This creates a systematic culture that permeates student, parent and teacher lifestyles and transportation choices for the rest of their lives.

[2:45 p.m.]

In a nutshell, I’m going to ask that we dramatically increase active transportation infrastructure cost-sharing funding for municipalities. We need to expand the ERG 4-5 — that is, Everyone Rides, Grade 4 and 5 — pilot project with a systematic school education for all children with an investment of at least $1.5 million per year. We need to create new funding streams for municipalities that are looking to reallocate some of their road space for active transportation.

We need to at least double the funding for municipal programs. Like Corey mentioned, the slice of the pie everyone is getting is getting slimmer and slimmer, so we need to put more money towards programs like Bike to Work Week, Bike to School, learn to ride.

We need to make bikes more accessible, including electric bikes, adaptive bikes, so that more people can access cycling. It could be through cost financing or eliminating the PST.

We need to make the funding process more transparent and accessible. Right now it is very difficult to see who applied for funding, who got the funding and how many projects got nothing at all.

We also need to overhaul our Motor Vehicle Act. Preliminary estimates indicate that we need $5 million to $10 million over the next few years to reform this. We need to put that money aside so that we can reform the Motor Vehicle Act.

Finally, invest in monitoring and tracking progress on attitudinal and behavioural changes related to cycling so that we can see our progress and build on it. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Navdeep.

Next up we have Colin Stein from the British Columbia Cycling Coalition.

B.C. CYCLING COALITION

C. Stein: Good afternoon. I want to begin by reflecting on Premier Horgan’s statement about the restart plan, that there’s no difference between the economy and the environment. We need to make sure, as we come out of COVID-19, that we’re focused on building a clean, green, reduced-carbon economy.

As we look at reducing GHG emissions over the next ten years, I wanted to talk about the cost of transportation over the past 30 years. Since 1990 there has been only a 14 percent total increase in GHG emissions, which is surprising, considering the 50 percent increase in population. While a 30-year average growth rate of about half a percent is good, it needs to go down, of course, consistently over the next decade-plus.

The one category consistently rising, pulling everything else up along with it, is transportation, particularly road transportation, which has grown 82 percent over 30 years and generated almost eight kilotonnes of GHG emissions on its own.

While zero-emission vehicles and renewables will, of course, help bring about some reductions, that’ll happen over a ten- to 20-year time frame. However, if 10 percent of British Columbians were to replace much of their driving with cycling, walking and transit — not completely; not 100 percent, just much of it — one-third of our ten-year transport-related CO₂ reduction goals could be met in one year.

The pandemic has demonstrated that collective behaviour change is possible and can have almost immediate measurable atmospheric effects. It is also encouraged for health reasons. The CBC news headline from May 15 pretty much said it all: “B.C. cities expand street space for cyclists, pedestrians due to COVID-19. Dr. Bonnie Henry encourages people to use active transportation.”

Speaking of health, the health costs of carbon-based transportation — simply, motor vehicle road use — are also significant, in the many hundreds of dollars per capita. Speaking about per capita, there’s also the upfront costs related to motor vehicle transportation, capital projects, highway maintenance, operations, ICBC road safety programs, of course. It takes us into a similar scale of about a few hundreds of dollars per capita.

So when we reflect back on what Navdeep mentioned, the $1.50 of active transportation investments, it could well be more. There are siloed investments perhaps in other ministries, but it’s difficult to tell. In the end, on the whole, it’s a fraction of a percent of what’s spent on road transportation, yet we all know the benefits of more cycling and walking, especially when substituting motor vehicle trips.

I recommend reading Todd Litman’s Evaluating Active Transport, Benefits and Costs for a deeper dive into these topics. As he reminds us in this paper, ten to 20 percent of local trips are made entirely by active modes, which includes transit, in this case. Cities like Vancouver have demonstrated active transportation can grow up to 50 percent or more of mode share. British Columbians have shown that we can make this shift. We’ve proven it already.

We know government’s doing a lot. Many ministries that we talk to — the usual suspects, we might call them: MOT, AG, Health, Municipal Affairs, Environment, Public Safety — are touching on this. But, also, we touch on tourism, small business and economic development, skills training development, Indigenous relations, parks, B.C. Ferries, TransLink. We see outcomes, but they’re siloed in these areas. We’d love to see close collaboration and integration to achieve efficiencies of scale for common purpose.

[2:50 p.m.]

Ultimately, what we’re asking for is robust investment. A few numbers have been thrown around. We’re suggesting $40 per capita. Examples of such levels of spending exist worldwide. In 2014, in a pilot program, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration invested $100 per capita in pedestrian and cycling improvements in four typical communities. These increased walking trips and cycling trips by 23 percent and 48 percent respectively. While mostly for utility, there were recreation and health benefits. Studies also found evidence of slower driving speeds and safer conditions for vulnerable road users.

We’d also like to see MOTI’s active transportation branch have broad control over this much larger budget and authority to establish a cross-ministry centre of excellence to help raise the bar for active transportation expertise across the province. Ultimately, we’re asking: please don’t just invest more, but show us how much and where. As the old saying goes: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” For advocates, we can’t support what we can’t see. We suspect there’s more there than we actually see.

As for ROI, we suggest that it can be measured in two ways: GHG reductions and assigning more goals than are stated in the “Move. Commute. Connect.” plan, where there are some line items with no goals attached to them. Secondly, we desperately need to see fewer injuries and fewer deaths, a large proportion of which come from road transportation.

Ultimately, we want to call attention to the symbolic investments that can be made and the real changes that can happen for transportation in the province. On behalf of all British Columbians and our coalition members, thank you very much for your time today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Colin.

Next up we have Richard Campbell, Act Urgently.

ACT URGENTLY

R. Campbell: Hi, committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to address you this afternoon.

The first thing I’d like to say is that I find this format far more accessible than having to go to the meetings in person. I went to the ones out in Abbotsford, which was a challenge, to say the least. I think generally, it may be good to look at this kind format in the future, as it probably makes these important consultations more accessible to a lot of people in B.C., especially those who live in remote and rural communities. So I thank you for that.

My comments will be focused on equity and transportation. I don’t pretend to be an expert in the area. What I do is listen to people and hear what their challenges are and try to see how those are and aren’t being addressed, both within the budget and other provincial policies.

First of all, I’d like to thank and acknowledge MLA Dean for her work in that area, in pushing forward equity and gender-based analysis plus. One thing I found out, though, is that it seems like there need to be much more resources put into (1) making sure that people know what these are and (2) getting concrete measures to see if we’re actually meeting the equity targets or even that we know what those are.

For example, I’ve talked to several people who have been involved in the Broadway subway, which I think is the biggest infrastructure project ever in B.C. They had never heard of GBA+. I think a lot of people in the public haven’t heard of it either. Also, people aren’t really clear what equity is and isn’t. So I think both internal engagement in the government and more resources so people all over government know what it is and also have a general conversation with the public to see, especially, the challenges that people are having. I know this is becoming especially clear these days with the events going on in the States and the racism against Indigenous people in Canada.

I think we really need to focus on figuring out what those problems are, having solid measurables in the budgets and other programs so we can see if we’re meeting them or not. I looked in the budget, and while it talks about equity, there were no measures to see what we’re doing and if the budget is more equitable or how various projects could be analyzed against that.

For transportation, I’ll bring up one example: large highway projects, like the Port Mann Bridge, or the one that’s in consultation now, the Massey crossing. While that may or may not be a good idea, there’s no effort to say: “What if we took that $3 billion, or whatever, and spent it on things that could help people get around better and safer around the province, whether it be bike lanes; sidewalks; curb cuts, which are really lacking; making roads safer that connect to Indigenous communities?” There’s a whole lot of work that could be done there to make sure all this money is being spent most effectively and is actually helping the people who need to get around the most.

[2:55 p.m.]

Another example is that there are very few options for a lot of people, connecting communities. There is B.C. Bus North, but to some communities, that only comes once a week. For others, it comes twice a week. For people that depend on that, that’s really not reliable transportation. I think we need to look at if resources like those being spent on things like the Massey crossing could be better spent across the province for either better bus service or rail.

The other issue that has come up generally with safety is that the focus has tended to be on enforcement. Even before that, it was acknowledged that that probably wasn’t the more effective route to do it. Better infrastructure and safer vehicles have proven to be more effective. But now it’s becoming clear, as we should have known all along, that Indigenous people, black people…. The enforcement can impose a significant risk to them. So I think that needs to be acknowledged.

