Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation and Transit

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,196,576,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: None, other than that I look forward to the questions from my hon. critic across the way.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Langley-Abbotsford. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, hon. Chair. I want to thank the minister for taking these questions.

Transportation and transit touch every part of British Columbia, every part of life. Whether it’s families trying to get home in time, truckers moving goods from our ports or highways, workers commuting long distances because they can’t afford to live near their jobs, or businesses waiting on delayed infrastructure projects, the decisions made in this room have real-world consequences.

British Columbians are watching closely, because they are seeing rising costs, delayed projects, ferry breakdowns, congestion getting worse, safety concerns on highways and major questions around planning and delivery.

[3:00 p.m.]

As official opposition critic, my goal today is to be straightforward. Accountability. Accountability for timelines; accountability for cost overruns; accountability for project delivery; accountability for safety; and accountability for whether taxpayers are actually getting the value for the billions of dollars being spent.

I also want to acknowledge the thousands of front-line workers who keep this province moving every single day — truck drivers, equipment operators, mechanics, ferry workers, tradespeople, transit operators, engineers and road maintenance crews. A lot of these people work long hours in tough conditions, and they deserve a system and infrastructure that actually function properly.

With that, let’s get into some of the questions. I want to start with the Belleville terminal redevelopment project. A little background on this. This project is to replace the old Belleville terminal, where the Clipper runs between Port Angeles and Victoria.

Phase 1of the project is complete and involved constructing a temporary terminal where CBSA and USCBP can operate. Phase 2 is in procurement and consists of demolishing the existing terminal and constructing a new preclearance terminal with modern boarding and security standards replacing the aging wharf.

My question: can the minister confirm that this project’s completion date is still on target for 2028?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister provide an update on the procurement for this project?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We have a signed contract in place, and they’re busy doing the work.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on to a little bit of the aviation fuel tax. A little background here. The federal government levies excess taxes on aviation fuel for domestic flights. The tax rate is four cents per litre on aviation fuel and ten cents per litre on aviation gasoline. The province of British Columbia charges its own aviation fuel tax of 21.59 cents per litre.

The Oxera study, paid for by the airlines, claims that the reduction of additional fees, in line with what Sweden has done, would increase GDP, tourism and reduce domestic flight costs. On April 29, Global News reported the federal government is in the early stages of talks on whether to privatize airports. That was Global News on April 29, 2026.

My question to the minister: can the minister explain how much money the government earns per year from the 21.59 cents-per-litre aviation fuel tax? How often does this tax increase? Is it reviewed annually, and does it escalate?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the questions, and I would advise the member that those questions are actually best directed to the Minister of Finance, who deals with those things — in particular, the taxes on the fuel that the member is talking about. Those estimates are still to happen, so the member will have the opportunity to ask that question to the minister at that time.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on to a little bit of the transit here. The federal government has committed $1.5 billion for transit in Metro Vancouver. Has the province matched that funding, yes or no?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell him that we are currently in discussions with the federal government around the $1½ billion that the member references. That is over a ten-year period.

One of the things that we’re particularly concerned about, around that, is the fact that British Columbia has already been putting in significant capital funding for capital projects when it comes to transit. And one of the challenges that we have been seeing over the last number of years has been that the province’s share of capital funding has increased, while the federal government share has not kept pace with that.

It was initially supposed to be 40-40, but what we have seen is that it is, in fact, significantly less than the 40 percent from the federal government. So we are currently in discussions with the federal government around that funding, to make sure that (1) British Columbia gets its fair share, and (2) there’s an understanding that we have been doing an awful lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to transit capital funding in this province.

Harman Bhangu: Which TransLink projects are currently waiting for funding? You committed to three BRT projects in your platform. Are those waiting for funding confirmation from the province?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In last year’s budget, hon. Member, we gave $312 million in terms of operating funding to TransLink.

One of the things that that is allowing to take place is to do the advance work, advance planning and design, on those three BRT lines that the member referenced in his question.

Harman Bhangu: What does that mean for riders today in terms of overcrowding, service expansion or new routes not being delivered?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The 2025 investment plan, which is currently ongoing right now, is seeing the largest increase in bus service since 2018, with 40 new transit routes planned in Metro, along with the investments that are being made in terms of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, which is going to see a significant increase in the capacity to move people through the region, connecting Langley city to Surrey centre through to Vancouver — all of which are going to dramatically increase the ability of people to be able to move around the region.

Harman Bhangu: My question: is there a risk that any portion of the federal $1.5 billion could be delayed or lost if the province continues to wait?

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

The answer is no.

Harman Bhangu: This government has said transit is key to housing and affordability. Why is the funding not moving forward to support transit-oriented growth?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

I’ll make two observations. In terms of the investments that TransLink is making, many of them are already in high-growth areas where there is significant densification taking place.

[3:15 p.m.]

Also, when you couple that with the investments that are being made in terms of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project, for example, that is going to open up new transit-oriented development areas for the higher density development that is going to make it more accessible for people to take transit and is going to ensure that we are building the homes, the affordability that people are looking for with those investments.

Harman Bhangu: Has this funding request gone to the Treasury Board or cabinet, and has the decision been made, yes or no?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As much as I might like to provide some commentary on this, I am bound by an oath of cabinet confidentiality, and so I cannot tell you what has happened at cabinet.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister, but I would not expect anything less than the most secretive government in British Columbian history here.

Will you commit today to matching the federal $1.5 billion for transit in Metro Vancouver? If not, what is the exact timeline for when British Columbians will see that commitment finalized?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. We are going to continue working with the federal government to ensure that British Columbia gets its fair share when it comes to transit funding, capital funding.

Since 2017, the province has invested, in capital alone, more than $8 billion. We have not received the same amount from the federal government, and the way the funding formula is supposed to work when it comes to capital is 40 percent from the province, 40 percent from the federal government and 20 percent from the region, from TransLink.

That, just so you know, has, in fact, increased. It used to be 30, 30 and 30, and we increased our share to 40.

We’re confident of our discussions and work with the federal government, that they will be at the table to ensure that B.C. receives its fair share. We’re watching very closely what they’re doing in other provinces, but we’ve got a good working relationship with the federal minister and the provincial minister here, that represents us in Ottawa.

Harman Bhangu: My question now is…. I want to move on to the local aspects. You know, Langley is one of the fastest-growing areas, and congestion has been just stockpiling one after another with the Highway 1 and everything else going on there.

What I want to know is…. The next phase of Langley’s BRT — when is that going to start? Phase 1 is almost done, and this will create a lag in projects and more funding, maybe balloon the cost more. If it’s not funded properly….

I just want to know: when is the next part going to start?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The 2025 investment plan and the Mayors Council, as the member will know, identify the priorities in terms of investment and projects that they want to see take place.

The funding that we’ve provided to TransLink to be able to do the additional work is going to allow for that planning and design work to advance the project that the member has been referring to. That is the funding around the planning and advanced design work. That’s how that will take place.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister. Thanks for that little update. I think that will set a little bit of ease, and we’ll be looking into it. Especially, also, my colleagues in Langley, Langley–Walnut Grove and Langley-Willowbrook, will be looking forward to seeing how that’s going to continue.

Now I want to move on to the HandyDART delivery model and services. I’ve had a lot of people reach out to me about the model change, either by email, when I’m at events or if I’m just walking along, people pulling me over.

A little bit of background on this. In July of 2024, TransLink initiated a HandyDART delivery model review in anticipation of the current expiring contract in 2026. Under the current model, delivery functions are handled by TransLink, Coast Mountain Bus Co. and Transdev.

In recent years, stakeholders — including HandyDART Riders Alliance and the ATU Local 1724, the union representing HandyDART employees — have been vocal about moving HandyDART in-house, based on concerns about operating costs, contractor profit and customer interactions with taxi drivers, because right now it has moved to a taxi driver.

A lot of the people accessing this use had a familiarity with the people from the HandyDART directly. They knew how they liked to be loaded, unloaded and so forth.

My question. Can the minister provide any information on if the ministry has decided to bring more of what the private contractors’ responsibilities are in-house?

A shift like this would impact staffing numbers for HandyDART. Can the minister provide some insight into how a shift from private sector contractors providing current services to the HandyDART will be a net benefit, since HandyDART has already been struggling to deliver services to the people?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll start with a couple of points and some observations. First, HandyDART is not…. It is run through…. In terms of the question, in terms of bringing it in-house, that is a decision that TransLink makes. It’s not a decision that the province makes.

As the member is no doubt aware, you have the Mayors Council, and then you have the TransLink board. On that board, there are two provincial appointees. It is not a Crown corporation. It is an independent entity in which the province does have two voting members. The other voting members, the other directors, are confirmed by the Mayors Council.

That is where the decision is made whether to bring services in-house or keep them contracted out. It’s not a decision that the province is in a position to make. That is a decision that is made by the TransLink board.

