Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation and Transit
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,191,816,000 (continued).

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Ward Stamer: Last night, unfortunately, we ran out of time, and I had a couple more questions to the minister on the differentiation in the infrastructure amounts in the last 15 years between Highway 1 from Kamloops to the Alberta border and Highway 5 from Kamloops to the Alberta border — the same.

I have a request, if it’s possible, to the minister. There’s some data relating to Highway 5 that is being collected and has been collected — volume counts. There’s speed data. I’m wondering if there’s a list that I can provide to the minister and his vision or ability to be able to reply to that in this session, if that’s possible — you know, what’s available publicly.

At the same time, last night the minister was explaining some of the rationale between the determination on his ministry’s way of collecting data and determining where investment is needed in our highway system. There was reference to $350 million that was spent on, basically, repairs on the Coquihalla — using that as a frame of the choices between what possibly Highway 5 would require and the prioritization of that portion of Highway 5 on the Coquihalla receiving that money instead of Highway 5 from Kamloops north.

I’d like a little bit more of an explanation of how his ministry is determining the rationale between, as an example, Highway 1 with a $261 million improvement project that is eight kilometres in length…. In Tappen, I understand there’s a bridge replacement over the CPR. I understand there’s an overpass for traffic flow into Sunnybrae. But again, that represents ten times the amount of money that has been spent on Highway 5 from Kamloops to the Alberta border, a highway that is used many times of the year when Highway 1 is closed and that is the only source for commercial traffic to get to Alberta other than the Crows Nest Pass. And we all know that in the wintertime, that is not really a viable route.

So I’d like a little bit more of an explanation of why, consistently, those decisions are being made possibly only on volume data that does not take in crucial time, say, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. It’s taking a whole 24-hour period. I don’t know too many people in this room really care how much traffic is on the highway at 3 a.m. But I’d like a little bit better of an understanding when there’s a push for four-laning to Alberta on Highway 1. We know there’s no way places of that section that will ever be four-laned in our lifetime. I’m going to suggest the Three Valley Gap is not going to be four-laned in the next 50 years.

So I’d like a better understanding from the minister on how his ministry is rationalizing all the investment onto Highway 1 and not Highway 5 North.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thanks for the question. No, I appreciate the member’s interest and concern when it comes to Highway 5. I just want to assure him that when we look at whether it’s Highway 5 or others, it’s all looked as part of our overall transportation system.

We do assessments in terms of what’s required. The kinds of approaches we take are the same for each one. We work with the RCMP, we work with our CVS team, our engineers, to identify options for improvement on all those routes. There are many variables, including incidents, traffic volumes, future goods issues, goods movement, population growth — all those things I talked about yesterday.

The reality, at this particular time: Highway 1 is the most used interprovincial route with use that continues to increase more than the others, Particularly since Trans Mountain has now been finished and the Kicking Horse is now done, that’s showing up even more.

So, for example, last year the Kamloops to the Alberta border on Highway 1, the peak daily traffic was 25,000 vehicles at a day. On Highway 5 North, from Kamloops to the Alberta border, the peak in the previous year was 6,000. Last year, it was only 3,800, compared, because of the Trans Mountain being complete and the Kicking Horse being open.

Those are the kinds of factors that come into play in terms of how decisions are made. We also look at, and I know because the member has…. We’ve spoken in the past on some of the safety issues. We look at those, and there is work being done on those safety issues as well.

So yes, I understand the issue, the concern the member’s raised about money — I get that — but it’s also about other things besides money. What is going to make the most effect? What can also be effective in terms of improving safety or improvements? Sometimes the costs for those are significantly different. Some of the issues that we’ve talked about in terms of cameras and things like that are kinds of improvements that we can make. So that’s what I can tell the member in response.

I just wanted to clarify…. You had data that you wanted me to be able to look at and give a response? I’m happy to do that.

Ward Stamer: Yes thank you very much to the minister for the explanation. I look forward to having these conversations in the future, and I look forward to the opportunity to provide that data with you today.

I’d like to pass this over to my colleague from Surrey South.

Brent Chapman: To the minister…. It’s kind of low-hanging fruit right now…. Since at least 2023, this subject has been raised in local media and direct contact to MLAs.

Swartz Bay terminal covered area. Passengers at the Swartz Bay ferry terminal are exposed to inclement weather due to insufficient shelter at the bus bay, leading to discomfort and health concerns, particularly for vulnerable individuals.

[2:55 p.m.]

Question for estimates: how are responsibilities delineated between B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit concerning infrastructure at shared terminals like Swartz Bay?

How are responsibilities delineated between B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit concerning infrastructure at shared terminals like Swartz Bay?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. B.C. Transit is responsible for the bus stops, but they’re on B.C. Ferries operations. So they are integrated, and they try and work together.

The challenge when it comes to the bus stops, and there’s work underway in terms of resolving the issue, is the weight of the buses. So they’re exploring how a covered platform could be installed that would deal with that particular issue, obviously, given the configuration of where the bus stops are.

Brent Chapman: So would I be safe to assume that there are steps that are going to be taken? People are being encouraged to use the bus and to take the bus onto the ferry, yet really, in that instance, there are quite a few people that are left exposed. Is there an earnest interest in fixing that?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The answer is yes. We are already doing something similar in the case of Tsawwassen, and we’re looking to do the same based on the situation at Swartz Bay.

Brent Chapman: British Columbians are already stretched to their financial limits. Yet despite repeatedly claiming to champion affordability, this government is quietly laying the groundwork for a new tax on drivers, a vehicle levy, without having the political courage to admit it publicly.

On May 5, 2025, the Premier was asked not once, but three times, to rule out a vehicle levy on road pricing schemes. Each time, he dodged. Each time, his Transportation Minister pivoted. And each time, they refused to give a direct answer.

[3:00 p.m.]

If they weren’t considering a vehicle levy, they would have just said so. Now the government is trying to take credit for a $312 million, three-year transit funding commitment, but what they’re not telling the public is what comes next. Their language is slippery.

vehicle levy, they would have just said so.

Now the government is trying to take credit for a $312 million three-year transit funding commitment, but what they’re not telling the public is what comes next. Their language is slippery. Long-term solutions, no preconceived ideas, working with TransLink. It’s clear what that means. The levy is on the table, just not before the next election. All signs point to a plan already in motion. And let’s be clear: the government’s own timeline ends in 2027. That’s not speculation; it’s their published schedule. Their funding commitment to TransLink runs out that year.

And 2027 also happens to be the expiry of their original ten-year child care plan and their promise to build 114,000 affordable housing units over ten years, signature promises from their 2017 platform, neither of which are anywhere near close to being delivered. That convergence of expiring promises and an unresolved funding plan make 2027 more than just a date. It marks a politically opportune window to reset the narrative before the public can hold this government accountable.

While we can’t say with certainty whether an early election will be called before 2027, the timing would be politically convenient. The government could use the campaign period to downplay what’s coming, knowing full well that a vehicle levy is in the wings, only to introduce it after voters have gone to the polls and the political risk has passed. British Columbians have seen this pattern before, and they won’t be fooled by it again.

Let’s not forget this is the same government that said there would be no early election in 2020 and then called one. The same government that said tolls would be unaffordable and is now considering something even more far-reaching under a new name. They cannot be trusted to be honest with the public unless they’re forced to answer in this House. This isn’t just about one funding decision. It’s about a pattern of strategic silence, of pushing difficult announcements beyond the reach of accountability.

If the government intends to bring in a vehicle levy, the public has the right to know before they vote. And if they won’t come clean in this Legislature, then we know exactly what they’re trying to hide. If this government is even remotely considering a vehicle levy, or empowering TransLink to impose one, then they must say so now. Not after the election, not after it’s been buried in a budget line and not after British Columbians are already paying the price.

Question. Will the minister provide a clear commitment that the government will not enable or authorize the introduction of a vehicle levy immediately following a potential early election in spring 2027? And if such a measure is being considered, will it be brought forward prior to any election so the public can judge the plan before voting?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, which I find most fascinating. I’d like to remind the member that this is estimates, not question period. If he wishes to engage in a political discussion, I am more than willing to engage in a political discussion with the member. I will remind.… Because I know what he wants. This is now going to go out on a video or something like that. That approach, as opposed to wanting to ask a question.

We can go down what was the opposition’s position in the election campaign when it comes to TransLink. We can talk about how they were going to run an $11 billion deficit without any plan whatsoever in terms of how to address the funding shortfall that TransLink is facing. We could talk about their program which would result in cuts to health care.

We could talk about all of those things that I’m sure the member didn’t want to talk about in the same way that we saw during the election campaign. How many of their candidates refused to attend all candidates meetings, refused to answer questions. In the same way that his leader would hold press conferences and only answer questions once and would not take a supplemental. Talk about a lack of transparency and a lack of being upfront with the voters.

[3:05 p.m.]

I want to assure the member…. If the member had actually read, which I doubt, the TransLink agreement that we have concluded with the mayors, we recognized that TransLink, or transit, is important to British Columbians.

and a lack of being upfront with the voters,

But I want to assure the member…. If the member had actually read, which I doubt, the TransLink agreement that we have concluded with the mayors, it was that we recognized that TransLink or transit is important to British Columbians. It’s important to growing communities right across this province. And so what we want to ensure is the long-term, sustainable funding for TransLink.

We know that the gas tax is declining. We know that there is a growth in electric vehicles. All of those things are putting pressure on TransLink’s finances. What we’ve committed to do is to backstop TransLink with $312 million that will result in expansion of service, that will ensure the financial integrity of TransLink for the next three years. And during that time, we have committed to work with local government on funding measures that can ensure the long-term, sustainable liability of TransLink

That means more expanded bus service in the member’s own area — such as Campbell Valley, for example, where the mayor of Surrey, whom I met with, has said: “Buses are our number one priority.” That takes money not just in terms of capital, but it takes money in terms of operating.

All of those things are part and parcel of a transit expansion plan, which is crucial to the livability, the affordability and the ability of the Lower Mainland, in particular, to be able to grow in a sustainable way that ensures people can move about. It’s a number one priority. It is a key priority for business. All of those things are going into why we work with TransLink.

What it means is that yes, there do have to be some funding mechanisms for TransLink to be able to sustain their financial viability. So we are going to look at what those options might be. And to suggest that there has been a decision made that it will be a vehicle levy is simply false and wrong. That may be something that’s looked at by TransLink and the province, along with other measures that we will work with them over the next two years. We are going to work with them over the next two years.

The only thing I can draw from the comments of the member opposite, and members opposite in the House during question period, is that they are opposed to any measure that would solve TransLink’s financial challenges. Their only solution was to take $650 million and say: “Oh, we’ll do an audit.” No plan, no vision, nothing.

But it also leaves you with the only other logical conclusion that you can draw from the position of the opposition, when it comes to the funding measures required to ensure that TransLink continues to be sustainable over the long term. And that is you cut service, which would probably mean getting rid of free transit for those under the age of 12.

It would mean no expansion into Campbell Valley. It would mean no expansion, for example, on the new SkyTrain lines that that are being built because those need servicing, those need employees. It would mean none of that.

Or what it would mean is that they would say: “You know what, local governments? You have a funding mechanism right now called the property tax.” And they would put the entire burden on local governments and tell them: “You use property taxes to fund the operations of TransLink.” That would see skyrocketing property tax bills, because you cannot have it both ways.

We understand that. That’s why we’ve committed to working with local government. That’s why we’ve committed to working with TransLink to find solutions that work. And that’s why there’s a two-year period to do that.

It doesn’t have anything to do with election timing. It doesn’t have anything to do with a desire to go to the polls. I can tell you right now, given what I’ve seen lately, I’d be happy to go to an election today, because we’d be returned with a bigger majority.

If the member wants straight answers to straight questions, I’m more than happy to give them. I’ve been giving them to other members of his party. I’m happy to do that. But if he wants to engage in political posturing and political games, I’m more than qualified to play that game.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we are considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. That is what we’re considering today, so I would ask that discussion on estimates occur

The Chair: Members, we are considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. That is what we’re considering today. So I would ask that discussion on estimates occur, and just on estimates.

Brent Chapman: That was a long way to go for “Yes, they are considering it.”

On Thursday, April 10, 2025, the NDP Transport Minister announced a TransLink subsidy of $104 million each year for three years, 2025 through 2027. The 2025 subsidy of $104 million is $32 million greater than TransLink’s 2025 business plan, which, just a few months ago, projected operating deficit of $72 million.

This $104 million transit subsidy adds significantly to the total B.C. government budget deficit for the current fiscal year tabled by the Finance Minister on her budget speech in the House on March 4, 2025. The erstwhile $72 million deficit figure was to be filled in from deployment of various funding sources, including the B.C. government.

Now the B.C. government subsidy for 2025 alone, quite separate and apart from the funding contribution from the other jurisdictions — the 21 municipalities, an electoral area and a treaty First Nation — of $104 million is more than two times that of the last subsidy of $51 million. While fluctuations, rubber numbers, the 2025 annual business plan operating and capital budget summary tabled just a few months ago projected a $72 million subsidy from all funding sources, now the B.C. government subsidy alone is $104 million.

The total 2025 TransLink operating budget subsidy from all sources — B.C. government subsidy, property tax hikes from 21 municipalities, gas tax, parking tax — may be estimated at well above $200 million. That is close to three times the tabled number of $72 million. This is an example of rubber numbers assembled by TransLink management.

Unbelievably, fare increases lead to increased subsidy. Under otherwise normal conditions, that should read the opposite. Fare increases should lead to decreased subsidy. However, this is the incidence of the worst of both worlds. Fare increases are ordered into effect, and concurrently, subsidy increases also occur.

I would like to request the minister…. He should be able to access the estimated numbers through his representative on TransLink board. I would like him to table before the House the estimated total subsidy amount to TransLink operating budget and all sources. The minister should be able to access the estimated numbers through his representative on the TransLink board.

I should note that this figure may, under certain circumstances, rise again, putting upward pressure on the B.C. government’s 2025 annual budget deficit. Clearly, annual B.C. government subsidy amounts to TransLink’s operating budget are not shrinking.

When can this House look forward to a downward trend in annual subsidies from the B.C. government to TransLink?

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that we are in estimates, and there is no tabling within estimates.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I will inform the member that it does not add to the province’s deficit because TransLink got the money on March 31, before the fiscal.

[3:15 p.m.]

It is a one-time grant, so it’s not an ongoing thing. We do not do an annual subsidy to TransLink, so it does not add to the increased deficit the current fiscal year.

