Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

FERRIES ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COAST

N. Simons: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, colleagues. Welcome to Monday morning statements. It’s private members’ time now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about B.C. Ferries and ferries in general, and their relevance and importance to coastal and island communities. The topic has been recently raised in this House because a report recently recommended that sailings which had been cancelled in 2014 should be restored. Because of that, we’ve heard a lot of discussion around the needs of communities that are reliant on this mode of transportation — and not just reliant on this mode of transportation; these communities rely on B.C. Ferries as the lifeblood of their communities.

[10:05 a.m.]

When I looked up the word “lifeblood,” I tried to figure out how we use that term in general. A lot of people talk about volunteers being the lifeblood of our communities or small businesses being the lifeblood of our communities, or arts and culture. There are a number of opinions on this matter, but one thing is for sure: none of these other lifebloods would be possible in our communities were it not for a way of getting to and from our coastal communities.

Now, I represent the Sunshine Coast, where we have over 50,000 people who are reliant on B.C. ferries, for whom B.C. Ferries is a lifeblood for their economic and social and cultural well-being. That’s essentially how I want to talk about B.C. ferries — that the ferries that connect our communities do so not only to create good economic opportunities, not only to ensure that families have an ability to visit with one another but in order to stitch together and to promote cohesion between our various communities.

That is essential when we have a coast like British Columbia’s coast. We can’t do much about the geography, but we can do things to overcome the challenges that are in place that make it difficult to go from one community to the other. I’m very pleased that we are currently in a situation where we are fully conscious of not only having that lifeblood, those boats going back and forth, to strengthen our health but also to ensure that we can continue to build and grow our communities in a way that is sustainable.

B.C. Ferries was originally created in the late ’50s in order to ensure that our coast and our communities can become stronger economically, that people can live in our various parts of our province where roads are not available. Because of that, we had a system put in place that took into account the interests of residents of these communities. Government felt it was important enough to have a system of transportation that was predictable, that was cost-efficient, that was safe and that was reliable. And we’ve had that for decades.

There have been occurrences in the last 20 years or so where that lifeblood has been choked off, where that lifeblood has not been allowed to flow the way our communities require it to. When businesses are interested in setting up a company in a particular area, they want to know how they will get the necessary products from their shop to the market. When families think about where they want to live, how do they ensure that their children will have access to the arts and cultural opportunities and the sporting opportunities that other families have? If a senior wants to live on an island, they’ll want to know how often they will be able to go and see their grandchildren or other members of their family.

Family, culture, sport, recreation — these are essential to our communities, and these essentials require an efficient and predictable and cost-efficient method of transportation to and from. When communities lose their ability to travel between one another — if a bridge is shut down — we know the impact. If a road is closed, we know the impact. If our ferries are cancelled because of weather, we understand. If they’re cancelled because of mechanical problems, we understand. We don’t want to drive across a bridge that won’t hold the weight of our vehicle.

We understand when there are structural issues that make it difficult to travel back and forth. But when bridges are unilaterally closed for no reason or ferry services are reduced for reasons that are unknown to a community, that has a significant, long-term impact on our communities.

[10:10 a.m.]

We have hockey teams that wonder whether they can schedule the games appropriately for teams to come. In fact, in Gibsons, the volleyball teams are always playing away games. They could be ranked number one and be first in playoffs, but they’ll play every game as an away game because if ferries are interfered with, the ability to travel is hampered.

I think it is important that this House recognize that the value of our ferries is far more than the economic generation they provide. They are links between our communities. They are places where a family will travel, whether to play in an orchestra concert or to act in a play or to play hockey. It’s families visiting one another, finding a common ground. It’s families from Powell River visiting families in Delta, families from other parts of British Columbia coming down to visit our islands and our communities. That’s what we talk about when we build social cohesion. That’s the fundamental importance of the interaction between our communities.

I look forward to the comments from my colleague from the other side.

J. Sturdy: I think this is a very important issue. It’s nice to hear from the member opposite on this. Nothing very surprising, I suppose. It’s unfortunate that I only have five minutes, because there is much to say.

Ferries are essential to the communities and families and businesses on the coast — up and down the coast — to help them thrive. Whether they are the lifeblood…. I would actually assert that the people of the coast are the lifeblood. The ferries are important. They’re part of a network that supports people on the coast — like the health care system, which is important; like the education system; in transportation like the aviation network or the transit services or barges or cargo ships or pipelines that deliver gas to your house; or transmission infrastructure that keeps the lights on. All of these things are important parts of what supports people on the coast.

