Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section C

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

[9:35 a.m.]

The Chair: I want to remember that we are on the traditional territories — here in Victoria, anyway — of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esqui­malt Nations. I want to thank them for having us here on their traditional territories.

Minister, any opening comments, or we’ll go straight to the critic.

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to answer a couple of questions that the critic had yesterday that we didn’t have the responses to on ride-hail.

The question of how many ride-hail drivers are operating. Between January 24 and June 12, the dates that we have data for at the moment, there were 4,149 unique ride-hail drivers operating across the four companies.

The other questions were: how many tickets were issued for illegal ride-hail after Bill 55 came into force, which was September 2019; how many of the 135 were issued with the new regime. So 47 tickets at $1,150 and 30 cease-and-desist orders.

The question on how many complaints have come in about the operating ride-hail companies so far. Most complaints are going directly to the companies through their apps for immediate feedback and rectification, but six ride-hail companies have been received at the ministry.

M. Hunt: Thank you to the minister for that information. Good morning to everyone — to the minister and to those from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

As we’re continuing on for a few moments on ride-hailing, my next question is: can the minister tell us…? There was a working group that was working on ride-hailing-related issues such as pay, business licences, that sort of stuff. Can the minister give us an update on that working group? Are they still meeting, or has it been disbanded?

Hon. C. Trevena: The working group meets on, really, an as-needed basis. We’re looking at basically monitoring some municipal issues. It was a time the intermunicipal licence regime was established — and successfully established — in the Lower Mainland. It looks at labour issues. But it meets on an as-needs basis. It doesn’t have a formal, set schedule.

M. Hunt: Would the minister know, for example…? Have they met this year, as an example? If so, does she know what sort of issues they may have been discussing this year?

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to ask the critic which working group he’s referring to. I just want to make sure that we’re talking about the same working group.

M. Hunt: My understanding is that there was a working group that was dealing with ride-hailing-related issues such as the pay, the business licences, those sorts of things, totally focused on the ride-hailing and on the issues of the running out and working out of the ride-hailing situation here in the province.

[9:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The working group was specifically on business licences — when the business licence issue came up and monitoring that, making sure that that came through. That’s the only working group that we have had.

M. Hunt: We know that a regional licence will be available for ride-hailing companies so that they can operate seamlessly across the Lower Mainland municipalities. When can taxi companies receive fair treatment from this government regarding their boundaries and fleet caps so that they, too, can be working seamlessly across the region?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that there is, obviously, concern from the taxi industry about the introduction of ride-hail. There have been a lot of good, family-supporting jobs in the taxi industry, and they are concerned at the impacts that a new regime has brought in. What the critic is asking is specifically the remit of the Passenger Transportation Board. They’re the ones who decide on issues of boundaries.

M. Hunt: In January of this year, it was reported that a taxi company in the Lower Mainland would no longer be providing subsidies for accessible taxis. What progress has the minister made to stem this unnecessary punishing of accessible-taxi users by ensuring that accessible taxis are still committed to picking up fares — those who are asking for accessible taxis?

Hon. C. Trevena: Any subsidy that goes to taxi drivers or taxi operators for accessible vehicles comes from the company, to incentivize drivers to drive vehicles which are accessible. Every taxi licence that is granted by the Passenger Transportation Board passes terms and conditions that set out the accessible taxis. Then the passenger transportation branch monitors the number of accessible licences.

M. Hunt: Is the minister saying that in fact, the enforcement of this and everything to deal with accessible taxis is actually only dealt with by the board itself and that the minister has no involvement in making sure that we have these accessible taxis?

[9:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The Passenger Transportation Board, which is the independent board, sets the terms and conditions. The passenger transportation branch then monitors and, if there is any enforcement to be done, is the official enforcement tool.

M. Hunt: I guess I’m slightly surprised by the answer, in that I would have thought that the whole issue of accessible taxis would be something that the ministry would be jumping on rather quickly and forcefully, simply because it is such an imperative to so many of our residents throughout this province. I’m just a little surprised that it seems that the answer is that this is somebody else’s problem.

I’m not trying to cast aspersions on the minister. I’m just deeply troubled over the fact that we would have a taxi company just say, “We’re not doing this anymore,” and that’s where it gets left, and it’s somebody else’s problem. I’m just wondering how the minister and the ministry are going to make sure that we actually have these accessible taxis available for our citizens.

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to help the critic out, if I might. As he mentioned yesterday, he’s still new, so just to clarify for him. When I talk about the passenger transportation branch, that is government. It is part of the Ministry of Transportation. The branch, as I say, monitors and enforces.

There has been no change to the licences. Taxis are still required, under their licences, to provide X number of accessible vehicles. There has been no change to that. It has not been decreased at all. So there has been no change at all there.

I think the only thing is that over the last couple of months, because of COVID, there has been less enforcement because there has been, effectively, a lot less demand right across the passenger transportation sector.

M. Hunt: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Minister. I appreciate that.

Now I would like to shift to transit, beginning with long-haul transit, if the minister needs to change her staff.

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just changing staff. We just wanted to clarify: is the critic going to ask about B.C. Transit or intercity bus, long-haul buses?

M. Hunt: I wish to begin with the long-haul transit and then go to B.C. Transit.

[9:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re hoping that we have the correct staff in the room. If the member would like to start with a question, then if there is a problem, we can shift out, if he’s willing to give us that lenience. It’s obviously a little complicated when we’re doing all this by a distance, but we believe that we still have the correct staff in the room.

M. Hunt: I certainly recognize that it is a challenge. I’m actually really pleased with how well we’ve been doing thus far with all the juggling that needs to happen.

B.C. Bus North is the first focus that we have. I’d like to ask the question: how much is B.C. Bus North receiving from the federal government, and how long does this funding stay in place?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to introduce the staff who are in the room now. We have Andrea Mercer, who’s the executive director for the transit branch, and Deborah Bowman, assistant deputy minister, transportation policy and programs.

When Greyhound pulled out, we were obviously very, very concerned about the lack of service for people who are living in the north in very remote communities and who had no access to any other form of transportation, which is why our government moved very quickly to ensure that there was going to be ground transportation, a bus service for people in northern communities. We worked very hard, obviously, on the service along the Highway of Tears, but we were very concerned about the lack of a long-distance bus.