It is a one-time grant, so it’s not an ongoing thing. We do not do an annual subsidy to TransLink, so it does not add to the increased deficit for the current fiscal year.

Brent Chapman: The record is now well established: TransLink’s annual business plan numbers undergo wild fluctuations a few months after they are tabled. The fact that TransLink’s management is demanding transit subsidies every year is mainly due to two reasons.

The first reason is that TransLink management suffers from a total paralysis in planning. Their revenue and ridership projections, in particular, are almost never close to actual. This is a corporate management team that fails in its most basic function, that being to project its corporate revenue. This is a recurring failure, and the government has repeatedly looked away from addressing this key failure year after year.

The second reason is TransLink’s evident failure to cut relevant operating costs and seeking operating efficiencies. TransLink is recurrently receiving B.C. government subsidy. My constructive suggestion is that TransLink management should assemble their annual budgets following, at minimum, B.C. government Treasury Board guidelines. TransLink management are repeat offenders when it comes to assembling budget numbers that provide the reader some confidence in their robustness, reliability and integrity.

An example of lazy numbers used in TransLink 2025 budget business plan operating and capital budget summary is in 2024. The percentage change from ’23 to ’24 in total fare revenue was 1.191 percent, from $672 to $680 million, respectively. In 2025, the estimated percentage change in total fare revenue, itemized in TransLink’s 2025 business plan operating capital budget summary, is $761 million, up from $680 million in 2024, a positive change of $81 million. This estimated percentage change is exactly 11.91 percent.

This lazy budgeting because of the estimate change…. In 2025, total fare revenue is conveniently arrived at by adding a lazy zero, moving the decimal point the previous year’s 2024 percentage change in total fare revenue. Because of this laziness in budgeting, the budget estimates numbers are almost never robust. This is a major contributing reason for wildly fluctuating TransLink budget numbers for the current years of many years past.

The wild fluctuations in operating budget and capital budget numbers is an example of TransLink management holding the minister down by invoking moral hazard. TransLink’s management wields the weapon of moral hazard against the minister because they, TransLink’s management, engage in risky management practices, knowing full well the minister will bear the consequences without so far holding a single member of TransLink’s senior management team accountable.

By risky management practices is meant that they, TransLink’s management, do not or are not capable of tabulating the risks to TransLink’s operating and capital budget and manage TransLink’s using the risk table as one among many tools guiding their day-to-day management practices.

The behaviour of TransLink’s management is a classic example of moral hazard. It has directly led to lazy budgeting, inefficiencies, poor decision-making, and a lack of urgency in addressing operating challenges. I would like to ask: which are the highest risk factors and their effect on the 2025 TransLink operating budget?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The challenge I’m having with the member’s line of questioning is this. First off, TransLink is an independent authority. It does not report to the province. It is an independent authority with a governance structure that was set up by previous B.C. Liberal governments.

It has a Mayors Council, and it has a board. They make the decisions. And to characterize an organization such as TransLink and saying they engage in lazy budgeting — that, in essence, they’re not doing their job — and using that term repeatedly I think is…. Well, frankly, it’s insulting to professionals within the organization and the workers in the transit system.

TransLink has buses, SeaBus, the SkyTrain system — a remarkable, integrated, diverse transit system in the Lower Mainland that’s rapidly expanding, accommodating incredible growth that we are seeing in this province. And it is doing so in a way that is, in many ways, the envy of many other transit systems in North America.

The ridership in TransLink recovered faster than almost any other system in North America after the pandemic, and I think it’s important that we acknowledge the work that TransLink is doing and trying not to denigrate it. I understand the member has questions about TransLink’s budgeting. That’s not something that this ministry deals with. As I said, it’s an independent authority, and I would suggest to the member that he would put those questions about their budgeting process to the Mayors Council. His own mayor sits on that council.

The Mayors Council is very much involved in that. They’re the ones who voted on the plan that’s in place, the agreement that we’ve got with TransLink and the $312 million that the province has provided to TransLink, recognizing the challenges that it has faced. That is a one-time block of funding and then agreement to work with them on their long-term issues of financial sustainability.

That’s there, in part, because of the growth that’s required to deal with the service requirements that the public are demanding, that communities are demanding, that we’re seeing right across the region in South Surrey, in the Campbell Heights area, up the valley in terms of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, on the north shore, throughout the whole region.

I understand what the member is trying to do, but the bulk of those questions is really best directed at TransLink where that decision is made and in particular to the to the Mayors Council.

Brent Chapman: There is no risk analysis table in the budget from TransLink. In the TransLink 2025 business plan operating capital summary, could they not adhere to B.C. Treasury Board standards while assembling budgets’ operating capital? Can the minister demand that from them or at least expect that from them?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: They’re not a government entity. There’s no authority for Treasury Board to demand that kind of information. There’s no authority for me as minister to demand that either.

Brent Chapman: Let’s go to B.C. Transit. B.C. Transit 2024

demand that kind of information. There’s no authority for me as the minister to demand that either.

Brent Chapman: Let’s go to B.C. Transit. B.C. Transit 2024 total revenue from all sources is $431 million. However, earned revenue is only $124.6 million, just 28.85 percent of total revenue. B.C. government subsidy for 2024 alone is $195.90 million, 45.46 percent. Local government subsidy for 2024 is an additional $111.40 million, 25.79 percent. Revenue offset sum of all subsidies from various levels of government is $307.30 million. That’s 71.15 percent.

B.C. Transit is suffering from poor management that is mostly unaccountable. Increases in ridership numbers are not credible because only 17 transit systems out of 58 transit systems in 51 communities, 29.3 percent, have installed electronic fare collection systems. The ridership numbers projected in the ’23-24 annual service plan report is merely an estimate.

There’s a decrease of $2.94 million year over year in fuel costs. Numbers are not credible either when ridership numbers are estimated going up and fuel costs, unit costs — purchasing expensive RNG, renewable natural gas, and HDRD, hydrogenation-derived renewable diesel — are also going up. Administration cost increases are out of control — 11 percent over budget and 4.85 percent increase year over year.

How much more will B.C. government subsidy to B.C. Transit budget for 2024-25 completed and 2025 current? How much more are you going to give them?

The Chair: Member, I’d just remind you that comments are through the Chair, and so it would be “to the minister.”

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

The government does not provide an operating subsidy to B.C. Transit. What we do is provide an operating grant that is cost-shared with local government, and it is based on the services that local government want in their community

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

The government does not provide an operating subsidy to B.C. Transit. What we do is provide an operating grant that is cost-shared with local government, and it is based on the services that local governments want in their community. So this year it is increasing because local governments are prepared to pay for more service, and the province will cost-share with them on that provision of that service.

This year, for example, the budget will allow for almost 300,000 hours of increased service in communities that B.C. Transit serves in different parts of the province.

Brent Chapman: Carbon tax revenue of $34.56 million, 8 percent of total revenue in ‘23-24, was in excess of ten times the budgeted amount of $3.35 million for 2023-24. Carbon tax is now, in 2025, rescinded. What is the risk penalty amount in relation to the B.C. Transit budget?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

In fact, there is no impact to the negative. In fact, what there is, is a positive impact in the fact that fuel is cheaper for B.C. Transit. There’s no impact in a negative way on their bottom line.

Brent Chapman: Is that all fuels are cheaper or just the RNG fuel? Or regular fuel for vehicles, buses?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That carbon tax saving would apply to any fuel that carbon tax applies to, that B.C. Transit would be using.

Brent Chapman: B.C. Transit substitutes renewable natural gas for piped natural gas, by command direction of the minister, to collect carbon credits, which are redeemed for cash. That’s the upside. The downside is that the minister pays 200 percent to 300 percent more per unit at the time of purchase of RNG. The total net is very negative financially.

RNG and piped natural gas have approximately the same energy. Most corporations do not use RNG because it is financially net negative, but if one is looking for a high ESG rating, this is fantastic. Is there an economic model that taxpayers are missing for using the RNG fuels?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: B.C. Transit uses a variety of fuels within the fleet that they have within the system. The fleet is diversified because there are different fuels out there, and one of the goals, of course, of transit is to meet our carbon reduction targets. Some of that is with renewable natural gas and that’s part of, I think….

It’s something that government is supportive of. It’s clearly something that is important in terms of transportation emissions, and you’re seeing changes and advances in technology. I expect the kinds of fuels that as advances happen both in terms of the engines that buses have, for example, and the changing in fuel technologies, you’re going to see greater diversification and differentiation of fuels. But it’s part of the operating part of how B.C. Transit operates in the province and the communities that it serves.

Brent Chapman: Is it cost effective though for paying the bills for the taxpayer? Does that actually work out to their benefit using these advanced fuels?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As part of a broad fleet diversification within B.C. Transit, I would say the answer to your question is yes, it does.

Brent Chapman: Transit administration costs are out of control, and they increase year over year, ‘22 to ‘23 to ‘24. What is the risk penalty amount in relation to administration costs in relation to the B.C. Transit budget?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I can tell you that operating costs are not out of control. In fact, over the next three years operating costs are projected to drop from 9.7 percent to 8.3 percent

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell him that operating costs are not out of control. In fact, over the next three years, operating costs are projected to drop from 9.7 percent to 8.3 percent.

I meant admin costs.

Brent Chapman: Thank you to the minister.

B.C. Transit salaries and wages are also out of control. Actual amounts increased 11.9 percent from 2023-2024. These increases are mainly multiples of the actual inflation rate in Canada. In 2023, Canada’s annual inflation rate was 3.9 percent, while in 2024 it dropped to 2.4 percent. What is the risk penalty amount for this expense category in relation to the B.C. Transit budget?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yeah, compensation has increased, in line with other compensations during that same period. What has also increased, which has led to an increase in salaries overall, has been the increase in service that has also taken place. More buses mean more bus drivers and more mechanics to keep the system running.

It’s obviously a combination of wages, which are negotiated, and increases in service, which means more capacity is required to keep the system running.

Brent Chapman: As wages go up ahead of what inflation is, that’s for the public sector, and I have great respect for the people who do that hard work. But what happens to the private sector, which doesn’t see those same increases, as costs go up because we’re paying more money to public sector employees?

We talk a lot about sustainability. I’m not sure if it is economically sustainable for the average person to keep up with rising fares, part of which is paying those salaries. How can this work?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I’d just say this. When it comes to our transit system — which is maintained, for example, by skilled professionals, whether they be bus drivers or mechanics — skilled trades, whether they are in the public sector or in the private sector, have all seen significant wage increases in the last number of years, particularly during the high-inflation period that we had a couple of years ago.

What we want to ensure is that we’ve got a transit system that operates efficiently. That means having the right people in it, and it means that as we expand service, you’ve got the bus drivers and mechanics required to keep the system running on a proper basis.

[3:45 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: I would just like if I could ask

required to keep the system running on a proper basis.

Brent Chapman: I would just like if I could ask the Minister to clarify his comments. Is he saying that there’s an overall rise in pay for private sector employees in all sectors? I’m not sure I understand that.

Do people have more money today to spend on transit than they did three years ago? I’m not sure I understand the answer.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: My comments are referring to the skilled tradespeople. You’ve got skilled tradespeople in the transit system. They are skilled tradespeople. You also have skilled tradespeople in the private sector who have been building hospitals, who built the new Pattullo Bridge, for example. Those people have seen good, significant wages. Those are skilled trades, and they are well paid whether they are in the public system or in the private sector.

Brent Chapman: I think I understand what the minister is saying. But what I’m trying to clarify here is that though we’re talking about tradespeople, and you’re trying to keep a wage, you know, compares or a wage equal, but the average person…. So as these wages go up, and as we’re doing this, the average person paying a fare — how does that person keep up with these rising payments, costs?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question and understand where he’s coming from.

What I can tell you is that Transit recognizes the importance of fares to people. We know that many people aren’t skilled tradespeople, and they make lower wages. That’s why transit fares in this province have stayed lower than the rate of inflation for the last number of years. They have not risen at the rate of inflation, and that assists people in terms of affordability.

Brent Chapman: It is heartwarming for people who are trying to pay their way to know that the minister does…. There is a concern about them trying to keep up as things get more and more expensive. The bus becomes something that, for many people now, becomes their only mode of transportation. I appreciate that.

I would say, though, to the minister that the community benefit jobs are union, not private. What happens to the private sector members who are tradespeople that are excluded? What happens to them when it comes to this?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member: could you clarify?

[3:50 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: My point was that the private sector unions don’t get a chance at these high-paying jobs or these well-paid jobs. Is there any interest in the government in working on that and addressing that?

addressing that.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hopefully I’m answering the member’s question. Unions, whether they are public or private, negotiate with their employer. The private sector unions are who are building the massive transit infrastructure projects that we’ve got underway in the province right now, such as the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain. You know, it’s all private sector unions building that.

I just want to come back to when we talk about employee compensation. I just refer the member to the budget and fiscal plan for Budget 2025, to page 70: “Employee compensation, i.e., aggregate wages, salaries and employees’ social contribution in B.C., increased by 6.9 percent year to date to September 2024, compared to the same period of 2023. The average hourly wage rate increased by 5.4 percent in 2024, compared to 2023. On average, wages grew faster than the consumer price index in British Columbia, which increased by 2.6 percent in 2024.”

Brent Chapman: Is there any room for private non-union companies to bid on these projects?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That’s a question that’s more appropriately directed to the Ministry of Infrastructure, which has responsibility for the policy when it comes to what the member is asking about.

[3:55 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: B.C. Transit locations are apparently dangerous places to work. Employee lost time injury rate was 133 percent over budget and a 69 percent increase year over year.

Can this rate of work injury increase impact risk of higher wage settlements?

Brent Chapman: B.C. Transit locations are apparently dangerous places to work. The employee lost-time injury rate was 133 percent over budget and a 69 percent increase year over year. Can this rate of work injury increase impact risk of higher wage settlements?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I would say no, it’s not about wages; it’s about ensuring a safe working place. That’s one of the things WorkSafe and B.C. Transit have to ensure takes place. If there are safety improvements, then B.C. Transit has to make investments in those safety improvements.

I can tell you that in terms of their baseline, their forecast over the next three years is targets to be below the ’23-24 baseline in terms of the total recordable injury rate, which is currently 6.7. It is forecast, in ’24-25, to be 5.5; 5.3 in ’25-26; 5.2 in ’26-27; and 5.1 in ’27-28.