I’m glad the member brought this up, because in their wisdom, the government at this time has commissioned a study, the Redlin report, which I think is what the member was referring to — a mere $1,000 a page, by the way. It was to look at whether the ferry service has been provided in a manner that supports the public interest, considering whether the ferry system is working as efficiently and effectively as possible, whether there’s opportunity to enhance the ferry service or reduce costs — interesting — without impacting existing services.

After sitting on the minister’s desk for eight months, it has finally been released. What are its conclusions? How is B.C. Ferries doing? There are many recommendations coming out of it. I’ll try and cluster them a little bit in terms of safety, reliability, cost and vision.

From a safety perspective, here’s a quote right out of the report: B.C. Ferries has a strong culture of safety and a top priority integrated into all daily operations that has been “steadily improving.” That’s certainly a pat on the back.

B.C. Ferries has won a number of sustainability and safety awards. I won’t go into all the details there. Here’s one reflection that I think is important. They received a $600,000 WorkSafe premium rebate based on their actual safety record, and they’re expecting to see that going forward again.

In terms of reliability, according to the Redlin report: “B.C. Ferries is consistent in meeting its targets for on-time performance, with approximately 90 percent of sailings leaving within ten minutes of the scheduled departure time.”

In terms of customer satisfaction, in 2015, ’16 and ’17: 4.11 out of 5, 4.14 out of 5, and 4.18 out of 5. This is really good response back in terms of customer satisfaction. I wish I could actually achieve the same sort of satisfaction with my constituents. I don’t even know that the member from West Vancouver–Capilano can achieve that kind of endorsement. They have similar targets going forward. I think this is important, and I have every confidence that they’re going to reach that.

[10:15 a.m.]

In terms of costs, a number of recommendations. What was a good quote here? The main objective is to “keep the price cap at or below the provincial inflation rate,” which I think is an important piece, and “to set a challenging efficiency target which reduces costs.”

Additional spare vessel resilience will be “an important consideration in the final capital plan,” but since the cost of every additional vessel puts upward pressure on fares, there will be a need for a careful balancing of “fleet resilience, growing demand, improved efficiency and fare affordability” in the next price cap. This is a challenging service to continue to provide on an effective and cost-effective basis, I suppose.

I know I’m running out of time here, but there are some important pieces around what the provincial vision for the ferry service looks like, how it integrates into the overall transportation network around the province and what it does provide benefit to. Ultimately, the questions are…. Here’s a quote out of the report again. “B.C. Ferries is, on the whole, a well-run company. The employees and managers of B.C. Ferries are committed to providing a safe, reliable service for the coast and work hard at it every day of the week.” The B.C. Ferries executive is “competent and experienced, and the board of directors takes seriously its obligation to provide good strategic direction and oversight.”

So I think B.C. Ferries is in good hands. There are a number of other recommendations which I would be thrilled to speak about. Unfortunately, it looks like I am going to be out of time.

N. Simons: Thank you to my friend from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for his comments on ferries. I know he can see our ferries from his particular area. Maybe he even has one going….

Anyway, I understand how there are certain philosophies that guide the management of our public infrastructure system. I think that when we have something that is a lifeblood of communities, it should have a special place in government priorities and a special place in the consideration of government policies. I think the member points to some recommendations made recently. In the past, we had other recommendations that were finally put forward, including considering the impact on the public when contemplating fare increases.

We have a system that acknowledges the lifeblood of our communities, the lifeblood for the people of our communities. In order to be able to be successful in our communities, we need ways to get back and forth. When those are interfered with, then it’s impossible. People cannot conduct their business in a way that is successful. They can’t continue to participate in sporting and cultural events as they had in the past. In fact, people lose their jobs because of changes in ferry scheduling.

We have now a situation where the lifeblood is being recognized by this House. It’s being recognized as in need of support and in need of strengthening. It is not simply a policy question that has only anything to do with the bottom line. It has to do with ensuring that people on Texada Island can still commute in time to meet their hospital shifts and that people in Skidegate can get back and forth when they need to and not suffer from having to spend exorbitant amounts of money on hotels. They can get home at night.

We need to get home at night. We need to get to work in the morning. We need to be able to visit our grandparents. We need to be able to send our children to important events. Because of that, we need to consider B.C. Ferries as a lifeblood. It’s not a policy toy to be played with, a partisan tool to be used, one against the other. This is far more important than that.

