Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,334,000 (continued).

The Chair: Members, before we start the questions and answers again, a reminder to all people that all questions must be asked through the Chair and answered through the Chair as well.

A. Wilkinson: Before the break, we were talking about the concerns of the Tŝilhqot’in First Nation about the Bill 17 energy bill. It would have allowed dirty American nuclear and coal power to come to British Columbia to replace power that was no longer coming from independent power producers, which are usually part and parcel of a First Nation enterprise.

These concerns continued. I have a letter from the shíshálh First Nation dated August 4, 2020, in which they say: “Our community greatly values the ability to build industrial development that contributes meaningfully to self-determination. The proposed amendments would instead export those jobs and investments to the United States.” They go on to say on another topic: “Your stated policy on community benefits agreements contradicts the amendments your government has tabled in the Legislature for the clean energy sector.”

The First Nations Leadership Council goes on to say: “The proposed Clean Energy Act amendments will have a detrimental environmental impact by providing the government with discretion to self-define ‘clean energy’ and ‘clean resources’ to include any type of power production, including brown thermal generation, thereby opening the door to brown energy imports from Alberta or the U.S.”

The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation said similar things. “Indigenous people in B.C. have built, operated and part­nered with industry to produce clean, made-in-B.C. power. Those investments have generated revenue, jobs and opportunities throughout the province. Our community greatly values the ability to build industrial development that contributes to self-determination. The proposed amendments would export those jobs and investments to the United States.” One gets the point.

Dr. Judith Sayers, president of the First Nations council, says: “Every step the B.C. government takes in clean energy is away from B.C. First Nations ability to develop power now and in the future. They are not listening to Nuu-chah-nulth’s desires to create clean energy for economic purposes. They do support minor development on reserve, but that is not enough. Why is B.C. trying to stifle entrepreneurship, especially First Nation entrepreneurship?”

A good question, Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question, which we ended up on prior to the break.

I think it’s important that the House understand that Bill 17 is on the order paper. It remains there. It will be part and parcel of the next session of the House when we begin debates again.

On the principles of consultation, I want to advise members that the province began engagements with First Nations on phase 2 of B.C. Hydro’s review in September of 2019.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: That’s a component part of that, my friend.

The interim report included a proposal to remove self-sufficiency requirements. That release came out, of course, in March of 2020. Further engagement with Indigenous peoples went throughout May. In-person regional discussions in Terrace. Five teleconferences and sessions in Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Nanaimo and Vancouver. Two webinars. Twenty-six individual online meetings and teleconferences. Twenty-two written submissions.

We heard from over 80 First Nations and Indigenous organizations. Some in support of self-sufficiency, some not. All of that was taken into account, and Bill 17 remains on the order paper.

[1:40 p.m.]

I think the Leader of the Opposition is missing the broader point about where we are in the energy markets in British Columbia and, broadly speaking, in North America. We have an abundance of clean, green energy in British Columbia. Almost 99 percent of the energy produced in British Columbia comes from clean sources. It is our strength. It gives us market power in North America.

Most analysts understand that when they look at our ability to hold water in our reservoirs and buy, on the market, solar power, wind power — which is in surplus in the United States at this time. It makes economic sense to take advantage of our market power and use our strength through our reservoirs that were built up over decades to make sure British Columbia could be dominant in hydroelectric energy in North America.

The former government, in its wisdom, put in place a clean energy policy that prohibited B.C. Hydro, which has an export arm called Powerex that plays the market on behalf of British Columbians, taking advantage of low-cost energy when energy is at its highest point here in British Columbia. There was a report commissioned some years ago that identified $16 billion in additional costs as a result of the self-sufficiency program.

We have engaged with Indigenous peoples. No contracts that currently exist have been affected. Any contracts that were underway or in negotiation are being fulfilled. There has not been a clean call for energy in British Columbia since 2008. That’s the previous government’s record. We are awash in energy, hon. Members. We are doing our level best to keep costs down for consumers.

We want to make sure that people are not paying the costs of bad policy decisions. The self-sufficiency policy was a bad policy brought in at a time when the world was filling with clean, green opportunities — solar, wind, in California particularly. Our market dominance allows us to buy that clean, green power at a discount and bring it into British Columbia so we can reduce costs for ratepayers. That has a lot to do with people and not a lot to do with anything else.

With respect to the Indigenous peoples who have got projects underway or projects completed, nothing changes. B.C. Hydro is committed to making sure that happens, and we’re going to reinforce that.

A. Wilkinson: Well, that little diatribe on energy policy seems to be about ten years out of date. The Premier says he’s going to buy clean-only power from America. American power is overwhelmingly produced by coal and natural gas generation. It’s an integrated grid continent-wide except for Texas. So the Premier says: “No, we’ll skip that big nuclear plant in Richmond, Washington. We’ll skip those huge coal plants though Wyoming and Colorado. We’ll just be selective and kind and nice, and only select the nice power from America.”

How naive can this Premier possibly be? British Columbia set out on a pathway to develop self-sufficiency in energy for a good reason: because we, along with Quebec, are the biggest producers of hydro power on the continent. We had vast amounts of further hydro capacity which involved opportunity for First Nations like never seen before. That’s exactly what happened.

Now the Premier says: “We’re awash in power, and it’s all going to be wasted somehow.” Has he ever heard of electric cars? Ever? Has he not heard of the Indigenous efforts to build a solar power generation facility? Has he not heard of the concern amongst First Nations that the sole purpose of this bill is to give the government market power to turn down IPP renewals or to intimidate them into price reductions?

We go back to the statements from the First Nations — the indignation that in the wake of the UNDRIP legislation last November, this Premier has the gall to stand up in this room and say: “Don’t worry about it; they’ll get over it.” Well, that’s just the most condescending possible approach when we’re in an era of reconciliation. Here we have the Energy Minister saying on July 28: “Government consulted widely on this proposal as part of the Hydro phase 2 review.”

Well we just heard a string of inputs, but the results speak for themselves in the strongly stated letters expressing the indignation of Indigenous people all over British Columbia at the absolute double-cross by this government on one of the key issues that gives them prosperity: independent power projects. This government was prepared to stab them in the back in terms of bargaining position just before the IPPs come up for renewal. That’s the essence of the lack of consultation. That’s the disrespect shown.

[1:45 p.m.]

Premier, it’s easy to fix this. It’s easy to come clean. All it takes is for this Premier to stand up in this House and say two things: “Bill 17 will be withdrawn. We were wrong.” And that the government of British Columbia apologizes for violating the spirit of UNDRIP on the first available opportunity.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, look. Again, I appreciate that the hyperbole of the Leader of the Opposition is designed for purposes that are not known to me — certainly not to educate and inform people watching this debate today. We do know that we have surplus energy in British Columbia today. We have more energy than we can use. But we also know that it’s going to be critical to the greening of the economy, to meet our climate objectives which are laid out in CleanBC.

Yes, I know there are electric cars, hon. Member, because the Minister of Finance had to top up the electric car incentive program three times in one calendar year. This is a popular initiative. Despite that, we remain in a surplus of electricity. The bill required that any imported electricity be renewable and clean and green. It’s part of the bill. You can go back and take a look at it. It’s part of the bill.

We need to understand that the former government brought in a policy that said that regardless of the cost, B.C. Hydro can only buy energy from one place — that was within the confines of British Columbia. Now, if we were talking about ferries — only buying ferries constructed in British Columbia — that would make sense to me, because ferries are very big. They’re labour-intensive. You can see a practical outcome. Electrons are very, very small, and the generation of them from clean sources benefits all of us.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The key to all of this, though, is that the people on the other side did not care about the cost…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, the Premier has the floor.

Hon. J. Horgan: …of their folly when it comes to the people of British Columbia, the ratepayers at B.C. Hydro. Some $16 billion above market was paid for power that we now have to move somewhere, and we can’t do that if B.C. Hydro’s hands are tied.

[1:50 p.m.]

The initiative that we brought forward through Bill 17 was not designed to stifle entrepreneurship, quite the contrary. It was designed to give flexibility to B.C. Hydro, the Crown corporation that belongs to all British Columbians — not B.C. Liberals, all British Colum­bians — and designed to make sure we can keep costs down.

What have we done in the three years we’ve been here? We not only have flattened the curve on COVID-19; we’ve flattened the curve on increases in hydro rates for people. The ten-year plan that the B.C. Liberals had saw rates going up year after year after year. Since we’ve come to power, we’ve flattened that. We’ve brought rates down for people.

We’ve gone to the Utilities Commission, and we now have applications put forward for Aboriginal or Indigenous utilities so that Indigenous Peoples can indeed have that independence and that autonomy through economic development that they’re asking for in their correspondence.

To attach to a policy that is very much outdated, hon. Member, going back to 2005 with the energy market completely transformed, to say that we must stay with that because it was Gordon Campbell’s idea is the wrong way. We’re taking input not from New Democrats, but from energy economists across North America saying British Columbia is in an enviable position because of our micro-hydro, because of our massive investments in large dams.

We have an opportunity to play the market. I thought that the free-enterprisers would get this, but apparently it falls to me to explain to them how markets work. British Columbians…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …want us to make sure that the energy that we’re producing is as low-cost as possible. But the people on the other side want to control and manipulate the market. They want to disregard all of the teachings that they profess day after day and instead heap costs on the backs of people.

We’re not prepared to do that. Will we work with Indigenous Peoples to see economic opportunity? Yes, yes and yes. We’ve been doing that since the day we were sworn in.

Every single member of my cabinet in their mandate letters have three things they need to focus on. The UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, passed in this Legislature — thankfully, unanimously by all members of this House — working to ensure that the Tŝilhqot’in decision about rights and title is understood and recognized by every ministry — not just one or two; every ministry.

That has been our focus, hon. Member. I will not apologize to the Leader of the Official Opposition for putting British Columbians first as we develop policies that take us into the future, not cling to their past.

A. Wilkinson: The pattern that’s evolved today is that when the Premier doesn’t want to answer a question, he gives a speech about something entirely unrelated.

What does the Premier say to Judith Sayers of the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations when she says: “They are not listening to Nuu-chah-nulth’s desires to create clean energy for economic purposes…. Why is B.C. trying to stifle entrepreneurship, especially First Nation entrepreneurship?”

It’s a simple question, Premier. In light of UNDRIP, is this your first gesture, to completely dismiss Judith Sayers?

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, firstly, micro-hydro is not the only opportunity for economic development in British Columbia. Every contract that is in place is being honoured. Every economic initiative that had a hydro component is being honoured by B.C. Hydro, whether the project comes to fruition or not.

What we’re saying with the self-sufficiency policy is if anyone, not just Indigenous Peoples, but community power authorities, if they so create, or small entrepreneurs…. If they can produce energy at competitive market prices, we’ll buy it. That’s the principle here. I don’t know why the free enterprisers on the other side don’t understand that. We should not say to ratepayers across British Columbia: “You’re going to have to pay a little bit more, because we want to buy power from this place at a price that’s above market rates.” It’s really that simple.