The Chair: Members, we are going to take a ten-minute break. Is that okay with you? We will return at 4.10 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[4:00 p.m.]

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Brent Chapman: I asked the minister this question, and I mean it respectfully in saying that there’s a hands-off, a space between the minister and TransLink, but you are ultimately responsible.

The minister is ultimately responsible for the conduct of TransLink. There’s a board, but at some point the buck stops at the minister’s desk.

What is that point, and how do you deal with that?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The way that TransLink is set up, with the Mayors Council, who are elected, and the board, which has 11 members, the province gets to appoint two members to that board, but we don’t appoint the chair. There’s not a direct ministerial link to the board having to report to me. We have two representatives on there because we are….

It’s a partnership relationship in the sense that we help fund on the capital side. Traditionally that has been the role that the province has played. When TransLink was originally established, before it became the current formation that it has right now, the responsibility for transit was delegated to local government because they had been asking for it, saying: “Look, this really is a local government service.”

The hospital tax was removed from Metro Vancouver. That was taken over for…. The 40 percent for capital funding was taken over by the province, and then TransLink was set up and the mayors basically had responsibility.

[4:15 p.m.]

Then when Kevin Falcon was minister, he made those changes that created the Mayors Council and the board. Really, the province’s only responsibility at that point was the appointment of two appointees on the board.

Then in terms of the capital side of things, it was…. Negotiation is not the right word

really, the province’s only responsibility at that point was the appointment of two appointees on the board.

Then in terms of the capital side of things, it was…. Negotiation is not the right word, but more the prioritizing of infrastructure projects by the mayors, by TransLink. You’re no doubt familiar. Should it go to Richmond? Should it go to North Shore? Should it go to Surrey? The province agrees to step in with funding and works with the Mayors Council. The same with the federal government agreeing to also make financial contributions to the building of those infrastructure projects.

So it’s that. That’s really the relationship, as opposed to a formal ministerial, you know, that they have to report to me directly. If I understand your question correctly, for me what’s important is that we are seeing improvements in the system, that they are being responsive to the needs of the public. When I have met with them in the past, and they have raised issues with me…. I said that one of the things that I expect and I want to see…. Because I will raise things I’m concerned about.

I use the term…. I don’t want to see local government parochialism. My expectation is that TransLink functions in a way that meets the needs of the region. Like, when you’re making decisions, make them in the best interests of the region. I understand that you come…. Like, you’re from Surrey, I’m from PoCo. We’ll come to the table wanting to make improvements in our communities. But at the same time, my expectation is that you also wear that regional hat and recognize those things around where the population growth is. Where’s the industrial growth taking place? Where are the jobs needed? Where are the needs that need to be met? And try as much as possible making decisions on that basis.

I hope that helps.

Brent Chapman: So would I be safe to say though…. Is there any time where you would audit any of the board meetings? Would you be able to sit in and find out what’s going on?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: If I understood the member’s question correctly, I could show up to any public meeting. A private meeting — I could request to be invited, but I couldn’t just show up.

Brent Chapman: What would be the scenario where he would request to see a meeting? At what point would he finally say: “Okay, I have to understand what’s going on at close quarters”?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It’d be hard to speculate on under what circumstance I would say I want to…. I mean I have met with the board, and I have met with the mayor’s council. I met with the mayor’s council on a number of occasions or a committee of the mayor’s council, and I think

under what circumstance I would say I want to. I mean, I have met with the board, and I have met with the Mayors Council. I’ve met with the Mayors Council on a number of occasions, or a committee of the Mayors Council.

What I want is a good working relationship where, if they have issues they want to raise, they are able to do that. That was certainly the case during the development of their investment plan and the issues around funding that they were facing.

Brent Chapman: According to School of Cities, affiliated with the University of Toronto, report December 2024, transit infrastructure costs in Canada have soared in recent years. The report states that these cost escalations cannot solely be attributed to pandemic-induced inflation.

According to the above-referenced report, in peer countries like Italy, Spain, Turkey, South Korea, the cost per kilometre has been going down, while it has been going up sharply in Canada. When are costs per kilometre going to be trending down as they are in many other countries?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll say this. First, in terms of cost increases, I think ours have been in line with what you’re seeing in other parts of North America, but it also depends significantly on the kind of infrastructure that you’re building and investing in, so whether you’re building above grade, whether you’re building below grade, whether you’re tunnelling, whether you are building like a light rail or an elevated SkyTrain system.

It depends on the conditions of the area that you’re living in. It depends on the size of the population and the population you’re having to deal with. I mean, it is one thing in a city the size of two million, such as Vancouver, compared to a city of, let’s say, I don’t know, 20 million, like in Istanbul.

It depends on the topography. It depends on whether you’re in an earthquake zone. It depends on whether you’re on a flood plain and the kind of soil conditions that are in place.

And sometimes it depends on what the public wants in terms of…. Sometimes you got to deal with “not in my backyard,” right? There needs to be a different route. That straight line may be the cheapest one, but you get a significant public outcry, and the next thing you know, you’re putting a tunnel through somewhere or going underground.

So all those factors come into play. But in terms of North America, our costs have been pretty in line with the jurisdictions.

[4:25 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: I thank the minister for his fulsome answer.

A one-time block of funding does hit the budget for this fiscal year as part of the operating deficit for TransLink. It’s $500 million. For this one-off funding, where in the

Brent Chapman: I thank the minister for his fulsome answer.

A one-time block of funding does hit the budget for this fiscal year as part of the operating deficit for TransLink. It’s $500 million. For this one-off funding, where in the estimates pages, which line item, is this?

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. We haven’t provided $500 million to TransLink. We provided $312 million to TransLink, and that came from year-end money in last year’s estimates. They got it March 31. It didn’t come out of this year’s fiscal, so it doesn’t impact the fiscal plan for this year.

Brent Chapman: Just because the time is short, I have some other questions that I can forward to the minister, if that’s possible. I thank him very much for his answers and his attention, and also the people who joined him today. Thank you very much.

I’d like to pass the time over to the member for Langley-Abbotsford.

Harman Bhangu: The George Massey Tunnel replacement has become emblematic of political inconsistency and fiscal mismanagement. In 2017, the B.C. NDP cancelled a nearly shovel-ready $3.5 billion ten-lane bridge project, citing inadequate local consultation. Yet the replacement, a $4.15 billion eight-lane immersed tunnel, was selected despite opposition from some local municipalities. It lacks provision for future SkyTrain integration, unlike the original bridge plan.

Construction of a new tunnel is delayed until 2026. With completion anticipated in 2030, the project remains without environmental approval, and the province has yet to provide a cost update since the $4.15 billion estimate was established in 2020-2021.

Compounding concerns, the federal minister, Carla Qualtrough, revealed in March 2025 that the province declined hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for the tunnel replacement, a fact not previously disclosed to the public.

The government’s rationale for cancelling the original bridge — cost and consultation — has not held up. British Columbians now face a higher expense for delayed projects and fewer lanes, lack of rapid transit capacity. It proceeds with a legislative approach that now seeks to bypass community consultation altogether.

[4:30 p.m.]

How can the minister reconcile this decision to cancel the bridge in the name of mayoral consultation with the government’s recent pattern of overriding municipalities’ housing and policing and now introducing legislation that would significantly expand provincial powers over local infrastructure planning?

How can the minister reconcile this decision to cancel the bridge, in the name of mayoral consultation, with the government’s recent pattern of overriding municipalities’ housing and policing, and now introducing legislation that would significantly expand provincial powers over local infrastructure planning?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The government made the decision on building the tunnel, because that’s what the region wanted. The minister at the time, Minister Trevena, worked with the regional governments to determine what was in their best interest. What did they want built? It was the tunnel, and that’s what’s being built.

Harman Bhangu: If the Massey bridge was cancelled in the name of consultation, how does the minister respond to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and UBCM, which now say that the government’s new legislative approach bypasses them?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. We have been working with all 25 nations that have an interest in the project, and we are absolutely following our responsibilities that we have under DRIPA and the legislation. The fact that we are working with those 25 First Nations is an indication of that commitment.

Harman Bhangu: Well, the Tsawwassen First Nation Chief, Ken Baird, opposed the tunnel, just to clarify that.

If the NDP cancelled the bridge, citing a lack of mayoral consultation, how does the minister justify supporting a government approach that now seeks to give cabinet sweeping authority to override local governments? Also, what mayor had any engineering background?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I recently met with the Chief and the Tsawwassen First Nation, and they are supportive of the tunnel. That’s a fact.

Regarding the member’s comments about “what mayor is an engineer,” I’d say this: mayors make the decisions around the kind of projects they want to see and assess the needs in their communities. They hire the professional staff who know how to build the projects and what are the right projects to have.

There’s no requirement to be a professional engineer to be a mayor in order to make a decision whether you should build a tunnel or a bridge. In the same way, there’s no requirement to be a farmer in order to be a mayor to make a decision on ensuring that agricultural land gets protected.

Harman Bhangu: Well, common sense would tell you, if you are actually in the industry, a tunnel when there is a…. You can’t put through flammable goods. Dangerous goods can’t be transferred through a tunnel. Having farming communities in Richmond and Delta, you would think you would have access for oversized farm vehicles, instead of going down the 99, catching the 91 just to get to Richmond. There are a lot of inconsistencies there.

My question is: what is the estimated cost of delay between 2017 bridge cancellation and projected 2030 tunnel completion, including congestion costs, emissions and lost productivity?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We are building the right project that is approved, was requested by the region. It will be to the right heights, the right lane widths, the right everything. It will, unlike the current tunnel, be able to take the kinds of materials that the member said could not go through a tunnel. The tunnel will be built to the standards that do allow for that to take place.

Harman Bhangu: My question is: how will the ministry measure success or failure for the tunnel project, given that it costs more, takes longer and delivers less than the bridge it replaced?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I would say that success is going to be judged by a number of factors. The economic development that it will help spur in terms of being able to get goods moved to the ports faster is a success. The fact that it will be seismically safe is a success. The fact that they will be training all kinds of apprentices on its construction make it a success.

The fact that it will have dedicated transit lanes will make it a success. The fact that it has a multi-use pathway so that people can ride a bike or can walk will make it a success. The fact that it will be part of an integrated transportation network in the Lower Mainland that will result in significant improvements will make it a success.

All of those factors mean that this project will be a success.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: can the minister explain why, nearly eight years later, construction on the replacement tunnel is still not started and the environmental assessment has yet to be submitted?

Also, the minister earlier on said, you know: “You need to know where the roads are going in order to actually build jobs, and you may have to bend and go different ways.” Then why have they started on the Steveston interchange? Right now, there’s no environmental assessment that’s been approved.

So you don’t know where the tunnel’s actually going to be, the tube’s going to sit. But you’re already starting on the other. Common sense, once again, says this is not feasible for actually building the projects that you like.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you for the question. I’ll make a couple of observations for the member.

First, are we working very closely with the First Nations involved, along with the environmental assessment office on the environmental assessment. That’s underway. Second, in terms of the interchange, the contractor working closely with the designer

closely with the First Nations involved, along with the environmental assessment office, on the environmental assessment. That’s underway.

Second, in terms of the interchange, the contractors are working closely with the design of the tunnel, to ensure that the two, in fact, fit together. It’s by making sure those two components are working together, the tunnel and the interchange, that is ensuring that it will work the way that it’s supposed to. And that’s the right approach. That, in my view, is the commonsense approach.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, if you wouldn’t mind, Member. Thank you so much.

Harman Bhangu: I’m going on a preamble right now, so….

The Chair: No, you’re not, not without going through the Chair. Thank you.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you. Okay. To the minister through the Chair.

Will the minister confirm that the federal government offered hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for the Fraser River tunnel project, and that his government rejected it before the 2024 provincial election?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No, this ministry never received anything.

Harman Bhangu: Well, Carla Qualtrough has something different to say there.

My question to the minister: given that Metro Vancouver board endorsed the eight-lane immersed tunnel option in 2019, why did it take until August 2021 for the province to approve a business case?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The business case is on the website. Once you start in 2019, this is a very complex project. A significant amount of work goes into making that business case, and the business case is on the website for anyone to go and see.

Harman Bhangu: How much in provincial funding has now been spent on the planning, engagement, corridor improvements and pre-construction for the tunnel project since 2017?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: So $302 million has been spent today on everything.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister provide a full accounting of how much was lost or written off from the cancellation of the bridge, including compensation to bidders, land procurement, B.C. Hydro work and engineering?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ll get back to you with that number.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you for that. I appreciate it. I’ll be looking forward to it.

My question to the minister: what legal liabilities or cost exposures would municipalities face if the cabinet were to override the regulatory process using new provincial authorities? And will the province indemnify local governments if those intervene, lead to errors or financial risk…?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just a clarification question. Is the member referring to the new infrastructure legislation that’s currently under debate?

Harman Bhangu: Yes, it would be, actually.

The Chair: If I may, Minister, please.

For the clarification of members, discussing legislation or the need for legislation is not in the purview of the Committee of Supply. This piece is still before the House. Thank you very much.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: will the minister commit to releasing all correspondence between the province and federal government related to funding discussions for the tunnel project including a period prior to the 2024 election?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. That’s not a question that I can say yes or no to. That’s what the FOI process is for, and that’s what it would have to go through.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: how was the Fraser River tunnel project budget locked in at

That’s not a question that I can say yes or no to. That’s what the FOI process is for, and that’s what we’d have to go through.

Harman Bhangu: How was the Fraser River tunnel project budget locked in at $4.15 billion in 2021 despite rising inflation? Has that figure been revised internally since procurement began? Will the cost rise above $5 billion or $6 billion?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

Right now what’s taking place is the design work in collaboration with the design builder and the ministry, refining the decision and to work towards an agreed-upon price, with the design builder working closely with the ministry to look at the most efficient way of construction taking place, which will result in the best price for the province.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to pass it off to my colleague from Delta South.

Ian Paton: I’ll start with two or three questions on the George Massey Tunnel replacement.

[5:00 p.m.]

First of all, with the original George Massey Tunnel replacement with the bridge, under the past government, there would be an exit coming out of the tunnel going into Ladner on River Road. There was also a plan to have a second exit out of Ladner on River Road which would go under the bridge and come out by the new RiverHouse Restaurant and marina and then come out by the new casino so that people could exit Ladner from that general area and get onto Highway 99 and into the new tunnel.

My question to the minister: is this still in the plans for the tunnel replacement to have a second exit out of Ladner?

exit Ladner from that general area and get onto Highway 99 and into the new tunnel.

