2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 19, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 4, Number 6

[ Page 1191 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — HOUSING AND
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 14 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act regarding consequences for outstanding warrants. These amendments fulfil a commitment made in the Speech from the Throne.

The amendments will ensure that adults do not receive assistance under these two acts until they resolve outstanding warrants for arrest. Warrants must be for indictable offences, which are the most serious of crimes, including murder, assault, breaking and entering, drug trafficking and causing bodily harm.

Exemptions will be made for individuals who are highly vulnerable, such as those who are pregnant or in the final stages of life. If an adult has a family warrant, their family will remain eligible for assistance, but assistance will only be paid for their family members that do not have a warrant. Assistance will also be available to help those with transportation expenses if they choose to return to the jurisdiction that issued the warrant in order to resolve the warrant.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

BUYER AWARENESS

R. Sultan: It's always grim to discuss the possibility of natural disaster in our province. However, British Columbians must be prepared. Our province comprises one link in the Pacific Ring of Fire, an active earthquake zone. We are at the crossroads of shifting tectonic plates, with our own North American plate crawling inexorably in window-rattling shifts and starts to an encounter some eons hence with the shores of Asia.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

But seismology is only the beginning of our interesting situation. The mountains upthrust by these shifting plates are young, steep and in the process of being eroded by water, ice and gravity. Collections of debris pile up in narrow mountainside gorges, and collections of sediment emerge as fans from the steep valleys above. An unstable till left over from the ice age only 10,000 years ago dots the landscape.

When all of that sediment and debris is carried down to the oceans, it frequently forms deltas subject to subsidence and floods. We build houses, schools and highways on this constantly shifting foundation, frequently with more reliance on crossed fingers and prayer than geological insight.

My motion this morning is a call for more deliberate assessment and disclosure to prospective property owners of geoscientific data on seismic risk, geotechnical risk and flooding risk. My own North Shore has had numerous geotechnical situations leading to debris flows and landslides. Heavy rain combined with unstable ground conditions caused the Blueridge landslide four years ago, burying one house, killing one person and injuring others. This instability of this area was known by some but not by all, and never corrected.

In similar fashion, only eight days ago the Vancouver Province headlined: "Dream of Hillside Home Slips away for Chilliwack Owners. City Buyout: $18 Million Offer for 42 Houses Built on Landslide."

Chilliwack's problem is hardly unique. We appear to have an ongoing problem in B.C. of building homes and public structures on higher-risk terrain without a great deal of knowledge or foresight. I advocate more comprehensive real estate disclosure laws in this province.

We are world leaders in the geosciences. It is time to apply that professional knowledge and experience more systematically before we build. In B.C. today property disclosure statements are required for all new listings and can be legally incorporated into a contract for purchase and sale. However, they are not required by law.

In some situations, such as an estate sale, the seller may not have enough information to complete the PDS,
[ Page 1192 ]
and the buyer will need to rely on other sources of information. The property disclosure statement is also not a legally binding warranty of the property's condition. It is only a report of what the seller knows about the property.

Other jurisdictions have similar issues, and I propose that we should review their policies and consider borrowing some aspects that may better protect citizens buying properties in known hazardous zones in this province.

California law, for example, requires the seller of real property or the agent for the seller to disclose "accurate information of material fact" — telling whether historical evidence indicates an event of natural origin is likely to affect the desirability and value of the property, even if the property is listed for sale "as is."

This law notifies potential buyers of potential natural hazards by requiring a natural hazard disclosure statement that can be executed by the seller, buyer and their respective agents with respect to certain specified disclosures, including "special flood hazard areas, areas of potential flooding, dam inundation, very high hazard severity zones, wildland state responsibility areas, earthquake fault zones, seismic hazard zones, natural hazard zones."

[1010]

I think both sides of the House will agree that as a province, we need to prepare for natural hazards and emergencies. That includes preparations by the government. But citizens also should be better informed to make decisions for themselves. As legislators, we should take a constructive look at ways that will help our citizens make better-informed decisions.

L. Krog: One doesn't have to go to law school to remember the cute phrase we've heard in every sitcom that ever made its way on to national networks. That, of course, was: "Buyer beware — caveat emptor." I find it interesting this morning, coming from the right-wing side of this House, that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, a notorious supporter of the free enterprise system, is advocating more government regulation. I wished he felt as strongly, of course, around the issue of gas prices when it came to the issue of regulation, but that's another matter for another day.

The problem that he did not address in his remarks is that the housing he's talking about didn't happen overnight. It has happened over a long period of time, frankly, because municipal governments and provincial policy allowed happy developers to go ahead and develop land that a reasonable person simply wouldn't develop and shouldn't develop, and it wasn't in the public interest ever to do so.

One only has to go to a fairly basic source of many views in our society and philosophies held, and that's the Bible. A wise man builds his house upon the rock. A foolish man builds his house upon the sand. That's pretty straightforward stuff.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member from Kamloops–whatever it is mentions that it's Jesus who said it as well, and he's quite right — an even higher authority than the Bible, generally.

One has to ask the question: what interest does government have in this? It seems to me that if we're going to talk about regulation, then we'd better put a moratorium on development in this province now, across this province, so that buyers can be assured in the future at least that they won't be buying a property that will be subject to this kind of damage.

Government should be prepared to step up to the plate to address the issue for those who do own houses, because quite candidly, we know how the system works. The development company long ago got struck from the register. The directors may be dead, disappeared or living off their avails in Mexico, for all we know, but the fact is that you'll have nobody to sue.

Another way to deal with this, without the necessity of government regulation, is around the issue of insurance. You can't get a mortgage on real estate in this province unless you can get fire insurance. No lender is going to provide it. If there was a full record kept of areas and housing in these developed areas that were inappropriate in the future, one could see simply that it wouldn't happen, because no insurer is going to insure the property. Therefore, no mortgage company is going to loan any money, and therefore, no house is going to get built in a spot that might in fact be dangerous, in a situation where that house might disappear.

There's a market-based solution I threw out to the member opposite that he might want to consider. Let the marketplace take care of this. Now, isn't that an interesting suggestion, coming from the opposition? But it's one that obviously didn't occur to the member this morning in consideration of this topic.

Now, I'm not seriously suggesting we leave it strictly to the marketplace. Of course, there are many other considerations that go into what we do with land development and where we place housing. Surely, what we're really trying to do is guarantee, as we often do in this chamber, that innocent parties, parties who perhaps take a little more risk than they normally should in life, will be protected in the event of some kind of a disaster.

Arguably, we shouldn't be building anywhere in the province of British Columbia. We're in an earthquake zone here on the west coast. We all know it. Some of the members of this House, not including myself, are old enough to remember fairly serious earthquakes. Even I, in my own time, remember the great earthquake and the ensuing tsunami from Alaska.

But those questions are not going to be answered by simple requirements around major events and disclosure in documents. The real issue is: are municipal governments and the provincial government prepared to step up
[ Page 1193 ]
to the plate and say, "We will not allow you to build on sensitive lands"? Are we prepared to go to that extent? Are we prepared to say once and for all to the development community that's developed all sorts of properties…? Are we prepared to stop this?

In the community of Parksville that I used to represent they allowed housing to be built all along the estuary of the Englishman River. Now, if there was a dumb thing to do…. That has to be one of the dumbest things you could possibly do — ecologically sensitive land now covered with housing. And guess what. Every couple of years along a good chunk of that river the houses get flooded out. What a remarkable surprise. Rivers actually rise, water comes down, and people get flooded out. There's an example of a development that never should have occurred.

[1015]

I wish the member well in working with his colleagues on that side of the House, who hold the majority here, in trying to get this government to bring in regulation that will actually make the developers of this province step up to the plate and prevent them from developing lands that are, frankly, going to be subject to natural disasters, that are going to cost the buyers a great deal of money, heartache and hardship and that will ultimately, let's face it, be thrust back on the people of British Columbia through taxpayer dollars.

R. Sultan: It is frequently observed that not a great deal is accomplished by debates in this House, but I think the member for Nanaimo has illustrated that our eloquence on this side of the House has turned this government-loving, more-bureaucracy, somewhat left-leaning philosopher into an exponent of deregulation and the marketplace.

I never thought I would live to hear the day, and I commend his spirit in general terms. But in this case, he has missed the point.

We are not calling for more government regulation — at least, I'm not, and this is, of course, my personal view. It's certainly not the government's point of view. I suggest that the consumer will make sensible decisions if they have the information to base those decisions on, and that's what I am advocating.

I would like to sum up three principles for consideration, when and if laws and regulations are amended to accomplish this purpose I have outlined.

The first principle is to require competent seismic, geotechnical and potential flood surveys signed off by a licensed professional of subdivisions, rezoning and community development plans.

The second principle is to require mandatory disclosure of summary technical information on title, accessible during the due-diligence process accompanying any property transfer or sale.

The third and final principle must be the mandatory filing and preservation in publicly accessible form of seismic, geotechnical and flooding studies and information.

The maintenance and easy public access of such a registry should probably be the responsibility of higher levels of government for reasons that the member opposite has already alluded to.

