The Massey crossing fight continues

0:00America leads the world in medicine development. It matters. We get new medicines first, nearly three years faster. Five million Americans go to work because we make medicines here at home, and not relying on other countries keeps us safe. But China is racing to overtake us. Will we let them? Or will we choose to stay ahead? When America leads, America cures. Let's tell Washington to keep us in the lead. Learn how at americacures.com. Pay for it by pharma. The fight over how to replace the aging, mass-y crossing is heating up again. The province is moving forward with an eight-lane, immersed tunnel under the Fraser River, but critics argue the government abandoned a simpler solution years ago. A 10-lane bridge that would have avoided digging into the river altogether. Now, earlier today on CKNW, transportation minister Mike Farner defended the tunnel plan, responding to questions about environmental impacts, rising costs, and whether the project is already too far long to reconsider. Will we play some of those comments, but joining us now to talk about this issue is Delta

1:01Councillor Dillon Krueger. Dillon, thank you so much for your time. Jazz, thank you. Well, I want to play a few clips from Mike Farner today in regards to some of these issues. One of the things that we've all talked about, of course, is if they had built that 10-lane bridge, it wouldn't have impacted the Fraser River. Now they want to, of course, dredge the Fraser River, iconic salmon bearing river, and immerse eight lanes into the water. He was asked about that question, Mike Farner, with our transportation minister, by Mike Smith. Let's take a listen to the issue of whether or not dredging is environmentally safe. The environmental assessment process looks at all the different issues that arise during about the construction in terms of the tunnel. That's been going on for the last number of years, and so the ministry and the project team have been working closely in terms of what those impacts are being. So that means, for example, taking into account what is the fish window, so you're not doing work during the fish window. The reality is, in terms of the tunnel itself,

2:04it will have the same draft as the currently existing tunnel that's there, so in terms of where it will sit on the river. Dredging takes place on that part, on the Fraser River, on a regular basis, and so it's not something that's new. So the minister saying it's safe, environmentally sensitive, to essentially insert a trench there that would be about 15 meters below the riverbed, 15 meters, regrets the bottom width, and about 660 meters in length. First of all, your thoughts on what the minister had to say in regards to this issue? Yeah, so on the topic of environmental impact, it is an undisputable fact that the now-canceled bridge project would have been far less disturbing for the environment and for the Fraser River estuary than the now-approved eight-lane tunnel. That is a fact. There's the topic in the environmental assessment world of cumulative impacts, and it is correct that the Fraser River is a working river, and there is dredging work that happens on the river. But when we're looking

3:05at environmental impacts, we look at cumulative effects of all these works over time. The work to dig massive trenches in the Fraser River, regardless of the time of year, will have a very significant disturbing impact on what is a fish-bearing river, a sturgeon habitat, a salmon habitat, so it is not correct that there won't be an impact. It is indisputable that the bridge which would have had pedestals on either side of the river would have had far less impacts on the Fraser River. Now, let's talk about the other issue here just for a moment. Of course, in 2016, the 10-lane bridge proposal carried a $3.5 billion estimate, the government at the time said, look, the best budget, the best estimate we received actually $2.9 billion. But let's just say it's $3.5 billion. The estimate for the eight-lane tunnel officially stands at $4.15 billion, but that was many, many years ago, and many people believe it's going to be a lot higher if some have said six.

4:09I think MLA, Mr. Payton there, said that it would be close to $7 billion. Let's take a listen to Mike Farnwood's in the regards to how real that $4 billion estimate is. It's been no secret that we have gone through some pretty significant inflationary period. We've gone through COVID. We've gone through an inflationary period. That's not just this province, but it's in fact, you know, national and global. That is impacted by supply chains. It's been impacted by what we're seeing, what we've seen in Ukraine, for example, and what we've seen from our issue south of the border. All of those things are going to impact in terms of what the final cost is. That's why we've laid out over the next three years in the budget and those negotiations with the Cross River partnership in terms of what the final cost will be. So he didn't give a number. He was actually skirting around the issue a little bit, but he and Payton, as I said earlier today, said he suspects potentially $7 billion, dealing your thoughts in regards to where you think this cost will land. I won't hold you to it because it is a tough one, but your thoughts in regards to what you think the cost, the kind

5:11of numbers you're hearing. Yeah, and the other claim that the minister made in that interview, Mike, was that the $4.15 billion estimate was done before the business case was put in place for this project. That is incorrect. The business case for the George Massey tunnel, which was first completed in December of 2020 was updated in 2021. And when that business case was completed, that is when the price tag of $4.15 billion for this project was put in place. So it is not correct to say that the estimate was put in place before the business case. On the other excuses with regards to inflation and COVID and all those things, Jazz, it is simply unforgivable that we had a project that was coming in at under $3 billion, and we are as taxpayers across all of British Colombia are going to be on the hook for billions and billions and billions of cost escalation, needless cost escalation for a project that should have been completed years ago. Now, one of the other issues, I think we've talked about here of the last little

6:14while, of course, can we go back to the original 10-lane bridge? It did have an environmental certificate to my understanding. Mr. Farnworth was asked about that and look, we're just starting this process. We spent about $100 million already to my understanding in regards to the eight-lane tunnel, but can we go back to the bridge? Here's Mike Farnworth responding to Mike Smith's question. If you told these guys, stop cutting down any more trees. We're going to go back to the bridge idea. Is that feasible? Is that conceivable? We're not going to delay and say, oh, let's start over again, delay another, who knows how long, so that former BC liberals, some of whom are running for elections to lead the Conservative Party, and are wedded to a project from the time of Christy Clark. No, the decision has been made. It is the choice that the region wants. It is the right choice for the region. That's what's being built. So, certainly it looks like Mr. Farnworth says we're not changing course here, your thoughts on that. Once again, Jazz, that statement is just incorrect.