So my question to the minister is: is this still in the plans for the tunnel replacement to have a second exit out of Ladner?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I know the site the member is talking about because I was out there not too long ago. It’s not currently within the scope of the project, but that does not preclude it from being part of the project in the future.

The one thing I will say, though…. I’m sure the member is aware of it. I have started receiving correspondence from the residents who live along the water — I think it’s called the Riverwoods — who are not happy with the idea of a exit going basically around their backyard. I’ve been receiving quite a bit of correspondence from them on that. But as I said, at the current time, it’s not in the scope of the project. But that does not preclude it from being there in the future.

Ian Paton: On the topic of Riverwoods, I’ve lived there my whole life. My dad used to pull out of the visor a stub of tickets to pay a toll to go through the George Massey Tunnel when I was a kid.

As we know now, as you approach the tunnel, you have to go over a bridge over Deas Slough before you get into the tunnel. On the right-hand side is a housing development called Riverwoods, which is basically right next to the highway now as you enter the tunnel.

On the other side is a farmer named Harry Hogler with Richmond Country Farms. Now, if the new tunnel is going to be roughly 60 metres upstream from the existing tunnel to the northeast, of course, how much of the Riverwoods housing project will have to be demolished to make way for the entrance to the new tunnel, and how much farmland from Mr. Holger is going to be displaced?

He has a complete vegetable growing farm on the other side, and a winery. He’s actually planted grapes on the other side. So if you come out of the new tunnel…. Every time I go through there, I go: “This is going to wipe out a good portion of Mr. Hogler’s Richmond Country Farms.”

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

We are aware of the situation that you’re talking about. The ministry has been reaching out and meeting with Mr. Hogler as recently as April 14. We know there will be some impact, and so we are working with him on that. Much will depend on what the final design is.

Ian Paton: I appreciate that answer from the minister.

My next question will be related to the environmental assessment. Maybe we don’t need an environmental assessment anymore, based on Bill 15. I believe that’s going to get rammed through, but that’s neither here nor there. With the bridge project, all pedestals for the bridge would be on land. Nothing would be in the Fraser River.

[5:05 p.m.]

The NDP government is quite concerned about environment and marine life. So I always wonder: back when you decided to go with a tunnel instead of a bridge, why would there not be any sort of consideration for the marine sensitive environment of the Fraser River and plunking a concrete tube in the bottom of the Fraser River, which might have been fine in 1958

I always wonder, back when you decided to go with a tunnel instead of a bridge, why would there not be any sort of consideration for the marine-sensitive environment of the Fraser River. Plunking a concrete tube in the bottom of the Fraser River, which might have been fine in 1958…. Nobody cared about salmon and sturgeon in 1958. What would be the rationale for a massive concrete tube in the bottom of the Fraser River in 2030, rather than a bridge?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. That’s why the environmental assessment is underway, is taking place, working closely with the two First Nations to ensure that there is minimal impact during construction. Because there is also environmental impact during construction with the bridge as well. Either way, there is an impact, and so the assessment is underway to understand what it is and to minimize it.

With the tunnel, once it’s in, that’s it. But with the bridge, there continues to be environmental impacts from shading on the river, which can be significant; noise; things that fall off; in particular, birds, as well — all of those things. Everything has an environmental impact in that way. But the tunnel being done with the work that’s underway has minimal impact compared to the bridge.

Ian Paton: One of the reasons not to build a bridge, and I find this laughable, is shading on the people on the west side of the bridge. There’s literally hundreds, if not thousands, of bridges all over British Columbia going over our waterways, and I think there’s only one tunnel that I know of in all of British Columbia and that’s the George Massey Tunnel.

I’m wondering why so many bridges are popular and obviously create some shading, but this particular one, the shading is going to be devastating to the people that moved into the Captain’s Cove area.

My next question would be regarding Dease island, which is a metro park, and it’s very, very beloved to the people, not only of Delta, but people that come out to walk. There are actually horse riding trails in Dease island park. There’s a Dease island rowing club. There are barbecues. There are picnic tables.

I know that a good portion of Dease island park, because of the construction of this tunnel, will be devastated with clear cutting of the trees to act as a staging area for all the equipment. Not to mention 40 acres of potato growing farmland right next to the casino. The owners have been approached by the tunnel people to use that as a staging area for equipment to cover potato growing land with gravel to act as a staging area for huge equipment, the concrete tubes, all those different things.

[5:10 p.m.]

So my question to the minister: how much actual farmland and Dease island park will be destroyed by the tunnel project?

equipment to cover potato-growing land with gravel to act as a staging area for huge equipment, the concrete tubes, all those different things.

My question to the minister: how much actual farmland and Deas Island Park will be destroyed by the tunnel project?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member. I appreciate the question. The member is right. On Deas Island, there will be trees cut down. At the same time, when it’s finished, it will be restored. That will be part and parcel of the project.

In terms of the potato farm the member talked about — I think the member said 40 acres; in fact, it is 11 acres — that, too, will be restored after the project is completed, as part of that. That will be one of the requirements.

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer. If we look back at the black-and-white footage, the filming of the building of the George Massey Tunnel in 1957, it’s quite amazing.

I can almost see the look on the engineers’ faces, going, “My god, we’ll never do this again,” because of freshet, because of tides going up and down, because of marine traffic in the river — which had very little marine traffic in 1957. Now there’s massive marine traffic up and down that river. I’m not sure how you’re going to do this tunnel with the amount of marine traffic, of ships going up and down, bringing cars, lumber and grain up the Fraser River.

Maybe two more questions, if you don’t mind, Madam Chair.

In 1957, there was created an artificial dugout of a staging area on the Steveston side, which is now used as a maintenance area for B.C. Ferries. It’s a big dugout area. That was the staging area for the massive concrete tubes to be taken by barge and floated down into the river. That’s not going to be used for this tunnel project. Where will the main staging area for all the tunnel components be, for this particular project?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There’s a location right by Steveston Harbour.

Ian Paton: Steveston Harbour? That’s seven kilometres downstream.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just to clarify, the temporary storage is in the Steveston Harbour area, but the casting will take place at the south end of the tunnel.

[5:15 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Okay, thank you. We’re getting a few answers, which is appreciated. Perhaps one more.

I received an anonymous letter through the mail slot of my office in Ladner

Ian Paton: Okay, thank you. We’re getting a few answers, which is appreciated. Perhaps one more.

I received an anonymous letter through my mail slot of my office in Ladner, from a gentleman that said he was very plugged in with the Pomerleau company that’s the main contractor for the tunnel. In his words — it’s on my phone, and I can’t look at my phone — the testing phase is causing a great deal of struggling for this company to try and figure out how they’re going to actually go ahead and put this tunnel in.

So I guess my wrap-up question, based on this, is: why would it be that…? I was elected here in 2017, and shortly after that, the bridge project was killed, and the Metro Vancouver mayors…. I was there at Mr. Harvie’s task force with the Metro Vancouver mayors, where the province said: “You guys decide. Do you want a tunnel, or do you want a bridge?” And they all decided — except for Ken Baird, the Chief of Tsawwassen First Nation — that they wanted a tunnel.

So my final question is: why has it taken since 2017 to move forward and get this tunnel built when nothing’s happened? I drive through there several times a week, and I don’t see an excavator, I don’t see a bulldozer, I don’t see anything happening.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I can assure the member that there is a lot of work that has been underway. The Steveston interchange, for example, is part of the overall plan on that area. I expect construction will start in 2026, in terms of what the member is looking for — bulldozers, diggers, those kinds of things.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Exactly — the good stuff. But in the meantime, there is a lot of work that is underway so that we can have construction starting in 2026.

Ian Paton: Can I get invited to the opening?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Absolutely.

Harman Bhangu: All right, let’s change things up and give the Interior a little bit of love here.

Can the minister confirm the province currently has no plans to build a second bridge over the Okanagan Lake?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. We’ve been working with the communities in the Central Okanagan, and their priority has been improving the road network and transit in the area. That’s the priority that they’ve been focusing on and that we’ve been focusing on.

Harman Bhangu: Kelowna’s population is growing rapidly. Congestion on the current bridge is worsening. A lot of freight has moved through there to connect communities, get them essential goods that they really need.

My question to the minister. Would the minister commit to paving the 201 to provide a secondary route in case of a landslide and other issues that Kelowna residents face to ensure a safe route? That’s the emergency route.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

What I can tell him at this point is that the focus has been very much on improving the stability and reliability of the Highway 97 corridor. There’s been about $120 million in geotech and stabilization at the North Beach slide; $70 million has been spent to date, and there’s another $50 million that is pending. Then once that is complete, there’ll be further geotechnical assessment on the rest of the corridor to determine what other areas need attention. That’s been the focus of the ministry at this point.

Harman Bhangu: Just to give you a little insight, I’ve been paving for the last 15 years, very well versed. That project, if you jumped on it right now, would cost you $10 million to $12 million. You kick that buck down the road, and it’s going to skyrocket. So just a little heads-up there.

I want to shift things over to the Keating Cross Road flyover: $75.6 million budgeted, with a target completion of fall 2025. Can the minister confirm this project is still on track, on budget for completion in the fall of 2025?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: On time, on budget.

Harman Bhangu: That is great news, Minister.

Let’s jump over to the Broadway subway. Budget of $2.954 billion, with an expected completion date of fall 2027. This is two years behind schedule and $127 million over budget. Spending as of February 2025, project was $1.8 billion.

Can the minister explain why this project is two years behind schedule? Related to the project, can the minister provide an outline of progress towards the idea of extending the line to UBC? What steps have been taken? Very preliminary budget costing. Any information on that proposal that the ministry has.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I’ll do the UBCx one first. There are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration on that. One is the complexity of the project because of all the different…. Like, there are the interests of UBC, there are the interests of MST. All those things need to be taken….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Exactly. All of those things. Yeah. As well as a project on this size and this scale is the federal government being involved in terms of…. It’s a big, expensive project. We will expect and want a big contribution from the feds to make it happen. Those are the issues around that.

[5:30 p.m.]

In terms of the Broadway extension project, the issues, in terms of delay: slower than expected boring through the earth, and the station construction associated with that boring through the earth.

Harman Bhangu: With the impact on the budget, you know, running several jobs, what impact has this had on workers being tied up with projects?

construction associated with that boring through the earth.

Harman Bhangu: With the impact on the budget and, you know, running several jobs, what impact has this had on workers being tied up with other projects?

For example, if there are a lot of these major infrastructure projects then, there’s only a certain amount of boring companies. There’s only a certain amount of people that can do pile driving. There’s certain limited workforce in the construction sector. What kind of impact is running all these jobs at once, which are all incomplete as of right now….? What impact has that had on the labour workforce?

Especially with the community benefits agreement and also the PLA, only certain workforces can work on these jobs. What kind of impact has that had on the inflation and cost overruns and the time that it’s taken to complete these projects?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

It has not had a significant impact on the construction projects that we’ve had underway. For example, on the Broadway extension project, the costs for the project have only increased 4 percent since 2018.

Harman Bhangu: Actually, you know, the Broadway project, if you actually did a little bit of research, you guys were scrambling for trucks a couple years ago. There were trips that were usually done in eight hours. The union, teams 2 and 3, had to actually overpay for those truckers to come to that work because everyone was working at other jobs as well. I’ve got a little bit of insight there.

I want to move over to the expansion to UBC. There are students here, kids. Cost of living is through the roof. Even getting a post-secondary education for kids seems out of grasp.

My question: is there currently any expectation to include extension to UBC in the three-year fiscal plan?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As I mentioned in the previous question, all the different interests that are involved in this, this is also…. One of the key important players in this project is the Mayors Council. In their ten-year plan, they see this project coming in the second half, so not in the first five years but in the five years after that.

Harman Bhangu: I will switch things up to the Kicking Horse Canyon, phase 4, $151 million budget. My question is: can the minister provide an explanation for the $151 million cost overrun on this project?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: What the member is talking about is the 2016 business case. And then, after that, there was the engineering design, and geotechnical work in depth took place. That came back and showed that there was a need to increase.

So there was a second business case that was done in 2019 that resulted in the approved budget of $601 million. That was the final cost of the project if it was brought in on time and on that budget that was revised after a thorough understanding of the geotechnical work that was required.

Harman Bhangu: I’ll move over to the Jumping Creek to MacDonald snowshed in procurement, currently scheduled to be complete in spring 2028. The original target was 2027.

My question to the minister: the ministry will be using a CBA for this project. It is associated with a higher cost of construction. Can the minister provide any insight to why the target of the year completion was pushed back? Was it due to having a certain workforce that you would have to use?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Late 2027 is still our expectation.

[5:40 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: That’s great to hear. And now I’d like to….

Harman Bhangu: That’s great to hear. And now I’d like to....

The Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, the Second Narrows Crossing. Traffic on the Ironworkers Bridge is currently a huge issue, with cars backing up for most of the day.

My question to the minister: what is the minister’s plan to address the issue?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member for the question. We’re currently undertaking a high-level planning study of the bridge and the immediate environs of it. That will be complete later this year.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you for that. And what is the current status of the proposal to convert the through lane to Dollarton Highway into the second merge lane onto the bridge?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. We are currently working with TransLink, the district of North Vancouver and the board to come up with an option that everybody is comfortable with.

Harman Bhangu: There are also concerns about safety and escalating maintenance cost. In 2023, the prior Minister of Transportation raised the possibility of replacing the bridge.

My question to the minister: is this something the minister is considering?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. That’s why we are doing that high-level planning study. What are the long-term solutions for that crossing? I can tell you that that crossing is inspected on a regular basis to ensure its safety.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to pass it over to my colleague from Courtenay-Comox.

Brennan Day: Minister, it’s good to see you today.

I just have a couple of quick questions about my riding and some critical infrastructure that we’re struggling with. I know priorities are an issue with this current budget.

The ministry-owned 17th Street bridge in Courtenay is rapidly becoming a critical transportation concern in the Comox Valley.

[5:45 p.m.]

We’ve seen explosive growth in that area, as you are probably well aware, and it’s well outpaced the design capacity of that raising bridge — not necessarily the four lanes, but the interchanges on both sides of the bridge. More concerning, having conversations with your amazing staff in the valley, by the way — kudos to all of them and the road maintenance contractors

probably well aware, and it has well outpaced the design capacity of that raising bridge — not necessarily the four lanes but the interchanges on both sides of the bridge.