This government should be commended for its efforts in natural disaster preparedness. The provincial emergency program is comprehensive in scope and covers preparation plans for all types of emergencies — whether they be earthquakes, chemical spills or wildfires. In fact, we witnessed the swift action taken this summer to protect citizens and communities from wildfires in this province at a cost approaching half a billion dollars. This government puts its money where its mouth is.

The suggestions I have outlined today are reasonable extensions of the care and responsibility which the province is already exercising in the areas of natural disasters and risk management, and quite within the competence of the skilled professionals we have trained in abundance in this province.

High-Risk Behaviour

L. Popham: Today I am speaking about high-risk behaviour. Am I talking about smoking and the undisputed risks to our health? No. Am I talking about the use of pesticides and chemical uses, and the risks they pose to our environment? No. Am I talking about drug and alcohol abuse and the cost to our society? No.

I am talking about another high-risk behaviour that needs addressing urgently. I am talking about an emergency in our midst. I recognize it as an emergency, and I'm not alone.

Does this behaviour lead to health risks? Yes. Is there an increased use of chemicals, which are risking our environment? Yes. Is there going to be enormous cost to our society? Absolutely.

What is this high-risk behaviour that we are continuing, regardless of the warnings? This high-risk behaviour is the mismanagement of our wild salmon stocks in British Columbia.

This situation reminds me of the controversial smoking campaign, a campaign in which the players in control of the situation were going to gain from an increase in use.

[1020]

Decades of mixed messages. Decades of trust given to companies which, in the end, played the public as fools. In the end, we paid the price. We paid the price with our lives, and we paid the price with our health care dollars.

In the case of salmon stock management, it seems pretty clear that there again is a fool in the room. The public is being ignored. The media is being ignored. The science is being ignored.

Let's review the headlines over the past year if you don't think that there's concern. The Vancouver Sun, July 20: "Thompson River Steelhead Runs in 2008-09 Lowest Ever Recorded." July 27, 2009: "Sockeye Salmon
[ Page 1194 ]
Numbers Crash as Bust Replaces Anticipated Bounty on B.C. Coast." July 31: "B.C. Sockeye is Going the Way of the East Coast Cod Fishery." August 15: "Poor Ocean Survival Blamed for Returns." August 25: "Where Have All the Salmon Gone?" October 14: "It's One of the Worst Years in History for Salmon, and We're Still Killing Them."

Then the Province. If you don't want to take the Sun's word for it, what about the Province? July 17: "Wild Salmon on the Brink." August 11: "Sockeye Numbers Keep on Falling." August 20: "Fish Tragedy All Set to Happen Here." August 21: "Officials Puzzled by Vanishing Chinook."

The Times Colonist on June 9 reports: "Provincial Government Taking Their Sweet Ol' Time Saving Salmon." August 14: "Where Have All the Salmon Gone?" August 15: "Low Sockeye Count Blamed on Poor Ocean Survival."

What about the Globe and Mail? August 5: "Worst Year on Record for Salmon." August 13: "Fraser River Salmon Stocks Beyond a Crisis." August 14: "Calls Grow for International Summit on Collapse of Fraser Sockeye Run."

Headlines like this seem pretty clear that there's a lack of understanding with regards to the severity of crisis, with the slow action we're taking. Maybe this is because there's a lack of understanding about how we got ourselves to this point. So today I'm going to give you a history lesson, brought to you by the Living Oceans Society.

Let's go back to the 1970s. The timeline goes like this. Salmon farming in British Columbia began in the 1970s with the small, locally owned operations, mostly on the Sunshine Coast. Many of the farms were located in inlets and bays where the tide could not flush the waste and excess feed away from the sites, causing algae blooms and other damage to marine environments.

Disease outbreaks and challenging market conditions put many of the early farms out of business. Others were forced to sell out to larger companies.

Today 95 percent of B.C.'s salmon farms are owned by three Norwegian-based multinational corporations. B.C. is the home to an industry that Norway began and had too-strict environmental controls to start in their own country. What does this say about our lack of respect for our own environment here in British Columbia?

In the mid-1980s the industry grew significantly. There are now 125 salmon farm licences on the coast, and the provincial government is keen to increase the number of farms and expand the industry further north, although they're not telling us if they're going to be allowing the licences before the transfer to the federal government. I haven't been able to get an answer on that.

Since the rapid rise in the number of fish farms, first nations, coastal communities, fishermen and environmentalists have been very concerned about the negative effects on the ocean and the local communities. The recommendations of numerous environmental assessments have gone unheeded, and escaped farm salmon, as well as the spread of disease and parasites, are harming the wild salmon stocks.

From 1986 to 2001 the production of farmed salmon increases from 400 to 68,000 tonnes, despite the moratorium that prevents expansion of the industry up until 2002. From 1985 to 1990 the B.C. salmon-farming industry expands from 10 to 180 sites. In 1991 is the first report of Atlantic salmon attempting to spawn in a Pacific stream.

In 1995 the provincial government moratorium prevents new fish farms and caps the number of tenures, but the size of the farm is allowed to increase.

From '95 to '97 an environmental review of the fish-farming industry is initiated by the provincial government to address public concern. In '97, 49 recommendations are made by the public. The provincial government and the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association support the findings, but the plans are never implemented.

[1025]

In 2000 a federal Auditor General audit identifies a conflict of interest between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the promotion of salmon farming and its mandate to protect wild fish and wild fish habitat.

In 2002 the B.C. government lifts the 1995 moratorium on new tenures. The Broughton Archipelago pink salmon runs crash. Fewer than 5 percent of the expected run returns. Both DFO and the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council agree that the low numbers are exceptional.

In 2003 Broughton Archipelago salmon farms remain open despite widespread media coverage on the issue. In 2007 the B.C. government special committee….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

G. Hogg: Thank you to the member for Saanich South for the rundown of the history of what has been taking place with respect to aquaculture and, in particular, the salmon industry. Certainly, as she reviews the headlines over a number of years, it reflects a lot of concern, which has been shared, I think, by people throughout this province and throughout this House.

The concerns have been looked at and attempted to be managed in many ways. Certainly, the issue of farmed salmon, which she makes reference to, and the impact that it has had is, at least in the meetings we've had with DFO and the Nanaimo research station…. They seem to be inconclusive with respect to the impact that farmed salmon is having.

Certainly, we know that aquaculture through farmed salmon is providing a lot of direct and indirect jobs, particularly to women and first nations. I particularly remember a public hearing I attended in which the Chief from Ahousat stood before us and in very emotional terms, having his son sitting next to him, said that the fish, the wild salmon, had left their area.
[ Page 1195 ]

"Our way of life has changed dramatically as a result. As a result," he said, "when people are growing up…." He made reference to his daughter and said that there was no place for her to go, no place for her to find jobs. So she went to Vancouver, and things didn't work out very well, as she fell into some negative impacts in Vancouver and eventually into drugs.

He was equating that to the fact that they weren't able to have positive outcomes within their community. He turned to the probably 250 people in the room and said: "This is my nine-year-old son, and I want him to have a better future, a better option. I don't want him to have to undergo what my daughter went through."

Certainly, we've looked at and suspended finfish aquaculture on the north coast in March of 2008. We recognized that the Supreme Court of B.C. determined fairly recently that finfish farms are a fishery that falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, and the member made reference to that.

So there is, clearly, a need for us to look at and to work with the federal government over the next 12 months or so to clarify the roles and responsibility. During this time we continue to manage the industry under the current regime, knowing that the science is at best debatable in terms of the outcomes that happen there.

Clearly, the member has made reference to the mixed messages that have taken place, to the public input which she claims is being ignored and that we have, tragically, the lowest numbers returning in terms of spawning salmon. I know that she made reference to the officials being puzzled, and I know that the minister has also made reference to the fact that the methodology which is being used is clearly questionable.

We don't seem to be able to rationalize the numbers as they continually change. So the methodology is being questioned and looked at. That will be a part of a review that is taking place between the province and the federal government to look at and to understand how we might best address the issues that are facing this province.

Clearly, the wild salmon has been an integral part of our province and an integral part of the culture, particularly of first nations, since recorded history. It's important that we look at and hold on to and manage as best we can the history and the building that comes out of that.

If psychiatrist Laing is right that people make the best decisions possible, given their perceptions of the world and the options that those perceptions generate, then we clearly have to look at how we increase knowledge. I think that learning through the headlines in newspapers, in my experience, hasn't been a really good way of understanding the facts that underline what is taking place.

[1030]

We need to really ensure that the scientific data and research are there so that we can make decisions which are based on the best evidence possible. We have continued to debate what constitutes the best information and how we can make the decisions that grow out of it.

I think one thing is clear. All British Columbians, I believe, and certainly on both sides of the House, want to ensure that we do have an active, vibrant wild salmon in this province, that we have the stocks continuing to grow for food fish, for first nations, for the industry that grows out of that, and for a recognition of the history and the importance that the salmon has in the growth and the history of this province.

The wild salmon in British Columbia is recognized worldwide. It's recognized as being an important part of not just an industry that provides for economic input specifically, but also provides to our tourism.

L. Popham: I'm going to respectfully disagree with my colleague across the way, because I don't think we are actually wanting the best for our salmon runs. I don't think both sides have the best interests of our wild salmon stocks at heart.