Do we want to engage with First Nations for economic opportunity? Absolutely. That’s why we’re working with the Tahltan. That’s why we’re working with the Ktunaxa with respect to mining reform in the northwest and in the southeast. That’s why we’re working with the Carrier and the Cheslatta in central British Columbia on forest reform on making sure that the pathway forward for Indigenous Peoples on their territory with their resources is shared equally.

There’s a whole range of issues we’re working on each and every day. I appreciate it’s topical for the member to raise energy, but again, I have to remind him that he needs to go back and look at the record of his party when it comes to raising costs for people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. If we direct B.C. Hydro to only buy the most expensive power in the marketplace when there are other options available to us, we’re doing a disservice to millions of British Columbians. I’m not prepared to do that.

A. Wilkinson: As we make the journey through life, I think all of us recognize that leadership’s a complicated business. It involves recognizing that nobody’s perfect. It involves recognizing errors.

Clearly, this government recognized it made an error when it took Bill 17 off the order paper for this session, because the government had made a serious blunder in insulting and degrading their relationship with First Nations all over British Columbia at the first available opportunity after signing UNDRIP.

I’ve asked the Premier to apologize. He’s clearly refusing to do so. He’s refusing to recognize his error, engaging in this rambling economic diatribe when the issue is about respect. It’s about the most human of relationships with the Tŝilhqot’in, with the Nuu-chah-nulth and with the Tseshaht, who are blown off and ignored as they look at their communities and hope for the future.

Given that the Premier is not inclined to apologize for anything no matter how obvious the blunder, let’s look at the article in the Vancouver Province, because this will be a blunder that affects 640,000 students in British Columbia and a million parents, and it’s happening four weeks from today. The article in the Province dated August 5, ’20, said…. It’s written by two professors, one a professor emeritus, the other one a professor at UBC. The headline is: “B.C.’s Schools Policy Is At Odds With Everything We Know So Far About the Science Of COVID Transmission.” The subheadline: “By requiring parents to send their children back to in-person classes, the B.C. government is putting many lives in jeopardy.”

Some quotes. “B.C.’s cases of COVID per day have more than tripled in the last two months…. No jurisdiction has reopened schools under such conditions.” I should note that this was written nine days ago, and the COVID count has gone through a dramatic exponential increase since then, and those are just the ones we’ve found through testing. There are many more out there, Premier, and they’re waiting to be found.

“B.C. is not only reopening its schools; it is effectively making attendance — indoors, for prolonged periods of time — mandatory…. By not allowing most existing schools a chance to offer a remote schooling option, the B.C. government is putting many lives in jeopardy. One parent has already threatened to sue, and over 10,000 have signed a petition calling for classroom attendance to be optional, and with good reason.”

We should note that there was an active demonstration in front of the Health Minister’s office this morning by about 30 parents, led by a former NDP candidate, saying that this is absurd. One of the signs said: “Six feet apart, not six feet under.” Parents take this extremely seriously.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’ll carry on with the article.

“B.C.’s sudden reversal from allowing people to make wise decisions to forcing their hands into putting their children in jeopardy makes no medical sense.

“We call on the government of British Columbia to provide the possibility of remote education to those who choose it and, for schools who wish to offer it, the possibility of offering it. Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario are offering their citizens and schools choice, a mix of remote and in-person learning. UBC will largely be remote in the fall,” as will most universities and colleges. “There is no reason for British Columbia not to offer its children and their families and their teachers that same choice.”

This has been percolating for five months, and it affects every child in our province from the age of five to 18 and a million parents. Somehow, for some reason, this government couldn’t figure out that remote learning is a desirable thing.

The question, obviously, goes to the Premier: what on earth has happened that it takes demonstrations from parents in the streets to bring to attention this obvious issue of providing for remote learning — and more than just the platitudes of the Education Minister? This is remote learning for any child who wants it and for the parents who need and want it. Why has it not been prepared for? Why is it not being offered?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question.

Look, this is an extremely stressful time for all British Columbians, but it’s a particularly stressful time for those who have school-aged children and those who work in the education system. Hundreds of thousands of people are involved here, hundreds of thousands all across B.C., all coming at this from a different perspective, whether you’re a parent, whether you’re a child, whether you’re a teacher, whether you’re a support worker, whether you’re a superintendent, whether you’re an administrator, whether you’re a trustee duly elected in boards — 59 of them and, plus, the French board, all across British Columbia.

Not an easy answer to the questions that are being posed by the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that he appreciates that.

[2:05 p.m.]

We have been doing our level best to take input from all sources. We have stakeholder groups across the province that include parents, teachers, the administrators and others that I’ve made reference to, all trying to find the way forward, trying to find that balance. If it’s a hybrid balance, that’s where we’ll go.

When I talk about flexibility today, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition won’t just jump up then and criticize that, but that’s what we have to do. We are in uncertain times, unprecedented times, and it requires us to be aware of what’s going on around us on a daily basis, to make sure we’re engaging with all of the people involved, to ensure we get the best outcomes possible for kids. How are we going to achieve that — $45 million going back into the system in midyear to ensure that we can have extensive cleaning in our classrooms, that we can have the PPE that’s needed for our kids, for our teachers and others within the system. But at the end of the day, virtual learning will not be the complete solution.

I’m looking for my friend from Peace River North. He’s not here at the moment. I know he’s in the precinct.

What we’ve discovered through the COVID pandemic, as we’ve depended on Zoom technologies to communicate quite effectively across the province, is that connectivity in British Columbia is not what it could be. We have made significant investments. We will be making more investments in connectivity to bring communities together so that we can have more virtual learning, virtual commerce and virtual interactions, but it is uneven across the province.

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a hundred times as I’ve been engaging with people throughout B.C.: the technology is not even in every community. Similarly, all households don’t have access to multiple terminals or multiple tablets for multiple children. So in families, there’s an uneven distribution of technology. Across the province, there’s an uneven distribution of technology to bring people together. We’re aware of it. We’re working on it. The private sector is helping in that regard as well.

These are all bits of good news, but they’re all conspiring in the middle of a global pandemic. We are committed to making sure that our kids are safe, and although I appreciate the views of the doctors that the Leader of the Opposition read to me from their opinion piece, we’ve been taking our advice from Dr. Henry and her public health team, which has done an extraordinary job. I know that all members acknowledge that. But that’s where we’re getting our advice from.

We’re not making this up. We’re not forcing things on people. We’re looking at the evidence as it comes to us from Dr. Henry and her team. We’re making decisions. The Minister of Education has been working with all of the stakeholders on a daily basis for months, and we’ll continue to do so for the months ahead. That’s our priority. That’s our objective. And that’s what we’re going to realize.

I do not discourage the members opposite from continuing to press the issue. That’s absolutely their role. But I do hope that they will find a grain of that non-partisanship that we talked about not that long ago and acknowledge and recognize that when you’re dealing with hundreds of thousands of people right across British Columbia, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. And that’s why we’re working hard to make sure we get it right, community by community, school by school, child by child.

A. Wilkinson: We just heard a stream of excuses. Four weeks today, 600,000 students are supposed to return to school. Every instructional day in British Columbia, the Ministry of Education spends $35 million to run the system. What we hear is an excuse. “Oh, connectivity is not great everywhere.” Well, Premier, if you turn off Netflix during the daytime, there is lots of bandwidth for 98 percent of the province, and that’s where the students will be.

Interjection.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier asks for a letter. Surely, he would have looked into this in the last five months to figure it out for himself. Connectivity is an excuse, except in the most remote locations. They’ve been teaching school in remote parts of Australia by shortwave radio for the last 70 years. Connectivity is an excuse.

The issue that not every child has access to technology — that could have been solved in the last five months. A good laptop costs 500 bucks, and this ministry spends $35 million a day — probably 70,000 laptops with one day’s budget.

It’s time to focus on the results. Time to focus less on the inputs and the excuses. The results could be catastro­phic — an outbreak in schools, particularly a high school; grandparents infected.

[2:10 p.m.]

The concern we all have is it’s pretty clear that this fall, as the number of cases increases, people are going to die. And it is so unnecessary for students to be vectors and conduits for disease when they could be learning remotely instead of exposing themselves and others to the risks of a lethal virus.

The Premier talks of Dr. Henry. Well, here he seems to have forgotten what he said two days ago, on the 12th, in a press conference. He was asked by a reporter, in reference to a poll that indicated 50 percent of parents are not comfortable with back-to-school planning and sending their kids back to school as planned….

Dr. Henry said: “Yeah, this is perhaps a question for the Premier. I will just say that, you know, my job is to provide the health framework. I think that some of what you’re talking about reflects the concern we all have, you know, how this is going to work and wanting to know the details.” And she handed the question back to the Premier.

The Premier said — something he seems to have forgotten in the last 48 hours: “At the end of the day, the decisions rest with me and my government.”

Get the hardware. You should’ve done that three months ago. Get the connectivity. It already exists for 98 percent of the population. Get the programs in place. They’re already in use all over the province through independent distance learning, private schools, denominational schools — some schools that prefer to use distance learning.

It’s already being used in every university and college in the province for 435,000 students this fall. There is no excuse about lack of curriculum, lack of hardware, lack of connectivity. It works for everybody else.

Yet the Premier, when asked by the media about how this should be addressed…. The answer was somewhat alarming. “What can you say to parents to ease their concerns?” The Premier’s response: “I can’t help with the anxiety.”

Premier, you can. You could’ve solved this problem. It’s incumbent on you to solve it before grandparents die and before people are knocked out of the workforce by illness and students abandon schools by the tens of thousands. It’s your responsibility. What are you going to do?

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question.

Listen, I fully appreciate the anxiety that people are feeling. As a parent, I remember full well my spouse and I taking our kids to their first day at class and the excitement and the apprehension that we felt. That was outside of a pandemic. That was in normal times.

There is something about September. It’s something about the Labour Day weekend that reminds us all — adults, children and youth, all of us — about that return to something that we’re familiar with. That’s going back to school.

This year will be drastically different than any other year we’ve ever experienced, not just in how we feel but what we see when we arrive at our classrooms. Distance learning will be an integral part of what we come up with as we go forward, what we work through in that first week with teachers, with support staff and then as the children start to come into the classroom.

How will we go forward from here? Again, we have been relying on the extraordinary work of Dr. Henry and her public health officials — working with superintendents; working with CUPE, who keep the schools clean; working with a host of people in every corner of British Columbia to try and get this right.

[2:20 p.m.]

We will modify and improve as new information comes forward. That’s appropriate, and that’s what British Columbians expect from us.

Again, I realize that not everyone is going to agree. There are going to be those who just will not want to participate, and that is absolutely their right. There will be concessions and whatever attempts we can make to ensure that the children are getting the services they need in a way that’s comfortable for parents. That’s the commitment we’ve made as a government. That’s the commitment that I think all British Columbians expect from us.

We have to realize that the vast majority of British Columbians understand and recognize that going forward is what we need to do, not go backwards. Gord Lau from the DPAC in Vancouver — the district parent advisory council: “For me personally, Dr. Henry and the PHO have really earned my confidence, and I’m ready to send my kids back.” Now, that’s the head of the district parent advisory council in Vancouver.