We have been working with the federal government. We led a working group with the federal government on this and have a cost share up until March 21, which is $1 million from the federal government. The delivery mechanism is through B.C. Transit.

M. Hunt: Mr. Chair, I’d like to cede the floor to the member for Prince George–Valemount to continue on the B.C. North Bus.

S. Bond: Hon. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity this morning and thank the critic for the time.

The minister has answered the basic questions and reminded us that the loss of bus service through Greyhound was devastating for northern residents. We have many people who rely on bus transportation, intercity bus transport, for many reasons — personal, social and work. We certainly understand and appreciate the efforts that have been made to ensure that B.C. Bus North is in place, but it’s only in place until March 21 of next year.

[9:55 a.m.]

It does involve a partnership with the federal government. The minister has said that they’ve been in discussion with the feds. Perhaps she can let us know whether or not there has been a specific request to extend the funding for B.C. Bus North beyond March 21 of next year.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that every time I meet Minister Garneau — the last time was just before we shut down for COVID; I was in Ottawa the week before things closed up — I’ve been requesting continued engagement from the federal government in B.C. Bus North and in intercity buses.

As the member well knows, having been in this position herself, there are, oftentimes, lots of negotiations. We are continuing in conversation with the minister. He’s very well aware of B.C.’s position and B.C.’s desire to ensure that we continue having safe and affordable transportation for people in northern communities.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m assuming that the next time, then, she has a conversation with Minister Garneau we will try to extract a promise.

I certainly appreciate all of the urban issues that are on the minister’s desk, but I can assure her…. I know she heard from many of my colleagues along this stretch of British Columbia’s highways about how critical having a bus service is. Can the minister, perhaps, give me a brief update about COVID operations in terms of B.C. Bus North? Is it operating now? Was there passenger service?

One of the things we do not want to have happen is to have someone take a look at the ridership numbers, for example, after we look at a COVID period and a variety of other circumstances that have very likely impacted ridership, as they have every other service. Can the minister give me an update? What happened during COVID? Is the service running now? What are the projections for ridership numbers today and in the future?

Hon. C. Trevena: As a representative of a rural community where I’m seeing one of the intercity bus services applying to the Passenger Transportation Board to withdraw service, I understand the member’s concern acutely. We need to have affordable bus service.

[10:00 a.m.]

Our funding, as a province, is not contingent on the federal funding. It’s great to have the federal funding. We are the only province in the country that has received federal funding, because of our government’s advocacy and work with Minister Garneau to make sure that we do get it.

We have absolute commitment to B.C. Bus North, making sure that we continue to service northern communities and the people in northern communities who need that service.

As far as the impact of COVID on B.C. Bus North, the only impact is on ridership. There has been no change in operation. There has been no reduction in service. If you want to travel on B.C. Bus North, you do need to book. As long as you’ve booked, the bus will be running.

The bus has continued to run. There has been a 60 to 70 percent reduction in ridership. In the first 18 months of service, we had about 9,000 people on the bus. Over the last three months, there has been about a 60 to 70 percent reduction in ridership.

S. Bond: Again, thank you to the minister. Yes, I’m not surprised. When we look at the numbers, both on air transport and ground transport, obviously the reductions are dramatic. That is to be expected.

I just want to, then…. The minister has said that we’re the only province in the country that got federal funding, and that’s great. The minister has said she’s committed to B.C. Bus North and intercity bus travel. So if the federal government does not come to the table, does that mean that the minister is committed to providing the entire amount of funding that’s required for B.C. Bus North to continue after March 21?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, our focus at the moment is to ensure that the federal government maintains their contribution and stays at the table. I do have very positive conversations with Minister Garneau about this.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to stay at the table with the federal government. What northern residents want to hear is a commitment that the B.C. Bus North service will continue regardless of whether or not the feds are at the table.

I will leave it at that. I know that’s probably the best I’m going to get from the minister. I do appreciate her advocacy and working with northern MLAs. I know the Minister of Forests and others have had a role in making sure this continues. That’s an important piece. If the feds don’t come to the table, obviously we want to see this service continue. I’ll leave it at that.

Certainly, we’ll return later with some additional questions about other topics. I want to thank our critic very much for allowing me the opportunity to bring this important issue to the table.

M. Hunt: Just a couple of questions on what has happened concerning the Greyhound routes. Could the minister please tell us what former Greyhound routes are still not covered?

[10:05 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, there has been a reduction in Greyhound service over a number of years. When we formed government, we took action to try and ensure that there was ground transportation in many areas where Greyhound had pulled out in 2018. There are only two which remain with no intercity bus service. That’s Vale­mount to Kamloops and Fort Nelson to Watson Lake.

Northern Health Connections does have a service between Valemount and Kamloops which is available for those with medical appointments, mobility challenges and also people who are aged over 60.

M. Hunt: Which routes have seen a reduction in service from the time an application was first approved by the board until now?

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to get clarification from the critic. Obviously, with COVID, there have been a number of intercity bus operators who have not been operating. I’m wondering if this is a specifically COVID-related question or a question relating to since 2018, when Greyhound left and we started to rebuild the network with private operators.

M. Hunt: Well, once again, the minister is reading my mind. It’s actually both questions. The first one I was asking in the generality. Then I was going to ask the COVID-related question. It’s actually both questions, and she can answer them in whichever order she wishes.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: While we obviously have many hours of estimates debate, in the interest of time, we don’t actually have specific figures, specific data of pre-COVID. So if the critic would indulge us, we will get that information and report it back, if not this afternoon, then when we meet again on our return.

The Passenger Transportation Board, which is the independent tribunal, did allow a reduction or suspension of service during COVID. That, obviously, has had an impact. It continues to have an impact, but there is the start, again, of more service. We can get many more details for the critic, but we don’t have them all on hand at the moment.

M. Hunt: Thank you, Madam Minister. I appreciate that. The initial piece of the question was dealing with, for example, the situation where there was supposed to be a bus every day. This was pre-COVID. The commitment was a bus a day; it was approved for a bus a day. In fact, it went to a bus a week. That type of situation, which was pre-COVID, was the generality. I will thank the minister for bringing me the answer in good time.