You know, I don't learn from the newspaper headlines, but I think it's pretty clear that the newspapers do pick up on things that are resonating with people. I learn from scientists. I learn from Alexandra Morton. I learn from David Suzuki.

I think it's very frustrating that we look at the wild salmon and we start to dispute if sea lice from fish farms are part of the problem. Why are we disputing it? This is high-risk behaviour. We know they're in trouble. Let's remove the pieces that we can to the risk of the wild salmon. We can't change the temperature of the water, which may be affecting the salmon runs, but we can change our fish farm methods from open-net to closed-containment.

I think that this government, if it took this situation seriously, would have already been developing a plan to change all open-net fish farms over to closed-containment. So that shows me that they don't think it is important at all. In fact, they're going to turn it over to the federal government.

We do have a budget item in the agriculture and aquaculture ministry….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'd remind you that is a separate debate. This is a private member's statement.

L. Popham: Thank you for the reminder.

I just want to say, though, that it's important we deal with this as we still have the money in the budget to do so. I would also like to comment on the reply I got, when I was asking about the concern, from the Minister of Agriculture. He….

Deputy Speaker: Member, was this in the estimates debate?

L. Popham: No. This was a private letter regarding this topic. "Based on available information, there is no
[ Page 1196 ]
evidence that sea lice originating from salmon farms are responsible for this year's poor returns of the Fraser River sockeye."

Energy Production

T. Lake: I rise in the House today to speak about the challenge of meeting our energy needs into the future. I could have entitled this private member's statement "The power of partnerships," because that's certainly a big theme when we talk about the challenge of meeting our energy requirements. But with every challenge comes opportunity, and I'd like to take a little time today to talk about the opportunities, particularly in Kamloops and the Thompson valleys.

We know that British Columbians pay less for electricity than most areas in North America, and yet on a per-capita basis, we use more energy. At the current forecast of future demand growth, B.C. will increase its energy demands by approximately 1.7 percent per year over the next ten years.

Right now, despite our heritage assets, we are a net importer of power to meet our demand. This government has been making critical investments to help close that gap, and we are committed to making B.C. energy self-sufficient by 2016.

B.C. Hydro plans to address half of this energy challenge through conservation and the other half by increasing capacity. B.C. Hydro is a critical public asset which, contrary to claims by some, is not for sale by this government. In fact, it is continuing to invest in capital projects totalling $3.4 billion over the next two years, including projects like the Aberfeldie Generating Station replacement, which will increase capacity from five megawatts to 24 megawatts, and the Revelstoke generation station expansion, which increases capacity 25 percent to 2,500 megawatts.

[1035]

I should note that B.C. Hydro was named one of Canada's top 100 corporations for whom to work. So I want to congratulate them for that.

The B.C. energy plan puts British Columbia at the forefront of environmental and economic leadership. This plan looks to all forms of clean alternative energy in meeting British Columbians' needs in the provincial economy through bioenergy, geothermal energy, tidal, run of river, solar and wind power — all potential energy sources in a clean, renewable future.

New technologies and new solutions will be encouraged to green the grid and provide clean remote energy and reduce energy losses. The plan's policy actions will mean more jobs, new investment and ultimately greater prosperity for British Columbia while meeting our greater climate change goals.

B.C. has established the innovative clean energy fund of $25 million to support the development of clean energy and energy-efficient technologies in electricity, alternative energy, transportation, and oil and gas sectors. This fund supports projects that will address specific British Columbia energy and environmental problems that have been identified by government, showcase B.C. technologies that have a strong potential for international market demand, and feature precommercial energy technology that is new or commercial technology not currently used in B.C.

Just a few weeks ago a new run-of-river project was featured on Global Television, a project that will supply all of the electricity needs for Whistler and Blackcomb as it strives to become B.C.'s first carbon-neutral municipality. Earlier this year the CBC featured a run-of-river IPP near Atlin run by local first nations that has replaced the polluting diesel generator that many isolated communities have relied upon for so long.

These IPPs not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution; they create jobs. Despite a party platform calling for a moratorium on IPPs, some members of the opposition, including the member for Skeena and the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, have voiced support for these types of projects in their ridings. I congratulate them for having the courage to acknowledge the benefits of IPPs. Other NDP supporters of IPPs include former Cariboo South MLA Charlie Wyse.

In Kamloops many employees, including 400 members of the United Steelworkers and their families, depend on the Domtar pulp mill for high-paying jobs — jobs that were once jeopardized by a combination of low pulp prices and the high Canadian dollar.

The answer lay in the diversification of the Domtar mill into power production. After a successful bid to create electricity for B.C. Hydro, the plant is embarking on its own green energy plan that has already resulted in the closure of three beehive burners in the region and a reduction in emissions from the plant itself.

This IPP preserves not only those 400 on-site jobs but also many other jobs at sawmills like the Barriere cedar mill that is able to sell residuals to power the Domtar generator. Domtar's plan has also created many new jobs for the region. River City chipping supplies Domtar with wood chips to feed its cogeneration plant, helping to utilize surplus logs.

Also, new businesses like Trace Resources of Merritt recover the wood waste from the forest floor to sell to Domtar. Waste that would otherwise rot on the forest floor can now be used productively and create jobs.

Clean green energy meeting our growing demand for electricity with next to no carbon production and providing vital economic activity to keep rural British Columbia strong. Who could argue against such policies? Certainly not rural communities and first nations that see this energy production as key to their economic sustainability.

Environmentalists like Tzeporah Berman also support this government's green energy plan, saying that a moratorium
[ Page 1197 ]
on IPPs would have meant a flood of investment and green energy companies leaving the province at a critical moment when we need them to help build the clean economy of the future.

British Columbia is a leader in building the clean economy of the future, and I want to encourage all of my colleagues in the House to consider the benefits of clean green and a diversified energy industry that benefits business, communities and first nations.

Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind all members of the Speaker's statement on October 8, in which he discussed the private members' statements and in which he said that it's is an opportunity for private members to discuss issues that concern their own ideas and that it shouldn't be a vehicle for political party rhetoric.

[1040]

I would urge all members from all sides, when thinking about their private members' statements, to bear this in mind. Thank you.

M. Sather: The problem for the opposition in trying to discuss the energy plan with this government is that it's so patently laden with politics that to comment on it is to comment upon what the other side's whole strategy is. For example, they're always couching things, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson did, as green energy. Everything is green energy with this government — so they say.

It's too bad, however, that the reality doesn't match the rhetoric. In fact, if you look alone at their IPPs — their independent power projects, the run-of-the-river projects — they have absolutely no public input. There is no way that one can determine whether or not these are green projects because there's no process by which we could do that.

So although some of them might be green, certainly a whole number of others are not. I look at what happened in my back yard with the Upper Pitt, an IPP that was going to — and still may, depending on the whim of the minister — destroy a fine, fine salmon system. How can you call that green? This is happening across the province.

Yet the government persists in calling this green energy.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Well, yes, it's hypocrisy, as the member said.

We also hear this: "Well, you know, we're a net importer of power. Therefore, we've got to get exporting more power." In fact, they know that most years we are not a net importer of power. When we are, the way they like to contrive it is that, of course, we buy power.

B.C. Hydro buys power, when it's cheap, from Alberta and sells it at a high price. That hardly can be considered as that we're destitute for power. That's a matter of making money, because we have the ability to store our power, unlike run of the river, which is an ephemeral, mainly spring runoff situation.

So we need dedicated, dependable power. That was recognized in the recent ruling by the B.C. Utilities Commission, where they turned down Hydro's long-term acquisition plan. One of the things that the BCUC talked about in their decision was Burrard Thermal.

This government says: "Oh, Burrard Thermal is terrible. It's awful." Well, Burrard Thermal is obviously a greenhouse gas–producing facility, but then so are the bioenergy or waste-to-energy projects that this government insists are green. We need stable power. They burn natural gas.

You've got natural gas on the one side; you've got wood waste on the other side. We've got a whole lot of beetle-kill wood out there that is presumably to be used for incineration — waste energy, as it's called — and the rationale this government makes is that it's green because the trees grow back.

But you have to look at it a little deeper than that. The fact of the matter is that it could take a hundred years for these forests to grow back sufficiently to replace the amount of carbon that is incinerated through the process. The member mentioned the David Suzuki Foundation as a supporter. Well, the Suzuki Foundation came out very, very much against the bioenergy strategy that this government has put forward, along with other organizations like the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

So we have to be careful when we're looking at the rhetoric. Madam Speaker has alluded to that. Certainly, if the bioenergy strategy, if the waste-to-energy, can be made to be green or — at least, on balance — valuable and useful, then we could support it.

[1045]

But again, we're not seeing the business plan. We're not seeing the explanation. We're not seeing the details. We're just seeing the flag-waving and saying: "Trust us, because — don't you know? — the Premier says we're green, so we must be."

T. Lake: My apologies if the Speaker felt that I was being overly partisan. My goal was really a call to action to put aside partisanship because I strongly believe that we need to work together for the future of our children and our grandchildren to make this a better place. I think that too often we allow our party lines to divide us rather than allow us to come together to do what's right for our province and our nation.