There are going to be people within that PAC that disagree with that point of view — absolutely legitimate, absolutely appropriate for parents to put their children first. But we cannot say that because there are some people who don’t want to proceed, we shouldn’t proceed at all.

What we need to do…. The appropriate response is the response of the Minister of Education — continue to engage with people, continue to talk about how we can make the system safer and better for our kids, for those who work in the system. That’s what we’re doing, and we’ll continue to do that today, tomorrow, the day after that, right up into September and beyond because that’s what people expect of us, and appropriately so.

A. Wilkinson: Did I just hear the Premier say that parents who do not feel safe sending their children to school will be offered distance learning, yes or no?

Hon. J. Horgan: There is home schooling. There are distance learning opportunities. Seventy-some organizations offer that. It exists now. It will exist during the pandemic.

A. Wilkinson: Well, that is probably the biggest insult to a million parents I’ve heard in British Columbia this year.

Interjection.

A. Wilkinson: And now the pugnacious Premier is calling me out for telling the truth. Mr. Chair, the Premier seems to want to step in the hallway and have a dispute.

Interjection.

Mr. Chair: The member has the floor, please.

A. Wilkinson: We’re here to solve the problems in front of the people of British Columbia, on the record. The Premier says: “Pull your child out of school for home schooling.” That’s not credible or sensible as a response. The Premier says: “Put your child into independent distance learning.”

Well, let’s hear from a parent about their experience with IDL, or independent distance learning, just this spring. Lori Stephan, from Duncan:

“I’m writing this letter as a parent of two children with the independent distance learning school system, with learning disabilities, 16 and 13 years old, right during the end of the year, making us parents scramble, placing worry and fear, not only in us as adults but our children as well. The world is already upside down due to the pandemic. This is because the Premier and his cabinet cut $12 million out of the funding on May 4, effective July 1, gutting the independent distance learning system at its most critical moment, when it’s needed throughout the province.”

As she says:

“Many of the children who are receiving services are children with learning differences. The changes thrown at them during this time was a steep change for all. However, every one of my service providers is so helpful and kept the spirits of my children going, in spite of this government decision. You have stolen my time from what should have been focused on both of the kids.

“The kids that you just cut funding for will be those kids who should be contributing members of society. Independent schools, at-home learning were created out of necessity. The children that did not fit the system learn differently and, I might add, are being very successful.

“Distance learning and creating our diverse curriculum was not done out of thin air. Independent at-home learning schools gave my children hope. Now you have gutted the funding. I really don’t understand the reasoning. You targeted the most vulnerable population that cannot even speak for themselves.”

That’s what your government did on May 4 of this year, and now the Premier has the gall to stand here in this room and say: “Well, parents can sign up for independent distance learning.” No, they can’t. You gutted the budget.

We’ve heard a stream of excuses of why the anxieties of parents will not be addressed. And of course, none of us are looking forward to that headline in the newspapers or on social media saying: “Outbreak at School X, Y, Z — 400,000 Students Go Home, and Parents Panic.”

Premier, what are you going to do about independent distance learning, and what are you going to do about online learning?

[2:25 p.m.]

Mr. Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: The distance learning fund in the last year of the B.C. Liberals was $65 million. This year it’s $84 million. That’s a 4 percent increase. You can work on that.

I also want, just to demonstrate the consistency of the official opposition on these matters…. This was from a Kelowna Chamber of Commerce Zoom meeting, the Leader of the Opposition. It’s rather lengthy, but I assume it’s the position that he holds. He made these comments on July 28, which by my count was two weeks ago:

“I was actually pleased to hear this morning that the Vancouver Coastal public health officer was saying: ‘Look, their goal is to have all the kids back in school and K to 12 on September 8, five days a week, because the risk to kids in the classroom is low because it’s not a youth-oriented disorder.’”

That’s not me saying that. I don’t even know if it’s the public health official. I do know it was the Leader of the Official Opposition. He went on to say this:

“You know, I’m a former doctor” — I’ve heard that — “so I can tell you all about Kawasaki syndrome and the rare occurrences in children. But generally, kids are pretty safe. And her point was, as the public health officer of two million people in Coastal Health, there’s a huge cost to be paid to continue social isolation, especially of children. Keeping their parents out of their productive work or tied down dealing, in an 800-square-foot apartment, with one or a couple of unemployed, and two kids going around tearing the place apart — that’s not good for your health either.”

Now, I disagree with almost everything in that quote, but it was the words of the Leader of the Official Opposition, who is saying that I am insulting, I’m degrading and I’m not listening to people, when he has a different position every other day. My position has been consistent — that we will continue to engage with people every single day because that’s what they expect of us. That’s why we came here. That’s why we were elected — to lift people up, to focus on their needs.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, the Premier has the floor.

Hon. J. Horgan: That’s what we’re doing, and it’s never good enough for the doctor on the other side, because he just can’t for a minute engage in a civil discourse about the important needs of the people of British Columbia. That’s what I want to do. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson does it most of the time. That’s what all of us should be doing.

I’m committed to making sure that if parents need distance learning, we’ll find the resources to put it in place. Applications are coming in right now. The budget’s higher than it was on their watch. Stop making stuff up and pick a position. Do you want kids in class or out of class? I can’t tell.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier continues to sow seeds of confusion to avoid the issue. Two things. The health risk to children is low, the risk of transmission to parents is high, and the risk of transmission to grandparents is even higher.

That’s what the families are worried about. That’s why they want distance learning, and that’s why they’re upset that you cut $14 million out of the distance learning budget on May 4 of this year, when you should have been anticipating the growth of demand. Now we’ve heard that, apparently, the demand for distance learning will be satisfied. Well, this a complete reversal of position that we’ve heard today, ten minutes ago.

It’s a very simple question, Premier. Will you…

The Chair: Through the Chair.

A. Wilkinson: …fund and support and guarantee that for parents who are uncomfortable having their children go to school because of health risk to them, their grandparents, their family or whoever, that parental wish will be respected and that Internet learning will be provided throughout the province of British Columbia wherever it’s feasible? It’s a very simple question: can parents rely on distance learning or not?

[2:30 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I will again say that there are 56 public IDLs and 16 privates. They’re all taking enrolment right now and will continue to do so. There was not a cut. There was an increase in the budget.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: We have those that clearly disagree with that. An increase in dollars is an increase in dollars.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, please let the Premier speak.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The budget in 2016-2017 was $65 million; it’s now $84 million. Again, it’s an increase in funding. I guess we’re going to agree to disagree.

Maybe we can get back to the point at hand. The BCCDC has worked with school boards and the Ministry of Education to put in place the programs that we have. We know that there are families that are concerned about this. There are options available to them, as I’ve said. There will be no fees for that, as the fearmongers said on the other side — quite the contrary. We’re going to be able to deliver these services in a way that meets the needs of British Columbians.

It is not helpful to have the opposition, on a daily basis, going from, “Yes, you should send the kids back” to: “No, you shouldn’t send the kids back.” Pick a line. Take a position, and stand with it. Or better yet, join with us, be flexible, and meet the science as it presents itself.

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control doesn’t write opinion pieces in the Province, I’m afraid. They just give good advice to governments, and we’ve been implementing that advice. An overwhelming number of people are looking at that advice and saying: “I’m comfortable today with the way we’re going, with a mix of distance learning and in-class teaching.”

It’s important for kids. I know that anyone who has got children on the other side of the House knows that school is critically important to them, not just for the stimulation, intellectually, but for the socialization components. It’s critically important. For those who are immunocompromised, for those who have other issues, we are ready and available to help them out. The Minister of Education is there. There are school trustees across British Columbia that are working overtime to make sure that kids are safe and that they’re getting in the education they deserve.

I don’t know what part of that answer the folks on the other side disagree with. I guess it’s because it was the position they had two weeks ago, and now they’ve decided to have a different position.

A. Wilkinson: It probably bears reading again.

Reporter: “Fifty percent of parents are not comfortable with the back-to-school planning and sending their kids back to school.”

Dr. Henry’s response: “Yeah, this is perhaps a question for the Premier. It reflects the concern we all have — you know, how this is going to work and wanting to know the details.”

The Premier’s response: “At the end of the day, the decisions rest with me and my government.”

There’s no fobbing this off. The question has to be squarely answered by the Premier and his Education Minister. They’ve talked about capacity and independent distance learning. Does every one of those portals have the capacity for 9,000 students so that 640,000 students can sign on?

I’ll raise the question again. Is there capacity in the system for all 640,000 K-to-12 students or not?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ll just remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was talking to the chamber of commerce, said that he was pleased that Vancouver Coastal Health had a goal of getting kids back into class five days a week. So it was good enough for him talking to the chamber of commerce, but it doesn’t seem good enough today.

Again, I want to reiterate that our objective and our goal is to make sure we’re meeting the needs of every family in British Columbia. Those needs are going to be different. It’s not going to be 640,000 going this way or 640,000 going that way. It is going to be a mix.

I read one quote of the thousands we have of people involved in the system, whether they’re with district PACs, or parent advisory councils in elementary schools across British Columbia, parents who invest their time in making sure the system works not just for their kids, but for all kids, working with teachers, skilled professionals…. Working with 4,200 more teachers, I would add, than we would have had, had we had the former government continue on with this reckless path of fighting teachers all the way to the Supreme Court.

We’ve got 4,200 more teachers to provide services to kids in B.C. That’s going to make for better outcomes. We’re going to try and find that balance that works for everybody. That’s what people expect of us, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Again, I just don’t understand how the Leader of the Opposition can say one thing to a chamber of commerce and quite another thing here in this Legislature. I appreciate that you need to be flexible on these issues. That’s exactly what I said, so I’m prepared to cut him some slack on that. But his indignation at the notion that we are going to be flexible is puzzling to me.

I just say that we’re going to do our level best to make sure that if distance learning is what’s needed for families, it’s going to be available to them. We’re going to make sure that there are classrooms available for those kids and those parents who want to participate in the system, to make sure that their children don’t fall further behind. Maybe they’re not working as well with their iPads as they do when they’ve got a teacher and their friends around them. That’s the nature of individuality.

Again, the free-enterprisers seem to think that there are blanket answers for everything, and here I am talking about individuality and the importance of making sure that we shape the education program for every child as best we can. That’s what we’re trying to do.

[2:45 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: With all due respect, that was an utterly vacuous answer to the number one question on the minds of a million parents from British Columbia today.

Current government policy requires that the parents and the children stay in their public school and go to in-person classes or withdraw completely from that bricks-and-mortar school and go to independent distance learning or home-schooling.

This government cut $12 million out of the independent distance learning budget on May 4. There could well be a stampede of hundreds of thousands of students to IDL in the next six weeks. It clearly doesn’t have the capacity, especially after the Premier’s budget cuts.

This creates a false choice for parents: either stick with the bricks-and-mortar school, where you have no choice but to attend in person, or withdraw from that school and desperately try to sign up for independent distance learning, which is underfunded and under capacity.