[3:25 p.m.]

They went through a process. They had input. I heard many of the same issues that you have raised, and that board made the decision to continue to keep the services contracted out.

Harman Bhangu: I just have a little concern about some of the ways it would work out. Has the ministry created any contingency plans for a scenario in which more services are brought in-house and HandyDART goes to strike? It is a bit of a concern. With the transportation, I would think that there would be some sort of remedy if the case occurred.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: If you could repeat the question. I didn’t quite understand the point that you were getting at there.

Harman Bhangu: I’m just wondering if there is a contingency plan for a scenario in which more services are brought, say, in-house or HandyDART…. Then HandyDART was to go on strike. I understand that it’s under TransLink, but does the province have any type of framework or any kind of contingency plan if something was to occur?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I would make this observation for the member. If what the member is talking about is a labour dispute, whether or not it was outside or inside, the reality is we have a very robust and well-established labour negotiations process in this province. So the initial, obviously, is the negotiations.

If there is a strike, then the member will no doubt be aware that we do have a labour relations act in terms of, at some point, if something was needed around a mediator, for example, or a special mediator, because strikes have occurred throughout our province. They happen. We do have processes in place to be able to deal with it and legislation in terms of that both sides are in a position to be able to access it in trying to find a resolution to a dispute.

Harman Bhangu: I just want to shift to handyDART services in general. Can the minister provide some figures as to how many additional staff will be hired to staff the additional 7,500 hours for handyDART services in Victoria? Also, can the minister provide other examples of increased service hours in other areas in the province, such as the Interior?

Are the increases in service hours directly tied to urban areas with high populations, or will they be added to other areas that are struggling with the services, like the rural parts?

[3:30 p.m.]

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

I’ll make a couple of points. TransLink determines there where they want to see a handyDART service expanded. That’s outside of what the province does.

But in terms of B.C. Transit, they work with local communities and local governments to determine where service expansion could take place. I can tell the member that this year alone, there are 18,000 hours of handyDART service expansion in different parts of the province. It’s not just in Victoria. It is in other areas of the province, right across the province — for example, in the Comox Valley, Kamloops, Central Fraser Valley as well as Victoria, just to name a few.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister.

I want to move on a little bit to the Millennium Line SkyTrain extension to UBC. With a lot of traffic, a lot of commuters, a lot of youth can’t afford to live near the university, especially from the Fraser Valley. You hear it from students all the time that are commuting. It’s gotten really hard to get down there and access.

I want to give you a little background on this. In July of 2021, both federal and provincial governments announced they would each contribute a 40 percent cost share towards the UBCx planning, based on the cost estimate of $35 million. In 2022, Mayors Council on Regional Transportation advanced planning efforts to extend the SkyTrain to UBC and included SkyTrain expansion to UBC as a part of the Transport 2050 program, including UBCx in their ten-year priorities and access for everyone plan for implementation in the later half of the plan of 2030 to 2035.

My question. Back in July of 2021, the federal government, under then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, announced they would contribute a 40 percent cost share towards UBCx planning.

[3:35 p.m.]

Can the minister confirm that the total amount of $35 million is still available? And can the minister confirm if they have received more than the $14 million from Infrastructure Canada for the UBCx since last year? If the funding was not used, has the federal government retracted that promise to the province?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I appreciate the fact that he mentioned 2050 in his things, because that made me think that I will be 91 years old in 2050, if I’m still here.

Anyway, I just want to confirm that, yes, the federal government did commit the $14 million, and that $14 million is there. The province also committed the $14 million. The $14 million from the federal government is actually committed on the basis of cost recovery, and we are still in that cost recovery, accessing that funding.

Harman Bhangu: Okay, so you’re trying to secure the funding for the planning of the UBCx. If there have been discussions surrounding funding, can the minister provide the dollar amount on offer now in comparison to the announcement made in July of 2021?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As I said, we are accessing the $14 million. We have put in the $14 million. That’s allowing work to take place right now. The next stage would be in terms of the project itself, and that would be working to get a solid federal commitment in terms of how much they’re prepared to contribute to the building of the UBCx line.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister provide an update on whether discussions on the final scope, the alignments, stations and funding have been made for the UBCx?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. As I’ve already mentioned, we have been drawing down that $14 million on a cost-recovery basis, that the province has put in the $14 million.

In terms of what the actual alignment and routes and stations actually look like, that is, in large measure, going to in part be determined by the amount of money that the federal government is prepared to put on the table in terms of capital funding.

At the same time, I think it’s also important to remember that in terms of the priorities being established by the Mayors Council and TransLink, their priorities are the BRT lines. They have seen the UBCx extension as coming in the second half, later down their 10-year investment plan.

We will continue to work with the federal government, as I like to constantly remind them, to ensure that British Columbia gets its fair share of infrastructure funding, not only in roads and highways but in terms of transit.

We will continue to do just that, and that’s how these projects are going to move forward.

Harman Bhangu: Minister, I understand it’s going to come down to the federal aspect on some of the ends, but does the ministry have a ballpark capital cost for this project and a timeline at all?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I’ll just put it this way, Member. I’m not in really a position to give you a ballpark figure, because if I give you a ballpark figure and it’s not accurate, you’ll hit it out of the ballpark.

Harman Bhangu: I know we’ve had a little bit of back and forth, but this is why we’re here at estimates.

We’ll move on towards automated vehicles now. I’m examining the ministry’s broader approach to transportation planning. It is also important to consider how the province is preparing for emerging technologies that are already being deployed in other jurisdictions. Automated and connected vehicle technology is advancing rapidly around the world, with jurisdictions moving towards pilot programs, regulatory frameworks and real-world testing environments.

In British Columbia, however, the current framework does not permit fully automated vehicles on public roads, and there are no active pilot programs underway.

[3:45 p.m.]

At the same time, the province has put in place legislative tools to regulate higher levels of automation, including level 3, level 4 and level 5 vehicles, should they become more widely available. So what we have is a situation where a legal authority exists, the technology is evolving, and other jurisdictions are moving forward, but British Columbia appears to remain in a monitoring position rather than implementation phase.

The ministry has indicated that safety is a top priority, and that is understandable, but safety and readiness are not mutually exclusive. If the province is not actively testing, piloting and preparing for deployment, there is a risk that British Columbians will fall behind not only in adapting new technologies but in shaping the regulatory and economic opportunities that come with them. And as these technologies evolve, the question becomes whether the province is in a position to lead or simply to react.

My question. Can the minister confirm whether British Columbia is currently participating in any pilot projects or real-world testing initiatives for automated vehicles?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It really is an interesting one because we are seeing significant developments or interest in the area of automotive vehicles.

There is, I think, considerable public concern over safety. We, on a regular basis, see stories in the media around automated vehicles. There was someone, I noticed just recently, where it veered into a crowd of people — one of those vehicles did.

While I understand the technology is improving, there is…. I don’t want to say skepticism, but there is a real concern amongst people about how they will work, how they will impact not just driving in cities but also in terms of residential neighbourhoods and speed, and safety is the key component of that.

It’s not something that British Columbia is sitting idly by with. We are monitoring what is happening in other jurisdictions. And it’s important to note that it’s Transport Canada that sets the safety standards for the design, construction and importation of motor vehicles into Canada. The province does not currently permit autonomous vehicles, driverless vehicles on our roads.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit, besides just actively monitoring, is working with other provinces and the federal ministry of transportation at the national level in understanding what is taking place in other jurisdictions, what is happening within our own nation in terms of the development of autonomous vehicles, so that we are in a position to be able to make the decisions that are in the best interests of not just Canadians but also British Columbians and ensuring, in terms of autonomous vehicles, that they are safe and that the public would have confidence when regulations around them are put in place.

But at the present time, as I said, they’re not allowed in B.C. on our roads, on our public roads, and Transport Canada is the one who actually sets the regulations around their use, their safety and what they can and cannot do.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister. I do share some of the concerns, as well, that you have mentioned.

Well, the one thing, the reason why I bring that up is because I was wondering if there are test pilots. I know that over at a lot of the ports, the RTG stackers and a lot of other equipment have been automated, and there is a lot of testing.

[3:50 p.m.]

So I was wondering. Is the province not participating in pilot programs or looking to get into some of these programs where they can test it and work with the federal government and implement it on an off-site…? Not on public roads, but start working towards some getting some data, getting some analysis of how it would operate in other places and seeing if that scope can be applied to others.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The member references ports, and I acknowledge that there has been, I think, some important work underway in terms of autonomous vehicles in ports.

Ports, as the member knows, are not provincially regulated. They are regulated by the federal government. So what I can tell you is that…. When I mentioned a moment ago that we work with the provincial jurisdictions and the federal government, in particular the federal transport ministry, on what is taking place, these are the kinds of things that we are able to understand and find out what is happening — I use the ports as an example — in the work that’s taking place between the provinces, which includes British Columbia, and the federal ministry of transportation.