I want to just comment on some of the comments from the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who talked about the public process. As someone coming from local government, I could not agree more that public process is extremely important. You have to listen to the people who are affected in order to make sound decisions on using the land.

You know, I have seen some of the processes that go on around the independent power processes. I'm proud
[ Page 1198 ]
that this government has a very, very strong environmental assessment process and the ability to look at all the impacts of these projects and, really, identify in the first place locations where these projects may make sense, and where they don't.

In Kamloops at the moment we are going through a very significant public process around a particular independent power project to use creosote-treated railway ties to create power. The debate is very healthy, and I encourage that debate. I think it's something we all have to pay attention to. So I agree with him on that issue.

In terms of looking at beetle wood, for instance, which is a significant source of potential economic diversification for the communities in the North Thompson, particularly first nations communities, I have to point out to the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows that beetle-affected trees are going to die, and they're going to rot in the forest. When they rot, they produce methane, which has the power to create a CO2 effect 20 times that of carbon dioxide itself.

It really makes sense to use this wood that is going to create a tremendous CO2 effect to create clean, green energy over the next ten to 15 years and provide an economic opportunity for first nations.

I will close by saying that I hope we can all come together and listen. If you don't want to listen to me, we can listen to people, as the member for Saanich South said, like David Suzuki, who she thinks is someone that is worthwhile. Having followed Mr. Suzuki over the years, I certainly agree with much of what he says. He said just a week ago that this Premier in British Columbia, in addition to his counterparts in Ontario and Quebec, is light-years ahead of the federal government on climate change.

I'm proud to be a member of this entire House. People around the world can point to British Columbia as a leader in climate change action.

Status

D. Black: I'm pleased to rise today to speak about issues critical to our province, particularly women in our province and in my community of New Westminster. On October 6 the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF, released a report card evaluating how well B.C. is complying with the UN's convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. B.C., overall, got a D grade.

Every four years signatories to CEDAW must report to an international body of independent experts. The CEDAW committee singled out two areas of particular concern which show how the B.C. government is letting women down in our province: firstly, the failure to investigate and address the cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women and, secondly, the lack of an impact assessment of social program cuts related to women's rights.

West Coast LEAF has done a good job following up the CEDAW analysis. Their report card gave B.C. a failing grade in several areas, two in particular. For missing and murdered aboriginal women, they gave an F to B.C., and for women's access to the justice system, they gave a D.

[1050]

We had a chance to briefly address these issues last week in question period. But women across this province know how crucial these issues are, and they know that they deserve more attention from their legislators.

A disproportionate number of cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls are from B.C. It's shameful that while so many women experience violence in our province and even after seeing how many women have gone missing in the Downtown Eastside and on the "Highway of Tears," the government continues to cut programs and social services that help women get out of these violent situations.

I also want to talk about women's access to justice. LEAF gave this province an F in that area. Broad cuts made to legal services in 2002 are still having a devastating impact on women's access to legal aid. Private family law services are out of range for many women. LEAF points out that while the average cost of a two-day civil trial in B.C. is $38,130 in 2008, a female lone parent earns an average of only $37,700 a year.

Civil legal aid, especially family law, has been hard hit by this government. Earlier this year we saw the Vancouver Family Law Clinic forced to close its doors. Losing access to these resources increases the likelihood that a woman will feel forced to stay in a violent relationship because she's afraid of losing custody of her children when she can't get legal assistance.

There were other areas noted by LEAF where B.C. needs urgent improvement, and I can tell you that there are women across this province who have firsthand knowledge of where these improvements are needed.

On child care we were given a D. Between 2001 and 2008 parent fees have increased $852 a year, on average, for preschool-age children. Wages for caregivers, also mostly women, have stagnated, and wait-lists have grown and grown and grown. I hear a lot from parents who are worrying if their child will get a child care spot or are wondering how they can afford to make ends meet if they'll have to work less because they can't find child care. This puts incredible stress on families.

West Coast LEAF also found that cuts to home care and long-term care disproportionately affect older women and women with disabilities. This report is a call to action for this government to step up and make sure that women's rights and access to services are enhanced and protected.

The government must commit itself to ensure that B.C. contributes fully to meeting Canada's obligations under CEDAW, and they must ensure that women in British Columbia have the opportunity to feel safe and secure in their own communities.
[ Page 1199 ]

Deputy Speaker: I would again like to reinforce the Speaker's ruling from October 8, just before we rose. I know that a number of members may not have been aware of this, but I would like to reinforce that these private members' statements are, wherever possible, supposed to be private members' visions and views and be as non-partisan as possible. Thank you.

D. Barnett: Women in British Columbia today are very fortunate. We have those that have domestic violence issues, we have those who are single moms, and we have those who do not have the same fortune as some others do. But I can say, in my experience over the past few years, that I have watched governments come and governments go, and the story never changes. There are never enough dollars, no matter what side of the House stands on this issue.

This is a social issue. This is one that starts from birth and continues on through life. It is an unfortunate story, but it is one that is a social issue. Dollars and dollars will help guide it but will not stop it.

This government, since 2002, has done a lot for the women in the province of British Columbia. One of the important things is creating employment, creating jobs — giving people a hand up, not a handout. If you looked at the employment records since 2002, I think you'd be amazed at what has happened in this province. Child care options have been increased.

[1055]

You talk about the "Highway of Tears." It is a sad, sad highway. I live near that highway. I have seen what has happened on that highway, but I have also seen the increased support and the increased time and energy that have been spent to help these people and what the RCMP are doing to try and find out where these people have ended up.

Interjections.

D. Barnett: It is the truth.

Time, money and energy and communities coming together have made a big difference in this province under the leadership of those who understand the issue.

Domestic violence. We talk about domestic violence. If you look at a news release done on September 29, 2009, you will see that Solicitor General Kash Heed…

Deputy Speaker: Member, please. No names.

D. Barnett: I should apologize, Madam Chair, for that.

…announced the program to consolidate domestic violence programs under the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to better serve victims across British Columbia, and $16.47 million was transferred over to support these programs. However, a funding pressure was identified. Government is now providing $440,000 to fully mitigate the pressure this fiscal year.

Domestic violence units have proven to be one of our most effective tools in fighting domestic violence. Having a victim services worker embedded in the unit — we all know what we're talking about — ensures that victims get the support they need immediately.

I am proud of what this government has done to help protect, to educate women in the province of British Columbia, to help them move on with their lives. Like I've said before, it is a social issue. It belongs to each and every one of us. It takes more than dollars and cents to fix something that has been here for many, many years. To say that this government has done nothing is wrong. This government has done more than any government in the years that I have been in politics in the province of British Columbia.

D. Black: I appreciate the comments that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has made in response to my statement. However, I would point out that this report by LEAF is an independent report. It's not a partisan report in any way, shape or form.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It takes the report made by an independent committee of the United Nations on the status of women in Canada and in British Columbia. In this report the grades they give on how we're doing in British Columbia: on women and social assistance, they grade us as a D; on murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls, they give us an F; on violence against women and girls, they give us a C, which is the best grade we get; women in prisons, a C; on the issue of access to child care, they give British Columbia a D; on the issue of women and housing, they give British Columbia a D; on women and access to justice, they give us an F in British Columbia.

I agree that it takes all components of society to address the issues of violence against women and women's equality in British Columbia, but clearly this government is not doing enough to address these issues. Under this government, B.C. has had the highest poverty rate in Canada — 21 percent. That's outrageous. It includes a disproportionately high number of women, especially aboriginal women and children.

We've also had the highest child poverty rate now in Canada for six years, and that's shameful. We know that most often children are living in poverty not by themselves. They're living in poverty because they're being raised by a family that lives in poverty.

This government has failed to take action on most of the issues that CEDAW called their attention to last year. In fact, they've made steps going in the opposite direction. While they've decided to restore some of the funding for domestic violence and transition houses
[ Page 1200 ]
that they cut, they may reverse that. Organizations that support women and children fleeing violence are still left wondering if the government will deem their work important enough to fund for the following year.

[1100]

These groups should not be left constantly struggling to maintain core funding when so many women and children in this province rely heavily on the services they provide.

It's time for the government to make women's equality and the safety of women and children in this province a priority and to take immediate action to restore women's access to strong legal aid programs and to make sure that women have the programs and the resources they need in order to leave a violent situation.

It doesn't make sense that the province that we and the government — all of us — tout as the best place in the world to live should fall so far behind other jurisdictions in this area.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind members that I did make a statement last week reminding members about private members' statements. If members would take the time to go back and read what I had advised the members to look at, it would be greatly appreciated.

Hon. B. Penner: I call Motion 5 listed in the name of the member for Nechako Lakes.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 5 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 5 — NEW MARKETS
FOR B.C. WOOD PRODUCTS

J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today to move:

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes the importance of continuing to build and develop new markets for BC wood and forestry products in China, India and Korea.]

Our forest industry is very much dependent upon the world markets. It's very much dependent upon demand from other locations.

Historically, what the B.C. forest industry has done is put a significant portion of their effort into marketing our products into the United States. But the world is changing. As we can see from the economic development in China, India, Korea and other areas around the world, we need to change the way we think. We need to be looking at these markets and the opportunities for moving wood into the markets.