Why cannot the bricks-and-mortar schools be used as the base for distance learning through teachers using electronic devices, just like we do every day with Zoom, just like universities and colleges are going to be doing every day and have been doing since April?

It’s, obviously, a question to the Premier. Why do you maintain this false choice between withdrawal from the public school and staying in the public school and being forced to attend in person? Let the bricks-and-mortar school be the base for distance learning. Why can that not happen?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I would say to the members opposite that school districts and schools exist to service the families in communities right across B.C. They’re different. They’re different, whether they’re in Thompson-Nicola, whether they’re in Surrey-Cloverdale or whether they’re in Langford–Juan de Fuca. Schools and trustees and superintendents and teachers are all there to service the needs of families and children.

We’ve been working full stop from March, when the pandemic began. We had a brief voluntary period in June where we were able to get a lot of data from teachers, from trustees, from administrators and from support staff to help shape the plan that we announced last month. Since then, we’ve been working through school boards and schools.

This is the part that seems to be lost on the members on the other side. There are key parts of all of our communities. I don’t understand this. Am I the only one in this place that has schools that are populated with caring and compassionate people who want to lift people up? Of course, I’m not. We all do. To disrespect those people, to insult those people who are working every day to find a safe environment for their employees and for their kids…. That’s the disrespect that I’m hearing today.

I’m not dishing it out on this side. I’m trying to say to the Leader of the Opposition, who doesn’t seem to be able to get his noggin around this, that we’re all in this together.

We cannot have schools without teachers, whether it’s distance learning or in-class learning. We cannot have communities without trustees working hard to make sure that families in their communities are getting the services they need. That’s what we’re doing, and we’re going to continue.

Right now, today, districts across British Columbia are hearing from parents and developing plans that meet the needs of those individuals. Everyone wants to continue to have in-class teaching. They want to make sure that distance learning is available for people. That’s what we’re doing. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

In the world that’s populated by the dour fellow on the other side here, everything is going to come apart, and 600,000 people are going to just disperse instantly, unless I do something that’s incomprehensible from the questions he’s asking.

I’ve said, time and time again…. The Minister of Education has said it. Trustees have said it. Superintendents have said it. Dr. Henry has said it. We are going to try and make this work for everybody. Whatever they need, if it’s in class, if it’s a hybrid, we’re going to work it out.

We will not resolve it on a Friday afternoon in August in this place when the debate is not about: what’s the best course of action to lift up students? How do we make our schools work better? It’s about disrespecting each other. This hyper-partisanship is exactly what turns people off. Why would they tune in…?

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Here it comes. Here it comes, the wave of invective. How dare I call you out for what you’re doing? What are you doing, man? You’re here, yelling and screaming like it’s a middle school classroom, rather than having a reasoned debate about what our kids need, what our districts need, what our teachers need.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order, please. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m delighted that I brought some levity to the opposition side. Clearly, they get none from the Leader of the Opposition.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier seems to be doing every­thing he can to avoid the core question.

[2:55 p.m.]

Here’s the core question. Parents want choice. They want to have distance learning provided by their bricks-and-mortar school. They don’t want to be forced to withdraw from the school. Parents see the logic. If a batch of the kids from that school are learning from home, there will be less crowding in the school, less risk of transmission, easier social distancing, a better learning environment for everybody.

All they’re asking for is an element of parental choice for a legitimate opportunity to have school-based distance learning. Why can’t you do that?

Hon. J. Horgan: Asked and answered.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s ironic that the Premier seems to think this is a courtroom and he’s under cross-examination. That’s not how this works, Premier. The public are expecting answers from you.

Why can’t they have parental choice? You say that you’ve answered the question. You did it by insulting me. Is parental choice not possible in our school system so that at a bricks-and-mortar school, parents could have distance learning or in-class learning to provide safer schools and easier social distancing? What’s the answer, Premier?

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said and have said repeatedly, parents should be contacting their school. They should be talking to the administrators, whether it’s the vice-principals or principals. They should be talking to people in their community to get the answers they need.

They should not, under any circumstances, take guidance from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

A. Wilkinson: The reason they shouldn’t take guidance from me is I don’t have a $65 billion budget, 300,000 indirect employees, 28,000 people in the civil service and an earpiece in my ear telling me what to say.

Premier, the question is very simple. I’m going to ask it a fourth time to see if you finally find the ability to answer it. Why isn’t there parental choice in the schools to allow for an element of distance learning from the bricks-and-mortar school so that there will be easier social distancing, a safer school environment and genuine parental choice of how their children can learn?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll say, again, to parents that are concerned that I appreciate this anxiety. They should immediately, if they have not already, contact their school, contact the trustees in their community and work through the system and allow the professionals — that are dedicated, most of them their entire lives, to lifting up children in British Columbia so we can all have a stronger, safer community — to work with the people on the ground that are delivering the services. The Ministry of Education stands ready to be there for any of the gaps that are created as a result of those interactions. I encourage people to engage, engage, engage.

If that is inadequate for the Leader of the Opposition, I very much regret that. But it’s pretty transparent and pretty straightforward. Go and talk to the principal in the school your children are enrolled in. See what your needs are, and we’ll go from there.

That strikes me as rational. That strikes me as appropriate, knowing full well that these plans that are being developed locally are the foundation of the B.C. Centre of Disease Control advice, not opinion writers in the Vancouver Province and not from the Leader of the Opposition. It’s professionals who are dedicating their lives to public health who are putting in place the guidelines that we will operate under. Those are being implemented school by school, community by community and district by district. That’s the plan.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s unfortunate that I have to read out the quote from Bonnie Henry for the third time so that the Premier will hopefully realize that he has responsibility for this. There’s no referring the responsibility to anyone else.

He’s just told the parents of 640,000 students to go and see the principal. Is the principal there on August 14? The schools aren’t even opening until September 8. The teachers are showing up for the first time on September 8.

Why can’t this Premier answer the simple question of why there isn’t parental choice to allow for some distance learning from a bricks-and-mortar school without forcing the student to withdraw from that school? Simple question.

Hon. J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, 56 publicly funded distance learning institutions across the province, schools ready to deliver these services. Again, I appreciate….

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m surprised, though, that the Leader of the Opposition believes that somehow, from my perch here in the Legislature, I can determine what’s in the best interest of families in Fort St. John, families in Kamloops and families in Surrey when you have duly elected trustees, superintendents, administrators, teachers and support staff all focused on delivering the best quality education they can in a safe environment.

Wouldn’t that be the best place for parents to go and find out what’s in their interest and what they can get from the district that they live in? I seem to think it is.

I don’t understand. I appreciate that the member is going to get up one more time and ask me why I don’t have wisdom from on high to impart to him today, the same fellow who said to the chamber of commerce that he wanted to see everybody back in class five days a week. That was his answer when he was talking to a business audience. When he’s trying to pander to people today, rather than work with people to reduce fear and anxiety and find a way that we can bring our school system back on to the extent that we can and deliver quality education for the people of British Columbia….

That’s what we want to do. I thought that’s what the majority of people on the other side wanted to do. I really did. I think if they were being honest with themselves, hon. Speaker, they would agree with me.

Yeah. These are complicated times — 600,000 people all trying to figure out what they’re going to do in September. Every year, that’s a challenge. District enrolment changes. People move into a community. They don’t know what’s going to go on. They engage with local authorities to try and figure it out.

We put in place a framework and the resources to make sure that PPE is available, that our schools are as clean as they can possibly be. We’re following the Centre for Disease Control — here in British Columbia — guidelines to make sure that can happen. Now the real answer is…. What? Go ahead.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Oh, now it’s about a lack of construction over the past 16 years under the B.C. Liberals. If we didn’t have so many portables in Surrey because of underfunding in the capital budget, we’d have a different outcome. I agree with the member. We’re working as hard as we can to build new spaces, but the deficit was so great that it’s taking some time. And of course, it’s even more complicated now because we’re abiding by the duly signed contracts between the province of British Columbia and the B.C. Teachers Federation, and we have 4,200 more teachers in those classrooms, and that’s how we’re going to make all of this work.

Again, either the Leader of the Official Opposition wants everyone in class five days a week, as he said to the chamber of commerce, or he wants something else. That’s his choice. He can work that out with his family. What I’m saying to families across British Columbia: this is a time of high anxiety. I absolutely understand that.

We are taking every step we can to make sure that you have local options in your community, wherever that might be, to meet the needs of your children, your family. That’s our commitment, and we’ll keep with it.

A. Wilkinson: Let me summarize the Premier’s answer. If you’re concerned about your children going back to school, go and join the other 600,000 people asking the local principal, if you can find that principal. If you don’t like the option of bricks-and-mortar school — that is, attending in person — you have no choice. There’s no distance learning from the bricks-and-mortar school. Therefore, you’ll have to withdraw from that school and either take up home-schooling or line up with tens of thousands of other parents and try to sign on for independent distance learning.

Do I have that right, Premier?

Hon. J. Horgan: I rather doubt you have it right, because I don’t think you want to hear what I’m saying, Member. I don’t think you want to hear what I’m saying. I’m saying that everyone is different. There are many families who are saying: “I’m excited about going back to school.” The excitement on the faces of young ones when they go into a classroom and they see their friend or the teacher that they wanted to have from the year before — that’s a special time in someone’s life. That’s an extraordinary time. And the….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Sorry? I didn’t know you were going to ask questions.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, he doesn’t want to hear what I’m saying. The member doesn’t want to hear what I’m saying. I’ve said that a whole bunch of people are happy with what’s going on.

The Chair: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: They’re going to have their kids show up. I could read off more if you want to hear…. Maybe that’s the solution, hon. Chair. The Leader of the Opposition only has education questions for the Premier on a day after they had 20 hours of discussion with the Minister of Education, so I’ll….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Yeah, yeah, okay, sure. You didn’t get answers. That’s right. Here you go.

Ida, a parent of seven, in the Vancouver Sun on July 30, a Burnaby parent: “I’m feeling…confident with Dr. Henry’s decision because I developed some confidence with her over the past few months in her ability to keep us safe. So I feel good about it. I think the biggest thing for us parents is to kind of accept that our normal is not going to be static; it’s going to be changing.”

[3:05 p.m.]

Thank goodness. A mother of seven brings wisdom to this debate, finally, at three o’clock on a Friday afternoon in August, someone who says: “I have confidence that the public health officials, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, the trustees that I had the confidence to elect at the last election who run our school system, are going to be able to deliver a safe environment for my seven children.” Take that off the 600,000 that are running for the door, Member, and let’s start from there.

Let’s talk about another parent from Cariboo. This is a superintendent. I don’t want to name that person because there might be ramifications. I’ll leave that off. I’ll go to another parent. “It’s not good for kids to be away from their friends and out of the classroom so long.” That’s in the Globe and Mail — David Fallon of Vancouver, a parent.

