Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d be remiss, before members get too far out of the hall…. I’m not wanting to preclude things. I suspect that there will be some votes coming very quickly in this chamber. I’ll do the committees first, so everybody knows what’s going on, and then I’ll come and do the main chamber.

In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, it will be committee stage on Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act. In Committee C, the Birch Room, it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In this chamber, it will be third reading on Bill 8, Employment Standards Amendment Act, and then there will be a couple of third readings after that which I will call, as well, just so everybody knows.

So right now in this chamber, it will be Bill 8, third reading, Employment Standards Amendment Act.

[3:05 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 8, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings].

Hon. H. Bains: I call third reading of Bill 30.

[3:15 p.m.]

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 28, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

BILL 28 — ZERO-EMISSION
VEHICLES ACT

Bill 28, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates for the Premier’s office.

[3:20 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:22 p.m.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,349,000.

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining me for this year’s estimates is my deputy minister, Don Wright; chief of staff, Geoff Meggs; Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, Bobbi Plecas; and Vanessa Geary, the executive director of operations of strategic initiatives in the Office of the Premier.

This week marks the end of the fourth session of our government sworn in just two years ago. From the first day, we endeavoured to do our level best to make life better for British Columbians. We resolved to ensure that we were working every day to make people’s lives better by reducing costs, providing more services and meeting the objectives that we laid out in the election campaign of 2017.

I believe we’ve been making different choices. I know those contrasts will be made apparent over the next number of hours as the opposition members, the Leader of the Opposition and his team, ask questions not just about the budget that we’ve requested to be approved but a whole host of other issues.

I expect that we’ll talk, for example, about medical services premiums. Medical service premiums — the last province in the country to have them. By January 1 next year, we will be the last province to do away with medical service premiums. I’m very proud of that, putting money directly back into people’s pockets.

We’ve moved on affordable child care, putting money back into families’ pockets, making life, again, more affordable for families struggling in one of the most unaffordable markets in the country — not just in the Lower Mainland and our urban centres but right across the board. We’ve worked to address some inefficiencies in our Crowns. We’ve worked to ensure that our economy continues to prosper.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’ve kept balanced budgets year after year and going forward for the next three years. We’ve put money back into B.C. Ferries to reduce fees for the travelling public and coastal communities and on minor routes. We’ve added 20,000 new affordable housing units since we were sworn in with an objective of getting to 114,000 over the next ten years.

We’ve also been focusing on the economy, making sure that as the economy grows, people benefit from that good fortune we have here in British Columbia. I was very proud to work with my cabinet and the government staff to land the largest private sector investment in Canadian history. In October of last year, LNG Canada made a decision to invest $40 billion in an LNG facility on the north coast, putting people to work, putting dollars in our coffers to go towards the good society that I know that all members in every corner of the House want to see.

The challenges of our British parliamentary system will be laid bare for those who are able to watch today and those who are in the gallery and those who will be reading the transcripts in the future. It is appropriate that we have a back-and-forth about policies and views and perspectives and choices that the different people in this House would want to make.

I am very proud of the work that we’ve done in not yet two years, and I look forward to continued success for the people of British Columbia who all of us serve, regardless of what party we ran with, regardless of what part of the province we live in. All of us want the same thing. We want a better outcome for families, for communities and for our province.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier has outlined his program, and as part of that, he is spending in the range of $60 billion of taxpayers’ money this year. So a few questions arise from that.

The first will be, I hope, a very simple and straightforward question and a straightforward answer. The Premier has announced that projects in this province will be built under community benefits agreements, and there’s been a great deal of advertising in the last 15 months on that very topic.

Can the Premier tell us how much was spent on advertising and communications related to community benefits agreements in the last fiscal year? How much has been spent to date this year? How much is budgeted this year for advertising and communications of the community benefit agreements, the community benefits standards — all the things we hear on the radio and see on line?

Hon. J. Horgan: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, government advertising is the purview of the Minister of Finance. The government policy and communications office is within her administrative responsibility. She’s here with us today and has advised that there were no questions of her at that time on advertising specifically for CBAs, but we’re going to endeavour to get that information for the member as quickly as we can.

A. Wilkinson: We have until tomorrow afternoon to complete this, so one would hope that you’ll be able to collect that information overnight, since it’s a very simple matter and should be available with a single phone call.

Now, yesterday there was a fairly clear exposition in the newspaper about community benefits agreements and their apparent lack of benefits. The quotes that come forward…. I’ll just give the Premier a series of them, and he can confirm or refute them and tell me whether or not they’re correct.

“The New Democrats claimed these community benefits agreements would add only 7 percent to the cost of construction.” True or false?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t know if this is going to be multiple choice, true or false, all the way through the next number of hours. I will say that if the member wants to explore the benefits of community benefits agreements, I’m happy to do that. He’ll also know, from his time in government, not just as a minister but as a deputy minister, that when you’re trying to build capital projects — whether they be hospitals, highways, schools or bridges — you’re competing, with other players in the marketplace, for skilled workers.

What we have seen over the past 18 months is an extraordinary record of employment. I believe the unemployment rate last month was just a bit above 4 percent. We’ve seen an escalation in costs for all capital projects, not just those that are governed by CBAs. One example I can think of is a project in Terrace. That was not a CBA project, but when bids came in, it was 50 percent over estimates, and we choose not to proceed with the project.

If the member wants to talk about specific projects, I’m happy to do that. If he wants to talk about how overheated the economy is because of the desire of people to come to British Columbia, to put down roots and to make a life for themselves, I think those are some of the challenges we’re seeing when we see escalation in capital costs — again, not just on CBA projects, but on projects in the private sector as well as in the public sector.

A. Wilkinson: Given that that is a complete evasion of the question and the statement that we understand was in the media — that the New Democrats’ plan, the community benefits agreements, would add 7 percent to the cost of construction — we’ll take that answer as either “don’t know” or “that’s wrong.”

The next quote from the article is referring to the Illecillewaet improvements on the Trans-Canada Highway east of Revelstoke. The quote from the article — which is readily available on line; I suspect the Premier has it readily accessible to him: “In calling tenders for the main construction contract on February 11, the B.C. Transportation Ministry estimated the total project cost at $62.9 million, but in announcing the award on May 16, the ministry issued a revised estimate of $85.2 million, an increase of $22.3 million in three months.”

That is a 35 percent increase over the anticipated cost. This is a community benefits agreement project. The learned commentator in the newspaper goes on to point out that all of the factors were predictable in this bid, except for labour costs. It appears that there’s a 35 percent boost in labour costs for this particular project. Is that an accurate statement from Mr. Palmer and the Vancouver Sun?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The member’s numbers are indeed correct. We were anticipating a lower bid when the tender was issued. Again, I think I’ve given the member, in my earlier answer, a sense of how we got here. It’s a result of higher costs for gravel, higher costs for asphalt. We know that steel tariffs have had a significant impact on our ability to meet costs, and it’s not just on this one CBA project.

I think we’ve seen escalating costs on a whole host of projects, one of which was started by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson at the McKenzie interchange. We’ve seen escalation in capital costs as a result of the hot labour market, an inability to secure labour, and increased costs for inputs that are so critical to roadworks, such as steel, gravel and asphalt.

A. Wilkinson: Well, that answer doesn’t address the issue, because there is no steel in this project. The idea of steel tariffs, which have now been abandoned by the U.S. government, is utterly irrelevant. Perhaps the Premier should take note of that before he answers the next question.

The project, I understand, has been reduced from 2.4 kilometres to two kilometres. At that rate, we’re looking now at $42.6 million per kilometre, or $42,000 per metre. This is a rather costly project, with a 35 percent cost overrun — apparently because it’s under the community benefits agreement.

The Premier is now faced with a choice of saying either that Mr. Palmer has got it right or that he’s got it wrong. Is this cost overrun related substantially to the community benefits agreement or not?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m saying there are a number of inputs that have seen an escalation in cost, not just for this project, which is a community benefits agreement, but other projects across the province — capital projects of a public nature and capital projects of a private nature. These are challenging times with the hot markets.

Labour is difficult to come by because there has been a decline in skilled workers available to do these projects. That’s the whole point of a community benefits agreement — to make sure that the next generation of skilled workers is getting on-the-job training, practical training, so that we can continue to build this spectacular province. The majority of British Columbians support these initiatives because they know that their neighbours’ children are going to get the skills they need to compete in a very, very tough market.

A. Wilkinson: Given that this is a contract that apparently has been won by Emil Anderson Construction of Kelowna, which is a deeply and widely experienced contractor around the province of British Columbia…. There’s no change in the price of gravel, Premier. There’s no steel involved. Asphalt prices haven’t changed. The only variable is the community benefits agreement.

I’ll ask the Premier once more: is Mr. Palmer wrong that this 35 percent cost overrun is related to community benefits agreements?

Hon. J. Horgan: I disagree with the member’s premise. There has been increased cost in inputs. He knows that. We can have a disagreement on the efficacy of community benefits agreements. The opposition has made it abundantly clear that they prefer to not have people learning how to be better, going forward, by getting the skills they need to compete in a modern economy. That’s fine; acknowledge that. But I believe the member should understand — I’m sure he does — that we are at almost zero unemployment in British Columbia because of the hot market. The private sector is having difficulty — and the public sector is having difficulty — finding skilled workers. We need to focus on that.

That’s why we’ve been investing in advanced education in an unprecedented way. That’s why we believe the community benefits agreements will get people from classrooms to practical applications on worksites. We’re going to continue down that road.

A. Wilkinson: Well, given the cost overrun of $22.3 million on this project, which is 2,000 metres long, that’s about $10,000 a metre in cost overruns. Can the Premier refer to any other project in British Columbia which has had 35 percent cost overruns?

Hon. J. Horgan: I know the member has been to Kamloops. I think he knows this stretch of highway. He knows that it’s a very, very difficult piece of work. I’m advised that there are some 1,300 tonnes of steel on this project. So maybe you could get your facts straight and come back to me with another question.

A. Wilkinson: Well, rather than being combative, we look forward to answers from the Premier. Given that he’s apparently ignored the fact that we’re looking at a $10,000-a-metre overrun on this project, it’s a rather exorbitant number to explain to the voters of British Columbia. Is there any other project that has had this kind of overrun in British Columbia since this government was elected — or, for that matter, ever — a 35 percent cost overrun?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, the member two seats down from the Leader of the Opposition knows this community and knows this road and knows this file, and he understands the challenges of this piece of roadwork.

I will say, though, looking for other examples of cost overruns, I’ve come to one in 2009: the roof on B.C. Place, 40 percent over budget; the convention centre, 60 percent over budget; and then I guess one of the best all-time overruns — B.C. Hydro’s northwest transmission line, 82 percent over budget. Those were not community benefits agreements. Those were agreements that were signed by the people on that side of the House.

A. Wilkinson: Perhaps the Premier can explain how this dramatic cost overrun of $10,000 a metre was allowed to happen?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, certainly we set out to do our level best to keep these costs contained. All governments do that, but as I have said — not yet acknowledged by the opposition leader — we have a very tight labour market. We have input costs that are escalating.

The member’s colleague, the constituency where this work is being done…. Those citizens deserve to have access to safety in their roadways. I know the member would agree with that, and perhaps he might want to pass a note down to the Leader of the Opposition.

We’re setting out to do our level best to make the roadways safe for the travelling public. We’re setting out to make sure that when we do that, we’re training the next generation of workers, often focusing on those that have often been left out of apprenticeship programs — women, visible minorities, Indigenous people. This is a program that’s designed to not just get a better outcome for the travelling public but also to get a better outcome for the people of British Columbia.

A. Wilkinson: At $11,000 a metre, the question obviously arises: how many people will be trained in this program, which is to cover only two kilometres of road with an extra cost of $11,000 per metre? I mean, the distance between me and the Premier is about four metres. That’s about $50,000 just to get from me to you.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that the project has not yet begun. I don’t have apprenticeship numbers at this time. I will certainly endeavour to get them to him over the course of the project.

I want to just reinforce that this is a safety initiative. You’ve got two members from Kamloops sitting right there. They know full well how important this work is. I would expect they would want to get at it as quickly as possible, making sure that we’re putting local people to work and training the children of their neighbours to make sure that they’re ready for the next jobs that come forward.

[3:45 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Can the Premier confirm that he’s just told me that he has no idea how many apprentices will be trained for an extra $22 million of provincial money to put together two kilometres of road? No idea?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I reject the member’s premise. I did say to him that I would get the job numbers, I would get the apprenticeship number to him. The project was just let. It has not yet begun. That information will become available, and I’ll make it available to him as soon as I have it.

A. Wilkinson: Given the Premier has no idea how many apprentices will be trained for the extra $22 million, we’ll perhaps move on to the “sobering news” as put by the Vancouver Sun:

“The New Democrats are in the design and development phase to four-lane another half-dozen sections of the Trans-Canada Highway.”

The same highway, the same neighbourhood, the same labour pressures.

“Contracts for each would also be subject to community benefits agreements. There’s a budgeted $450 million twinning of a 4.8-kilometre section through Kicking Horse Canyon and $121.4 million for four kilometres of four-laning and a new bridge at Quartz Creek west of Golden. A five-lane replacement for the Rolf Bruhn Bridge near Sicamous is priced at $224.5 million. A further $162.7 million is budgeted for six kilometres of four-lane highway and another new bridge at Salmon Arm.”

There’s also a phase between Salmon Arm and Kamloops at just under $200 million.

To quote the article: “Even without the missing estimate, the total budgeted cost of those six projects approaches $1.2 billion.” Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: I want the members present in the House to recognize 24 grade 5 and 6 students and their teacher, Jessie Claudio, from Vancouver’s Talmud Torah school. They’re joining us in the gallery to observe the Premier’s estimates. Please make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Horgan: I wasn’t clear what the actual question was from the member. I guess we’re going to be chasing our tail for a couple of days here. I do know that the total capital budget approved for the twinning of Highway 1 is $468 million, and we have an overrun on the first component. Again, I think that the public needs to understand that this isn’t the prairie we’re building highway on here. This is the Rocky Mountains. This is difficult terrain. So 20 percent….