We've done a lot along those lines. We've been working significantly in China trying to capture the opportunities in those markets. I'd like to say that today, with the projections we have for this fiscal year, we are going to be shipping close to 20 percent of our forest products production into China — 20 percent. That's a huge, huge number.

Hon. Speaker, you might wonder: why is that important? Why is it something that we need to do? I want to give you the example from my riding. We have a mill in my riding that Conifex reopened just over a year ago. It is focused almost exclusively on shipping wood into China.

In a time when mills are shutting down, they're expanding production. They just recently announced a $32 million expansion. They're going to put another 160 people back to work because they're able to access the Chinese market and ship product into China at a time when there isn't demand domestically or in the North American market for the product.

This is hugely important for the families and for the people in the community of Fort St. James. I have other mills in my riding that ship a significant amount of their product over into Asia, including Japan. Those mills are still running today because of the diversification, because of that opportunity to access those markets and ship product into those areas.

We need to be doing more around that as well. Part of what we're trying to do here…. The other week when we were in this House, we had a debate around the wood-first policy. Wood-first policy is about trying to build buildings locally utilizing wood products, but the intent of that is to be a showcase. The intent of that is to show other jurisdictions around the world, such as the markets in China and India and Korea, what can be done with wood.

We've had success with that, in working with China. Just recently they have started to use our wood products and to look at accepting our wood design for roofing trusses. That's a major breakthrough.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

When you look at the size of the market and the opportunity there for them to recognize our building standards and start utilizing that type of wood product, it creates a whole new opportunity for our products that we've never had before.

[1105]

Expanding our markets for wood products, though, isn't just about our traditional products. It's also about opportunities for new products, such as pellets. In our pellet market in this province we've seen it expand dramatically in terms of our production over the last number of years.

Korea has been looking at trying to replace its coal production for electrical energy. They've looked at trying to replace that with pellets. If they were to do that, that would be a market demand of 20 million tonnes of pellets
[ Page 1201 ]
a year. Even if they were to just do 10 percent — two million tonnes of pellets a year — that would be more than all of the production that we have in this province combined, of which the majority is currently going to Europe.

It was just a number of months ago, before the last election, that one of the pellet companies that has production in my area, Pinnacle Pellet, shipped its first load of pellets through to Japan. It's expanding those opportunities, expanding those markets for our products.

Once again, Madam Speaker, you may think this is a small step. But taking those residuals, taking those waste products that are currently not being utilized and being able to find a market for them, being able to expand the market and opportunities for them, means jobs. That means new revenue streams in our forest industry. That means the opportunity for our forest companies to expand their profitability, their opportunity to be able to create a profit. Overall, that once again helps to support communities.

Along with the wood-first policy, along with what we're trying to do with pellets and expansion into markets like China for our traditional products, we're also trying to make our industry more competitive. We've introduced the harmonized sales tax, which will bring $140 million in savings for the forest industry. Those savings mean that our cost structure becomes lower, and it helps to promote our competitiveness.

That is critically important when we're looking to expand into a market like China. China, of course, like any trading partner, is looking at bringing wood in from any area, wherever they can get the wood types of products. If we are a lower-cost producer, it gives us a competitive edge and helps to expand and diversify that market, which is why those sorts of moves are critically important.

When you think about the future, when you think about where things are going to go tomorrow for our forest industry…. I'm one of those people who believe there is a bright future for the industry. I believe there's a tremendous opportunity, but that will come only if we continue to expand our marketing opportunities, if we continue to try to delink from our traditional markets so that as the world changes, we will change and adapt with it. Our forest industry will benefit from it. It will help to create those jobs and those opportunities that are needed to support our communities.

There is much more that can be said around the stats and information around this. I'll leave that for other speakers, but I'm very pleased to be moving this motion forward today, because forestry is the heart and soul of my riding. It's been the backbone of industry throughout this province for many, many years, and I believe it will be in the future, as long as we make sure we take the right steps and access those types of markets.

N. Macdonald: I'll take about six minutes here to comment on some of the things that the member has talked about — including positions that have switched since the election, such as the harmonized sales tax.

Let's be clear. This is a government that ran against the harmonized sales tax and now has spent all sorts of time lauding how important this is. So that's an interesting switch and one that is again being put on display here.

I think most people would be surprised that we have a quasi minister of silviculture. I think most people would presume that one minister of forestry would be enough.

But it's not only forestry that has multiple members with staffs and all that comes with it. We also have two for energy, two for health, two for environment and three for sport. So when this government talks about belt-tightening, it's certainly not talking about anything that they would do themselves. In fact, it's a cabinet and a group that is quite happy to see a couple of notches let out on the belt.

[1110]

Members here, especially those that were here in the previous session, will remember…. The previous government will remember the five great goals. Those, essentially, were all of the things that the government didn't really care about. If you looked at those goals, they were all the things that this government didn't care about, but they put out a piece that was essentially a communications piece.

I would say that with forestry we now have the four great forestry goals, and it's very much the same. We have things that the government has shown very little interest in, yet they're put across as something that now they're going to take some initiatives on.

I'll give you an example. These are the five great goals that our one Minister of Forests put out. It was around silviculture. I think anybody who knows what's going on in the forest with forest health and silviculture knows what a complete disaster that has been over the years and continues to be. Now we have a wood-first policy that is essentially fluff. It's not even B.C. wood. When you look at many of the things that the government spends money on, it's not even B.C. wood. So that's essentially fluff.

We have, as the third goal, improved utilization. We'll talk about that in just a few minutes. This is the last one: the idea of expanding markets. Well, if that isn't something that the government is doing all of the time, it just seems ridiculous to me that you'd make a huge deal about it.

I think most here know that the B.C. Liberal forest policy is written in the boardrooms of the major B.C. Liberal donors, and it has been a comprehensive failure over the past eight years. It has led to 25,000 family-supporting jobs lost. It has meant 40 or 50 mills shut permanently. Workers and communities have been abandoned, and safety and environmental standards have been compromised.
[ Page 1202 ]

That is the record. Essentially, what you have with these four great forestry goals, including the one that the quasi minister of silviculture is touting here today, is a communications piece put together by the 243-odd members of the public affairs bureau to distract from what's really going on in forestry.

You have, I presume, following this, a trip to China by the minister. I think we need to be realistic about the China trade. It is essentially low-grade wood. There needs to be a market for that, so it's positive if you can find it, but let's be realistic in what we're talking about. We're talking about low-grade wood and, in many cases, raw logs.

I think most people, when they think of a forest industry, think that British Columbia should be doing what we have been able to do in the past, which is to look at developing new and innovative products that we sell in the world market. A raw log is not a new, innovative product. Let's be clear, too, that if we're selling low-grade wood, this is going to be finger-jointed, and then we will be competing with that product with many of the products that we attempt to sell.

Serious forest policy requires detail, and it requires thought. I'm just going to spend the couple of minutes that I have left talking about just one more in a long list of failures, and it's the second of the four great forestry goals that this government has. It's around utilization. So the minister talks about getting maximum value out of our forests. Let's just talk about how that's going.

What you have since 2003 with the take-it-or-pay policy that this government introduced is that you have an unprecedented amount of wood that could be used but is being deliberately left in the forest. That is a result of government policy. If you took, in the past five years, the trees that are either good pulp logs or good sawmill logs that have been left, you could put them on logging trucks and line those logging trucks up end to end, and it would stretch from Victoria to Halifax and back. That is the amount of waste that industry has identified.

So when this government talks about the goal of increasing utilization, first off, they created the problem. Second off, they have no idea how to solve it. During estimates we talked about the two obvious solutions. One is regulation. You make it so that the companies have to bring that wood out, like the Social Credit and the NDP and other logical governments would, if they were interested in the public interest. This minister says that he's not going to do it.

[1115]

Secondly, use a marketplace response. Put carbon tax on the wood that is left behind. There's a marketplace solution, and this government refuses to do that. What they will do is use their 243 public affairs bureau people to create the illusion that they're doing something. They'll travel to China, and that's all great. They'll have two Ministers of Forests. That's all great. But in terms of getting something done, what we've seen from this government is one failure after another after another.

Like the Auditor General said, this is a government that will compromise the public interest every single time to help their donors. That's B.C. public forestry policy in a nutshell.

N. Letnick: The motion is: "Be it resolved that this House recognizes the importance of continuing to build and develop new markets for B.C. wood and forestry products in China, India and Korea."

When I read this motion, I thought to myself: "How in the world could anyone in B.C. oppose such an obvious benefit to British Columbians?" There are many aspects of wood products, but for the time I have, I would like to talk about and shed some light on the much-underappreciated pellet.

I see we have some young students in the gallery, hon. Speaker. Maybe they can write a paper on the wood pellet when they go back to school.

Wood pellet production is one of the fastest-growing value-added export opportunities in B.C., and it has been great potential to maximize the economic value of our forests. Where once sawdust was seen as a liability, it can now be an important part of a mill's strategic business plan.