I think we need to question the resources spent on that and find ways of addressing those challenges and question: are the police the correct people to enforce the Motor Vehicle Act? Or for minor infractions against people cycling or walking, should those even be enforced at all? They don’t really provide good safety outcomes either, and they do pose a risk for the most vulnerable people.

Again, to summarize, more resources. I think more resources outside of government. WHO says government should help fund advocacy groups for road safety. Maybe that could help groups deal with transportation inequity issues. You can actually get people from these communities, these groups that are underrepresented, involved in this work and not only have people that look a lot like me working on these transportation issues.

Thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Richard.

Questions from members?

D. Barnett: I find this topic very interesting. I have a question for Navdeep. I found it very interesting when you were talking about the European countries and what they contribute per person to transportation. Could you tell me what this tax structure is and where the revenue comes from for them to determine what dollars per person will be put back into transportation?

N. Chhina: I’m not able to answer that, but I can look up that information and share it with you.

D. Barnett: I would appreciate that. It’s easy to say you should put $40 a person for this and $40 for that, but there has to be a revenue stream coming from the taxpayer in the first place to pay for this. I find it very interesting, so I would really like to see some facts. Thank you.

N. Chhina: One thing to add is that it’s not only the revenue we need to keep in mind. We also need to keep in mind the other benefits that society gains by investing more in active transportation. These could be the benefits to our health sector. We have fewer costs towards health in communities. There are multiple other benefits that we gain because we invested more in cycling. But I will definitely share those with you.

D. Barnett: I understand that completely, but the infrastructure capital still has to be paid for and the maintenance of that. If we can bring the other costs down, we still need to have the infrastructure first. I would love to see your figures.

M. Dean: Thank you to you all for all of your work and for your presentations today.

Richard, happy to talk with you on another occasion if you wanted to set up an appointment about GBA+ and equity and measurements and the training that we’ve rolled out in the public service. Don’t hesitate to reach out.

Corey, I have a local question for you. I’m just wondering whether the local cycling organizations have done an evaluation or reached a position with regard to Colwood Corners and the Galloping Goose. Having ridden in from West Shore into downtown Victoria, that’s the one place where you still have to dismount and walk to different crosswalks, etc. I was just wondering whether you had any ideas or suggestions about different solutions that would actually make that much more accessible to cyclists.

[3:00 p.m.]

C. Burger: That’s been an advocacy topic for the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition since the Goose was created. I was actually looking through some old documents, and I came across a discussion of that. It comes up periodically, every once in a while.

It’s one of those places that really highlights where provincial dollars are crucial, because it’s a very large dollar figure to build an overpass or something else there. That’s within the city of Colwood, but it is a regional trail. Neither the CRD nor the city of Colwood really have the wherewithal to be able to build a large piece of infrastructure like that. It would probably be multiple millions of dollars, and the current active transportation grants top out at $1 million.

It’s a good place of where building that connectivity would absolutely increase the number of people using the Goose. With infrastructure, these kinds of things tend to be multipliers. You build one, and then you build the next one connected to it. We’ve seen that on the Goose. The Goose ridership downtown went up when we added the Johnson Street Bridge and the Pandora bike. So yeah, it is something that is on our radar to fix, but it is a bigger challenge, mostly because of the dollar figures associated with it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Corey.

N. Simons: I do enjoy cycling, and I do enjoy long-distance cycling. I did notice that the coalition talks a bit about the bigger, broader tourism opportunity that cycling offers. I’m just thinking about…. What do they call it in Quebec? It’s the Green Route, or something. It’s like a many-hundred-kilometre cycling trail. I’m hoping that there are organizations pushing for that kind of larger infrastructure, or improving the condition of our rural highways as well, because of potential opportunities for cycling.

In my area, we have very thin shoulders in many parts of the Sunshine Coast, but the parts that are wide-shouldered are really attractive to tourists. As people are watching their budgets, I think bicycle tourism might become even more popular in British Columbia.

Thanks for all of your advocacy, by the way.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Was that directed at anyone in particular, Nicholas?

Navdeep, do you want to…?

N. Chhina: Yes, it’s very true. We need to have a much bigger connected network. We worked with TransLink in Metro Vancouver to create a major bike network that was a desired map to connect communities across Metro Vancouver. It was to connect one community with the other with the same all-ages-and-abilities infrastructure. This is where we would love to have support from MOTI to fund these projects which span from one municipality to another municipality, and there is not that much participation across municipalities to work on these projects.

R. Leonard: Oh, so many questions. Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted you to know that I brought Bike to Work Week to my community back in 2008. There weren’t a lot of dollars then either, but there was a lot of heart that grew into something that comes every year. Except…. I don’t know. I understand it’s going to come in September this year. I also started a cycling task force. The idea of trying to get some standardization around the different local governments around the region is a challenging thing. It does take commitment from each and every community.

Every community is different, especially around geography and demographics. If you see that much variation in terms of creating priorities on how to spend dollars…. Even within my own community, one side of the river is pretty flat, but the other side is straight up and down, and all the e-bikes become all the more important. The question is around that whole regional, demographic challenge in terms of where you’re going to get the best bang for your buck.

[3:05 p.m.]

C. Stein: If I could just comment on that, one of the things that we’ve been working on for the last little while is trying to break down what in the past might have been seen as our own siloing effect in advocacy, where you have the utilitarian or transport-oriented folks, who are focused on urban areas, and then there are sport, recreation and tourism, which are seen as just a different breed. In some cases, never the twain shall meet, at least in the past.

Cycling B.C. — quite a large organization, focused on sport under the viaSport banner — have just joined our coalition. They were at the forefront of advocacy back in the ’80s and ‘’90s before they stepped away, all the provinces, as well the federal side. We see almost a splintering over the decades that is now reversing, and a coming back together of shared concerns. It coalesces around things like legislative reform, the need for cycle highways or routes, corridor-based routes that connect municipalities. These are things that bring together both the sports side and the utilitarian side, and then we’re back to speaking about tourism.

It’s the same sort of thing — people feeling like they can get from Metro Vancouver to tour, especially these days locally, maybe on the Sunshine Coast or on the coast of Vancouver Island. I think bringing together different uses involves them bringing together different demographics, different regions. We’re working steadily on that and trying to make those connections with other ministries like TAC and those focused on rural areas, Indigenous groups, and so on and so forth.

R. Campbell: I think it’s important to put a mobility-equity lens on that, too, especially in communities with little or poor transit service. Where the distances are too far to walk, for those without vehicles, really, their only option is going to be a bicycle or electric bike or some kind of device like that if they don’t have any other options. I think it’s a right lens to prioritize this to.

N. Chhina: To answer, geography does make a huge difference. Working across 23 municipalities, the challenges we face in North Vancouver compared to White Rock are very different. Richmond is a very flat city, and if that was the case, everyone in Richmond would have been cycling, but of course, North Vancouver has a much bigger modal share than Richmond.

Society is also a big influence on how people think about cycling. Last year we released a report called Benchmarking the State of Cycling in Metro Vancouver. We worked with TransLink and the 23 Metro Vancouver municipalities to analyze the cycling network across these municipalities and to standardize it so that we know which municipality has how much infrastructure. That is good for most people as opposed to a few or some people.

We are hoping to slowly expand this across the province, so that we can standardize our infrastructure. Then we can analyze, from that benchmark, how we are progressing over the years.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s an important point. I look at the new Pattullo Bridge, for example, which has active cycling, active transportation built right in. The issue, of course, is on the Surrey and New West sides, connecting different communities, and what does that look like on each side? How do you create that consistency throughout municipalities and then throughout the province?

Also, you talk about Europe versus British Columbia. You could cycle around Europe. I dare anyone to try to cycle around British Columbia unless you have, like, five years. The point is that we have very, very large spaces, too. So there are different challenges, I think, looking at urban Europe versus urban B.C. and suburban and rural B.C. There are a lot of challenges.

Anyway, just a comment. But if you wanted to weigh in, I’d appreciate that.

C. Burger: Just to jump in, I can speak a little bit. My professional job is as a data analyst with a research company here in town. We work on transportation studies, primarily household travel studies. Prior, I worked for the regional district in cycling.

Yes, there absolutely are differences between municipalities and between areas, but one of the key things I found — certainly when I was at the CRD, and looking at the data I have access to at work — is that we’re much more similar than we imagine. You know, an urban area….

[3:10 p.m.]

What people will want to ride on is pretty much the same the world over. It’s going to be protected spaces on major roads. It’s going to be quiet sidestreets. It’s going to be trails. Survey after survey bears that out, including locally. Here there has been a fairly good one.