In terms of pilot projects, there are potentially some, but at the current time, nothing that I would say is at a stage where one is able to make a commitment. We’re still trying to get an understanding of what they might possibly involve and getting more details around that.

But suffice it to say that we understand the technology is evolving, that it is being introduced in locations. We want to work with other provincial jurisdictions, with the federal government, to ensure that we all understand what’s happening and the kind of regulations that are required not just in commercial and industry but in terms of the broader public, so that they have confidence in this technology as it evolves.

Harman Bhangu: I just want to expand on that a little bit. What coordination has taken place with the federal government to ensure that provincial regulations and infrastructure planning are aligned with evolving national standards for automated vehicles?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. I think this is one of those areas where it’s important to point out that as we see emerging technology, one of the things we want to try and avoid is a patchwork approach to regulation — you know, every province having a different approach. That’s why it’s important that the provinces work together. It’s why it’s important that we work closely with the federal government. And I can tell you that British Columbia is actively involved in that.

The member may be interested to know that this ministry has a leadership role on the Connected and Automated Vehicles Integrated Committee at Transportation Association of Canada. This committee allows our representatives to collaborate on the development and application of connected and automated vehicles to ensure that we’ve got the correct outcomes for public health, safety, mobility, economic opportunity and sustainability.

This is the kind of work that can best take place with collaboration of the provinces and the federal government to ensure, as I said, that as the technology expands, we’ve got a national standard that applies right across the country.

I think that’s one of the things that we’re noticing in the last few years. It’s the importance of trying to ensure that we are not, as provinces, putting up barriers between ourselves but that we are able to move across this country as freely as possible, with regulations that are easily understandable and apply in provinces and territories from one end of the country to the other.

Harman Bhangu: Thanks for the response there, Minister.

How does the minister assess British Columbia’s position relative to other jurisdictions that are already piloting or integrating automated vehicle technologies? I understand that there would be a blanket aspect of it from the federal aspect, but we also know provinces are a bit different — landscapes, port access and a lot of other things. So that’s where I just wanted to know a little bit more about…. How is it relative to other jurisdictions that already piloting — and there are a few — integrated automated vehicle technologies?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make this observation. And the member is correct when he says that different provinces and different jurisdictions have different needs. That’s just a fact of life in the country, which is why….

We do policy work in B.C. We work at the national level with other provinces and the federal government as regulations are developed and as emerging technology comes to the fore — looking at how autonomous vehicles, for example, could be implemented, or the demand for them, for example.

A key part of that is ensuring that in the development of those regulations, the unique circumstances that apply to every province…. You know, the prairies are really flat but minus 40 in the winter and six feet of snow. In British Columbia, we have really rugged topography and terrain that can have pouring rain down here on the coast and — not this year, it seems — in many parts of the province, significant amounts of snowfall and a mountainous terrain, very winding and quite often treacherous roads.

We want to ensure that there’s a standard that takes all of those into account when regulations are being developed. It’s very similar, in many ways, to what we have been trying to advance with the trucking industry at the national level and with other provinces, to ensure that we’re not putting up barriers that make it difficult for trucking and the carrying of goods to take place but, at the same time, also ensuring that we have the safety standards that take into account the different geography, the different topography, the different climatic conditions that occur in different provinces and territories within the country.

It takes a lot of work, but we have seen improvements taking place, especially in the last few years. Work is underway in the trucking industry, for example, to ensure better harmonization. That’s the kind of work that you would undertake in terms of this topic that we’re talking about, about autonomous vehicles. In essence, policy work done at our level helps to inform our position vis-à-vis other provinces and the federal government as this emerging technology moves forward.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister. A little bit of the next question you kind of answered there, but I’ll ask it anyway. Maybe you want to expand on it.

What criteria would the ministry use to determine when British Columbia is ready to proceed with real-world testing?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Member, for the question. I’ll pick up where I left off on my previous answer, because I think part of the previous answer does relate to this answer that we’re talking about.

In this discussion, as we said, the federal government sets the safety standards in terms of wanting to ensure that there is a standardization across the country that takes into account, as I’ve mentioned, the topography, geography, the safety standards set by the federal government and policy work being done by each of the provinces, including our own, on autonomous vehicles.

[4:05 p.m.]

It’s not just about safety that we need to be looking at, which is obviously a key public concern. It’s also about the actual impact that autonomous vehicles have, not just on the transportation industry, not just in terms of vehicles but on the impact on the economy.

What’s the impact on jobs? What are the social changes that may come as a result of autonomous vehicles? Are you going to be putting significant sectors out of work? Are you going to be putting taxi drivers in Surrey, Langley, Delta, the Lower Mainland and other parts of the province out of work?

A lot of people have investments, in terms of their small businesses. The move to advanced technology can…. Technology as we know, can do amazing things, but it can also have significant disruptive impacts. It can have them economically. It can have them socially. I mean, we have seen, for example, the wholesale decline in print media and in the broadcast industry, to be replaced by alternative technologies that, quite frankly….

I’m going down a bit of a path here, but I think it’s an indication of the effect that sometimes technology and the unintended consequences can have, where we have seen a social media that, I think, those of us engaged in the business of politics would say is absolutely, probably, one of the most toxic, vile forms of communication that is out there.

I think, when those things came in, they were promoted as: “Hey, this is going to really democratize information.” The reality has been, in many cases, that it has been anything but that. You have rises in bots and all of those things.

I just use that as an example that whenever there’s a significant technology change coming in, and the way the technology is impacting us, it is critically important that we also understand and look for unintended consequences. Are we prepared for that? That means making sure that the policy work gets done. It means making sure that you’re able to answer the questions that the public have.

I know that sometimes there’s this desire that we should rush headlong into adopting or saying: “Let’s get moving on this.” That’s fine, but let’s also make sure that it’s being done right. Let’s make sure that we are able to answer the public’s questions. Let’s make sure that we understand the consequences, not just social consequences but economic consequences, as well as economic opportunity. I think the public expects nothing less from us than ensuring that we are doing the due diligence necessary.

That’s why I think it’s…. I’ll come back to it being critically important that work we do within government in British Columbia is informed by what we are seeing in other jurisdictions, by work that’s being done in other provinces and by work that’s done at the national level with the federal government, in particular the federal Ministry of Transport, which has access to be able to get data and information from jurisdictions such as ports, for example, which we do not have the ability to get information from.

All of those things come in together so that proper public policy can be made in a way that the public has confidence in, that as change is taking place, it impacts in a positive way and not in a negative way, and certainly not in a way where policy-makers, governments and industry have not thought through what the implications of the adoption of these new technologies will bring.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I kind of wish that was taken on some of the procurement ways the ministry does. Sometimes the cost is cheap up front, but the maintenance on some of it’s a lot more in the long run. So maybe you can adapt that over to some of the procurement aspects of it. That would be really thanked by a lot of British Columbians in the spending, the cost overruns.

I want to move on to commercial trucking safety. In reviewing the ministry’s approach to commercial vehicle safety, the stated objective is clear. The ministry has repeatedly emphasized that safety for both commercial drivers and the travelling public is its top priority.

[4:10 p.m.]

Over the past several years, a number of measures have been introduced, including mandatory entry-level training, electronic logging devices to address driver fatigue, speed limiters and new safety requirements for specific types of equipment. Additional steps have included investments in enforcement tools such as weigh-in-motion stations as well as consultation with the industry and ongoing data collection efforts.

These are significant policy and regulatory changes, but they were also introduced in response to very serious incidents, including fatal crashes involving commercial vehicles and repeated collisions with public infrastructure, which raised concerns from the public, local governments and industry stakeholders.

So the question is not whether measures have been announced. The question is whether those measures are delivering measurable improvements in safety outcomes. When government introduces new rules, new requirements and new systems, the expectation is that those actions will lead to fewer incidents, fewer collisions and safer roads. Without clear data demonstrating those outcomes, it becomes difficult to assess whether the current approach is working or whether further changes are required.

Can the minister provide data on trends in commercial vehicle–related collisions and fatalities over the past five years?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank him for the question. When it comes to serious collisions involving commercial vehicles, what I can tell you is there is a downward trend. Some of the measures put in have come in, certainly, in the last couple of years, so we’re not seeing yet the full changes, particularly around the changes that have been made when it comes to striking of overpasses, for example.

In terms of fatalities, it’s been a slight downward trend. Where we see a bigger downward trend is in injuries. They have definitely declined over the last five years, as has the number of serious collisions declined. In 2020, there were 425 serious collisions. In 2024, there were 338, for example.

More broadly, in terms of our highways, what we have seen is a continuing decline in serious collisions in different parts of the province. For example, serious collisions are down 9 percent on provincial highways, they’re down 10 percent during winter months, and they’re down 20 percent involving commercial vehicles. But as we know, serious collisions on our highways do often occur due to driver inattentiveness, people driving too fast.