Invented in the late 1970s in the United States, interest in pellets has been confined to a limited number of markets in Europe — Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Germany and Italy being the major areas of interest. Sales of pellets and heating equipment in these markets have been growing on an average of about 30 percent to 50 percent per year during the last decade.

In addition, the use of pellets for coal combustion in coal-fired plants has grown dramatically. The production of pellets is an easy, low-cost option for upgrading biomass to a dense, homogenous and transportable fuel and offers considerable advantage over other biomass resources.

The overall net energy yield of pellet biomass can be up to ten times that of producing ethanol. While current global annual pellet production amounts to nine million tonnes, by 2020 E.U. pellet demand alone is expected to grow to 150 million tonnes based on recent industry projections.

Europe and Japan account for over 90 percent of all B.C. wood pellet exports, and we've seen what our dependence on the U.S. market has done to our forest industry. It is of the utmost importance that we diversify our customer base for pellets and thereby provide greater market stability for this important product and B.C. jobs.

In addition, wood pellets are a clean energy product and no longer a simple wood by-product. Composed of waste wood materials, including sawmill residue and even municipal landfill waste, wood pellets generate heat without contributing particulate to the atmosphere.

Due to the high-temperature combustion process used to form the waste materials into the pellet, no additives
[ Page 1203 ]
or glues are necessary to bind them into the pellet shape. Turning readily available waste products into clean and efficient energy is a terrific environmental benefit. Arsenic, carbon monoxide and sulphur are just a few of the air and water pollutants resulting from the use of all non-renewable fossil fuels as sources of heat and energy.

However, since safe and renewable wood pellets can burn more efficiently than other fuels, emissions from pellet burners meet even the most stringent environmental standards. Innovative pellet manufacturers across Canada, mostly located right here in British Columbia, are respected by customers throughout Europe, and demand is so strong that most Canadian producers sell their entire annual production before the start of the new year.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, pellets are firing massive generators to provide power to millions of people. What's more, according to a 1998 study of the Canadian biomass industry, 70 percent of the money spent on biomass stays in the local community, unlike oil for which only 10 percent remains in the local economy.

[1120]

In short, wood pellet fuel is a fraction of the cost of some fossil fuels. It's a renewable resource right here in our own back yard. Wood pellet heating systems do not contribute to ozone levels and are considered to be in compliance with the Kyoto accord stance on air emissions. Wood pellets are a refined biomass, which transports around the globe. Wood pellets burn at a very high temperature, eliminating the waste products so often associated with wood heat. In fact, a 40-pound bag of wood pellets produces only three ounces of ash. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has endorsed wood pellet heat as one of the cleanest-burning, most renewable energy sources on earth.

In conclusion, B.C. is currently the province with the largest potential for the production of wood pellets. The availability of extremely large volumes of trees destroyed by the mountain pine beetle represents a huge resource that could be utilized for wood pellet production.

Domestic utilization of pellets is still very low in our country, and producers are strongly dependent on exports, mainly from the United States and Europe. Rising shipping rates to Europe has made it more difficult for B.C. producers to compete with closer European rivals. Exports to the United States are also made more difficult as the value of the U.S. dollar decreases. We must seize the opportunity to take advantage of our Pacific Rim status and expand into markets like China, Japan and Korea.

Madam Speaker, you've heard from the member for Nechako Lakes on the opportunities in Korea. In China, at the end of 2006, the total biomass power generation capacity was approximately 2,200 megawatts. The planned capacity in China of biomass plants by 2020 is 30,000 megawatts, providing us with an excellent opportunity to diversify our wood product market base, reducing the amount of sawdust incinerated and polluting beehive burners, expanding on our already nine pellet plants and one million tonnes of wood pellets a year and increasing long-term stability — stable jobs for British Columbians.

To be successful in the global marketplace today, B.C. must constantly embrace innovation, invest wisely and adapt to changing markets. An investment today in expanding our market will reach many, many huge dividends tomorrow for our economy and the people we serve.

Therefore, I stand in favour of this motion, and I ask both sides of this House to join me when the time comes.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Cowichan Valley seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: This morning we have with us a group of grade 6s from George Bonner Middle School from school district 79 in the Cowichan Valley. Their teacher Alexis Aitkin and other teachers are here. Please join with me in welcoming them to this Legislature. Welcome.

Debate Continued

G. Gentner: I, too, would like to address the motion regarding markets for B.C. wood and forest products in China and Asia. We whisked on through the woulda, coulda bill — Bill 9, I believe — whereby it was quite the charade, a page and a half of how this government is going to change productivity.

You know, it's a noble idea if you believe that the globalized economy is a panacea for all that ails the B.C. economy. But it's not the catch-all cure. The motion is ambiguous because it doesn't define wood or forestry products. Forest products, for this B.C. Liberal government, really mean raw logs.

The government has not done its homework, and let me explain to you an example. Forestry products in China. You know, the member for Nechako Lakes talked about this new concept, how we're going to get back into Asia. But it's not going to work.

We have a collapsed lumber economy, mainly because our number one customer is no longer buying it — and that's the United States. We have a buy-American policy that's gaining steam there, and we have a B.C. Liberal policy that has failed the lumber industry. So the solution is: "Let's now sell raw logs to China." Sounds like a wonderful solution, but guess what. Russia pretty much has the whole softwood export sales to China sewn up.

In 2008 China imported 3.6 million cubic metres of
[ Page 1204 ]
softwood lumber. They imported nearly 50 percent, or 1.8 million cubic metres, from Russia. That's processed wood. That's lumber. Russia still remains China's most important softwood log supplier, representing nearly 85 percent of China's total softwood log imports in 2008 and also through today in 2009.

[1125]

In 2009, while the global economy sunk, imports of softwood logs in China were 51 percent higher in the second quarter as they were previously. At the same time, sawmilling of plywood imports increased by 27 percent. The biggest increases in imports originated not from B.C. or Canada but from Russia and, strangely enough, from New Zealand. Why New Zealand? Because New Zealand has something accessible, radiata pine — pine for furniture product, pine for wooden floor production. No beetle bug down there, hon. Speaker.

With a ban on timber harvesting in north China that took place in the late 1990s — I mean, Chinese forests were being devastated — Russia emerged as a dominant log supplier to China, filling most of China's growth in timber processing. But the cost of Russian logs is going up, and that is why the Liberal government thinks that we can make a dent in log sales in China.

Russia has decided that it wants to get into the value-added business, rather than just giving away their resources through raw logs to China. Despite the meltdown that occurred in Russia in late 2008 following the global financial collapse, Russia slapped on a 25 percent log export tax in 2009 on softwood logs. Can you imagine a capless, free enterprise country like Russia trying to create jobs by slapping a 25 percent log export tax?

The Russians did their homework. They know they can put a tariff on raw logs, because they know that location and proximity to the Asian market is on their side. The August 2009 issue of the China Bulletin, a monthly report published by International Wood Markets Group Inc., said that regardless of the anti–raw log position, "Russian log exports have had a surprising rebound in the first half of 2009 to remain close to their 2008 levels." It's remarkable.

The B.C. Liberals believe that the Russians are going to put further taxes on their logs, but it's not going to stop. The Chinese are not stupid. They've now invested, and they're involved in integration with Russian mills. The Russians are producing processed wood, and that market is increasing. Virtually all Russian timber is exported to China, and it goes to markets on the railroads, where the mills are already there. They're not on the seaboard; they're on the borders of Russia and China.

Raw logs are processed in China. The mills are there, but they're not there to process logs from British Columbia.

Chinese actors have increasingly invested in wood processing in Russia, and they are on the move to continue to do so. While B.C.'s plywood industry has virtually collapsed, isn't it interesting that China imports of plywood from Russia are on the increase? Yet they have a tax on their logs. Why can't we do the same here, relative to our markets in the United States? Raw logs are supposedly going to go to China, be produced in China and sent back to North America.

It's ridiculous. It's a farce. It's a policy that is not going to work. And get this, Madam Speaker: 42 percent of all secondary wood products coming out of China are the very material we can officially make in B.C. — framing, plywood and flooring — yet we've lost 25,000 jobs. With this type of policy across, we are going to see more jobs gone.

Now, perhaps we can't compete with the hardwood furniture–making in China, but raw logs sent to China to be processed can be sent back as 2-by-4s and plywood.

What's wrong with this story? The B.C.'s Liberal policy is: "Log it all and process none."

R. Cantelon: I rise to enthusiastically support the member for Nechako Lakes. Certainly, we're all aware, and even the members opposite have pointed it out, that the markets in China are rapidly expanding. The culture that used to throw up barriers to using wood in construction in China is changing, partly, unfortunately, due to some of the dramatic earthquake situations that China has endured. They have caused realization that our good wood and that solid, fine construction are much more resistant to earthquake calamities.

They've also become aware that in replacing roof trusses, which is a major niche market that is now rapidly expanding, there is a market for B.C. wood and for good wood-making trusses. As the member opposite pointed out, yes, the Russians have taken advantage of this, and we intend to do the same too.

[1130]

The member for Nechako Lakes has certainly indicated that entrepreneurship is alive and well in his area, and I hope to report shortly that it is in mine too. A $32 million mill expansion in that area is a tremendous opportunity to expand local employment.