Also, we do recognize that we do need to tailor to different municipalities and different areas. You are going to have totally different demographics in some areas. You’re going to have geography that’s different. As Navdeep pointed out, being flat doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to have lots of cycling. It’s about whether or not the land use is good and whether or not the networks are there.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. We’re out of time.

I appreciate it, Colin. We’re literally, actually, over time now.

A fascinating discussion. One that we’ll continue, I’m sure, outside of the Finance Committee, as we’ve met many of you over the years and look forward to your continued advocacy for active transportation.

It was a very good panel. I appreciate the comments. This type of getting everyone together is very useful for us as committee members, as well, to pull it all together and allow us to focus for quite a bit of time on one issue. Thanks so much.

With that, I would like to recess, please, until 3:20.

The committee recessed from 3:11 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Hi, everybody. We’d ask all the panellists, please, if you could stick to the five minutes. We’ll go through each panellist, and there will be time for questions at the end.

First up we have Michael Buda from Mayors Council on Regional Transportation.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 3 – Transportation and Transit

MAYORS COUNCIL ON
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

M. Buda: Thank you for inviting the TransLink Mayors Council to this consultation. I’m speaking to you today on behalf of the New Westminster mayor, Jonathan Coté. He had a conflict and couldn’t attend. He is the chair of the Mayors Council, which is responsible for approving TransLink’s transportation plans. The council is made up of the mayors of each of the 21 municipalities in TransLink’s service area in Metro Vancouver.

Later this month we’ll provide a more detailed budget submission, but I’ll just summarize a few key points now, knowing that it’s also been a long day for you on Zoom.

Over the past four years, the province of B.C. and the Mayors Council have enjoyed a strong partnership that’s led to historic investments in the expansion of Metro Vancouver’s public transit system, which has led to our North America–leading ridership growth of over 20 percent over that period.

Before March, our typical day looked like 1.5 million boardings by over 700,000 people. However — and I know this isn’t news to anybody — with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, our ridership dropped by over 80 percent. In addition, physical distancing measures required in our system also meant we had to reduce the capacity of our vehicles by 50 to 70 percent, which meant that it was impossible for us to reduce our costs by cutting services without then leading to unsafe overcrowding.

I know you’ve seen, in the last couple days, that ridership has increased from its low point, as the B.C. restart plan has gotten going. But transit usage is still 70 percent below normal and is not expected to fully recover until a vaccine is widely available. So the result of these financial losses on our finances is quite severe.

Starting almost immediately, in late March, TransLink saw monthly revenues decline by almost 60 percent. These losses are going to shrink as ridership returns, but losses are going to continue until distancing requirements are removed and a vaccine is in place later in 2021. All together, we’re projecting losses in 2020 and 2021 of between $500 million and $1.4 billion. Just for context, the speed and depth of these impacts are far greater than any other part of the local government sector. These are very substantial, massive, and without a change in fact will end in TransLink’s insolvency sometime in 2021.

Fortunately, for now, the reserves we do have in place from prudent financial planning over the last decade give us and the provincial government time to work together on a long-term solution to avoid any of those really disastrous outcomes.

The first step was in early May. The province committed to providing short-term funding to TransLink, which allowed us to delay planned service cuts so that TransLink would be available to support the B.C. restart plan, which is very good news and bought everyone even more time.

But in the longer term, beyond the end of this year, for TransLink to continue delivering the services and mobility the region is going to need as the economy recovers and needs, in fact, right now, we’ll need more substantial support from the provincial government.

That will be the focus of our submission. A part of that submission is going to speak to the uncertainty surrounding the future impacts of the pandemic, the potential for a second wave, which makes it very difficult for us and business and everybody in the province. It makes it very difficult to define the specific financial support TransLink will require from senior government.

As the government considers spending priorities for the budget next year to support individuals, businesses and communities in the wake of the pandemic, the Mayors Council urges the province to continue working with TransLink on a recovery and rebuilding strategy, to prioritize mobility as a critical component of the province’s long-term economic recovery.

[3:25 p.m.]

In the near term, as a near-term recovery strategy, we’re looking for provincial commitment to cover all of the losses associated with COVID-19 in both 2020 and 2021. That’s going to be at least $500 million.

And in the long term, the Mayors Council is asking the province to work with it to co-develop a rebuilding strategy for our transit and transportation network to rebuild the region’s ridership to avoid a return to unbearable congestion. And part of this rebuilding strategy is going to need to include changing TransLink’s funding model, which right now relies heavily on transit fares. That’s not going to be possible in the future. We’ll be looking to expand TransLink’s revenue tools to reduce its reliance on transit fares.

Working together, we think we can ensure — working with the province and the Mayors Council — that TransLink can be returned to financial sustainability so it can continue to deliver transit safely and effectively.

In that process, we do need to avoid downloading the costs of responding to and recovering from COVID onto regressive revenue sources like property taxes and transit fares, which are only going to hinder recovery and income equality.

So thank you, Chair. Happy to take questions later.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Mike.

Next up we have Mark Beeching from Amalgamated Transit Union, local 1724.

Please go ahead, Mark.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
LOCAL 1724

M. Beeching: Thank you so much. I’m privileged to speak with you. And I appreciate your time.

I represent the over 700 handyDART workers, many of whom are out on the road right now risking their lives and their families to support people in essential medical care.

In response to COVID-19, the provincial government announced that handyDART is an essential service. Provincial emergency funding prevented a layoff of many public transit workers. ATU, local 1724 wishes to thank and give gratitude to the provincial government for providing this fund.

Pre-pandemic, 67 percent of handyDART trips were accessing health services. During COVID-19, that statistic is about 100 percent. Workers have been transporting clients to dialysis and cancer treatment. As social distancing is relaxed, handyDART clients will again have to rely on handyDART for a wide variety of medical trips and accessing community support, as these are crucial for their well-being. Operators will need extra time for cleaning, and they will have to maintain social distancing until COVID-19 is eradicated.

HandyDART workers are front-line employees who must work in close proximity to clients. Social distancing is often impossible. HandyDART workers struggle to do their jobs without personal protective equipment. Prior to being recognized as front-line workers, often handyDART is ignored. This is illuminated in that handyDART workers are ineligible for the provincial government’s pandemic pay for front-line workers.

Last week, the federal government announced $14 billion to help the provinces safely reopen. HandyDART riders in Metro Vancouver must not be ignored again as the provincial government sets priorities for these funds. Premier Horgan was quoted on Thursday, May 2, saying that surgery was going to be reopened and that “today we will start the process of releasing that pain for people who are suffering because of lack of elective surgeries.” I can speak from personal experience, having had two elective surgeries recently, that I needed handyDART to get to and from not only the surgery but the treatment for that surgery.

Health care budgets are strained. Seniors and persons with disabilities rely on handyDART to avoid institutionalization and maintain their well-being. Providing accessible, affordable public transportation will be crucial for COVID recovery.

More handyDART service can reduce long-term care and hospital-stay expenses. The B.C. seniors advocate states that on average, a long-term care bed costs taxpayers $27,740 more per year than two hours of daily home support. Investing in improving handyDART service would likely result in an equivalent saving in provincial long-term care cost.

[3:30 p.m.]

Pre-COVID-19, mayors asserted that TransLink’s ten-year vision will still leave Vancouver with about half the accessible transit trips per capita that are provided in other similar Canadian cities, including the capital region. “This service shortfall is, in large part, a reflection of the lack of provincial support for this service.”

The service increases in TransLink’s ten-year vision were substantial but were only enough to maintain a crisis of inadequate service, given the aging population. The Mayors Council background states: “Demand for this service is expected to increase as the population of residents aged 70 plus increases by 55 percent over the next decade and as the provincial health care system continues to shift more services to community-centred care.”

Seniors and people with disabilities, both at home and in institutional care, require access to health care to avoid costly hospitalization. Affordable public transportation provides ongoing support for health care. Access to community improves health and decreases the potential for expensive hospital care. COVID-19 showed us that hospital beds cannot replace community health. Investing in health reduces the strain on an overwhelmed health care system.

In closing, providing adequate handyDART service has always been an issue. It has been a continuing problem, and we feel that handyDART and public transportation should be prioritized in funding in the future.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Mark.

Next up we have Eric Doherty from the Better Transit Alliance of Greater Victoria.

Please go ahead, Eric.