As I’ve said in previous estimates, there are sometimes too many morons on the road who seem to think that a stop sign means “maybe” or that a red light means “go.” I can tell you, funnily enough, walking to the buildings here this morning, the light was red. It had not just turned red, but red, and this idiot just goes straight through. Those are the kind of drivers that cause serious collisions, that cause fatalities, that cause injuries and that we need to continue to crack down upon.

Harman Bhangu: I recall that last year we talked about this, and we had brought up the concern of temporary foreign workers and if there was any data of how many collisions or incidents are regarding them.

Has the province committed to bringing that implementation in, keeping a record of that? I know the government and the Premier himself have been very vocal about getting rid of a lot of temporary foreign workers and have talked about the effects that it’s had in certain ways, in safety and other issues, on worksites and especially our major highways.

So I’d like to know a little bit about that. Has there been any kind of recordkeeping, or do you have any records? Or is that going to be something that we can move forward with in tracking so we can keep our communities safe?

[4:20 p.m.]

A lot of the workers that come here, they don’t know — like you talked about yourself, Minister — the terrain, the icy weather, the six feet of snow and all of that. I would just want to get a little clarification from you there.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I know the member is aware that when it comes to temporary foreign workers, that’s the immigration system and the purview of the federal government.

The province does not have a way to check or to determine whether somebody driving is in fact a temporary foreign worker or not. What we are able to do is to check whether or not they are properly licensed and have been trained. They must have been trained in terms of having their class 1 licence to be able to drive here in B.C.

Harman Bhangu: Now I want to move to: what measurable impacts have measures such as mandatory entry-level training and electric logging devices had on reducing fatigue-related incidents involving commercial vehicles?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question. Two things. In terms of what we’re seeing in terms of the reduction in the number of injuries, for example, I think shows that there is a downward trend underway. In terms of the MELTs and the electronic logging devices that the member has just raised, while this ministry developed the MELT program, it is actually ICBC, in the PSSG, Solicitor General’s ministry, that’s actually doing a review, understanding how that has worked. If you have questions for that, you can ask, at that point, to that ministry.

At the same time, work is currently underway in my ministry around the electronic logging devices. That work is currently underway. We haven’t got it finished with results yet, but that’s work we are currently engaged on this year.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you for the answer there, Minister. I will check in with you at a later date on that, then.

How is the ministry evaluating the effectiveness of the speed limiter requirements in reducing high-speed collisions involving heavy commercial vehicles? Some of the trucks…. I hear it kind of goes both ways sometimes when they’re going up hills, and they’re having to go at a slow rate.

Myself being a trucker…. It does kind of raise some questions whether your truck will even make it up the hill in some cases, and a lot of truckers have been complaining about it. I just wanted to know from you: how has that been in reducing high-speed collisions involving heavy commercial vehicles?

Also the inspection of them. I’ve also travelled around the province, and I can tell you not a lot of them that come out of town, or even some in town, have the limiter.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I appreciate the question. What I can tell you is that the speed limiters came into effect in 2024, so it’s still a little bit of a short time in terms of getting a full statistical understanding of the impact. What I can tell you is that there is work on the data that we have got since then. We are working on reviewing that this particular year, along with the B.C. Trucking Association, the industry, to get a good understanding of how it is working to date.

At next year’s estimates, I expect, I’ll probably be able to give you a much more exacting answer in terms of what we’re seeing.

[4:30 p.m.]

What I can also tell you, given what we are hearing from our colleagues in Ontario, where this measure was brought in before British Columbia, is that they have seen a significant reduction in truck crashes and commercial vehicle crashes and accidents. So that’s certainly something that we’re going to be looking forward to seeing as being replicated here in B.C. As I said, that work will be underway in collaboration with the industry.

I look forward to seeing the results and, this time next year, sharing those results with you when you ask me the same question again, which I am sure that you will.

Harman Bhangu: Has the ministry identified any gaps in the current safety framework for commercial vehicles, particularly in the light of recent incidents involving infrastructure strikes or serious crashes?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I thank him for the question, because this is a topic that I’d like to expand on. There is nothing more annoying than coming in to the office here in Victoria and finding out that some moron has hit an overpass. Because I know one thing: the overpasses have not been shrinking. They are the same height as when they were built. And what we have seen over the last few years is….

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

What we were seeing was an increase in the number of collisions caused by a number of factors.

One, not measuring the load.

Two, not doing an inspection of the load.

Three, relying too much on route guidance and not planning your route out ahead of time.

Four, improper training.

Five, the shipper also not doing due diligence in terms of checking that the load is the right load and the route is the right route.

It is very simple. There’s an app that tells you how to do it. It will tell you what the heights of the overpasses are. And people were not…. One or many of those things were not being followed.

[4:35 p.m.]

We brought in significant measures, working with the B.C. Trucking Association. We have increased the fines. We have suspended licences. And we have done it in a way that causes financial pain, not just in the terms of a ticket but suspending the entire fleet. That has had a significant impact.

We’ve also worked with other provinces to ensure that you could not be able to do what was happening, which was the carrier got shut down, then they’d change the business location and register it in another province and continue to operate. We’ve worked with Alberta and Ontario, in particular, who are experiencing similar issues, and have brought in some significant changes that are leading to a real reduction.

For example, we’ve gone down from 2024. This year we have had five, in 2025 we had 17, and in 2024 we had 29 strikes on overpasses. So we are seeing a real improvement. That being said, we will continue to look at measures and ways, working with the Trucking Association, to ensure that we bring it down even further.

The cost in terms of damage to infrastructure is one thing. The potential for injury and fatalities is significant, as well as just the sheer delay that happens to people who are driving responsibly and normally and who are now stuck in what, potentially — if a truck gets wedged under an underpass because of the negligence that took place — can be hours, and that’s not acceptable.

The public was wanting changes. Significant changes have been made. They’re having results, and we’re going to continue to do that, not just here in B.C. but working with other provinces and the federal government.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister. As I recall, last year we actually talked about the heights of the overpasses, and we both agreed and we came to a conclusion that the ones in B.C. are actually lower than our neighbouring provinces and to the south in Washington.

So I just want to ask, on the new overpasses being constructed on Highway 1, are they being constructed to match our neighbours’ or are they going on as is?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The member, for example, references infrastructure, and he’s talking about some of the projects that are underway — the No. 1, for example.

The Transportation Association of Canada. Their standard is five metres. In B.C., we have a standard, and you’ll see it on the highways, of 5.2 metres for the height of the overpasses. I think that we’re wanting to ensure that not only do we meet but we are exceeding the national standard when it comes to that height.

That is, of course, a minimum. I mean, there may well be variation in terms of going upward, particularly depending…. Because unlike, again, as I sometimes reference, Saskatchewan…. You know, you can see your dog running for three days after it runs away. It’s that flat.

In a mountainous province such as ours, in the approaches and leads up to crossing over a highway or a road, then it could be a bit higher, but the national standard is five, and ours are 5.2.

Harman Bhangu: What has the maximum fine been to companies at fault for the overpass strikes? Have they paid for the repairs, or is it placed upon the taxpayer?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. In terms of the fines themselves, no, they don’t cover the cost of damage to the infrastructure. There are two things that occur.

[4:45 p.m.]

One, we’ve had about $66,000 in fines take place. But in terms of damage to the infrastructure that takes place, we go after them through their insurance and their bonding, and that’s how we recover costs in terms of having to fix or repair infrastructure.

At the same time, it’s not just the fines that the company suffers but rather also the suspension of the fleet for the time that it takes to do an investigation to ensure that we’ve done our due diligence and that police have done their due diligence. That can have a significant financial penalty on the company.

For example, I mean, it is one thing if you are a one-, two-, three-, four-, five-truck outfit. That suspension is going to impact you. If you’ve got 50, that’s an even bigger impact.

There are pretty significant penalties in place. Fines are there. In terms of the repairs, we go after them through their insurance and bonding.

Harman Bhangu: I want to go over some of the numbers, actually, correct some of the numbers for the strikes.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit has a CVSE branch that promotes compliance and safety regulations within the commercial transport sector, with a goal of increasing road safety, public health and environment, and transportation infrastructure.

In 2025, there were a total of 18 overpass strikes, with 16 of those crashes caused by driver/carrier error, and two crashes under investigation. That is a report by B.C. government on December 19, 2025. In 2024, there were a total of 29 overpass collisions.

On the Lower Mainland, in 2025, there was a total of 2,901 vehicles pulled over, and 1,610 of them were placed out of service. That report was by CTV News on January 19, 2026. And 3,661 violation tickets were issued to drivers. In Burnaby, there was a total of 1,399 inspections conducted, resulting in 800 vehicles being removed from the road. A Burnaby RCMP spokesperson said that load securement was one of the common issues identified during the operations.