There are more. There are lots and lots of families that are excited about what’s ahead. There are lots of families that are anxious. We’re trying to reduce that anxiety. The opposition is trying to elevate it. Why they’re motivated to do that is a mystery to me. Why they’re not adopting the position that British Columbians supported a few months ago, all of us putting aside our partisan differences and focusing on the people that matter in this instance…. Young people, parents right across B.C. — that’s what we should be focusing on. But instead, we get insults, we get rhetoric, we get hyperbole. What we need to do….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: The plan is pretty simple. Man, I don’t know how obtuse you have to be, but the member for Kamloops–North Thompson seems to top the charts day after day. Go to your school. Find out what’s in your best interest. The professionals there that care about your children and care about you and care about your community will work with you to find that result.

A. Wilkinson: After that screed we can say that I think the choice is summarized for parents. Here’s the choice. The Premier, I’m sure, will tell me if I’ve misunderstood or don’t get it quite right. The choice is between going to the local bricks-and-mortar school as usual, with no ability for distance learning, or withdrawing from that school for either home-schooling or joining the lineup for independent distance learning. Correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: No, you’re not correct. You’re not correct. Just next week the Vancouver school district will be rolling out their plan for their community, worked on with the teachers and the parents and the support staff in that community. That will have a mix and a hybrid. That will happen in other jurisdictions across the province.

We need to know what the need is. That’s why parents are so critically important in this exercise. They need to engage with the people providing the services for their families.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I think we can probably leave it that the Premier has told us that every concerned parent should just go and join the lineup at the principal’s office to try to find out how it’s going to work. And if they don’t like it, they’ll have to withdraw from the school and try home-schooling or join the lineup for IDL.

This is a sad commentary in what we look for from the Premier in terms of leadership in a time of crisis. The Premier hasn’t got a clue what the unemployment rate is. The Premier doesn’t know what’s happening in schools in four weeks. And now we have the concept of the Premier, in about three hours, getting into a 3,000-kilogram black armoured SUV with blackened-out windows, and he’ll drive through north Victoria, where he is protected from what’s going on there.

Let me give the Premier a few quotes of what’s going on there. This is from Les Leyne, well-known columnist at the Victoria Times Colonist: “Homeless Addicts Are Overwhelming NDP’s Solutions.”

“By a number of measures, the NDP’s approach is not working. Despite a steady blizzard of announcements and news releases about all the expensive new efforts underway, there is scant evidence that they’re making much progress. Despite pouring millions of dollars into new housing — in a controversial, heavy-handed fashion when it comes to Victoria — it’s the same perennial conversation and anxiety it has been for years. It is spreading across B.C. to the point where virtually every community is grappling with it.”

[3:10 p.m.]

There are estimated, by the social minister, to be 40 homelessness camps around B.C. “But four-year governments coming up with ten-year plans is just as silly as a three-year-old government blaming its failures on its predecessors.”

Let me repeat that. “Four-year governments coming up with ten-year plans is just as silly as a three-year-old NDP government blaming its failures on its predecessors.”

The NDP, in opposition, knew how intractable addiction and homelessness issues were, but they left the impression it would all be easy to take care of once their commitment was to make things right. That impression looks, now, entirely erroneous.

This, Premier, is in your backyard, statements from some of the people you drive by every day with the police officers taking care of you.

Mr. Dodd, owner of Dodd’s Furniture: “We’ve got big sympathy, and we do a lot for the homeless, but the B.C. government is not doing anything. The system has all failed, and we want to give a message to the B.C. government to do something.”

Jolanda, owner of Java Jo’s: “I’ve been threatened a few times in the past month…. I want my oldest son, who is 16, to be able to work here in the summer, and I don’t feel safe enough for him to come in.”

Byron Loucks, owner of West Coast Appliances: “I now have to confront intoxicated, screaming individuals daily as a way to keep our parking lot clear and our customers safe. My entire life is tied to this business. I now fear that because of our location we may be forced to close for good. We didn’t bring the problem to the area. Why should we be the ones forced to suffer for the government’s decisions?”

It’s not just Victoria. Yaletown, the owner of Downtown Florist: “The complete atmosphere of my business and its surroundings has changed since homeless encampments have taken up space in the Howard Johnson Hotel. The homelessness problem has worsened from this completely unprofessional and irresponsible decision.”

The owner of Roxy Burger down the street: “What is happening now is not only scary and depressing but it comes at a time when our businesses are struggling more than ever. People deserve better from our elected officials.”

This is the upshot of three years of the NDP homelessness plan. What we heard 2½ years ago was that there’d be a new approach. I read from the document TogetherBC: British Columbia’s Poverty Reduction Strategy: “Prevention. Make homelessness rare by preventing people from becoming homeless and by helping people who are at risk of homelessness. Immediate response. If someone becomes homeless, actions should be taken to make the experience brief to reduce harm and help prevent chronic homelessness.”

This complete debacle was well underway before COVID came along. Let’s look at the NDP’s plan for how to deal with it.

Howard Johnson Hotel, Vancouver — assessed value, $38.7 million; purchase price, $55 million. Vancouver, Buchan Hotel — assessed value, $11.2 million; purchase price, $19.4 million. The American Hotel in Vancouver — assessed value, $11.3 million; purchase price, $17.9 million.

Victoria, Paul’s Motor Inn — assessed value, $8.8 million; purchase price, $15 million. Victoria, Comfort Inn — assessed value, $14.2 million; purchase price, $18.5 million.

In other words, the NDP, in their valiant effort, have paid $41 million more than the assessed value to create zones of utter misery for the residents, for the community, for the businesses around them and for visitors who are now reluctant to enter those communities.

From the vantage point of your SUV, Premier, can you tell us how you let this happen?

Hon. J. Horgan: I would seek a recess for a health break. I’ll be back to answer the question at the earliest opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll take a recess for approximately ten minutes or less.

The committee recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for raising what is a very, very difficult issue for communities right across British Columbia, not just in our urban centres but in rural B.C. as well.

I appreciate that the challenges of homelessness, the challenges of mental health and addictions, did not arrive today. They did not arrive ten years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago. They’ve been with us forever — for a long, long time. All governments have done their level best, I believe, at all orders — federal, provincial and municipal — to put in place a framework that can address these issues as they emerge.

I do have to say — and I appreciate that the member might take issue with this — that during the pandemic, we’ve seen temporary shelters either curtailed or closed altogether, which has put more pressure on social housing, which we have built in significant amounts in the three years that we’ve been in government. But the problem persists.

We had a cross-ministry approach to this some weeks ago, involving Social Development and Poverty Reduction, Mental Health and Addictions, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Public Safety all coming together to put in place a plan that would address the comprehensive challenges that we have when it comes to homelessness, addictions, mental health, and so on. Poverty is the root of the challenge, and we need to lift people up. That’s why we’re focusing on building an economy that includes everyone, lifts all of us up and spreads around the wealth and the benefits of being in British Columbia.

In Oppenheimer Park, down Pandora Avenue here in Victoria and in Topaz Park we were able to house 600 people in a very short period of time, and that did not address the problem completely.

The challenges of policing…. I see at least one member of the committee that’s been struck by this House to look at the Police Act so that we can better inform and assist law enforcement in doing their work by determining what other elements of their work should better be done by others, whether it be social workers to deal with mental health, whether it be first responders that can better address addictions and overdoses, whether it be any number of other service delivery mechanisms that are available to municipalities, to the province, to the federal government. I think that will take us a long way toward success so that law enforcement does have a clear direction of what their responsibility is, what their role is in addressing these issues.

The member knows full well — the Leader of the Opposition does; I know many of his colleagues do — that these are complex issues, addictions particularly. Complex issues.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ve recently reached out to the federal government and urged them to decriminalize possession of small amounts of opioids so that we do not criminalize people but, instead, find ways to give them the supports that they need. We are working hard on increasing the numbers of supports, and it seems every day to be inadequate. We continue to try and reassess and redeploy resources.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions added some 170 new treatment beds over the past number of weeks, and we’re still going to be playing catch-up all the while. Communities where we see temporary housing are very concerned. I’ve heard those concerns. The member can be assured of that. But I look at successes that are still in progress in Nanaimo, on the Whalley strip, in Maple Ridge, where we have had breakthroughs. But we have more work to do. We’re going to continue to do that.

We’re going to continue to focus on working with our partners, whether they be federal, provincial, not-for-profit — again, critically important during a pandemic. Those volunteers that not-for-profits depend on are oftentimes seniors, often very vulnerable within the pandemic environment we’re living in. They’re not able to be deployed as volunteers, as they have for many, many years, most of them, because of the situation we find ourselves in. Now, I appreciate we’ve done a lot, and we’ll be going through that over the next couple of hours, and I know that we’ve got much more to do.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

A. Wilkinson: The concern, I think, is growing across British Columbia, and the Premier himself has said this is not just a problem in our urban centres. We find it in places as small as Grand Forks, Duncan, Nanaimo, Kamloops and Prince George. And of course, our former colleague Leonard Krog, who’s now mayor of Nanaimo, has pointed out that this situation is stretching the limits of community tolerance.

All across British Columbia, the current approach is clearly not working. Buy a motel. Install people. They live as they see fit and struggle. There are localized increases in crime. There are localized increases in property damage. No one is getting healthier. Residents are threatened, subjected to endless property crime. And there’s no pathway off drugs. So I think the obvious query is: is it time for the Premier to go and meet with these merchants and residents in the north end of Victoria and hear their stories personally?

Hon. J. Horgan: The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Gordy Dodd, who I’ve known for many, many years and have extraordinary respect for not just as entrepreneur but as a philanthropist and a social activist — a fine human being and one that I know many members of this House have personal relationships with.

I do believe that given the ability to leave this place, I will be doing more and more outreach to communities across British Columbia. I’m very much interested in going to Kamloops, for example, where the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has raised in question period a number of issues that are not familiar to me on a personal level, and I very much want to take him up on that and visit his community.

The challenges…. Again, I’m grateful for the tone here, because this is extraordinarily difficult for those afflicted and those that are feeling afflicted because of the moves that we’ve made to get people off the streets and into housing. Despite that, we see neighbourhoods like Strathcona in Vancouver, Beacon Hill Park here in Victoria — two that come easiest to mind for many of us here…. Again, referring back to Kamloops, and my friend from Stikine talks about the challenges in Smithers all the time and has for many, many years, so it’s not an urban issue. It is a problem across the board.

During a pandemic, with high unemployment, as we talked about earlier on, these problems are compounded. I believe that the way forward is to ensure that we’re getting the right people to give the right services.

Public safety — fundamental. We need to make sure that we don’t have lawless zones in our cities and in our communities. I’m very, very committed to that, as is the Minister of Public Safety. We also need to make sure that we have the resources in place. I’ve heard many members on the opposition side over the past number of months raising their desire to see increased budgets for many of the programs that we’ve been delivering over the past number of months. I know that the Minister of Finance will take that advice and will look at re-establishing and refocusing those dollars to meet the needs in communities.

[3:35 p.m.]