Interjection.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I understand that, so I would think you’d have a more holistic approach to how we’re going to address a challenging piece of roadway.

What we do know is that the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Finance have put in place a capital budget. We’re doing our level best to meet the needs of the travelling public, improve safety. Those in the area where this project is going to go ahead are looking optimistically at women and Indigenous people getting access to apprenticeships, and I’ll bring that information back to the member when we have it.

A. Wilkinson: Well, given that British Columbia has been paving its roads for over 100 years, that contractors like Emil Anderson are experts in their field — respected around the world — and that the Ministry of Transportation has a very long record of good estimations and good management, the only variable here is the community benefits agreement.

Perhaps I’ll give the Premier the list again: Kicking Horse Canyon improvements, the new bridge at Quartz Creek, the Rolf Bruhn Bridge at Sicamous, the improvements between Salmon Arm and Kamloops — all familiar to anybody who has driven across the Trans-Canada Highway between Kamloops and Golden. The newspaper article by Mr. Palmer says that the estimated cost of those six projects approaches $1.2 billion. I’m hoping that the Premier would tell us that he’s wrong, because the Premier has all the expertise on his side of the table.

Let’s just get this in focus: a $1.2 billion project set, and Mr. Palmer suggests, with a 35 percent cost overrun. We’re looking at $420 million of excess costs with no increase in the federal contribution. This is $420 million of excess costs introduced by this government to keep a few union bosses happy. So can the Premier explain? Is the $1.2 billion number wrong? It came from his ministry. His ministers are sitting right behind him.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that the member has got more time on his hands, perhaps, than I do, and he can look at Vaughn Palmer, noted engineer and roadbuilder, and extrapolate all he wants. I can tell you what I know. We need to do this roadwork for the safety and the interests of the people — not in a New Democrat constituency, because that’s not what this is about — of Kamloops, the people that travel back and forth between Alberta and British Columbia. It’s important work. We’re going to get to it.

If the member wants to make allegations and extrapolate overruns based on one contract, he’s welcome to do that. If he wants to use a noted columnist as his expert on these matters, he’s welcome to do that. I’ll remind him that this is the Premier’s office estimates, not the Ministry of Highways. The Ministry of Highways, as he has already acknowledged, is filled with outstanding individuals that work every day to make life better for people, make roadways safer for people, and they do it in the most cost-effective way possible.

What we have added, in the interests of the people of B.C., is a program that will train the next generation of workers that were ignored by that government when they had the opportunity, and we are going to stick with it.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the article goes on and quotes the ministry. The Minister of Transportation has staff who provide information to the media. The quote is: “The ministry is revisiting its estimates in light of the $22.3 million surprise on the Illecillewaet contract.” It goes on to point out that the federal contribution is capped. As the article says, “That leaves the province with commitments of about $700 million, not including any overruns,” which, on the same percentage basis would amount to a further $420 million, which would wipe out a hospital contract.

Is it true, Premier, that the people of British Columbia are getting shorter roads for higher cost with extreme cost overruns that will prevent other capital spending because of community benefits agreements?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I just reject the extrapolations the member is making. He raised one contract that has recently been let that is a CBA and that is over budget. We’re going to take a look at that. The minister is going to take a look at that and find out why.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’ve raised a couple of ideas that the member has rejected. He believes that there’s no steel in construction. That’s fine, if he wants to carry on that road. What we’re trying to accomplish here — the policy that he objects to — is making sure we can hire people in the communities where they live to do the work that will make their roads safer, their schools better, their hospitals better and, most importantly, make sure that the next generation of workers are red-seal trained to create the B.C. that we all want to see in the future.

I acknowledge that the B.C. Liberal Party does not agree with that, but to sit here and read a columnist’s article back to me…. I’ll get the newspaper in here. I have before me the deputy of the government of British Columbia. If you want to ask about my office and what we’re doing, I’m happy to answer the questions. If you wanted to know about highway construction, the minister for highways’ estimates are over now.

A. Wilkinson: Well that, with all due respect, amounts to just a flagrant evasion of the issue in front of the Premier, when he has the highways minister sitting behind him.

Just a little context. He talks about training. Well, the Hoffman’s Bluff project was done near Chase with 30 percent Aboriginal workforce from the Neskonlith and Adams Lake Bands. That workforce is immediately available for the Illecillewaet project and the bridge at Sicamous.

So the question remains. Apparently, there is no answer as to whether the 35 percent cost overrun is solely because of community benefits agreements, because there is no explanation that is credible, as the newspaper article points out.

We turn then to the next projects: the Pattullo Bridge, currently estimated at $1.377 billion, and the budgeted $2.83 billion expansion of SkyTrain. Together, that’s over $4.2 billion. Perhaps the Premier can comment: is there any limit that he will tolerate on cost overruns because of community benefits agreements? Because 35 percent of that would be $1.4 billion in overruns. Goodbye, Surrey SkyTrain. Goodbye, Richmond Hospital. Goodbye Terrace hospital.

Can the Premier comment: does he have any willingness to cap the costs of community benefits agreements in these projects?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ve given the member answers with respect to material costs; labour shortages; companies that are running flat-out bidding on projects, but they’re already fully subscribed; risk premiums…. Again, the member will know full well the challenges in a hot economy when you’ve got difficult work to be done. There are going to be challenges meeting budgets. We’re going to do our level best to make sure that we achieve that, but the objectives that we’re setting out to achieve….

I would maybe flip this around. I don’t understand why it is that the B.C. Liberal Party doesn’t want to see more training on our publicly funded projects so we have the skilled workers we need to continue to have the best economy in the country.

A. Wilkinson: Well, thank you, but that ignores the premise of the question I asked last time about the 30 percent Aboriginal workforce on the Hoffman’s Bluff improvement under the B.C. Liberals. The Premier has selectively just ignored that.

Let’s just summarize this article. It talks about a total of estimates that came from the Ministry of Transportation: $5.6 billion of spending, all subject to community benefits agreements. The obvious question for you, Mr. Premier, is: what is your tolerance limit for cost overruns due to community benefits agreements, and will you ever consider abandoning them if we get into the 35 percent of $5.4 billion, which is over $1.8 billion in cost overruns due to CBAs? Will you tolerate that, or do you have a cap?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, tolerance for overruns wasn’t an issue with the previous government. I already articulated three projects. Northwest transmission line, 82 percent over budget. We carried on from there to see 60 percent overruns at the convention centre and 40 percent overruns on B.C. Place. So again, pots calling kettles black are oftentimes circuitous arguments.

We are going to do our level best to meet the budgets that we’ve set rigorously through Treasury Board, through the Minister of Finance. And the minister for highways is doing everything she can to ensure that we’re getting bids in, in a way that will allow us to take the best way forward. That is what governments are supposed to do.

I appreciate that in down times, members can extrapolate a total budget and say: “Well, if it’s all 35 percent over budget, this is going to be the final number.” We have one project — one project — that is over budget on the community benefits side. I mentioned one. I could mention others that are not community benefits agreements that are also over budget. In fact, one was cancelled, in Terrace, because it was 50 percent over. That would be my tolerance on projects, broadly speaking.

The CBA target that the independent contractors, the backers of the B.C. Liberals, want to focus on is the issue here. Cost overruns are certainly commonplace to B.C. Liberals. We want to make sure we see as few of those as possible, but what we do want to see is as many local people hired and as many young people getting access to skills training so they can realize their full potential and benefit not just themselves, their families and their communities but all British Columbians.

That’s the policy objective. I don’t know why the B.C. Liberals and their backers don’t embrace that, because they certainly let costs get out of control when they were in power.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the obvious question that arises from that circuitous answer is: is there a cap on this policy? Will the Premier stop any project that hits the 50 percent cost overrun? Is that his tolerance? We’ve got a 35 percent cost overrun that he seems to think is just fine because of the CBAs. If it hits 50 percent on any project, will he kill the project?

Hon. J. Horgan: I reject that the 35 percent overrun at Illecillewaet is exclusively a result of the CBA. I’ve said that from the beginning. The member has not wanted to hear that, so I reject your premise.

What I will say is that although the former government had no problem with massive cost overruns, I do, and we’re going to do our level best to keep these contracts under control. But we need to be mindful. This is not a big problem for other provinces, because they have serious unemployment issues and challenges with their economy. We are going at full speed in this economy. We are having difficulty finding skilled workers. That’s the whole point of a community benefits agreement. Train more people; build B.C.

A. Wilkinson: Is there any cap the Premier is prepared to impose on cost overruns, regardless of the cause? We’ve heard 50 percent was intolerable; 35 percent is okay. Is that the range — somewhere between 35 percent and 50 percent cost overruns — in which the Premier says he’s prepared to say: “No, the people of British Columbia can’t afford this, because we’re going to get fewer projects for more money.” Is that an accurate suggestion?

Hon. J. Horgan: Our commitment is to provide services to British Columbians in a cost-effective manner, and we’ll continue do that. I appreciate that the member didn’t have an opportunity to ask the Minister of Transportation these questions, and I’m delighted to spend some time with him here today. But the difference between the two of us isn’t about the size of our overruns, because yours were massive. The issue is: we believe in investing in people. We believe in making sure that everyone has an opportunity to succeed in British Columbia, and we’re committed to making that happen.

Community benefits agreements are a way for that to go forward. The other side disagrees with that. That is the argument right now. That’s the whole point of this line of questioning. I don’t think the members care a whit about cost overruns, based on their own record. So if he wants to continue down this road, I’m happy to do it, but perhaps there’s some other part of government you want to talk about today.

A. Wilkinson: Well, we’re happy to talk about another project, and that’s, of course, the subject of today’s newspaper column — yet another blunder in the Ministry of Transportation, where the Premier seems to have decided unilaterally to blow apart his Transportation Ministry’s expertise, to ignore his minister and to just unilaterally decide he’s a civil engineer. He has decided the best way to get across the Fraser River.

[4:05 p.m.]

Perhaps the Premier can explain where this impulse came from to decide there should be a parallel tunnel under the Fraser River at the George Massey Tunnel.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, referring to the venerable engineer from the Vancouver Sun. That impulse, as the member called it, was at an announcement at the Jimmy Pattison centre in Surrey, announcing a new 3T MRI machine, the most high-tech MRI machine in British Columbia, which will reduce wait times for diagnostic procedures and will make sure that our hip-and-knee replacement program, which has reduced wait times as well, will be even better.

In the course of that press conference, a camera person — because networks rarely send reporters these days because they’re so busy — asked me what my views were on the new view of the Mayor’s Council, which was unanimous support for a tunnel. What I said at that time was that this was good news because we had unanimity on a mode of getting to the biggest congestion problem in that part of the Lower Mainland.

I thought that was good news. I celebrated that — that the mayors had come together. I met later in the day with the new mayor of Delta. I’m very excited about his desire to work with his neighbours in Richmond and other parts of the Lower Mainland to get a positive outcome for the travelling public.

I have every confidence in the Minister of Transportation that she will be able to work through all the issues that were left behind by the previous government, which said: “We’re going to build a ten-lane bridge. I don’t care if no one else wants to do that.” We disagreed with that. Now we have consensus. We have near unanimity in the area about building a tunnel.

I celebrated the fact of unanimity. I was not doing engineering decisions. If you want to blow that out of proportion or the Vancouver Sun wants to blow it out of proportion, fill your boots.

A. Wilkinson: Well, we also observed that there’s a $2 million contract out there to study the options. Is that now a nullity, or is the Premier saying he misspoke and should have referred to the engineering study and held his fire and been deferential to the experts in the field so they could come up with some options? Or are they just engaged in a pointless exercise at public expense?

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess the member didn’t hear what I said. I was at a health announcement, and I was asked about the Massey Tunnel and unanimity that now exists about a particular mode to address that congestion. I said that was very good news. I also have every confidence that the Minister of Transportation and her team are going to methodically go through this to get the best outcome for the people of British Columbia.

It’s difficult to understand why the member on the other side would not rejoice in the fact that Delta and Richmond and other mayors and other communities have a common focus. They wrote to us, publicly. They probably sent a copy to you. If you don’t have it, I can send a copy over to you. They’re excited about getting going, so are we, and so is the minister.

A. Wilkinson: The obvious question, Premier, is get going on what? Is the Premier still open to a total replacement tunnel, a deep tunnel, a bridge? Or is this a foregone conclusion now because he’s been influenced by half a dozen mayors?

Hon. J. Horgan: There is no foregone conclusion. The only foregone conclusion is that we’re sitting over here, and they’re sitting over there.

A. Wilkinson: Well, given that vacuous and arrogant answer, perhaps we’ll move to the next question. Is the Premier open to a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel?

Hon. J. Horgan: The Minister of Transportation is discharging her responsibilities to make sure she canvasses a range of options. The point of my comment was that there was unanimity, and they wanted to talk about tunnels. That was the point.

If I can’t make comments when someone asks me a question, then I’m in the wrong line of business. If the member on the other side is going to take a comment and extrapolate it to me overturning engineering decisions, well, that’s ridiculous. It’s patently ridiculous, and he knows that.

A. Wilkinson: Same question, no answer. Is the Premier still open to having a bridge replace the Massey Tunnel?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: An expert review rejected the ten-lane plan of the B.C. Liberal Party. The member now has the member for Delta South beside him. The mayor of Delta wants to make progress. He wants to see a tunnel proceed, and I said: “That’s great news.” That’s great news because there’s unanimity around the community. If there’s a better idea than that and it will receive unanimity, I’ll accept that as well.

A. Wilkinson: Third time, we’ll try for an answer. Is the Premier open to having a bridge replace the Massey Tunnel or not, given that he has a $2 million study underway to decide that question?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think I just said that I’ll embrace the best idea that’s supported by the people in the community. If they come forward with an idea that is not a ten-lane bridge that would be tolled, which was the plan on the other side, then I’m absolutely prepared to look at that.

The Minister of Highways is responsible for discharging this file, and I have full confidence in her. I made a comment with enthusiasm about diverse people coming together with common purpose. I think that’s a good thing, and I celebrate that.

