It’s election season here in the CRD and true to form, political rhetoric is escalating. In the City of Victoria, for example, there is an ongoing divisive debate over the so-called Missing Middle Housing Initiative. Younger generations affected by the rental crisis and the lack of affordable housing are being pitted against homeowners (often assumed to be from an older generation).

In my view, the debate is not actually focused on the key questions that need to be answered:

1.  Will the proposed initiative address the issue of affordability? In other words, is the proposed solution meeting a desired outcome?
2.  Is the initiative being advanced in a way that brings people with you in the process?
3.  What is the role of council and why is this new initiative required?

Compelling arguments are being advanced in support of both sides of the first question and some believe that this is where the public controversy arises. In my view, it isn’t.

The term “missing middle housing”, was first coined by Daniel Parolek in 2010 and expanded upon in his book Missing middle housing : Thinking big and building small to respond to today’s housing crisis, published in 2020. It’s defined as “house-scale buildings with multiple units in walkable neighbourhoods”, and it was designed to address sprawling US car-dependent communities.

Many I have spoken with have long supported the notion of missing middle housing, without knowing the slogan. In fact, successive Victoria councils have a longstanding track record of allowing for, and even promoting, such developments. One only need drive along Shelbourne Street to find myriad townhouse developments built in recent years, or travel along Rockland Avenue to witness stately mansions from the early 1900s that have been preserved and transformed into multi-family units.

Moving to question 2, I believe the answer is demonstrably no. In general, any policy consultation process that ends up pitting one group against another is destined to divide rather than unite our community. And that is what we are seeing in the missing middle debate in my view.

Such societal polarization is often reinforced by some in the so-called progressive movement who ironically don’t realize that their communication/activism tactics are  quite similar to those employed by elements of the alt right. These include being intolerant of opposing views, making assertions – not grounded in evidence – to justify a cause, attacking people who disagree with them on social media, and civil disobedience to hopefully increase public awareness to their cause. Groups that are intolerant of the views of others, whether they be on the left or the right, ultimately just reinforce British Columbia’s longstanding reputation for societal polarization and pendulum politics.

Pendulum politics occurs when an angry electorate mobilizes, often egged on by an opposition party/individual or parties/individuals, to unseat those holding elected positions. Consequently, local, provincial and federal governments get summarily turfed out in elections and the party or individual(s) on the other side of the political spectrum form government or the majority on council. More often than not, the so-called baby is thrown out with the bathwater as the new government or council begins to undo the work of the previous government or council to fulfill their election campaign promises.

One solution to ongoing pendulum politics is to put in place a form of proportional representation like what already exists in more than 90 countries, and the majority of western democracies, worldwide. At the council level, this translates to a ward system that ensures unique neighbourhoods within a municipality are properly represented at the council table. Regional District electoral systems already operate on a ward system. For example, the Cowichan Valley Regional District has representation from 9 different electoral areas; the Nanaimo Regional District has representation from 7 different electoral areas.

But we have neither of these systems in place, and so we must work within the system that we have. And this brings me to question 3.

Local governments are created under British Columbia’s Local Government Act and municipalities, such as Victoria or Saanich, are empowered by British Columbia’s Community Charter which provides:

1. “a legal framework for the powers, duties and functions that are necessary to fulfill their purposes,
2. the authority and discretion to address existing and future community needs, and
3. the flexibility to determine the public interest of their communities and to respond to the different needs and changing circumstances of their communities.”

Obviously, zoning is one of the most important functions of an elected council. The biggest issue with the missing middle initiative is that council are proposing to pass a highly divisive, one-time, city-wide zoning change a few days before the next civic election. Associated with the initiative is the delegation of development approval to staff. In essence, Mayor and Council would be able to deflect any political accountability to their staff.

Mayors and their councils are elected to represent and meet the needs of those residing within each of our unique and diverse neighbourhoods. They are elected to listen to all residents, not just their political supporters, as they propose and approve policies that unite, rather than divide, our communities.

In my view council have chosen to abdicate their public, and hopefully transparent, decision-making process to staff who are not accountable to the electorate. In addition, it makes little sense for Victoria, with a population of only 85,792 (2016 census), the seventh most densely populated (4,406 people per square kilometre — 2016 census) municipality in Canada, to pretend they can go it alone to solve the affordability issue in our region. What is needed is a coordinated regional housing strategy.