I think the ability to talk about B.C. Ferries and its relevance to our communities, its importance to business, its importance to the cultural fabric of our communities and the cohesion between our communities can’t be measured.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion.

BUILDING B.C.

J. Martin: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, colleagues.

Our province could not have achieved the success we have today if not for the many, many skilled British Columbians participating in our workforce. For many British Columbians, the trades provide a long-lasting, well-paying career with excellent mobility across the province. These are the folks who ensure our roads are safe, our schools are sound and the structures that make our society great meet our needs.

[10:20 a.m.]

Even the homes that we are fortunate enough to live in require the work of nearly a dozen types of tradespeople — plumbers, roofers, gas fitters, electricians, framers, home inspectors, welders and many more. These tradespeople work tirelessly so that we can lead safer, more comfortable, more efficient lives. Before I begin, I would like to say thank you to them, each and every one of them.

It’s crucial that this House works in a forward-thinking and constructive manner both to maintain our skilled workforce as well as to create opportunities through apprenticeship programs for those who will form the skilled workforce of tomorrow.

Opportunities for skilled work are wide-ranging, from aircraft maintenance to plumbing. But B.C.’s vast opportunity has not always translated to a vast supply. Rather, according to the B.C. Construction Association, 68 percent of employers say that finding skilled labour is their single biggest challenge. The problem is not unique to construction. It’s common across the trades; 29 percent of contractors right here on Vancouver Island expect more work in 2019. But 82 percent of them say that they are short of workers, especially carpenters, labourers and plumbers. That’s up from 76 percent last year.

Across the province, we see similar situations in the Interior, in the north, throughout the Lower Mainland. In fact, provincewide 76 percent of construction companies can’t find qualified workers in the trades they require. When employers aren’t able to hire the skilled labour they need, they may, in some cases, resort to hiring those without the skills to appropriately match the task at hand. This sort of hiring practice doesn’t benefit anyone — not the employer, not the employee and certainly not the British Columbians who are supposed to benefit from the finished task.

This is not to say that nothing is being done to boost the skilled labour market. I’m proud that within my community of Chilliwack, the University of the Fraser Valley runs a Trades and Technology Centre. At the centre, students are trained in agriculture and horticulture, aircraft structures, architectural drafting, autobody collision and service, automation and robotics, carpentry, culinary arts, electricians, electronics, heavy mechanical trades foundation, hospitality event planning, joinery, plumbing, piping, welding and much, much more. These diverse programs are a major draw for the university and the trades centre.

Similar programs exist all across the province, and British Columbians of all stripes are taking advantage. I recall back in 2016, when a number of grade 7, 8 and 9 students were invited to the University of the Fraser Valley to try their hand at welding, autobody airbrushing and pipefitting. They had a blast. I’m sure this experience put a career in the trades on many of their radars. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if, down the road, some of these students become apprentices in the trades of their choice.

I’m very proud of these youth trade programs through the Industry Training Authority and the youth trades capital program. Both of these programs were funded through the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training in March 2017. They answered the call for trades training among our youth by allowing them to start apprenticeship training and earn high school credits at the same time.

Apprentices are an incredibly important part of the skilled labour market. They are a key component of trades programs. Within these programs, students spend 80 percent of their time gaining hands-on practical experience — that being the apprenticeship — while they spend the other 20 percent of their time learning essential skills in the classroom.

There are currently over 35,000 apprentices across the province who work to build, make and maintain our communities. Their work, along with the work of all of our skilled tradespeople, is a substantial driver of our economy and a key component of a prosperous future for British Columbia.

Let’s take a look at some of the numbers from the B.C. Institute of Technology: 96 percent of those who complete apprenticeships are employed. Within one specific program, the security systems technician certificate, 100 percent of graduates are hired within six months of leaving school. The prospects are limitless. Programs like these are what British Columbia needs in order to stay competitive as we move to the future.

Results of the 2019 annual wage and benefit survey by the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association say hourly wages for trades have gone up by 4 percent or more annually in recent years, with a projected hike of nearly 5 percent this year. This very same survey found that B.C. construction workers should expect to see pay raises of more than 10 percent over the next two years.

[10:25 a.m.]

We must all do our part to inspire our province’s young people to take up trades training through initiatives — to make that training and the career where it will lead more attractive, to build a strong and fully skilled workforce in B.C. The days when an education in trades and a career in trades were considered secondary to traditional studies at college and university and academia are long, long gone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having an opportunity to give this shout-out to the young people who are building B.C. and will continue to do so.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to speak to building B.C. I want to thank the member for Chilliwack for his remarks regarding the challenges we face with ensuring the amount of work — folks working in the sector — and that we need to meet the demands of the future.