More concerning…. Having conversations with your amazing staff in the valley — by the way, kudos to all of them — and the road maintenance contractors, they’ve confirmed that that structure is no longer serviceable as a raising bridge and that spare parts are no longer available should they require replacement.

The use upstream has changed. That’s a federal issue, and that’s why the bridge was designed that way in the first place. So I’ll preface it with that. That probably needs some investigation from your ministry — an opportunity to collaborate — to see if we need to replace it with such an expensive structure.

Could you confirm whether funding for the bridge replacement or interchange upgrades have been allocated in the current fiscal plan? And if not, could the minister outline what planning or engineering work is underway to ensure that that vital corridor doesn’t become a single point of failure in our regional system?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

I can let the member know that repairs have just taken place to the structure that he’s talking about, and we are, in fact, able to maintain that. For the longer term, we’re also in the initial stages of options for that area, for the structure and the interchange around it, in terms of what the long-term solutions are.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister. I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to....

The Chair: Remembering to speak to the Chair, please.

Brennan Day: Sorry, Chair.

To the minister, if you get the opportunity to look at the roadrunner software view — that’s what Mayne Road currently uses; I think it’s pretty standardized — of Courtenay-Comox, you’ll notice some extremely concerning ministry-maintained transportation corridors that stand out.

We have a unique situation in the Comox Valley, where we’ve got Comox, Courtenay, Cumberland, the regional district and KFN land, and we have disjointed chunks of ministry road spread out across the valley. I live on one, so I can attest to the state of the roads. Could you please confirm what’s being done to identify those roadways for upgrades? Could you confirm, in this budget, if there is any funding for upgrades on any secondary roads in the Comox Valley?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I can give you the names of two projects

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member. I can give the names of two projects, and local staff will be happy to meet with you and brief you further on them.

One is the Nordic Drive resurfacing, Raven Lodge to Strathcona Parkway; the other is the Strathcona Parkway resurfacing, 3½ kilometres to Salt Shed Road — with a value of $3 million and $6.4 million for those two projects.

If you want an update from the local staff, we can arrange that.

Brennan Day: Mount Washington will be very pleased to hear that.

This is a more broad question to the ministry on forward planning. The highway maintenance contracts are delivered for long periods of time; I believe ten years is the current standard. You’re using the same contract template across the province for every region.

That makes sense in some cases, but there are some very glaring examples, especially here on the Island, where we have extremely different climatic and growing conditions than some of the other areas of the province, especially when it comes to the ditching budget and the culvert budget.

Those two concerns here on the Island mean that our maintenance contractors here are constantly asking for emergency funding to do those replacements. At the current budgeted rate of culverts, just in my riding, with what’s in those contracts, it would take 62 years for them to actually replace the full slate, just in my one riding, on ministry-maintained roads.

Can the minister advise if there is any plan, going forward, to look at more specifically tailored highway maintenance contracts that better reflect the actual conditions on the ground, rather than a blank template?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you for the question. Yes, there are template contracts, but they’re not identical template contracts. They do take local changes into account. That’s done in consultation with the communities in the service areas that the contract is for.

Specifically as it relates to culverts, there is a separate fund, now at record levels, which they are able to access to be able to deal with culvert issues, such as the kind that you are mentioning. That is a separate fund from the contract itself.

Harman Bhangu: To the minister: what mechanisms currently exist for the ministry to hold private contractors accountable for their service proposals? Does the change from highway maintenance contracts to highway maintenance agreements affect the ministry enforcement of service proposals?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Could you repeat the question?

Harman Bhangu: Yes. What mechanisms currently exist for the ministry to hold.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Could you repeat the question?

Harman Bhangu: Yeah. What mechanisms currently exist for the ministry to hold private contractors accountable for their service proposals? Does the change from highway maintenance contracts to highway maintenance agreements affect ministry enforcement to these service proposals?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ve got an extensive auditing and monitoring process to ensure that the contracts are meeting the standards and specifications required on the end contract.

Harman Bhangu: Are there any firm requirements from the ministry that private contractors regularly report on the bare and black status of secondary routes and school bus routes in their service area during winter conditions? And are there any firm requirements for regular work reports to be issued by private contractors to the ministry?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Contractors are required to report on their work that they complete monthly.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to switch things over to the Pattullo Bridge. The Pattullo Bridge replacement project, initially budgeted at $1.377 billion, has escalated to $1.637 billion and is now slated to open in late 2025, two years behind schedule. Despite the increased costs, the new bridge will remain the same four-lane capacity as its 1937 predecessor — that’s right: 1937 — offering no immediate expansion to six lanes. Although designed for potential widening, there is currently no commitment, timeline or funding allocated for such an upgrade.

This situation mirrors the government’s approach to the George Massey crossing. A previously planned ten-lane SkyTrain–compatible bridge was cancelled in favour of an eight-lane immersible tunnel lacking rail integration. The original bridge plan included provisions for future SkyTrain expansion, which the new tunnel does not accommodate.

Critics argue that these decisions reflect a pattern of under-building infrastructure, potentially hindering the region’s ability to meet future transportation demands. In contrast, past projects like six-lane Alex Fraser and a ten-lane Port Mann were designed with foresight to accommodate long-term growth.

My question to the minister. Can the minister confirm that the Pattullo Bridge replacement project budget has now increased from $1.377 billion to $1.637 billion and explain why this 20 percent cost increase was not disclosed sooner?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

The contract on the budget and the delay is directly related to the pandemic, but the bridge itself, the decisions around the bridge are…. That’s where, again, the region, Metro Vancouver, was wanting the four lanes and then the ability to expand later because there are a number of significant other works that would have to take place to expand it to what the member is talking about.

That being said, I would like to point out that the bridge is far bigger in its capacity than the existing Pattullo Bridge that was built in 1937, which would be the same year that my late father was born. I recently stood on the deck of the new Pattullo Bridge, and it is one impressive bridge. And just one of the…. Because there are two — there are the lanes going one way, and there are the lanes going the other.

Just standing on one lane on the right side is bigger than both sides of that existing bridge, and you realize just how small that existing Pattullo Bridge is and how big and how much of an improvement the new bridge will be, not only in its capacity but also in its safety and its design and the ability for pedestrians and cyclists to be able to use the bridge as well, in a way that you just can’t on the existing Pattullo Bridge.

Harman Bhangu: The fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, you’re replacing a four-lane bridge with four lanes, so as massive as it is, in practicality for British Columbians, for truckers and workers and businesses, it doesn’t improve anything at all.

My question to the minister: has the minister or the cabinet been briefed on any early signs of the project that can risk pushing the final budget over $2 billion before the completion?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The answer is no, but I will also tell you motorists, truckers, everybody is going to find the new Pattullo Bridge a thousand times better than the existing Pattullo Bridge.

Harman Bhangu: I understand they’ll find it a thousand times better, but it’s still going to take them the same time to complete their trips. As a trucker, it doesn’t speed anything up just because the bridge looks nicer. It’s the feasibility of the bridge. Two lanes one way; two lanes the other way. It’s not going to help truckers get to their destination sooner, bring down the cost of product and construction. Because that’s another thing. That route is used for constructing other projects, goods that move from Surrey to the New West side and others.

My question: why did the government approve a replacement bridge with only four lanes despite the original bridge opening in 1937 with the same four lanes?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I answered that just a moment ago, which is that’s the bridge in the region. But I’ll just reiterate, this bridge, the lanes are wide, they are safer. The trucks will not be taking up two lanes like they do right now. You will not be stuck behind cars who are terrified and scared of trucks coming the other way or the fact that the lanes are too narrow. All of those things are going to disappear, which will make for a smoother flow of traffic, which will make it more efficient.

[6:05 p.m.]

As I told the member a moment ago, the bridge is designed the way it is because it fits into the road network that’s in place. That’s what Metro has wanted at this point. It has the capacity to be expanded, and I expect at some future time it will be. But it’s going to open later this year, and it’s going to be a vast improvement over what’s there now.

the bridge is designed the way it is because it fits into the road network that’s in place. That’s what Metro has wanted at this point. It has the capacity to be expanded, and I expect at some future time it will be. But it’s going to open later this year, and it’s going to be a vast improvement over what’s there now.

Harman Bhangu: Well, that actually went to my next question that I was going to ask. Can the minister confirm whether the new Pattullo Bridge is still on track to open in fall of 2025? If not, when will the revised opening date be communicated publicly? There are questions it may not.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We are confident it is the fall of this year in 2025, and I am looking forward to the opening.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister is: is the minister aware of any regional or intermunicipal opposition to building the bridge with six lanes from the start?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As in every project, local governments have differing opinions, and I’m very much aware…. It’s no secret that the city of Surrey and the city of New Westminster had differing views on the bridge and have done ever since it was talked about. At the end of the day, the region made a decision.

Harman Bhangu: Were there any talks about having a different type of bridge with outside lanes? Like, you know Golden Ears. They have the main ones, and then they have the other ones that flow over to other ways you can connect.

Like, right now I look at the proposal, how that bridge is built. Were there any talks about having a lane that can cut right onto Burnett instead of having to have you get down onto Columbia to get onto Burnett? Were there any talks of anything like that?

I’ll tell you one thing: truckers would be absolutely ecstatic if any of this, Minister….

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I can tell the member that literally every combination and option was looked at by TransLink and the region on that crossing.

I can tell you, as someone who has lived in that area since 1969 and has watched it change, that it is a very complex area. You’ve got the railway right away. You’ve got closeness to the river. You come down Columbia, and then you do the turn, and then you’ve got all those businesses that are along there that I still sometimes wonder how they are….

Absolutely they did look at all the different things, the different options and the different variations, before they settled on the current configuration.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister is: has the ministry completed any internal modelling on the traffic demand or economic loss due to the decision to not expand six lanes upon opening?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll say this in response to the member’s question. I understand why he’s asking, and I understand, you know, there is that desire for six lanes.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll say this in response to the member’s question.

I understand why he’s asking, and I understand, you know, that there is that desire for six lanes. But the reality is that at some point in the future, the ability to expand is there. But at the same time, that is going to require significant expansion.

At the same time, that is going to require significant expenditure, even today, in terms of the network that would have to take place to accommodate the six lanes. This is why you know the region did the four at this point, with the ability, in the future, to expand. So that’s how that decision was arrived at.

Harman Bhangu: So now, being that, you know, when this project was going on, you had several CBA jobs that were continuously going on, and there’s only a certain amount of trucks available….

I just want to know: can the minister confirm how much additional cost has been attributed to the delivery of the project under the community benefits agreement, and whether the use of that model has added delays or procurement complexity?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I don’t think we’re seeing any direct impact in costs to projects under CBA related to trucking.

The Chair: This committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:14 p.m. to 6:24 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:14 p.m. to 6:24 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We’re working on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to move over to B.C. Ferries and address that, with the growing population and the missed sailings and everything else. I just want to talk a little bit about the senior officials first. Can the minister confirm how many senior administration officials at B.C. Ferries, including presidents, vice-presidents and directors?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

As the member, I know, is aware, B.C. Ferries isn’t a Crown corporation. It’s an independent company, so it’s more than arm’s length from the ministry. But what I will do is endeavour to get that number for the member. I’m going to have to probably write to them to get the information back. But we’ll find a way to get it for you.

Brennan Day: As of a couple of months ago, it was 60 directors and 19 superintendents, an increase of nine directors and two superintendents since 2022. If you could get back to us on the current numbers — we’d love to see those starting to trend down — just to see where they’re going in this time of austerity.

I would like to ask a question, as well, surrounding the marketing strategies of B.C. Ferries and the cost to taxpayers. Currently there are 27 managers in the IT department at B.C. Ferries, and more shockingly, because it’s a monopoly, there are six directors and nine managers of marketing at B.C. Ferries — six directors. I’m just wondering why we’re destination marketing what is effectively a road service and what this portion of the budget for B.C. Ferries is going to be allocated to, marketing something that you don’t have the option to do any other choice.

[6:30 p.m.]

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I thank him for the question.

First, I’ll repeat…. I mean, it is a private company, and so a lot of those decisions that the member is talking about are internal decisions made by that private company. It’s not a Crown corporation. But in terms of the cost to the taxpayer from the province, that has not changed in this budget. There is a fee which we pay for to maintain minimum service levels. That has not changed.

In terms of rates, that’s set by the ferry commissioner, which is also an independent individual.

Brennan Day: It looks like we’ll be continuing to destination market a monopoly, going forward.

I’ll just point out before I pass it to the member…. There are as many directors overseeing marketing at B.C. Ferries as there are overseeing engineering. We’ve got antique boats floating around that are, quite frankly, dangerous and are being replaced.

I’m going to pass it to the member to discuss the issues surrounding the new procurement strategy. I think maybe we’ll have some better progress there.

Harman Bhangu: I’d just like to…. Before I get into that, I want to talk about some reliability issues.

Now if you live on the north shore, you can’t even travel to the Island without making a reservation. So what I want to know is — my question to the minister — how is the ministry addressing concerns about reliability and delays, moving forward?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

Whenever there are disruptions like that, that’s not acceptable to the travelling public, and my expectation is that B.C. Ferries works to ensure that that’s not the case. I know that they are looking at that issue in terms of what we’re talking about at Swartz Bay.

But at the same time, for as much as those things are…. They should not happen. We don’t want to see them happen. And my expectation is Ferries does everything they can to make sure that they don’t happen. Overall reliability has remained consistent each year, with over 98 percent of sailings delivered in the way that they’re supposed to be.

[6:35 p.m.]

Ian Paton: On the B.C. Ferries, I’ve just got a couple of quick questions.

Prior to 2017,

delivered in the way that they’re supposed to be.

Ian Paton: On the B.C. Ferries, I’ve just got a couple of quick questions. Prior to 2017, with livestock being on and off the ferries.... I’ll quote a livestock hauling company that transported a lot of horses back and forth between the Mainland and Vancouver Island: “A long time ago we would get priority loading of livestock. It didn’t matter what the parking lot looked like; if the ferry was still there, we got on. Now we’re basically just lumber.”

What I’m getting at is that we have show horses, show cattle, sheep and different types of livestock. Especially in the hot months of the year, it’s unfortunate. In the past, they had priority; no matter how full the ferry was going to be, they were able to get onto the ferry with the stock trailer, with the horses on it, or the livestock. Now they’re being told to sit for two- or three-sailing waits, in the heat of the summer months — which is completely unfair to livestock.