A. Wilkinson: The most recent remarks from the Premier have been that he’s thought the idea of a twin tunnel was a good one, and now the mayors are saying they want a deep bored tunnel, which is a totally different proposition. Has the Premier come to any conclusions about this before his $2 million engineering study is brought forward, or is that just a complete waste of time?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, if the member on the other side is saying that his solution is a bridge, then he can tell that to the people in the region. What I’m excited about, and I’ve said this a couple of times, is that people are coming together.

The work that the Ministry of Transportation is doing is going to be valuable in getting us to a resolution. But the thing that we need to celebrate, and what I celebrated in a brief, brief comment to a television camera, is that it’s good news that Delta and Richmond leadership want to see something work for everybody. I would’ve thought that the Leader of the Opposition would want everybody on the same page. Apparently not.

A. Wilkinson: I suppose it’s fair to say it’s nice to be on the same page about an answer to the question for the fourth time. Is the Premier open to a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel? Or is this $2 million engineering study a complete waste of time, because he’s already come to the conclusion that it should be a bored tunnel?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I did say that I’m open to the best outcome for the people in the region. If that’s difficult for the member to understand, I don’t know how many different ways I can answer that. I believe there’s a way forward where there’s consensus in the region that will address this difficult congestion point. The minister is working on it. We’re seized of this.

The plan that the Liberals had, which involved no consultation whatsoever, was being dictated to the people of Richmond. There was one area that thought this was a great idea and a whole bunch that said: “Wait a minute. Why are we doing that?”

Now we’re getting consensus. We’re getting people coming together. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to get on board, there’s plenty of room, man. Come on, join us. Let’s all work together on this.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I’m always enthused by offers from the Premier to join him, because it’s in this charade about how to manage construction in this province. I’m sad to say that I won’t be joining him in that.

[4:15 p.m.]

The further part of the charade is this suggestion that there was no consultation on the bridge proposal. The Premier seems to have forgotten that there were 7,000 pages of consultations made available at an office in the Ironwood mall in south Richmond, which outlined the plan for a bridge where the engineering work had all been done, and the tenders were let at $3.5 billion, and the offer came in at $2.6 billion, as noted in the Vancouver Sun this morning and many times over the last three years.

So perhaps the Premier can let us know: is he still open to the idea of this apparently economical bridge proposal rather than the tunnel, or has he closed his mind to the idea of a bridge because of something he blurted out on television yesterday?

Hon. J. Horgan: My mind is always open, and that’s probably why I’m having so much fun. I just want to read a couple of quotes from people that might be familiar to the member. One is a former Liberal candidate. One is also a member, I believe, of the Liberal Party. It doesn’t matter.

Malcolm Brodie said: “The thing is, a new Massey replacement bridge exacerbates the problems. It’s shortsighted. It’s absurd. It goes against 40 years of regional planning focused on confining suburban sprawl and getting people out of cars and onto transit.” He also went on to say: “Under the previous group,” being those on that side of the House, “they made the announcement that there would be a ten-lane bridge, and that was all. That was the end of it.” We tried for — what? — five years to discuss and to have them rethink the options that were available but absolutely to no avail.

Greg Moore: “A ten-lane, auto-oriented bridge is too big in scope.”

So if anyone needs to open their mind, it would be the people on the other side of the House. I want to find resolution to the congestion at Massey. I think all of us want to do that. But the other guys, when they had the opportunity, disregarded 40 years of urban planning, according to the mayor of Richmond, who was re-elected overwhelmingly just last year.

The Chair: Member, just a second.

Users who are using their electronic devices may not be allowed, but we are double-checking that, Premier. In the meantime, just be careful.

A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll do my very best to use paper and my brain rather than electronic devices to address the issues.

So, Premier, we still haven’t had an answer. Greg Moore was the mayor of Port Coquitlam, 50 kilometres away from 87,000 people waiting to get through the tunnel every morning. The people of south Delta and Richmond are begging for an answer, and we’ve had no progress whatsoever after a bridge was cancelled, which would have shown a $900 million discount over the quoted sum in the budget.

So having discarded all that work, having blown off 7,000 pages of consultation, having rejected a bid which would have saved the taxpayers almost $1 billion, having wasted four years of traffic relief for the people south of the Fraser, perhaps the Premier can just answer the simple question: has he ruled out a bridge or not?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t have access to an electronic device, but I have a quote that is just waiting to be read into the record. It’s the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who at the time had just been defeated. He had been, previous to that, the Minister of Transportation. It goes as follows — check me if I misspeak here: “A lesson for me that I really want to apply moving forward is I think we had our elbows up a bit too much with the mayors. I think the tone of the conversation was not always one of partnership and working together.” Imagine that. “There was too much tension, too much political calculation. We need to stop telling local communities and regions what is best for them.” We need to start engaging with them to improve places where they live, work and play.

I could not agree more with the good words of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. That’s exactly what we’re trying to do, Member: to listen to people, to open our minds to possibilities, to bring people together. And positive outcomes will follow for all British Columbians. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House. You might be sitting in the wrong place, Member. You should come on over.

A. Wilkinson: Well, these glib sporting analogies still don’t answer the question of whether there should be a bridge, a tunnel or otherwise at the Massey Tunnel crossing, and of course, we’d all like to think the Premier would keep his mind open to the possibilities and look for the best deal for taxpayers, rather than dissipating our income on cost overruns on these Rocky Mountain projects.

[4:20 p.m.]

We have a huge number of bridges in the Lower Mainland, across British Columbia, and very few tunnels. The obvious question is: what’s the enthusiasm for the tunnel apart from the politics of appeasing the mayors?

Hon. J. Horgan: I know we could check the Blues later. I have said my mind is open to the best outcome several times. “Asked and answered” is often, I think, what we say at this point in the deliberations. But I’ll carry on, because it gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit more about what we’re doing now to assist the congestion in the region.

We’re looking to see what the best way forward is. We invite members from all sides of the House to work with us on that. In the meantime, we’re pursuing congestion relief by putting in place traffic networks on both sides of the river. We’re also implementing safety improvements to the tunnel: new lighting, improved drainage, surfacing and other measures.

We’ll continue to work with local communities, listening to what they have to say to improve their communities. They don’t belong to the member for Quilchena. They belong to the people who live there. Why wouldn’t you listen to them? Malcolm Brodie, respected member of the community, longtime mayor of Richmond, is happy that finally someone is listening to the community, not telling the community what they need. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House.

A. Wilkinson: I’m going to get nowhere on the eighth attempt to ask whether the Premier has ruled out a bridge because he’s simply unwilling to answer the question.

A $2 million engineering study that’s apparently just a complete waste of time. Continuing the pattern of the Ministry of Transportation to politicize every decision at the cost to the taxpayer of massive cost overruns. If the Premier is not prepared to answer the most basic question, perhaps we’ll go back to this issue of apprenticeship training.

New documents came out today, obtained by freedom of information from the Industry Training Authority, showing that 23,172 of the province’s 28,432 registered construction apprentices — that is 81½ percent of B.C.’s construction apprentices — are sponsored by open-shop companies, not unions.

Given that profile, perhaps the Premier can take us back to the Illecillewaet and tell us how these apprentices are all going to be trained on two kilometres of road when actually more than 80 percent of apprentices are trained by non-union work contractors, and the Premier has excluded them entirely from the Illecillewaet project.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I don’t want to leave the Leader of the Opposition with the view that my mind’s not open to whatever solution comes forward from the work that’s being done. I don’t know how more simple I can say that.

With respect to the so-called political calculations, I just refer him again to the very able comments of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, where he said: “We need to stop telling communities and regions what’s best for them. We need to start engaging with them to improve the places where they live.” That’s exactly what we’re doing.

With respect to community benefits agreement projects, anyone can bid on those — union, non-union. It doesn’t matter.

[4:25 p.m.]

The B.C. Infrastructure Benefits is the group that will be the employer. They will be the employer. It takes away the labour risk, to a certain degree, from those who bid on the projects. That’s why we’re so concerned about the Illecillewaet contract, because there are other inputs that have seen that escalation, and I don’t know why the member won’t get his head around that.

The Chair: Before the Chair recognizes the Leader of the Official Opposition, I would like to make it clear that according to Standing Order 17A, electronic devices are allowed to be used here in the House, except for the Speech from the Throne, royal assent, prayers, oral question period, Speaker’s rulings, divisions and at any designated time pursuant to instruction by the Speaker.

For example, they cannot rely on a hand-held device or laptop to access textual information once they have been recognized by the Chair. So prior to being recognized by the Chair, if they have an electronic device in their hand, they can use it.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I’m sure the Premier will accept that reprimand in the best spirit of the House.

But the answer to the previous question is still unknown. Given that 81½ percent of apprentices in British Columbia are trained by non-union contractors, why is there this insistence on having them for two kilometres of road in the middle of the Rogers Pass, when the cost overruns suggest that perhaps the cost of doing that business is too high?

A $22 million cost overrun, $11,000 a metre — perhaps that’s getting a bit too steep for a community benefits agreement. Will the Premier consider opening that tender again for a non-CBA project?

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I believe the member’s question was whether or not we were going to throw the bids back into the hat, and the answer to that is no. We’ve got an outcome. We’re going to proceed. We’re going to get the work done. I know that the community wants to see that happen, and we’re committed to doing that.

We’re going to make sure, as we go forward, that we address the challenges of other inputs: the cost of construction, the risk factors and the fact that most of the companies in British Columbia are going into overdrive to meet their existing obligations as we increase public funding for other projects — hospitals, schools, roadways, bridges and transit. That’s going to be increasingly challenging, but we’re up to the task.

[4:30 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, I think that answer invites the obvious question: are we going to be able to afford these hospitals, schools, bridges, when the Premier has decided that there is no apparent limit to cost overruns because of community benefits agreements? That’s the question, Premier. Are you prepared to say that there’s a reasonable limit in the billions where CBAs and the associated costs become intolerable to the taxpayer, and we need to build other projects?

We need to provide those schools in Surrey to replace 300-plus portables. We need to build the hospitals in Richmond and Terrace. Or are those going to be simply discarded because of the need to pay CBA premiums on Rocky Mountain highway projects?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the key issue here is that Rocky Mountain highway project was just extremely challenging. Again, the member has acknowledged that, but he doesn’t want to continue that thought forward.

So 80 percent overruns on the northwest transmission line, 60 percent overruns on the convention centre, 40 percent on the roof at B.C. Place — I’m not going to take advice on cost overruns from the Leader of the Opposition.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I’m going to take the Premier back to last year’s estimates. There was a question asked. I’ll ask a very simple question. What level of disclosure is required in the railways, which are federal undertakings under the constitution and not regulated by the province, in terms of disclosure of their cargoes, whether they’re hazardous or crude oil or diluted bitumen or otherwise?

After a lengthy pause and a consultation with his staff, the Premier came back and said: “We just had confirmed by both the Ministers of Environment and Transportation that that information is held by the federal government, and it is not currently shared with the province.” I’m sure the Premier remembers that little encounter, and perhaps he can answer the question. Has he endeavoured to get any more information about oil shipments in British Columbia from the federal government when they occur by rail, and if so, what has he learned?

N. Simons: I just want to introduce the young folks who are leaving the House right now. I think they’re from Surrey Centre, grade 5.

The Chair: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: Oh, yeah, apparently I have to have leave.

Welcome to the House. Thanks for coming. Sorry you’re leaving so soon, but the estimates are continuing. This class is a bunch of grade 5s, 31, plus their chaperone. Welcome to the House, and I hope you had a good time.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Horgan: We did follow up, as you would expect, with the railways. They advised us that it was not within their scope to provide that information to us. That decision is currently before the Environmental Appeal Board. We’re hoping that that will be revisited. But this was….

We wanted this information, as the member would want it. It’s been denied to us by the railways, and we’re appealing that decision.

A. Wilkinson: Just to clarify, then, the province of British Columbia, as represented by the Premier and executive council, has no information on the volume of oil or bitumen or refined products shipped by rail into British Columbia on railways. Is that correct?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We do have data from Washington state that shows oil-by-rail shipments from B.C. dropped by 64 percent in 2018 compared to 2017. The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides information for oil travelling to the Gulf Coast.

The issue that we were discussing last year was: do railways…? Are they obliged to give us information? They’re not, according to them. We’ve appealed that. There was a stay. We’re anticipating more action to get more information.

I share the member’s concern about this. That U.S. agencies will give us partial information is…. It seems to me outrageous that companies operating in Canada won’t provide that information to the government of British Columbia, but that’s the case at this time.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I think it’s obvious to any of us who ever see the rail lines, either from the air, as I saw them with the Premier last year…. As the Fraser River flooded on June 11 and we travelled by helicopter up the Fraser to Chilliwack, extensive unit trains were travelling underneath us on the eastbound track empty, going back to Alberta to fill up with crude oil and refined fuels.

Those trains travel down the North Thompson River on the CN tracks. They travel on the CP tracks through the Rockies. Those two tracks converge at Kamloops and travel all the way down the Fraser Canyon along the Fraser River, because the right-of-way is immediately next to the Fraser River. These are unit trains of up to 120 cars of gasoline, diesel, crude oil. I assume the Premier is not about to refute that.

That’s background to the Premier’s litigation. Perhaps he’ll remember that one of the staff at the Ministry of Energy, Mr. Michael Rensing, swore an affidavit on January 21, 2019, which was filed in the Queen’s bench court in Calgary, Alberta. At paragraph 22 of that affidavit, Mr. Rensing swears to the truth of the following statement: “Rail shipments currently face backlogs due to capacity constraints.” Apparently, the Minister of Energy does know something about this. “Any reallocation of rail capacity for refined fuel shipments would leave other shipments stranded.”

Perhaps the Premier can clarify: does his Minister of Energy and his able staff, including Mr. Rensing, actually know anything about rail shipments, or are the two ships passing in the night?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: As I understand it, Mr. Rensing, who works in the Ministry of Energy, was testifying with respect to the legislation that the government of Alberta was bringing forward that would shut off refined product coming into British Columbia. His comments about refined capacity within railcars could not be specific because we don’t know what’s in the railcars.