The last question I have on the long-haul transit is dealing with the COVID situation. Just like we have with businesses, the street-level ma-and-pa shop, I’m going to expect that some of these operators may not have had deep enough pockets to survive this transition of COVID, the shutdown of COVID or however you want to say it — the tremendous reduction in revenue. Does the minister have a plan B for considering how we are going to get new applicants and routes up if we have failures as a result of COVID-19?

Hon. C. Trevena: Member, I have been engaged with the sector throughout COVID. I’ve had many conversations and meetings, including with the Premier, to talk about the problems facing the industry on this.

[10:15 a.m.]

It is, obviously, a real concern. Like the whole transportation sector, it’s been hit by massively declining ridership. This is not just B.C.; it is across Canada. It is a point of discussion when I meet with my provincial and federal colleagues — how we can ensure that we do have intercity bus. What we have gone through in B.C., with the withdrawal of Greyhound, they’re now seeing in eastern Canada, where Greyhound has pulled out because of COVID. So there is an impact on intercity buses everywhere.

The Passenger Transportation Board, as I mentioned, initially allowed a reduction, a suspension of operations through this. This was during phase 1. Through the restart, I believe that we will start seeing ridership increase through phase 2 and phase 3, now that we’re into phase 3. Some operators did remain open through the early stages, are updating their safety plans and continue to provide increased service. It is something we’re very, very cognizant of, both provincially and in the greater federal context.

M. Hunt: Now I’d like to move to B.C. Transit issues. With that, the first questions will be coming from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the critic and the minister for taking this time here for these questions.

A first question to the minister: since there has been a change in government, since the changeover in 2017, has there been any change in the process around funding and revenue-share split — or, I guess, expense split — with the municipalities and B.C. Transit?

Hon. C. Trevena: The reason it took so long to answer a very simple question is that we have some people from B.C. Transit in the room, and we wanted to recognize them. We’ve got Roland Gehrke, the CFO of B.C. Transit, and Christy Ridout, the VP of business development, who are here to assist with any significant questions.

To the member, no, there has been no change.

P. Milobar: Has there been any change to the projected life cycle of a bus with B.C. Transit over the last few years, and if so or if not, what is the projected life cycle of an average bus in the B.C. Transit fleet?

[10:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: There has been no change in the life cycle. It’s still 13 years for a heavy-duty bus, which is the 40-footer; six or seven years for the medium-duty, which is the Vicinity; and about five years for the light-duty bus.

P. Milobar: In terms of the funding for B.C. Transit and the municipalities, the relationship there, when municipalities were reducing hours for COVID, were they clawed back money from B.C. Transit? Did the contract still stay exactly for service hour, or did they get the same amount from B.C. Transit that they would have under normal circumstances, pre-COVID?

Hon. C. Trevena: No, B.C. Transit hasn’t clawed back any funding from municipalities through this process.

P. Milobar: Is the intention, then, that that will continue on? Hours may or may not be fully reinstituted depending on what happens throughout the rest of this fiscal year and heading into the next fiscal year.

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think that everybody’s been hit so significantly by COVID-19. It’s been extraordinary, what’s been happening over this last number of months. I mean, the ridership on transit has been diminished massively, right across the province. But it was an essential service. It still is an essential service. It’s still under the emergency order. It still is an essential service.

I think that we’ve seen municipalities having had their farebox hit. We’ve seen people who are concerned about riding transit. So a number of things.

Transit is obviously working with local governments. It introduced, for a while, the backdoor entry and now has worked with local governments to allow the front door entry to help with farebox recovery. Working, obviously, as they do at this time of the year, on local government agreements.

We obviously are working with all transit providers, whether it’s B.C. Transit or working with TransLink — yesterday we were talking with the critic about working with B.C. Ferries — to really just work out where we’re going in the future.

Still, we’re just in phase 3. We’re just starting to build out. We’re just starting to see people really come out and start going back to work more often and start getting back on buses. So we continue to work with B.C. Transit, as B.C. Transit works with municipalities, just to start mapping out the future.

P. Milobar: Well, that doesn’t sound like a commitment that the dollars will actually still be the same whether or not their hours are cut by no fault of their own, moving forward. But hopefully, that will continue on.

I’m just wondering if the minister can clarify. Public transit, in this year’s budget, went from $121.206 million down to $119.133 million. B.C. Transit was expected to pick up the difference through their surplus. There is a three-year average, three-year estimate, for expenditures. Previously, the overall budget for transportation was $926 million. This year it was supposed to $930 million; 2021-2022, $932 million. But those sections of the budget don’t break down the individual departments the same way as when we get the one-year window.

What would have been within those planning documents that show the three years to get the Ministry of Transportation to $930 million? I’m talking about last year’s three-year plan. What would have been the anticipated public transit budget for this year as opposed to the $119 million that it wound up being?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate these questions on transit.

Our government is actually committed to a good public transit system for the people of B.C. We know that having access to affordable transportation is essential for people — use in their everyday lives, getting to work and getting to see families. It’s part of an active transportation plan. It’s also essential, as we’re moving out of COVID, that we do have a healthy public transportation system. We are committed to continuing to invest in the transportation system.

The member is asking about what appears to be a $2 million reduction. That is going to be…. It leads to no reduction in service. It is asking B.C. Transit to use some of its reserves, which they have accumulated over the years, to help finance the system. It’s not a reduction in service, and there is an absolute fundamental commitment from our government for a healthy public transit system.

P. Milobar: With all due respect, that didn’t come close to answering the question. The question wasn’t whether the government is committed to transit or not. The question wasn’t whether or not there was a $2 million reduction in transit for this year. The question was….

Last year’s three-year fiscal plan showed the Ministry of Transportation was going to have $930 million to expend for this year. This year’s fiscal plan, however, shows the Ministry of Transportation, your three-year fiscal plan, at $929 million. There has to be planning within that $930 million and $929 million of how you get to it with each individual component of expenditure.

Last year in the three-year plan, the Ministry of Transportation was at $930 million. How much was the projected spend for public transit to make up that $930 million for this year?