When I think of building B.C., I think of…. Well, just recently we announced $20 billion over the next three years to build B.C. Just to put that $20 billion over the next three years in context, the federal government is spending approximately $50 billion over the next three years across all of Canada.

The $20 billion there, just for B.C. over the next three years, is going to go a long way to building B.C. Whether it’s within our health care…. We’re talking about a redevelopment of Royal Columbian Hospital. We’re talking about a new patient care tower in Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. Just recently we heard of the new hospital being built at St. Paul’s, fully funded in the capital plan.

Not to mention transportation, the Pattullo Bridge. The Pattullo Bridge is going to have shovels in the ground soon, which is critical for our region because it’s a piece of infrastructure that desperately needs it. Of course, I was speaking at the Delta chamber the other day, last week. We were talking about the replacement of Massey, and that’s coming soon as well. I’m looking forward to seeing a good solution with all the mayors in the region to come together and find something that works for all of them, not only for the crossing but also all the feeder routes that go into that. We’re seeing some positive steps there.

Historic infrastructure spending when it comes to the SkyTrain extension. We’re talking about an extension around Broadway. We’re talking about possibly SkyTrain in Surrey — a historic amount of dollars to build the critical infrastructure that we need to build this province. Not to mention other pieces outside of the Lower Mainland — four lanes of Highway 1 through Kicking Horse Canyon; also, the replacement of the Bruhn Bridge in Sicamous.

If we’re talking about building B.C., we can’t not talk about housing — $7 billion coming for housing, to build the critical housing that we desperately need. We hear about housing all the time. We hear about the need for affordable housing, affordable rental units. People are struggling. Our commitment as a government was 114,000 units over the span of a period of…. Certainly the next ten years, but much sooner than that.

Also, part of building B.C. is…. We’ve talked about transportation, we’ve talked about housing, but building B.C. is also critical around the education system. We’ve got historic dollars building schools and post-secondary education expansions across this province.

Just in my community alone, I’m delighted to see $245 million to go towards Highway 91 and the Nordel exchange, easing the bottleneck congestion points along there. We’ve been hearing from the port and other businesses in the region that those chokepoints are critical for us to address. I’m pleased to see all levels of government participating in this — the federal government, Tsawwassen First Nation and Port Metro. Everybody is involved in that critical project.

I mentioned education, and I mentioned schools. I’m proud to say that North Delta just recently, last year, finished the seismic upgrading of Gibson Elementary, which is the last school in North Delta that needed to be seismically upgraded.

[10:30 a.m.]

All this building, all this infrastructure and capital throughout this province, raises a critical question that my colleague from Chilliwack raised, which is that we need to ensure we have the people there to do the work that needs to be done. So I, too, want to join him in recognizing the colleges, the trades-training schools and the campuses across B.C., which are giving our young people, or people who are looking, the tools to meet the demand that we’re going to have in the future. I have also seen the University of the Fraser Valley program. It is an excellent program, and they do fantastic work.

With that, I would say that I think that there’s a will from all members of this House to want to continue to build B.C., make B.C. a better place, and we know that capital spending is the foundation of that.

I want to thank the member for raising this, and I look forward to hearing his comments.

J. Martin: I thank my colleague for those remarks specifically referencing the projects that are taking place not just in his riding but throughout British Columbia.

With the last couple moments I have, I’d like to reaffirm the importance of a strong, skilled workforce for British Columbia’s future and to again express my gratitude to those who form it. These are the men and women who have made it their career to build the infrastructure that we use every day, and I have no doubt that we owe them choice and flexibility in the work that they do.

The only way to maintain this workforce that we have now as well as to build an even larger skilled workforce in the future is to be very attuned to the needs of building B.C. Every move we make on this issue, as members of this House, needs to be guided by principles of fairness, worker safety — I cannot stress worker safety enough — efficiency and cost-effectiveness. These are the principles that members on both sides of this House can surely agree on all of the time.

British Columbians deserve this because, at the end of the day, it’s their money on the line, it’s their future, it’s their province, and it’s their quality of life. They care about the infrastructure that they rely on to carry out the daily routines in their day-to-day lives.

Skilled workers deserve no less because they’re the ones putting their livelihoods on the line. They deserve the very best agreements, fairness, safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. They deserve to be able to freely associate or to freely not associate with groups of their pleasing.