I appreciate the member can count cars. I was in the helicopter seeing the same trains going below. I hear from members of the House on occasion about these issues, and I’m seized of them, but we don’t know what’s in them. That’s the issue. That’s what you raised with me last year, and if that’s the continued line of questioning, we have to stick with the notion that we’re appealing the decision by the rail companies to divulge that information. The court case you’re referring to is separate from the line of questioning, I think, but if you’re going to tie those together, I look forward to it.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the January 21 affidavit of Mr. Rensing states at paragraph 9: “Each day British Columbians consume between 90,000 to 100,000 barrels of gasoline and between 70,000 to 75,000 barrels of diesel.” We assume that’s accurate because it’s a sworn piece of evidence before the Alberta courts.

However, in a subsequent affidavit, dated May 1, 2019, in paragraph 8, Mr. Rensing changes his story and says: “Each day British Columbians consume between 70,000 and 85,000 barrels of gasoline” — a big difference — “and between 55,000 and 70,000 barrels of diesel.” So that ranges from 125,000 to 175,000 barrels.

Which affidavit is correct? Did this government mislead the court?

Hon. J. Horgan: We’ll endeavour to get…. We don’t have those affidavits with us. You didn’t give us an inventory of the questions you were going to canvass here today. We are discussing the budget estimates for the Premier’s office. We’ll await the arrival of those affidavits, and then we’ll be able to answer your question.

In the meantime, hon. Speaker, could I have a comfort break?

The Chair: Absolutely. The House is recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:43 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

M. Stilwell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: I’d just like the House to welcome Mr. Irving’s class from Dover Bay Secondary School in Nanaimo, in my riding. Welcome them here. If you see them in the hallways, you won’t miss them. They’re in the beautiful tie-dyed shirts. They’re actually the band members from Dover, and they’ve been entertaining at various community events. They’ve been today at a seniors home and tomorrow another community event. Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: As a Vancouver Islander, I welcome the musicians from Dover Bay.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[4:55 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL M206 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Darcy: In this House, we call estimates of the Premier, and in the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, we call Committee of the Whole on Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 4:56 p.m.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,349,000 (continued).

Hon. J. Horgan: With respect to the question from the opposition leader just prior to our brief recess, he made reference to two affidavits, one from January 21 and one from April 19 of this year, with respect to proceedings in Calgary.

He asked me, I believe, why there was a discrepancy between the affidavits signed by Mr. Rensing in January versus April. I can only say that they were at different times of the year. We haven’t yet got access to the second affidavit. I’m sure the member has a line of questioning he wants to proceed with.

But I know that with absolute certainty, and the member will agree, public officials, when asked to swear evidence, do so with good conscience and with all available facts. These were estimates because we don’t get access to the information that the rail companies use to move products around.

A. Wilkinson: The concern, of course, is this is sworn evidence before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, on which the Premier seeks to have a major decision made on the prospects for supplies of fuel to British Columbia. It’s a very clear statement that each day British Columbians consume between 90,000 and 100,000 barrels of gasoline and between 70,000 and 75,000 barrels of diesel. So it doesn’t seem there’s any ambiguity in that sworn evidence. If it’s an estimate, it should have said so. Otherwise the courts are entitled to reject the evidence in its entirety.

With that in mind, the Premier can look down to paragraph 12(c), which refers to the fact that, according to the affidavit, the Parkland refinery produces 25 percent of British Columbians’ gasoline and diesel in the amounts stated at the top of the page in paragraph 9. The obvious question is: where does the rest of it come from?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re guesstimating, regrettably, Member, because we had not anticipated questions about where our gas comes from. But based on the affidavit and the work that’s been done to date, we assume that 25 percent, as is outlined by Mr. Rensing, of refined gasoline and diesel comes from Parkland, 55 percent from Alberta, about 10 percent from Husky and about 10 percent from Washington state.

A. Wilkinson: Given that that’s the fuel supply of British Columbia, it would seem obvious that a vast amount of that is being shipped from Alberta as refined product by rail. There’s no suggestion that the Premier knows otherwise. We see these massive unit trains of 100-plus cars carrying that fuel to British Columbia. Is the Premier aware of any other route for those 100-car trains full of gasoline, diesel and crude other than down the Fraser Canyon?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that refined product comes to the Lower Mainland through railcars, by sea, by tanker truck, by pipeline. The issue, I believe, when we started this line of questioning was: what’s in the rail cars? That is an issue that we continue to be perplexed by, as he is. We are not given that information by the rail companies.

If you’re going down another line, you’ll have to clarify it for me. I thought the question initially was: how much crude, how much refined product, how much diluted bitumen is coming in railcars? We can’t answer that question.

[5:05 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: I’ll turn the Premier to paragraph 25 of the same affidavit dated January of 2019. It starts by saying that gasoline supplies can be exhausted quickly. For example, in July of 2018, anti-pipeline activists staged a protest which disrupted the passage of oil in fuel tankers under the Second Narrows Bridge, in Vancouver. Representatives of the Parkland refinery advised me that the protesters were preventing shipments of gasoline to Vancouver Island.

How does gasoline get to Vancouver Island?

Hon. J. Horgan: As I had expected, most of it comes by barge. Again, had the Leader of the Opposition had this level of interest, certainly, the Minister of Energy would have been a better place to get that detailed information.

A. Wilkinson: Well, thank you, Mr. Premier. Of course, the presence of the Minister of Environment here just moments ago would suggest that he would have been the one knowledgable in this, given that it’s a core area of interest to him.

Since we have the answer that it comes on barges, the obvious question is: how much? And what environmental protection is available for those barges? Are they escorted by tugs? Are they surrounded by berms? Are they in any way protected from the kind of damage that can occur to barges which are dragged behind tugs passively and occasionally sink or smash into the rocks?

The route of passage would obviously be across the Strait of Georgia into Nanaimo Harbour, which is no small navigation task, or through Active Pass, where the ferries go, which is an extraordinarily difficult navigation task.

Given these difficult routes, what protections are currently imposed upon those barges by the province of British Columbia or any other authority?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m advised that Transport Canada regulates the traffic through the Salish Sea on to Vancouver Island. I don’t know where the member is going. I can speculate, but one of the reasons that we are concerned about the movement of products — diluted bitumen, refined products, crude oil in and about a marine environment — is that we don’t have the jurisdiction over that.

That’s why we’ve made the reference case. Perhaps that’s where we’re going with the next question.

A. Wilkinson: Well, rather than anticipating my next question, it would be helpful to get some answers. Apparently, it’s abundantly clear the Premier hasn’t got a clue how much oil comes down the Fraser Canyon by rail. The Premier hasn’t got a clue how much comes to Vancouver Island.

[5:10 p.m.]

The Premier hasn’t the faintest idea what kinds of protections there are for the vessels or requirements for the vessels carrying fuel to Vancouver Island in the face of a potential catastrophe — in case one of those fuel barges, which we see regularly around the cruise ships in Vancouver, comes to grief on the rocks of British Columbia.

Now, given that the Premier has been very enthusiastic about coastal protection, protecting our coast, it’s somewhat alarming to us in this House that he hasn’t got the foggiest idea how the current protections function and if there are any at all.

Perhaps he can get to the question of: what protections does the Premier understand would be provided by the government of Canada, in the event that the Trans Mountain expansion goes ahead, so those fuel barges will finally have some degree of security of transit?

Hon. J. Horgan: The federal government is currently deliberating over whether or not the Trans Mountain pipeline will be expanded. I have said from the day I was sworn in that it’s our obligation to make sure that federal responsibility in this area is lived up to. The ocean protection plan was the federal government’s attempt to pacify those who were concerned about the transportation of diluted bitumen and other products through our marine environment.

Again, it sounds like the member’s on my side. That’s good to know.

A. Wilkinson: We’re all on the side, I’m sure, of making sure that our coastline remains protected, and it certainly would be helpful to have $1½ billion of federal money to help that happen.

I think the Premier probably acknowledges there is not the slightest shred of protection from the daily traffic of very large crude carriers through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, from Alaska to Anacortes, Washington, which has been going on for 45 years. This Premier has not provided any suggestion of protection from Canadian fuel barges through Active Pass, Canadian fuel barges into Departure Bay, Canadian fuel barges to Swartz Bay or American tankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Unless the Premier’s got some way of refuting that proposition, we’ll assume there is no protection whatsoever for existing traffic of petroleum products through British Columbia waters, and we can turn to a further page in the affidavit.

Oh, perhaps the Premier is learning something off the device in his hand, so I’ll allow him to answer that question as to whether there is any protection whatsoever.

Hon. J. Horgan: I see that the Leader of the Opposition is working on his interpersonal skills during this exchange of ideas.

Look, he made an incorrect statement right off the top, that the $1.5 billion ocean protection plan was all about British Columbia. We have three oceans in Canada, hon. Member. You probably are aware of that, and the money’s being distributed to all coasts over a ten-year period.

We’re working as hard as we can to address the shortcomings, but if the member is going to make the statement that for 40 years, nothing’s been done, I recall him being in power for 16 of that time and doing nothing himself.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I see we’re degenerating into argumentative answers now. Perhaps the Premier would care to address the question: is there any protection at all for these fuel barges travelling through rocky passageways to Vancouver Island? Is there any protection at all from tankers travelling through the Strait of Juan de Fuca?

Hon. J. Horgan: When I was Leader of the Opposition, I went to Bella Bella when the Nathan E. Stewart hit the rocks and diesel spilled out onto the clam beds of the Háiɫzaqv people. It was that vivid image that made me commit myself to ensuring that if there was an increase in traffic in British Columbia, we had every protection available to us. That’s why we’re expanding our ability to have jurisdiction in this area by making a reference to the Supreme Court.

I would have thought, because there seems to be a new-found interest in marine protection on the other side, that after 16 years of indifference, they would join with us. That doesn’t seem to be the case today.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier makes an important point that his challenge is only to expanded traffic.

I’m asking, Premier, about existing traffic: the 100,000 barrels of day that comes by rail down the Fraser Canyon, the unknown amount of refined fuel that travels by barges to Vancouver Island, the massive traffic that travels to Anacortes, Washington. Between Anacortes, Birch Bay and Ferndale, they refine 600,000 barrels a day.

The obvious question that the Premier seems to not want to answer: is there any protection in British Columbia at this point from those large crude carriers and from those fuel barges?

Hon. J. Horgan: The west coast marine rescue corporation is active now protecting our coast. As I said, I was in Heiltsuk territory, in Bella Bella, when the Nathan E. Stewart ran aground. The big concern on the Central Coast was that it took so long for a response to come from Prince Rupert or from Port Hardy.

[5:15 p.m.]

Since that time, the federal government has recognized its jurisdiction in this area — again, someone who was in charge of intergovernmental relations for a time would have known that — and they’re putting more resources in the Central Coast to protect these vital areas. And we need to do more.

One of the fundamental questions that we’ve put to the Appeal Court and are taking to the Supreme Court is expanding the jurisdiction in British Columbia so that we can put in place the programs and policies that will protect not just our marine environment but our natural environment as well — the Fraser Canyon and other parts of British Columbia.

I appreciate that the member wants to somehow say that this problem arrived on the 18th of July, 2017. That’s not the case. But I can assure him that since the 18th of July, 2017, we have done everything we can to make sure that we can assert our authority and jurisdiction.

The response from the Leader of the Opposition was: “Go to Alberta, and say you’re sorry.” That’s not a solution to the challenges we face. Working aggressively to make sure we have the jurisdiction and the ability to protect our coast is what we should do, and that’s exactly what we are doing.

A. Wilkinson: Speaking of saying sorry, perhaps the Premier would like to apologize for doing absolutely nothing about protecting the Fraser Canyon, which is provincial jurisdiction, from any kind of fuel spill, because it’s abundantly clear there is no protection whatsoever. And the Premier’s efforts to obstruct pipeline construction mean we’ll see more and more and more rail traffic down the Fraser Canyon with no protection plan whatsoever.

Let’s turn to paragraph 30 of the Rensing affidavit. Perhaps the Premier would care to pay attention and read it, so I’ll take a moment while he consults with his staff.

M. Stilwell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: Joining us in the House this afternoon is part 2 of Dover Bay Secondary school — Mr. Irving’s class, the band members who are down here in Victoria performing at various community events. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the member is a member of the bar. He will understand that our reference question was not confined exclusively to the pipeline. It was, in fact, any transportation of deleterious substances — products that would have an adverse effect on our natural environment — whether by rail, whether by barge or whether by tanker. We were endeavouring to get the jurisdiction to put in place safeguards, ensuring that we could get information from rail companies, which the member now knows is currently before the Environmental Appeal Board.

We’re doing everything we can, leaving no stone unturned, to ensure that we have the ability to protect our natural environment. Again, I don’t recall this level of intensity between 2001 and 2017.

[5:20 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: I’ll take the Premier to paragraph 30 of the Rensing affidavit — once again, sworn evidence in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. “All other sources of refined fuels available to British Columbians are more expensive than shipments through the Trans Mountain pipeline. Any reduction in supply of refined fuels will increase prices.” Is that true?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll take the Premier to a list of the reasons that he gave for increases in gasoline prices in British Columbia recently. This was a daily shift. It started with: “We need more refineries in British Columbia.” It then shifted to: “Refinery maintenance is to blame.” It then changed to: “The provincial government is investigating gouging.” The next day, it became: “The federal consumer protection agency needs to intervene.” A couple of days later, it was, “We need more refineries in Alberta” — apparently a shift in priorities. Then it became: “We need more refineries in Washington state.”

The Premier then shifted his line of argument to a different point — “Refinery margins are too high” — and started blaming the oil companies. Then he said, in a rather rash statement, that pipelines have nothing to do with gas prices, when his sworn evidence in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is exactly to the opposite. Then there was a final desperate attempt where the Premier said that the federal government must increase the flow of refined fuel through the existing pipeline to reduce gas prices, until it was pointed out by the experts that that is utterly irrelevant, because the owner of the pipeline does not determine what goes into it.

So the Premier has now turned to the B.C. Utilities Commission in a rather desperate attempt to find an explanation for gas prices. We know they’re to report out on August 30, when the Premier is hoping the summer travel season will have resulted in a peak in gas prices.