It strikes me that what we are witnessing is divisive politics instead of good governance, especially since such an important issue is being debated just over a month before the next local government elections with virtually all the present council having declared that they are not seeking re-election. Who will be held accountable for a decision on the Missing Middle Initiative? Nobody. The truth is, council have already been implementing and could further expand upon, the issue of missing middle housing if good governance was placed ahead of divisive political posturing.

Another example, which serves to illustrate just how dysfunctional the recent decision-making process on Victoria council is concerns the recent pronouncement that all new construction from 2025 must be “zero carbon” producers by 2025. This means that the era of oil, gas or propane heating is over in new construction in Victoria. As someone who has been speaking out publicly on the need to reduce GHG emissions since the early 1990s, obviously I support this policy. In fact, CleanBC, British Columbia’s climate action plan, already requires the same throughout BC by 2030. But once more, the way Victoria council brought this forward is almost a textbook example of what not to do to advance climate policy. While other jurisdictions are exploring similar proposals for early adoption, Victoria decided to go it alone amid rising affordability, inflation concerns and a divisive debate on the Missing Middle Housing Initiative.

How processes like this play out is predictable. A new Mayor and Council recognize that the previous Mayor and Council had lost the confidence of the electorate. As evidence for this one only need read the results of the recent governance survey where 81% of respondents stated that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with Victoria’s governance. Despite losing the confidence of the electorate, council still decided to debate or pass controversial motions at the 11^th hour thereby blindsiding many in our community because the important groundwork to bring people with you was not done in advance.  And so pendulum politics kicks in and a new Mayor and Council start to undo the work of the previous Mayor and Council in order to repair the divides within our community.

We’ve seen this happen before in British Columbia. When Premier Campbell brought in the HST without bringing the electorate along with him it spelled the end of his leadership. Now even uttering the words HST is political suicide. This, despite when coupled with a low-income HST rebate program (as was proposed), this form of consumption taxation many would argue represents good fiscal policy.

Earlier in the mid 2000s, on the other hand, Premier Gordon Campbell, his Finance Minister Carole Taylor, and his Environment Minister Barry Penner introduced some of the most innovative climate action policies anywhere. Their flagship policy was British Columbia’s much celebrated revenue neutral carbon pricing. Not only did the general public support Premier Campbell’s climate policies, but they also punished the BC NDP in the 2009 provincial election for not formulating their own climate plan and cynically campaigning behind an “Axe the [carbon] tax” slogan.

As someone was who was born and grew up in the City of Victoria, I am saddened by what I perceive to be the emergence of divisive sociopolitical discourse, activism, and politicking at the expense of inclusive governance. Good governance means governing for all, not just your supporters; it means bringing people together, not pitting one generation against another; and it means listening to the views of all, even people you may not agree with, and doing what you can to address (not dismiss) those concerns.

For those who may have wondered, I will not be seeking a council, mayoral or school board seat in the forthcoming civic election. Admittedly, I very seriously considered seeking a council seat in the District of Saanich, the community in which I have lived since 1992, and a community that exemplifies the notion of good governance.

In my next post I hope to expand upon what I have written here but with a specific focus on climate policy. I’ll build upon my personal experience as someone who has been actively engaged in the areas since the late 1980’s/early 1990’s.

With the summer holiday season coming to an end, and after hearing no end of COVID-related horror stories (delays, cancelled flights, staff shortages, passport issues) from friends and family who decided to travel by air to destinations afar for the first time in several years, I thought I would spend some time exploring climate solutions in the aviation sector.

As I noted in my recent presentation to the BC Aviation Council May Conference 2022, Transportation in the aviation sector affects our climate through two main ways. The first, and most obvious, is via the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the combustion of jet fuel. In 2020, international (not including domestic) aviation was the 10^th biggest total emitter of carbon (171.15 Megatonnes) world wide (behind China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, International Shipping, Germany, Iran and South Korea). In total, aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global emissions of carbon dioxide.

