Orders of the Day

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

In Section A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. After that, it will be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, and after that, it will be followed by the estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

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

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will take a short recess, and we’ll resume with the Premier’s estimates shortly. Thank you very much.

The committee recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $14,692,000.

Hon. J. Horgan: As we begin the budget estimates for the Premier’s office for the year ahead, I want to reflect a little bit on the year we’ve just come through. I think all British Columbians would acknowledge that this has been the most extraordinary of times. It has been a year past of floods, of pestilence, of heat domes, of extraordinary events in the natural environment as well as the challenges we faced in the delivery of services, as we’ve remained in place, separated from our loved ones, from our fellow workers, trying to get through a global pandemic. But through it we have come.

We still have a distance to travel, but as each month goes by, more and more activities are taking place, and more and more people are feeling comfortable in their communities. I encourage all of those who still have concerns to take the steps that have been suggested by our public health officials to protect themselves as they go about their daily lives. We have to carry on, and if we’ve learned anything as a community, it is the resilience of British Columbia and British Columbians.

The natural environment has been beset over the past five years, since I had the honour of being sworn in as Premier: three of the worst fire seasons in our history, unprecedented floods in the fall and in the spring in different parts of the province. The wildfire seasons have been longer and more intense, and of course last year the horrific, complete elimination of the town of Lytton will forever be ingrained in the minds of British Columbians — certainly, those who had homes in Lytton and in the First Nations, the First Peoples who have been at the crossroads of the Fraser and the Thompson since time immemorial.

These have been extraordinary times, and we have seen unprecedented cooperation and collaboration in this place, within communities and, indeed, across the country. Through the pandemic, I met with other Premiers and the Prime Minister somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45 times, which would not have happened in the normal course of events. In those meetings, most of them virtual — in fact, all of them virtual — relationships were built, and understandings of the diversity of the country were better understood.

The Prime Minister and the federal government’s acknowledgment of the need to have programs stabilized, whether it be our public transit system in British Columbia, which is the envy of many provinces. With almost zero ridership, the need to ensure that we protected those institutions, whether it be B.C. Transit or TransLink, was imperative. The federal government stepped up with significant investments to continue to protect those vital public services.

[3:10 p.m.]

We stepped up as well to protect businesses that were affected, mostly in the hospitality sector, where customers just stopped showing up, for all of the reasons we know so well now. At the time, running a business — whether you were doing that in Squamish, in Dawson Creek, in Kamloops or here on the Island or in the Lower Mainland — there was a desire government programs to be stood up quickly to meet those challenges.

I want to just pay tribute to the professional public service here in British Columbia, and also in municipalities across the province, who did extraordinary things — things that governments had never had to do before, and rather than say, “We have never done this before,” people stepped up to get the work done. That, I believe, is critically important to the narrative of the past year, the past two years — indeed, the past five years.

As we welcome the new Leader of the Opposition to his first budget estimates on that side of the House, I’m hopeful that we can have a collaborative engagement, as we did with the acting Leader of the Opposition in previous iterations of these debates. There is an opportunity here for transparency. There’s an opportunity here for us to understand each other.

The good news is that the Leader of the Opposition does have experience in government, and I’m hopeful that he’ll recall that time. I know I’ll reflect on some of those moments in my remarks as the hours go by. But it is important to recognize — I think the public gets this, and it brings us back to this extraordinary two-year period — that the challenges that we face today are real. The challenges that we have to collectively address are real. But they didn’t just arrive last week. They didn’t arrive last month, and the solutions won’t be here tomorrow or the day after that.

Government is hard work. Making sure we fill the gaps in people’s lives as a result of the impacts of the natural disasters that we’ve been beset with and, of course, the impacts of the global pandemic are going to take time to figure out. But I’m up to the task.

I’m hopeful that the opposition is up to the task, and working together, we can highlight those areas where we need to lean in and, also, again, speak to all British Columbians with one voice, giving them the confidence that they need to know that whether we reside in the North, in the Kootenays, in the Interior, in the Lower Mainland or on the Island, we’re all in this together. That’s what got us through the pandemic, and that’s what will get us through the recovery as well.

I want to go back to the federal government for a moment, because the great Canadian experiment is always in flux. There’s always movement. I have been observing politics and government for what’s turning out to be decades now. Throughout that time, I’ve seen highs and lows in the delivery of services. I’ve seen highs and lows in cooperation and collaboration across various jurisdictions and different orders of government.

All of that is fine for an academic debate. All of that is fine for back-and-forth in this House, but all of us know that back home people are getting on with their lives, and their expectation is that we will have our partisan disagreements, but at the end of the day, the people that I represent and the people that are represented by members right across this House have an expectation that we are going to put down our partisan clubs and focus on the things that matter to them.

We will have disagreements over the next number of hours. I get that. But I’m hopeful that over the time that people are observing this or reading the Hansard record when it’s published and reviewed by the chair and others to ensure its accuracy…. When people review and reflect upon the engagement we’re going to have today, I’m hopeful that we will all come out better for the effort and that the public will have a sense of confidence that we are here doing their business, not settling petty partisan squabbles that may go back a year or two years or ten years.

What we need to do today, I believe, and what we need to do tomorrow is focus on the needs of the people we represent, and that’s what I’m prepared to do for the rest of the afternoon, and I’m hopeful the opposition is feeling the same way.

K. Falcon: Thank you for the comments of the Premier. Given the delayed start, I will try to be succinct in my questions to the Premier, and I hope that the Premier will join me in that effort to provide succinct answers. We’ve got a lot of material to cover, and I’ll do my best to get through it.

The Premier won’t have to worry. I’m not going to spend a lot of time here talking about things in the past, unless it’s relevant to the questions.

[3:15 p.m.]

I do want to acknowledge that, yes, the Premier and government have faced extraordinary events but remind him, too, that extraordinary events require extraordinary leadership. As a former minister in government, over 12 years, that faced things like a global economic meltdown, forest fires, SARS, H1N1, that’s just the reality of being in government. You have to deal with the challenges that you are facing.

One thing that the Premier and I can certainly agree on is that an outstanding public service, especially given clear direction and asked to execute on behalf of a government with a focus, performs extraordinarily well in British Columbia. In all my ministries and all my time in government, I’ve never had anything but the highest of respect for the public servants who make things work. But as I say, I also learned that those public servants require leadership and clear direction, because in the absence of clear direction, there’s just process.

Today, Premier, I’m going to start off…. I’d like to talk a little bit about the challenge that British Columbians are facing. I want to juxtaposition that against some of the decisions that the Premier and his government are making, which to me offer a real dissonance between what folks are dealing with in their everyday lives and the government’s free-wheeling ways in the spending of money, which I think is inconsistent with what’s happening for most British Columbians.

I want to start by recognizing that a recent survey determined that nearly half of British Columbians are only $200 away from being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. I just want us to think about that for a moment, because those are the same British Columbians that when they’re going out to fill their car with gas and are discovering that gas prices are up more than 90 cents per litre since the Premier came into power in 2017 — and indeed, even 50 to 60 cents a litre higher than our neighbouring jurisdictions right next door. That’s something that really hits hard in an already stretched family budget.

Some other examples of the percentage increases since the Premier formed office in 2017 — and remember, on an affordability platform: gas is up 95 percent, beef up 32 percent, butter up 32 percent, Internet up 21 percent. Housing is the highest in North America. Indeed, in spite of all the blizzard of taxes that were introduced in 2017, the prices have accelerated at a rate that is just unbelievable since I’ve been out of government. We now have the highest housing prices in North America, third-highest on the planet.

It’s in the context of that, Premier, that I wish to talk and speak, first of all, just very quickly on your own office budget.

The Chair: Member, if I might remind you, questions are through the Chair, not directly.

K. Falcon: Through the Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I might need some reminding every once in a while.

The Chair: I’m happy to remind you.

K. Falcon: A bit rusty on the opposition side of things here.

Through the Chair to the Premier, the Premier is asking for an approval of $15 million. When I first saw that number, I immediately flashed back to my days in government when I don’t ever recall a Premier’s office having such a large budget. I found that curious. I went and checked to see what was the budget of the Premier’s office in the last year that the B.C. Liberal government was there. I indeed checked, and it was $8.998 million.

Premier, it has increased 63 percent during that period of time.

Could the Premier please explain why, given every­thing I’ve said about affordability, he feels it’s appropriate to increase his budget 63 percent in that brief period of time?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: For the benefit of those in the House and those at home, I’m joined for these budget estimates by a handful of very capable staff here in the chamber as well in other parts of the precinct. On my right is my deputy minister, Lori Wanamaker. On my left is my chief of staff, Geoff Meggs. Behind me, Mark Sieben, deputy minister of strategic initiatives in the office of the deputy, as well as my deputy chief of staff, Amber Hockin. There will be people coming and going throughout as other members bring forward questions that will require particular expertise.

The primary reason, hon. Member, for the increase in the Premier’s office budget over the past five years has been a result of structural and organizational changes that we made when we came to government in 2017. I’m the first Victoria-based Premier since the 1940s. Before that, beyond the Bennetts, father and son, the majority of activity from, I would suggest, the 1960s to today had been undertaken in Vancouver. Former Premier Clark, former Premier other Clark, former Premier Campbell as well as Premier Vander Zalm had offices in Vancouver that were populated by staff that made things run over there.

When we came to government, there was an office that was there for cabinet operations that was filled with people. That office now has limited staff to meet the needs of a Vancouver satellite office, and the bulk of the work is being done here in Victoria, where the Office of the Premier staff can access professional public servants here in the lower Island.

Those structural changes also involved taking areas where Premier’s office work was being done and billed to the Minister of Finance or Government Services or Citizens’ Services and putting them where they belonged so that they would be able to be seen, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, in the interest of transparency.

We require $14 million to meet the operations of the Premier’s office because we’ve put in place, for one example…. I’m sure that we’ll canvass this further, but our priorities and planning secretariat was put in place, as is in place in other jurisdictions across Canada, to better support cabinet operations, to ensure timely understanding of issues as they emerge and to make sure that the appropriate work can be done.

I believe that those changes were appropriate. We have been discussing this over the past five years. I’m sure that members who have been in the House for that period of time will recall those discussions.

K. Falcon: Yes, I recall the planning and priorities secretariat. In fact, I remember the numbers off the top of my head. I believe it was ten people at $150,000 a pop, so about $1.5 million a year.

I struggle to understand why that’s necessary. We never had that requirement at all during the entire time I was in government. I’m not sure why, when you’ve got an entire policy and planning group in government, you need to hire ten more people in the Premier’s office doing planning and priorities. Quite frankly, it sounds to me like a lot more people just spending a lot more time pushing a lot more paper and having a lot more meetings without a discernable improved outcome.

I’ll move to on the other element that bothers me, Premier. Again, this is in the context of what I’d talked about earlier: what families are going through, where 46 percent of families are struggling or $200 away from being able to meet their family needs every month.

In the last five years that the B.C. Liberals were in office…. I checked the Premier’s budget. The salaries and benefits only increased by 1.5 percent in last five years of the B.C. Liberal government. For the Premier’s reference, that was from 2012 to 2017. Now, under this Premier, again in the context of the struggling families across British Columbia, I was shocked to see that we have seen salaries and benefits increase by 56 percent over that same five-year period.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’d like the Premier to explain to those listening why that kind of an increase, given the struggles that our families have gone through, especially in the past couple years, is appropriate.

Hon. J. Horgan: I have to say that I don’t know where the member is getting his number from. Any increases in salary or compensation within the office of the Premier have been consistent with increases through the professional public service and not extraordinary in any way.

I would say also that the objective of my office and my government has been to reduce costs for people. For example, the elimination of tolls on the Golden Ears and Port Mann Bridge, which were imposed by the former government, are now gone, making extraordinary savings for those who have to travel over bridges in the Lower Mainland. If you are a regular user of the Port Mann Bridge, that is some $1,500 a year back in the pockets of people who are paying that to get back and forth to work or to conduct their business.

Similarly, we have stood up a new social program, the child opportunity benefit, which will put, again, dollars into the pockets of families for kids. It used to be up to age 6. Now it’s up to age 18. That’s going to have a significant impact. I think it’s $1,600 per family of two.

These are just a couple of the initiatives. I look forward to talking about a range of others that we have brought forward to reduce costs. Child care plan, for example. There was no significant child care infrastructure in government in 2017. Now there is so that we can provide $10-a-day and other low-cost options for families.

What I heard in my time in the opposition leader’s chair is that businesses needed to ensure that we were maximizing the number of people in the workforce. That’s been made abundantly clear over the past five years. The biggest challenge businesses face, whatever they may do, is people.