BETTER TRANSIT ALLIANCE
OF GREATER VICTORIA

E. Doherty: Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I’m from the Better Transit Alliance of Greater Victoria, but today I’m speaking to you from Lone Butte, B.C. near 100 Mile House, which lost the Greyhound service a number of years ago. So of course, I drove here. There really is no alternative.

Today my key message is: don’t stimulate more traffic and greenhouse gas pollution. In past economic crises, governments have poured tens of billions of stimulus dollars into shovel-ready infrastructure projects without considering if they were shovel-worthy. We’re dealing with a pandemic, an economic crisis and the climate emergency.

This time B.C. has signed on to a policy shift that could substantially reduce greenhouse gas pollution from transportation and fund public transit improvements. We’re calling on you to fully implement your commitment in the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change to shift investments from higher- to lower-emitting types of transportation.

Specifically, we call for an end to all highway and airport expansion projects in and near urban areas. The old cliché that you can’t build your way out of congestion has been proven true over and over again.

Increasing road capacity in urban areas leads to more traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution. Short-haul flights are one of the most polluting forms of transportation. So highway, bus and passenger rail connecting cities and rural communities must be improved, instead of expanding big city airports.

Transportation is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in Canada. Stimulus and recovery funding, as well as other infrastructure funds, must go to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas pollution from transportation and creating healthy, livable communities. We need to fund improved public transit with affordable fares and dedicated lanes as well as safe facilities for walking, rolling and riding bicycles.

The federal government has just announced $14 billion for the safe restart plan. This is promising news, but this funding is contingent upon provincial support. It is up to you to show that public transit operating and capital funding, not more highway boondoggles like the McKenzie interchange, are your priority.

Greater Victoria desperately needs a new transit depot to accommodate an expanded bus fleet and operating funds to run an expanding fleet. Highway expansion is not a regional priority.

Bus lines are the top ways to make transit safer in the COVID recovery period.

[3:35 p.m.]

[Audio interrupted.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Eric, if you could just stop for one sec. For the last about 30 seconds, we couldn’t hear anything. You were glitching out.

I think we’ve lost him entirely. Let’s move on.

Eric Diller from Island Transformations Organization. Please, go ahead.

ISLAND TRANSFORMATIONS ORGANIZATION

E. Diller: Hi. Thank you for this opportunity on behalf of Island Transformations. Thanks for letting me speak to this committee.

I want to back up the BTA, the Better Transit Alliance, by also asking the province to fully implement its commitment to the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which is, as Eric said, to shift investments from higher- to lower-emitting types of transportation.

Specifically, our group is calling for more bus networks to be built within the province. So we would totally support the province working with various transit agencies and, also, even private companies to build more bus networks as well as rail networks.

In that vein, I would like to ask the province to commit to the refurbishment of the E&N rail line to the ultimate level as described in the recently released condition assessment report. I’m proposing that your government do this by paying part of the cost of upgrading the line utilizing provincial and federal stimulus money and have the regional districts and local governments repay loans or bonds that your government provide to them.

These local governments should recover the costs of paying for these by using a variety of value-capture elements in areas surrounding the line and stations. This will permit the local governments affected to realize several objectives in their regional growth strategies and permit municipalities affected to achieve many of the goals set out in their official community plans — mainly, protecting rural areas from development pressures, reducing greenhouse gas levels and creating compact, complete communities.

We further ask that the province change its funding strategy for transportation infrastructure projects in general and require municipalities to pay a larger share of these using land-value captured elements to pay for significant portions of them. This will result in lowering costs to the province for both construction and maintenance of infrastructure, because we feel as though fewer projects will get built, they will be of higher quality and more valued by the communities in which they exist.

We further ask that British Columbia join Alberta and Ontario in permitting regional and local governments to use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects as an additional funding mechanism.

We back this up by saying that projects like the McTavish exchange on Highway 17 should not be the type of project the stimulus money is spent on. This project is a terrible example of what blindly spending stimulus money can do. While it did achieve some of its safety goals, it has increased carbon emissions locally and is not liked by the community in which it exists because of its design, which might have been ameliorated with more local government input due to higher funding contributions.

[3:40 p.m.]

Another area that we feel is ripe for change is the way that this province collects taxes to pay for roads and other municipal and provincial infrastructure — namely, the gas tax. Our group would like to see your government work to eliminate the gas tax in its present state and replace it with a pay-as-you-drive model whereby odometer numbers are collected at insurance renewal time in order to pay a per-kilometre charge. It should be noted that insurance premiums can and should also be determined in this manner.

The main reason for this change is to capture the effect that electric and hybrid vehicles pay next to no gas tax yet contribute to the road costs in exactly the same manner as fossil fuel–powered vehicles. The other reason for this change is in order to assist the local governments in complying with Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, by offering incentives to people who commute lesser distances and therefore contribute fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Eric.

Questions from the members?

I have a question for the Mayors Council. It’s going to be, obviously, very interesting, and I really look forward to seeing your written submission.

I appreciate you making the summary as to the priorities, moving forward, Mike. I guess with COVID-19 and the need to sort of restart the economy, as well, I’m just wondering. Do you think that might change priorities a bit, or do you feel that the path that the Mayors Council is on with projects is going to remain? I’m just curious whether or not there are some changes because of COVID-19 and things that we might be made aware of.

M. Buda: I think it’s a good question. It’s obviously impossible to know what our world would look like two years from now after, you know, we’re through the public health crisis and the vaccine is widely available. But I think that most urban planners and transportation planners agree that the basic geometry problem we face, we faced before the pandemic and will continue afterwards — which is that we have limited road space to move and more and more people every year.

The population growth and the economic activity will continue in Metro Vancouver, but our road space will remain mostly fixed. So that’s why these urban planners and transportation planners agree that a similar sort of trajectory for ridership demand is going to continue, which then argues very strongly for sticking with the same kind of regional growth strategy and regional transportation strategy plans the region has been following for the last two decades.

In fact, you know, I’d mentioned in my remarks that we were experiencing a North America–leading ridership growth. We were having trouble keeping up with the demand. We had overcrowded buses and SkyTrains. The dip in ridership over the next two years, in some ways, may allow us to at least try to get a little bit ahead of that growth.

I think there’s a high confidence that that kind of continued demand is going to continue, which means the projects we’ve got planned should continue. Some of the timing is going to be adjusted, but in the big picture, we’re still going to need all those investments to keep this region moving.

D. Barnett: Very interesting conversation. To Eric Diller, your comments on how government funds now through gas tax — you would recommend a kilometre charge for driving, and the same for ICBC. How do you feel the fairness in there when you have people that live in rural British Columbia, like I do…? If I wasn’t able to drive 200 kilometres most days, I would not get to work. How would you make an equity on this?

E. Diller: Definitely, there are going to be issues for people who live in rural areas. And yeah, that is certainly an issue.

[3:45 p.m.]

What we’re talking about here is for the majority of British Columbians getting good value for their tax money. That’s what I’m referring to — for the majority of British Columbians.

D. Barnett: If I could. I don’t have a problem with that. But what about rural B.C.? The geographic is that about 70 percent of British Columbia is rural.

E. Diller: Well, I grew up in a rural part of British Columbia as well. Yes, that did involve a lot of driving, so I understand that. But yeah, I think what it would involve is allowing communities in the more…. You know, maybe to conglomerate more into smaller, more urban areas instead of being more spread out. And maybe using technology like what we’re on right now more in order to get information.

Certainly, there’s going to be a need for some driving. And maybe for people who need to be out in rural areas, maybe there would have to be some sort of an income tax adjustment related to geography of where they live.

I’m not exactly sure how it will translate everywhere in the province, but the vast majority of people living in British Columbia live in urban areas, specifically in the south. I think that this would contribute to making these urban areas much more financially viable.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Eric, I’ve got a quick question for you. So as we move, hopefully, towards more zero-emission vehicles, how would you put that into the equation in terms of how you see this all planning out, especially in terms of environmental and climate change? Obviously, moving people to public transportation is ideal but also looking at ZEVs and other types of mitigation there in terms of climate change. How would you look at that in terms of your suggestions?

E. Diller: Well, currently there are already incentives to purchase electric vehicles, so we feel as though that’s enough of an incentive to move towards electric vehicles. The main reason for this is to encourage local governments to consider reforming their zoning and parking laws in order to encourage more compact, complete communities to exist, in which case, maybe people wouldn’t require the cars as much as they currently do.

I know a lot of people have issues with that, because they were used to living in a certain time and place. I think, though, that if zoning and parking laws were reformed and more density was allowed in a lot more areas, then there would be less of a need for cars.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Fair enough.