Now, we know it has decreased by 2 percent, and we know it has to come out of B.C. Transit reserves. What we don’t know is what this time last year — or, actually, pre-pandemic this time last year — the dollars that were projected to be spent for B.C. Transit in this fiscal year were supposed to be. That’s the number B.C. Transit would have been planning off of in the first place.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. I think we’re getting it. It was actually $930 million last year. It was $123 million for B.C. Transit. This year it is now $160 million. That’s where we start working with B.C. Transit on the use of reserves.

P. Milobar: For planning purposes…. B.C. Transit and municipalities have to plan well in advance to know what they’re doing with service hours, how they’re going to fund those service hours and how they’re going to, in the long term, fund those service hours. The minister has just said that in fact B.C. Transit would have been planning for $123 million, until the budget came out this year. The budget came out in late February or early March. At that time, B.C. Transit found out that they went from 123 million planning dollars over the last year to $119 million.

It was actually a $4 million cut, not a $2 million cut, to B.C. Transit. Is the minister saying that B.C. Transit needs to find $4 million if they are to complete all of their planning that they would have been doing in the previous fiscal year leading up to this? If so, how many hours of reduction is this leading to — unclaimed hours that municipalities will no longer have access to — for this year?

Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Transit has accumulated a $42 million reserve. I think the member would be aware that it’s really not fiscally prudent just to be building up and building up an operating reserve. This has been building up over a number of years. We have been working with B.C. Transit throughout the budgeting process; it’s not a surprise. They don’t go into the budget lockup and suddenly find out what their budget is.

[10:40 a.m.]

We work with the Crowns when we’re working on the budget — as we work with them now, working through COVID — and make sure they are fully apprised of every­thing we’re doing. We are working through every­thing. We are working with B.C. Transit on the use of that reserve and the prudent use of that reserve. As we do this, there is absolutely no reduction in hours.

P. Milobar: While reading from the B.C. Transit service plan…. In 2019, B.C. Transit, for 2020-2021, the budget year we’re talking about right now, had originally planned for $123 million. We now know that it’s down to $119 million. In that same planning document from 2019, the ’21-22 projection is $125 million. Yet now for ’21-22, it’s down to $122 million, and it flatlines at that for the following year.

The reason I’m wondering is that the Finance Minister, on February 20, was quoted as saying, in regards to the B.C. Transit budget, and this is from a Vancouver Sun article on February 20 written by Rob Shaw: “So the budget drops for the year that they use their surplus up, and then they’ll get the money back.”

B.C. Transit originally thought the following year would be $125 million. They’ve now projected that down to $122 million, after already seeing a $4 million reduction this year. What are we to anticipate, moving forward with these reductions, given that B.C. Transit would need to have firmer numbers and there seems to be contradictory statements by the Finance Minister and the Transportation Minister around B.C. Transit’s funding levels?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we’re coming to one of those challenges that we have of discussing a budget that was obviously tabled back in the end of February, and here we are in June. We’re living in a different world.

When we tabled the budget, as the Finance Minster said and as we agreed, B.C. Transit would be drawing down its operating reserve. I mean, it’s a fiscally prudent thing to do — to be using the operating reserve rather than building it up. The province was working with B.C. Transit on making sure that this was going to work, and we feel very comfortable that it is going to work.

Obviously, with COVID, there has been a significant change across transportation agencies. There has been a plummeting of ridership, and it’s low.

[10:45 a.m.]

It’s starting to grow back, but it’s still very, very low. That means there’s been a plummeting of farebox recovery. Municipalities are obviously very concerned about the future. B.C. Transit is working with municipalities. We’re working with B.C. Transit to ensure that we do maintain a robust public transportation system.

We’re very much into reality. We’re not into hypotheticals here. We are talking to B.C. Transit almost daily to ensure that they have a good place to be launching back in to help the people of B.C. get back into the economy and make sure our economy continues and can regrow.

P. Milobar: Again, that answer has nothing to do with the question. This budget was presented pre-COVID. We have not had a budgetary update between now and then. So to use answers around COVID simply makes it very tough for us to try to ask questions under COVID times.

Secondly, for the operation of a bus, whether there’s a paying customer on that bus or not, the operational service hour cost does not change. B.C. Transit funds operational hours. Municipalities…. The minister has confirmed that those agreements have not changed, in terms of how the municipalities keep 100 percent of the farebox. None of it goes to B.C. Transit to defray the cost of B.C. Transit.

The municipalities will have some shortfall to come up with between what the property tax payer puts into transit in their city and what the farebox total will be. But B.C. Transit, COVID or no COVID, will have the same cost structure and the same cost pressures for an hour of service.

The Minister of Finance in February said that it would be a one-year change to use some surplus. The Minister of Transportation today has said the surplus was at about $40 million. We’ve established that it’s only about a $4 million difference right now. So they’d still have $36 million in their surplus. Yet the Finance Minister has said that they will be fully reinstated next year.

In the service plans from B.C. Transit, in conjunction with the Transportation Ministry…. As the minister has said, they talk all the time. In 2019, they were fully expecting that that year would see a budget of $125 million. It was supposed to be $123 million for this year, based on those same conversations with the Transportation Ministry.

We know we’ve seen cuts. We know that based on the province’s three-year fiscal plan — ’19-20, ’20-21 and ’21-22 — the Ministry of Transportation was supposed to have $930 million to expend. This year’s three-year fiscal plan by the province has reduced the Ministry of Transportation by $1 million to $929 million, yet B.C. Transit saw a $4 million cut to what they had projected over those same documents being created.

Again, next year, based on the Finance Minister’s own comments in February and in conjunction with discussions with the Minister of Transportation, will B.C. Transit be seeing their money going back to what they had originally projected back in 2019, of $125 million, or will it be the $119 million, or will it be the $122 million that they have now projected after this year’s budget?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: With all due respect to the member, the member is talking about next year’s budget. We are here, I think, talking about this year’s budget and obviously what’s been happening since we tabled a budget before COVID.

P. Milobar: I will take that, then, that B.C. Transit can expect the same if not less money than they’re currently receiving, since they’ll still have a surplus. Based on the minister’s answers, until that surplus is zero, it’s simply not wise for a board to make sure they’re running themselves economically and efficiently.

A lot of that surplus actually comes from years where municipalities find themselves in budgetary crunches and need to remove service hours from time to time or suddenly not accept service hours that they were previously promised in planning cycles.