The first order of business would be to try and make it easier for families to have two incomes. This is, of course, part and parcel of meeting the challenges of living in a high-cost jurisdiction, and providing affordable, accessible quality child care is key to that. It’s not a social policy; it’s an economic policy. I’m sure that the member will understand that.

K. Falcon: I want to be clear, because I think the Premier is providing some fascinating information totally unrelated to the question. I am talking about the expenditures in the Premier’s office and the fact that they are accelerating at such a dramatic rate when other British Columbians from every part of this province are struggling to make ends meet. To call it tone deaf would certainly be an understatement.

I’d also point out that there have been significant increases in the total budget for all of the NDP ministers’ offices over that same five-year period, which now have a budget of $21.3 million this year. Again, that’s a 50 percent increase since 2017.

[3:30 p.m.]

Premier, the concern that British Columbians would have is that at a time when it’s a challenge for those that are not government employees, frankly, and don’t get a regular paycheque that they don’t have to worry about and are struggling to raise families at a time when their businesses have been dramatically impacted. Some have lost their entire businesses. Many are facing very uncertain futures and are really pinching pennies to try and make ends meet.

You can understand how, when they see your office budget increasing 63 percent, when they see an explosion in salaries and benefits of 56 percent in a five-year period, when they see your ministers’ office budgets increasing by 50 percent….

The Chair: Sorry, Leader. Of course, the questions are through the Chair, as opposed to directly.

K. Falcon: I haven’t asked a question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: No, you’re directing directly to the Premier. I don’t mean to interrupt. I just don’t want this to have to be an ongoing issue. The question would be to the Premier through the Chair, as opposed to directed at the Premier, as are the standing orders of this House.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Chair.

To the Premier, that is the concern that I have and that I think British Columbians would have about where the Premier’s priorities might be.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Now, Premier, I’d like to move on to an issue that I think really goes to the very heart of that dissonance between the Premier’s actions and regular British Columbians. That is, I’d like to talk for a moment about the $40,000 raise that the Premier has provided himself and over $20,000 for each of his cabinet ministers, at a time when, as I’ve said, British Columbians are really struggling to make ends meet.

Now, for the benefit of the viewing audience, Madam Chair, I would point out that this goes back historically as a result of a prior NDP government’s so-called fudge-it budget. There was legislation brought in called the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The act was very good, because what it did is it held back 20 percent of ministerial and Premier salaries, and it was only returned if two things happened: 10 percent if government met its overall target of balancing the budget, and a further 10 percent if individual ministers met their own individual budget and performance targets.

Now, while I was in government as Finance Minister, I and all my cabinet colleagues had to take pay reductions — 10 percent pay reductions — even though I guess you could argue that in the midst of a global economic meltdown, as we were facing in ’08-09, you could come up with all kinds of excuses, we didn’t. We went ahead and accepted that.

It’s in that context that I was shocked to see, in Budget 2022, that the government repealed the collective 10 percent salary holdback provision that applies to the Premier and his cabinet ministers. But, even more remarkably, when we dug deeper into the legislation, we saw in clause 134 that they made the cancellation retroactive to the 2021 budget year.

Now, I recall that in 2020 the former Finance Minister, Carole James, stated that the holdback would stay in place in recognition of what people are going through, which was the right thing to say. So my first question to the Premier is: what changed in terms of the former Minister of Finance’s characterization and the Premier’s decision to reward himself with a retroactive pay increase?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, just a few facts. The budget we’re debating right now, $14.692 million, is a 0.1 percent increase over last year. That includes my salary. That includes the salary of all of the staff that work in the Premier’s office. A 0.1 percent increase — not 40 percent, not 56 percent but 0.1 percent. That’s $14,000 more this year than last year for the whole operation.

It’s disingenuous at best to…. I’m very grateful that the member brought this up, because for the past number of months, as a talking point, which is the easiest form of opposition you can find, they have been speaking what I would characterize as inaccurately about what the holdback was all about.

[3:35 p.m.]

The holdback was designed to ensure that budgets were kept in line, and it was appropriate, perhaps, at that time. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when citizens and businesses and communities were clamoring to make sure that there were investments to keep them whole, to say to ministers, “No, your motivation should be to cut back services for people so that you can meet your own personal salary interest,” seemed to me to be a gimmick. I called it that. I called it that at the time. Quickly write that down, Members. Quickly write that down. I’ll say it again: it’s a gimmick.

Because what the public wants us to do is to focus on them, not to find ways to cut programs, which was what the holdback was a motivation for. For the record, the salary for the Premier is unchanged. The salary for the Minister of Finance is unchanged. The holdback has been removed, because it was a disincentive to invest in people. That’s for the global budget. That’s for the budget of the province of British Columbia.

Individual ministers are still required to balance the budget that they’re allocated through this process that we’re participating in right now. So I am obliged to meet the budget that is tabled before us today for debate — a 0.1 percent increase over last year; 0.1 percent. Not 40, not 56 — a 0.1 percent increase over last year. I am obliged to stay within that. If I don’t, salary will be held back.

This is not a pay raise. It has never been a pay raise, but the opposition insists upon calling it that, and I think it begs the question for the public: if they’re going to make stuff up about this, what else are they making up? It is not a pay increase. It is a holdback that was brought in 25 years ago, and it may have made sense then. It doesn’t make sense now.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: So 0.1 percent. You’re making it up, man. You’re making it up.

K. Falcon: That is an extraordinary statement. It’s an extraordinary statement I just heard the Premier say, where it doesn’t make any sense. At a time when British Columbians are $200 away from meeting their family budgets, he thinks that a $40,000 raise that he’s awarded himself retroactively is a gimmick. It is hardly a gimmick, Premier. Your timing is atrocious.

People are really hurting out there. You know, some people, when they go to fill up their gas tank, it’s not funny when they find out that what used to cost them $100 when you first got elected costs them $200 today. And when they find out, while they’re struggling to do that, that you’re providing yourself with those kinds of retroactive pay increases — totally undeserved…. Yes, it is a holdback, but it’s a holdback for a reason. It’s a holdback that says you only earn it back when you actually meet your targets of balancing the budget, which you did not meet. You did not come close to meeting it.

At a time when other British Columbians are having to make sacrifices, it is extraordinary to me that you would be so blithe in describing this as a gimmick. It was no gimmick when we lost 10 percent pay cuts back in our day in the midst of a global economic meltdown. We certainly didn’t go and bring in legislation to make it retroactive.

I want to ask a simple question for the Premier. Can he confirm that his retroactive pay of what I calculate to be $10,354 has been deposited into his account at a time when British Columbians are struggling? Can he confirm that, please?

Hon. J. Horgan: The salary for the Premier and the salary for Members of the Legislative Assembly, the salary for Third Party, the salary for Leader of the Opposition, the salary for government Whip, the salary for opposition Whip, the salary for House Leader, Opposition House Leader, the salary for Government House Leader have remained the same except for the built-in COLA clause that was agreed to after an independent panel looked at wages for politicians some years back.

It’s all well and good for the opposition to say: “Let’s just throw mud at everybody and say that somehow there are massive pay raises.” There are not. We are talking about a budget right now, and you can go from the blue book last year to the blue book this year, a 0.1 percent increase. That’s what we’re talking about. The data that’s being brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is not accurate. It’s just not accurate.

What is also not accurate that’s been brought forward by the official opposition most recently is, for example, Stats Canada has said that we’ve had 30,000 more health care workers hired in the past two years, but somehow, when the official opposition reads that data, they say we’ve lost 10,000 workers. It’s just not accurate.

[3:40 p.m.]

When we see inaccuracies like this…. Again, the opposition says: “We want to return the carbon tax to revenue neutrality.” In 2013, the Fraser Institute, that noted left-wing think tank, said that it was no longer a revenue-neutral tax, and that was on the watch of the member across the way.

I clearly get it. The Leader of the Opposition wants to try and make up and fabricate a story about what they call a pay raise. It was a holdback. During the midst of a global pandemic, what I hear them suggesting is…. They would have preferred that ministers of the Crown, rather than trying to….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, do you want an answer to the question? Do you want an answer?

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m hearing the other side say that they would prefer that ministers of the Crown would have reduced budgets to balance the budget, rather than investing in people, rather than investing in businesses. That’s what they’re saying. If they open their ears, they’ll hear themselves.

K. Falcon: My question was simple. Has the Premier received over $10,000 into his bank account as a result of the retroactive pay increase he gave himself?

Hon. J. Horgan: The salary for the Office of the Premier, the salary for the Leader of the Official Opposition are the same as they were last year and the year before that.

K. Falcon: Has the Premier’s take-home pay increased by over $10,000 as a result of the retroactive nature of Budget 2022, which retroactively rewarded him an undeserved pay holdback?

Hon. J. Horgan: The salary for the Office of the Premier, the salary for the Leader of the Opposition, the salary for the Leader of the Third Party are the same this year as they were last year.

K. Falcon: Would the Premier acknowledge that the increase in pay that the Premier is now receiving — as a result of retroactively, and going forward, rewarding themselves undeserved increases — is going to also increase the Premier’s pensionable earnings?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the salary and compensation for members of this Legislature and officers of this Legislature, whether they be Opposition House Leader, Government House Leader or Third Party opposition leader, were set in this House, and they remain the same today as they were when I started.

K. Falcon: Just to correct the Premier’s earlier comments, in which he suggested how thrifty he’s been in terms of salaries and benefits…. I just remind the Premier that if you look at salaries and benefits in the Premier’s office over the last five years, they’ve gone up over 56 percent, from $8 million to $12.5 million this year.

Getting back to the undeserved raise that the Premier has awarded himself and cabinet ministers, does the Premier not, at least at a minimum, understand…?

Forget the opposition and what I’m saying. I’m not trying to be rhetorical about this, Premier, through the Chair. I’m just trying to have the Premier acknowledge that for people out there that are struggling, for a single mom in Surrey who is unable to send her child to soccer practice and participate in soccer because she no longer has the dollars to do it, as a result of all of the inflationary costs that have increased under this NDP government….

Would the Premier not, at least, acknowledge that rewarding himself with a retroactive pay increase of over $10,000, which is in his account and which he has yet to acknowledge — it has been deposited into his account — at a time when that single mother in Surrey cannot have the dollars to send her kids to soccer practice, is tone deaf, at least?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Let’s talk about that single mom in Surrey who, if she had to cross a bridge under the B.C. Liberals, would have had to pay a toll. She had to pay medical services premiums, which she doesn’t have to pay anymore. If she’s a renter…. We removed the automatic 2 percent rent increase that was built in by the B.C. Liberals.

We put in place a child opportunity benefit, which I’m corrected. I said $1,600 for a family of two. That’s $2,600 for a family of two.

If that single mom has a car, the car insurance is 20 percent less than it was under the B.C. Liberals. In the past 16 months, that driver would have received not one, not two but three policy rebates numbering into the area…. I believe it’s about $460 back to people during that time.

With respect to getting that youngster into sports, which I absolutely advocate and support 100 percent, we’ve increased funding for KidSport so that families on modest incomes can participate in sport.

I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition wants to take a look at this moment in time, when we have a global crisis in Europe that’s leading to the highest inflation we’ve seen in British Columbia, in Canada, in North America, indeed in the world, in recent memory, going back even well before the member on the other side was first elected into this place. These are extraordinary times. I absolutely acknowledge that. That’s why we’re taking steps every day to reduce costs for the family in Surrey and for families right across British Columbia.

If we are going to take this moment in time, when we’re at an extraordinary period with the aggression of Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, which has destabilized the international economy, then…. I look to my friends the federal government, who raised interest rates just today. That’s going to have an impact on people here. I can’t wait for the Leader of the Opposition to blame me for that as well.

We have taken tangible steps to reduce costs for families. I will not take advice and guidance from someone who brought in tolls, someone who institutionalized regular increases in medical services premiums, when we eliminated both of those things.

K. Falcon: We’ll get to tolls. Don’t you worry, Premier. I took tolls off the Coquihalla Highway too. So I know how to take off tolls, Premier. But we’ll get to that. Don’t you worry.

What I find disappointing here is that the Premier keeps tap dancing around the fact that he gave himself and his cabinet ministers a raise at a time when there is no British Columbian — you will find none anywhere, in any part of this province — that would say that is justified — nowhere.

What is disappointing is that the single mom, who we were talking about in Surrey, has to wait until July to get her ICBC rebate of 110 bucks, which probably won’t even cover filling up her minivan, while the Premier has already deposited over $10,000 of his retroactive pay increase. That’s what it is.

Now I’m going to move on, Premier, to another example that I think is emblematic of your government and how you’ve lost your way and how you just are completely tone deaf from understanding how average British Columbians are feeling today. That has to do with your unbelievably tone deaf $1 billion vanity museum boondoggle, which we’re going to cover.