These types of freedoms are a two-way street. I can’t help but say that the 85 percent of construction and trade workers who have chosen not to affiliate themselves with certain organizations are no less diverse, no less skilled and no less wanting of the opportunity to make a contribution to build B.C. We should not exclude them.

We’re facing enough shortages of labour as it is. The scale of the problem is pretty clear, when 58 percent of companies are turning down work and 58 percent are taking longer to complete work. We can all agree that this is not the ideal situation. It’s time for the House to address the problems associated with skilled labour in a way that provides real benefits to all stakeholders.

I’m reminded of a visit in 2014, just past Agassiz out to Seabird Island. A mobile welding shop was set up at Seabird Island, and there were no less than a dozen young Indigenous men and women learning their skill to become welders and contribute to British Columbia. That’s what I like to see in every single corner of the province.

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN POLITICS

R. Leonard: Once again, as we have for over a century, we’re set to celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8. You have to admire the determination that triumphs every year as we continue to work toward a more gender-balanced world. And 2019’s theme is #balanceforbetter.

One of the most important ways women can contribute to reaching a goal of equality is to get involved in politics. But before we consider why women need a place at the decision-making table and why it is still a challenge to achieve gender balance in government, I’d like to walk down memory lane and get reacquainted with some influential women in Canada, particularly in B.C.

Mary Ellen Smith was the first woman elected to this Legislature in 1918. As a member of the Liberal government, she championed a minimum wage for women and girls to open the door for women as judges in the lower courts, social welfare for deserted wives, the protection of women in the workplace and pensions for mothers.

[10:35 a.m.]

Agnes Macphail was born in 1890 and trained to be a teacher. She became Canada’s first female Member of Parliament in 1921. She served there for 19 years and went on to serve as an elected member for the province of Ontario in the 1940s. She was responsible for Ontario’s first equal pay legislation that passed in 1951, her final year as an elected politician. What did she say about gender balance? “I want for myself what I want for other women — absolute equality.” She also said: “Most women think politics aren’t ladylike. Well, I’m no lady. I’m a human being.”

In 1943, as a CCF’er — that’s a Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party candidate — Ms. Macphail was elected to Ontario’s minority Legislature along with a second woman, Rae Luckock. Ms. Luckock was a seamstress by trade and originally set her political sights on the school board. At the provincial level, she advocated for free university tuition and improved rural education. And of course, she championed equality for women, promoting equal pay for equal work and pay for homemakers. After she was defeated in the next election, she went on to organize a petition with a million names that resulted in William Lyon Mackenzie King’s government stopping milling and baking companies from fixing the price of bread.

Grace MacInnis, daughter of CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth and Lucy Lillian Staples, was elected to B.C.’s Legislature in 1941 at the age of 36 and then as a Member of Parliament in 1965 until 1974. Her role model was Agnes Macphail. Ms. MacInnis recognized that men don’t usually focus on issues involving women. She raised the need for more child care so women didn’t have to choose between work and having children. She advocated for more opportunities for all women to train to qualify for better jobs. She debated affordable housing policies and the right to choose in order to reduce the amount of botched illegal abortions. Medicare, pensions, birth control — the list goes on of the many women’s causes she championed.

In 1972, Rosemary Brown was the first black woman elected to the provincial Legislature in Canada. British Columbia was served by Ms. Brown as a social worker and then as the first Ombudswoman before she jumped into provincial politics, where she used her voice for equality for 14 years. I think my favourite quote of hers is: “To be black and female in a society which is both racist and sexist is to be in the unique position of having nowhere to go but up.”

In 1979, 54-year-old social worker Margaret Mitchell was elected MP for Vancouver East. She served for 14 years. She wanted to empower single moms. She raised the issue of children going to school without breakfast, the stigma of welfare, the lack of training opportunities for women. In 1982, when she raised the issue of battered women, where far too many wives were being beaten by their husbands, male MPs laughed at her. She famously fought back, saying: “This is no laughing matter.” She demanded legal recourse for these women and safe homes. She also wanted domestic abuse to be treated as a criminal offence, as in those days the statistics were telling: there were only two convictions out of 10,000 violent incidents.

Each of these women’s trail-blazing herstories indeed answers the original question of why women need a place at the decision-making table: to have a voice and a vote, to make a difference in the lives of women. So we should celebrate, each of us who sit in this House with our own gender lens. I would like to acknowledge the work of the member for Richmond South Centre, who installed the women MLA wall in the Hall of Honour.