7:18It is not the case that the region prefers a tunnel to a bridge. In fact, there was extensive polling that was done at the time that the NDP cancelled the approved bridge project that was already $100 million in the construction. There was an Insights West poll in 2016 that showed a majority of residents in Metro Vancouver preferred a bridge to a tunnel. There was an Angus Read poll in 2017 that showed 75% of support in Metro Vancouver for a bridge over a tunnel. The only folks that I'm aware of that were not in favor of a bridge were a couple of mayors, a couple of mayors and regional councillors who, as far as I'm concerned, are not engineers. They had concerns at the time about shading and whether or not there'd be visual impacts of the structure. We don't make serious multi-billion dollar decisions on nation-building infrastructure in this country or we shouldn't based on shading. This isn't just about the 100,000 commuters that use this crossing every day. This is a major goods movement corridor, moving goods

8:24across Canada to the port of Vancouver to Delta Port, excuse me, Delta Port, the largest container port terminal in Western North America and the gateway to the Asia Pacific region, moving goods to Vancouver Island, to the blame US border crossing, to YBR airport, down to highway one and across to the rest of Canada. We don't and should not make very unserious decisions based on juvenile concerns like shading. Was the mayor council, mayors council at that time opposing collectively as a mayors council opposing this? Or was it just the mayor of Richmond and a few others? I'm just trying to get a sense of where the opposition was coming from. There was very vocal opposition from the mayor of Richmond and then eventually the mayor of Delta at the time, ironically, even though the council in Delta was very supportive of the original project. There was a meeting of a George Massey tunnel task force jazz. It was on October 4th of 2019 when a group of I think seven or eight mayors and counselors from across the region

9:24made a non-binding motion that their preference was for a tunnel over a bridge and good on them, everyone's allowed to express an opinion. But since that time, the government has used the fact that there were a couple of mayors from a couple of cities across the region who expressed a preference as an indication that the region preferred a tunnel to a bridge. The facts just don't bear out. The polling that was done at the time showed broad support for the now council project. So it's just important that we not have revisionist history on what's happened jazz. It's unfortunate, it's a tragedy. There is no good option at this point. I do agree. Going back to square one and you know, redoing plans and going back to that's not an ideal option for anybody. It is unfortunate that the original plan was not carried through. We're now stuck between bad and worse as far as unconcerned. So in your mind, what should happen even though it is going to delay things for many years, potentially, if you go back to the 10 lane bridge idea, is that what you're supporting that we'd need to go back to the original 10 lane bridge idea? At this point, we need an honest

10:24and independent assessment of what the true cost of this crossing is going to be. As you heard, I think Mike Smith asked three or four times, we didn't get an answer. So we need to know the actual cost. All we've heard to date was that the government has committed to spending the 4.15 billion over the next three years. Of course, construction will take quite a bit longer. We also didn't get an answer on timeline. The minister would not commit to 2030, which was a stop dead date that the previous minister was very adamant would not be moving. So we have an undetermined cost and an undetermined timeline for this project. We need an independent review. We need to know what the true costs and timeline are. We need to compare that to the cost of going back to the bridge project and whatever comes in at the more competitive rate, the lower rate for taxpayers at the lower time line is what we should proceed on. But right now, we are not getting transparency. We are not getting the true facts with regards to this project. So, based on what you've said here, you do not buy for one minute anything Mike Farnworth said today to our colleague, Mike Smith. You

11:27just don't buy his comments. It's just factually incorrect. I've got the records beside me. We've been following this project in Delta for years ever since it was first announced in 2013. I have the original reports. We have the budget estimate that was completed in 2021. The revisionist history that's being put out right now, the narrative on the mass eternal, it is simply incorrect. It's misleading the public. And frankly, it's covering up what is the biggest transportation boondoggle. I think this province has seen this century. Dylan Cougar, really appreciate your time. Thank you. Yes, thank you. This went our own global. Have you ever told a lie? New serious. Wasn't lying part of the job description of C.I.? An executive producer, Dick Wolf, and the team behind FBI. Can you partner? He can be a little by the book. Do you know how much used to be a liar? Would you really know used to be dead? I never knew you cared. Two perspectives, one mission. You guys were in the open. We were in the shadows. Starring Tom Ellis and Nick Delphis. Nice work partner. C.I.A., all new Mondays at 10 on Global and Stream on Stack TV.