Can the Premier simply answer the question: why is the scope of the Utilities Commission so restricted that it’s not allowed to ask about provincial enactments or policy on gasoline and diesel fuel prices in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: The issues before the travelling public right now, a significant increase in the price per litre of fuel, are known to all British Columbians who drive a car. The statement in paragraph 3 here says: “Any reduction in supply of refined fuels will increase prices.” I’ve been saying from the beginning that this is a supply-and-demand question. More refined product will reduce prices. There’s no inconsistency there. It’s exactly what was sworn in this affidavit. If we don’t have enough refined product, the price goes up.

What we need to do is get to the bottom of how we saw a 40-cent-a-litre increase over a short period of time when the tax increase in that period of time was 1 cent through the carbon pricing regime that we were following through on, which was put in place by the former government.

I don’t understand where you’re going with this. If we don’t have enough gasoline, the price will go up. We need more of it. The current batching in the Trans Mountain pipeline has seen a decline in refined product and an increase in diluted bitumen. The last time I checked, diluted bitumen didn’t make our cars go.

A. Wilkinson: If the goal is to provide price moderation for British Columbians at the gas pumps, and the Premier’s just said that we need more supply, how does he propose to get it here without a pipeline?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The wholesale price for gasoline, which does not include taxes — retail sales, carbon taxes, that sort of thing — has historically been…. The differential between Edmonton and Vancouver has been about 2½ to 4 cents. Now that’s risen to 24 cents. So I believe — and I’m surprised the member doesn’t agree — that there’s a legitimate public policy question to be asked, and the best way to do that is to be able to compel testimony, which is something that the B.C. Utilities Commission can do and he and I cannot, to determine why it is that there’s this significant disparity between the price at the pumps in Edmonton and the price at the pumps in Vancouver.

If the transportation costs have gone up that much, I’d like to know why and how. The historic average differential is no longer in place, and that’s a legitimate question for us to ask.

A. Wilkinson: Well, that answer had nothing to do whatsoever with the question, which was…. The Premier just said that to reduce fuel costs, we’ll need more supply. Other than through a pipeline, how does the Premier propose to get that increased supply from the oil fields of Alberta or North Dakota or Texas or Alaska to British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ve raised this with the member in this House several times. The volumes of refined products in the existing pipeline have been going down, and the amount of diluted bitumen in the pipeline has been going up. That has constrained access to supply and pushed up prices. Those are choices that are being made in Alberta. They’re not being made in British Columbia.

The challenge we have is…. I appreciate that the member is getting to the point of embracing the Trans Mountain pipeline, because he wants to see more pipelines into the Lower Mainland. The only problem with that, hon. Member, is the National Energy Board has made it abundantly clear that that pipeline will be filled with diluted bitumen, not refined products.

A. Wilkinson: Once again the Premier entirely avoids the question of how we’re going to get increased supply of fuel to British Columbians. Either he doesn’t have an answer or he doesn’t like the answer.

Perhaps it’s found in this briefing note from the Ministry of Energy dated May 10, 2018, which says that 21 percent of our fuel is produced at the Parkland refinery; about 61 percent comes from Alberta; 7 percent is ethanol produced in a variety of jurisdictions and shipped to British Columbia by rail, which again would be totally destructive to our animal population if it spilled; and 3 percent is imported from California in the summer to meet the clean gasoline regulation. Interestingly, in 2017, the source was Texas, while in other years it may have been Washington or any other jurisdiction that ships fuel by water.

So the Ministry of Energy is apparently telling us that this excess fuel demand is satisfied by shipping it in by sea. Perhaps the Premier is not aware of what’s happening in his own Ministry of Energy, but it seems his policies are actually increasing marine traffic when we’re trying to avoid that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Perhaps the Premier can come back to answer the question. If it’s not coming through the pipeline, how is it getting to British Columbia consumers?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ll try and say this so the member can understand it. There is less refined product coming in now because it’s being displaced by diluted bitumen. This is not a policy choice being made by the people of British Columbia. This is a choice being made by providers in Alberta. The notion that refined products moving by sea is something that’s happening now…. We’ve canvassed this. The ocean protection plan may well be able to assist us in that regard. There’s a company in place — I don’t have that in front of me; where did it go? — that’s working on that to protect our marine environment as it stands now.

The issue is supply. The member is acknowledging that. The challenge is that the existing infrastructure is not bringing refined product. It’s not even bringing sufficient light crude to have Parkland at full capacity.

[5:30 p.m.]

I would prefer to see refined product travelling through the Salish Sea than diluted bitumen any day of the week, because you can clean up refined product. We don’t know if you can clean up diluted bitumen.

A. Wilkinson: Well, if the Premier has ever seen a fuel spill on the ocean, he’ll know that oil, gasoline and diesel kill everything they touch on the surface layer. So the obvious question to the Premier is: if our excess demand is being satisfied by shipments from Texas by sea, why isn’t the Premier trying to sort out our needs through improved pipeline deliveries?

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re doing just that. I spoke with the Prime Minister, the owner of the pipeline, and we’re working on other mechanisms to batch more refined product and reduce the amount of diluted bitumen. These issues are taking more time than I would like and, certainly, the travelling public would like. But we need to be abundantly clear: twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline does not increase, in and of itself, refined product. It’s right there in black and white in the National Energy Board reports.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier will recall that the day after he mentioned that he’d talked to the Prime Minister about increasing fuel deliveries through the Trans Mountain pipeline, that was sneered at in the energy press, because they know perfectly well that the owner of the pipeline has nothing to do with the product that’s shipped through it. The Premier is barking up a dead tree to make a political point, and still we have the highest fuel prices in North America, and still we have the highest fuel taxes in North America.

Let’s go back to that briefing note, May 10, 2018, from the Ministry of Energy. It says on page 29, at paragraph 2.1.7, that there are additional costs associated with compliance with the low-carbon fuel requirements. Can the Premier tell us what the price premium is in British Columbia to satisfy the low-carbon fuel requirements that demand that all ethanol traffic come by rail?

Hon. J. Horgan: The low-carbon fuel standard probably increases the cost of a litre of fuel by about a penny. It was a proposal brought in by the former government, one that I support. It will lead to reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions, which is a policy that I believe all members of the House support.

A. Wilkinson: Further down that same page under “Factors that affect retail margins,” the statement is made by the Ministry of Energy experts saying that evidence does not suggest that consumers in regulated markets face lower gasoline prices than consumers in non-regulated markets.

Given the expertise in his ministry, is it safe to say that the Premier has abandoned the idea of trying to regulate gasoline markets, as is done in Atlantic Canada?

Hon. J. Horgan: Some of the Atlantic provinces do regulate prices. They set a floor for a period of time. I looked at that many years ago. I felt that at the time of increases in gas prices, that might be a viable way to proceed. The work that’s been done by my deputy minister demonstrated that that did not answer the question of why there was a 39-cents-a litre increase over a short period of time. We’re trying to find ways to increase the amount of refined product coming here. There are a number of plans underway. Hopefully, I’ll be able to talk to you about it in more detail later.

[5:35 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Once again, that same Ministry of Energy note states at the bottom: “There is no sign that there are non-competitive or unfair business practices leading to the higher margins.” Is that true, or is the Minister of Energy wrong?

Hon. J. Horgan: That note was prepared a year ago. That note did not take into account an extraordinary increase that the member has acknowledged and that we’ve all acknowledged. A 40-cent-a-litre increase has to come for some reason. We want to find out what that reason is.

A. Wilkinson: Is the Premier aware that in Washington state, there’s roughly a 20 percent margin over other American states in the cost of fuel at the pump?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m aware that refined products on the west coast are more expensive than in other jurisdictions, in many cases as a result of low-carbon fuel standards, certainly in California. I don’t know the differentials. What I’ve been focused on is the differential between Alberta and Vancouver, which is more appropriate, I think, at this time, as we talk about a Canadian issue that I believe requires national attention. That’s why I spoke to the Prime Minister, and he was receptive to the idea.

This is a crisis we’re in. The member has acknowledged that in his line of questioning. I believe we need to find a way forward. The best course of action, it seems to me, in the short term, is to find out why there’s such a massive disparity between the two jurisdictions, why we had a significant increase.

Some members on that side want to talk about taxation. Most of the taxes that are in place were put in place by the former government.

A. Wilkinson: Let’s go back to the note. Keeping in mind that the Premier said that there is a one-cent margin for the low-carbon fuel standard, that doesn’t explain gas prices in California, any more than it does here.

The note says: “A similar situation in the U.S. west coast seems to point to some growing supply constraints in a region with an expanding population and demand.” Quite clearly, we have a supply problem. The Premier has acknowledged that. The Premier said half an hour ago that if we can just get more supply of fuel to British Columbia, it will moderate prices. It says so in his own ministry note. It’s common sense. It applies to the United States as much as it applies here.

The question comes back to the Premier. Apart from the Trans Mountain pipeline, how does he propose to get more fuel to British Columbians to moderate prices?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member has just answered: the initiatives that I’ve undertaken. I want to see more refined products in the Trans Mountain pipeline. The twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline will not lead to more refined product coming into the Lower Mainland. The member for Skeena spoke about that, and about the impacts of diluted bitumen in the marine environment.

We need more refined product. The best way to get it here is through the Trans Mountain pipeline. That’s why I talked to the owner and said: “How can we work to figure this out?” We have some plans underway. I’m not in a position to discuss them with you today, but I’m hopeful that we can have some success in the short term.

A. Wilkinson: Another statement: “Because our current pipeline infrastructure fails to meet domestic demand, B.C. must pay a premium to import refined fuel from the United States. In turn, this increases the price B.C. must pay for refined fuel from Alberta.” All of this seems to boil down to the need for an enlarged Trans Mountain pipeline to supply the necessary demand in British Columbia. Does the Premier agree?

Hon. J. Horgan: No, I don’t.

A. Wilkinson: The next statement: “Twinning the Trans Mountain pipeline could increase the capacity of the existing pipeline to ship refined products or light crude oil to be refined in B.C. to help meet domestic demand.” Does the Premier agree?

Hon. J. Horgan: There’s no guarantee that the twinning of a pipeline to move diluted bitumen would take any pressure off the existing pipeline.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier seems to be very confident that the people of British Columbia can be gouged at the pumps for years to come because he has written off the concept of increased capacity through the Trans Mountain pipeline. Where he gets this certainty of opinion baffles most of us, but certainly the people of British Columbia going to the gas station know exactly why they have a problem. There’s a lack of supply and high taxes. The Premier has clearly made it his decision to refuse to increase the supply capacity to British Columbia through a modernized pipeline. Secondly, he has refused to reduce taxes under any circumstances because of his argument that it would just be soaked up by the oil companies.

[5:40 p.m.]

We’re left with the consumers at the pumps paying the ever-increasing price of gasoline, and the Premier has dismissed the two obvious arguments that are made manifest in the evidence of his own officials in the courtroom of Calgary and in his own briefing notes. We have a major supply constraint issue, which would be relieved by an expanded pipeline. We’ve heard the Premier say: “Oh no, no, no. It will be filled up with diluted bitumen.” Well, he seems to forget that it’s a twinning of the pipeline, and clearing out the primary pipeline would create a modernized, high-flow pipeline that would reduce fuel prices in British Columbia.

Is the Premier going to persist in this dogmatic approach that British Columbians are going to have to get their fuel by railcar, buy it at a premium from Washington state, or have it shipped in by barge from Texas? Is that the Premier’s answer to supply constraints in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ve said to the member several times now that I’m working closely with the federal government, the owner of the pipeline. I’m meeting Premier Kenney shortly to discuss the challenges that we see in the Lower Mainland when it comes to supply. I just do not accept the argument that he’s trying to make that somehow gas prices are going to go down tomorrow. There is no twin pipeline. The federal government hasn’t made a decision on whether they’re going to twin the pipeline. That decision is pending.

For today, the immediate concern for the people, the travelling public, in the Lower Mainland, is how did we get here? How did we go 40 cents a litre almost overnight? We’re going to try and get that answer from the Utilities Commission. In the meantime, we’re working as hard as we can to increase volumes through the pipe by reducing the amount of diluted bitumen coming through.

A. Wilkinson: So that makes it clear that the Premier is going to do absolutely nothing this summer to assist British Columbians at the gas pumps. He has said that the issue is supply constraint. The only way to get that supply into British Columbia is barges from Texas, trucks from Washington or railcars down the Fraser Canyon. This is the concept of responsible public policy in the province of British Columbia, to give people a break at the pumps.

The obvious alternative is to give people a break on the motor fuel tax. So perhaps we can get the Premier to rule out right now any attempt to improve supply or any attempt to reduce taxes.

Hon. J. Horgan: The Muse, Stancil report that was done by the National Energy Board says the following: “Muse has been advised by Trans Mountain to assume that refined product shipments are approximately 50,000 barrels a day and that refined product shipments will not increase as a result of the Trans Mountain expansion project.”

This is not me saying that. This is not the Ministry of Energy saying that. This is not anyone other than those that were giving advice to the National Energy Board.

The member seems to think that if we acquiesce to his notion that diluted bitumen coming into the Lower Mainland and a sevenfold increase in diluted bitumen tanker traffic going through the Salish Sea and up the Strait of Juan de Fuca will reduce gas prices tomorrow…. That’s not going to happen. What we need to do is get more product here today, and we’re going to do our level best to make that happen. That’s why I’m talking to the owner of the pipeline. I’m going to be meeting with the Premier of Alberta shortly, and we’re going to do our level best to bring prices down in the short term.

As a policy question, we’re going to ask the refiners: why is it that the margins went from 2½ cents to 24 cents? Why did it go up 40 cents a litre when the commodity price stayed exactly the same?

A. Wilkinson: Clearly, the problem in the short term is to get an increased supply of fuel to British Columbia, and the Premier has no plan whatsoever to do that, so the rest of us can just rot at the gas pumps. In the longer term, the obvious solution that the Premier alludes to is to increase the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline to ship refined product or crude for refineries in British Columbia.