The reason I ask these questions is that it is important. The three-year service plan, again, by the government previously showed $930 million and then $932 million next year. The updated plan shows that same $932 million for next year. Given that B.C. Transit has already seen the cut, I fail to see where they are going to suddenly, magically, have more money to work with the Transportation Ministry, as the only thing that’s been adjusted over these service plans is B.C. Transit’s funding reducing, between B.C. Transit service plans and the provincial government’s service plans.

I’ll shift gears a little bit with transit and go on to CleanBC, because it appears those answers…. Any future questions are going to rely on the fact that COVID is impacting, and the minister doesn’t seem to want to answer those types of questions.

Within CleanBC, there’s a commitment for Transit to be switched over to an electric fleet by 2040. Is that still the scheduled timeline?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, and obviously we’re very proud of CleanBC and very pleased that B.C. Transit is fully embracing this. That’s still their target.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering why it was a target and not a more definitive statement than that when CleanBC was created — with consultation, I’m assuming, with B.C. Transit and the Transportation Minister. We have lots of other commitments that are firm targets within CleanBC, yet this is an aim and a target, but it’s not a firm “B.C. Transit will be 100 percent electric by 2040.”

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: In the letter that I, as minister, wrote to the chair of B.C. Transit, the 2019 mandate letter, I said that I expect that there will be substantive progress on priorities, including ensuring that B.C. Transit is well positioned to meet or exceed the province’s legislated targets for its greenhouse gas emissions to 2030 — and to remind the member, a reduction by 40 percent in 2030, 2040, which is a reduction of 60 percent, and a reduction of 80 percent by 2050, compared to 2007 levels — and to provide formal updates on this.

B.C. Transit has a low-carbon fleet program. It has a ten-year strategy. It’s transitioning from its current diesel-based fleet to low-carbon alternatives. We already see the increasing use of CNG in many communities — that’s compressed natural gas — and it’s looking at how it can build out its electric bus fleet.

P. Milobar: I’m just curious, though. CleanBC was launched in December of 2018. The transition to electric bus fleet for B.C. Transit, though, was not to begin until 2023. Why the, essentially, four-year window of time before a conversion to an electric bus fleet within CleanBC?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think, actually, it’s a very good news story — what B.C. Transit is doing on its clean technology. I think that we are seeing a real shift. All its new fleet, as it replaces any bus and as it replaces its fleet, is going out to RFP. It is going for clean technology.

It’s anticipated the first ten battery-electric buses will come 2021-22, so in the next year or 18 months. There will be ten electric buses, which is a significant start.

Each different fleet type we have, obviously…. As we were talking earlier on, the heavy duty, medium duty and light duty have their own route, if I might say, towards electrification. But it’s built into the replacement cycle of B.C. Transit’s fleet. We really wanted to make sure that there is both the meeting of all the targets — electrification and greenhouse reduction targets.

In the meantime, CNG is being used as a sort of technological shift. CNG, compressed natural gas, is obviously much cleaner than diesel. While B.C. Transit is moving towards electric and is planning, within the next 18 months, to have the first electric vehicles on the road, in the meantime, CNG vehicles are being purchased to cover that gap.

[11:00 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I agree. B.C. Transit has, for a long time, actually tried to push the envelope on clean technology, be it the hydrogen fleet, which they tried for many years up at Whistler that unfortunately didn’t work out quite the same way they were hoping, to CNG. That transition started quite some time ago. I was actually on the board at B.C. Transit when that transition started. Nanaimo was the first. Then Kamloops, where I was locally elected, went to CNG as well. These transitions have been happening for a very long time, and it’s good to see that they will continue on.

I guess the reason I’m asking is that when I look again at the greenhouse gas emissions strategy for B.C. Transit moving forward, by 2022-2023, the carbon intensity per service hour is a bit of a drop, but it’s not a significant drop, which means that the transition, especially to electric, is not happening at a great pace.

I ask this question again, because what I’ve been finding with CleanBC…. I’ve kind of become the unofficial critic of CleanBC, because although the Minister of Environment was the signatory to it, it seems to have been gunshotted across several ministries with various aspects of it. What I’m finding is that most of these aspects seem to have their first actual check-in date or accountability date after the next general election. That seems to be the case with the B.C. Transit initiative that’s been dictated to them — not by them — by the government and CleanBC in terms of 2023 as the start of the electrification process.

If the minister is saying that the electrification is underway right now, will we be receiving any updates in this fiscal year or the coming fiscal years — I know the minister would prefer to stay just with this fiscal year — as to where exactly we are at and what those emissions changes have been on the profile of the fleet?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. He mentions about CleanBC and how it seems to be a little bit within every ministry. I think that this is the importance of it. It’s right across government and right across society. It’s something that we really need to be working assiduously on.

Under CleanBC, there are obviously accountability reports. Equally, B.C. Transit has its own carbon-neutral action plan. But one of the key performance indicators in its annual service plan is the total greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon intensity per service hour. They are definitely reporting on this. They are monitoring it. It is a key performance indicator. It is fundamental to how we move forward in transit.

I know my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and responsible for TransLink is very aware of what TransLink is doing. We want to ensure that we are meeting and, hopefully, exceeding the goals that are set out in CleanBC.

P. Milobar: Well, within CleanBC and within other calculations that the Ministry of Environment has been using now, we often hear that it would be the equivalent of taking X amount of cars off the road. Of course, there has to be a GHG calculation for what that car is. It used to be that 4.7 per car was considered the GHG emission footprint by cars. But as cars have modernized and as cars have got more and more fuel-efficient, just recently that’s actually been reduced down to 2.9, I believe. So the Ministry of Environment has made adjustments to their calculations in that regard.

Has B.C. Transit changed anything within their calculations of GHG intensity or footprint per service hour or any of that downward, in terms of recognizing the fuel efficiencies of vehicles? Or is it still the same calculating figure that has always been used to go into that calculation?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we understand what the member is getting at. B.C. Transit uses the government’s SmartTool to measure greenhouse gas intensity. It’s measured in terms of tonnes of reduction of greenhouse gases rather than the per-vehicle equivalent. But I think that…. It has to, obviously, report its information, report out on what’s happening.