I struggle to understand the rationale behind this decision. I’ve been involved in capital projects, in both the private and the public sectors, in the billions of dollars. I have not seen anything like this, with the possible exception of the fast ferries, which, interestingly, do have strikingly similar characteristics to this decision. That will become apparent as we go through this discussion.

I want to set down, for the viewing public, the timeline of what was going on here. I think it’s important that the public understand how remarkable this remarkably ill-advised decision of the Premier’s really is.

[3:50 p.m.]

Now, in October 2018, the Royal B.C. Museum came out with a plan called Treasures for Generations. The Treasures for Generations plan had an expensive but well-thought-out plan of investing $150 million into that museum over a 25-year period. If you look through the Treasures for Generations document, you will see it describes it as a complete transformation. It includes seismic and safety upgrades. It includes gallery redevelopments and reinvigorated exhibition space and zones.

To the public, recognizing how much they love this museum and love the exhibits in it, I think there was genuine consensus that that probably made sense. The building is not old. It’s only 54 years old or so. But doing an upgrade like that and taking care of seismic work — that makes sense.

Now, in December of that year, 2018, Treasury Board approved the concept plan that was largely based on the Treasures for Generation document. In the February 2019 throne speech, the government said, “Government will modernize the Royal B.C. Museum,” consistent with the Treasury Board document.

In the February 2020 throne speech, again: “In the future, people will be able to visit renewed cultural institutions like the Royal B.C. Museum.” Then in August 2020, in anticipation of the modernization of the museum, the museum acquired the IMAX Theatre for $4.29 million. Then further along we saw, in April 20, 2021, the collections and research building was first appearing in the budget of 2021, at a cost of $177 million.

Then, on February 22, in Budget 2022, the collections and research building appeared in the budget document again, but this time at a higher cost — $224 million, almost 30 percent over budget and now a year behind schedule, in the most amazingly short period of time. This almost takes talent to be this off on a project like that that early.

Then, on May 13, Friday the 13th — and I’m not kidding when I say that; it was Friday the 13th — the Premier and the minister announced, out of the blue, with no one ever expecting this, a new museum for $789 million — not $790 million, not $783 million, but $789 million. Sounds like they priced it right down to the last nickel there — or, as I recall a former Premier, I think it was, saying, right down to the last roll of toilet paper.

Now, in question period, the minister responsible said: “Don’t worry. We’ve got a business case, thousands of pages, that backs all this up.” Then the minister promised that that business case would be released by the end of the week. It was not released at the end of the week. We all know that now.

But finally, the business case was released the following week, on May 25, and a third of it was redacted, blacked out. All the information that any person would want to see just to know, to have some sense that this $789 million decision that came out of the blue was the right decision or at least has some kind of backing…. All of that important information was fully redacted.

Then we’re finding out that they’re going to shut down the museum on September 6 — shut it down in the midst of tourist season, by the way, at a cost of 531 jobs and, as their own report acknowledges, an economic benefit of some $200 million a year. This is indeed puzzling, because we know that there have been no drawings. We know that there’s been absolutely no work done to justify the immediate closing of this museum.

[3:55 p.m.]

We also know that the museum itself — in appendix F; thankfully this wasn’t blacked out in their partially released business case — actually had a facility condition assessment of 0.35. Now, for the benefit of the viewing audience, the lower the number, the better the rating is. So a 0.35 is considered a good rating with respect to this building. That’s important because the average school has a 0.5 rating, which is worse.

It does beg the question to the Premier. Why, Premier, was this billion-dollar announcement a priority when it’s got a better seismic rating than many of the schools our children attend every single day?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for raising these issues today in budget estimates. I want to amend, somewhat, the timeline that was laid out by the Leader of the Opposition by saying that initially government, his government at that time, was advised, through a seismic report in 2006, that there were concerns at the Royal B.C. Museum — which, as many members would know, sees over 800,000 visitors a year, many of them children. So the concern about seismic was, I’m sure, felt by the government of the day. It certainly was by the museum board appointed by the government of the day.

By May of 2011, a complete rezoning was done by the then CEO of the museum, and the government of the day declined to proceed. Further reports, seismic reports, were completed in 2014-2015, and again the Treasury Board was asked by the then chair, the member for Abbotsford West…. The Royal B.C. Museum staff were asked to come back with a plan to address the seismic and other risks to the collection, some seven million artifacts — archives of our collective history — housed across the street.

In 2017, the governments changed, we received the report that was requested by the former Minister of Finance. We undertook project planning, and it was initiated at that point, just after we came to government, and a concept plan was approved. From there, in 2019, a Speech from the Throne, which was referenced, talked about the modernization of the museum, which was underway.

As an insurance policy — we’re going to have to move the materials in any event, whether it be for an upgrade or for a replacement — the collections and research building seemed a good idea at the time by government, and it was embraced and supported by the research community, who wanted to be able to access resources that are held across the street currently. That project is underway and has been discussed in subsequent estimates in previous years.

The notion that 6 percent of the business plan was redacted — 6 percent, not one-third; 6 percent…. I think it’s important to correct the record there. It’s quite unusual to have a business plan laid out so quickly after an announcement, for procurement reasons. Again, the member, newly returned from his time in the private sector, would understand that. I do recall no business plan being prepared at all for the Vancouver Convention Centre until well after its construction was underway.

I also think that the Port Mann Bridge business plan was never released at all. So if the member wants to quibble that we said we’d have it on Friday and didn’t get it to him until Wednesday, I suppose he can do that, but we’re still waiting for the Port Mann Bridge business case. I guess we’ll still keep on waiting for that.

The documents that were released to the public and to the opposition for review make it very clear that option 1, which would have been akin to the document that was referred to, was a concept plan that did not have any financial foundation. It was just: “What could we do if we can’t do anything?” It was years of inaction by the former government that led to the creation of that document.

When we suggested an interest in finding what the options would really be, we looked at replacing at the existing site. We looked at replacing on a new site. We looked at revitalization, and we looked at repair. That’s options 1 through 5. They can be found on page 8 of the business plan, for those who are following at home.

The result of that due diligence, in 2018 dollars, was that to replace at a new site would have cost, at that time, $526 million. Replacement at the existing site, $580 million. A revitalization was booked at $635 million, and a complete repair to all of the needs of the building was booked at $738 million.

[4:05 p.m.]

Although it was clear from the options that were presented that building in a new location would have been the least-cost option — beyond doing nothing, which is what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting should happen. We canvassed that with tourism operators. We canvassed that with people who have an interest in the museum here in Victoria and opening it up. Of course, it’s located in Victoria, but it’s a provincial asset.

I’d remind the member that the first order of business for the government of British Columbia in the 1880s was to create a museum in the first place, to protect and preserve those elements of our collective history.

What we did was we looked at this and we asked the officials to go away and come back, and we did due diligence for four years — not four minutes, not four weeks, not four months but for four years — to find the best way forward. It was the considered view of the community that depends on the museum for tourism that the location on the Inner Harbour was the best place for the museum to be. We agreed with that, at the end of the day. Cabinet deliberated after Treasury Board did due diligence, and we rested on the decision that we made.

Again, we can disagree on the value of our collective history. We can disagree on that 1 percent of the annual capital budget, which is what this project represents. Over the course of an eight-year buildout, that’s $100 million a year — which again, to regular folks, sounds like a big pile of money.

It is 1 percent of the global overall capital budget, which we are now using, the largest in B.C. history, to do the seismic upgrades on schools that are absolutely critical. Building new schools that were ignored for a period of time in the mid part of the last decade. We’re building new hospitals. We’re building new bridges. We’re building new public transit infrastructure.

We are making capital investments to bring British Columbia’s economy to life. It is humming. It is the fastest-growing economy in the country. Real wages have gone up over the past number of years, after years of stagnation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it’s his job to keep government accountable, but I don’t believe that it’s the job of the official opposition to criticize those who want and cherish and value our collective history.

Ignoring the challenges for a decade and a half and then criticizing a government that brought this forward…. After five years of consideration and hard work by a whole bunch of people, to declare that it came out of the thin blue sky is just not true. In defence, my learned opponent said we talked about this in 2019. That would be — let me think now — three years ago.

K. Falcon: Well, Premier, here’s the problem. A third of the pages, frankly, of this joke of a business case, featured significant redactions. That includes, by the way, for the viewing public, the most important elements that you want to see in a business case, like the value-for-money analysis, totally blacked out; the risks results analysis, totally blacked out; the construction cost breakdowns, totally blacked out. In fact, entire appendices in this so-called business case were just completely redacted — appendix B, M, O, R, U, Z. Interestingly, appendix Z was the financial model report, fully redacted. All of the appendixes, fully redacted.

I think I have an inkling that I know why. I think the inkling has do with the part of it that they’ve got started on — which is already a year behind schedule and almost 30 percent over budget: the collections and research building. I have a simple question: why is that building already almost 30 percent over budget and a year behind schedule?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Just a couple, again, clarifications on the context of the member’s questions. The redactions could well have been from one-third of the pages, but that doesn’t change the fact that less than 7 percent — 6 percent, to be precise — of the document was redacted. The member will also know that, for procurement reasons, much of the information that was redacted, not by political staff but by Infrastructure B.C., was to protect the integrity of the bidding process, of course, as the business plan will be the foundation of that activity going forward.

The CRB is not behind schedule, groundbreaking in 2022. I drive by it periodically, and there is activity on the site, so it’s underway. It was initially…. The preliminary budget was $177 million. That was based on a five-year growth potential in the facility. Treasury Board asked for more intense energy efficiency. That’s reasonable in a time of climate change. That’s reasonable as we adapt to the circumstances we find ourselves in. I think all British Columbians would want us to make investments that are prudent, not just fiscally but also in terms of the impact and consequence on the environment. The project is now of a scope and scale that it has 25 years of expansion potential rather than just the initial five.

That’s the justification for the increase in budget, but it is on time. I think we’re all excited about that going forward as a repository of these precious treasures that belong to all British Columbians.

I’ll also say that the staff at the RBC are pretty excited about the new facility, pretty excited about the opportunity to take many of the archives and artifacts that have been in storage for decades and revitalizing them and creating potential opportunities for more of what we would have characterized in our day as audiovisual, but I’m saying digital, recollections of our times here on these soils with Indigenous peoples who go back millennia.

These are unique opportunities to open boxes that haven’t been opened in a long, long time, identify, record and demonstrate to the public the value of all of this to our past and to our present and, of course, also to our future.

[4:15 p.m.]

With respect to those staff, they will be spreading out across British Columbia, revitalizing our regional museum infrastructure which is critical to communities on that side of the House and on this side of the House. Having the curators of projects across the street being available in Prince George, being available in Williams Lake, being available in Prince Rupert is a real boon and a real opportunity, and people are excited about that.

There will be pop-up exhibits here in Victoria and in the Lower Mainland as well as across British Columbia, which will give our archives and our artifacts an opportunity to go out on the road with trained staff to demonstrate to all British Columbians the value of these precious collective resources.

K. Falcon: Just on the delay, the announcement said 2024, and the RFP is saying 2025, so that’s a year. But I think the bigger red flag is the fact that it’s already almost 30 percent over budget before they’ve really even got started in this project. That’s certainly going to be alarming to British Columbians watching this, knowing that we have, still, a $789 million new building that everyone knows is going to be massively over budget.

It does raise this question that I’d like to ask the Premier — the rush. Why the rush to shut down this perfectly good museum that provides tourists from around the world…? I think it’s some 800,000 a year that come through this museum. It gets a 94 percent approval rating. People love it.

Well, almost everyone loves it. Apparently, the Premier is not a huge fan, He sends people he doesn’t like to go to the museum, according to his own comments. But I can tell you there are generations of children that love this museum, including my own.

I’m wondering why the Premier is going to shut it down on September 6, when there aren’t even capital dollars for it yet in the budget. There is no architect that’s been selected, no design started. In fact, design and consultation begin in two years. So why the rush to shut it on September 6, depriving the tourism sector…?

By the way, I misspoke earlier, because I said $200 million a year in economic benefits. It’s actually $1.6 billion, so I do want to correct that record. The 531 jobs is correct, but the $1.6 billion in economic benefits is a significant number.

Instead, if the Premier rushes forward and closes it down, there is going to be a chain-link fence and a gaping hole for eight years. That’s a whole generation of kids that will never have that opportunity to go through. I’m just wondering why that is the case when their own document, Treasures for Generations, had suggested a much more practical approach, which is doing a $150 million upgrade over a 25-year period, which all British Columbians could support.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Just, again, a couple of clarifications. The CRB is not over budget. Scope has increased, and that’s reflected in the documents. It will be slated for opening in January. It’s scope and scale. You understand that; I’m sure you do. It was a preliminary estimate, and now it’s been firmed, through Treasury Board. The budget is what the budget is. Based on the analysis that’s been done, it will be opening in January of 2025, rather than in the fall of 2024. But we’re excited about that, and I hope that the member is as well.