But why is there still a challenge to achieve gender balance in government? We know that throughout the world, there’s a long way to go to achieve the goal of gender balance. We should be encouraged to see organizations like Canada’s Equal Voice being active. Their commitment to a better future was made all the more real to me when I met Sadie Cameron, the daughter of one of my husband’s colleagues back home in the constituency, amongst the contingent of young women from UBC’s Equal Voice who came to the Legislature recently.

[10:40 a.m.]

Equal Voice crosses all political parties. It is committed to increasing the number of nominations of women candidates and promoting electoral and other change that would increase the number of women in politics. They’ve explored what prevents women from entering politics. In comparing men and women, they’ve discovered that one in five women consider politics, but men are twice as likely to consider it.

Women tend to get involved in politics more gradually than men, and they don’t perceive themselves as knowing as much about politics as men do. Women worry about the public persona facing discrimination and being critiqued. Even in today’s world, they worry about the increased judgment they would face for abandoning family responsibilities.

Today is a new day with renewed vigour and focus. We will overcome. We will never give up until we can say we have achieved equality for all.

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague from across the aisle for sharing her insights and thoughts on the role of women in politics. Given that later this week is International Women’s Day, it seems topical to discuss our experiences as women in the political ring.

Like many of us in this room, my introduction to politics was at the municipal level. In the fall of 1986, with only eight hours to go before the nomination period came to a close, I decided to run for mayor of the village of 100 Mile House. I already had experience running election campaigns for our MLA, Alex Fraser, but what was brand-new to me was learning how to be a politician. Perhaps a few members of this House are familiar with that learning curve.

When I decided to run, I was a realtor, and my husband and I owned a small business. I recognized that our community was facing many economic problems that weren’t being appropriately addressed. Despite the challenge of running for office and any apprehension I felt, I knew that I could make a real difference in my community.

The residents of 100 Mile House had a great deal of respect, as did I, for the mayor, Ross Marks, who had been in office since the incorporation of the village in 1966. That being said, the community was looking for change, and change they certainly got.

I was elected as mayor on Saturday, election night, and the next day included plenty of excitement and congratulatory messages. I woke up on Monday morning asking: what now? I served as mayor from 1986 to 1991. My council, staff, community and I accomplished a great deal over these two terms in office. We were able to put 100 Mile back on an economically successful path, introducing industry and subdivision development and implementing responsible annual budgets.

Instead of running for mayor again in 1991, I tried my hand at provincial politics. I ran for the Social Credit. I am sure many listening are familiar with the results of that election. A few years later I returned to municipal government after I received support from my community in 100 Mile House to run for mayor again. I then served as mayor from 1996 to 2008, winning three elections.

In 2008, I said: “No more. Enough.” That didn’t work. I was persuaded to run again for a spot as an MLA, this time with the B.C. Liberals. In 2009, I won my seat in Cariboo-Chilcotin by 88 votes in a recount. It has been an honour to serve since.

Having spent many years in elected office as a woman, I would love to be able to say that women and men are treated no differently. I wish it were the case. But when I was first elected, I was certainly treated differently than my male colleagues. I worked extremely hard to prove myself.

I never let the way I was treated hold me back from reaching my goals. I was raised to believe that you are the master of your own destiny. You can be anything you want to be through hard work, honesty, trust and faith.

To the young women and girls in this province who have aspirations of running for public office: you are capable, and you can make an incredible difference. Always be true to yourself and to those who are true to you.

[10:45 a.m.]

R. Leonard: Thank you for the words from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Women come from many different political perspectives, but there is an inherent commitment to a better world for women. Some of the early suffragettes and second-wave feminists have been criticized as coming from white privilege and not in tune to all the needs of women and others suffering from inequality — not unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who recently dismissed the plight of struggling renters in an insanely unaffordable housing market because all he had to draw on was his privileged, wacky time as a renter decades ago.

Deputy Speaker: Now, Member. Keep it non-partisan.

R. Leonard: Yes. My apologies.

So it is we need women in politics from all stripes — seamstresses and doctors, Indigenous and transgendered, young and old. Today in this, our 41st parliament, 34 women serve as MLAs, making up 39 percent of the 87 seats. This NDP government has achieved parity, with 50 percent of the cabinet being female.

I’d like to say a few words about our equity mandate as a way of increasing women’s participation. Today’s caucus is made up of 20 women out of the 41 MLAs, which is nearly 50 percent, and the B.C. NDP has been promoting more women to enter politics, which has resulted in an increase in women running every election cycle.