My question. In the past two years there have been a total of 45 overpass strikes, mostly caused by driver/carrier error. Can the minister disclose how much money has gone into infrastructure repairs, and how much money was lost due to road closures?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I don’t think there’s any discrepancy in our numbers, hon. Member. In fact, I think when you’re referring to the 18, that was actually an error on the website. The actual number is 17. The previous year that you talked about was 29. That’s also what I have, as well, 29.

[4:50 p.m.]

In terms of the estimated damage from what we’ve seen, it is $7.8 million. As I said, we go after the company through their insurance and their bonding to recover the costs associated with that.

I know the member also referenced CVSE, the pull-overs and the inspections and the ticketing being done. One of the things I also want to make sure that we have on the record is that those are not just random. Those are not random. Our inspectors are very much trained to look and know what they are looking for, and when they see those kinds of infractions, safety things that they should be dealing with, those are the ones that they’re going after.

So there’s a very thoughtful, thought-out process in terms of how they decide to pull something over, or an inspection or to give a ticket. I hope that answer assists the member.

Harman Bhangu: The question now is: how many of those were actually on a blitz, on a motor vehicle blitz? I believe a good chunk of those were actually done during motor vehicle blitzes.

Also, can the minister disclose how many drivers that have hit the overpasses were licensed out of province?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. In terms of out-of-province strikes, about 25 percent of the overpass strikes are out-of-province drivers.

In terms of the members’ comments and question around the ticketing and CVSE, there are hundreds of thousands of truck journeys every year in the province. CVSE does about 29,000 inspections over the course of the year. As I said a moment ago, they know what they’re looking for in terms of the kinds of infractions, the kinds of safety infractions that they’re concerned about.

That’s how they spot them. They’re not looking at random, as I said, but rather very specific issues that they are trained to do. That takes place all year round.

Harman Bhangu: I’ve got one more question here before my colleagues from the Greens come in and ask a few questions.

There are numerous accounts of unsafe driving habits, illegal passing and U-turns. CVSE managed to take 1,610 vehicles off the road in the Lower Mainland last year. That means 56 percent of the vehicles pulled over for inspection failed. There was a similar situation in Burnaby, where 57 percent of the vehicles were removed from the road.

My question is: what is the ministry doing to address this issue, what is the ministry doing to curb these potential lethal manoeuvres from happening on our roadways, and why is the funding being cut to CVSE?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The first thing is that there has been no cut to CVSE funding. We continue to prioritize enforcement. The inspections, as I said a moment ago, are not random. The CVSE officers know exactly what they’re looking for, and that’s what they do.

We have seen a decline in crashes over time.

The member asks what we are doing to get them off the road. Well, one of those things is the inspection process that is taking place and, in fact, gets the vehicle off the road. They do incredible work, and I’m really appreciative.

In fact, one of the things that I have enjoyed during my time in this ministry has been to travel to different parts of the province and see them at work in different areas, whether it’s in the Interior or whether it’s in the Lower Mainland. They do incredible work to help keep our roads safe.

I was just going to say, given that I know we’re now going to move on, if the member is finished with his questions now, if I could request a — I think ten minutes is okay — break.

The Chair: Members, you’ve heard the minister, and we’re going to take a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:00 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and his staff.

I’ll get started with an easy one. We misdirected this question to the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals, who referred us to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, so now I’ll ask.

I apologize. I think we sent it in advance. It’s a bit obscure, so we sent it in advance to the Minister of Mining, but I don’t know if we sent it in advance to you. So we may need to…. Anyway, I’ll ask the question and see where we’re at.

Within my constituency, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, the village of Lions Bay faces significant constraints to accommodating housing growth due to topography, environmental limitations and small boundaries. Council members in the village of Lions Bay identified that the strategic acquisition and redevelopment of a gravel pit site could support provincial housing objectives while providing a realistic and appropriate opportunity for additional housing.

In a recent council meeting I attended, the Lions Bay council said the gravel pit they were wanting to acquire was classified as a mine despite it not being used for that purpose in many years. The Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals let us know this land is tenured by the Ministry of Transportation. The village is having trouble making advances on acquiring the parcel of land, creating a stalemate.

Could the minister clarify whether this gravel pit is potentially available for the village to construct additional housing and parking for community members? Would the ministry be willing to assist the village with any assistance or clarification?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. At this time, I can’t tell you about the specific gravel pit. But I’m more than happy to…. Give me the information of exactly where it is. I’ll have my staff go back, and we’ll find out not only the location, what its status is, whether it’s being currently used as a gravel operation or whether it’s more of a reserve pit, and we will be able to then go from there.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate that, and apologies for not sending it in advance. I’m sure the minister or staff can’t know about every single gravel pit that’s out there. This one just happens to be right next to the community and an obvious candidate.

I didn’t know my colleague would be here from Saanich North and the Islands. But this is from him and the same…. He and the previous MLA for this riding have been strong advocates for limited weather protection at the bus stop at Swartz Bay ferry terminal. I think we might have even addressed this last year.

Sorry. No, we addressed it with the CEO of B.C. Ferries.

For those who don’t drive on and off the ferry from Tsawwassen, they have to line up across the fence, away from the small amount of cover that’s there. B.C. ferry users have been concerned about this for years and reached out to dozens of departments in B.C. Transit and Ferries. We know the Ministry of Transportation and Transit is tasked to oversee both these.

Does the minister have or know of any current plans to remedy this concern? Would the minister be able to provide some clarity on who we could work with to get this heavily populated bus stop covered?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. There is a program called the minor betterments program which can be accessed, and we are in contact with them. We can assist in terms of helping in applying for that. It was done recently in Tsawwassen to deal with a very similar situation there. We can help get the details for you.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks, Minister.

I will spend a chunk of time on highway safety, no surprise, specific to Highway 99, the Sea to Sky Highway, which runs the length of the riding that I represent. I’m going to start small and then ask about larger-scale highway safety improvements.

Constituents of mine in the Sea to Sky Corridor have raised an area-specific issue that I don’t believe I’ve raised with the minister before. This is regarding pedestrian safety at the Emerald Estates neighbourhood access to the bus stop and other amenities. This is north of Whistler Village.

We also get frequent requests from Panorama Ridge. But that is south of the village, and I can imagine it would be much more challenging to put a crosswalk or any kind of traffic stoppage on the south. But to the north, children living in the area have written handwritten letters to the ministry telling them how scared they are to cross the road. They’re calling it a “real-life Frogger.”

It’s a wide stretch of open road that goes all the way to Pemberton. There are no other traffic lights probably five kilometres to the south. Most cars obviously don’t follow the speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour.

Two children in the neighbourhood wrote to us in the ministry saying the cars “go so fast, and it scares me. Please help me get a safe way to cross.” Their mother emailed me two days ago. I’ll read that into the record.

“Good afternoon, Jeremy. I’m just following up on our discussion about a safe crossing here at Emerald over Highway 99.”

The writer says “over.” I’m sure that’s a very expensive proposition, but a crosswalk may be less so.

“As this beautiful weather is here, people are on their bikes, and children are running across the highway to get to school. It’s nuts. I witnessed a very near miss this morning of a girl, very responsible, trying to bike to school who almost got hit. This is so scary. We need a solution. I’m writing to reinvigorate this conversation in hopes of getting a safe solution very soon.”

As the minister can tell from that, it’s a challenging place that kids have to cross the road to get the school bus or to the park. The ministry has been in contact with my constituency office and let constituents know last year they were conducting a warrant system to determine if improvements are warranted.

We haven’t seen any updates. I believe this has been discussed and asked for, for several years. I’m wondering if the minister can provide a status update and if we can get more information on the warrant system and whether there’s a prospect of this becoming reality in the near future.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate you raising the issue, and I obviously appreciate the concern of the parents and the kids. It is obviously important that they have a safe crossing place to be able to cross over.

I can tell you that our engineers are, in fact, going to be going out there next week to do an assessment of the exact location. One of the things that they will, I know, be looking at will be the sightlines, because one thing that they will want to make sure is that if there’s a crossing going in a particular location, that it is actually the right location to have one, so that it is a safe location.

I guess a question you might be able to answer is: looking in terms of a crosswalk, just a straight crosswalk or one of the ones with the flashing lights?

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m not a traffic engineer. I think given the speeds and the…. I mean, the sightlines, I’m guessing, are there, but it is winding road. And all the other crosswalks I can think of in Whistler have flashing lights, partly for weather, I would think, but other reasons.

I appreciate the minister’s attention to that, and it would be…. Yeah, it’s one of those things that…. We hopefully don’t have to wait for something very bad to happen before we can take action. So thanks for that.

I’ve got a couple different pieces on the highway. One is actual maintenance and upkeep north of Whistler, and the other is safety south of Whistler, so I’ll just talk about….