I would agree with the member opposite that we can no longer rely on what traditionally was our number one source of export of logs: the United States. The good news coming out of the economic crisis points out and underlines very emphatically that we can no longer completely rely on the home construction business in the United States for the export of our dimensional lumber.

So we turn to China, and that's supported, too, by our wood-first policy, which is having an effect, which is causing us to look towards how we value or own wood and celebrate it in our own buildings.

The most recent example of that is happening up north Island in the Deep Bay shellfish research station. It is — I'm going to tell you — a magnificent building, featuring
[ Page 1205 ]
all types of wood from British Columbia, I would hasten to add. It certainly will be B.C. wood first. Anyone who thinks otherwise is certainly mistaken in their minds, may I say. It's going to be a station that celebrates wood and combines it with a celebration of research in the shellfish orientation — and also beautiful seafood cuisine. So it's going to be an international icon of wood products and of B.C. products, generally.

Coming back to wood exports, we've recently had calls in my own constituency about the opportunities. They want to not just export wood for trusses; they want to export the trusses or even go to China and put a truss plant there.

If I have to be critical of our own industry, we've been too good at selling just to ourselves. Basically, it's built on a market based on credit and credit supply and borrowing money and building houses and sustaining an economy internally, but it's not bringing real wealth in.

To do that, we need to export the wood externally. Our HST is one of the triggers that made this particular manufacturer look to China, because then they'll be able to get their wood products and all the inputs that they need to have to compete competitively. They'll be getting what used to be the PST cost and added to it will be deducted from their cost…. It's a straight-line deduction to their cost, and it presents them with an enthusiastic opportunity to export to China, and they're taking advantage of that opportunity.

So I agree that we need to turn our markets to other areas, and we're doing just that. I look to the day when the forest industry recovers and we look at dimensional opportunities in China and throughout Asia. So I think this motion is well-placed, well-thought-out, and I stand to enthusiastically support it.

B. Routley: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House and represent the people of Cowichan Valley in talking about an important issue, particularly talking about getting on with the job of marketing forest products.

What a novel idea — that we should think today about going out and marketing forest products. I think it's long overdue. It's an example, again, of how this government is playing catch-up, has been behind in acknowledging the responsibilities that they have to promote our forest products throughout the world. I know that in the Cowichan Bay mill, some of the wood that they've got is as a result of the Western Forest Products representatives going to China and actively pursuing market opportunities.

So to announce this as some kind of brand-new initiative, some new idea, when we've had mill after mill close down in British Columbia — ramping up log exports and shutting down mills…. It is ironic that this government has now got this brand-new idea that they're going to go out and look for markets — certainly, as I say, long overdue.

The member on the opposite side talked about biomass. I want to talk about biomass, because when I toured the province talking to representatives in communities throughout B.C., it was my experience to run across a logging manager who wanted to supply a small company with a couple of employees — the opportunity to get at wood waste and provide opportunities for pellets. I know I've heard that there are some pellet plants in British Columbia, and I don't doubt that that's true. But there is huge opportunity throughout British Columbia for getting into the bioenergy.

[1135]

I'm reading here from the Environment Industry News. This is October 18, '09. They were talking in this article about: "The wood energy sector seems to have been immune to global economic crisis. Demand for renewable energy sources, including wood biomass, continues to grow steadily." They say that world wood pellet markets grew by 20 percent in 2008 and are expected to double by 2012.

So here we are in this House playing catch-up with the government on the other side that has no coherent plan on how to access bioenergy for…. Even a small company with a few employees in the Port Alberni region is having trouble finding access to biomass material.

I understand that that's true from all kinds of these companies that are involved in bioenergy and want to get access to biomass, and yet there are roadblocks in their way. The government, while they're talking about rushing off to other areas to find markets, which, as I say, is clearly…. If this is a new idea and the best they can do after 50 mills have closed, it's a sad day indeed that we're finally getting around to doing some more work on this.

Clearly, the opportunities are there and should be…. You know, we've got to get busy on a whole bunch of things. One of them includes this issue of biomass and bioenergy.

I want to turn my mind to the comments about China as a market for the future. In doing a little research preparing for today, I discovered that a lot of the logs that China is now accessing are from illegal logging. In some cases that's done in conjunction with legal logging in places like Russia.

Some of the same companies, apparently, are also involved in illegal activities, and because of the nature of the low pay of customs people and those people that are supposed to be doing the policing to make sure that that doesn't occur, throughout Russia, when you look at other countries — Malaysia, Vietnam — there are all kinds of stories about illegal forest practices.

I just want to read something here. "Over 70 percent of China's timber products imports are supplied by countries in the Asia-Pacific region. China is the dominant forest products market for these countries. Unsustainable harvesting practices, illegal logging and the negative impacts on community livelihoods plague many of these supplying countries." I just want to stop there for a minute.
[ Page 1206 ]

Here I read the other day that we're starting more exports to China. While there may be some underlying reasons that I don't know of that that kind of thing is going on, clearly, with what I've been reading…. A quick look at the material tells me that Russia over the next ten to 20 years is going to have a serious supply problem, and that problem is going to come because they have overharvested, including all of this logging that's taking place illegally.

I would hope that this government is paying attention to what's going on through the other markets and that they're certainly not going to give away the product of British Columbia to the lowest bidder, that we're going to have more and more log exports while mills are closing. Now is the opportunity to ramp up real sales of manufacturing, and we should be doing everything we can to protect manufacturing jobs here in British Columbia. That should be the goal.

With that, I thank you, hon. Speaker.

D. Hayer: Madam Speaker, I'll bring you back to the motion: "to build and develop new markets for B.C. wood and forestry products in China, India and Korea."

I am pleased to be speaking today in favour of this motion because, surprising as it might be in a riding such as mine of Surrey-Tynehead, forestry and the machinery to harvest the trees and the mills that process and create the wood products, particularly for foreign markets, are extremely important to my economy in the Surrey-Tynehead riding.

[1140]

We have in Port Kells some of the most competitive and innovative wood processes in British Columbia. In fact, so strong and successful are the mills in my riding that Teal-Jones Group is the only one in B.C. to have opened a brand-new mill in many, many years. In fact, Teal-Jones, run by Tom and Dick Jones, along with their family members, spent, as I recall, more than $50 million on a new mill, which is adjacent to one of their highly productive mills in Port Kells.

I know, from speaking with Tom and Dick Jones, how important markets in China, Japan, India and Korea are to them, to their business and to our economy. In fact, Teal-Jones maintains a sales office on the other side of the Pacific Rim to ensure they continue to sell B.C. wood products into those huge and rapidly growing markets.

With the housing market south of the border in a depression, it is the smart business people who look not south but west for the future. Even when the housing market in the U.S. does rebound, our smart milling companies will no longer be dependent on one market alone.

Another major employer in Surrey-Tynehead, along the Fraser River in Port Kells, is S&R Sawmills, which has eight mills on the banks of the Fraser River, providing hundreds of direct and indirect jobs and spinoff jobs. S&R Sawmills, owned and operated by Chick and Marilyn Stewart and their family, is in the custom-cutting business, with a huge portion of their production being shipped west across the Pacific to the Asian market.

The success of business people like Chick and Marilyn Stewart and Tom and Dick Jones means great success for constituents of mine as well, because many of them are employed in these vibrant mills, and many more are employed in businesses that supply materials, equipment, drive trucks, repair equipment and so forth. The spinoff jobs these provide reach into every aspect of business in our community, from corner stores to pubs to huge grocery stores and the shopping malls.

Located in my riding, also, are many other equipment suppliers, such as Cullen Diesel Power Ltd. and the world-renowned Finning equipment, which provides work for Surrey and Fraser Valley residents while supplying logging and roadbuilding and construction equipment throughout the province.

Without pursuing the Asian market, without maintaining the markets we have across the Pacific and without ensuring that we continue to grow markets there, our wood product industry will surely die. British Columbia, despite its rapid growth, simply cannot consume enough product to ensure the forest industry survives. It must rely on the foreign market, and it must overcome the dependence we once had, particularly on the dimensional lumber, on the U.S. market.

The huge population of China, India and Korea, and the relative ease of access we have to those markets, makes for a bright future for our wood processors in British Columbia. British Columbia's economic strength has long relied on the forest industry, and for our economy and our workforce to grow, we must encourage more use of wood products in the Asian market.

I know that our Premier and our current and former Ministers of Forests have done a great job in developing excellent trade relationships with our Asia-Pacific market. They have made great strides towards changing the attitude of people in Asia to build homes and business quarters out of B.C. wood, and we have seen success. We just need to continue to educate people over there of the value and quality of our products, and we need to ensure we have — like S&R Sawmills and the Teal-Jones Group — strong, successful marketing teams in place.

We have the quality products, we have the expertise, and we have the skilled workers to meet the demand. If we continue to develop new markets in Asia, we will soon see strength return to our forest industry.

In closing, on behalf of my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead and all the people in the business who depend on the continued success of the forest industry and the Asian market, I fully support this motion.