In 2009, 29 percent were women. In 2013, 35 percent were women. Purposefully we have moved forward, as of the 2013 election, so that elected female NDP MLAs who retire will only be replaced with another woman. Male MLAs who retire have to be replaced either with a woman or a member of an equity-seeking group. The numbers show that this policy is working.

To continue building on this work, we’re introducing gender-based analysis plus into everything we do as government. Gender-based analysis is in place in one form or another in every other province in Canada and at the federal level. Gender-based analysis plus recognizes how diverse and marginalized groups of people may be impacted by policies, programs and budgets.

Rosemary Brown would be proud to know that the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity is working hard to build capacity and understanding throughout government about this new tool, and Budget 2019 is a first step. One reason that it works for women is because women were central to creating it. Looking through a gender lens is an essential part of making sure our government has fairness at the heart of all its actions, and I’m proud that it is now underway here in British Columbia.

So happy International Women’s Day — a little bit early, but we can celebrate all week.

BALANCE FOR BETTER

J. Tegart: It’s an honour to rise in the House today to speak about the importance of a gender-balanced world just ahead of International Women’s Day this Friday, March 8. It’s great to be in the House to see all the women and to see the men, also, listening to the important words today.

The theme for this year is #balanceforbetter, highlighting that the world is a better place when it is balanced. The campaign aims to dispel the myth that balance is a women’s issue, because often that’s how many of us think and speak about it. We talk about women doing the work to find balance in their lives, but we often neglect how other individuals or institutions can help contribute to that goal. That’s why one focus of this year’s International Women’s Day theme looks at balance as a business issue. It encourages balance in our boardrooms and in the makeup of our staff, in media and sports coverage, in wealth and, yes, at all levels of government.

We take a lot of pride in the number of women currently elected to the B.C. Legislature and those who have served before us setting the path forward. Currently there are 34 women serving as Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, representing 39 percent of the 87 seats in our Legislature. It’s an accomplishment that has been many, many years in the making, but clearly, there is still more work to be done.

[10:50 a.m.]

We are more than just numbers. Women bring a unique perspective to decision-making based on our personal experiences. We value collaboration, and we keep an open mind as we gather input and take in the opinions of others. We like to explore many possibilities, investing the time needed to come to the ideal solution to the problem at hand.

Sometimes these are viewed as negative qualities. Women are often said to be indecisive, blamed for taking too much time to collect data and opinions. When we assert our point of view after gathering all of the information, we’re sometimes said to be aggressive, or worse. Sometimes we show emotion in the chamber that others prefer to keep private. Standing up for our constituents and sharing their stories can move us deeply, because we feel their pain deeply. But displaying that type of emotion can summon complaints that we are overemotional or whining.

It can feel like a lose-lose situation at times, and sadly, those characterizations can hold women back from seeking certain positions or promotions. It certainly can make them pause and really think about whether they want to pursue public office. That’s why it’s so important that we cast aside these stereotypes, embrace our differences and our similarities, too, and work towards balance in all settings. We must strive to create environments that are welcoming to all people.

There was certainly a time that saw far fewer of us in this place. A number of the female members in this chamber today have played a role in making the legislative building a more inclusive space. The member for Nelson-Creston recently showed us what it looks like to be a working mother in this chamber. The member for Richmond South Centre was instrumental in making sure there were change tables in the washrooms to help make the babies’ stay more comfortable. She was also active in pressing for maternity benefits, and scheduled legislative sessions and hours to benefit members and their families.

Efforts like these have made the Legislature a more family-friendly place, where members are supported in their desire to serve the people of British Columbia, as well as care for their families and be with them as much as possible. That’s not to say it’s easy to do both. Perhaps it’s more of a juggling act than a balancing act, but it certainly helps to have these measures in place. It also brings more diversity to the chamber. Supporting families in this way does help encourage younger members, those with families, to run for office. It now looks like a more feasible option for them.

We need to keep up that encouragement in other ways as well, not only in our words and actions in this place. There are wonderful organizations here in B.C., nationally and internationally, as well, that work to get more women involved in politics. We recently welcomed a delegation of young women to Victoria who were part of the UBC chapter of Equal Voice. As part of their MLA-shadowing program, they spent the day at the Legislature to really get a feel for a typical day in the life here.

These intelligent, engaging young people were a delight to speak with and get to know. They had plenty of insights to share and lots of good questions about the barriers that we have faced and overcome to get here. We hope that our experiences resonated with them in some way, and maybe even inspired them, and that we’ll see some of those faces here in the years to come.