The Premier is nodding. So why is it we’re not looking for an expanded Trans Mountain pipeline rather than no pipeline at all?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think I just read, maybe…. I’m not well today — I’ve got a cold, a head cold — but I’m pretty sure I just read expert testimony that said there will not be an increase in refined products as a result of the twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Again, not me saying that. Expert testimony to the National Energy Board.

A. Wilkinson: Well, given that Trans Mountain was completed in 1953 when our population was 1.2 million, and it’s now five million and growing, surely this Premier should be going to the federal government and saying, “You’re going to have to increase the capacity of the refined products pipeline and the crude pipeline,” begging them to give some relief to British Columbia consumers. Instead, this Premier is doing his level best to block the whole project. And who is going to pay the price for years to come? The British Columbia motorist.

[5:45 p.m.]

Premier, is there any reason why you wouldn’t go to the owner of the pipeline, the federal government, and ask them to increase the size of the pipe for a renewed Trans Mountain pipeline for the five million people of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think I just said that I’m working with the federal government to get more refined product into the Lower Mainland now — now, today. Not two years from now or three years from now when the pipeline is finished. Right now.

The chief economist for the NEB recently said that the pipeline expansion could actually raise gas prices. We were reading newspaper articles earlier on. You were reading from the noted columnist of the Vancouver Sun. This is what used to be the referred to as the national newspaper, the Globe and Mail. The chief economist for the NEB says: “No decrease in costs of refined product if we’re just putting diluted bitumen in the pipe.”

That’s where we’re at right now. The federal government has not made a determination on the expansion. I’m working on how we get answers to the problems that we see before us. That means, in my opinion, getting compelling testimony from the people who provide the products — and explain to us why you’re putting more diluted bitumen in and less refined product.

At the same time, we’re working on other measures that I hope to have answers to in a short period of time.

A. Wilkinson: Premier, will there be any increase in supply of refined products or crude oil to British Columbia, to the Parkland and Husky refineries, in the short term to give us any price relief? Because all you’ve described is hopes and dreams.

Hon. J. Horgan: I believe I’ve been saying that from the start of this line of questioning. I’ve talked to the owner of the pipeline, the federal government. I’m working with the Utilities Commission to try and get answers from the refiners as to why it is that they’ve reduced their shipments to the Lower Mainland when they know they have a market, a viable market, and they’re doing very well by it by constraining that supply.

I’m doing my best to solve the problems today. The Leader of the Opposition and the B.C. Liberal Party want to twin the Trans Mountain pipeline on the hope that somehow there will be more refined product coming forward. Yet piece of evidence after piece of evidence described to us today in this House, from the chief economist on the NEB as well as the Muse, Stancil report that was the definitive piece on the NEB process, says: not going to happen.

A. Wilkinson: Is it accurate to state, Premier, that in the past three months, your attempts to increase the supply of fuel and drive down the cost of gasoline in British Columbia have accomplished absolutely nothing?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, let me just take a look at what the Leader of the Liberal Party has done in the time that I’ve had the opportunity to try and effect change.

Firstly and foremostly, to protect and defend our coast, we’ve put a reference case to the Appeal Court. We’re going on to the Supreme Court. The Liberals objected to that.

When the former government of Alberta and the current government of Alberta passed legislation threatening to cut off the supply entirely, we took that to court. The Leader of the Opposition said, “Don’t do that. Just go and say you’re sorry,” and all of a sudden something is going to change.

Their solutions to the increase in cost were to slash the taxes that they put in place, which was called, by economists at UBC, ridiculous.

I appreciate that the B.C. Liberals are trying to catch this tiger by the tail. The public understands that the challenges in the marketplace when it comes to refined products that move our cars back and forward are a result of a lack of supply. We are doing our level best to get more supply into the Lower Mainland now, this summer, so we can reduce costs for consumers.

At the same time, we’re asking the Utilities Commission, an independent body with subpoena powers — they can compel witnesses — to explain to the public how it is that this happened. Everybody knows that the carbon tax went up one cent a litre this year — one cent. Where did the other 39 cents go? Not into the pockets of British Columbians. They came out of pockets of British Columbians, and they want to know where it’s going.

[5:50 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: The upshot of all of this is that motorists can expect no relief whatsoever in the next three months until his famous report from the Utilities Commission, just like they’ve had no relief whatsoever in the last three months because the Premier has utterly failed to negotiate any increased supply to British Columbians. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: No, it’s not correct. I’m going to be meeting with the Prime Minister next week. I’ll be with him, as well, in Europe, commemorating the courageous efforts of Canadians on D-Day, 75 years ago this June 6. We’ll have ample opportunity to talk about these issues.

The Prime Minister acknowledges that this is a crisis in the Lower Mainland. He knows British Columbia well. He’s the owner of the pipeline. I’ll be meeting with the Premier of Alberta, not once but twice in the next number of weeks, and we’re going to be talking about these issues, I’m sure. He has a point of view. I have a point of view. I’m going to be defending the interests of our coast. I’m going to be doing my level best to get more refined products into British Columbia now so we can relieve these costs for the transportation public.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier sadly suggests that the Prime Minister owns the pipeline. Unfortunately, 36 million of us own the pipeline. We don’t want it. We don’t know how to operate it. We don’t know how to build one. That only happened because of the Premier’s obstructive efforts, which forced the federal government to purchase the pipeline to avoid a commercial disaster.

We have concluded today that the Premier has no plan whatsoever to reliably increase the supply of fuel to British Columbia. We have fuel coming in from Texas by barge. We have thousands of railcars bringing crude oil and refined products down the Fraser Canyon, at vast risk to British Columbia’s natural environment. The Premier has done absolutely nothing that serves to change that.

We also noticed that the Premier said that he is engaged in litigation to try and fix the situation. Well, the Premier got thrown out of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench on his ear for a poorly prepared application designed to protect British Columbia’s fuel supply — a huge embarrassment in January of this year. We then faced a 5-0 loss in the British Columbia Court of Appeal last week, so the Premier’s litigation strategy seems to be a bit of a flop.

The question remains: can we look forward to any relief in the next three months from the highest gasoline prices in North America, or do we just have to suck it up until the Premier’s Utilities Commission report comes back with some vague hope of change?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’m going to reject a whole bunch of that. First of all, the federal government is a big government, filled with people who make decisions. They chose to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline. We were issuing permits as they were requested by Trans Mountain. We were not obstructing in any way.

We entered into existing court cases with the Tsleil-Waututh and others in the federal court. You will know that that decision came out in favour of the Tsleil-Waututh, and that led to further consultation — not yet concluded effectively, as far as I’m aware — as well as an expansion of the views of the NEB to include the marine environment. This was not part and parcel of the first review by the NEB, which was, of course, deferred. The former government deferred all responsibility for this to the federal government at that time, with the equivalency agreement that was in place.

Again, we got here not by my actions but by the actions of a whole bunch of people who were committed to protecting and defending our coast. When it comes to Bill 12, it’s interesting that the Leader of the Opposition will quote from affidavits from that court case and declare that they are certain and true, but somehow it’s a fiasco because the court said, “Well, they haven’t enacted the legislation yet, so you’re premature.” That’s what they said. That’s why we’re back in court on that.

Mr. Kenney — when I spoke with him, the Premier of Alberta — said they had no intention at this time of implementing that act, but they did enact it. We are in court, and we’ll be talking about that as well, not just in the courts in Alberta, but also at the Western Premiers Conference and again at the Council of the Federation.

It’s all well and good for the member to say that Canada bought a pipeline because of British Columbia’s actions. That’s just not the case. We were issuing permits, as we were obliged to do. We entered into existing litigation, and we took steps to protect and defend our coast that the member is saying we should have done, apparently, 16 years ago. He said nothing happened for 40 years, but the vast majority of that time, they were in power. So I don’t know how that becomes my problem and the problem of this government.

A. Wilkinson: What has the cost been for the well-qualified lawyers to engage in this futile and unproductive litigation strategy that resulted in the dismissal of the claim in Calgary and a 5-0 loss in the Court of Appeal?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: As a former Attorney General, albeit for a short period of time, he will know that legal costs are not disclosed in the middle of a proceeding. The vast majority of the work, I will say, was done by in-house counsel, very capable counsel, and we’re confident that the prices are well within what would be reasonable.

There were, of course, other instances where governments of British Columbia have fought with citizens — not with other jurisdictions, but with citizens. I think of the B.C. Teachers Federation or the Hospital Employees Union, whose contracts were ripped up and then put back in place by the Supreme Court. The class-size and class composition language was rejected by the Court of Appeal here, and it took 22 minutes — about as long as it would take to watch a sitcom — for the Supreme Court to throw the province of B.C. out of the courtroom and say the teachers were correct.

So I think we’re on a good track here, and it’s not breaking the bank.

A. Wilkinson: Well, Mr. Arvay left the Attorney General’s Ministry 25 years ago and has been in private practice ever since then. Perhaps the Premier can explain why he is reluctant to disclose the legal costs of Mr. Arvay. There’s no good reason why he should not.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m advised that it’s not the practice, and he’s not finished.

A. Wilkinson: Well, every competent lawyer I know in the private sector bills monthly. I’m sure the Premier has paid a lot of those bills, and I’m sure, as the client, he knows he can waive privilege and disclose those costs at any time. So is there some reason why the Premier…?

Interjections.

A. Wilkinson: Is there any particular reason why the Premier doesn’t want the public to know the cost of Mr. Arvay today?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I recall that the member, when he was defending the egregious advertising budgets of the former government, wouldn’t disclose those, and they were part of his ministry responsibility. He said, “Well, you’ll see it in the public accounts,” which will be the answer I’ll give with respect to Mr. Arvay’s legal fees. All of that is disclosed. It’s not hidden from the public, and it will be made available in July or August, when the public accounts come forward.

But the notion of waiving privilege is an interesting one. One of the big challenges we’ve seen in British Columbia over the past number of years is the increase in the amount of money laundering in our economy — not a victimless crime, as we all know; in fact, quite the contrary. It has distorted our real estate market. It has led to a whole host of grief for the people of British Columbia.

We asked the former government to waive privilege on what they did to address money laundering, and the response back was: “No, no chance. We’re not going to do that.” So I don’t know. If the member wants to talk about waiving privilege, he should maybe lead by example.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier should know full well that we’ve consulted the Attorney General to find out which documents would be involved in waiving privilege. While we’re at it, perhaps the Premier would assure the public that the two Premiers who were forced to resign in the 1990s over gaming issues and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society conviction also generated some privileged documents. Will the Premier agree to disclosing those as part of the investigation into gaming, money laundering and criminal activity involved in gaming?

Hon. J. Horgan: A stretch, hon. Speaker, if ever there was one. We got to the 1990s, and it’s just six o’clock. In fact, we got to the 1970s, because that’s how far back the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society so-called scandal went. There was, I recall, a public inquiry into that, but the former government shut it down.

A. Wilkinson: Given that $4½ million was taken out of the hands of a charity by the NDP and not a penny has ever been paid back, will the Premier waive any and all cabinet privilege over documents related to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the resignation of Premier Harcourt or the resignation of Premier Clark, yes or no?

Hon. J. Horgan: No.

A. Wilkinson: The summary of our gasoline prices issue was put out beautifully in the Vancouver Sun April 24: “Horgan Points Fingers, but Not at Himself, for High Gas Prices.”

The Chair: No names, Member. No names.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier points fingers, but not at himself, for high gas prices. “Much as the Premier is loath to admit it, the New Democrats are doing their part to drive up the price of gasoline.” Does the Premier accept that proposition?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve just been handed a note with respect to cabinet confidences, and they’re automatically waived after 15 years. So the documents the member is looking for, if he’s really looking for them, are readily available.

[6:00 p.m.]

The period in question, when money laundering went out of control in British Columbia, was on his watch and the members’ on that side. So I would suggest that, rather than wait 15 years, they might do the people of British Columbia a favour.

I would also say that the Vancouver Sun has done very well today. It seems to be the journal of record for the Leader of the Opposition. He reads from it chapter and verse, headline to byline.

Again, what we’ve been trying to do is address a fundamental public policy question. What the people on the other side of the House have been trying to do is bring politics into the equation. No one believes that government policy has led to a 39-cent-a-litre increase in gasoline. Nobody believes that.

The taxation that now is a critical problem for the B.C. Liberals was largely put in place by the B.C. Liberals. So the challenge we have is that the travelling public — at the core of these issues — the people of British Columbia are in distress because of high gas prices. They don’t believe it’s my fault. They don’t believe it’s his fault. They want to find answers.

That’s what the Utilities Commission is doing. At the same time, they want government to do what it can to relieve that pressure, which is a supply and demand, private market question. The party of the private markets seems to not understand that.

We’re going to do our level best. We have some initiatives underway, which I cannot talk about at this time — but I have assured the member that when we can talk about them, we will — that could well see more supply coming to the Lower Mainland.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier was kind enough to point out that cabinet documents, in terms of their confidentiality, are waived after 15 years, but privilege is not. Perhaps he can revisit the question. Will the Premier agree to waive privilege over all cabinet documents related to the resignation of Premiers Harcourt and Clark and to any and all dealings with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal which resulted in a $4½ million fraud?

Hon. J. Horgan: If we’re going to go into history, I would like to start with the Basi-Virk inquiry and why those people got off with legal fees being paid by the people of British Columbia; why, at the last minute, the sale of B.C. Rail got yanked out from underneath the eyes of the people of British Columbia, because of the decisions of that government.

If we’re going to do a history lesson, Leader of the Opposition, let’s go back just a couple of years and look at the past 16 years of malfeasance by the people on that side of the House.

A. Wilkinson: Well, that was a total avoidance of the question. The Premier earlier said he refused to waive privilege over the documents related to the resignations of Premiers Harcourt and Clark, and he refused to waive privilege over the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding scandal. Will the Premier waive privilege and allow all of those cabinet documents to be revealed to the public, either before or during the Cullen inquiry?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thought we were doing the budget estimates for the Office of the Premier — today’s Premier. I have the honour and privilege of occupying that office. I came with able staff to talk about the issues of the day. We did do a little bit of that over the course of the past few hours, but the notion that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society holds any interest for the people of British Columbia today is ridiculous. The member knows that.