As buses become more efficient, you’re also seeing a decline in greenhouse gas emissions, not just the move to CNG but even the…. You have, let’s say, a 2015 or 2016 diesel bus. It’s going to be a lot more fuel-efficient than a 2001 diesel bus. As technology improves, even in the traditional fleet we’re seeing a reduction in greenhouse gas intensity. But there isn’t the…. As the member is saying, it’s not reflected in per car. It’s not reflected in almost the equivalent of per bus. It is reflected in tonnes of reduction of greenhouse gas.

P. Milobar: I think the minister acknowledged this. I just want to make sure I’m understanding correctly, because it does carry forward to other estimates as well, through CleanBC. So there has been no change to the calculating formula? Because that’s what changed with the per car. The 4.7 as a calculating constant within any formula went to 2.9. I’m just making sure there was no calculating change to any of those constant types of standards across North America within the world of buses.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the best of my knowledge, no, but we’re using, obviously, provincial government tools and so on. I’d defer to the Minister of Environment if there are questions about different approaches in different ministries.

P. Milobar: Thank you, and I will follow up with the minister. That’s why I referenced the fact that CleanBC is in several different ministries. That’s why I’m having to bounce around and try to make sure that we don’t miss something that should have been answered by you, and then the Minister of Environment says to come back to you after we’ve already dealt with the Ministry of Environment.

Just a couple more questions on the CleanBC side of it. I’m just wondering how the decision to target 2040 for the hopeful electric vehicle change-out of the B.C. Transit fleet is…. As I referenced, in December ’18, CleanBC came in. I would say — benefit of the doubt — it came in, in ’19. Obviously, people weren’t going to start hustling to get RFPs out in the middle of the Christmas season. So it’s been 2019.

The official start of this fleet change-out is not supposed to be till 2023. It’s supposed to be till 2040. That’s why one of my first questions was around what the life cycle of a bus was. The heavy-duty buses are our longest-serving buses — at 13 years. We go from 2019 to 2040, whereas the life cycle of a bus, even the heavy-duty buses, would put us at 2032 if the change-out had started right when CleanBC was first adopted.

Why that eight-year gap of trying to get to an electric fleet? It is a significant gap, and it’s significant in that when you look at all the data around where we’re trying to get our emission reductions from, the transit system and transportation plays a critical role within those numbers. So to essentially take eight years longer to do something that was a stated goal in 2019 doesn’t make a lot of sense. What was the mindset or the discussion or the logic around adding eight extra years to the electrification of the bus fleet?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Transit is aligning with the CleanBC targets.

While we are all very excited about the electrification, whether it’s of cars or public transportation, we’ve also got to remind ourselves that it’s still…. Some of it’s pretty new technology. As it has been evolving, it’s to try and align the significant capital spend with the market — so allow the market and the technology to develop into a place where fleets can be replaced.

Now B.C. Transit is in a good place with both the marketplace and its heavy-duty fleet replacement. They see that this really is the greatest opportunity to move forward with an electrification.

Also to note that…. While this is moving ahead, while we’re going to be starting to get those heavy-duty buses in 2021-22 — they’re coming online soon — there is also the infrastructure that will need to be built out. B.C. Transit is working with B.C. Hydro to make sure that there is the available hydro, where it is needed, to ensure that we can effectively run these electric buses.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. There’s lots to chew on, on that. Certainly, one would hope, although they’re operational surpluses, that the draining down of their surpluses doesn’t impact the ability to meet some of these unexpected challenges with municipalities moving forward.

I know one of the challenges with CNG fleets is the cost of getting a refueling station installed, making the numbers work and trying to piggyback on other parts of a city’s fleet operations to see if that will work. Unfortunately, most bus exchanges and garages are not located in a convenient location with other civic operations. So that makes it a little bit tough.

Certainly, when you look at the technology around batteries and long-haul trucks right now…. I remember seeing a report that said that essentially you would need about $1½ million worth of charging stations to charge very few trucks in a day.

[11:20 a.m.]

They take about an hour and a half for each battery, and they need four or five charging stations to run simultaneously to charge up a fleet of batteries. It takes a very long time to charge them up. Then you can only get ten, 12 or 18 a day to run through, compared to a regular diesel pump station or a CNG station.

That said, moving forward…. Given the uncertainty over the last couple of years of projections between what B.C. Transit was thinking was going to be happening versus what did happen — and in conjunction with, at the exact same time that CleanBC is growing out and getting its feet under it — what commitment is there, moving forward with all these extra capital requirements for the fleet changeover, that municipalities will see cost-sharing through B.C. Transit by way of the provincial government?

Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. Transit…. We’re obviously trying to leverage federal dollars through the investing in Canada infrastructure program, which will obviously, as well, decrease both local and provincial contributions to this. In fact, the first ten electric buses that we’re talking about, electric-battery buses, are coming through this infrastructure program.

M. Hunt: The next set of questions will be coming from the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: That was a great segue, actually, for some of the things I wanted to ask about.

Recognizing the significant premium with regard to electric buses, recognizing the significant costs of infrastructure in order to charge those buses, recognizing the limited capacity available to, again, charge those buses, I wonder if the minister is aware or has been briefed by her colleague from the Ministry of Energy and Mines with regard to the Huron Clean Energy company. It is a partnership with Carbon Engineering and the Squamish Nation in the district of Squamish whereby they are doing direct air carbon capture fuels manufacturing. This is a proposition that has been on the table for a number of years but has really developed into this new company called Huron Clean Energy.

They would, in conjunction with the district of Squamish, very much like to enter into an agreement with B.C. Transit to supply zero-emission or carbon-free fuels to the existing B.C. Transit fleet. This would require no changes in technology. This would allow for these buses to operate with their existing propulsion systems, with their existing engines, but with fuels that are directly captured out of the air and manufactured into fuels.

I wonder if the minister is aware of this proposal from the Squamish Nation and Carbon Engineering.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I have visited Carbon Engineering — very exciting, the work they’re doing. But B.C. Transit is also in communication, and they are investigating the opportunities that are associated with this.

J. Sturdy: Just for clarity, B.C. Transit is in discussions with Huron Clean Energy to look at this technology as an option or an alternative for zero-emission vehicles?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, B.C. Transit has been in communication with Carbon Engineering and is looking at the feasibility of this synthetic fuel.