I would say that to my limited experience, the highway to the south of Whistler is quite well kept. I mean, the government did spend $700 million on it in 2007. And it is generally being well paved and well cleared north of Whistler, where there is less traffic and fewer people to complain to the local operator. We’ve heard consistent calls, requests for minor infrastructure upgrades.

Sorry. I’ll move on.

Communities like D’Arcy, Mount Currie, N’Quatqua all experience concern regarding upkeep in road conditions. I drove up to D’arcy N’Quatqua a couple weeks ago, and it is quite bumpy now that…. I think we talked about this last year. There is some traffic calming or speed control effect to that, however, the road is clearly deteriorating, and I think there are only 300 or 400 people living at the south end of Anderson Lake.

The other piece of this is that there is a significant difference at the top of the Duffey Lake Road, which is the boundary of my constituency but also the boundary between the Cariboo region and the Lower Mainland region. The state of the highway improves significantly when you get into the Cariboo region, so there is an inconsistency there.

I’m wondering if the minister can speak to how that inconsistency could be resolved. Really, I mean broadly how the $1.26 billion allocated to highway corridor rehabilitation will be spent on Highway 99 in the Sea to Sky area to address these concerns.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I know the particular area that you’re referring to. Yeah, it does have some problems in terms of the surface of the road. It is actually a challenging stretch of road.

One of the things that needs to happen is to have an understanding of what’s happening with the topography there. It’s not just a question of going in and resurfacing or repaving, but it’s getting some work done to understand: “Okay. What is the nature of the ground that we’re dealing with? Are there additional repairs that have to be in place?” That work will then help shape the plan to actually then do the paving that the member is referencing in terms of making that road a better standard than it is right now.

Jeremy Valeriote: If I could just ask for clarification. Does that does that apply to the Mount Currie to D’Arcy section, or does it also apply to from Mount Currie up to the top of the Duffey Lake pass?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To both.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll try and briefly address the issue of highway safety from Highway 99, well, from Vancouver, from Horseshoe Bay to Whistler specifically.

The minister knows there are regular…. We spoke about this last year, and there was some good discussion. There are regular accidents. It’s two out of the last four Sunday afternoons I’ve not been able to get down the highway. Once the highway was closed for seven to eight hours. The last time was only a couple of hours, but most people…. You never know how long it’s going to be, so I decided not to leave home and come on Monday morning.

There are a couple…. Everybody’s got an opinion about what the best solution is here. Safety upgrades. A lot of people would like to see no-post barriers separating the two lanes. Head-on collisions are the worst and usually result in the fatalities. I understand there are likely some constraints to those, but more lighting, line painting, cats’ eyes or reflective lights on the highway. It is difficult to drive, especially at night.

As I mentioned, the province spent $700-odd million on the highway before the Olympics, but I think most people would agree that we’ve seen very few safety improvements since then. There’s no new lighting.

So there’s the infrastructure piece, and then last year the minister and I discussed ICARS, because when there is a serious accident, the highway is closed for a significant amount of time. I won’t try and estimate the costs of that kind of closure to both monetary and people’s lives. I know that the budget is a challenge right now, but has there been any further discussion of having an ICARS based in Squamish that could get to these accident sites more quickly and help to clear the road?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The issue of the ICARS the member raised — I agree; it is an important one — is actually under PSSG, whose estimates have not happened yet, so there’s the ability to raise that question with them. Whenever there are delays on traffic, we’re just as concerned about that as you are. I’m happy to also raise the issue with my colleague the minister, but just so you know, you can ask that question directly to her at the PSSG estimates.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate that. I’m not sure if we have any time with PSSG, so I may take you up on that offer.

I just wanted to ask about whether there are any large or small safety improvements planned for Highway 99 from Vancouver to Whistler, any consideration of barriers or more lighting — line-painting is obviously seasonal, weather-dependent — or whether there have been any thoughts given to further safety improvements to help to avoid some of these accidents.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. As the member has already stated, this is a very complex highway with some very challenging curves and structures to it. There’s nothing planned for this year, but one of the things that we do each year is review the major corridors, and this would be one of them, working with ICBC to get an understanding of what we’re seeing in terms of traffic and accidents. Then that helps shape: “Okay, what are we going to be doing in the coming year?”

I know that ideas have been proposed. In some cases, they make sense, but in others, there are issues that you need to address, particularly when it comes to emergency response vehicles, in being able to access or turn around. There are also particular locations where you’ve got thoughts and ideas of where something might work, and we’re always open to hear what they are.

Jeremy Valeriote: Before I forget, my colleague wanted to pass on his appreciation for the cancellation or hold of the Malahat upgrade. I think that we would probably both agree there are other places to spend that 100-odd-million dollars, so I appreciate that.

Also, just looking at the service plan, $95 million to a bus-on-shoulder project on Highway 1 around Colwood. This is kind of the silver-bullet solution for transit in Whistler village, maybe two or three kilometres on either side of the town. There are significant episodic traffic backups, sometimes up to ten kilometres south of Whistler, on a busy day, for people entering.

We have an excellent public transit system within the community, and we’ve talked about regional transit, but it’s hard to incentivize people to take that when the bus sits in the same traffic jam as everybody else. So bus-on-shoulder would be the ideal solution. There is room in the right-of-way, as there is, I think, with most highways.

I’m just wanting to inquire whether there has been discussions or consideration of this in a larger kind of Whistler traffic-alleviation and transit discussion.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I appreciate the question. We’ve done some preliminary work, but only at a very high level. What I do know is that the municipality of Whistler is actually doing some work at the current time in terms of what the potential is, and they’re going to be sharing that with us. When we do that, we’ll have a better understanding and position on potential opportunities or other things that we could be doing, going forward.

Jeremy Valeriote: This wouldn’t be a Transportation estimates without ferries, so I’ll jump into this one.

Bowen Island and B.C. Ferries. The Bowen Island mayor has been in my ear regularly, stating they spend an estimated $200,000 in the peak season on ferry traffic operations, when B.C. Ferries doesn’t really touch the ground on Bowen Island and Snug Cove. Last year the island hosted 1.3 million passengers and over half a million vehicles. There are 4,200 municipal taxpayers taking on this burden, and no other community with a ferry terminal in B.C. is expected to do that. That’s a quote from the mayor.

The CEO of B.C. Ferries — they did make an interim solution last year. They provided them some funding for marshalling and some help with dealing with the traffic that goes right into the village, into Snug Cove.

Bowen is considering charging B.C. Ferries $150,000 a year. I don’t know how that would work.

Can the minister provide any information on actions currently being taken? Is there a way to work with B.C. Ferries and Bowen to rectify this problem?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Like you, I’m familiar with this issue. It’s one of those ones that seems to be bubbling up and doesn’t seem to have an obvious solution. I’m interested to see how the interchange between B.C. Ferries and Bowen Island is on the business licence fee. I think it’d be quite interesting, and I think there’d be a number of questions raised by that.

Having said that — I recognize you take the issue seriously; I take the issue seriously — although B.C. Ferries is an independent company, even though the province is a shareholder, what I can do and what I can commit to doing is contacting the chair of the authority to see if they can do something with the board and Ferries to try and see if there are solutions that can be put in place.

If they were able to do something last year, is there any reason why they can’t do it again this year and try and work on a more sustainable, long-term solution that works for both of them?

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate that. I’ll keep an eye on the business licence fee and follow up with a specific request.

I want to ask about overall public transit ridership. I think that our math is correct that last year, the 2025-26 service plan forecasted and targeted public transit ridership was higher than the forecasted and targeted ridership in this year’s service plan. The total infrastructure investment over a three-year period also decreased from $1.115 billion to $1.044 billion. It does signal a downward trend of transit infrastructure spending that I’m hoping the minister can elaborate on.

Is there a specific project-related reason for the downward trend in infrastructure spending? Can the minister help clarify why the forecasted ridership has decreased significantly? Sorry, this is a triple question. What are the ministry’s priority transit infrastructure investments for the $1.044 billion over the next three years?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There are a number of factors that have been at play in terms of the ridership. One of the important ones has been the change in federal immigration policy and, in particular, around foreign students who were attending. That has definitely had an impact on transit ridership.

The member asked about capital infrastructure. There are a number of projects in the figure that he’s talking about. They range from things such as the bus exchange in Central Fraser Valley; operation maintenance in Chilliwack; the low-carbon fleet initiatives in Kamloops and in Kelowna; a bus exchange in the Kootenay Boundary area; another one in Nanaimo, for example; low-carbon fleet upgrades in Nelson and Powell River and on the Sunshine Coast; also in your neck of the woods, in Whistler.

Those are some of the examples of the projects that are encompassed by the figure that the member has quoted.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister help us interpret? I think it’s roughly $100 million less in transit investment in the three-year period, compared to last year. Is this the result of a kind of peaking of a lot of infrastructure investment — for example, the Surrey SkyTrain that has peaked, and there’s an anticipation that it will decrease? Or is there a general…? Is this a budgetary factor where the infrastructure spending needed to decrease to meet overall budget constraints?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No, to the latter part of your statement. It’s more to do with timing and cash flow.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay. On a similar vein, I’d like to ask about SkyTrain to UBC. Now, I apologize. I haven’t followed all the proceedings here. Has that already…? Maybe the minister can nod.