Why don’t we get back to something else on your pad of paper over there and proceed to do something useful for the people of B.C. over the next hour.

A. Wilkinson: Premier, I’d be delighted to get to the matter if you would simply put forward a straightforward answer to the questions. You have ignored and avoided the questions for three hours now.

Perhaps we can get a clarification. Is the answer still no to a waiver of privilege over the resignation of Premiers Harcourt and Clark and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in terms of NDP cabinet documents in the 1990s, yes or no?

Hon. J. Horgan: Why doesn’t the member use some of his spare time when he’s not reading the Vancouver Sun to make a list of the things you want, send it over to me and see what we can do? But the people of British Columbia, I think — I’m fairly confident; I may be off base on this — want to talk about the issues of the day. They want to talk about child care. They want to make sure that their kids are in classrooms that aren’t overcrowded. They want to make sure that seniors are getting the care they need — the things that matter to people. I don’t know where you’re going, man, but this might explain the poll results.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I take it the Premier has indeed refused to waive privilege, so let’s talk about Surrey portables. The Premier promised during the election that by year 2, which is coming up in two short months, the number of portables would be reduced by 50 percent. The number at the time of the election was 276. That would have been 138 portables removed with corresponding classrooms provided. What do we have instead? The number of portables has gone up by 31 percent to 358.

[6:05 p.m.]

Massive failure on the part of the Premier’s promise to do anything for the people in Surrey to reduce the number of portables. The Premier has just been handed a note which will explain announcements of schools in Surrey, almost all of which were prepared and funded by the B.C. Liberal budgets before this government came along. And now the Premier is going to grin and say he’s solving the problem. The problem is the number of portables just went up by another seven, to 365.

Premier, is this a complete failure and a broken promise?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member might well remember that as portables were increasing exponentially in Surrey, the B.C. Liberals were in government. The reason they went up again in 2018 was not because of any actions by this government. Quite the contrary. It was a Supreme Court decision. I’ve referred to it already: 22 minutes to throw the B.C. Liberal government out of the courtroom, saying, “You need to restore class-size and class-composition language,” which led to — guess what — a proliferation of portables.

Not only did they not fund schools for 16 years, by restraining free collective bargaining agreements that led to smaller classes, they had to explode the number of portables. The problem got bigger just as we arrived. It wasn’t because of us; it was because of them.

We’ve been doing, despite that, our level best by making a multitude of school announcements; first and foremost, working with the city of Surrey, working with the school board in Surrey, to have a dedicated project office so that we can keep pace with the development — again, a fast-growing community, a desirable place to live. Young families are going to Surrey. They need schools, just like they do in Coquitlam and Sooke and other fast-growing areas.

We’re doing our level best to meet the demand, but again, we were put on our back heel by a government that didn’t seem to care much about kids or education.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier seems to forget that the election happened more than a year and a half after the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Yet the Premier ran around, knowing full well what the demand would be for classrooms, promising the people of Surrey that they would have 138 fewer portables. What have they got? They’ve got a 31 percent increase to 365 portables. A total failure of the promise.

Premier, can you just acknowledge today it was an empty and broken promise from the election when you knew full well what the class size and composition demands would place on Surrey portables, and you basically misled the people of Surrey.

Hon. J. Horgan: I did nothing of the kind, and the member knows that. If the old government had approved 2,500 new seats, like we have, in each of the last four years, there would be no need for portables in Surrey today. If the former government had been doing their job in Surrey…. The last school built there was in 2014. If they had been doing their job, we would be in a better place.

I think you should go onto another line of questioning, because it’s indefensible for the B.C. Liberals to stand and say they were defending education at any time in the 2000s, up to 2016, and certainly when it comes to providing classrooms in Surrey.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I’m glad to see the Minister of Education has joined us, because he’s the person who promised in 2018 that we were still committed to the 2019 deadline to reduce the number of portables by 50 percent to 138. The Minister of Education is sitting three seats away from you. Was that a complete misleading statement?

The Chair: Members. No member should identify or try to identify people sitting in the House, so please be careful.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: There have been 7,365 new seats in Surrey. We’ve got the new Salish Secondary with 1,500 seats; an addition at Woodward Hill Elementary, 195 seats; Panorama Park Elementary, 200 seats; an addition at Pacific Heights Elementary, 300 seats; an addition at Coyote Creek Elementary, 100 seats; Frost Road Elementary, an addition there, 150 seats; an addition at Sullivan Elementary, another 200 seats; an addition at Douglas area elementary, 605 seats.

A new school at Edgewood Drive, 655 seats. The new Grandview Heights secondary, 1,500 seats. Maddaugh elementary, brand-new, 605 seats; Regent Road Elementary, 655 seats; and an addition at Sullivan Heights Secondary of 700 seats. In addition, ten more projects with over 2,000 new seats in Surrey are supported in the minister’s capital plan, and they’ll be bringing forward another 9,450 seats.

We’re doing our level best to meet a commitment that we made in good faith assuming that the information that we were given by the former government was accurate. The Supreme Court made that irrelevant and redundant. We’re working as best as we can to make up for the glaring omissions and errors of the former government when it came to providing quality education for the kids not just in Surrey but right around British Columbia.

I profoundly believe that education is the great equalizer in our society and that giving more opportunity to young people means that we’re going to be better off as a society. I think the members on the other side agree with that. We’re doing our level best to make up for the backlog in Surrey. I commend the Minister of Education for the work that he’s done. Again, we’ve got lots more work to do.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier is absolutely right that public education is the great leveller, and it creates opportunities for British Columbians. That’s why the B.C. Liberal capital plan included most of those seats that he just described in the school list. Certainly Salish, Woodward, Panorama, Sullivan, Grandview Heights were in the B.C. Liberal capital plan, regardless of what others may say in this room.

So we come back to the question. One year ago, the Minister of Education said we would have half the portables removed in Surrey by the summer of 2019. Instead, the number has gone up by 31 percent. Premier, when are you going to get rid of the portables in Surrey, or is it just a flagrantly broken promise?

Hon. J. Horgan: We are, as I’ve said…. I listed off some of those seats: 7,365 completed, 9,450 committed — funded within our capital budget. The member should take a trip out to Surrey. It doesn’t cost him anything to cross the bridges. The tolls are eliminated, so he can go out to Surrey, and he can see the explosion of development there. It’s a desirable place to live, but you need to have services. That’s why we’ve focused on the portable challenge in that community.

Before the election and since the election, we’ve been doing our level best to meet the needs of that community, but increased enrolment and having to address the shortfalls that were a result of the belligerence, quite frankly, of the former government when it came to class size and class composition has delayed our ability to meet our targets. But we’re going to work as hard as we can to meet them.

A. Wilkinson: That answer amounts to: “The Education Minister was just plain wrong a year ago when he said we’d get rid of half of the portables by this summer.” Having established that, I think we’ll move on, because the Premier has no answer as to when those portables are going disappear. The Premier has said nothing more than: “We’ll keep building.” There’s no goal, no timeline, no final date — in clear violation of that election promise.

[6:15 p.m.]

Let’s move on to a very simple topic: partisan advertising. This government promised, when we were in government and they were in opposition, that the partisan advertising would end. Instead, we have seen saturation advertising on every imaginable topic, particularly on the community benefits agreement, and goodness knows who that benefits apart from the political party in power of the day.

Can the Premier explain to us: what is the policy about advertising, and has there been any change after hearing the high-flying rhetoric that it should be processed through the Auditor General to make sure it wasn’t partisan?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have been working diligently. There has not been blanket advertising. In fact, I’m advised that the community benefits agreement advertising you’re seeing is not being paid for by the province of British Columbia. It’s being paid for by people who want to see more apprenticeships, more local hire and more British Columbians working on these projects.

Again, I remember when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible for advertising. He was contemptuous of the notion that there should be some check or balance put on that.

I’ve spoken personally with the Auditor General. She was less enthusiastic about monitoring government advertising but understood that there was good policy work that can and should be done. We continue to do that.

There has not been blanket advertising. I think you might be just not reading the Vancouver Sun enough. Spend more time doing that. You won’t have to listen to good people talking about the benefits of the programs that we’ve been implementing here in B.C.

A. Wilkinson: Well, rather than dismissing my reading habits, perhaps the Premier could answer the question. Has the Premier approached the Auditor General, or anyone in this government approached the Auditor General, about a new approach to advertising, which was so heavily criticized by these members when they were in opposition?

Hon. J. Horgan: We did take action. As recently as April 1, all ads are reviewed by the Advertising Standards Council. The Auditor General, as I said, did not want the burden of having to review all government ads. She has approved of this process. She can continue to audit if she chooses, but what we’ve been trying to do is to take the partisanship out of advertising.

I would argue that the bulk of the advertising that’s done by the province…. Certainly at this time of year when fires are upon us, we’re doing advertising in that regard. We’re doing advertising when it comes to budget programs, which again, is pretty consistent with every government in the land. We’re not doing partisan ads, and we don’t intend to.

A. Wilkinson: So to summarize, there’s been no change whatsoever in terms of government policy related to partisan advertising because the Auditor General dismissed the concept and the Premier has decided to do nothing at all to change the process. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said, effective April 1, the non-partisan advertising standards are required for all B.C. government informational ads under STOB 67 — to be reviewed by non-partisan advertising review criteria before they’re released or published.

Advertising campaigns with budgets over of $250,000 are required to undergo a mandatory non-partisan review conducted by the Advertising Standards Council of Canada, a not-for-profit organization that administers the Canadian code for advertising. I think that’s a significant change.

Again, I’m happy to send all of the information over to the Official Opposition so they can have a full understanding of what a government should do when it wants to inform the public about good programs rather than push partisan politics.

A. Wilkinson: Does the Advertising Standards Council approve the ads before they’re aired, or is it a review afterwards?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Before they’re on the air.

A. Wilkinson: Now, in the election, the Premier promised, in a grandiose fashion, that there’d be $10-a-day daycare. Then that turned into an aspirational goal. Then it turned into a pilot program. I believe — if we can get the correct information from the Premier — that we now have 2,500 spaces at $10 a day out of 107,000. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: The $10-a-day pilots that the member referred to are very well received in the community. Tens of thousands of people are receiving reductions in child care fees since we came to government. With respect to the $10-a-day pilots, it’s about 2,000. But it’s the reduction in fees, broadly, for tens of thousands of people, that we keep hearing positive feedback from — so much so that in the annual publication by First Call, the living-wage coalition annual report on what the minimum living wage is to live in Vancouver, it has gone down, for the first time in 15 years because of the reduction in costs for child care. That’s a significant issue.

Similarly, the elimination of medical services premiums has also put money back into the pockets of people, which they can use to do other activities to improve themselves and their families and contribute to the economy. I’m very proud of the work we’ve done on child care in the short time we’ve had. We’re committed to a broad ten-year plan, and we’ve made good progress in the first two years.

A. Wilkinson: Well, at 2,000 spaces of 107,000, that’s under 2 percent who’ve actually met the election promise, so we’ll count that as a continuing, aspirational goal.

Perhaps it’s time to talk about another aspirational goal. There was a grand profusion of announcements during the election about the government building 114,000 housing units in ten years. In a radio debate with the now Attorney General, I asked where he would find the $23 billion required to build those housing units. His answer was: “When we cancel Site C, that’ll put $7 billion on the table.” Well, Site C wasn’t cancelled. There is no $23 billion. There’s no ten-year plan, and it turns out that the actual number of units built is 1,575 — meaning it won’t take ten years to build those units; it’ll take 70 years.

Can the Premier explain to us if this is another aspirational goal, when 1,200 units of modular housing are put together, out of 1,575 total, and when the build rate means a 70-year program to satisfy his election promise?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just correct the member on his response to my answer on the child care benefits to people in British Columbia. Tens of thousands of families have seen significant reductions in their costs.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: I said it. You didn’t acknowledge it. I want to say it again so that Hansard will record that the child care plan here is working for families — which, again, is the fundamental reason why I think we all came here in the first place: to help families.

[6:25 p.m.]

When it comes to housing, we will fund 36,000 new units over a ten-year period — 20,000 already funded, according to the Minister of Housing, who’s not with us right now, but I’m sure she’d be happy to come and join us. This is a fun time for all of us. We’re working as hard as we can to bring down costs, not just with demand actions but also with more supply.

I believe, again, that the member will know this. He participated in the 2017 election. The two biggest issues that we heard time after time after time were child care and housing. The costs of those two elements in the family budgets were debilitating, so much so that people were contemplating leaving British Columbia rather than staying. As a result, over two years, of bringing on 2,000 homes, completed or underway, we’re well on our way to meet our targets. I’m hopeful that the member will get behind us on this because it’s good for his community. It’s good for everybody’s community.

A. Wilkinson: Let me make sure that I heard that correctly: that it’s been reduced now from 114,000 in ten years to 32,000 — just a 70 percent reduction. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: No, that’s not correct. Certainly, I misspoke.

In less than two years, we’ve already made progress on 20,000 houses, completed or underway, in communities right across British Columbia. That’s a pretty good average after not yet two years on the job. And we will, over ten years, invest $7 billion in new housing supply. That’s good news for British Columbians. That’s good news for everybody. I don’t know why the member on the other side doesn’t see the benefits and the enthusiasm on the faces of British Columbians when they see these costs going down.

We have challenges in the economy. Of course we do. It’s red-hot right now. That’s a problem that most provinces would like to have. But we need to think more creatively about how we train people for the next generation of workers. We need to make sure that people can afford to live in communities, not hollow communities where prices were driven up by speculation and money laundering. We’re trying to remove those elements from the community to put more houses on the market for people to live in, not to speculate in.

A. Wilkinson: Well, let’s get it clear how many of these 114,000 units are actually functional. The best information we have is 1,575 after two years, and of those, 1,200 are modular. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the program is ramping up: 2,300 homes already complete, and 20,000 funded and underway. That’s, by any measure, a positive start to a program that has been wildly supported by people in communities right across B.C.