With respect to how we manage the archives, the materials, we’re not packing the dishes and moving down the street, here. We’re taking seven million precious, sensitive pieces of our collective history and preserving them for all time. You can’t just push the U-Haul up to the door, load it up and move along.

Similarly, we’re talking about hazardous material abatement here. This is in a building filled with asbestos. I don’t think the Leader of the Opposition would invite people to stay the weekend at his place while he’s got a construction job in the back bedroom which involves people wearing hazmat equipment as they’re doing the work. We wouldn’t do that at the Royal B.C. Museum; we wouldn’t do that in our own homes.

The scope and scale of the project is extraordinary. The members on the other side can disagree with me on that, but the reality is that seven million pieces of our collective history require more than just a passing by-your-leave from the people on the other side.

[4:25 p.m.]

The concept plan, which he refers to as from 2018, was produced by the Crown corporation, not by government. It was with that in mind that we started the due diligence in 2018 and put some significant meat on the bones of those initiatives.

We don’t have a date. I can’t find a date with the officials from government on the creation of the plan for $150 million that the member refers to. It does exist, but it’s not dated. When we did the due diligence, when we brought experts in — inside government and outside government — this is what we found, and we’ve laid it out. Unlike the Port Mann Bridge, unlike the convention centre, we’ve laid it out just days after making the announcement.

These are facts. Again, with respect to the importance of the materials…. And I think I heard the member say that. For the record, I visited the museum many, many times as a youth and many, many times as an adult. I treasure that institution, and everyone who comes into it feels the same way. But what we’re talking about is revitalizing that for the next century, not for the next 20 weeks. I guess the official opposition doesn’t want to accept that. Instead, they want to use this as a political football.

The notion that we’re not building schools, the notion that we’re not building hospitals is just not true. That’s evidenced by the activity that’s going on in communities right across British Columbia — a new hospital in Fort St. James, in the riding of the member for Nechako Lakes; a new hospital in Dawson Creek, in the riding of the member for Peace River South; a new hospital in Terrace, in the riding of the member for Skeena.

We are building out British Columbia. But surely to goodness, building out British Columbia includes building out our collective heritage, and making a 1 percent investment every year for the next eight years to do that seems to me to be value for money. To conflate a capital project with providing services to people — again, for a former Finance Minister to do that — is disingenuous and misleading.

K. Falcon: Premier, in the real world, if you came to a board with the kind of proposal that you’re putting forward here, you’d be fired in minutes. Just to understand how the real world operates, there is nobody that could look at this disastrous, poorly thought-out project that you’re trying to jam through for reasons people can’t — nobody can, frankly — figure out…. It’s not something that you should be flippant about, quite frankly.

Over $1 billion for a new museum would make it…. Literally, by the time your cost overruns kick in, this would be the most expensive museum in the world. I think British Columbians have the right to ask questions about why the heck you’ve decided to prioritize building the most expensive museum in the world at a time when British Columbians are struggling to fill up their fuel tanks, in part — not totally, but in part — because of decisions his government makes and mistakes that they make in their mismanagement of the economy.

Back to the rush, which the Premier didn’t address. Why the rush to close it down on September 6? Now, think about this for a moment. I agree with the Premier that the archives and the artifacts in the basement are valuable — for sure they are. But in the rush to close it down, the Premier is now going to be forced to store those somewhere temporarily. We know that the collections building that’s already over budget by 30 percent is not going to be open and available until, as the Premier points out, the winter of 2025, which means that in the rush to close down the museum, now they’ve got to find somewhere temporary to take this collection and move it to.

Instead of following the decision of the Treasures for Generations document that very thoughtfully said: “Let’s spend $150 million, do the necessary seismic and safety upgrades, and we can do it over 25 years.” The Premier acts like, gee, he doesn’t know where this document came from. Well, I’m startled to know that apparently Crown corporations under this NDP government could just come up with these kind of proposals, and they’re not approved at all or looked at, apparently, by anyone in the government. That’s what the Premier would like us to believe.

[4:30 p.m.]

I actually don’t believe that. I cannot believe…. I mean, there are levels of incompetence, but I cannot believe that they’ve got Crown corporations just bringing out documents without the government actually looking at them and saying: “Yeah, we certainly agree with that direction.”

Premier, my question to you is: the temporary storage of all of these artifacts and facilities — where in the budget is that? Where is that cost coming from, Premier, and how much will it cost?

Interjection.

K. Falcon: Sure. So the question is: because you’re going to have to temporarily store all these artifacts and things that are in the basement of the Royal B.C. Museum, because we know that the new facility won’t be open until winter of 2025, how much is it going to cost to temporarily store those artifacts so that you can close down the museum unnecessarily on September 6?

[4:35 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I just want to touch on a couple of comments that the member opposite raised in debate. We talked about the treasury’s document. That’s a nine-page document with no analysis, which is the foundation under which the Leader of the Opposition is bringing forward arguments, versus a 100-page business plan with 1,000 pages of appendices that go into great detail about how and why and where. If ever there was an apple and an orange, it would be a treasury’s document with no date, nine pages and no analysis and the detailed work done by Infrastructure B.C. and the Treasury Board of the Ministry of Finance. So I’ll hold fast to that.

With respect, again, to the challenges at the site, we have hazardous material abatement that must take place. We have to ensure that the materials are protected appropriately. There will be a cost to additional storage. I can’t give you the exact number on that, but there would be a further escalation of costs should we wait the two years for the completion of the CRB before we start on the abatement process. That would have happened over time. It would have gone from two years to more than two years if that was the case.

The IMAX will remain open as long as possible. The archives must remain open, by statute, to ensure that the documents that are required for legal and Indigenous and other activities are available. So the archives will remain open until the CRB is functioning, and the IMAX will be there for those who enjoy that as well.

I also want to talk about the B.C. economy. It is going red hot. We have high growth. We have low unemployment. In fact, our biggest challenge is finding people. The member knows that. He’s just been recently in the private sector, so he will know. I’m sure people are talking to him about the challenges of finding workers, whether it’s baristas or engineers or nurses or doctors. We’re trying to address all of these issues concurrently.

The notion that the Leader of the Opposition wants to leave the public with is that this is somehow the only thing we’re working on. We’re working on lots of stuff. It appears the only thing that’s caught the interest of the opposition is the RBC Museum. I suppose that’s a good thing, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about the importance of the institution.

Angela Williams, the former chief operating officer of the museum from 2003 to 2018, on the notion of why the rush, said the following. “I think because government has an obligation to take care of the public infrastructure. The government knows that there is a problem with the building. There is a possibility, depending on the time of the year, that there will be small elementary children there on a full-time basis. If something should happen in a seismic event, what would people say then?”

The notion that we should only address seismic issues in one place where children are and not another place where children are I think is misleading by the members on the other side.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: I look to my friend from Surrey-Newton, who can tell me that….

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, Members. There is one person speaking, and then there’ll be another person speaking. That’s how it’ll go, back and forth, back and forth. If folks have a problem with that, they can change the rules, but those are the rules in this place as it stands.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you for the reminder, hon. Chair.

We are doing seismic upgrades in schools right across British Columbia. Based on what school districts bring forward to us, we are funding those and getting that work done. We’re building new schools in places like Burke Mountain, where the lands were sold. We now have to buy new lands to complete those schools.

[4:40 p.m.]

Not a new school built in Surrey in four years at the end of the last government’s administration. And the reason I looked at my friend from Surrey-Whalley is that he knows full well that we are investing significantly in building new infrastructure for education, new infrastructure for post-secondary institutions, new infrastructure for health care.

The Leader of the Opposition would like the public to believe that the only thing on the mind of the government today is the Royal B.C. Museum. That’s just not the case. Is it important to have our mind on it? Yes, it is, because it is our collective heritage, and it deserves more than just partisan clubbing. It deserves a reasonable, thoughtful discussion about how we protect…. How many kilometres of…?

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: So 2,700 kilometres of documents and seven million pieces of history. This is important. It’s not glib. It’s not trivial. It’s important.

Are seismic upgrades in schools important? Absolutely. When I sat on that side, I made that argument to the government of the day. It fell on deaf ears, in many cases, but I absolutely agree that we need to make sure that our schools are as safe as they possibly can be.

We need to make sure that our health care facilities are state of the art so that we can meet the expectations of the public when it comes to the delivery of health care services, and we need to build out public transit if we’re going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why we’re expanding SkyTrain from Surrey to Langley. That’s why we’re building to Arbutus and beyond to UBC. That’s why we’re putting more buses in British Columbia’s communities like Prince George, like Kamloops, like Kelowna, Victoria and other parts of the province.

We’re doing a lot of stuff, all at the same time, and that’s what people expect of us. I just wish that, as the opposition takes their shots at the Royal B.C. Museum…. Fair enough. But to suggest that it’s the only thing on the minds of government is a fabrication. To suggest that it’s the only thing on the mind of the opposition is closer to the point.

K. Falcon: I remind the Premier that their own facility condition assessment…. I mentioned this earlier. For the benefit of the viewing public, that is a rating that determines what kind of condition a building is in. The current museum — everyone should know this; it’s only 54 years old — is rated “good,” okay?

The point that I was making, Premier…. I’m not saying that you’re not doing some work on seismic upgrading in schools. What I am saying is that in contrast between the good rating it has, this museum, in appendix F — you can look it up — of point 3(5), the provincial average FCI rating for schools has deteriorated from 0.43 in 2017 to 0.50 in 2021. Interestingly, health authority long-term care facilities also have an aggregate rating of 0.50.

Our point, Premier, is simply this: you are choosing to go and tear down a building that has a far better rating than the facilities that we keep our children and our seniors in, and you’re trying to use that as a justification for an over-one-billion-dollar expenditure that nobody believes makes any sense.

Premier, you did not answer my question, and I just want a simple yes-or-no question. Is that extra storage cost that is going to be necessitated by your rush to shut down this perfectly good museum on September 6…? Meaning that you can’t move those culturally sensitive items and artifacts into the collections building, which won’t be ready till the winter of 2025. Is that extra cost budgeted, and, if so, where?

The Chair: If I might, hon. Member, I’d draw your attention to Standing Order 36, which requires that members address questions through the Speaker, as it is irregular for a member to direct their speech to any person other than the Speaker.

If the member is using the word “you,” he is speaking to me as Chair. I’d just remind the member, under Standing Order 36, to speak through the Chair and not direct his speech to other members in this House.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Just by way of further information for the committee, and the member particularly, when, in 2015, a seismic report was conducted using the same scale that the education sector uses…. Through that methodology, the exhibition hall, where the vast majority of people go, was rated at H1, which is as high as you go in terms of risk.

Again, when you look at component parts of the museum precinct, it’s 6.4 acres, or 2.6 hectares. There’s an exhibit hall. There’s a carillon tower. Those were both constructed in 1967. There’s the Fannin tower. The archives building was added in 1968.

[4:50 p.m.]

The IMAX Theatre and lobby were added in 1997. Thunderbird Park, of course, was there, and Helmcken House, St. Ann’s Schoolhouse. Glenshiel seniors residence is also on site but not in scope.

All of those buildings have a different rating. The H1, or high, with respect to seismic upgrades says: “Most vulnerable structure at risk of widespread damage and structural failure not repairable after events. Structural upgrades are required.” That’s what H1 refers to, and that is what was determined for the bulk of the properties on the precinct.

With respect to the cost of storage, it’s built into the budget, over the eight years, at $11.6 million. If we were to, as the member suggests…. I appreciate that if he and I were just talking about this at a coffee shop or over a regular discussion, we would say: “Gee, that sounds like an awful lot of money.” It will avoid $70 million in cost escalation to the project should we delay it for two or more years. That’s the analysis done by Infrastructure B.C. that led to the conclusions that we raised when we tabled this material a few weeks ago.

We need to keep in mind that this is not packing up the kitchen pots and pans and moving them down the street to a new apartment. This is about taking precious artifacts and ensuring they’re safely stored and taken to a permanent location, in the case of the CRB, or stored off site so that remediation work can be done.

Again, imagine, if you will, construction workers with hazmat equipment taking down a building that requires asbestos remediation. This is a big deal. All members of the House understand the consequences of working in and around asbestos. We know more now than we knew then.

A 50-year-old building doesn’t sound very old, but it is not adequate for the job that it was designed for. We cannot attract major exhibitions because of the size of the facility. Using the existing footprint was the requirement or request of the tourism sector here in Victoria. Because of the location, they believe there’s more activity there, which will lead to the economic benefit that the member referred to earlier on.