Interjection.

Jeremy Valeriote: Extensive canvassing of SkyTrain to UBC. Excellent. I will go and review that.

That brings me to the question I’m really excited about asking, which is about the CN Rail lease. As the minister knows…. I don’t need to give the whole background, but July last year CN stated its intention to discontinue the line between Squamish and 100 Mile House.

[5:50 p.m.]

Obviously, there are many people interested in the future of this line. A lot of enthusiasm, a lot of interest, a lot of nostalgia for the old line. I believe the minister has been involved to some degree.

The Sea to Sky MP and I highlighted this as an opportunity, really, for the private sector. Well, that was the thought at the time, because I didn’t think we could count on any public subsidy to this, but also there’s also an industrial freight component that would have to pay for itself.

It would be great to know more about the state of those discussions — as much as the minister can tell us. Can the minister fill us in on the status of the future of this line?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the opportunity to expound on this a little bit, because this is, I think, a very important issue. There are a couple of things. I know you know this. The railways are federally regulated. CN has to go through a particular process in terms of wanting to abandon the line, and while they made that announcement last July, the actual ability for us as a province to talk with them or to move forward starts this coming July.

There’s a very set process in place that is federally driven. That being said, we’ve been very concerned about this since the moment we heard about it. I have spoken directly with the CEO of CN. They initially did not want to talk to us. They wanted a communications person to talk to us, and we said, no, that that is not acceptable.

It reflected, I think, what many in this country share. That is that the view of the railways is that the railways are here, the federal government is an annoyance, and the provinces are…. Who are you?

We made it clear that we own that track — like, it is still a provincial asset; it is still owned by the province — and if they are going to go down this path, then there are a number of things that we want to understand.

[5:55 p.m.]

We had the meeting with the CEO of CN. We have said that we want to…. Their view is that they move freight, and that is their primary concern. The issues that I know that you have raised and others have raised around Seton Portage, for example, and the commitment that was made to the Indigenous community at the time that CN acquired the old B.C. Rail, they feel that they no longer have to abide by.

We have made it clear that we want to have an understanding of what the condition of the track is, what the maintenance of the track looks like in terms of what the costs are, as well as a thorough understanding of the condition of the existing track. We recognize that there are some significant not just social but also economic issues around this particular rail line.

I’m glad you mentioned the issue around nostalgia, because I think that’s an important thing that…. It’s very nostalgic, the track, but the future of that track needs to depend on what the economics around it are. What are the opportunities for economic development? What are the opportunities in terms of social development? How can it fit in, in terms of the growth that has taken place, not just in the Whistler area but in serving the resource communities that go up the line, up into the Interior? And that’s crucial.

We also know that the Rocky Mountaineer uses the track. We have engaged with them to get an understanding of their needs and the ability to say, okay, when the province has an opportunity to engage, how do we do so in an engaged way that ensures that this province’s interests, we’re able to maximize them?

I can tell you at this point, there has been a fair degree of interest from short-line operators, for example. We have met, and we’ll be meeting with a number of them to get an understanding of how they see potential economic opportunity on that line.

So at this point, it’s too early to give a concrete in terms of what the future will be, other than to say that we recognize that this is a line of significant importance to your community, to communities in the Interior, to us as a province, and the province is working on how we approach that, given the fact that there is a federal process for the abandonment, if you like, of the line by CN.

Until July, they continue to operate, they continue to be responsible, and we will continue to push them in terms of the information that we have been seeking around the things I outlined, such as condition, maintenance costs and such like, so that we are in the best position to move forward in terms of what the options are for that line from both a social and an economic perspective.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that. That’s really helpful. I would like to dig into this a bit more, because I’ve really only heard the discontinuance process from CN’s point of view.

I apologize. I don’t have it in front of me, but my memory is that come July, there is an opportunity for people to bid on this.

It’s good that there has been some interest, but in the instance that they find that the information on condition and maintenance is less attractive than we might think or the short-line operators might think, is there a possibility of the worst-case scenario here? That would be that the costs to run it far outweigh the benefits and that somehow this line gets returned to CN or sold to CN at a nominal cost. Is that a possible eventuality here? I’m just trying to find that out before we ask further questions.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Under the federal process, there is the option for CN to advertise, in essence, for another operator, which would mean, then, having continued rail service taking place. That is up for them to decide. That’s, again, part of the federal process.

In terms of the latter part of your question, which was, as you said, return to CN for $1, that is also an option, but I will tell you right now that that is not one that I or this government would support.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m happy to hear that.

Now, I’m really into the weeds on something that I’m not entirely prepared for. Is the minister saying this would be a federal decision and the province may or may not be consulted? Or is this entirely within the…? I believe it’s owned by B.C. Rail Properties, so is it entirely within the province’s control?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Let’s say CN decided to try and sublease and there were no takers. It would come back to us because the railbed is still owned by the province. It was only leased — a very long lease. The railbed is owned by us. It would come back to us.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay, it would come back to the province. The minister stated that they really want to avoid the possibility of it somehow, I don’t know, being given to CN Rail. I guess the main ask has been: please consult with the local communities.

[6:05 p.m.]

I understand this is a provincial decision. Given that it’s owned by B.C. Rail Properties, maybe I’m looking for a stronger commitment, since it is entirely within the province’s purview, that the province, no matter what the economics are, won’t give away the line and will keep it within B.C. Rail Properties.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I guess the best way to answer, in terms of being concrete, is there is that federal process. They can sublease it for another operator. That could be what happens. It might not be what happens. But that particular option you talk about, about it coming back and the province deciding we don’t want it and we’re going to give it to CN for $1 — that is not going to happen.

I do not support that, and this government will not support that. I could go back into that whole history. That is a provincial…. We own that railbed, and even though it was leased for — what? — 999 years to CN, it is still a provincial railroad bed, and we are not going to give that away to CN at the end of this process.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to go just one step further. The dollar figure is a bit of a red herring. Can we remove that, and can I ask for a commitment that it will not be sold to CN for any amount of money?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We are not selling it.

Jeremy Valeriote: Wonderful. Thank you so much.

One quick question. I’m going to try and squeeze in a last one.

I’ve just confirmed we don’t have any time with PSSG, with Public Safety, so I appreciate the ICARS request being forwarded. We have discussed highway safety with the Solicitor General, but the heft of coming from the Ministry of Transportation would be helpful.

Then just on the canopy and a couple of other follow-ups, I’m hoping the minister can let us know which staff we can follow up with on those. Then I’ll squeeze in one more really quick.

We’ve had an exciting exchange about regional public transit in the Sea to Sky. I’ll keep it very simple. In question period, the minister mentioned a number of meetings with both myself and the Squamish-Lillooet regional district in February, in October and the 15th of May. Those are all 2025. I’m just looking for the minister’s assurance that these meetings are ongoing in 2026, with an eye towards a solution.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, they are. We had one, I think, just over a week ago.

[6:10 p.m.]

Bruce Banman: Following in the railway lines, and B.C. Rail in particular. As the minister knows, that railway line, or the old B.C. Electric line, goes all the way from Chilliwack into Vancouver. I have a couple of questions on that.

First off, is there any plan, or have there been any studies done…? We’ve all heard about the Rail for the Valley people that have come to us many, many times and want to reactivate that railway line. I think, for those that are sitting in gridlocked traffic day after day on what some would call the goat trail we call Highway 1…. That is the only way to get through, the highway, as we found out with the floods. When the floods come, we’re in big trouble when you can’t get through there.

There will be some additional questions on that later. But with regards to the old B.C. Rail line, are there any studies that have been done to activate that line for passengers again? If so, now that the SkyTrain is going to go as far as Willowbrook, into Langley, it’s my understanding that there is a bit of an issue with that railway line as it goes through Langley.

Is the minister aware of the issues with regards to, I believe, right-of-way on the Langleys? Is there any viability to be able to activate rail up and down the valley, as far as Chilliwack? That is where that line, I believe, stopped at. I know my grandmother used to take it when she was a kid, to go see her daddy and her grandpa in Vancouver.

What, if any, plans have been done? In particular, what is the issue around the Langleys that is a major impediment? I just want to get that on the record, if I could.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll start off by saying that if I had my inner urban railway bingo card, you hit with the first one as you said: “My grandparents used to ride that.” I’ve heard that many times — how people really did like that service. That being said, there has been a study done a few years ago. I think there were some issues.

[6:15 p.m.]

You’re right. It is kind of a goat rail track. That is, it doesn’t hit the major population centres. And the investments that we have been making do hit the major population centres.