The second main way that aviation affects the climate system is through the creation of contrails. Contrails occur when moisture in jet exhaust condenses in the high altitude cold ambient environment to create lines of thin cirrus clouds, comprising ice crystals, whose net effect is to warm the Earth further. While innovation in flight path planning is ongoing in an effort to reduce contrail formation, off the shelf solutions to replace jet fuel appeared elusive, until recently.

On August 6 and 7, 2022 I attended the Abbotsford Air Show to learn about innovation in the aviation industry and the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), sometimes known as biojet fuel. I was quite excited by what I discovered as it appears that Canada is uniquely positioned to be an international leader in this area.

It was evident to me that the aviation industry is deeply concerned about their greenhouse gas emissions and that they are investing heavily in carbon-neutral technology pathways. While we can expect to see the increasing use of electric engines, hydrogen fuel cell technology and even potentially hydrogen combustion from onboard cryogenic storage tanks, these will likely only be available for commuter, regional and short haul flights (<120 minute with < 150 passengers) over the next decade or two. Unfortunately, such short-haul flights only account for about 27% of global carbon dioxide emissions from the aviation sector whereas medium and long haul flights account for the remaining 73%. And so, if we want to reduce emissions from the aviation sector over the next few decades, widespread adoption of SAF made from renewable organic waste will be required.

A number of companies, including Neste, Lanzajet and World Energy have either been recently established or are already heavily invested in producing SAF using renewable ethanol from waste (such as cooking oil) as an initial focus. Of course, establishing sustainable supply chains for organic waste that don’t involve food stocks (e.g. Canola) or limited supplies of cooking oil will be needed if SAF is to scale up globally. Other companies (e.g., Licella, Ensyn, Steeper Energy etc.) are also heavily invested in exploring the potential of non-food source related waste (e.g. from forestry, municipal waste, sewage, waste plastic etc.) as feed stock for renewable fuels.

And herein comes the potential opportunity for British Columbia and Canada.

First, the University of British Columbia’s Department of Wood Science is already considered an international leader in biofuel research and hosts the British Columbia Sustainable Marine, Aviation, Rail and Trucking (BC-SMART) consortium. British Columbia and Canada are well positioned to capitalize on investments in research and innovation in this sector.

Second, British Columbia has no shortage of wood or other organic waste that could potentially sustain domestic supply chains for biofuel production.

Third, wood waste, such as slash piles left behind after logging activities have concluded, are often either burnt in situ, left to decompose, or eventually act as a fuel source for wild fires. Removing this waste and converting it to biofuel has significant environmental co-benefits.

Fourth, wood waste is distributed throughout British Columbia, and in particular rural BC. Capitalizing on the opportunities afforded by the harvesting of wood (or other organic) waste would provide distributed economic opportunities for indigenous and non-indigenous communities across our province.

In 2018 I wrote extensively about the challenges and opportunities associated with greenhouse gas reductions in British Columbia. In particular, I noted that embedded in the confidence and supply agreement that I signed with the BC NDP in 2017 was the following commitments:

Climate Action

1. 1. Implement an increase of the carbon tax by $5 per tonne per year, beginning April 1, 2018 and expand the tax to fugitive emissions and to slash-pile burning;
   2. Deliver rebate cheques to ensure a majority of British Columbians are better off financially than under the current carbon tax formula;
   3.  Implement a climate action strategy to meet our targets.

While British Columbia is on track to dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the years ahead associated with our Clean BC climate plan, one of the policy commitments we didn’t deliver on was an expansion of the carbon pricing to slash pile burning. This is important since if a price is attached to slash emissions, an incentive is created to avoid this potential liability and so forestry (and other) companies would be given an economic reason to extract slash from forest operations. Such a price could be set directly (on emissions) or indirectly (via regulation) as was done for fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector.

So in summary, it strikes me that the sustainable fuel sector for long haul transportation represents an incredible opportunity for innovation that British Columbia and Canada can capitalize on. The economic, environmental and social benefits of investments in this area appear to be far-reaching.

Coming back to the Abbotsford Air Show, one of the planes that I toured was the Boeing P-8A (pictured above). The P-8A is a military plane designed for long-range reconnaissance, surveillance, and submarine detection missions. And here is why this is important.