A. Wilkinson: The question is a crystal-clear question. One hundred and fourteen thousand were promised. We’re told 23,000 are underway. The capital plan is a ten-year cycle. The budgetary plan is a three-year cycle. If we’re now at year 2 and you have another three years, in five years, you’ll have 20,000 units underway. That’s a complete failure and broken promise. Are we looking at 114,000 in ten years completed or not?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, housing starts by our budgets are up, relative to the budgets that were tabled by the former government.

We’re not the only people building houses in the marketplace. The private sector is doing that as well. And bringing on more supply is the key to bringing down costs for people. I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to do. You go to any of the not-for-profit housing organizations, you talk to the people in communities, and they’re going to say yeah. I talk to mayors and councils in most communities. They’re going to be happy with how things are going.

A. Wilkinson: Given that we just heard from the Premier that his 114,000 housing unit goal has fallen apart right in front of him, he’s now turning to private sector to fill in the gap. I’ll thank him for his time, and we’ll rejoin him tomorrow for a continuation of estimates.

I’m glad to hand the floor over to the Leader of the Third Party.

A. Weaver: I’d like to start by saying I think it’s an important anniversary today. I believe it’s the two-year anniversary of the signing of our CASA agreement. With that, I would suggest that this has been a rather unique time in the province of British Columbia with a minority government. I would suggest that the Premier would probably agree that the relationship has been fruitful, collaborative — at times challenging, without a doubt, but nevertheless, reaffirming the commitment that we made in CASA to work together.

[6:30 p.m.]

That doesn’t mean we agree on everything. It means we that have a process to reflect upon our disagreements, and I would just like to canvass a few of the issues here. In particular, I’d like to start off with some of the issues with respect to the gas prices.

I was listening with interest to the comments coming from the official opposition. I was somewhat flummoxed by the kind of apparent petro-stumping that I heard and somewhat concerned that I did not perceive there to be a desire to actually support British Columbia in standing up for British Columbians, as opposed to supporting the gouging that is going on by certain elements.

I noticed that over the last few months, the Premier and this government have come under fire, frankly, about the rising gas prices, and the official opposition has done what they can to try to distort the issue — frankly, to blame government — appealing to the worst type of populist politics.

I want to start my questioning by asking the Premier: what tools does he have to affect gas prices?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank my colleague from Oak Bay–​Gordon Head, the leader of the Green Party, for his questions and his interventions here today in the budget estimates for the Premier’s office.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Firstly, I’d like to say that we’re trying to find ways to bring down the cost of gasoline by talking to suppliers, finding ways to bring more supply into our region. That means talking…. Again, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, we’re working on a plan that has not come yet to fruition, but I think in the next while, if I give it time, I’ll be held to that.

We’re working hard to try to find a way to increase our ability to affect what’s in the pipeline. What we’ve been trying to do is work with the federal government, get an acknowledgment from our federal government, who now does own the pipe. Although they can’t dictate what goes into it, they have a bunch of mechanisms at their disposal to help us explain how the price went up so high and what we can do to bring it down in the short term.

But in the long term, the member will know — and he and I are both enthusiastic about this — we’re going to be moving away from gasoline in the first place. We want to see more people in electric vehicles. We’re putting in place, as he knows, incentives to see more people using electric cars. I drive a hybrid. You drive a full electric. We’re building charging stations right across British Columbia. I think we have over 1,500 now, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, right across the province.

We’re putting in place infrastructure to reduce the costs over the long term and also have a better environmental outcome, but that’s not happening today. Sorry, Member. The public expects, rightly so, that we will be doing what we can to bring on more supply so that prices can go down, so we can make that transition over a longer period of time.

A. Weaver: I concur. I accept the arguments brought forward by the Premier with respect to the ability to affect what’s in the pipeline. I found compelling the arguments that discuss the fact that, in fact, the Trans Mountain was not about enhanced refined capacity. It’s all about increased diluted bitumen.

The Premier has referred to a multitude of things that could happen. One of the things that I have a concern on, and I’m going to frame a question in this regard, is that if we look back historically, virtually every year, as long as I have known, gas prices go up in the spring, and they come back in the fall.

The Premier will remember back whenever the Axe the Tax campaign was initiated by a previous government. It was during the summer months, right at the peak price when there were record prices being set. The kind of rhetoric associated with that campaign kind of fell flat as the fall approached, because the price of gas came down.

[6:35 p.m.]

My question to the Premier is: does he think it is prudent for a government to have a market intervention along the lines of what the member of the official opposition is stating, in light of the fact that essentially every year we know that the price of gas goes down as we move out of the summer season and, in fact, will fall naturally because of traditional supply-and-demand arguments and enhanced refining after, basically, the long weekend in September?

Hon. J. Horgan: I agree with the member’s premise, but this year seems to be, without any doubt, anomalous relative to others. That 40 cent increase — when only one penny a litre can be put to the carbon tax that we increased on April 1 — is unusual. There is always an increase in demand during the travelling season. You and I have talked about that. I agree with you. But it’s never been that large.

That’s why I asked my deputy minister about the margin question, the refining margin, why it had gone from 2½ cents to 24 cents. What happened there? We did our best through inquiries to get an answer to that question, but we can’t compel people to testify. The Utilities Commission can, and that’s why we’ve punted the question over to them.

In the meantime, we need to continue to talk about how people can get out of their cars. That means investing in transit, which we’re doing in a big way, not just in the Lower Mainland but right across B.C. It means giving incentives to get off of fossil fuels and on to cleaner energy alternatives for our transportation needs. These are all long-term goals that we have in our plan that you and I worked on, together with the Minister of Environment, as part of CleanBC.

But for today, when people are looking at their summer season, they’re pretty unhappy about this, and I absolutely feel that and understand it. We are trying to find ways to have temporary relief through mechanisms that we’ve been working on as well as coordination and cooperation from the federal government.

You’re absolutely right. These cycles are traditional. The Leader of the Opposition and his crew are saying that it’s a tax question, among others. That’s not the case. Do we have a significant amount of tax in our gasoline — federal, transportation, TransLink, and so on? Yes, we do, but that does not explain these wild seasonal swings that you’ve suggested.

A. Weaver: I agree with the Premier. The refining margin in British Columbia seems to be out of whack with the rest of the country. I’m hoping that the B.C. Utilities Commission is able to explore this. I look forward to the results.

On that note, I noticed that the official opposition was focusing on increasing supply, increasing supply, increasing supply. At one point, they kind of walked away from that. They started introducing this kind of Marxist logic about introducing a price cap, which was just outrageous coming from a free market party. Unbelievable. I think they’ve walked away from this price cap.

Anyway, my question is on the demand side, then. I suspect, knowing back when the last time we had some price hikes and the widespread move towards alternate forms of transportation, which did have a legacy effect…. I’m wondering if the Premier has any statistics about uptakes of electric vehicles, uptakes of transit ridership or uptakes of other modes of active transportation that have arisen as a direct consequence of the rising price of gas and whether or not this has affected the demand side of the equation and whether or not, in fact, demand is dropping in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m just asking if we can get the uptick in people using transit, because it will be significant. The member is quite right. In times of crisis, people modify their behavior. They do different things. They don’t go, maybe, out to the grocery store every other day. They wait, or they buy larger amounts so they’re not travelling as much.

I can say, on our incentives to get people into electric vehicles, as you’ll know, we had to increase that budget three times last year, which means that there’s a big demand for people to get out of the lineup for gasoline and a big demand to get into the future, which is electric vehicles. Prices are coming down. They need to come down further so more people can get into electric vehicles. But people are voting with their feet on this question, taking up the incentives that government is providing. The federal government is now involved as well. This is very good news.

The transit numbers are coming. Because we’re short of time, perhaps I’ll just make sure that I can get those numbers to you.

[6:40 p.m.]

I can quantify the three increases. I think we had the budget number in February. We increased in September and then again in November — the money is available — which is unprecedented, to have a program that you increase not once but twice during the course of that fiscal year.

A. Weaver: I just want to canvass this a little more on the gas prices, because I think it’s important to get. We had so much focus on the supply side and, I would argue, not enough focus on the supply side. The numbers that I’d heard I’ve got from good sources. I’m hoping to confirm. I recognize that it may be a little outside the scope of the Premier’s estimates and be more into Energy and Mines.

I’ve heard that this year, upwards of 10 percent of all new vehicles in British Columbia have been electric, pushing 15 percent in the last month. Can the Premier confirm these numbers, as to whether I’m in the right ballpark?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is quite right. We’ve seen a continued increase in demand, and supply is now having challenges. The providers are having longer wait times to get vehicles. I think, actually, the member for Delta North managed to get his electric vehicle ahead of you. That’s because there’s so much demand.

That, of course, will mean that Detroit — I say Detroit as the amorphous auto sector — is changing their production plans, because they see a change in the marketplace. We see that with the incentives that I’ve talked about, and we’ll be able to provide those numbers to you in some detail afterwards. There has been a steady increase in demand for non–fossil fuel transportation mechanisms, and I think that’s all good news for us. That, of course, requires industry to recognize that, and they have. But because of these longer wait times, they realized that they’ve got to build more cars faster.

A. Weaver: The Premier mentioned the member for Delta North, and I am very jealous. The member for Delta North and I both ordered Hyundai Konas. I did about three months beforehand. He got his about one month before, and mine isn’t even here yet. He was able to go to a dealer that actually ordered them proactively instead of reactively. The Premier is quite right. The supply for these vehicles is troubling.

I’m wondering, on the issue of demand again, to what extent the Premier has, with his office, explored the work that was done, the report that was done on mobility pricing in the greater Vancouver area. I’m wondering if he’s had any thoughts about where government is going in terms of the issue of mobility pricing — whether they’re thinking of that in Metro Vancouver or not.

Hon. J. Horgan: Just on the previous question, May is not finished yet, as you know. So 15 percent of the vehicles sold in May were light-duty EVs. That is unprecedented, as the member knows, and speaks well for the future. I think gas prices are a part of that, absolutely. People are saying: “Well, this might be the time to make that leap.”

We’ve been reducing costs for people — reducing medical services premiums, eliminating them; eliminating tolls; reducing fees for child care. On the toll question, the reason we eliminated the tolls was because it was just for one area, for one piece of infrastructure. When other pieces of infrastructure were being built, there was no toll ascribed to them. And the federal government, of course, has a policy that they will not fund infrastructure that has tolling on it. That meant that the Massey project, for example, was solely on the back of the provincial government.

TransLink has established a mobility committee, and they’ve been working diligently, I guess, for quite some time now. They were supposed to report back in the summer of 2019. We look forward to hearing from the region, the densest part of the province, with what their plans are. This is going to be largely an issue to be dealt with by residents in the Lower Mainland. Of course, we need to work with TransLink, with the Mayors Council, to make sure that any mobility program that comes forward makes sense to the travelling public and is not onerous.

[6:45 p.m.]

A. Weaver: Just to explore this a little further, the Premier mentioned the issue of the Massey Tunnel replacement, and he’s referred to this recently. As an issue, of course, we support the Premier in this regard. The bridge was…. I just didn’t quite understand it; a twinning of the tunnel was much more sensible.

My question to the Premier is this. As government is exploring this option — and I understand they’re doing it through consultation — are they considering active modes of transportation in the Massey Tunnel as well? Right now you can’t really get across that south arm of the Fraser with bikes and walking. I’m wondering if that’s in the cards for a Massey Tunnel expansion, if it happens.

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes, it is, Member. I was excited last week when I learned that the regional mayors have come to a consensus that they need to work together to address the congestion problem at Massey. Both the member and I are Vancouver Island members, so when we enter into the Lower Mainland, our first introduction to the challenges of transportation is the Massey Tunnel. That’s our way off the Island: get off the ferry, go through the tunnel, and you’re on your way into Metro. So we’re very seized of that.

The Minister of Transportation is working on that. We’ve got a study underway that will include multimodal transportation. We don’t want to just have the same old, same old, but we need to find a way to get it done in a cost-effective manner. The federal government will participate, provided there’s no tolling infrastructure. Now, how mobility pricing fits into that, I think, is a discussion for, I would expect, after the federal election in October. We’ll see what the outcome is there.

We’re very much aware that we can’t just keep building infrastructure to move cars and trucks. I will also say that in Metro, transit use is 437 million boardings in 2018, up 7.1 percent from the year before. Again, that speaks to…. We have a population increase, of course, but more and more people are choosing to use public transit. We have a safe, effective means of moving people around in our Metro area. It’s cost-effective, people like it, and more success will breed more success.

A. Weaver: Those are impressive numbers. Actually, 7 per­cent is far and above any population growth for Metro Vancouver, I would suggest. That’s actually quite good news. I thank the Premier for that.

I know that one of the other issues — I believe the government campaigned on this; I know we did as well — was exploring ways to deal with the affordability issue and somehow to incentivize zoning or taxation policies to incentivize density in and around transit hubs. I’m wondering if government has any exploration into this area about tools that they might use at their disposal to incentivize the densification in urban areas around transit hubs, whether or not that’s being considered.

Hon. J. Horgan: We don’t believe that incentives are required, but we do know that coordination is. That’s why, when I formed the executive council, I put the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville in charge of Municipal Affairs, TransLink and Housing, to put all three of those critical areas under one roof so that we could coordinate our transportation links with density, ensuring that municipal governments, local governments, were participating and understood our objectives and that we understood their objectives. When we designate a transit line, density will come to that, but the challenge then becomes: are neighbourhoods prepared for that? That’s where the municipal activity takes place.

We’re confident that these things will come together, but we are also looking at property taxes and how they’re affecting small businesses. That’s become very topical in the past number of months. That’s part and parcel of zoning issues that become, “This is what is possible here,” and all of a sudden, the value of the land goes to the possible rather than the real. That has a negative impact on business and on people.

I will say, also, as people are lining up and looking at me, that in the city of Vancouver, 2017 — 52.8 percent of all trips were made by walking, cycling or transit. That’s up from 48 percent the year before — again, a 4 percent increase in activity.

People are voting on these questions with their feet, literally — walking, cycling. Finding other ways to move around reduces their carbon impact, reduces their costs. I believe government’s role is to work as best as we can — and you agree with this — to put in place a framework that will work to get people where they want to be. It makes for a better society. It makes for better communities.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.