J. Sturdy: Okay. Thank you, Minister. I look forward to the outcome of that. I think it’s quite an exciting proposal to have a transit system, specifically in the area of Squamish, which doesn’t have access to the CNG fueling station, unlike Whistler. We could look at a local fuel source that would be, essentially, zero emission for the district of Squamish’s transit system. That’s certainly an exciting opportunity.

Moving on, I would like to ask the minister a little bit about one of my favourite subjects, which is Sea to Sky regional transit. As the minister is aware, this is, COVID notwithstanding, a highly needed and supported proposal — to have a regional transit system that connects Mount Currie with Pemberton with Squamish with Whistler with Britannia Beach and Lions Bay and Metro Vancouver.

This is supported by all the local governments in the Sea to Sky, as well as the Squamish First Nation and the Líl̓wat First Nation, which are both signatories of an MOU in support of a regional transit commission and regional transit service. Also, it’s referenced in the INSTPP report as a recommendation and has support from local municipalities all across the North Shore.

[11:30 a.m.]

The minister, in the fall of 2018, asked the signatories of this MOU and the supporters of the regional transit service to nominate members for a transit commission. I understand that the members did supply nominations, supply names for that transit commission. Did the minister ever get around to appointing those nominees?

Hon. C. Trevena: No, we’ve not appointed a commission.

J. Sturdy: Perhaps the minister could tell us why, after asking for these nominations, she did not appoint a commission.

Hon. C. Trevena: We need a funding model in place for the commission to operate. We have no agreement yet on the funding model.

J. Sturdy: To the minister, does it not require a commission to be in place to…? Isn’t it part of their role to make recommendations around funding models?

Hon. C. Trevena: The commission doesn’t actually establish the funding model. A commission would look at service. It would look at routes. It would look at fares. There has to be a foundational funding model to enable the commission.

If I, as minister, appointed a commission, they would not have a role per se, because there is no service for them to govern.

J. Sturdy: With regard to the commission, my understanding is that local governments only are eligible to sit on that commission, and the proposal here was to have two First Nations sit on a commission. Does the minister intend to introduce amendments to legislation to allow for First Nations to sit on transit commissions?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: thank you for the question. I’m not going to speculate on whether there would be any legislation or legislative amendments.

J. Sturdy: Does the minister support First Nations eligibility to sit on a transit commission?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is very well aware of our government’s commitment to reconciliation. We were the first jurisdiction to bring in the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and to embed it in our legislation. We fundamentally believe in reconciliation and in ensuring that we are working with First Nations. That is foundational for our government’s approach.

J. Sturdy: Well, that’s good to hear, but it is a little disconcerting that she won’t commit to introducing legislation to allow for these First Nations to sit on transit commissions. At this point, they are not eligible.

The minister has, on a number of occasions, said to the local governments and the partners on Sea to Sky regional transit that she wasn’t satisfied with their funding proposition, and she sent them back to be “more creative.” What does the minister mean by more creative?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that B.C. Transit and the ministry have worked extensively with the local governments and with local government administrations to try and find opportunities and to try and find different ways of ensuring that this service could get off the ground.

[11:40 a.m.]

There has been discussion over the last number of months — I guess more than a year now — looking at whether to change to different sorts of fare structures. They’re looking at some sort of shift in the partnership model between B.C. Transit and the municipalities, whether it would be phased in, whether there should be some involvement from other transit agencies or even the private sector — whether they would be getting involved.

I know that my ministry’s senior staff have met extensively. I know that B.C. Transit met extensively with the staff of the municipalities and the communities in the Sea to Sky corridor. If we were accounting for it, hundreds of hours have been spent on trying to find a way forward with this, and we’ve not been able to find it. We’ve put many, many options on the table but have not been able to reach any agreement with the communities.

J. Sturdy: As the minister is, I’m sure, well aware, in terms of revenue streams for local government, they are very much limited to transfers from other levels of government or property taxes. That’s really all there is to it. In the case of the Sea to Sky, we have the proposition for a Mount Currie to Metro service. It’s a fairly long corridor, probably — what? — 180 kilometres, give or take, maybe a little bit less.

The reality is that of all the communities incorporated within that service area, one community consists of 65 or 68 percent of the assessed value. In the property tax model, that would essentially have Whistler paying 65 percent of the bill for a service that they received a minority of the service for. This is, obviously, a real challenge when this is the proposition — to go to property taxes to pay for the local government’s share of this service.

I don’t quite know where to go with this, beyond the fact that there has essentially been a rejection of that model in the Sea to Sky. So does that mean that this service, short of going to a property tax model, will not get off the ground?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know it’s very troubling for the communities in the Sea to Sky to look at this model, but if I might, I’d just highlight for the member the number of communities that use the traditional B.C. Transit funding model to fund intercommunity systems.

For the member’s interest, there’s Penticton to Kelowna, Chilliwack to Abbotsford, Abbotsford to Aldergrove, Osoyoos to Penticton, Campbell River to Comox, Cowichan to Victoria, Hazelton to Smithers and Skeena-Terrace to Kitimat. Kelowna and Vernon are linked. In fact, you can go from Vernon all the way through to Penticton using B.C. Transit. Trail to Castlegar and Nelson to Castlegar are a very good system out in the Kootenays, linking communities.

Kimberley to Cranbrook, Summerland to Penticton, Okanagan Falls to Penticton — as I say, all the way through the Highway 97 corridor down through the Okanagan. I don’t have the kilometrage in front of me, but it would be similar to Pemberton to Mount Currie down to at least Britannia Beach, I should imagine, if not Vancouver. Then there’s Port Edward to Prince Rupert. Municipalities have made it work and have been able to come to the table. That’s using the traditional model.

[11:45 a.m.]

As I say, we’ve had discussions — many, many, many hours of discussions — with communities in the Sea to Sky corridor to try and find a solution here. Our government is absolutely committed to public transportation. I was just talking to your colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson about the environmental impact. If we’re really talking about CleanBC, we’re talking about people being able to use public transit.

We know that it’s a busy corridor, like these other corridors are busy corridors. If we can get people onto public transit, that’s fantastic. We also know it’s an affordable way for people to travel, whether they’re going to work or going to school or whatever it is. B.C. Transit and public transit is, really, an affordable and sensible choice. It’s also safe.