Canada is in the final stages of a procurement process:

“To equip the Canadian Armed Forces with a long-range manned Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4) and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) aircraft with extended capabilities to replace the CP-140 Aurora.”

The Boeing P-8A represents a solution that may meet the needs of this procurement. Why this is interesting is that the P-8A is already capable of operating on 50% SAF and Boeing has committed to meet a 100% SAF capability by 2030.

Touring the P-8A felt like I was exploring a repurposed Boeing 737 for good reason! The P-8A has a Boeing 737-800 body,  737-900  wings, a 737 cockpit and a 737 engine with a substantive increase in available electrical power. Fully 86% of the commercial components within the P-8A are common with Boeing’s 737 series, the world’s most prevalent passenger jetliner.

Figure: Four images taken inside the Boeing P-8A illustrating its galley and washroom similarities with the Boeing 737 passenger jetliner.

While I do not have the expertise to assess the military capabilities of the P-8A, I learned that 156 of them with over 450,000 logged flight hours, are in military use worldwide (in the US, India, UK, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea).

Figure: Four images taken inside the Boeing P-8A showing its military workstations and the sonobuoy storage/release systems

Figure: Two images of the underside of the Boeing P-8A wing indicating wing pylons that allow for the attachment of up to 3,000 lb weapons.

What excited me most about my tour of the Boeing P-8A at the Abbotsford Airshow is that I came away with a sense of optimism and hope for the future of the aviation industry. Imagine the potential for the Canadian military to show international leadership by investing in a sustainable replacement for its CP-140 Aurora fleet that would create a local market for sustainable air fuels produced from locally-sourced slash and other organic waste. While scaling up the use of SAF in the global aviation industry remains a challenge, Canada can do its part positioning itself as a early adopter and international leader in the area.

To bring closure to my 7 1/2 years as an MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and 5 years as leader of the BC Green Party I felt it was important to add this video to my archived MLA website. Moving forward, I plan to continue my work on climate solutions on the local, provincial, national and international level.

This YouTube video was produced by Robert Alstead, the same person who created the documentary “Running on Climate”. That documentary provided an inside look into the 2013 election campaign set within a greater climate change narrative.

This YouTube video might be of  interest to some as it gives insight as to why I got into and out of politics. The book that I refer to in this video has the working title: “A Climate for Hope” and not “A Vehicle for Change”.

With the announcement yesterday that the province is heading into a general election on October 24, my term as the MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head has come to an end. This will be my last post on my MLA website.

I would like to thank you, the constituents of this fabulous riding, for extending me the great honour of serving you these last 7 1/2 years. It has been a very rewarding experience for me and I have been so very fortunate to have worked with outstanding constituency staff over this period. If you have contacted my constituency office, you too will have had first hand experience working with these exceptional individuals.

Thank you Judy Fainstein, Perry Fainstein, Devon deLarge, Allie deLarge, Rory Hills, Sarah Miller, Teresa Hartrick and Huxley Johnson.

Over the years I also had the privilege of working with first rate legislative staff. I was first elected in May 2013 and our small but mighty legislative team immediately immersed itself into building a BC Green presence in the BC Legislature. Thank you Taylor Hartrick, Evan Pivnick, Matt Wright, Sarah Miller, Claire Hume, Aldous Sperl and Judy Fainstein for your support during my first term: 2013 – 2017.

With the 2017 election delivering a minority BC NDP government and the BC Greens holding the balance of power, our legislative team grew. I remain grateful to the hard work of Liz Lilly, Macon McGinley, Judy Rendek, Stephanie Siddon and the legislative interns and volunteers who supported our office over the years.

Of course, I would never have been elected were it not for the hard work of the literally hundreds of volunteers who helped me in the 2013 and 2017 election campaigns. I ran on a promise to bring climate policy back to the forefront in BC. And with the establishment of CleanBC, I feel my work is done.

Finally, thank you to the candidates who have stepped forward to seek your vote to represent you as the MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head in the upcoming election. From the quality of the candidates stepping forward, it is clear to me that our riding will be in good hands moving forward, regardless who wins the upcoming race.

Thank you again.