D. Routley: I rise to speak to this motion, and I would like to bring the attention of the House to the fact that this province, which was once such a proud producer of
[ Page 1207 ]
wood products, is essentially flying blind. Through cuts to the B.C. chief forester and a disinvestment in value-added enterprises in this province, we find ourselves in a place where…. Once we were the market where other countries would come and try to learn about how to market wood internationally and how to learn about how to produce products effectively. No longer.

[1145]

We have no idea in this province how much wood is consumed per person. In Scandinavian countries they have a very clear idea exactly how much wood is consumed by each citizen and in what product form. This province has no idea what its domestic market looks like because it has disinvested in the very mechanisms it would take to track that information.

We've heard about China and the fact that 20 percent of our wood products are now being exported to China. We've seen a failure of our number one market, so I would question whether that 20 percent refers to an increase in shipments or a shift in the balance between markets.

This is a government that in its first term closed all of the Asian trading offices that British Columbia had established. They closed the offices that the previous government had opened to encourage the Asian consumption of B.C. products, particularly forest products. They disinvested in the mechanisms it would take to develop those markets.

We've seen this increase in terms of a shift in the balance of our shipments, but as a previous speaker pointed out, 85 percent of the logs imported by China are coming from Russia. The mills that will process those logs are along railways that lead to northern Russia.

Rick Doman recently toured northern Russia on request of the Russian government to advise them on their infrastructure planning. They're planning mills. They're planning for the Chinese market.

We have abandoned the people who can provide the entrepreneurial skills, ideas and energy it would take to revive our industry and address our number one market in the United States.

Cuts to the B.C. chief forester, cuts to the Forest Service, cuts to the environmental enforcement and a move to self-monitoring by companies. How many of us would write ourselves a speeding ticket? That's in fact what this government asked the major companies of this province to do. "Just watch your own behaviour, and if you do something wrong, fine yourself."

Throughout the deregulation of our industry, we've seen a collapse. We've seen our pulp mills starved for fibre; we've seen our value-added industries starved for fibre. At the same time, this government has abandoned all restrictions on raw log exports. So our fibre shortages were caused by their deregulation.

We lost 46 sawmills and tens of thousands of jobs during the U.S. housing boom — not during the collapse of the U.S. housing market but before it, while the market was booming. Now, having lost those mills, once that market returns, we've lost the capacity to address it and to capitalize on it.

We have no idea of our domestic consumption. We have no idea how we're going to increase it. We have no idea how we're going to address the increasing demand in the United States, after having lost our mills.

What do they do to add to that? This government implements HST. Homebuilders across the province cry at the increased costs. We should be investing in mechanisms that will increase wood consumption in B.C., wood produced here.

We saw the cancellation of LiveSmart. We saw every mechanism that would have encouraged people to consume our own products cancelled because the policies of this government when it comes to the forest industry are written in the boardrooms of the major forest companies.

Companies like the company in Comox that manufactures wood flooring. They're called Woodland Flooring. They're FSC-certified, and they have an incredible capacity to develop new markets and new products.

A company in Ladysmith, FPInnovations. They are trying to take the 20 percent takeback wood, which was taken back for use by aboriginal nations, and develop new products and new markets. What did this government do? They cut $500,000 of funding from FPInnovations, so FP also lost $500,000 in federal funding. This is a disinvestment in research and development and the very mechanisms needed to increase our markets.

We have a different approach. We want to invest in community-based businesses. We want to invest in increasing value-added industry in British Columbia, not give away B.C. forest policy to the major forest companies — and at the expense of British Columbians and our forests.

[1150]

Deputy Speaker: Member for Cowichan Valley seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: We have with us today a group of students in grade 6 from George Bonner Middle School, in school district 79 in the Cowichan Valley. Please join me in making them feel welcome.

Welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Barnett: I would like to go back to the motion that reads: "Be it resolved that this House recognizes
[ Page 1208 ]
the importance of continuing to build and develop new markets for BC wood and forest products in China, India and Korea."

I had the privilege in 2003 of going on a delegation to China led by the then Minister of Forests Mike de Jong to celebrate the opening of the Dream House China project, a project between the government of British Columbia and China. It was a great celebration.

I had the opportunity to see how our products, our innovation, our partnership in China would take us forward and help China to move forward with their initiatives. We have great educational exchanges that were made at that time between B.C. and China, and if you look at the numbers from 2003 to 2009 for the forest products that are going to China from the province of British Columbia, it is amazing.

It takes time to build these markets, and I thank this government for starting that process in 2003. We are moving forward, not looking backwards.

I come from the forest communities of British Columbia. That is our main industry, and that is our main employer. We've been through some tough times. We've been through pine beetle. We've been through other issues. Right now we are in a depression in the United States, which has affected my communities a lot more than other communities.

We talk about the pine beetle. We talk about why it happened. I'm not going to go there, because Mother Nature, at the end of the day, will guide us through, no matter what we do on this land base. It's how we manage it and when we manage it. I can honestly say that in my many years of being in forest-dependent communities…. I could go backwards to the '90s, but I prefer to move forwards.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have lodgepole pine in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. For the members of this House, I'd like to say that it was in the Cariboo-Chilcotin that a company, back in 1952, actually started using lodgepole pine. They were told that they would be unsuccessful. In 1952 this corporation started up. Lodgepole pine was a weed in those days, and there was no such thing as stumpage. Look at today.

That was through innovation and creation, and that's what this government is doing. Through the Forest Innovation Investment, many things have happened over the past few years. We are now in China. We are talking to other countries in the world, and that's what we must do to continue to move forward.

We've got many secondary manufacturing small businesses throughout the province of British Columbia and many in my area. For example, in my area I have a community that has branded itself as a hand-crafted log home capital of North America. What they are doing with this promotion is amazing. Right now markets are not good, but they will be ready when they are. This government is working with those communities.

We're making windows. We're making doors. We're making many things. All around the world countries are looking at British Columbia, and countries will be taking our product.

We talk about funding for marketing. We are funding marketing. We have partners in the private sector. You know, the initiative by the private sector is what builds a strong economy with assistance from a government, and we are going there.

[1155]

I would like to end here by talking about log exports, because it seems to be a topic, and I do have facts. We prefer that timber harvest in B.C. be sold in B.C., but the reality is that allowing some exports creates jobs that would not otherwise exist. It was only because of log exports that about 2,000 forest workers in the northwest were working in 2006.

Log exports, controlled by the province, from Crown land have actually declined by 25 percent since 2001. The overall policy on exports has not changed from what it was when this government took office.

Most of the timber harvested in B.C. is processed in B.C. Log exports amount to less than 5 percent of the total harvest, and 74 percent of B.C. log exports come from private land that is regulated by the federal government and is not controlled by the province.

I thank you, and I encourage you all to support this great motion.

D. Donaldson: Well, I can say I agree with the intent of this, but once again, the government can't follow through. They won't follow through, and there's no consistency here.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin points out that the government is great at celebrations, whether it's celebrating over in China or whether it's celebrating Olympic parties, but when it comes to action on the ground, there are no results.

I want to give one quick example regarding flooring. I went to a flooring store with a friend. He went to buy flooring. It was made from wood exported to China, manufactured into flooring and brought back.

I have another colleague in the Kispiox Valley who manufacturers the same type of flooring, and he can't compete because these are low-paying jobs. All the jobs are low-paying in China when it comes to manufacturing these kinds of products.

If this government is serious about building up manufacturing in this province, then it should give incentives to manufacturers like the flooring industry in this province rather than depending on cheap imports from wood that we exported in the first place.
[ Page 1209 ]

Here's an example of what they could do. They believe in climate change and action on climate change. Why not advocate putting some tariffs and some duties on wood products created with B.C. wood that are sent overseas and brought back into this province? Think of the carbon emissions on that. Why not advocate for some duties on that kind of thing so that we have some competitive advantage in this province from our own wood?

Alternatively, give some incentives to manufacturers, like the fellow I described, who could increase his employment, increase jobs, by giving him some incentives around carbon emissions in recognition of the fact that he's manufacturing those products here in B.C. to sell to a B.C. market.

Secondly, instead of sending pellets overseas, as my friend from Nechako Lakes advocates, why not use those pellets to produce electricity here, and the spinoff in jobs and manufacturing that that can support here?

We have a Suskwa Chiefs initiative in our area, and this government will not support their application for a bioenergy plant in my constituency. There's no transparency on the process. They're in charge of B.C. Hydro. They're in charge of the Utilities Commission, or they try to be, anyway. For two years we've been trying to get that bioenergy plant in my area, an area of 90 percent unemployment, and this member over here wants to export pellets instead of giving jobs to my people — 90 percent unemployment.

So there are two ideas.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I'll wrap up, hon. Speaker.

There are two ideas. The member for Nechako Lakes says that we have no ideas. He's mentioned this before. Well, there are two ideas I would like to see him take to his government and act on because it'll mean jobs in the north, jobs not only for my constituency but for people in his constituency as well.

I'd like to conclude by saying that it's all talk and no action on this. We want to see some action on the ground from this government.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member want to adjourn debate? Member, will you adjourn debate?

D. Donaldson: Certainly. I will adjourn debate on this topic.

D. Donaldson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to see another NDP convert supporting IPP production.

With that, I move adjournment of the House.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175