In question period, we talked a lot about wraparound services. I think we need to have a clear definition for all of us, at least, of what that means. And having someone available all the time to make sure we can get access to the health care provider that’s needed for the individual or cluster of individuals is critically important. That means making sure that we are putting those individuals in place so that we can deliver the services to the individuals in question.

I want to go back, again, to the question of addictions, the question of stigmatizing those who have mental health and addiction issues. I would love to hear the opposition support our call to the federal government to decriminalize small amounts of opioids for personal use so that we can stop the stigma and start working on being patients. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will support us in that today.

A. Wilkinson: Will the Premier and his executive council put a moratorium on the purchase of motels, which has become such a cause of community disruption and destruction and leads to no improvement of the standard of living for the residents?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I think it’s a sweeping statement to say that there’s no improvement for anyone. Quite the contrary. I know the Minister of Housing has quite a compendium of individuals whose lives have been transformed by getting out of a bad situation and getting into a better one.

That doesn’t work for everybody. I freely admit that. But I think a blanket statement that the programs and policies of the government are universally unsuccessful is not accurate.

Do we need to reassess at all times the progress we’re making, and are we taking the right steps at the right time with the right people? Of course we’re going to continue to do that. But I don’t support the notion of a moratorium. Rather, I support continued engagement with mayors, councils, law enforcement, service providers and not-for-profits and, most importantly, making sure that as we do purchases, we have a plan that is not just about ghettoizing but is a plan about using that space to build the continuum of housing that we need in the community.

A. Wilkinson: Given that the Premier won’t accept the need for a moratorium on these motel purchases and warehousing of these people, will the Premier accept that it’s time to reassess the program? Because no one’s getting healthier. Residents are threatened. There’s extensive property crime around these facilities, and there is no pathway off drugs when living in one of those facilities.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m encouraged by the tone of the discussion we’re having, and I’m grateful to have the opportunity to talk about these issues. I do disagree with the member’s premise that there is no success. I just got a note from the Minister of Housing. In her community in Coquitlam, fully half of those that have been put in temporary housing have begun treatment programs.

As a physician and a learned scholar, the Leader of the Opposition will know that moments of clarity need to be grasped and are better grasped in a collective setting than in isolation. So when those moments of clarity come for people with addictions, you need to be able to seize upon those and, most importantly, you need to have the resources to back that up. That’s government’s responsibility, and we’re going to continue to do what we can. We’ve had counsel from the other side to do so. That makes it a bit easier to increase resources, to make sure we have the services in place to help people.

We need to also acknowledge that the whole continuum of housing is required. I know members on the other side…. The member for Langley East spent his career on this side of the House dealing with housing issues. He knows the complexity. He knows that circumstances change and are fluid in markets as well as in the number of people that are without housing. And not to have those temporary spaces, as we do during the pandemic, has created a much bigger problem for us to see, but also a much bigger problem for us to address.

Again, I just…. I do believe that giving people that hand up is so fundamental. If we’re going to be serious about destigmatizing for our brothers and our sisters and our parents and our relatives who are struggling with addictions, or who, for no fault of their own, find themselves with economic circumstances that have them on the streets…. Those people, we know full well…. Those that are friends and relatives and acquaintances, we know that at their core, they’re needing help. We need to be able to find that moment to provide that help.

The best way to do that is to continue to focus on getting better every day at delivering the services that those people need and building the housing, which also has to happen with a collective and cooperative approach between those that do the zoning in cities and those that provide the resources at the federal and provincial levels and doing it in a way that meets the needs of people in every part of the province — rural, urban and otherwise.

A. Wilkinson: This morning on CFAX radio, it was stated that the superintendent of school district No. 61 in greater Victoria says that they will have to increase safety measures in school to keep children safe due to increased crime due to hotels purchased by the government and filled with homeless people that have no support.

So given that there is now deep and widespread concern right here in Victoria, less than 2 kilometres from here, will the Premier reassess his Victoria motel purchase plan because it’s simply not working the way it should?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: For the member’s benefit, I have some statistics from B.C. Housing on supportive housing residents after only six months. Ninety-four percent of residents remain housed in the units after six months, 84 percent of those residents report improvements in overall well-being, and 82 percent of residents report experiencing positive interactions with neighbours.

Now, I appreciate that leaves a big chunk that don’t. I don’t want everyone to go nuts over there. I understand the problem. I do think that we need to separate this out and acknowledge that there are those are benefiting from these programs, and there are those that are taking advantage of them or are not finding that place that allows them to find that clarity of purpose and mind that we were talking about.

The numbers are fairly impressive about individuals who are finding a better place for themselves and a better launch pad to a better future in the community or somewhere else. I think the continuum….

This is not new. This is not a program that we instituted. It was one that B.C. Housing showed to us upon our arrival. It was being utilized by the former government, and other governments across North America, as a tool. In the pandemic, of course, it has been extraordinary. I go back to those shelter beds that are no longer available and other vehicles within the community that often have been available for those that are living rough.

Now we are where we are. I take the advice from the Leader of the Opposition in the tone in which he has offered it.

When I get together with the team, which I’ve talked about — the Minister of Social Development, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Public Safety — and we discuss…. The Minister of Skills and Training is on the committee as well. We want, again, to give people opportunity. Of course, education is the great equalizer in our society. Give people the tools to succeed, and the likelihood of that happening goes up exponentially.

All of those ministers and their teams are working with B.C. Housing and looking at the success we’ve had with some of these initiatives and also the challenges. We’ll address those challenges on a daily basis, asking, again, for calm in the community.

I know that Mayor Helps, for example, here in Victoria, and her council are working to try and find ways forward. Sometimes we are on different pages. Other times we’re in sync. That’s not unusual when you have a problem that is as deeply seated as this one, with everyone wanting to do the right thing to help those vulnerable people but also respect the rights and liberties of those in the community that were going along blissfully, without any knowledge of the challenges, or, at least, not having those challenges made so apparent on a daily basis.

A. Wilkinson: My request, my suggestion, the thing that I beseech the Premier to do is, perhaps next week, on his way home, stop and talk with Jolanda at Java Jo’s. Go and see Byron Loucks. Sit down in the furniture store with Gordy Dodd. Hear them out about how their lives have been torn apart by what’s happening in the north end of Victoria.

Premier, it’s not working, and it needs to be revised.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, genuinely, for the tone of this discussion today. I know, over the course of a number of days…. Question period is a heated discussion.

We all know that these challenges are not easily fixed. We all know that they didn’t arrive yesterday, and I will not say they arrived 16 years ago. They’ve been with us for a long time. I do agree that we need to redouble our efforts to solve these problems, keeping in mind all of the unintended consequences of policy decisions as we go forward.

I hope, also, that the opposition will work with us. This is another one of those opportunities where we can say…. I know members, in communities that are not represented by this side of the House, work with their councils and work with their mayors, finding ways to secure land that’s appropriate for housing, working with your federal MPs in communities across the province to see the federal government not just talk about housing, which they’ve been doing. Again, I appeal to the member for Langley East.

The federal government has talked about housing for a long, long time, but the cheques have not been sufficient to meet the demand in communities. We need all orders of government working on this. Members of all parties are on the review of the Police Act. We need to make sure that public safety professionals are given the tools they need to address the circumstances they find themselves in, whether it be in a temporary housing environment or in encampments or just meeting people upon the street.

I’m genuinely pleased with the tone of the conversation here. If we collectively, all 87 of us, can keep this focus and legitimately criticize where there are vacuums or holes in policy, I think we’ll make some progress in the days and weeks ahead. I don’t think anyone in this House today would say that these problems will be easily addressed, but if we come at it with the tenor and tone of the discussion we’ve just had, I believe there’s some hope that the political noise around what is a societal challenge will be diminished. Maybe we’ll make even more progress.

A. Wilkinson: On Monday, I came into the office, and there was a package. In the package was a purple T-shirt and a note that said: “Dear Dr. Wilkinson, MLA. Please join us as we remember all those loved and lost for International Overdose Awareness Day, August 31. Sincerely, Moms Stop The Harm.” This is a scourge, Premier. We had all-time-high death rates in May and June of this year. We have to ask if the system is working. Clearly, it’s not.

Back in 2018, the current government filed a lawsuit, on August 29, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia against 40 pharmaceutical companies and drug distribution companies. In that lawsuit on behalf of the Crown — that is, on behalf of your government — statements were made.

Paragraph 79: “Prescription opioids are powerful narcotics…. In addition to pain-controlling effects, opioids can…induce an addictive, euphoric high.” Paragraph 80: “With continued use, patients grow tolerant to opioids and require progressively higher doses over time. This increases the risk of withdrawal, addiction and overdose.”

I can only presume the Premier agrees with those statements, since it’s his government that made them in the lawsuit. The lawsuit then goes on to accuse the defendants of having induced addiction by providing an undue and excessive amount of narcotics, opioids — whatever you like to call them — morphine derivatives or synthetic opioids to the people of British Columbia.

In light of that statement and the statement from Dr. Henry, one of the most common misconceptions I hear all the time is that those people choose to use drugs. They don’t appreciate that when people have substance use disorders and addiction, it’s a chronic, relapsing health condition. I’m just going to, in the spirit of constructive approach that we’re trying to take at the moment, ask the Premier to stand and withdraw his remarks that addiction is a choice.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member. I did that the day after the press conference. I do want to, however, put it into context. The line of questioning was comparing opioid deaths to a pandemic. In a ham-fisted way, I tried to make the distinction between droplets and opioids. The summation in the legal brief, I think, is fairly consistent. It’s certainly something I support. I retracted the statement the next day, and I do so again today.

We cannot stigmatize those who find themselves — through no fault of their own, through traumas that we cannot understand and imagine — to be addicted. Whether it be from a prescription, from a party or from whatever circumstance the individual has found themselves in, they should not be blamed for that. They should be helped for that. If that assists the member, I hope it does.

A. Wilkinson: I assume that that retraction, just short of an apology, applies to the families who sent us the T-shirts this Monday. Sadly, there are 3,917 people who have died, under this government’s watch, of drug overdoses. It’s not causally related to having been elected, but nonetheless, we have to mourn jointly and respect the families and what they’re going through. I appreciate it’s just short of a apology, but a retraction, I suppose, will do.

The next question, of course, arises from that same lawsuit, where there are the allegations made about distribution of large volumes of prescription medications, in paragraph 99:

“The defendants have created or assisted in the creation of an epidemic of addiction in British Columbia and throughout each and every province and territory. The actions of the defendants have caused deaths and serious and long-lasting injury to public peace, health, order and safety, significantly harming the plaintiff” — that is, the province of British Columbia — “and impacting its ability to deliver health care to the citizens of British Columbia.”

Once again I assume the Premier stands by that statement.

It of course raises an obvious question. Forty-nine American states have prescription monitoring programs; British Columbia does not. British Columbia has had the PharmaNet system since 1993, where every filled prescription in this province is recorded in a central database that is available to clinicians. It has been there for 27 years.

It has never been effectively used to monitor those situations where an individual receives medications, sometimes from multiple doctors without other doctors knowing, and thereby becomes, inadvertently, addicted. It’s certainly not a choice. It’s a disease; it’s an addiction. We’ve heard the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions say vague things about this, but we’ve never heard any kind of plan for implementing prescription monitoring.