Mark, I just have a question in regards to the handyDART. Maybe you could just drill down a bit more. You’re obviously saying that we need many more resources put into that. Is there a quantum? Is there an amount? Is there something that you have for us in terms of how much more has to go into it to make it more viable for the services that you want to see in this province?

M. Beeching: Ultimately, you know, during COVID, it is a difficult equation to make. But the mayors have put forward a budget that they were not meeting in regards to handyDART that projected some of the increase in demand due to an aging population. Premier Horgan put forward a proposal of an extra 5 percent to ’20-21 that hasn’t arrived yet. But having said that, pre-COVID, the budget that had already been in place wasn’t being met, and in fact, there was an increase in usage of unprofessional, unsafe — arguably unsafe — alternate vehicles like taxis.

[3:50 p.m.]

My take on it is that, especially during COVID-19, it’s been evident that being able to maintain social distancing, being able to maintain safe transportation, with the clients and the drivers being protected, is far easier than directing that money towards private operations.

Speaking about electrification of vehicles, part of the reason that we have difficulties is that we have a private, for-profit company running it that has been doing an adequate job. The problem is that we can’t get a stable place to put electric vehicles because we have no property to do that. And handyDART has always been contracted out. I’ve been doing this for 40 years, and the problem is that to develop an infrastructure that would provide us with the service that we need is very, very difficult. The new companies have great managers and are doing a good job managing, but they’re managers.

The problem is that we don’t look at handyDART in a broader spectrum and look at it as a public service that benefits the health care needs. Projecting forward, I would say that we should look at the mayor’s budget and at least meet that. Now, as adult daycares open and provide service for people that have been in desperate need of respite for their clients, for their children and their brothers and their sisters and their mothers and their fathers, we will need more service. The health care system can’t survive without providing at least the service that was provided in the budget by the Mayors Council.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Mark.

We’re out of time now, but thank you very much to all of you for your presentations and also for everything you’ve done during the pandemic. It’s been a very difficult time, but it’s fantastic to see how everyone has pulled together and worked together. So thanks for that.

With that, we could recess, please, until 4 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 4 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you to our next set of panellists. If we could start with Mike Leonard from B.C. Maritime Employers Association.

Mike, please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 4 – Transportation and Transit

B.C. MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION

M. Leonard: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Leonard, president of the B. C. Maritime Employers Association. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon.

I would like to start with a word of profound thanks to the government and all members of the B.C. Legislature for your leadership, collective efforts and support of the people of British Columbia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BCMEA is a member-driven organization representing 53 waterfront employers and, by extension, the more than 7,000 men and women who work with our members on B.C.’s waterfront. Our customer-members include ocean carriers, ship agents, stevedores and marine terminal operators. We work out of ports from Victoria to the Alaska border.

To support our member operations, BCMEA provides core services that include training; safety; recruitment of the longshore workforce; labour relation services, including the negotiation of two coast-wide master collective agreements; and in partnership with the ILWU, the daily dispatch thousands of longshore workers to marine terminals across British Columbia. Where ships meet shore, it’s our members, along with our union partners, who move cargo at B.C. ports.

BCMEA member companies are a vital part of the B.C. economy and provide good-paying, family-supporting jobs up and down B.C.’s coast. A great example of the positive social and economic impact we have on the coast and in the communities along the coast is Prince Rupert. Ten years ago, it was classified as an economically depressed port. Today, when we factor in an anticipated expansion, it will displace Montreal as the second-largest port in Canada.

Our sector has weathered the early impacts of the pandemic well and has demonstrated its operational resilience. I believe the success that can attributed to this is due to the hard work of the men and women on B.C.’s waterfront and to the collaborative approach that has been experienced with our partners in labour at the ILWU.

We all know the global economy is facing increased turbulence and uncertainty. With the national supply chain disruptions experienced in February, coupled with a weakening economy and the advent of COVID-19, we are seeing a decline in vessel calls of about 17 percent and a 14 percent decline in total hours worked, both stats being year to date. This unfortunately translates into fewer shifts and fewer wages for the men and women working on B.C.’s waterfront.

Since the threat of COVID-19 arrived at B.C. ports in January, we have worked with our labour partners to prioritize the health and safety of workers while ensuring that essential cargo continues to move safely at our ports. BCMEA, our members and our partners have innovated and adapted quickly to the dynamic challenges presented by COVID-19.

As a designated essential service, we worked to implement extensive COVID-19 prevention and response protocols, including the implementation of remote dispatch systems to limit gatherings at dispatch halls; more frequent cleaning of workplaces, supplies and equipment; significant investment at terminal facilities in equipment to increase physical distancing. Additionally, we have also secured locally sourced hand sanitizer, as well as hard hats, face shields and both regulatory and cloth masks.

A great example of the latter includes us working with a company in Burnaby called Oceaner, who was commissioned to produce 30,000 reusable cloth masks so each waterfront worker has a set for their added protection. By and large, due to these protocols, and indeed with some luck, B.C.’s ports have remained COVID-free to date. However, it’s not without its own challenges.

These necessary adaptations are resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in new, monthly ongoing COVID costs for terminal operators. This presents a double hit for operators who are facing millions in non-budgeted expenses for cleaning and additional PPE while seeing declines in cargo volumes and revenue simultaneously. Canada’s marine terminals are also increasingly under pressure from competitors based in the U.S. where efforts are being led to seek federal relief for costs related to COVID-19.

[4:05 p.m.]

Given the challenges of increasing costs and declining revenues, we’re requesting that the committee give consideration to policies that boost port competitiveness while resisting measures that would add further costs and burden to the employers of workers. We believe this should be considered in partnership with the federal government.

With the federal ports modernization review, the B.C. government has had an opportunity to ensure that policies and governance frameworks are realized that allow B.C. ports to grow and continue to be economic engines for communities up and down B.C.’s coast. We know from experience that that will lead to more jobs on B.C.’s waterfront. Again, the Port of Prince Rupert is a great example of that.

In conclusion, we look forward to our continued collaboration with governments and key partners like the B.C. Marine Terminal Operators Association to ensure that the waterfront continues to lead B.C. and Canada’s fight against COVID-19.

Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Mike.

Next up we have Stephanie Jones from B.C. Marine Terminal Operators Association.

B.C. MARINE TERMINAL
OPERATORS ASSOCIATION

S. Jones: Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Jones, and I’m the president of the B.C. Marine Terminal Operators Association. I’d first like to thank you for the support of government during this global pandemic to ensure that our members have been able to continue operations while keeping employees safe. I’d also like to recognize your collaboration in working with the BCMTOA on the port property taxation policy and ensuring our port terminals remain competitive in the North American market.

The BCMTOA members are the front line, where Canada’s trade meets tidewater, road and rail. Our members lease waterfront land from federal public port authorities and invest in building, operating, maintaining and expanding their own facilities. They hire labour, fund the purchase of cargo-moving equipment, construct intermodal infrastructure and design systems that track each shipment.

BCMTOA members transported more than 342 metric tonnes of cargo in 2018. BCMTOA members have invested more than $1 billion in capital upgrades and expansion of their facilities since 2004 and are preparing to invest even more than $2 billion in future years to meet the projected growth of the Canadian Pacific gateway.

As a result of the marine terminal operations and capital investments in the last decade, the province of B.C. accrued an estimated $11.7 billion in GDP impact. The B.C. terminals are the businesses that ensure safe exit for Canadian exports and serve as the welcome for imported goods essential for Canadians.

Through COVID-19, taking care of waterfront workers has been our first priority. In an effort to increase safety while continuing to work, BCMTOA had the support of the work of BCMEA and others, and terminal operations and protocols have been adjusted.

Every aspect of each operating terminal has been taken into consideration. Terminals have incurred hundreds of thousands in new monthly costs associated with COVID-19 protocols, and millions will be spent in 2020 in new cleaning costs and PPE alone. Labour and management are working together to keep the supply chain moving while ensuring worker safety, with success.

Today there is an unprecedented level of uncertainty affecting terminal operations, making both short- and long-term investment decisions in B.C. ports.

With operating costs going up and the impact of a global recession still relatively unknown, BCMTOA is monitoring announcements domestically and internationally and is focused on maintaining competitiveness.

B.C.’s marine terminal operators are committed to ensuring the intermodal transportation needs of Canada are met. Policy must now be developed to ensure that operators are able to remain competitive and meet Canada’s demand for terminal services through the recovery and beyond.