My question to the minister: can you give any sort of assurances to the farmers and livestock owners on Vancouver Island and the Mainland who have asked me and some of my colleagues to bring this question forward?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Absolutely. I also met with the Cattlemen’s Association on Beef Day. They raised this issue with me. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture has also indicated that she is concerned about this.

I know that right now B.C. Ferries does do an online booking that you can do ahead of time to schedule a particular time, but I also know that that does not necessarily work for many farmers. I’ve committed, along with my colleague, to look into this issue and raise it with the ferries that this is something that is of concern to farmers. That was raised with me just on Beef Day by the Cattlemen’s Association.

Ian Paton: Great. I appreciate that. We’ll hopefully move forward with that. Especially in emergencies — actually, my brother is a veterinarian; he has an emergency surgical centre in Aldergrove for equine surgery — sometimes these things just happen in an instant, where nobody has time to make reservations.

My second question — this is a bit comical — is to do with priority loading. As MLAs, we have to take the B.C. Ferries quite often. I’ll pull up — I’ve got meetings over here, committees and whatever — and we’ll hand this card to the gal in the booth and say: “It’s my MLA card; I would like to get priority loading.”

Sometimes they say: “Oh yeah, no problem, I know all about that.” Ding, ding, ding, and you’re there. Many other times they say: “I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ll have to make a phone call.” This goes on and on.

I’m wondering if B.C. Ferries can instruct their ticketing agents to understand what it is to have an MLA guaranteed-loading card.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As the member knows, as House Leader, I’m on LAMC, and I will raise that issue with LAMC, which has the ability to do many things.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on to the procurement of the new ferries. My question to the minister: is the contract put in with LMG Marin still, the Norwegian company? Is that issued and tendered? Are they working on delivering the ferries right now?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member: that is up to the company, as a confidential commercial decision. That’s not something that I’m able to talk about. That would be up to B.C. Ferries; that would be up to the CEO to talk about. That’s what I can tell you.

[6:40 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: Well, that’s pretty interesting, because it was really well documented previously.

I got a lot of information on it, actually. Damen Shipyards, a Dutch company, was going to be working with them, with Zena’s

That’s what I can tell you.

Harman Bhangu: Well, that’s pretty interesting, because it was really well documented previously.

I got a lot of information on it, actually. Damen Shipyards, a Dutch company, was actually going to be working with them, with Zenas, a Norwegian company, supplying the charging solutions. This is all open information you can find online, Minister.

Also, they’re collaborating with various other companies to make this happen. But there is nothing concrete on which company is actually going to be getting the contract, and that is something that is actually a glaring hole in this.

Can you clarify anything on that? I’ve done my research on it.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: You’re talking about the Island class ferries. They have been awarded to Damen.

Harman Bhangu: There are other ones, too. I’ll send you a detailed email, and I’ll explain it to you. Maybe we can communicate that way on that.

But I want to get into: what is the plan for establishing electrification of the B.C. Ferries fleet? When does the minister expect electrical connections at the ferry terminals to be built? Does the ministry have a detailed timeline or budget for these upgrades?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thanks for the question.

B.C. Ferries is engaged in an electrification program. The Island class are using the hybrid biodiesel and electric ferries as part of their sustainability initiatives. That’s what they’re investing in as a private company, and we support that initiative that they’ve undertaken.

Harman Bhangu: I just wanted to go back to you saying that it’s a private company. Well then, why are we subsidizing and putting taxpayer dollars into this company when they’re not delivering the results? Maybe it’s something that we should be considering.

Have you considered digging into it? Why are there so many shortfalls and everything? We’re using taxpayer dollars, Minister, to fund this. That is something that, you know, glares out at me. I understand it’s a private company, but it has technically somewhat of a Crown aspect to it. Can you clarify that a bit?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll just go back to

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll just go back to my earlier answer. There is that service fee that we pay for minimum service levels on certain routes on the coast, and there are penalties in place if they don’t meet those minimum service requirements. At the same time, I’ve also made it clear that I expect B.C. Ferries to ensure that that takes place and to seek ways in which they obviously improve service.

That being said, as I also mentioned, 98 percent of sailings do go the way that they’re supposed to. But I also think it’s important. This is definitely…. It is not a Crown corporation. When the structure was set up, it was specifically set up so that it would be a private company as opposed to being a Crown corporation. That was back, I think, in the early 2000s when that change took place.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: how many and which vessels are expected to retire once the new four vessels — it was supposed to be five, but now there are four — will be brought online when they will be active? How many of the older ones will be aging and won’t be in service?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s the Alberni, the New West, the Cowichan and the Coquitlam.

[6:50 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: I guess there’s no net addition. You’ve got four vessels coming in, and you have four vessels going out. I don’t know how that solves the B.C. Ferries problems, but we’ll move on.

I want to move

Harman Bhangu: So I guess there’s no net addition. You’ve got four vessels coming in, and you have four vessels going out. I don’t know how that solves the B.C. Ferries problems, but we’ll move on.

I want to move on to overpass strikes. Has the ministry conducted a jurisdictional comparison of overpass height standards across Canadian provinces to determine B.C.’s infrastructure is aligned with national norms?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for this question. This is a question that I suspect is near and dear to his heart. It’s near to my heart because quite frankly, I cannot understand the incompetence of what is taking place when it comes to our overpasses in this province and, in fact, in other jurisdictions across the country. The overpasses are not lowering themselves.

I can tell the member this is an issue that I am seized with. I am in contact with my colleagues in other parts of the country. In particular, we are raising this at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meetings.

I have met with the Dave Earle of the association….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yeah.

He’s outlined a number of things that he would like to see done. I had said yes to I think nearly every one action, work, being undertaken within my ministry because quite frankly, it is just not acceptable what has been taking place.

I want to make sure that there is standardization across the country. I want to make sure that there is reciprocity, too, in terms of punishment — yeah, I’ll say punishment — but also consequences, so that you don’t just cross the border into another province and think you can avoid the damage that you’ve done or the problems that you’ve caused. As you know, right now if an offence takes place, like if you do strike, the entire fleet is suspended while an investigation takes place. That can take several times…. If you’ve got a fleet of 80 trucks, that’s a pretty significant financial penalty.

So absolutely, Member, this is an issue I am seized with. It’s one that I said my ministry is working on, and it’s absolutely one that I’m raising with other provinces.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister. Is the ministry keeping any data with these strikes if it’s to do with foreign temporary workers, LMIA permits? Is there anything you’ll rule out for a whistleblower avenue for some of these workers that are being extorted by their carriers, which happens?

I’m from the trucking industry. I’ve seen it firsthand. “Take this load, otherwise you lose your job.” Or maybe: “Hey, you’re out of this country.” This is a very real concern. It’s not just a concern for them. It’s a public safety issue that we do need to take seriously

So I would like to ask: would you be willing to actually put together a data program moving forward, or is there one currently in place? I think this is a very important topic, and this could actually mitigate a lot of the issues that are happening. Being a driver, you go to different areas. There’s different signage in every single town and different requirements. There are bridges that are very low. You’re told to get off. One thing that I’ve seen on the 232 and 216 area is that that overheight flasher is not even active right now.

We can actually mitigate these by putting in an overheight system where it actually sensors the truck, shoots out and actually alerts it, tells them to stop.

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question.

We are looking at all kinds of different options in terms of what can be done to reduce those things. In terms of the data, we do keep some data, but I’m certainly open to broadening it to the kind of questions that the member has just been raising. I’m certainly open to looking at that. Some of it may require cooperation at the federal level, but absolutely, I’m quite open to looking at that.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you very much there.

I’m going to pass it off, Chair, to my fellow colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson.

Ward Stamer: I only have one question to the minister that I didn’t have time for earlier today, and then I would like to be able to hand it over to my colleague from Prince George–Valemount.

To the minister, how are we coming with our mandatory dashcams? You mentioned, if I may, about data collection. We know that the Southern Interior Local Government Association and the B.C. Trucking Association supported my initiative. The UBCM was unanimous in that.

We’re coming up to two years now since UBCM unanimously endorsed my motion, and I would like further clarity on when that’s actually going to happen.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There’s work that’s been done by the ministry this past fall. We’re currently working with the B.C. Trucking Association on the issue, and we will have that work finished later this spring, early summer.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that.

I would like to yield my time to my colleague from Prince George–Valemount.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister, I was wondering if you could explain how companies or contractors like Emil Anderson are compensated for vehicle recoveries.

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The ministry’s maintenance contractors are required to respond to events on the highways. They will provide traffic control, but they’re not required to remove the vehicle. That’s only if there is an abandoned vehicle. The owner is required to remove their vehicle otherwise.

Rosalyn Bird: My understanding is — and I could have the wrong information — that contractors such as Emil Anderson are given a sum of money at the beginning of the fiscal year, and if there is a recovery that takes place or needs to take place because it has blocked a highway and it’s reducing or stopping traffic one way, partway, both ways, whatever the case may be, that that contractor calls the RCMP.

The RCMP will make a call-out to a local towing company. They will show up. They will do a vehicle recovery. They will do a road cleanup, whatever happens to be necessary in order for that traffic to keep going.

I’m curious to know, whether or not that is actually the case, if that money is in fact awarded to those contractors. If it is awarded, is that on an annual basis, or is that on a contractual basis?

Whether the contracts are one-year terms, three-year terms, five-year terms, that I don’t know. Maybe you could give some insight, also, to that. Is that more clear?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

There’s not a separate pool of money. There is the contract that the maintenance provider gets. Within that overall contract, let’s say you’re responsible for a particular area. If there is an accident, a vehicle has, you know, blocked the road, what they’re required to do is to keep the road open, to keep traffic flowing.

If there’s a vehicle that’s blocking, it is to just move that vehicle to the side of the road so that traffic is not impeded. If that’s not possible because, you know, let’s say there’s no shoulder, it’s to move the vehicle to another place where it is possible to move it over. But it is not, for example, to take it to a towing yard. That’s what they’re required to do.

[7:05 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: I’m going to give a very specific example, and you know exactly which example I’m going to give.

Hypothetically if there was a vehicle, a B-train, that was in an accident and it

I’m going to give a very specific example, and you know exactly which example I’m going to give.

Hypothetically, there was a vehicle, a B-train, that was in an accident, and it precluded traffic from going either direction on a bridge. There was an RCMP call-out. A towing company recovered that vehicle and helped to have the traffic moving. Who covers the cost of that particular incident? How does the towing company get back the money for that vehicle recovery and keeping that highway safety at its peak and to ensure traffic continues to flow on the highway?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’m going to talk about the hypothetical, but I will also…. I know what the member is talking about.

As I said, I’m more than happy to have my staff sit down with you on that particular issue. We will do that, okay?

With the hypothetical issue the member is raising, it would be…. The RCMP sometimes calls out a towing vehicle to move a vehicle, and that’s between the insurance company of the vehicle that’s caused the problem and the towing company.

That’s for the hypothetical question you just asked. As I said, I’m happy to sit down with you on the other.

Rosalyn Bird: I just want to clarify. So within those contracts, there is no requirement for that contracting company to pay the towing company for any of the expenses that they may have incurred in order to clear an incident.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That’s correct.

Rosalyn Bird: Can the minister commit to consider working with, at the very least, the Alberta government?

You talked earlier about reciprocity between provinces. You know where I’m going with this.

We have some huge challenges in this province. We spoke about them a little bit earlier. We have drivers coming in from out of province, or they are licensed from out of province. They have insurance issues from out of province. They’re causing tremendous damage, and they are making our highways unsafe.

Can the minister commit that this is something that you will seriously consider looking at in the next year?

There are a number of organizations or companies in this province that are struggling financially because of these types of issues, and I would hope that the minister would agree it is not the responsibility of a small mom-and-pop towing operation to pay the expenses to keep our highways safe and our traffic moving.

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I am happy to work with my provincial counterparts. I am happy to work on reciprocity issues, because what you’re describing is actually…. I mean, I know the situation that you’re talking about.

But as a province — and other provinces, I know — we have issues on a range of things. You know, insurance-related traffic tickets, for example. So I’m happy to do that because I know that there has been interest on things from other provincial…. I’m happy to consider and to work on what you’re talking about.

Rosalyn Bird: On that note, can you explain or help me better understand and others better understand what the relationship is between the Ministry of Transportation, CVSE and ICBC? It crosses over into another ministry, the Solicitor General — road safety.

What does that look like, and what is the ministry doing to help better those relationships so some of these issues can be addressed more proactively or more quickly?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’d say this.

Yes, there are different aspects of transportation and licensing. ICBC’s with PSSG. When I was at PSSG, we had police issuing tickets. We had tables within…. Like, as ministries, we cooperate. We don’t all operate…. We don’t just operate in silos. We cooperate.

A lot of the challenges that you’re talking about, and a lot of challenges that, when I was at PSSG, I faced, are, in fact, interjurisdictional. By that, I mean interprovincial. So it’s a case of us working with our other provincial counterparts on these common jurisdictional that cross provincial boundaries. So things like ticketing, things like what you mentioned about….

You know, you’re from Alberta. Your insurance is in Alberta, or you don’t have it, and that’s where you’re from. The same with, you know, the trucking. We’ve had some progress with Alberta in terms of: “Okay, you’re coming here.” They will investigate that trucking company that’s been hitting overpasses here.

We want more of that, and that’s the kind of work that we are doing more of these days. That’s where the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meetings that happen twice a year are important — to be able to bring these issues together. They then take them into working groups from ministries’ staff within each province. They’ll take a topic, and there’ll be one, two or three provinces get together. Then we’ll lead some work on that and report back. Then we try and push for changes that we’re all on the same page on.

We’re seeing some standardization taking place, and it is a work in progress. But it’s one of those areas that we are very much trying to ensure happens to solve the kinds of issues that you’ve raised here today.

[7:15 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to appreciate everyone that took the time out to answer these questions that British Columbians want answered. I know it clarifies a lot of things between the opposition and the government. So I want to thank everyone for their time. I want to thank the minister for coming out here. You know, it’s been great having this conversation. I’d like to have further

Harman Bhangu: I appreciate everyone that took the time out to answer these questions that British Columbians want answered. I know it clarifies a lot of things between the opposition and the government. So I want to thank everyone for their time.

I want to thank the minister for coming out here. You know, it’s been great having this conversation. I’d like to have further conversation outside of here. Maybe we can come together and help British Columbians solve some transport issues that are much needed.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

Jeremy Valeriote: I thought you might want a short recess, but I’ll jump straight in.