Will the Premier undertake to do this as soon as possible, in keeping with the lawsuit, to tell those mothers who sent us the T-shirts on Monday that we’re going to actually do something about this, to save their children from a destructive disease that is sometimes, and not infrequently, brought on by prescription drugs at the outset?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I would say that the member is correct. We have had the ability to monitor and manage the prescription of opioids for some time in British Columbia, and I’m pleased to say that we started with a contract, in January of 2019, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to develop a comprehensive prescription monitoring program. That involves, of course, everyone buying into the initiative, as the member would know.

We’ve learned from the experience through PharmaNet. We’re working with the College of Pharmacists as well as nursing professionals, the College of Dental Surgeons, the College of Naturopathic Physicians, the College of Midwives and the Coroners Service to bring everybody together so that the agreement that we signed in January of 2019 can be effective in reducing prescriptions. I will say that according to the Canadian health institute, the proportion of people prescribed opioids in B.C. has been declining; 13.6 percent in 2016, 12.3 percent in 2018 is the most recent data that I have.

Discussing the litigation that we brought to the producers of opioids, also another one of the tools that we have in our toolbox to address this challenge…. One death is too many. The unacceptable increase during the pandemic has been explained as a result of the already toxic drug supply being cut further with even more poisons to stretch it out because of restrictions at the borders. Lack of travel has reduced the supply, which has created an even more toxic supply.

Which brings me back, I think, to my suggestion to the federal government. We already…. The Minister of Public Safety, in advice to law enforcement, suggested that as a province, we would not pursue cases against those who had small amounts of opioids in their possession. But it’s a Criminal Code issue. It’s a federal question.

I believe that the national association of police chiefs has called on the federal government to take that action. I’ve supported that, and it would be wonderful if we could, before we’re done this debate today, agree, at least between the official opposition…. I see no members currently, in real time, from the Green caucus, but I’m fairly confident they would support that as well.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think it would be a great day to end the session of the summer, the pandemic summer of 2020, to have unanimous support for the federal government to take action when it comes to decriminalizing, stop the stigma and start to do the work that the member was talking about earlier.

A. Wilkinson: There is, I think, a more fundamental point that perhaps should be the subject of some agreement. Will the Premier agree that the ultimate goal is to get people off drugs?

Hon. J. Horgan: Absolutely. I absolutely agree with that. That requires more treatment beds. We’ve seen that in the past number of weeks. It requires opportunities, when those moments of clarity come for those who have opioid addictions, to be sure that we have health care providers there on the spot to take advantage of those moments before the individuals lapse back.

The prescription monitoring program is part and parcel of that. It’s already mandatory at methadone clinics, again, using substitutes. The member will know full well the various tools available to health officials to work with individuals to help them in those moments when help can be delivered.

I certainly endorse that the best outcome is to have no drugs, but — we’ve talked about naivety today — I think it would be naive of me to suggest that that’s going to happen overnight. But I do believe that that should be the ultimate goal for all of us: to ensure that opioids are no longer being used — certainly, for medical purposes — and that we can do what we can for those who are using street drugs, that we can do what we can to put in place programs to help them get off of those drugs and have more productive and focused and happy lives.

A. Wilkinson: In keeping with that goal, we are all aware that Alberta recently announced that they’d be putting $180 million per year into recovery programs to get people off drugs. That’s about $45 for every single person in Alberta. We all note that the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions in British Columbia is the smallest of all the ministries, with a budget of $4 per person.

Given that Alberta is dedicating 11 times as much money per capita to this as the British Columbia government, will Alberta provide the cue for this government to enhance its programs to get people off drugs?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to just say at the outset that I’m PVR’ing the hockey game, so please don’t tell me, anybody, what the score is. I’d really appreciate that. I’m looking forward to that more than anything today, so please don’t wreck that for me.

I do want to say that yesterday’s announcement by the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions will lead to 140 youth beds. That’s a $35 million investment. We announced a $10.5 million investment for 25 new overdose prevention services which will include more nurses, social workers, that will connect people to treatment. We’re also working on…. Again, keeping in mind that the end result, of course, would be to see a world where drugs are not part and parcel of people’s lives. But I think, until we get to that place, we have to ensure that we have a safe supply.

That is something, I know…. I think the member for Kamloops–South Thompson is going to think that I’m picking on him, but he made some good, solid comments about that not that long ago, a couple days ago. Again, it’s an acknowledgment that we are living in an extraordinary time that helps us grapple with these questions.

On the issue about Alberta’s funding versus B.C.’s funding, the member will know that the vast majority of the services in this basket are provided by the Ministry of Health, so the dollar numbers are really apples to oranges. What we do need to do is invest more in the services that people need. That involves health care providers. That involves making sure that we have treatment facilities in place.

The work of the Foundries that we’ve…. Eight locations, new Foundries across B.C., for a total of 19 — again picking up on initiatives that other governments, previous governments have put in place. That’s the type of work that we need to focus on.

I always view public policy as a river. It ebbs, and it flows. It goes up and goes down depending on the circumstances. But we have been in a public health emergency, when it comes to opioid addictions, for coming on six or seven years, going back to the former Minister of Health. To have a global pandemic layered over top of a public health emergency, when it comes to opioids, is a challenge that none of us ever would have expected.

I think the appropriate response for us in this circumstance is just what we’re seeing today — an exchange of ideas and suggestions for how we can collectively work together to lift up our fellow citizens and protect them, those that have addictions, those who have mental health issues. The way to do that is to have more people delivering the services that they need.

A. Wilkinson: We understand that so far this calendar year roughly 66 youth have died of overdoses in British Columbia. The matter is urgent. The rumour or understanding circulating about yesterday’s announcement is that those 120 beds for youth are actually not current. I would encourage the Premier to tell us now when those beds will be available and on stream, rather than being implemented over the fullness of a fiscal year or a term or some other thing.

We need to know the answer now, Premier.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I can say — through technology, I just had the minister who made the announcement yesterday give us some clarity — that it is two waves, as the member suggested.

There are 30 this year. Those are beds that the health authorities would contract that are unfunded at the moment. So we’re hoping those will move very, very quickly — beds that exist that are not resourced through public means.

The remainder we want to fast-track, again, through those health authorities, making the determinations on who the providers will be and where those beds will be located. But 30 for sure this fiscal, and I would suggest…. I just gave direction that the remaining 90 should be going out as quickly as health authorities can find the providers.

A. Wilkinson: I appreciate the complexity of a large organization like government. But I think it’s also indicative that we have to keep an eye on these announcements to make sure that they actually have substance.

That’s not a personal criticism in any way, Premier. It’s a concern that we hear simplified summaries — whether it be federal, provincial or otherwise — that turn out to be sorely lacking in actual boots on the ground in delivery of services. I suppose, on behalf of the opposition, I would emphasize the urgency.

Now on another topic entirely, I’ll take the Premier back to 2015 with respect to LNG and, of course, the large announcement on October 3, 2018, when the Pre­mier and the Prime Minister were kind enough to invite me to attend the gathering where the largest industrial project in Canadian history was announced at a hotel in Vancouver.

[4:20 p.m.]

A few years before, in opposition, the Premier had said: “No guarantees for direct jobs, no direct guarantee for local procurement. That strikes me as a failure all around.”

The Premier, on the next day, in July of 2015: “If Western Australia can sign a project development agreement with one of the largest companies in the world that maintains a requirement for local hire, that maintains a requirement for local procurement…. If another jurisdiction can do that, why can’t British Columbia?” Lo and behold, there’s no project development agreement in British Columbia. There’s little or no income tax revenue in British Columbia because it was traded away. And we now see the consequences of that.

On April 3 of 2019, the Premier said: “We’re hoping to see 10,000 jobs in northern British Columbia, the vast majority of them going to locals.” Fast-forward to three weeks ago, July 10, 2020. The Minister of Energy confirmed that so far there are 1,500 people working, and about 50 percent of those are from British Columbia.

Now, what we get from the communities themselves is a more dramatic story. We hear that B.C. businesses have been successful in 36 percent of contracts this year, 38 percent in the year before, and 30 percent the year before that. There was an open letter sent to the Premier by people from Terrace representing a collection of companies, including Terrace Steel Works, Big River Distributors, Coast Mountain Wireless, Kristoff transport, Bear Creek Contracting and North Coast Equipment, and it comes along with horror stories like deals being entered into and then falling apart, and equipment being returned and not being used and the local contractors being literally left by the side of the road.

The query, of course, is…. If we have the largest industrial project in British Columbia history, there’s not much income tax revenue from it, and there’s a lot less procurement than expected, and there’s not much hiring going on. How is British Columbia benefiting out of the $41 billion?

I think perhaps the most graphic example came to me the other day in a series of photographs. This is what’s going up the nose of the people in Terrace this week. It’s that fuel trucks are showing up with Alberta licence plates from a company called AFD, Alberta Fuel Distributors, of 78 Avenue NW in Edmonton. These are 10,000-gallon, double-tanker trailers — 45,000 litres of fuel. The local people have sent photographs of them driving through Terrace with Alberta licence plates on.

Of course, the concern is that Alberta fuel is being trucked in. There’s no PST being paid on any of this. Is there any motor fuel tax being paid? Is the price the issue, because it’s 40 cents cheaper in Edmonton than it is in Terrace? Clearly, the driver’s not from British Columbia. The income tax will remit to Alberta. The corporate tax will remit to Alberta. This is a flag, like a red flag to a bull, as we watch a double tractor-trailer pull into the hotel in Terrace, and the working people of Terrace say: “What on earth is going on here?”

I think, Premier, it’s important to answer that question for the people of Terrace and the northwest because the people of the northeast Peace country have been observing this for many years, and now it seems to be making its way to the northwest.

The query, obviously, is: can inquiries be made as to a whole series of questions? Is the fuel being trucked in from Alberta? Is British Columbia tax being paid on that fuel from Alberta? Where is the tax revenue being remitted? It’s being rubbed in the face of the people of Terrace.

The second series of questions is: how did we go so far off the rails that this $41 billion project is flowing money into the pockets of people outside of British Columbia at a furious rate and the local people are left with no work?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: With respect to the fuel issue, I don’t have that information, but I will commit to investigating that quickly and getting back to the member in writing next week.

With respect to employment targets, I am advised…. These would have been canvassed under the Minister of Energy estimates, so I’m reading materials that may well have already been read into the record. Of the total workforce of 2,600, fully 52 percent of those are British Columbians — 24 percent local of that 52, 10 percent Indigenous, 15 percent women. On the CGL component, the pipeline component, 78 percent British Columbians, 50 percent local workers, mostly Indigenous.

There are also a host of training initiatives that have flowed from the project. Currently at LNG Canada, there are 1,300 workers on site. They anticipate that would be going up through the summer as weather permits, as health requirements on site permit. So I do appreciate the concern. I would share that, of seeing massive amounts of fuel being brought into British Columbia from Alberta. That was certainly not part of any bargain that we worked on during the negotiations to sharpen our pencils to bring the numbers to a place that would be competitive in a world market for an LNG facility to be constructed in British Columbia. I will follow up with the company with respect to that.