Andrew

Today in the Legislature I rose during Members’ Statements to speak for two minutes about the scientific literature clearly demonstrating the efficacy of using face masks to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Following that I asked the Minister of Health if his government has any intention to implement a law or public health order making masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces, outside of people’s homes, and if not, why not? I further asked the Minister if government does so choose to take this public mandate to require masks, how do they plan to implement and enforce said rules in the province of British Columbia?

Below I reproduce the video and text of both my Members’ Statement and Question Period exchange.

To demonstrate how easy it is to make a mask that has the potential to stop >95% of aerosol born virus transmission, I shot a quick video with how-to instructions below.

Video of Statement

Video of Question Period Exchange

Text of Statement

A. Weaver: I rise today to speak about some of the evidence concerning the efficacy of face masks as a mechanism to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and from this research, considerable evidence has emerged that mandating the use of masks in all indoor and crowded spaces outside people’s homes is a low-cost, high-reward measure that policy-makers could and should be pursuing.

To begin with, even though it is difficult to prove causation, we know that almost every nation that has seen widespread usage of face masks has fared better at limiting the spread of COVID-19 than those that haven’t. In many ways, this shouldn’t be surprising. Research conducted well before the current pandemic began — published in 2009 by Ben Cowling and others in the Annals of Internal Medicine — found that the combination of masks and hand hygiene significantly helped reduced the spread of influenza within households.

More recently a March 2020 study, published in the Journal of Medical Virology, showed that homemade masks made of simple four-layer kitchen paper and one layer of cloth can stop the transmission of more than 95 percent of the virus contained within aerosols.

Research directed by Cristopher Leffler from Virginia Commonwealth University — which is, admittedly, still undergoing peer review — has found that “social norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public as well as international travel controls are independently associated with lower per capita mortality from COVID-19.”

A comprehensive modelling study led by researchers at the University of Cambridge, in the U.K., published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, in June, concluded masks help to dramatically slow the transmission of the virus.

When taken together, mounting evidence is accumulating that the universal use of face masks is one of the most effective tools we have at our disposal to prevent the spread of novel coronavirus. While we await the holy grail of COVID-19 vaccine, it appears that making masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces outside people’s homes can only aid British Columbia’s ongoing pandemic response.

To quote from the summary of the Proceedings of the Royal Society article: “My mask protects you. Your mask protects me.”

Question

A. Weaver: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. I must say I’ve been here seven years, almost eight years, and this has set a new record. We’ve just finished three questions, and there are only four minutes left in question period. I’m not so sure this is the way this place is suppose to function, and I’m a little disappointed in my colleagues for taking that up and shoving me to the last couple of minutes of question period here. It’s unfortunate. The answers were not targeted, and the questions were rambling, in my view.

Anyway, as more and more evidence about the role that masks can play in reducing the spread of COVID-19 has emerged, growing numbers of jurisdictions have adopted laws making face masks mandatory in all scenarios where it will be difficult for people to remain physically distant. Just last week France introduced measures mandating masks in all enclosed public spaces. Across the pond, the U.K. began implementing a law that makes masks mandatory in grocery stores, shopping malls, post offices, banks and other busy establishments. Here in Canada, Quebec has made masks mandatory in indoor public spaces, while Toronto has established similar rules. And masks will be mandatory in indoor spaces in Nova Scotia, starting this Friday.

A recent poll from Angus Reid has found that there is broad provincial support for rules that would make masks mandatory in public spaces, with over 70 percent of British Columbians in favour of the changes. And although not all members of the public would be able to adhere to these rules, due to underlying physical or mental health conditions, the vast majority of the public would be able to follow them with relatively few personal costs.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Given the evidence in favour of universal wearing of masks and the broad public support for such a measure, will this government implement a law or public health order that makes masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces, outside of people’s homes, and if not, why not?

Answer

Hon. A. Dix: I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his consistent and thoughtful support for public health measures during this pandemic. It is much appreciated, and I thank him for his questions. He will know that Dr. Henry has answered this specific question a number of times in the past few weeks. Let’s see how I do, hon. Speaker.

You’ll know that, in July, we understand right now quite a bit about community transmission of COVID-19. That’s why we’ve taken specific public health measures — for example, public health measures to deal with houseboats, to deal with temporary accommodations, to deal with rental accommodations and resorts, to deal indeed with bars and with nightclubs and even with strip joints, and specific steps to deal with what is a significant issue in the agricultural industry.