We therefore ask that as the B.C. government is developing the budget and continues to work with the federal government on recovery, it considers the following.

First, ensure that the right type of regulatory and financial supports are provided to the waterfront community to maintain the essential services for B.C.’s and Canada’s trade needs and ensure that new programs do not add additional costs to doing business in British Columbia.

Second, we want to ensure that the federal ports modernization review results in policies and governance frame­works that provide B.C. terminals with a safe harbour for capital investment and growth, providing jobs and economic activity for British Columbia.

Third, as post-COVID stimulus infrastructure projects are prioritized for the B.C. government in the next budget, that there be continued active engagement in the Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum. The province should ensure that it focuses and prioritizes development projects that will provide the greatest public good in communities, that support gateway infrastructures and that already have private sector support and partners to ensure the greatest assurance of success.

Our members are committed to increasing Canada’s global competitiveness and to generating positive economic benefits for all in these uncertain times.

Thank you for this opportunity. We appreciate the dedication of this government to recognize and support the continued success of B.C. marine terminals.

[4:10 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Stephanie.

Next up we have Marko Dekovic from Global Container Terminals.

Please go ahead, Marko.

GLOBAL CONTAINER TERMINALS

M. Dekovic: Thank you very much. I am Marko Dekovic, vice-president of public affairs with Global Container Terminals.

I would like to recognize that we’re virtually gathering today on the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish people.

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today to talk about the necessity to support our gateway, especially during these challenging times.

As you may know, GCT is a homegrown success story. Headquartered in Vancouver, we are Canada’s largest container terminal operator and one of the largest maritime employers of International Longshore Warehouse Union members. We’re a majority Canadian-owned company by the British Columbia Investment Management Corp. and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, which together support nearly one million Canadian public sector employees and retirees.

Our two west coast terminals, GCT Deltaport and GCT Vanterm, are critical to the B.C. economy and provide customers and ocean carriers with reliable and convenient access to all the major Asia-Pacific trade lanes.

At GCT and across the supply chain, businesses are experiencing significant COVID-19 related challenges, but being on the front line, where Canadian trade meets tidewater road and rail, our top priority has been, and remains, to be open while taking care of our workforce. We have seen operational impacts as a result of the pandemic, but as you heard from our partner associations earlier — in particular, BCMEA — through innovation, investment and collaboration with our government partners, we have remained operational throughout the pandemic.

Looking forward, we must ensure the right type of regulatory and financial supports are provided to the waterfront community to maintain the essential services for B.C.’s and Canada’s trade needs.

As operators and tenants of the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority, we have been and will continue to do our part by investing in trade-enabling infrastructure. One example is the $160 million investment announced last year to densify and modernize our GCT Vanterm terminal, expanding its capacity by 25 percent within the existing footprint, supporting new jobs that come with it and reducing emissions by implementing new and cleaner operating equipment. The project has been advancing even during the pandemic, and in the next couple of months, two new super post megamax ship-to-shore cranes will be arriving in Burrard Inlet to be installed at the terminal.

Another example of our approach to smart, phased expansion is our GCT Deltaport fourth berth expansion project. It is a $1 billion-plus private sector investment signalling confidence in B.C.’s future. The project is moving forward and will be entering the regulatory process with the B.C. environmental assessment office in the coming weeks. The project will add thousands of new jobs through negotiation with our ILWU labour partners, increase container capacity and minimize environmental impacts in our neighbouring community.

We urge the B.C. government to ensure that the federal ports modernization review currently underway results in policies and governance frameworks that allow B.C. to be a safe harbour for capital investments such as the ones just outlined.

Job-creating infrastructure projects funded by the private sector will be critical to how the economy rebounds. As post-COVID stimulus infrastructure projects are prioritized by the government in the next budget, we would encourage continued active engagement in the gateway transportation collaboration forum and focus on prioritizing projects that already have private sector partners to support them.

For projects to be successful, they must be done with consent from our Indigenous communities. GTC was a platinum sponsor of the inaugural Finding the Path to Shared Prosperity conference in support of the provincial implementation of the UNDRIP legislation held in January of this year. During the conference, there was robust discussion of cumulative effects and a call for an Indigenous-led initiative on cumulative effects in the South Salish Sea.

GCT responded to this worthy call to action because we believe it would be helpful to nations, government, regulators and industry alike to advance such a framework. We pledged $200,000 toward the initiative in the hope of a stake in our announcement attracting other partners into the effort.

We stand with our community leaders and governments to do what it takes to collaboratively build smart infrastructure, leveraging private sector capital and green practices to be responsive to ever-changing market conditions. We’ll look forward to further collaboration with the government to grow B.C.’s competitive advantages in the Asia-Pacific and, of course, to answer any questions you may have today.

[4:15 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Marko.

Next up we have Jackie Kjos from North Peace Rural Roads.

Please go ahead, Jackie.

NORTH PEACE RURAL ROADS INITIATIVE

J. Kjos: Thanks for the opportunity to present today on behalf of the North Peace Rural Roads committee. This committee is funded by the Peace River regional district, rural area B, which is Karen Goodings — you probably know her — and the districts of Hudson’s Hope and Taylor, represented by Mayors Dave Heiburg and Rob Fraser, respectively. The committee is supported and guided by a task force made up of local industry experts.

It’s interesting to listen to the concerns and views of the other panel members, as the North Peace is rich in many of the natural resources and commodities that they handle through their port facilities — interesting to be on the same panel with you.

As the province of B.C. looks to stabilize and rebuild an economy reeling with the latest blow dealt by COVID-19, it will again be important to look to rural regions to provide stability, generate economic development and create jobs. No rural region of the province has contributed more to the long-term economic well-being of British Columbians in the past 50 years than the North Peace. But the provincial revenue from this region has not been reinvested in a manner that will allow that generous flow to continue.

This is my third year presenting to the committee — I recognize some faces — and we are in an absolute crisis in our rural roads situation this spring. Annual load restrictions, or road bans, as we call them, are killing industry. Other parts of the province have them, but nowhere else do they start as early, last as long or have the debilitating effect on jobs and revenue as they do here in this region. If the bans come off June 22, as we’ve been told they will, this will be the fifth longest restriction period in the last 40 years.

At the same time, when the B.C. forest sector has already experienced significant downtime due to COVID-19, the industry is facing further uncertainty here due to their inability to access decked wood. That decked wood is absolutely critical to keep mills running. Without it, they’re going to be forced to take more downtime.

This week Canfor attempted to bond one of the public roads leading to where they have wood ready to be moved to the mill, but the previously upgraded collector road has been allowed to deteriorate to such terrible condition that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has refused their request. MOTI is concerned that one of five existing slides on this road could completely fail, cutting off both residents and industry. This road is the only access for about 900 residents and is an important corridor for ranching, forestry and natural gas development.

Economic curtailment is the last thing this region and the province need as we try to get back on our feet. Make no mistake, these road failures don’t just affect major corporations. Forestry and natural gas development are driven by corporations, but in rural areas, they’re delivered primarily by small businesses, owner-operators and local First Nation companies. Those small businesses and their families are also hurt when load restrictions prevent them from working.

This is not the only road that’s facing serious restrictions from slide potential. There are at least four main corridors in the North Peace being used by residents and all three major industries that have existing slides that could go at any time. This is terribly frustrating for our committee, as we’ve been asking MOTI to invest in slide rehabilitation before the road is lost and we face weeks or months of economic hardship and job loss.

There is a solution: invest in the roads and retain jobs, revenue and economic stability for the region and for the province. In 1998, the government recognized the competitive importance of our public rural roads and began investing in a grid of roads that represents about 35 percent of the overall roads in the North Peace. This was done to ensure that the rural residents, First Nation communities and industry had a few roads that were never restricted below legal axle loading. This created certainty for industry, and the province was rewarded with a new era in revenue and job creation from industries that were able to operate year-round for the first time.

The investment has stopped, and more than half of the road grid was not upgraded. On top of the deficit of roads not upgraded, roads that were previously upgraded to prevent these punishing load restrictions have now fallen into a state of disrepair, or they no longer support legal loads year-round. So we’re going backwards in our quest for economic certainty in this region.

Slides are far from the only problem. There are other important public rural roads in the grid that are completely devoid of gravel and all but impassable when it rains.

[4:20 p.m.]

In a post-COVID-19 economy, regions that can generate provincial revenue, create jobs and ensure food security need to be a top priority for provincial investments. There are shelf-ready projects in the North Peace that can be delivered quickly, using proven designs. They are long-established and well-documented priorities that have been vetted and supported by the residents and industries.