If you were able to clarify…. If not, I can probably find a little bit more information. That is, I think part of the route may in fact involve…. I’m not sure if it’s the Langleys or further back. Either CP or CN has a bit that if you wanted to do something, you’d have to get CP or CN involved on a short length of track to make it viable. That is not an easy thing to deal with.

Bruce Banman: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

You’re exactly right. I’m unsure of the exact details. As you rightfully put out, there are railways because they were given extraordinary rights, because they’re the ones that stopped Canada from being the United States. So they were given extraordinary rights — broad, sweeping rights. They quite often will tell….

There are advantages to that. During the atmospheric river, they basically said: “Get out of our way. Hold our beer, and watch this.” And they got in there, and they fixed it, and they actually helped us with some of our infrastructure, as you well know.

Going back to this particular site, in those studies…. You’re right. It does meander out into…. It was the milk-bottle run because it literally picked up milk. It went at 30 kilometres an hour in certain spots, if not slower. In these studies, has there been anything…?

Yes, you’re right. It does go out into areas where people are not, necessarily. But it also goes out into places like Gloucester estates, where there are lots of people that work. It does go between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, so there are places of it that may be viable.

But have we looked at what the cost to upgrade those tracks would be so that it can get into levels in excess of 30 kilometres on some of those areas in there? That should be no surprise, because the West Coast Express slows down to areas of 30 kilometres or so on its way in from Mission to Vancouver on a regular basis. I’ve ridden it.

Have we looked at what it would cost to upgrade that rail base and whether we can get to speeds that are in excess of 30 kilometres? Are some of those corners even capable of it as it stands and at the current route that it’s on right now?

Those that want Rail for the Valley say: “Look, we own it. It exists. It is a fraction of the cost to put in versus the SkyTrain. Even if it doesn’t go, it’s something we don’t have now. We could have this up and running in a few months if we got our act together.” That would be their argument. Have we looked at those? Is the train capable of doing in excess of 30 kilometres an hour in much of those curly bits that you’re talking about that are slow which actually go between Abbotsford and Langley?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. A couple of things. First, there has been a high-level study done, and the numbers that they were looking at, at that time, were basically done back in 2022. So there would be some significant change since then.

The other issue is that Southern Rail has rights on that line, which is important to note.

That being said, I understand very much the interest in rail. A lot of people see that as a very viable way of moving people.

I think one of the things that we would want to look at, and certainly in terms of the valley in the area that you represent and all the way up to Chilliwack, is: where are the communities? What do they want to see? What are the viable modes of transit that can go out there? How do the different costs compare to each other? What makes the most sense in terms of being able to move people? Maybe it is rail at some point.

But there’s a lot going out there. The Langley city SkyTrain is going out to Langley city. That’s going to have a big impact.

So I think those are all factors, but I certainly understand the passion around it. And it is a rail bed. You’re right. It is there. It’s not going anywhere. We have looked at it in the past. It’s one of those things that I certainly have an open mind about.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I remind the member to direct their questions through the Chair.

Bruce Banman: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question, Madam Chair, through you to the minister, would be on the last bed. As we all know, we’ve now had two floods that have gone into the Sumas flats or the old Sumas Lake bed. Coincidentally, this railway line runs along the southern portion of a good portion of that lake bed.

There are those that have been out there that have said that if we were to raise that railway bed up and put proper weirs in there or proper portals or pipes with doors in them to control the amount of water that goes in, that could, potentially, be a way of mitigating some of the damage.

It would still expose some of Canada — Arnold, for instance. Those in Arnold are probably nervous as I ask this question. But there had been people that said we should actually be purchasing properties and getting rid of homes in certain areas anyway. That’s what had happened in other areas.

[6:25 p.m.]

But have there been any discussions, any studies at all? The city of Abbotsford is actively talking with the province about flood mitigation. Have there been any discussions at all about taking that existing railway bed, raising it and helping to turn it into a dike of sorts or a way of controlling the waters so that, if they come from the Nooksack again, we can actually control the flow of the waters to get them through the canal and eventually out into the Fraser?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The flood mitigation, in terms of what the member is talking about in the prairies, is being led by EMCR. There’s a cross-ministry group doing that, so they’re looking at what is required. Obviously, if this was an option that came up through that, then this ministry would clearly be involved in that. But that work is currently ongoing, so that’s all I’m able to tell you at this point.

Rosalyn Bird: The minister will be happy to know I’m not going to ask any towing questions today.

There are a couple of groups…. Actually, because we’re on the CN Rail thing, I thought I’d actually throw some rail questions in there, though I hadn’t really planned that today. But it’s a conversation that we’re having at the moment.

There are a couple of groups — not just in the Lower Mainland, actually, but in other places across the province — that are sort of interested in the same idea as they are in the Fraser Valley. Here on the Island, there have been numerous discussions across the Island in many communities in regards to revitalizing and modernizing rail transport. That transport would include both cargo and passenger rail options.

Is the government currently involved in any discussions or consultation processes exploring these ideas on the Island?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you for the question.

We’ve provided $18 million to the regional district plus 14 First Nations, and they have until March of 2027 to come up with a vision of how they can see rail, for example, fitting into the transportation needs of the south Island, for example. They’re currently engaged in that work, and we look forward to what they have to come back to us with.

Rosalyn Bird: Could you explain that a little more? You said that you have a pot of money that you’ve sort of distributed out to a number of different groups, and they are going to come up with a vision.

Is there a board? Is there a specific organization that is overseeing that, that is collaborating with all of these groups? Are they all working together? Are they doing their own independent options, and then they’re all going to come back to you, and then the minister is going to go back out and then hire somebody or have an organization say: “Okay, how can we put all these pieces together?” I’d just like a little bit more detail on how that process is going to work.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It gets a bit complex. The Island Corridor Foundation is acting as a bit of a coordinator. They’ve sort of stepped up and taken a coordinating lead on this. The $18 million has gone to the regional districts and the 14 First Nations. They’re looking at it from what works for their own particular communities, because there are a number of different issues here.

There’s the transportation issue in terms of the rail line and its potential. At the same time, though, the current line also runs through some First Nations. Some are fine with it, and others want their land back. So those are the issues that they are looking at.

When this is done, then we will have a better understanding of what the opportunities are and the potential is. You may find yourself in a way where you have the ability to do something over a certain stretch, and that’s what you’re able to do at this particular point in time. Or you may find that views and points of view change and you can do more than was initially anticipated. But right now that’s the work that is underway over this coming year.

The Chair: Before I recognize Prince George–Valemount, Member, I’m just reminding you to direct your questions through the Chair.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question was going to clarify, but you did do that for me, $18 million. Thank you.

Can you tell me if that money…? You stated it was distributed….

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

Rosalyn Bird: Through the Chair, can…? I hadn’t quite got to the question yet, but thank you, Madam Chair.

I’m curious how the money got distributed. I’m not sure how many municipalities and how many First Nations we’re talking about. I’m curious.

Through the Chair, was the money distributed evenly across all of those groups? And are the municipalities that have First Nations within their boundaries working with that First Nation, or are they all doing completely separate work?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To answer the member’s question, the latter part, the regional districts are working with their local First Nations, and they are coordinating quite well, is my understanding.

In terms of the money being dispersed to the regional districts, it was dispersed equally, and then the different First Nations have different sizes.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Minister, for the answer on that.

In regards to some of the potential that the province has in regards to rail on the Island…. As we’re all aware, living down here in Victoria, there’s a fairly significant bottleneck in regards to transportation and getting through the downtown core and out to Langford, Colwood, that section. Then you have some bottlenecks, also, once you hit the Malahat. It’s sort of that way all the way up and down the Island.

When we look at the numbers of vehicles, just from the Cowichan Valley, that are commuting on a daily basis here to the greater Victoria area, I understand it is approximately 2,500 vehicles that are moving back and forth on that corridor daily. Is there any priority for the provincial government outside of these studies to look at passenger rail as a priority, either in the next year or two or the next ten years?

[6:40 p.m.]

Have you done any recent studies, or do you plan to do any studies, regarding the viability of not necessarily the whole Island but just that single corridor from greater Victoria up to, as a minimum, the Cowichan Valley or possibly as far as Nanaimo?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In answer to the member’s question, there is a lot of activity actually going on in terms of the rail issue that you’re raising but also transit and transportation in general.

We’ve got the $18 million in the regional districts and the First Nations on the ICF, the Island Corridor Foundation.

At the same time, we also have the capital regional district, which is working collaboratively to determine what their priorities are, what they see as the best way to deal with the very issues that you have been raising around the traffic issues that we are facing here on the south Island.

At the same time, we’ve got the south Island transportation strategy, which the province has put in place.

Those three are what is putting together that vision and the priorities that need to be in place to deal with the issues of moving people as growth happens in this area. There’s a lot going on.

I am sure you’re going to have more questions, because I also know….

Noting the hour, I’m going to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.