Dr. Henry doesn’t believe, and I don’t believe at this time, that community transmission in B.C. justifies a mandatory mask mandate — not at this time. We think that it would not be justified in light of the significant challenges in both putting it into place and the very significant exemptions, which I know the member would understand, that would be required to do so.

He also knows — I know we have a little bit of time, he and I, for these questions, so I’ll just give him a little bit more information — that masks are, well, very important in terms of the hierarchy of measures we can take. It’s less effective than physical distancing and barriers and administrative measures. That said, Dr. Henry recommends, and I recommend, wearing a non-medical mask in circumstances where physical distancing cannot be maintained. I wear a mask in stores. I wear a mask in grocery stores. I wear a mask on public transit. I think, in these times, in particular in these times, wearing a mask is a reflection of good COVID sense but also a reflection of community respect. Many businesses, in fact, which have small spaces, are mandating masks within their businesses, within their COVID-19 plan.

I want to assure the member that this is our view for the moment, that we consistently have adapted based on the evidence, and we will continue to do so. The efforts of Dr. Henry, of public health, of the government and, indeed, of all the people of B.C. will continue to be founded on evidence and on science, and I know he appreciates that fact.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do note that the member opposite said my question was one minute and 30 seconds long. I just will say that, indeed, it was, and that we should have been able to have 20 such questions in this period, but we’re not getting to it.

I’d like to thank the minister for his response. I do appreciate government’s reservations about imposing a law that would make masks compulsory, and government should be commended for the job done so far in limiting the spread of COVID-19. But lurking in the background of discussions about masks and COVID-19 are concerns around the potential for government overreach. I understand that there’s a slow pace. However, we’re sitting in a once-in-a-century pandemic. Measures will need to be taken that will temporarily restrict some of our normal freedoms in order to preserve our collective safety.

One study, for example, that I referred to earlier in statements today, shows that even with a 50 percent efficiency, instead of a 95 percent type efficiency of most masks, you still get a lower R-rate number than you would without wearing masks. Since enforcing regulations around mandatory masks is frankly impossible for any government to handle by itself, many jurisdictions have appealed to the private sector to help with these rules, like in Quebec, for example, where periodic inspections happen in place, and in instances where individuals or businesses are caught, authorities have typically been empowered to apply fines.

My question is once more to the Minister of Health. If the government does so choose to take this public mandate to require masks, how do they plan to implement and enforce said rules in the province of British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. A. Dix: As noted, and this is the strong view of public health, with Dr. Henry, and it’s my strong view, at the moment, a mandatory mandate for masks is not required, is not desirable in British Columbia for some of the reasons that we have discussed at length and I’m happy to continue to discuss, because I think it’s an issue of public interest and debate. I applaud people who take the steps, because I think it’s an act of respect to wear non-medical masks, especially in areas where physical distancing can’t be maintained. That is of vital importance, and it is part of our collective response to COVID-19.

What we’re going to continue to do in B.C. is follow the science and follow the evidence in our pandemic. Yes, what happens in Quebec and what happens in France and what happens in Alberta is important, but one of the reasons we have been successful in B.C. is a determination also to follow our own B.C. course to deal with our own B.C. pandemic. That led to our response and our single-site order in long-term care. It led to our action, different from other jurisdictions, in dealing with temporary foreign workers in agriculture. I think these sorts of steps, which demonstrate a commitment to public health and to breaking the chains of transmission have been what have made us successful.

But I want to say this. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the House, as people have consistently made positive suggestions, been supportive.

This has been our response, our collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it has been successful so far, I think, with extraordinary challenges and with some considerable losses. But we need to continue to do this together. There are weeks and months and maybe years to come. That will require generosity and positive spirit
Draft Segment 014

response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it has been successful so far, I think, with extraordinary challenges and with some considerable losses.

We need to continue to do this together. There are weeks and months and maybe years to come, and that will require generosity and positive spirit together to continue to do that. So I encourage people to make suggestions, to engage in public debate on these issues, but mostly to be respectful of one another and for all of us to take our responsibility, as the government is, as we as a Legislature are, in breaking the chains of transmission of COVID-19 in B.C.