The North Peace rural roads return a good return on investment. The province will be removing one of the largest barriers to economic development by investing in our roads.

Sorry, I went over a little bit.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s fine, Jackie.

J. Kjos: Thank you. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate that your presentation is a little bit different than the other three, but I appreciate you making it nonetheless. One of the things that…. There are pluses and minuses. One of the pluses of us having these panels is having a group of similar presenters together that can interact, which is wonderful. One of the downsides, of course, is that we don’t get to travel to, especially, rural remote areas.

This committee has gone to Prince Rupert. I was, of course, very pleased to go there because when you say that this is a vibrant port, it’s one thing to say it; it’s another thing to see it. It’s the same with roads, Jackie. We flew over a lot of roads when we were up north, flying all over British Columbia in the last few years.

J. Kjos: And I think we’ve offered to take you out on those roads repeatedly.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Jackie.

First up we have Donna.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Jackie, for your presentation. I understand completely what your issue is. I live in rural B.C. Alas, we’ve had fires; we’ve had everything. Of course, with the fires, the trees are gone, and we have nowhere for the moisture to go, so our roads are deteriorating everywhere in rural B.C.

Are these roads Forestry roads, B.C. Timber Sales, or are they Ministry of Transportation roads?

J. Kjos: They are all Ministry of Transportation roads. They’re the public network of roads. The road that Canfor tried to bond is actually a road that goes back deep into where their area is and where there are forest service roads off. But this is the main road into the Upper Halfway, which is one of the oldest settled areas in the North Peace. It supports…. There are 900 people. The Halfway River First Nation are on that road. There are gravel resources, natural gas exploration.

Canfor right now is potentially faced with 300,000 cubic metres of wood that needs to come out of there in the next year. That’s 6,000 loads. If these slides continue, if these slides happen, they’re not going to have wood for the mill. This is a crisis for us. We can’t afford our forest industry to take that type of a hit.

D. Barnett: If I could just ask a couple more questions. So what created this slide?

J. Kjos: Well, the slide…. If you have been to the Peace, we’re in an area where all our hills would like to be flat land. It’s very, very poor soil. It’s great for growing crops, but it’s terrible for building roads. It’s a clay base, and it slides very easily. So anytime a road goes through a river valley or a creek valley, it develops slides over time. They require a lot of money to keep them upgraded.

The process that the Ministry of Transportation has gone through is that they let the slide happen, and then it’s easier to repair it with emergency money. But this Upper Halfway road has five slides on it right now, and one is imminent. We talked to a lady this afternoon. When she went home today, her vehicle dragged bottom all the way home. You know, we’re in an imminent crisis on the Upper Halfway, and other locations, but this week it’s definitely the Upper Halfway.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Jackie; thanks, Donna.

I have a question in regard to port development and COVID-19. From the presentations, obviously, there’s been an incredible amount of work keeping essential services going, keeping supply chains running in a very difficult time. You speak of some of the short-term pivoting and things that have had to happen. I’m just wondering if there are lessons that have been learned from COVID-19 with our ports that we can address for more long-term solutions.

Perhaps I could start with Mike on that.

M. Leonard: I think the lessons that have been learned is that collaboration is key to moving forward on any major initiative. I think that was one of those things that, basically, shone through from the very beginning.

Innovation is also a key factor. In combination with the collaboration, it has positioned us well to basically capitalize on the challenges that were facing us. I think the go-forward with the longshore group is that this is serving us well in terms of how we tackle other challenges in the gateway. Maybe my partners could comment on that.

[4:25 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Marko or Stephanie?

M. Dekovic: Echoing on the collaboration, as sort of front-line, as a terminal operator, one of the key things that is a learning and that I think, in B.C., we executed well…. It was early learning — that the waterfront operates in a multi-jurisdictional environment. We’re federally regulated, federal terminals, but of course, the truckers or people exiting terminals, etc., are provincially regulated. Working together and having governments and the regulators collaborate quickly was essential in keeping the terminals open.

Understanding the multi-jurisdictional nature and how sometimes unintended consequences can prevent obstacles. But we did work through it very quickly. It is a learning to perhaps formalize those types of engagements with industries that are so multi-jurisdictional.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Marko.

Did you want to add to that at all, Stephanie?

S. Jones: I would just add that I joined the organization March 15, so collaboration has been really critical for me. BCMEA and also the federal and provincial governments have been amazing, both in bringing me up to speed and being responsive to the member issues as they’ve arisen.

I think that one of the big things around my board table has been the importance of the port modernization review and some of the opportunities to nationally review and ensure competitiveness of Canada’s ports over the longer term. Because it’s such an economic driver and we’ve had such success, I think building on that federal-provincial relationship through 2020 as the port modernization review goes forward is going to be really be important.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

Any other questions from the members?

All right. Seeing none, I wanted to thank all of the presenters. Thank you so much and also for everything that you’ve done during this unprecedented time with the pandemic. It’s amazing that you bring up cooperation. It’s just amazing how so many people and so many organizations and so many different levels of government work together. I completely concur that the more we can do that, the better our future will be.

Thanks so much, everyone, and have a wonderful day.

I’d like to take a short recess. We’ll come back at 4:40.

The committee recessed from 4:27 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We have three more presentations to end off the day. We have been able to, just for Members, get Eric Doherty — who was on an earlier call, but his phone wasn’t working properly — to come back and have another crack at it.

First up we have Eric Doherty from Better Transit Alliance of Greater Victoria.

Let’s have another crack at this, Eric. Go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations

BETTER TRANSIT ALLIANCE
OF GREATER VICTORIA

E. Doherty: Thank you very much for this opportunity to finish off my presentation. I’m not going to redo the whole thing. I’ll just remind you that I was talking about not stimulating more traffic and greenhouse gas pollution with stimulus spending and that British Columbia has signed on to the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change and committed to shift investments “from higher- to lower-emitting types of transportation.” Specifically, we’re calling for an end to all highway and airport expansion projects in and near urban areas.

Transportation is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in Canada. Stimulus and recovery funding, as well as infrastructure funds, must go to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas pollution from transportation and creating healthy, livable communities.

We need to fund and improve public transit with affordable fares, dedicated lanes, as well as safe facilities for walking, rolling and riding bicycles.

Greater Victoria desperately needs a new transit depot to accommodate an expanded bus fleet and operating funds to run an expanded fleet.

Highway expansion is not a regional priority.

Bus lanes are the top way to make transit safer in the COVID recovery period, which could last for years. Faster transit means higher capacity, less crowding and less exposure time for transit riders, including vulnerable handyDART riders. Bus lanes also reduce the cost per passenger and allow ambulances to travel quickly and safely. Emergency funding must be available for municipalities and the Ministry of Transportation to create many more bus lanes.

Public funds must not be used to stimulate more traffic and greenhouse gas pollutions.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Eric. That was much more clear. We really appreciate you coming back and having another go at it.

Next up we have Myna Lee Johnstone.

Please, go ahead.

MYNA LEE JOHNSTONE

M. Johnstone: My presentation to you today is about the funding of public transit — why it must be a priority and why it needs your attention.

Two terms have been used in the past few years to describe our society as “autocentric” and “supportive of car culture.” Decade after decade, the cost of driving to the public and through our public finance budgets are enormous. It is not just roads and infrastructure but includes our physical and mental health, as well as environmental and sociological issues.

[4:45 p.m.]

Indeed, our everyday lifestyles have been determined by this concentrated devotion to support for the chosen mode of transportation, the personal vehicle, brought to us by the auto industries and sanctioned by our governments.

I will tell you that my first awareness of this came almost 50 years ago as a young mother pushing her little one down a busy street, stopping and waiting for a light to cross the street and noticing all of that exhaust coming out of those tail pipes was directly in line with my little one’s face and lungs. Now, as a grandmother, this is still happening, and I have to be extra aware to scurry my little grandchildren across the street, with several lanes of traffic on all sides. I wonder, all of these years, why this is permitted and funded.

There has been one comprehensive study in Canada over all the years of transportation spending. You can find it at Transport Canada. It is titled Estimates of the Full Costs of Transportation in Canada, a synthesis report prepared by the economic analysis directorate of Transport Canada. I will be forwarding a link to this in a written submission following my presentation today. However, I have not seen an actual link. My copy is a printed one, and I can send that to you. It could be that in 2017, there was an update to this.