In terms of other local procurement opportunities, this is a massive project that is just getting underway. Obviously, full speed ahead was compromised by challenges within the pipeline corridor — we may get into that in the time available — as well as the pandemic. But it’s my expectation — and we have commitments from LNG Canada — that the jobs, the apprenticeship opportunities and the diversity of the workplace will be consistent with benefit agreements that are in place, project labour agreements that were in place at the beginning of the project.

A. Wilkinson: Well, as we approach the end of the day in the final day of the session in this most unusual summer session, this is why we’re here — to have the level of disclosure that makes our democracy work. It’s important to have this kind of feedback with answers, real answers to real questions.

I’m heartened that the Premier has undertaken to answer in writing what the situation is with the Terrace contractors and the fuel supply. I would encourage him, his government, and their influence on the proponents to do a much better job of communicating the state of procurement and employment along Highway 16 and all the way up into the Peace country. Because it is a very sore point to see British Columbia’s single largest fuel resource, which is only one-time use, going out the door without suitable levels of benefit to British Columbia.

[4:30 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

On the opioids issues, I’m glad to hear that the Premier has put his pressure on his officials to say that it is critically important that these youth beds be delivered, developed and functioning as soon as humanly possible. This is an overwhelming crisis. In terms of mortality and ruined lives, it’s well ahead of the COVID pandemic in this province, and it is incumbent on all of us to do whatever we can to stem the tide.

The same is true of the prescription monitoring program. The Premier wrote out a memo that’s 20 months old. I don’t mean to create any kind of moral burden on the Premier, but 20 months is a long time, and 2,000 people have died in that time. It’s time to put a high priority on these issues, get them functioning and save some lives of British Columbians.

I’m most heartened to hear, perhaps of all, on this issue, that the Premier agrees with me — that our highest and best purpose in this world, as legislators on this issue, is to get people off drugs. I’m heartened to hear that. It means that there is hope for people to lead a better life downstream.

On the homelessness issue. We did not hear any particular clarity about a change in plans. I think I understand the Premier is going to take the time to visit Dodd’s Furniture and Java Jo’s and West Coast Appliance and feel the pressure those people are under, feel the misery that has been inflicted upon them, sadly and, again, without moral turpitude, by government policy — with a period right after “government policy.”

They are not forgiving. They are distressed to find that their role in this society has been so diminished by the actions of their own government.

On schools. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about the adequacy of the Premier’s answers. What happened here today was not forthright. It was evasive.

We are seeing already that parents are taking to social media to express their dissatisfaction with the Premier’s approach. Parents are crying out for clarity. They’re crying out for options. They want the choice of being able to do distance learning from their own bricks-and-mortar school, rather than being ejected from that school if they don’t subscribe to the plan that’s currently in place.

Internet distance learning is simply not an option for 640,000 students — to leave their schools and sign up for it. The Premier knows that. It’s time to rise to the occasion and get each and every school engaged in distance learning. It’s urgent.

Once again, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about the adequacy of the Premier’s approach to UNDRIP in light of the IPPs and the heartfelt concern expressed by a number of First Nations that they have been betrayed.

On the issue of condominium insurance. We’ve heard the Premier’s sympathy, but sympathy doesn’t pay the bills. Sympathy doesn’t alleviate the worries of those fixed-income seniors who have seen an 1,100 percent increase in their condo insurance. Sympathy doesn’t help them set up a self-insured or mutual insurance organization. They’re going to need the efforts of government to make that happen.

I’d encourage the Premier to put a lot more than sympathy into the plight of 1½ million people living in the Lower Mainland and probably another half million around the rest of the province.

It’s, perhaps, surprising — or shall I say disappointing but not surprising — to hear the Premier say, in the middle of this economic meltdown, that he’s not prepared to entertain the idea of reductions in either the corporate or personal income tax to stimulate this economy. It’s abundantly clear that British Columbia is not competitive on the national stage. We are in a real pickle in terms of our tax policy. With 23 new or increased taxes under this government in the last three years, that is not going in the right direction for any kind of a revival of this economy.

We all look forward to a plan that will bring British Columbia back to life. We all look forward to the excitement of saying that British Columbia is back on track. It’s well off track now, and what we heard from the Premier this morning is that there’s no particular date for his recovery plan. There’s no particular plan in place. The people who are involved in it have started to mutiny and are sending out their own plans because they’re fed up with waiting. That needs to be improved dramatically, and I think every member of the executive council knows that.

[4:35 p.m.]

Lastly, I must say it was disappointing to stand here opposite the Premier, who couldn’t make head or tail of the fact that he’d spent $668 million of public money on people who are unemployed but didn’t know how many there were or when they were unemployed.

But this is what we do. This is the role of the Legislature — to expose the frailties of a government plan and to improve it. We look forward to seeing these plans improved in this time of extraordinary crisis here in British Columbia.

None of us lived through a war with conscription. None of us lived through the Depression. None of us know what it feels like to live in a catastrophe that kills people the way COVID has been killing people and ruining lives.

We all hope that the count, which I gather went up by 86 today, does indeed plateau and decline, because if it doesn’t, we are all in serious trouble. We’ll have to continue to put our shoulder to the wheel as legislators to make British Columbia a better place for everyone. That’s what we do. That’s why we’re here.

I thank you all for your time.

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to thank the Leader of the Oppo­sition for our engagement today. There were times when I wasn’t sure where we were going. That’s kind of consistent with how this year has unfolded for all of us.

I do want to acknowledge the tone with which we address some of the more challenging issues in the lives of our fellow British Columbians, whether it be our response to COVID, whether it be our response to the opioid health crisis or whether it be dealing with the most important element in the lives of young people — getting back into classrooms.

Agreeing to disagree is a fundamental foundation of our democratic processes here in British Columbia and in Canada. We are among the most fortunate people in the world to have the benefit of institutions like this, where we can engage back and forth with different ideas and different perspectives on the challenges of our time.

I don’t miss a day that I’m not grateful for the opportunity to sit in this place as a member of the Legislature representing the people of Langford–Juan de Fuca and, for the past three years, having the extraordinary privilege of being the Premier of British Columbia.

Often, when I go home, my wife, Ellie, asks me how my day was, and I say it was a fantastic day. She’ll say: “Oh, what happened?” And I’ll say: “Well, I got pounded on this. I got pounded on that. I got pounded on something else.” She goes: “Well, how could that possibly be a great day?”

It’s a great day because we are Canadians. It’s a great day, because even though we disagree on finer points, we all come together at the end of the day. We did so profoundly back in March and April and May, in June, and a little bit today.

We came together, put aside our differences and focused on the people of British Columbia, who depend on us to provide leadership on a range of issues that were well canvassed today, whether it be UNDRIP, education, homelessness or opioids — any number of the challenges. And there are many, many more. If we had more hours, I know the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues would have brought more issues to bear.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to stand and defend, to the extent I can, and to work with my colleagues in the public service to deliver as much of the quality programming that British Columbians have come to expect over many, many decades in this fine institution, which as we all know, has seen its ups and downs over the past couple of years — again, circumstances none of us would have expected. A minority parliament that has worked for three years is unprecedented in my memory, and I’ve got a couple of degrees in history, so my memory stretches back beyond my time on the planet.

All of us should commend each other for that work — Liberals, New Democrats, Greens. All of us should focus on what we’ve been able to accomplish through heated debate, through sometimes personal attacks. I’d like to think that we’ve minimized that in this place, but it’s British Columbia. We have a long history of vicious discussion.

Today was not one of those days. I believe today was a positive day for all parties and a positive day for British Columbians. We have our differences, we raised them, and then we carry on from there.

Do not tell me the score of the hockey game.

Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,334,000 — approved.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of Supply on Votes 1 through 10.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 4:43 p.m.

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $85,014,000 — approved.

[4:45 p.m.]

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $18,575,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $734,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $18,801,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Human Rights Commissioner, $5,500,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $6,942,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Merit Commissioner, $1,365,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Ombudsperson, $9,366,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Police Complaint Commissioner, $4,092,000 — approved.

Vote 10: Representative for Children and Youth, $10,471,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for the consideration of the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply.

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on March 5; June 25, 26; July 9, 10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30; and August 11, 13, 14 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

[4:50 p.m.]

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 55 billion, 220 million, 431 thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 2020.]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2020–2021.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the ’20-21 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply after consideration of the main estimates.

In addition, this House is resolved that there be granted, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund, the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021.

Hon. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[4:55 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 25, Supply Act, 2020–2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 25 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 25 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 25, Supply Act, 2020–2021, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 4:56 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 25 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:57 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021

Bill 25, Supply Act, 2020–2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[5:00 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the House:

 

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2020

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020

Mines Amendment Act, 2020

Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020

Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020

Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2020

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020

In Her Majesty’s Name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2020–2021

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE. ÍY, C̸NES QENOṈE ṮÁ.

As always, it’s wonderful to be among you, to see you all, some of you in person and a number of you virtually as well. I do want to say how very much I appreciate the work that you’ve done together this last session. It’s been a tremendous effort.

[5:05 p.m.]

I feel very, very proud, actually, of the work that you’ve all done, the efforts that you’ve made, the work that you’ve done to keep us all safe, to protect people who are most vulnerable, to care for children and families, to support arts and culture — all of the things that make our lives positive and affirming. I feel very proud of all of you, and I’m very deeply grateful.

I’d also like to acknowledge Ms. Ryan-Lloyd and the members, all of the team of the Legislative Assembly, for their, I think, truly outstanding job you’ve done of managing the session this time around. It’s certainly been challenging, but you’ve more than risen to the task, and I’m grateful for that as well.

Thank you all so much. I wish you a happy few weeks, some time with family and friends, and please do take good care of yourselves.

HÍSW̱ḴE.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before recognizing the Government House Leader, as we adjourn for this extraordinary summer sitting period, I would like to recognize the many assembly employees who make our work possible. As you’ve just heard, it has been an extraordinary effort. Preparing for this ambitious undertaking required innovation, and hours of planning went into being ready for our first historic hybrid sitting on June 22.

On behalf of all members, I extend my appreciation and thanks to all staff. We could not have done this without you. [Applause.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fifth session of the 41st parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to all members that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date.

That, by agreement of the Speaker and the House Leaders of each recognized caucus, the location of sittings and means of conducting sittings of this House may be altered if required due to an emergency situation or public health measures and that such agreement constitute the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give notice to all members of the agreement.

That, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. In the event that the Deputy Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. In the event that the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, another member designated collectively by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

[5:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, just before you motion to adjourn, if I may, I would certainly love to thank all of you for your extraordinary effort and cooperation in making what we’ve had to do over the last few months possible. I think it’s something that every one of us should be very proud of. I think you all know that we really did lead the world, in so many ways, on this, and that’s certainly a great tribute to each and every one of you.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:11 p.m.