I appreciate full well that the Leader of the Opposition and his team want to make this a catastrophe. I would prefer that we focus on the facts of the matter, which are that those artifacts are at risk. The people going into the building are at risk. The people who work there are at risk. If we have an opportunity to do something about that, as Angela Williams suggested after her many, many years working in the facility, we should take that opportunity.

That does not preclude a whole host of other investments in infrastructure and the well-being of the people of British Columbia. There is not a this-or-that, an either-or. This is about taking on a challenge that has been known to governments for at least 15 years. That’s not a partisan statement. We have known that the building is at risk. We have known that action should be taken.

The opposition suggests that a document without any analysis, nine pages long, is worthy of standing on and trumpeting a desire to dismantle this exercise, as opposed to a 100-page document with 1,000 pages of technical backup, some of which was redacted in the interests of keeping the procurement process pure so that we could keep this cost as low as possible.

The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. We want to see the CRB building completed. The member has referred to it as “the winter of 2025.” Technically, January is that, but the difference between November and January is a few months. It is not over budget. It is as on time as you can be. I’m looking forward to it. It will assist us….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’ve got some guffaws from the people on the other side who have been over budget and over schedule on a host of capital projects in their time, some of which the member referred to. Anyone in the way was a clown or came from a circus. People were getting fired on the spot because he didn’t approve of their comments on a particular issue of the day.

We need to collaborate on this. I’m absolutely willing to work with the members of the opposition if they have better ideas, other than just clubbing the government because they think they can score some political points. Let’s find a way to make sure that we can protect these precious artifacts. Let’s find a way to make a world-class facility even better going forward.

[4:55 p.m.]

That’s the plan here. I’m hopeful we’ll get support from all members of the House.

K. Falcon: Wow. Where do I begin?

Now we know…. We’ve got it on the record. British Columbians can now understand. They’re going to rush to shut this down on September 6. As a result of the rush to shut it down on September 6 — unnecessarily, by the way, causing a whole generation of kids who could have an opportunity to tour through that, not to mention the almost one million visitors that enjoy seeing that every year…. It’s going to cost an additional $11.6 million to, then, temporarily store many of these cultural items and artifacts that are in the basement of this building.

Interestingly…. I just have to say, in passing…. I’m left wondering. If repatriation of many of these sensitive cultural items that belong to First Nations is part of this plan — I would assume the answer must be yes — why wouldn’t we just do that? Instead of storing them in two different places, why wouldn’t we work with First Nations and make sure there’s money in the budget to allow those sensitive cultural items to be returned to their communities so that they can properly store them? It’s a mystery that that’s not part of this plan.

The document that the Premier, apparently, and government never approved but that was released by the Crown corporation called Treasures for Generations, which was something that I think the public could support…. Again, a $150 million investment. You do it over 25 years. It’s done in a very thoughtful and methodical way. You get all the right upgrades that you need to get done. It’s a win for everybody, something that everyone can get behind.

It even showed, interestingly…. The Premier referenced the IMAX Theatre. It shows a picture of the IMAX Theatre, which is quite lovely. But what is interesting is…. Only two years ago the government, this Crown corporation, actually entered into an agreement to close and purchase that particular IMAX Theatre — the closing date was August 29, 2020 — for a total of $4.285 million.

Now, this is rather extraordinary. What I want the listening public to understand is…. Only two years ago the NDP Premier and government decide, “Let’s buy, for $4.285 million, this lovely IMAX Theatre,” and then, two years later, announce, “We’re tearing down the entire building anyhow,” including the $4.285 million they just finished buying this IMAX Theatre for.

I admit that I’ve become used to the fact that when it comes to dollars, especially other people’s money — taxpayer dollars — there’s apparently no limit to what this government is prepared to waste. But I can tell you that for residents in Surrey, for people that are struggling with meeting their…. The 46 percent that are struggling to meet their family needs every month, that are $200 short or potentially just short of meeting their family needs aren’t going to look at the fact….

The Premier is wasting another $4.285 million, purchasing an IMAX Theatre and then tearing it down, in a rush to shut down this project by September 6 so that he can spend another over $11 million to temporarily store the items that are in the basement so that he can then wait till the winter of 2025 and then move them again, at another expense, over to this new quarter-of-a-billion-dollar — and counting — collections building that is currently being constructed in Colwood.

Could the Premier comment on why only two years ago they would spend $4.285 million buying the IMAX Theatre and then tear it down two years later?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: With respect to the IMAX purchase, it was purchased for $4.2 million, exercising an option under the lease with the private operator at the ten-year point. There were two options — at ten years and at 20 years. It’s now an asset and also a future revenue generating opportunity for the Crown corporation. So it was a business deal, knowing that significant work would be done. As the member noted, it was announced in the throne speech of 2019 and again in 2020. Exercising the option was to remove a liability should we be forced to break that lease, instead turning it into a revenue-generating opportunity, going forward.

With respect to repatriation of Indigenous artifacts, that’s something that the museum does every day. In fact, the RBC Museum is renowned internationally for repatriating artifacts to Indigenous peoples. There are those nations whose prefer to leave materials that they’re aware of at the museum. As we go through the move from the basement to the collections building and also looking at new opportunities for exhibits, it will be another opportunity to continue the good work that the museum and Indigenous peoples are doing with respect to repatriation.

I’m reminded, as the member spoke…. He said, “Well, certainly. You should be doing that all the time,” and I agree with him. I’m reminded that at the Peace Arch crossing on the Lower Mainland going into the United States, without any consultation, without any ceremony, the totem that had stood at the Peace Arch for many, many decades was taken down without any discussion with the Semiahmoo First Nation; without any discussion with the Kwakiutl artist who had initially done the design, a relative of Mungo Martin; nor with the Haida Nation, whose design was used in the creation of that pole.

We were approached, when we came to government, by Semiahmoo and others to say: “What have you done with our totem pole?” We had to find out what the former government…. These things happen all the time; it just happened to be on the watch of the former government. But it was an oversight by government. There’s the responsibility of the Crown that oversight by the former government is an oversight by the current government.

[5:05 p.m.]

We went about trying to find where the totem had been placed in storage while work was done at the Peace Arch Park. The pole was discovered, and it created an opportunity for reconciliation. It allowed us to advise the Semiahmoo that the pole had been found. It allowed us to put a ceremony in place, for which there was participation from members of both sides of the House. The pole was revitalized by an ancestor of the initial carver. The Haida came down to celebrate their design being erected yet again as the symbol of the longest undefended border on the planet. It was a moving ceremony, and it was part and parcel of reconciliation.

The member is quite right that the Royal B.C. Museum has been doing this type of thing for a long time and is recognized internationally for that. The revitalization of the infrastructure gives another opportunity to ensure that Indigenous communities who want their artifacts repatriated can do so, but it will not be without cost. I’m not suggesting that would be a cost to the Indigenous community. It is expensive to protect and preserve these documents and artifacts.

That’s why it’s not about loading up the U-Haul and heading to the next place that you’re going to live. This is a significant undertaking that involves hazardous materials. You don’t invite the world to come and see your collective history while you are demolitioning the back of the building. You just can’t do it. I don’t know too many people who want to come into a building that’s got hazmat trucks on the side and people walking around in hazmat suits.

This is going to take some time. It is not the only thing government is doing. It’s one of the many things that government is doing and represents, annually, 1 percent of the capital budget.

With that, I would ask if we could take a brief break for refreshments or whatever people would like to do.

The Chair: The House will take a brief biology break, shall we call it.

The committee recessed from 5:07 p.m. to 5:16 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

K. Falcon: Just to remind the viewing public, we left off with the Premier confirming that they exercised an option to spend $4.285 million on the IMAX Theatre, which will be torn down as part of tearing down this entire building over the next few years. I want to ask the Premier: what other museums did they look at across Canada when they thought about what direction to go in revitalizing this museum?

G. Lore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Lore: I’m really thrilled to briefly introduce my family, who’ve come down for a little bit this afternoon all the way from Fernwood: my partner, Rob; my daughter, Evie; and my kiddo, Asher, who just turned six last week. I’m incredibly lucky to be the local MLA — this is not that rare — but also incredibly lucky to have them come down and run around the building with me for a little bit, with just a couple days left to go in session.

[5:20 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. As I’ve said in earlier answers — and what’s abundantly clear in the business plan — we had five options, but really there were three options. We could repair, we could renovate, or we could replace.

When the decision to replace was made, that’s when we moved to a design being part of the procurement process. So elements of those issues that have already been canvassed by Treasury Board were removed by Infrastructure B.C. — were removed, or redacted, not by politicians, not by political staff, but by those that do this all the time. This is not this government or even just the last government. It’s been for successive governments of all political stripes and sizes.

Our expectation is that as we go through procurement, and as the design portion of that procurement is underway, there will be engagement with other museums around the country or, indeed, around the world. There will be museum folks on the procurement team and, I expect, on the successful bidders, and that’s how we’ll go forward with that type of engagement.

Again, I want to say to the member, to all members of the House and to British Columbians that this is not the end of the discussions and debate around how we can get the most out of our Royal B.C. Museum location, which includes having the IMAX now as part of an asset rather than someone renting space. All of the equipment that makes IMAX happen is not going to be demolished at rebuild. It will be preserved and used again when the new facility is completed.

So take heart, Members. We’ve got more to talk about here, and that’s going to involve not just Victoria and not just the Lower Mainland but all British Columbians.

The issue that we canvassed just prior to the break…. I know that the member for Saanich North and the Islands will touch upon these issues either today or tomorrow. The repatriation issues are critically important, and that’s something that the museum does all the time. Currently the space that would be required for a ceremony when artifacts are transferred or acknowledged to be not the property of the Royal B.C. Museum but the property of the Indigenous communities where they were initially created…. All of that is done inadequately today, which will be done better in the future.

As artifacts are unearthed from storage, they’re better understood. They can be recorded. I talked about…. Again, I’m dating myself. The audiovisual club will be moving in. But all of this will be digitized and available not just at sites, not just in the bricks and mortar of the RBCM but, indeed, to all British Columbians wherever they might live and, indeed, the international community, who will be able to see the extraordinary history of British Columbia going back thousands of years, not just archives, not just artifacts.

Also, I was reminded by staff that the natural history of British Columbia is also contained in our museum — flora and fauna that no longer exists. Elements and representations of those lost natural pieces, whether they be forests or fir, are in the archive. They’re in the museum, and we need to ensure that we protect those for all time.

K. Falcon: You know, Premier, that was an interesting answer, but it really had little do with the question. I would encourage the Premier to, with respect, avoid ragging the puck and answer the questions, because we’ll get through this quicker, and I think that’s what the Premier would probably appreciate.

The question I asked was what comparative museums they looked at in Canada before they made the decision to go forward with the most expensive museum ever in the history of this country, with little public indication that they were about to embark and lurch forward with this crazy project.

[5:25 p.m.]

The reason I said that is because I did take a look at what other museums are doing. I looked at, for example, the new Art Gallery of Nova Scotia. It’s just getting started. A beautiful facility, $140 million. And $70 million of that is a provincial contribution, the balance presumably being raised through private sector fundraising. It’s a 142,000-​square-foot building. Construction start is June 2022, and opening three years later. That’s one example, $140 million. I say this for the viewing audience because I know the public out there.

The Premier likes to make it as if it’s all about the opposition. How dare we ask these questions? How dare we make the Premier and the NDP government feel uncomfortable? Well, they should feel uncomfortable. They should feel uncomfortable when they’re moving forward, lurching forward with this billion-dollar boondoggle that nobody can justify.

Nobody can find any example anywhere in this country that comes close to it. The Art Gallery of Ontario, the biggest population in the country. What did theirs cost? Well, that opened in 2008, 190,000 square feet of total renovated space, $276 million. The $40 million Royal Aviation Museum in Winnipeg, $27 million. It’s just about to open a 86,000-square-foot building.

But the best comparator is actually right next door in Alberta, and that’s the Glenbow Museum. The Glenbow Museum, just amazingly, happens to be almost identical in terms of square footage, 249,990 square feet. Very similar to the scope of the Royal B.C. Museum project, same mission. Also a downtown location, I might add.

They’re also repurposing their existing building. So they’re doing it the smart way and actually repurposing the existing building, as was envisioned in the original document by the Crown corporation that released the document that the Premier, apparently, didn’t approve, but it still got released. I’m still fascinated by that.

They closed it to the public in September 2021, and it’s expected to open in mid-2024. But here’s what’s also interesting. They put in $40 million of a provincial contribution, and there was a federal contribution of $40 million.

Now, this Premier announced this ill-thought-out project — this billion-dollar boondoggle, as we have taken to calling it, because it is — without talking to the federal government. Then, after the fact, the Premier’s comment is: “Well, I’ve spoken to the….” On May 13, he said: “I’ve spoken to the PM about this museum.” Then the Premier said: “There’s a whole bunch of discussion going on with the federal government.”