However, I want to continue within my five minutes, because it is an extremely important document for every person in government to review. To quote from the executive summary: “The social costs associated with the impacts of transportation activities in 2000 were in the order of between $24.4 billion and $35.9 billion. In terms of relative importance, the five social costs considered rank as accidents, air pollution, congestion, GHG emissions and, finally, noise.”

When assessed in terms of modes of transportation, the annual full costs of transportation activities within the scope of the FCI, the full cost, range between $198 billion to $233 billion, with road transportation alone accounting for $116 billion to $201 billion.

As members of the B.C. Finance Committee, you will be able to see in the report full costs for each province. You will see full costs estimates for the differences with the use of light road vehicles and urban buses. Staggering difference: $81.60 for cars, $3.08 for urban bus. You can see estimates for Vancouver and Victoria too. The figures are from the year 2000. By now, I’m sure they are much higher.

As a senior thoroughly fed up with all the traffic permitted everywhere, often terrified to cross the road, even on a crosswalk, I have become an ardent advocate for more and more innovative public transit. I believe it can be financed all over B.C. very well by increasing tax revenue and by making the automobile companies, auto repair companies and drivers contribute to these costs associated with driving. All products used to maintain vehicles should have a special tax as well. Even drivers of personal electric vehicles must help pay for the full cost.

Fines for traffic offences must be increased as well. With today’s technology, a traffic patrol officer could be trained to report offences and send tickets, rather than relying on police officers to enforce these.

All of this extra money can help pay for costs and thus divert more funding for public transit. I believe the B.C. government must be accountable to the public about these costs and distribution of funds.

In conclusion, I will remind you of this data from the World Health Organization. Worldwide an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year, and as many as 50 million are injured. Projections indicate that these figures will increase by about 65 percent over the next 20 years, unless there is new commitment to prevention.

During COVID time where I live here on Saltspring Island, only six persons can travel on a bus. This has created much anxiety and inconvenience for persons needing to get to and from work and to just get to a store for supplies. Not being able to board has meant waiting for two hours for the next bus. Drivers were free to drive anywhere, any time, and hitchhiking was not an alternative.

[4:50 p.m.]

This is my presentation. I’m open to some questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Next up we have Richard Cook.

Please go ahead, Richard.

RICHARD COOK

R. Cook: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting ordinary citizens like myself to present.

First of all, I would like to start by acknowledging that I’m virtually presenting today from the unceded territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam people.

My topic is “Confidence building from the ground up.” I’d like to say that the recent sacrifices of B.C. residents have earned us an opportunity to really leverage our relative safety to build an economic recovery which can strengthen B.C.’s competitive position.

While a V-shaped recovery may be on its way, our concern is to plan for a job recovery, even if a return to full employment is slower than hoped. We propose that B.C. take advantage of a unique opportunity to advance its planning for sea dike construction, designed to meet climate resilience targets but also tailored to rebuild confidence in the midst of a weak job market. The suggested goal is to be ready by fall with a labour-intensive version of dike construction and related landscaping.

B.C. funding, in our mind, should be matched federally and with a meaningful local government contribution. This worthy and timely project could provide a range of jobs from basic to highly sophisticated. Folks who are eager to get back to work would contribute to both the climate-friendly future for their local community and to their own physical and mental health. We think that people working in the basic jobs should be limited to working two to three days a week in order to leave time for job transition training.

As a linear facility, the program is easily scalable to the condition of the broader economy. If the recovery lags, then the dike works could be accelerated. If the recovery is fast, then the dike-building program can be slowed down. Benefits could be spread across multiple jurisdictions, including First Nations. Important investment decisions have been stalled today or fully loaded onto local governments — in part because, we suspect, of high price tags.

The pandemic is an opportunity to break this logjam, set some cost-sharing principles across levels of responsible governments, locate these facilities for regional and national benefit. Environmental reviews, in our mind, could be generic, coordinated and timely. The province is in the best position to lead life safety cost-benefit decisions, and 2020 is an ideal time to attract federal investment to this century-long challenge.

Assuming that B.C. is about to play a significant investment role, it should also continue to lead design decisions — which, for example, would consider the cost-benefit trade-offs of designing for seismic conditions versus sea level rise versus winter storm events. In our mind, this needs to be both a technical and a societal discussion, not unlike planning for a pandemic.

It could start incrementally with the sections where there’s consensus and, with senior government help, as a powerful incentive for local decision-making. Materials might be sourced at little or no cost from future development projects or from tunnel spoil along future rapid transit lines.

In conclusion, there’s symbolic and real value in seeing people working outside to build their communities on projects of lasting value — projects that could be built now efficiently at a competitive cost and reasonable interest rates. It builds resilience when we need it most in both environmental and economic capacity.

We think this seems like an ideal safety valve if our tourism, hospitality, real estate and non-essential retail sectors are slow to recover. If it’s not a V, it could at least be a swoosh recovery, with your lead.

Thank you very much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Richard.

Questions from members?

I’ve got a quick question, Richard, in regards to this proposal. Are there already proposals on the books that you’re referring to, or is this about accelerating planning that’s already planned upon? I’m just curious about where the idea is from.

R. Cook: Well, I have, I guess since 1979, been a land use planner and doing work in Mission, Maple Ridge, Langley, Surrey and, for the last ten years, with the Tsawwassen First Nation. I get exposure to these issues a lot in my daily career, and it’s certainly been timely.

[4:55 p.m.]

What they’re doing right now is they’re in a process of trying to develop a seismic assessment in the Lower Mainland dikes that is supposed to be completed in 2021. Well, we think that should be accelerated. This is a really good time to do that.

There are decisions that I think that should be made. For example, B.C. Ferries is investing in a program in the Tsawwassen ferry terminal that’s not taking into consideration the level of a sea level dike that should be built. Yet we’re expecting the local governments to do a whole bunch of work in this regard, and there are literally billions of dollars at stake.

It’s a really important time for the province to start to come to the table and bring the federal government along with it, because it’s something that is just going to languish if it’s left simply to local government.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Richard.

R. Leonard: Thank you, everyone, for your presentations. A quick question around diking.

One of the challenges that I see…. I recognize the need to protect existing infrastructure, and I recognize, too, the walking back of provincial contributions and responsibilities over the years when I was in local government. The question I have, though, is around managed retreat as an option for solutions around issues which diking would presumably be in competition with.

R. Cook: I think that’s something that Surrey has been looking at, in particular, and has advanced some in their public areas. Yes, that’s something that should be considered. But there are a lot of different options for different areas, and it just speaks to the whole need for a coordinated effort. To load it onto the local governments is, I think, tragic, because it simply isn’t going to get done properly. You’re not going to have the coordination between various governmental associations.

My Tsawwassen First Nation example is one. You’ve got Roberts Bank, which is asking for a bunch of developments related to the important economic decisions for the whole country, but they’re not considering the sea level rise. Well, we’re not going to manage retreat Roberts Bank, I don’t think. There’s a need, certainly, for regional level planning, and to not have the province really at the table both financially and in terms of setting the standards I think is really unfortunate.

M. Dean: Thanks to all the presenters.

I wanted to ask Eric a question, because working with the region of greater Victoria, there are so many different authorities involved there with different levels of commitment to active transportation. Some municipalities, because there’s been piecemeal development, still can’t even link up all of their bike lanes, for example, and some of them are giving that priority and are making sure they do it.

Is there anything else you think the province can do that can help with the fact there are all these different authorities that make decisions about land use to be able to accelerate or create more of a seamless system and network locally?

E. Doherty: There’s actually a very good example, surprisingly, out of the Conservative government in England, where they’ve put together a funding program for local governments, an emergency fund, based on the COVID emergency. They are allocating funds to local governments with a very expedited planning process, with the idea that these will be temporary trial projects.

They’ll be done very rapidly, put in place rapidly. It has targeted things that create protected bike lanes, that create bus lanes, that do these things effectively and quickly — and not just in England but in many places.

Things that were planned to be done over years or decades are being done over a period of weeks. It’s not a lot of money, because we’re talking about buying some planters, some flexible bollards, some paint.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Well, thank you very much.

Before we leave, I did want to say thank you to all the members. It was a particularly long day because we doubled up, and we will do that again tomorrow. Part of that is to make sure that we can get done before the Legislature meets again on the 22nd. So I wanted to thank the members.

I also wanted to thank the presenters today. Myna Lee, thank you for presenting, and thank you, Richard. I really appreciate you coming back again; it was wonderful to see you. Then also Eric, for coming back for the second time.

If I could have a motion to adjourn, I would appreciate that.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 5 p.m.