Interjection.

Jeremy Valeriote: Would that help?

The Chair: Sure. We will reconvene at 7:25.

The committee recessed from 7:16 p.m. to 7:27 p.m.

The committee recessed from 7:16 p.m. to 7:27 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the minister. I specified transit and ferries, but we’ll sandwich a quick Highway 99 question in the middle there.

I’ll start with handyDART, a service used by many residents in greater Victoria unable to access other forms of public transit. Recently many users have been left frustrated and neglected by this necessary service, due to difficulties in booking and limited operating times. Users are required to book services over the phone, but some have reported hours-long waits and issues with the requirement to book two weeks in advance. Even with this, many people have been denied trips due to lack of capacity.

B.C. Transit reports that these issues are not due to budget cuts but instead are the result of an excess in hours from last year, allowing extended services at the beginning of 2025. This would suggest that an increase in services is needed, since many were finally satisfied with the level of handyDART operations available during the intervening time.

In the 2025 budget, the government estimates that $19 million is still needed to complete the construction of the new Victoria handyDART centre. This does not address the operational funding gaps currently preventing users from accessing the service. How will the provincial government address the barriers to handyDART access for users who rely on this service?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

What I can tell you, hon. Member, is that overall in terms of handyDART for B.C. Transit, the funding is increasing by $49 million over three years. But specifically in the case of Victoria, there will be 7½ thousand hours of new service in the next year, and seven new vehicles.

Jeremy Valeriote: A bit of a preamble: obviously, British Columbians rely on our public transportation system, yet this important service is under constant threat of privatization, budget cuts and reduced services, making it insufficient to meet the needs of the province. Freedom of mobility is a human right protected under the Charter, and it is the responsibility of governing bodies to uphold this right. Access to our public transit has been dwindling, and British Columbians are looking to the government for answers.

What is the ministry’s plan for the long-term vision of public transportation, and how will they ensure that everyone has equitable access to safe and reliable transportation services?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’m going to ask a quick clarification question to him.

But before I do that, I just want to make it…. The $49 million I was referencing was for B.C. Transit as a whole across the province, but within that is the 7,500 hours for handyDART service in Victoria.

And then I just wanted to make sure I’m hearing the member’s question correctly. When he’s talking about, the way he framed the question, public transit and how important it is, are you referring just to B.C. Transit, or are you also including TransLink in that question as well?

Jeremy Valeriote: That would include TransLink.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question because I think we are both on the same page on the importance of public transit, whether in the Lower Mainland, delivered through TransLink, or whether in other parts of the province, through B.C. Transit.

[7:35 p.m.]

We’ve invested, since 2017, more than $11 billion in capital and operating. The recent agreement we’ve reached with TransLink, for example, has seen the province put in a commitment that’s going to allow for further expansion in terms of an increase in service, working with the Mayor’s Council, in terms of the longer-term sustainable funding solutions for TransLink.

At the same time, recognizing

for example, that has seen the province put in a commitment that’s going to allow for further expansion in terms of an increase in service, working with the Mayors Council in terms of the longer-term sustainable funding solutions for TransLink, at the same time, recognizing that transit is far more than just the Lower Mainland and the growth that we are seeing in communities around the province, particularly larger centres, you know, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops, and smaller communities as well and the increasing demand from Indigenous communities in terms of having access to transit services. Those are very much part and parcel of the thinking and the work that’s underway within the ministry in terms of future expansion with B.C. Transit.

As the member no doubt knows, that service expansion is cost-shared with the local governments and the province on almost a 50-50 basis, and the increase that we’ve allowed for that’s in the budget for this year is going to result in service increase in a number of communities across the province.

Jeremy Valeriote: That’s great. Thank you.

I think the supplementary to this is maybe a little more concrete for allocating some of that extra money.

If I’ve got my budget numbers correct, $187.7 million in operational budget, representing a $22.3 million increase from the previous year, how do those additional funds…? How are they allocated, and will some of it go to the service increase? Is that either through increasing the number of routes or procurement of more transit fleets?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thanks for the question.

The numbers the member was quoting, some of that is, obviously, for inflationary pressures — there’s about $15 million there — some for expansion, again, the provincial portion being $6 million for our increase in service, and you know, that’s cost-shared with local government in terms of their participation as well.

[7:40 p.m.]

Of course, service expansion obviously requires capital investment, and there’s $500 million of the provincial share for capital over the next three years. That will be earmarked for electric buses as well as exchanges and any manner of capital requirements that

There’s $500 million of the provincial share for capital over the next three years. That will be earmarked for buses, electric buses, as well as exchanges and any manner of capital requirements that B.C. Transit and the communities have.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just make sure I heard correctly at the end. But I’ve just got a couple of questions on kind of broader scale.

As we know, fuel taxes are declining for a number of reasons, particularly the increase in number of EVs. I know that the minister has been asked several times in the House about vehicle levies and mobility pricing.

My question, I guess, is — and that conversation may still be ongoing — if the minister can tell me anything about, you know, some of those options and plans. If not, then maybe: what is the process to arrive at a substitute for fuel taxes that we can take going into the next few decades?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll start off by saying that this has been the topic of some conversation both here and in the House. I’ll start by saying that we have made it clear that mobility pricing, road pricing, is not an option. The Mayors Council has made that. We have made that. I said that’s not on the table.

That aside, what I have also said, and this is in the agreement that we have with the Mayors Council, on TransLink. They received the $312 million to help with their operating challenges that they’re facing, which will ensure that there are no service cuts but that there’s expansion over the next three years.

During that time, we’ve committed to working with them on what alternatives to ensure the long-term operating stability of TransLink would be…. There have been a number of things thrown out there. We will work with them in terms of identifying potential revenue sources, what they would mean, what their impacts are. Are they sustainable? What would they do for TransLink?

The member is quite correct. We are seeing a decline in the fuel tax as people switch to…. You know, this province has the fastest uptake of electric vehicles in the country and one of the fastest uptakes in North America. There’s no sign of that changing. In fact, my partner and I just got a new vehicle. It is a hybrid, and what I find absolutely amazing is that I’ve now put 1,500 kilometres on it, and I still have half a tank of gas. So it’s got me convinced. Let’s put it that way.

In answer to the question, as I said, it’s like…. Look. We’ve got to work with TransLink on what those solutions are, but recognizing that there are some significant shifts taking place within the province and nationally as it relates to the decline in the gas tax and the increase in electric vehicles. All of this has an impact on TransLink’s operating…. But at the same time, the rise in electric vehicles also means that, you know, they don’t pay the gas tax, or very little of the gas tax, yet they still have an impact on our transportation infrastructure.

Jeremy Valeriote: I apologize if it’s in the budget documents, but is it…? Am I not correct that B.C. Hydro levies a rider of some kind on residential billing that does go towards public transit, or is that my mistake?

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There is $1.90 a month on all residential hydro bills. It goes to TransLink.

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s good to know that EV drivers are actually contributing a small amount. It might diffuse some of that vitriol that EV drivers aren’t contributing at all. I don’t know that $1.90 a month cuts it, but it’s good to know there’s a basis there.

I’ll move on to…. I just have a question about the medium-term planning process for infrastructure. I believe the minister mentioned $500 million over three years in capital, I think it was. Just a question about planning ahead. I have some communities in my riding that are looking at expansion. How are decisions about ordering buses made to ensure that routes aren’t waiting for delivery? And how does this extend to other facilities, like maintenance facilities and depots, in terms of planning for future expansion?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. B.C. Transit has a planning process around service expansion, working with local communities that are seeking expansion. Part of that process then is, obviously, what’s required. What existing infrastructure is in there? What expansion would need to take place? Does expansion need to take place in terms of the existing facilities to accommodate new service expansion?

[7:50 p.m.]

One of the things that we are having to take into account has been issues around supply chains, particularly when it comes to the delivery of new buses. There has been a reduction in the number of companies that are actually making buses, and that has impacted in terms of the delivery time and the supply chain issue in terms of securing new vehicles.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll move on to the road questions.

the number of companies that are actually making buses. That has impacted the delivery time and the supply chain issue, in terms of securing new vehicles.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll move on to the road questions. I’ve got a couple more than I thought, because I’ve got some from my colleague for Saanich North and the Islands. I’ll start with those.

North Saanich and Gulf Islands have been struggling with road maintenance issues, despite these communities having lower traffic than more urban areas. Cumulative impacts of road use have caused deterioration that continues to go unaddressed, despite many requests.

Can the minister speak to any plans to maintain or fix deteriorating roads — particularly roads with lower volumes that tend to receive less maintenance? I’ll ask, too: will the minister assist with funding to repair faded road lines, to ensure the safety of Gulf Islands residents?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I will start with the last part of your comments first. The line-painting is done on a three-year cycle on the Gulf Islands, and the start of the next three-year cycle is this year. They’ll be starting on Salt Spring Island.

In terms of the roads and rehabilitation, we’ve got a record level in the preservation budget — $2 billion over the next three years — and $596 million of that is for side roads, including those that access Indigenous communities in different parts of the province. So there’s a significant amount of investment, on the issue that the member is raising, underway.

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Chair, I failed to also mention a specific project in the House Leader’s riding. That is a $22.9 million project on the Fulford-Ganges Road between Seaview and Cranberry Road. The project scope

I failed to mention a specific project in the House Leader’s riding. That is a $22.9 million project on the Fulford-Ganges Road between Seaview and Cranberry Road. The project scope includes widening to accommodate 1.2 metres of paved shoulders on both sides of the project, installing storm drainage infrastructure. The project will be completed by the end of this year.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you. That’s a well-timed question. I appreciate the answer. I’m sure the member will be happy to hear that.

In Saanich, the Highway 17 Keating Cross Road flyover overpass project is intended to allow vehicles to travel more safely and efficiently, set to be completed this fall, but residents have expressed concern over the lack of sufficient planning to serve all modes of transportation.

Earlier this year Central Saanich council passed a motion requesting the province provide the district with a plan for a pedestrian overpass across the highway. Transportation improvement projects need to offer complete solutions for all modes. While the current plan includes a new sidewalk on Keating Cross Road, it’s not enough to provide sufficient space for cyclists and pedestrians.

Can the minister explain how the ministry makes decisions on transportation project scope and why expensive and time-consuming development projects like Keating Cross Road flyover do not offer solutions for all modes of transport?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member: I appreciate the question.

On this particular project, two observations I’ll make. There are going to be widened sidewalks on the project as well as wider shoulders. I think the member is referring to a flyover pedestrian overpass. We are working with the local community in terms of what the best options are in that area.

Jeremy Valeriote: There’s a dire need for continued development on a rapid bus system for the Saanich Peninsula that connects ferries, the airport and Uptown. Can the minister speak to how that work is progressing and what this budget offers to help advance it?

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I appreciate the question. In order to get accurate information, I’ll get back to you with the answers to that question.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks. Appreciate that.

So a couple of questions about the Sea to Sky corridor, Highway 99, first just dealing with the highway itself. The minister knows roughly $700 million was spent before the Olympics to upgrade the highway. Volume continues to increase. It’s just seeing more traffic.

The biggest concern I hear from constituents is that the highway attracts people who drive fast or joyride, including loud motorcycles. That’s another topic. But when the highway is closed for a very serious incident, it’s often closed for six or eight or ten hours, because they’re waiting for ICARS, the integrated collision analysis and reconstruction services.

Can the minister comment on whether there’s any possible solution to this? It’s obviously a difficult situation. People want to be compassionate for those who are injured or potentially, sometimes, fatalities. At the same, time people are trapped on the highway for six hours, in distress sometimes, in the heat or the cold and/or missing flights. There are many different scenarios.

Is there any discussion? I mean the ideal would be an ICARS office in Squamish to service this from the other side. Otherwise, they’re coming from the Lower Mainland, which can be a challenge even just to get them there when the highway is closed. Is there any potential solution to this that could be implemented?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I totally get and understand the frustration that people must feel because I have experienced that firsthand, and it is very…. You’re right. You have compassion for the person in the accident, but you also understand the frustration of people who are….

Well, maybe I will say it. There are people

understand the frustration that people must feel because I have experienced that firsthand. It is very…. You’re right. You have compassion for the person in the accident. But you also understand the frustration of people who are…. No, maybe I will say it. There are people who are morons on the road. They think that they can do whatever they want and that they have a right to drive as fast as they want, particularly on that highway.

What I can tell you is that this issue is really more belonging in PSSG. It was one I dealt with when I was at PSSG. But I can tell you that my ministry works closely with them on issues such as this. This is something that does concern me. I’m happy to raise the suggestion that you raised with PSSG because I do think there needs to be some way of….

If there is going to be a closure, at least try and lengthen it. And if one of those issues that the member has identified is having to bring people in from other parts of the Lower Mainland, if there’s a way of having something there on the 99 or the Sea to Sky…. Let’s see if there are some options that potentially work.

But yeah, I totally agree with the member. It can be incredibly frustrating. I’ll leave it at that.

Jeremy Valeriote: We’ll kind of pass over the question about Sea Sky public transit, because I notice it’s in the mandate letter, and it’s in our accord between the Third Party and the government. That kind of shorter-term solution will be very welcome, and I’m looking forward to working more on it.

The discussion around that has been buses on the highway, which is a good solution. However, the highway is sometimes congested, so longer term I’m hoping to keep the rail option on the radar.

I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on the potential of that rail corridor currently leased to CN, very lightly used, formerly B.C. Rail, the whole story. The potential to allow…. There is actually the Rocky Mountaineer, kind of a luxury tourist service. The long-term potential to get the use of that rail for passenger services, especially since it’s…. It is used between Squamish and North Vancouver for freight, but otherwise really not very much anymore.

So I’m just trying to understand if the minister has any tricks up his sleeve around convincing CN to get involved and help out in that regard.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I’ll just say this. Well, I’ll start off by saying that if I had the ability to convince the railway to do something, then I’m pretty sure I could probably solve all the problems of the province and half the problems of the country. I’ve come to learn that there is the federal government, there is the provincial government, and above them both is the federal Railway Act. The federal Railway Act tends to view both levels of government as an annoyance more than anything else.

[8:10 p.m.]

That being said, I’d love to see rail on that corridor. As you rightly said, it is lightly used.

One of the best services that we have out my way is the West Coast Express, which is an amazing service on the CP line.

said I’d love to see rail on that corridor. As you rightly said, it is lightly used.