My question…. I’ve had some experience in projects. I can tell you, when you’re dealing with the federal government, announcing a project first and then going and asking them for the money afterwards is generally not the best way you’re going to get the federal government interested in a project. It’s a unique approach that the Premier has decided to take. I’d like to know what the Premier said to the Prime Minister and what the Prime Minister responded.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’m advised that we did engage with representatives in Ontario, in Alberta, at the human rights museum, on approach and concept. Not on design and cost, because the situations are different. The Glenbow example that the member suggests…. They have 33,000 articles. We have seven million. The Glenbow does not hold some of those below sea level, as we do here. The Glenbow did not have seismic concerns, as we do here. And I’m not aware of whether or not they had asbestos issues. But we have been making best efforts.

Again, this is not…. This is something that’s been known to the former government for ten years. This is not a surprise to them. They continued to get reports.

The report that the member refers to, the nine pages, was created not when I was sitting on this side of the House but when I was sitting on that side of the House, so it was approved or not approved by the former government, not by the current government.

[5:30 p.m.]

The facts of the matter are this. Treasury Board directed the museum to come back with a plan — the former Treasury Board, headed by the member for Abbotsford West. That report arrived on our desk, and we’ve taken action over the past five years to come up with the best possible plan to deal with a unique circumstance — that being a facility that is outdated, is inadequate for the purpose and is below sea level in many cases. The harbour that we’re surrounding here is all fill. Comparing what we’re trying to achieve here with what happened in Alberta is just apples and oranges.

With respect to the federal government, this has been on our list. The member will remember, from his time in government — and I know some of his colleagues who spent time in government will know — that traditionally, annually the government of British Columbia lays out our expectations of collaboration with the federal government. This has been part of those discussions for a number of years.

When I spoke to the Prime Minister, I said just that. But we’ve corresponded. We put it in our regular engagements with the federal government. The member will know the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat is part and parcel of the Premier’s office. But I can go back to March of 2021. There was a letter, and again in February of this year, reaffirming the letter from the year before. Those are just two off the top. I’m sure there are more engagements with the federal government.

This is a cultural treasure to British Columbians but, indeed, to all Canadians. Our argument with the federal government is that this is something that they should be interested in, as they have been in other cultural institutions in other parts of the country. But it’s a hit-and-miss exercise with the federal government, as the members on that side who have been in government will understand.

We have been making our best arguments as to why British Columbia should be in receipt of federal transfers for protection of our cultural assets, as other provinces have done with greater or lesser degrees of success, but the circumstances here in British Columbia are quite different from the circumstances in other parts of the country.

K. Falcon: Well, I can guarantee you what the federal response is going to be to this project. They will run as fast as they possibly can to get away from this thing, because I’ll tell you this. They can see the public reaction the exact same way that everyone else in British Columbia except…. This Premier and his cabinet apparently don’t notice that there’s virtually nobody out there that’s not invested in the actual project that actually thinks it’s a good idea.

It’s a disastrous idea, and it just boggles my mind that at a time when we’ve talked about the struggles that British Columbians are going through, the Premier can be so blithe about the fact that he’s awarding himself and his cabinet raises in the tens of thousands of dollars, that he’s going forward with an over a billion-dollar museum that nobody asked for and nobody wants, quite frankly.

We’ve got the local Victoria Times Colonist literally having an entire back page full of letters opposing and pleading: “If there’s anyone out there that supports it, please write to us so we can have some balance.” This is what we’re left with.

The collections building is already almost 30 percent over budget. They’ve just gotten started, for goodness sake. Does anyone not see the red flags? The alarms are ringing, and the red flags are everywhere, and they just keep marching along. They’re going to walk themselves right into what they did with fast ferries. I guarantee it here right now.

I’m glad this is on the record, because the record is going to show that when I stood here in this House and said this is a billion-dollar boondoggle that’s going to end up very badly for this Premier, for his NDP government and for their legacy…. I guarantee that’s going to be the case. I wish I had, frankly, more time to go on.

I’ll tell you this. When I was building the Canada Line, that was a $2.9 billion project, which, by the way, had a business case. It was delivered three and a half months ahead of schedule, under budget. That was a project where we did have the federal government involved. Why? Because we got them involved at the outset, at the beginning, and made sure they were partners. That’s how we got $450 million, if my memory serves me correctly, into that very, very successful project.

Well, good luck with that, because I guarantee you, the feds are going to look at this and say: “No chance we are going to be associated with this ridiculous vanity museum project.”

[5:35 p.m.]

I want to move on, sad as I am to have to, because frankly, I’ve got a whole list of questions here. But given the lengthy answers that have nothing to do with my questions, I’m going to have to move on to some other areas that return us to the question of affordability. That’s where I started, and that’s what I’d like to talk to the Premier about. I think it’s very important he understand that…. While the Premier loves to talk about how he once took tolls off the Port Mann Bridge, I’ve been around long enough to know that the other shoe hasn’t dropped yet.

The NDP mayor of Vancouver, his cohort in Vancouver, has another new plan. They call it a different name — not tolls. They call it mobility pricing. I tell you right now. You just wait, because I guarantee you that what the Premier and the NDP government are going to do is put tolls on every bridge that they can find that’s going into the Lower Mainland. I’ll love to hear how they justify that when that takes place.

Even prior to that decision, which is forthcoming, which, by the way, the Premier…. Although I would welcome it if he would stand up here in this Legislature today and say: “Absolutely no way, no how will we be proceeding with that.” I mean, that’s what I would do if I was the Premier of the province and somebody was saying: “Oh yeah, I’m going to go down that path.” I would absolutely rule it out right away, especially after I’ve been bragging about how I took tolls off the Port Mann Bridge — which, by the way, saw traffic increase within weeks by 30 percent. It looks like L.A. now every time I drive along there — just jammed traffic, one end to the other.

The affordability questions that keep getting raised to the Premier…. We talk about fuel prices, highest in North America. They were before the war in Ukraine; they are today. Remember that this is the same Premier and NDP government that said, with respect to the only pipeline that delivers fuel to the Lower Mainland from Alberta that was tripling in size in order to provide more supply to the Lower Mainland, which has grown quite a bit since that pipeline was built 60 years ago…. This was the very pipeline that the Premier spent millions of dollars and said: “I’m going to use every tool in the toolbox to do everything I can to stop it.”

Congratulations. You failed, of course. It got thrown out in the courts. But you did a good job in delaying it, and now British Columbians are seeing what that means in terms of fuel prices — highest in North America, the very highest.

When we questioned the Premier and said: “How about providing some relief to the people, the long-suffering people in this province that struggle just to meet their monthly expenses, while the Premier is giving himself a $10,000 raise retroactively and rewarding unearned raises to all his cabinet ministers that are undeserved…?” Why won’t he provide just a scintilla of a break for the folks that are having difficulty being able to pay for their kids’ soccer practices or filling up their minivans?

But no. The Premier did say, on April 21: “Minister Robinson has been directed by me to look at efforts to bring forward initiatives to assist with inflation.” We’ll see how that goes. Later on he said: “She’s been working on it for months and will continue to work on it in the days ahead.” That was the Premier, on April 21, 2022.

Then on May 13, the Premier said…. Because of course, people are saying: “We’d sure like some relief.” He said: “The Minister of Finance has been tasked by me and the cabinet to bring forward a basket of initiatives.” That was the Premier, on May 13. Then later he said, that same day: “We will have measures to reduce costs for people.”

My question to the Premier is very simple. What direction, and what date did the Premier give that direction to the Finance Minister?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Just a couple of cleanups on the preamble to the questions from the member from the other side. He made reference to the Canada Line, which was a P3 and transferred risk away. The federal government participated in that. It was part of an Olympic legacy project, good for all participants.

The federal government is fully engaged in equal funding — 40 percent of the Broadway line, 40 percent of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain line. As well, they will be participating in the Massey Tunnel replacement. They were not participating, explicitly, in the Massey bridge replacement, because it was a toll bridge.

[5:45 p.m.]

I remember the former Transportation Minister at the time saying that maybe they had their elbows up a little bit when it came to dealing with municipalities on some of these issues, particularly around the Massey crossing. I guess the return to smash-mouth has arrived and elbows are up, if I could use a hockey vernacular, with respect to working with municipal governments. It’s my view that the best way forward, rather than denigrating the mayor of Vancouver or any other municipal politician, is to listen to them, hear what they have to say and either agree or disagree.

As I look at the historic record, in 2007, the Leader of the Official Opposition said the following about road pricing: “I believe we have the ability to say we’ve now got this range of public transit options out there. Therefore we can now take a hard look at things like congestion tolling.” The only person talking about road pricing in this Legislature at the moment is the Leader of the Official Opposition, not me.

With respect to affordability, we’ve gone through an inventory of initiatives that we’ve undertaken. I absolutely acknowledge, as all members would, that this is an extraordinary time we’re living in. Inflation is as high as it’s been in decades. We all need to manage that. The member is correct on timing. I did request the Minister of Finance to bring forward a basket of initiatives, and she’s working on that. The time frame is as he suggested.

K. Falcon: I did not get the clarity around the answer again. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. Before I touch on that, I’ll remind the member that I’m not a hockey player, so I don’t understand the term “smash-mouth.” I imagine it must have something to do with the approach his Minister of Attorney General took with local governments around the housing file. I recall that there was a fair bit of noise about that and about the approach that was taken.

I don’t want to mischaracterize…. I always listen to the local mayors and even the opposition when looking at building major projects. It’s important — I would hope the Premier would know this — that in the job, when you’re a provincial Premier or a minister responsible for major projects, you have to think about the region and the province as a whole. Local mayors may have their own interests, and they may be very parochial. That may be legitimate to that mayor, but it may not be the right decision for the rest of the province.

I would note, for the record, the Port Mann Bridge, for example. The Premier keeps wanting to talk about how proud he is of taking off tolls, but I always have to remind him that there would be no ten-lane Port Mann Bridge had the Premier been in government, because they opposed it every step of the way while I was going through the process of making sure that it got built.

It’s just like they opposed the Canada Line. I remember they called it a boondoggle, actually. Of course, that turned out to be a tremendous benefit. It continues to be for generations to come. Three and a half months ahead of schedule and under budget.

The reason why you can’t allow mayors’ comments to be determinative is because otherwise you end up making really questionable capital decisions, to be polite about it. A good recent example is the Pattullo Bridge. Now, this government — because, apparently, the mayor of New Westminster didn’t think a six-lane bridge made sense — decided that they’re going to spend $1.4 billion to replace a four-lane bridge built in 1938. That’s over 80 years old.

In 1938, I imagine, that bridge was probably quite good for the Lower Mainland — there wouldn’t have been many people — but we’re not in 1938. We’re actually in 2022. Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the province, if not the country. Population exploded all over the place. What are this Premier and his government going to do? They’re going to spend $1.4 billion replacing a bridge, built in 1938 that was four lanes, with another bridge with four lanes. I don’t know. I’ll leave it to the viewers to decide whether that makes any sense. It certainly doesn’t to me.

I would like clarity from the Premier around the road pricing. I’ll tell you why, Premier, that I have to get you pinned down on this: because your Minister of Environment and your Minister of Energy are on record…

The Chair: Through the Chair.

K. Falcon: …saying they are “open to road pricing.” Indeed, the Premier himself said that we’re not ruling it out. I can’t help but note he’s joined by his chief of staff, who in May 2017 was at the Road Pricing Leadership Summit.

I’m left thinking to myself that there are an awful lot of people on that side that seem to have an awful lot of interest in this road pricing concept. Certainly, the NDP mayor of Vancouver is really big on that. He’s made that quite clear. So a simple question, Premier. Will you commit today…?

[5:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Through the Chair.

K. Falcon: Through to the Chair. Thank you, Chair, for reminding me of that.

Will the Premier just give a simple commitment to the public — he likes to brag that he took the tolls off the Port Mann Bridge — that he won’t allow tolls to be put on every other access point into Vancouver?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, interactions with other orders of government, whether they be federal or municipal or regional, is also a responsibility of elected representatives in this place, whether they be Premiers or ministers or members of the Legislature.

Disrespecting the work that they do — he characterized them, as he said around the Canada Line, as a disaster circus — is not helpful, or declaring, as he did during the most recent leadership for his political party…. It was, I think, almost a decade in the private sector with a front-row seat, “seeing how incompetently local government handles things. As an example, housing supply is going to be awful, and we’re not going to be able to go forward.”

I get that some members don’t want to get along with other orders of government. I think it’s part of the job, and I’m going to keep doing that.

With respect to road pricing, again, that is not something that I am envisioning in this mandate. We’ll have that debate at the next election. At that point, perhaps the official opposition will have to do something other than just say: “We were really great back in 2001, and we can’t wait to get to 2031.”