As we’re moving into rebuilding our communities, rebuilding our economy after COVID, we want to ensure that B.C. Transit is at the centre of that and that we have affordable transportation for people so they can get to work.

Many, many communities…. I know they’re all struggling because of COVID. I know that they’ve been knocked sideways with the loss of farebox revenue, and they’re very concerned. But many communities have been able to do significant linkages and make sure that they can do corridor-wide approaches using the existing funding model.

J. Sturdy: I will remind the minister that…. I’m not aware — perhaps the minister is — of other circumstances where there’s such disparity in the assessed values, which is what property tax is based on, in terms of the contribution to B.C. Transit. Under the Sea to Sky 25-year transit future plan, the majority of the service would flow out of Squamish, essentially, yet they’re less than 20 percent of the assessed value.

And a property tax increase. I’m sure that the mayor of Pemberton has reminded the minister that a 1 percent property tax increase in the village of Pemberton raises something in the neighbourhood of $15,000.

It’s really just not a sustainable model for smaller communities, with such diversity and such disparity in assessed values. As well, two of the partners would be First Nations and, again, would not be subject to that same revenue model or contribution.

I hear the minister saying that they’re supportive of the creation of a regional transit service, and I’d like to see some more evidence of that.

Thank you for your time, Minister.

A. Olsen: Good day — almost good afternoon — to the minister. I appreciate the opportunity, my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale, for giving me a few minutes here before we break for lunch to just ask some questions around transit before we move on.

Again, as I started my comments yesterday with respect to B.C. Ferries, I’d like to do the same with all of the transit workers in our province and the incredible work that they’ve done on the front lines — courageous workers who have continued to provide an essential service for British Columbians. I want to raise my hands in gratitude and thankfulness for all of the British Columbians who continue to use those services, because that’s the way that they get around. So I’ll start with that.

I also want to acknowledge and raise my hands to my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson for his questions around CleanBC and that work. I’m very thankful for his good work on that part of the file.

I want to reiterate my colleague from West Vancouver–​Sea to Sky’s questions and assertions of the importance around transit service in that part of our province. I know that when I go to the UBCM, I have often met with municipal leaders throughout that region. They have also shared with us the frustration that they have experienced in not having a reliable transit service through that entire region. I just want to, if it means anything, strengthen the statements of my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on that. I think I’d like to talk with him a little bit further with respect to First Nations involvement on transit commissions across the province. I’ll just start there.

[11:50 a.m.]

My question to the minister is similar to the questions that I had yesterday with respect to B.C. Ferries around the associated revenue losses due to COVID-19 and with respect to the provincial government’s perspective on supporting TransLink. We’re focused on B.C. Transit right now, but let’s just say that both of those services have experienced considerable drops in revenue, as was canvassed earlier by my colleague with respect to the impact that this has had on municipal governments.

I’m wondering what the minister’s, perspective is on this — the provincial government stepping in to support these two very important institutions that provide public transportation across the province.

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s acknowledgment. B.C. Transit and transit providers have been an essential service and continue to be an essential service. They were literally out on the front lines — people driving buses, working in maintenance yards, and so on — and really have done a supreme job over the last number of months, literally being out there and working.

I think the member is aware that ridership tanked with COVID. It went down about 75 to 80 percent below its normal amount. I’m just talking about B.C. Transit; I’m not going to be talking about TransLink on these figures, but I think they’re similar. It’s starting to go up. We’re at about 40 percent of normal ridership now. So it’s creeping back up there. I think that as we move on with phase 3…. Our Restart Plan has started. We’re now into phase 3, so more people are going out. I think that we’ll see numbers go up. Fares, obviously, went back in on the first of June, after having the farebox stopped during COVID.

I think we’re going to start seeing a shift to the positive. We, as a provincial government, are working very closely with B.C. Transit — as with, as I mentioned yesterday, B.C. Ferries and with TransLink — just to work through what the impact of COVID is, what it means for the agency. It is beyond…. To be honest, it’s simplistic to say: “They’ve lost a lot of money. How are we going to help them?” We’ve got to really look at how we are working together to ensure that we are looking at all aspects.

[11:55 a.m.]

We also are at the table with the federal government. There is $14 billion available. One of the priorities there, one of the priority areas, is transit. So we are having discussions with the federal government. They seem to be acknowledging the importance of transit now. It continues to be an ongoing dialogue to make sure that we come out of this, and that transit comes out of it, in a strong way in the coming months.

A. Olsen: If I may just sneak one more question in here, recognizing that we’re getting very close to the time.

To follow up, I’ve asked questions of the minister in the past with respect to expansion of transit service on the Saanich Peninsula. I just wanted to contextualize that. I recognize that there’s a desire, across the province, as my colleague noted, for the expansion of transit service. How are those transit providers funding the loss of revenue in the meantime?

The minister has responded now with respect to B.C. Ferries, saying that the ministry is working alongside to understand what the challenges are. The reality is, as my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson raised, that the cost of running a ferry and the cost of running a bus are largely the same in COVID as they are out of COVID. These corporations have expended a considerable amount of resources. What I’m very wary of is the fact that over the past number of months they’ve been spending resources that, perhaps, could have been used on much-needed expansion services.

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of how it is that these organizations have been funding their services and at what cost to the long-term sustainability of the organizations. Given the growth and resiliency of the future, has it come at a cost to the sustainability and the resiliency of those organizations?

Hon. C. Trevena: Nobody wants to be a Cassandra. I think that B.C. Transit is able to support its service levels at the moment. We, as a government, working with our Crown corp. of B.C. Transit, continue to have that dialogue, continue to monitor, continue to see where things are moving and how we can work together. It may appear to be a not-specific-enough answer for the member, but as I mentioned yesterday when we were talking about B.C. Ferries, we are just starting phase 3.

Three months ago it was something that nobody had ever experienced. We are now working with Transit, as with the other transportation agencies, Ferries and TransLink, on how we can map out the future. We’re not sure how that future is going to look. So we’re not going to be definitive today and say what we’re going to be doing in September. I think we are still at that restart, edging back up, numbers edging up and just ensuring that we get that sustainability.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This session is now complete. Thank you, everybody.

The committee adjourned at 12 noon.