One of the best services that we have out my way is the West Coast Express, which is an amazing service on the CP line. I also know how difficult it was to get that there. That being said, if there is a way or an opportunity, I’d be more than open to seeing, you know, how that could happen.

I think a passenger service rail service, commuter rail service would probably be very much a success on that on that line, particularly up to Whistler. I know there is also that service that goes from Pemberton to Lillooet. The First Nation has…. I’ve met with them because they have been concerned that CN apparently has a responsibility to provide that service and keeps trying to say no, they don’t, when, in fact, they do.

But I take the member’s point. I’d love to see it. But I don’t have a magic wand.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just as an aside, I do believe there’s a bus that can travel on the rail tracks around Seton Portage area. That does seem to be supported. I mean, in some of the northern part of the riding, large trains are not required. But, you know, a bus that can travel on the rail is probably appropriate to the population size.

Okay, I will recognize you’ve had some B.C. Ferries questions, and it’s a tricky one. Well, maybe I’ll just start with the structural. I just listened to the mayors of Gibsons and Bowen Island on a CBC radio interview talking about the structural difficulty of various finger-pointing between the B.C. Ferries corp., B.C. ferries commissioner and B.C. Ferry Authority and perhaps this ministry.

This is a problem that, you know, is actually affecting Bowen Island. Well, it’s affecting all the ferry communities. Bowen Island is the one that I hear from.

Big picture. Does the minister have any thoughts about how to increase accountability and responsiveness in this kind of multi-pronged governance structure that seems to make accountability difficult.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member because I believe that B.C. Ferries should be accountable to the communities it serves. It’s important that they are listening to them and meeting the needs of those communities.

I also recognize, as the member rightly points out, that it is a complex organization. There is the ferry commissioner, who is independent. They are accountable themselves in terms of the reports that they give. But what I also want to make sure that Ferries is doing in terms of accountability is ensuring that the authority and the services board are working in a collaborative fashion and in a collaborative approach to ensure that B.C. Ferries is meeting the needs of its customers and the communities that it serves, of which there are I think 47 communities up and down the coast and on Haida Gwaii that that they serve.

[8:15 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just focus on Bowen Island, obviously part of Metro Vancouver, very close to the Lower Mainland, becoming more and

and on Haida Gwaii that they serve.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll focus on Bowen Island — obviously, part of Metro Vancouver, very close to the Lower Mainland, becoming more and more popular for tourism, both regional and international.

Residents and business owners on Bowen are excited to share their island, but the surge in tourism brings about very challenging pressure on the transportation system. The residents have issues with accessing their home on the island or leaving the island during peak travel. You know, Easter weekend just passed, and we heard quite a bit about it.

I’m actually going to skip the question about increasing ferry services, that there’s one vessel and the on-time performances have been dipping. But there is one simple solution that is actually fairly cost-effective that’s been proposed, and perhaps the minister has been speaking with the mayor of Bowen Island.

On the Bowen Island Snug Cove terminal, B.C. Ferries staff do not leave the ship, essentially, so the marshalling would have to be done by the municipality, and the cost of that is fairly nominal. They’re in discussions, but this seems like an easy fix.

New ships…. Well, Horseshoe Bay terminal is a whole other issue.

You know, low six figures to give the municipality opportunity to put a couple people on the ground to help load and unload boats in a pretty congested harbour in the summer, it does seem reasonable. I’m just wondering whether the minister can provide any comment on the feasibility of that kind of assistance on the Snug Cove side?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: If I can get details of the proposal, I’ll get staff to reach out to B.C. Ferries with the proposal and connect with the appropriate individuals in the village of Bowen Island.

Jeremy Valeriote: A question originating from Sidney — B.C. Ferries gets annual funding from the province to subsidize ferry fares and keep them affordable. Subsidies go to support the minor and northern ferry routes, unless I’m incorrect, not the major routes.

In 2020, B.C. Ferries received $308 million in additional funding from the province and federal government related to COVID. Last year B.C. Ferries was given an additional $500 million to ensure the ferry fare increases could be kept at a reasonable level, within 3 percent. On April 1, 2025, fares increased by 3.2 percent.

Does the ministry anticipate the fare increases will be capped at 3.2 percent as planned, or will there be more taxpayer funding needed to support B.C. Ferries should they need more funding to ensure fares stay within that rate?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question.

The ferries commissioner has ruled on the fare increase, and it is for the full four years. We are not aware of anything over the 3.2 percent.

Jeremy Valeriote: The federal government currently funds B.C. Ferries a small amount each year, approximately $35 million compared to B.C.’s approximately $195 million. Will the minister or the B.C. government be asking the federal government to increase subsidy for B.C. Ferries?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, I’d like parity with the Maritimes.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, I’d like parity with the Maritimes.

Jeremy Valeriote: Obviously, B.C. is growing quickly as a province; from 2007 to 2022, the population increased by 25 percent, 7 percent higher than the national average.

With this increased population, as we know, comes equally intense growth in our transportation needs. Our Climate Change Accountability Report says that transportation accounts for our highest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions and has increased by 18 percent in the last number of years.

How does the ministry plan to address the carbon intensity of our transportation sector? As the population grows, how will the transportation sector look ahead at the projected emissions and actively find solutions to this problem?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the question from the member. As I mentioned a moment ago, I got a new vehicle, and I’m really impressed by the fact that it’s 1,500 kilometres, and I still have half a tank of gas. Wow.

Within the ministry itself, there’s a number of initiatives. Obviously, the big one is public transit and the investments that we make in that. Along with that, active transportation policies and programs get people out of the car, particularly when we’re building infrastructure; charging stations, which the ministry is involved with; and then the heavy vehicle efficiency program.

Those are all some of the responsibilities and roles that the ministry has in dealing with what the member was raising.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just one more: ferries. The minister is probably aware that a company called Green Line Ferries has been getting ready to establish — and then will actually do a trial run of a model ship — an electric passenger ferry.

When I lived on the Sunshine Coast, we worked on this. There have been several passenger ferry operations — Gibsons, Bowen Island to Vancouver — that have started and typically lasted only a year or two, but it is a potential solution to B.C. Ferries. If they can’t buy new ships, it provides alternate service and could actually supplement B.C. Ferries, rather than compete.

Even though this operation does appear quite viable, the reason why it’s challenging is because they typically try and fail. They’re unsubsidized, and especially as fuel prices have gone up, they try and then don’t succeed. People don’t find them reliable. It actually takes a year or two years to develop that full ridership. And I believe that in 2016 and ’17 former Minister Trevena did some work on a shorter-term subsidy that would get them up and running, get them to full ridership — at which point, ideally, they’d be self-sufficient.

[8:25 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if this ministry has considered anything in terms of a passenger ferry. I don’t know what the situation is with Hello Ferries going from Nanaimo to Vancouver, but is there any thought of helping with those subsidies for the short term as a complement to vehicle-centric routes, like B.C. Ferries has?

I don’t know what the situation is with Hullo Ferries going from Nanaimo to Vancouver, but if there’s any thought of helping with those subsidies for the short term as a complement to vehicle-centric routes like B.C. Ferries has.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

We don’t have any subsidies in the ministry at this time. That being said, we do see them as part of our transportation network. We have a good relationship with them. We meet with them, with Greenline, on a regular basis, so we are interested in the work they’re doing and their plans for the future.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister. I’ll suppose that the minister’s car is a plug-in hybrid if he’s got 1,500 kilometres out of half a tank of gas. We have one too, but travelling the Sea to Sky Highway the battery only goes about 30 kilometres, so they’re ideal in urban locations.

With that, thanks to the minister for his time, and to the staff. Have a lovely evening.

Jordan Kealy: I definitely don’t have a hybrid. I can think of almost about ten vehicles for my farm that are all diesel and are vital to be able to help it operate for my area, along with a lot of the region.

My question for the minister. Public transit is allocated $207.2 million in this year’s estimate, an increase over the previous year’s fiscal year. Given that increase, how much does the ministry justify ongoing service reductions in rural transit routes? Where is the funding being redirected, and why aren’t underserved regions seeing improvement?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

So local transit, B.C. Transit — that’s cost-shared between the province and the local community, the local government. And it’s the local government that decides where the routes are and what routes they want to see in place. The province doesn’t tell them what routes they should have. That’s a decision that’s made by the local government.

Jordan Kealy: Yeah, I’m curious what Greyhound would have thought about that. We kind of saw how that turned out. For rural ridings, it has left a lot of constituents pretty much without a way of getting to help, without a way of getting to a hospital, without a way of getting to family.

I’ve had several constituents reach out in my region, primarily when it comes to a service provided by Cold Shot, out of Alberta. Even though they’re Albertan, they provide rural services into my province, where those services just got cut off.

[8:30 p.m.]

Now, when I talked to the president and the vice-president of this company, their biggest issue that they had when it came to trying to provide the services was that they couldn’t because the tenures that were awarded were prioritized to companies that were large businesses out of the U.S.

My question for the minister is: are we going to take a Team Canada approach

trying to provide the services with it they couldn’t because the tenures that were awarded were prioritized to companies that were large businesses out of the U.S.

My question for the minister is: are we going to take a Team Canada approach that includes B.C. and start looking at awarding contracts within our own country, primarily securing these rural routes that will help all of us seek the care that we need?

Right now, these big companies come in, they get the contract, they cut back the rural routes, and they just take the money from the populated areas.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: What was the name of the company?

Jordan Kealy: The company’s name is Cold Shot. They provide service throughout Alberta. Primarily, Grand Prairie is a service hub that branches into Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, as well as Fort Nelson. It’s primarily Fort Nelson that is being left out in the cold.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I think the best thing I can say to the member is if the member has contacts with the company, and they want to reach out to us, we’re happy to let them know where the opportunities are in terms of providing service or what service opportunities there are, what contracts are coming up.

If the member would provide us the information on that, we’ll be happy to follow up in that way.

Jordan Kealy: I appreciate your answer, and I look forward to that discussion. Right now, we’re across British Columbia, as well as Canada. If we want to start supporting our own infrastructure when it comes to the tenure process and how it’s evaluated and weighted, right now, a lot of our rural areas and the companies that want to try and service them are not being prioritized that could best service the regions. Can you please walk us through the procurement process and tendering process that could best serve British Columbia and rural areas?

[8:35 p.m.]

That’ll make it so they don’t just get left out in the cold. Then the companies can make the most money possible.

in the cold, so then the companies can make the most money possible.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The ministry doesn’t do the tendering directly. It’s done either through B.C. Transit or for non-profits, such as the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

We’re happy to put you in touch with them, in terms of how their procurement processes work, so that you’re able to assist — if there are companies in your area that want to try and take advantage of that — to be able to do what you’re wanting to accomplish. I think we all want to see Canadian companies, service providers, prosper and succeed, whether it’s in the North or on the Island, in every part of the province.

Jordan Kealy: Touching on that, are companies required, in their contract award, to maintain or expand rural service levels?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. In terms of service levels, they’re contracted to provide the service that the local government asks for and pays for. That’s what they are required to do.

Jordan Kealy: What weighting is given to local or provincial bidders in the tendering evaluation process?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

B.C. Transit has its procurement processes — as non-profits have their procurement processes — and they also have to follow trade law. In terms of how they make their decisions, they’ll have their procurement processes, but they also have to make sure that they’re following trade law.

Jordan Kealy: It’s great that you mentioned trade law. In the western free trade agreement, primarily, their evaluation and how they grant tenures have made it systematically, for quite a while now, that local and regional companies that could better represent the regions are not awarded contracts. Instead, it is based on a system that normally prioritizes or grades larger companies and corporations that will fulfil those contracts.

Is there a process in place to make sure that the contracts given out and awarded best serve the rural regions?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. First, I’ll say I’m not aware of any procurement processes that penalize local bidders.

[8:40 p.m.]

What’s crucial, in terms of the contracts and in how they’re awarded, is that the local government or the non-profit that is providing, that wants or that is contracting for the service spells out the terms and conditions of the service that must be

and what’s crucial in terms of the contracts and how they’re awarded is that the local government or the non-profit that is contracting for the service spells out the terms and conditions in terms of the service that’s laid out in the contract that the company who is successful in winning that contract is required to provide.

And I would expect, in that procurement process, in those contracts, there obviously would be, my expectation is, penalties if you’re not meeting those service provisions that you’ve contracted to provide.

Jordan Kealy: When it comes to certain agreements, right now, the previous company that I mentioned, Cold Shot, that is from Alberta that provides service into British Columbia…. They are not through TransLink, and they are also not awarded through NDIT, which I sit on the board of as well when it comes to being aware of what they offer. Right now, that service that was being provided…. The disconnect between our province and Alberta is making it so that British Columbians in rural areas do not get the service that they need.

How is it that the minister is going to be able to help out the rural areas that might be in this scenario between the interprovincial process?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I can’t comment on a private company, but what I can tell you in terms of where the province is at and the funding that we are providing in terms of transit service to rural communities, particularly in B.C.’s North…. Since 2021, $13 million has been provided for B.C. North and community shuttles provided by NDIT, who have just announced eight new shuttle programs.

I met recently with the mayor of Fraser Lake, who was extolling how pleased they are with the NDIT shuttle program and they’re now expanding that to another eight and B.C. North…. We will continue, in terms of the investment with B.C. Transit, $49 million over the next three years, working with local governments to see service expansion in communities right across the province.

I can tell the member that I know how important that is in terms of communities in his riding, but also in the northwest as well, Highway 16, how crucial that is. We are committed to ensuring that we have good transit service.

Jordan Kealy: To the minister: is there anything in this budget that protects rural services from being axed after a contract is signed?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ve put the additional $49 million for the increase, in terms of transit services, in rural parts and northern parts of the province. I mean, we’ve got B.C. Bus North. There’s the funding from NDIT for the northern community shuttle program.

There’s Northern Health Connections. It’s a bus service to access medical and health services not available. It includes 11 long-distance routes in the North, including from Prince George to Vancouver, three trips a week — then, also, in other parts of the province, outside of the member’s neck of the woods.

We work with local communities to identify the service, and as I said, we entered into the cost-sharing arrangement almost 50-50 with local governments in terms of providing additional service. We are committed to continue doing that, because as I said, we recognize the importance of public transit.

I want to thank the member for raising the issues as he has, particularly as to how they affect his riding, which I know is geographically a pretty big part of the province. Do you have any more questions?

Jordan Kealy: Yes, I do.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Okay, in which case, we’ll….

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned. Thank you.

The committee rose at 8:47 p.m.