K. Falcon: I’ll just make sure we heard the Premier correctly. I think the residents of Delta, Surrey and south of the Fraser would like to know very clearly that this Premier will not be putting into place road pricing, or his government will not be putting into place road pricing, even though it’s supported by his NDP mayor in Vancouver.

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t believe the mayor of Vancouver declared himself to be an NDP mayor. He was a member of the NDP. He probably is a member of the NDP, but he ran unaligned.

You know, the non-partisan alliance people on the other side…. I mean, there’s nothing more oxymoronic than calling yourself non-partisan as you engage in partisan activity.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The fact of the matter is that I answered the question. We have no plans on introducing road tolling. Again, the most recent people to introduce tolls for the drivers in the Lower Mainland are on that side of the House.

K. Falcon: I now want to explore something that government has demonstrated a very good facility at doing, which is making announcements but then not following through on those announcements. In the vernacular of most of the public, that would be called broken promises.

The first one I’d like to address with the Premier is the issue of the renters rebate. We know that this is something that the NDP platform in 2017 — that was five years ago — said. They were going to provide a refundable renters rebate of $400 per rental household in B.C. each year.

Five years later, in the midst of the fact that we have the highest rent costs in the country, right here in B.C., another unfortunate record we’ve seen happen under the NDP…. On February 15 of this year, just prior to the budget, the Minister of Housing said: “Yes, we’re working on it.” Well, that’s fascinating. I’m not sure how much work it takes to make a decision. In this government, apparently, five years. I think it’s unnecessary that we take that long for renters who are struggling.

[5:55 p.m.]

Premier, I have a question. This policy was costed and drawn up as of 2018, according to FOI documents. Therefore, I think we can put aside the claim that this is still in development when it’s clearly sitting on a shelf collecting dust. Will the Premier be moving forward with this broken promise to provide the relief that renters deserve?

[6:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for his renewed interest in affordability for renters. It was the former government that imposed an annual 2 percent automatic lift in rents for struggling renters in British Columbia. The elimination of that 2 percent lift, after we struck a task force that consulted with renters, consulted with landlords…. I believe it was….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Sorry? Rents keep going up. Imagine that.

The Chair: The Premier has the floor.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair.

We put in place a task force to canvass renters and landlords to find the best way forward to reduce the annual increases for renters. With removing the cap of the 2 percent, we saved a renter in Surrey, on average, $850 a year; in Kelowna, $930 a year; and in Vancouver, $1,440 a year — going a good distance, in my opinion, to meeting our commitment with respect to the renters rebate in the first mandate. Of course, we were here with a confidence and supply agreement with our colleagues in the Green Party. We brought that forward to reduce costs for renters, and it had significant impacts.

The Minister for Housing is still working on reducing costs, trying to address the significant challenges we have. The result has been…. With respect to the rebate, we’re continuing to look at that. But more importantly, we’re seeing more rental-purpose housing constructed in British Columbia in the past two years than was built in the previous 15. That’s going to help bring down costs — more supply. Again, I know the member is quite proficient in these issues. That will bring down costs over time.

The renters rebate is still very much on the table. But let’s not forget that removing that cap, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition said we should bring back, would lead to an immediate increase in Surrey, the community that he keeps referring to — an impact of some $850 a year.

With respect to the speculation and vacancy tax, another initiative designed to create more rental stock, as a result, some 18,000 empty condos are now rental units. Again, the Leader of the Opposition recommended that we do away with that. We’re trying to create more supply to bring down costs. We’ve removed the instantaneous 2 percent increase that landlords were allowed to put in place, saving literally thousands of dollars for renters.

K. Falcon: Continuing to look at it is the answer of this Premier. He is the Premier of the province. He was the one that wrote, in a mandate letter in 2020, to his Minister of Finance: “Introduce an income-tested renters rebate to support rental households that need it most and are not already receiving other rental support.” That was this Premier putting it in the Finance Minister’s mandate letter. We’ve seen two budgets since with no rental rebate.

[6:05 p.m.]

The Premier says that they’re continuing to look at it. Well frankly, this is the problem with the government. It actually exemplifies the problem with the government. They’re great at looking at things, announcing things, talking about things, having meetings about things, creating paperwork to fly back and forth between who knows who to talk about these things even some more, but they’re not getting results.

At the end of the day, with struggling residents in Surrey and in Vancouver and throughout the Lower Mainland, in particular, who are paying highest rents in the country — that happened under this NDP government — are looking for the relief that was promised, that the Premier himself wrote in a mandate letter to his minister. Either the minister ignores the Premier’s mandate letters — a problem in itself, since we’ve had two budgets already go by with no action on that — or the Premier makes these kinds of promises with every intention of not fulfilling them. That’s what a broken promise is. I think given the challenge that people are facing right now, you can see why they’re frustrated.

Another example of that I’d like to talk about are Surrey portables. I can tell you that in Surrey, this is a big issue. I’m going to quote from the Premier. Here’s what he said to voters five years ago: “We have to have a total removal of these portables over the course of the next four years. We need to start by reducing them by half in the first two years.”

Now, how are they doing? To the viewers out there, in 2016, the last year of the B.C. Liberal government — I wasn’t there, but it was my team that was there — there were 273 portables. In May of 2022, there are 301 portables, a 10 percent increase over 2016. So the promise was: “Eliminate them totally.” The result was that we get a 10 percent increase in portables.

Again, this goes back to why do you even make these promises if you have no intention or ability to fulfil them, Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, my recollection of 2016 is decidedly different than the recollection of the member who raised the question.

Since 2017, 18 new or expanded schools have been built in Surrey, and 10,000 new student seats have been created. There have been no investments by the Surrey school district in additional portables in the last two years.

The reason that we have been playing catch-up is because of the absolute lack of investment of the latter years of the period that he’s talking about in Surrey. Portables were piling up during that period because there was a lack of investment.

We’ve been playing catch-up. We put in place a capital office, working in consultation with a regional government — which is something that is anathema to those on that side of the House — collaborating, trying to find the best way forward. We’ve seen results — 10,000 new student seats and no additional portables over the past two years, and we’re going to continue to drive that down as we catch up.

Another reminder: we’ve come through two years of a global pandemic, when there were calls for other expenditures and other operations. Again, I appreciate that the members on the other side live on a different planet than the rest of us do. We’ve been managing these issues to the best of our ability, always focusing on the interests of British Columbians.

S. Furstenau: I’m glad to have an opportunity to ask some questions.

I’m just going to start with the Premier’s opening comments, in which he said that we have seen “unprecedented cooperation and collaboration in this place.” Can the Premier provide some specific examples of unprecedented cooperation and collaboration since October 2020?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Addressing the global pandemic. The Minister of Health was meeting regularly with members of all parts of the House, ensuring that we had up-to-date information so that we could make decisions and assist our constituents in getting through that. I think that’s the height of collaboration.

S. Furstenau: That collaboration was actually happening before October 2020. What I was specifically looking for was unprecedented cooperation and collaboration since October 2020.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not certain where the Leader of the Third Party wants to go here. I have always remained available. I’ve talked with her colleague on a range of issues that he’s brought forward, standing up the Health committee at the behest of the then opposition leader and the Leader of the Third Party to demonstrate that collaboration is the best way forward on addressing the opioid crisis and the challenge that flows from that. There are numerous other examples.

I believe that collaboration is fundamental to our success. Perhaps examples of a lack of collaboration might be more helpful to me.

S. Furstenau: The interim Leader, at the time, of the Official Opposition and I actually started advocating for that committee to be struck in May of 2021. It took ten months of her and me asking for that outcome before it finally came about on the day that the coroners death review panel report was released, after a series of questions in question period. When the Premier finally agreed to striking that committee — not agreeing to the efforts and the collaboration that was happening between the interim leader and me — he agreed to it in question period.

Parliamentary committees are part of the legislative fabric. That’s not necessarily what I mean by unprecedented collaboration and cooperation. I’m just using the Premier’s words that he started these estimates with — by saying that we’ve had unprecedented cooperation and collaboration. I would suggest that the last 18 months have not been particularly cooperative and collaborative.

I’m going to go to an issue that is top of mind for British Columbians right now. The Premier and the Minister of Health have been citing a great deal about input into the health care system when asked about it and asked about the concerns that are being raised by British Columbians to us and, I’m sure, to every member of this House. The resounding experience that we are hearing from the public is that people are not getting their needs met in the health care system.

When the Premier says, in an interview, that he sees that the health care system is “teetering,” what does he mean by that?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Before I move off collaboration, I want to say that I’m reminded of the extraordinary work of the Solicitor General and the minister responsible for Emergency Preparedness, who is always available in communities to ensure that everyone has complete information. These are, I would argue, basic examples of collaboration that would be expected in the normal course of events.

But in extraordinary events is when you really need to make sure that there are lines of communication open. Despite disagreements about approach or context, I think that there is a sense that when we need to work together, we do work together, and we get good results for people.

With respect to the challenges within the public health care system, I think it’s apparent — based on the questions that are raised here but, more importantly, the concerns in community — that we are teetering. We’re coming out of a global pandemic where we’ve seen 14,000 to 18,000 people a week calling in sick within the system, which puts strain on those who are making it to work and the challenges that they face when they’re in the workplace.

Despite that, we’ve had record surgeries. We’ve had record MRIs and 1.5 million more visits to primary care than we had before the pandemic. So the outcomes continue to be extraordinary. I’m a living example of positive outcomes as a result of accessing the system and moving through all of the various stages to be able to stand here and talk today. There are other examples of successes similar to my own, and there are also examples of tragedy. We can’t understate that or overstate that. It is the reality.

I know, and we all agree, that health care workers, even when short-staffed, are there — professional, compassionate helpers of people in their most difficult periods, and I lift my hands to them and appreciate that we need to do more. That’s why I’ve been leaning so hard into the federal government to not just deal with issues in British Columbia but across the country. These are extraordinary times. The system needs a reboot, and it needs a new vision. I’m hopeful that the Prime Minister will come and sit with other Premiers and find that way forward.

S. Furstenau: I think it’s really essential that the public has it reflected back what their experiences are. When we had breakfast with the Doctors of B.C., one of the stories that I heard then, and that I’ve heard subsequently several times, is that people who do not have a family doctor — nearly a million people in B.C. who do not have a family doctor — cannot get the results of cancer screening tests, because there is nowhere for those results to go.

The Premier’s experience — and we’re glad that he got the care and the service he did — is not reflective of what the experience is for a lot of people in British Columbia right now who may be facing a potential cancer diagnosis and not be able to get access to the test to tell them whether that diagnosis is there or not. So a teetering system has real-life implications. And in British Columbia, those implications are being felt across the entire province.

The Premier talks about a vision, a vision for health care in British Columbia. Telus Health is being investigated by the Medical Services Commission for charging a yearly fee for access to family physicians. A story that was just published is about a senior who was told by his own family physician that he is moving to Telus Health LifePlus and that in order for that person, that senior, to continue the care under that family physician, he would have to pay a yearly fee of over $4,000.

This Premier and his Minister of Health like to talk a lot about the universal health care system, about being in the birthplace of that system, about a commitment to equitable health care.

Here in B.C., with nearly a million people who do not have access to a family physician, the option exists to pay $4,000 a year to get access to a family physician. Under this government, under this watch, that option exists. Is that what the Premier’s talking about as a vision in response to a teetering health care system in B.C.?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m happy to get data to the member with respect to the number of unattached patients and how that has evolved over the past dozen years.

I think it’s important — and we talk about these issues, with the importance and the consequence of delivering primary care — that we understand that these challenges didn’t emerge yesterday, and they won’t be fixed tomorrow. We need to be always, constantly, vigilantly working to ensure that we protect those services that are so vital to our publicly funded universal health care system.

The Medicare Protection Act protects citizens of British Columbia from the types of practices that you made reference to. There is an investigation underway with the Medical Services Commission. That investigation was initiated prior to the issue being raised in the Legislature. If the commission finds that the Medicare Protection Act has been violated, actions will be taken.

S. Furstenau: The issue was first raised in the Legislature in February in question period, and the answer we got from the Health Minister was that there was an investigation by the Medical Services Commission. In estimates, the Health Minister indicated that that would take a month, not months. However, we are several months from, at least, February, when it was first raised.

It would be, I think, helpful for British Columbians to know when they can expect that. However, I’m asking the Premier his thoughts on whether accessing primary care by paying $4,000 a year fits with his vision of how we respond to a teetering public health care system.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: A direct answer to the question. I do not support user fees for medically necessary care.

The issue that is under investigation is being reviewed by an independent commission. We can’t determine and direct the time they take to do that investigation.

I would also note that on a fundamental element of primary care — that is, diagnostic services — I think of the data that shows that in the last year of the former government, 175,000 MRIs were conducted. In 2021-2022, 296,000 were provided. That leads to better outcomes, early diagnosis, early treatment.

These are the types of tools that we’ve put in place to ensure that we can protect our publicly funded health care system and reverse this notion that somehow user fees are a salvation. I reject that. I don’t believe that’s the case. That’s why the Canada health transfer is so critically important. If we can adequately fund the services that we need, the public won’t be feeling that this is their only recourse.

I appreciate the line of questioning from the member. We support the Medicare Protection Act and all of its elements. In fact, we’ve brought in regulations to strengthen that over the past number of years.

S. Furstenau: I think the reality is…. This is happening in British Columbia right now. So the public would probably want to understand how to square what the Premier is saying with what is a reality, which is: “I can get myself access to a primary care physician and team by paying a user fee.” It’s not just Telus. There are other companies that are doing this.

It’s not just access to primary care. People with chronic iron deficiencies are just now finding out that what used to be covered — an iron infusion, which used to be covered by MSP — is no longer covered. They must go to a private company and pay for that iron infusion.

Again, does the Premier’s vision for health care include a growing number of private companies, a growing number of private for-profit companies, delivering health services in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not familiar with the iron deficiency issue. In the interest of not chewing up any of the time we have available, I’ll refer you to the minister, who certainly will be more than happy to sit down with you and talk about the specifics of that element that you raise.

I want to go back again and say that I do not support user fees for medically necessary services. That is as clear as I can be on that question. There’s an act in place making that against the law.

There’s an investigation of particular allegations, which have been raised by you, that was underway before you made those allegations. When the commission reports, we’ll take a look at that. I’m sure we’ll have more to say at that time.

S. Furstenau: I’m interested to know what kind of direction the Premier has given to his cabinet. This is going to affect a broad number of aspects of B.C. and its economy and the people.

What kind of leadership…? What kind of direction is the Premier giving to prepare for the ongoing and what appear to be pretty relentless impacts of COVID and of long COVID? The CDC indicates that one in five people who have a COVID infection, severe or not, can anticipate experiencing long COVID.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. She’s absolutely right. We are still — not just the CDC but health care providers across the country and, indeed, around the world — grappling with how we manage chronic disease and how that will be manifested with respect to long COVID.

I can say that we have thousands of patients being treated right now in clinics across B.C. We established six, the first jurisdiction in the country to do so. That’s not the be-all and the end-all. Those are six clinics that are providing immediate services, but all health authorities are connected through the network to ensure that we’re sharing experiences, sharing best practices and what we’re learning as we go.

I appreciate that it sounds like we should have made more progress than we have on this, but we’re learning. It’s an evolving area of practice. It’s an evolving area of investigation by professionals at CDC, to observe the data over the country, around the world. That is another reason it’s so important that the federal government acknowledge and recognize that they have a role to play beyond just overseeing the Canada Health Act when it comes to delivering services for people in Canada.

Previously, going back to the genesis of medicare in Canada, that was about a 50-50 relationship. The federal government put in 50 percent of the funding. The provinces put in 50 percent and, jurisdictionally, were required to provide the services. Over time, that has eroded to 78 percent of the costs falling to the provinces and only 22 percent of the costs being picked up by the federal government. So when we have new evidence being brought forward across the country, in different settings, we need to be able to share that. That should be a national undertaking.

We are certainly, as leaders in this regard, absolutely ready to share our experiences with other jurisdictions. We are hopeful that as breakthroughs happen in terms of treatments and the consequences of long COVID, we are going to all be able to work cooperatively and collaboratively across the country to do what we can. Of course, that also includes any international evidence that comes forward.

I do know, through our public health office and through the CDC, that we’re always looking at what’s going on around the world and making sure that we’re putting that into practice here on the ground in B.C.

S. Furstenau: I’ll just point out that today in question period, the Minister of Health said: “Right now, of course, the health care system continues to face some fundamental challenges, one of which is that there are, right now, because of COVID-19, dramatically more people off sick than there was in 2021, in 2020 and, of course, before the pandemic…which leads to challenges every single day. Last week there were between 15,000 to 16,000 people who missed at least one day.”

[6:35 p.m.]

There are dramatically more people off sick today than a year ago because of COVID. My question to the Premier around this…. He says that we’re looking to the rest of the world and we’re bringing forward information. Does he think that the public is sufficiently informed on how much COVID there is in the community right now, how many people are getting sick with it, the long-term consequences and the fact that it’s airborne?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we brought in and passed five paid sick days here in British Columbia — first time ever — just for that very reason. We’ve asked — through order, initially, and now through guidance from the public health officer — that if you’re not feeling well, you should stay home.

The consequence of people listening to, initially, the order and then the guidance is that fewer people are showing up for work. They may not have COVID, but they’re not feeling well. The efficacy of rapid tests is uncertain, depending on what your viral load may or may not be at the time of the test.

People are doing what we’ve asked them to do, which is: if you’re not feeling well, stay home. That’s led to absenteeism, significant absenteeism, in our health care system. I gave you those numbers just a moment ago — somewhere between 14,000 and 18,000, one day in the week. That has a profound impact on the delivery of services within the health care system. That also is true in other aspects of the economy.

The public is conscious of COVID-19. The public has taken steps. Our immunization rate is among the highest in North America. The public heard the evidence that was brought forward by the minister and the public health officer every day for two years, and they’ve taken actions to protect themselves. They know, with some confidence — because we have stood up the first-ever clinics to address long COVID here in British Columbia — that we’re serious about this and that we’re going to keep working at it.

Again, I don’t know where the member is going through this line of questioning. But I have every confidence that the public fully understands, to the best of their abilities, how they can make their way through as we come out of the pandemic in the days and weeks and months ahead, always guided by the advice that we’re able to provide, as legislators, and as public health officials have been doing for the past two-and-a-bit years.

S. Furstenau: I want to touch on another topic that, considering the size of it and the cost of it, doesn’t get a lot of attention in this chamber. We know that megaprojects are renowned for going way over budget, for taking significantly longer than originally thought and for often delivering quite a bit less than was originally promised.

The Premier recently travelled up to the northeast to see Site C. But when asked about it in an interview, he said he didn’t ask about costs or timelines. What has the Premier learned from how things have unfolded with Site C? Does he regret moving forward with it in 2017, knowing what he knows now?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Firstly, with respect to my visit to the region, I wasn’t there to do a financial review. It was to meet with workers, to meet with the mayor of Fort St. John, so I didn’t ask. The question from the reporter was, “Did you ask?” and I said, “No, I didn’t,” because the Treasury Board has regular check-ins with the Hydro board. We’ve established an independent project assurance committee that oversees every aspect of the project.

The scrutiny on the financial side is not my responsibility. It’s the responsibility of the Treasury Board, which then reports to cabinet, and I’m accountable for that. I’m not skirting that responsibility, but I’m telling you that my visit was not for that purpose.

My visit was to review the work that’s been done, to talk to the people that are doing the work, to meet with the mayor and to talk about where we go from here. The challenges of decarbonizing are graver today than they were five years ago. The need for stable, dispatchable firm power is greater today than it was five years ago. It will be even more in demand five years from now.

If we are going to realize our objectives, which are to reduce GHG emissions and to create more clean energy — clean energy in the context of not adding to our carbon emissions — we’re going to need more power like the power produced at Site C. It’s dispatchable. It’s firm. It will support more renewables across the province, particularly in the north but across the province. On balance, despite the approach that was taken by the former government to get it past, as you’ll remember, the point of no return, we inherited the project. We did a thorough review. We made a decision.

The geology is as it has always been. We were told in 2017 that the geology was sound. We were advised in 2019 that the geology was not sound. We have taken steps to address that in the interest of safety and the interest of longevity for the project.

I really do believe that, in 2022, where we’re at is where we need to be. If we are going to radically change our economy and get off of fossil fuels, we’re going to need more clean energy. If we’re going to be developing hydrogen, green hydrogen, we’re going to need electricity. If we’re going to be ensuring that our port facilities are as clean as they can be, we’re going to need clean energy. If we’re going to develop out renewables, we’re going to need dispatchable firm power. So 1,100 megawatts will be provided by Site C, and on balance, in the long term, I believe it’s in the best interests of British Columbians.

S. Furstenau: The part that didn’t get mentioned is how much of the electricity from Site C, should it ever come online, would be going to “electrify gas production,” which is not decarbonization. It’s actually the opposite of decarbonization.

Under this Premier, we’ve seen a significant increase to the package that was offered to LNG Canada to build the largest point source emission project in B.C. that will rely on an enormous volume of fracking of gas, which is a massive emitter of methane. The IPCC panel recently indicated methane is one of the browns that we have to get very serious about reducing very quickly, because it is a faster driver of climate change than CO₂.

We are on track in B.C. to massively expand how much methane is emitted from this province through fracking. Maybe the Premier is going to stand up and talk about: “Well, we reviewed the deep-well royalty credits.” And, yes, four years from now we may see those changes come in, but what isn’t included in that is the amount of water that’s provided to these companies, which is also a public resource and which ends up contaminated after it’s used in the fracking process.

[6:45 p.m.]

I urge the Premier not to stand up and say: “We have a climate plan.” I really do. Because it’s not unlike saying: “Look at all these great inputs we’ve put into health care.” When a million people don’t have a family doctor and emergencies are shut, that is cold comfort.

When our emissions have been going up year over year, when our intention is to increase gas extraction and LNG, that does not square with what a climate plan should be delivering, which is a significant reduction in oil and gas production and emissions in this province, a significant increase in the protection of old-growth forests, a significant increase in transportation options that don’t require people being in a gas-powered vehicle. So it’s a little bit of cold comfort there.

There is another aspect to this, and the Premier brought it up earlier in a response that he gave to the Leader of the Official Opposition when we were talking about food prices. The Premier indicated that there is global instability, and particularly when it comes to food. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has really exacerbated the global insecurity when it comes to food production.

The other thing that we are going to lose with Site C is an enormous amount of highly productive agricultural land that could have actually contributed to food security in British Columbia, which I think should be a pretty high priority of any government anywhere in the world right now.

The Premier says he doesn’t regret going ahead with Site C in 2017. Does he regret the loss of the agricultural land that we will lose in Peace River Valley and the implications that has for food security in B.C.?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for raising the difficult challenges that we all face, not just legislators but British Columbians and, indeed, citizens of the world. To succumb to despair is a massive challenge. To address these diverse issues is significant. Adaptation is the order of the day.

I don’t have to tell the Chair about the consequences of climate change in her community. She knows it better than all of us, with the impacts, the ravages in Lytton. I think of Merritt, where because of fires, the community was evacuated. Then months later because of massive floods, the community was evacuated again.

We are in a real crisis in British Columbia and internationally, and we are taking steps to address that in a methodical way, bringing in the low-carbon fuel standards, which the opposition, the Third Party disagreed with. I think they might have changed their mind. I’ll leave it to her to figure out that.

In terms of the plan, the LNG Canada project, the largest private sector investment in Canadian history, fits into the CleanBC plan, which was endorsed. In fact, the architect of that plan, with the Minister of Environment, was the former leader of the Green Party.

We have been moving methodically towards addressing these issues. The elimination of deep-well credits and the subsidies to the oil and gas industry are underway. The benefits will be well known in the months and years ahead, but the snapping of the fingers is not the solution to the challenges. Working to get to a place where we can be hopeful and optimistic starts with bringing forward issues like the low-carbon fuel standard, by making sure that we have clean, green, dispatchable energy so that we can build out renewables, making sure that we are addressing methane, are addressing emissions by ensuring that we’ve got substitutes for that.

With respect to food production, I look at my friend from Delta South. We have to maximize the ability to produce food in all areas that we live. That’s not to suggest that agricultural land in other parts of British Columbia isn’t critically important — not at all. But our agritech policy is part and parcel of the solution that we believe we need to see. We need to produce more food in less space to meet the challenges.

The dismantling of our infrastructure as a result of the atmospheric river made it abundantly clear that supply chains are always at risk, going forward, not once in 500 years but, perhaps, every year. We saw through COVID-19 that protectionist governments that we depend on for food may well decide on a given day if they haven’t had a drop of rain in California in a year and a half, that perhaps the food that was destined for British Columbia will not be coming to British Columbia.

[6:50 p.m.]

Therefore, your premise is absolutely correct. I think it’s supported, certainly, by the member for Delta South and others. We need to accelerate and enhance and improve our ability to feed ourselves, and we need to work on that each and every day.

We also need to know that despair is our greatest enemy, and we need to be hopeful and optimistic that if we collaborate — which we were doing, the member and myself and others — in the creation of a plan that’s going to work and is the envy of the country…. That if we keep on that track, we’ll get to where we want to go.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Rankin moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.