We have made great strides to make the B.C. Legislature a more welcoming and inclusive space for all, but I encourage each of us to think about the ways we can do even more, in the hopes that we might create more balance for the betterment of British Columbia.

[10:55 a.m.]

A. Kang: I thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for her very thoughtful statement.

Balance is very important, whether we’re talking about a balanced lifestyle, a balanced diet or a balanced approach to something. When one’s values are clear, making decisions becomes easier.

“Balance for better” is the International Women’s Day 2019 campaign theme. Building a gender-balanced world is imperative one step at a time, one initiative at a time, one decade and one century at a time. What the future holds for us is exciting, and what we see here on this side of the House and in our Legislature is very exciting.

On this side of the House, we have 41 members. Breaking the numbers down as such — one for our Premier — we have, then, an equal breakdown of 20 men and 20 women members. The Premier had a progressive vision and a value that we have a gender-balanced cabinet. What makes this even more exciting is that within this gender-balanced cabinet is a female Finance Minister who has put forth her third consecutive balanced budget.

Quoting another awesome woman, Tian Wei of CCTV News: “Any society that fails to harness the energy and creativity of its women is at a huge disadvantage in the modern world.” Well, certainly this isn’t the case for B.C. The Premier recognizes the talents and wisdom of our Finance Minister and puts them to use.

In an article in Forbes about the traits of powerful women, it says: “Powerful women have the strength to take risks, learn from failure, deal with remarks, insults or stereotypes and the courage to fight for what they believe in, and they never give up, no matter how hard a challenge is.” If you know her, and I know I do, with all admiration and with respect, this sounds like the Finance Minister to me.

Women in leadership often display characteristics of perseverance and passion, strength, empathy and courage. We see this clearly in the Finance Minister’s most recent report on Budget 2019. Budget 2019 creates opportunities for all British Columbians, taking a balanced, people-centred approach to addressing the struggles of British Columbians for both men, women and gender-diverse people.

In the many years previous, we saw B.C. gradually becoming one of the provinces with the highest rate of poverty and child poverty. It became a place where one couldn’t afford to live in the city that one grew up in, and that’s unbalanced. That’s why we’re taking a balanced approach by investing in the people of B.C., with policies like the new B.C. child opportunity benefit, creating affordable child care spaces; our soon-to-be released poverty reduction plan; our 30-point housing plan; eliminating MSP; and fixing the financial messes at B.C. Hydro and ICBC to keep pressure off rates. As well, we are investing a record amount in infrastructure. Certainly, a balanced approach is better for everything.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Budget 2019 is all about providing more opportunities for everyone, especially women. We are making historic investments in child care. We now have a Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity to address gender-based issues. We are raising the minimum wage, and we’re addressing housing issues. We’re providing seniors with more care and support. All of these are barriers that hinder a woman from reaching her potential.

It is extremely challenging for a woman to dedicate herself 100 percent in pursuing her dreams and advancing her job when she is constantly worried about child care, worried about her senior parents or worrying about the debt in housing that she has to be responsible for.

These worries are oftentimes the responsibilities of a woman. For many years, opportunities were given to the top 2 percent to get ahead, and 98 percent of British Columbians were left behind. In reflection of that, no country can truly develop in halves. No country can truly develop half of its population if they’re left behind. Gender equity is not just a women’s issue, but it is a human issue.

Our government is taking bold action to deliver better education, child care, health care, seniors care, environmental policies and many, many more. We’re making investments needed to build a strong, sustainable economy that will continue to lead the country today and into the future, equally for men, women and gender-diverse people.

Budget 2019 takes a balanced approach to make life better for all British Columbians. Balance is better.

[11:00 a.m.]

J. Tegart: Thank you to the member opposite for her remarks.

This institution, like many others, has been largely male dominated, but we are making tremendous strides in creating a more balanced legislature for the benefit of all British Columbians. This is reflected in the number of women sitting in the seats of this chamber but, more importantly, in the work we do each and every day.

We’ve taken on a variety of roles in this place, from MLA to minister to Speaker to Premier to Lieutenant-Governor. We bring our passion, our persistence and our perspective to each task before us, helping to shape decisions that impact our constituents and our province.

It’s taken a long time to get here, and we follow a path carved long before we got here. It took decades of effort by suffragettes to finally see Mary Ellen Smith receive 58 percent of the vote in the provincial riding of Vancouver City and become the first woman elected to the Legislative Assembly on January 24, 1918. Women were granted the right to vote in provincial elections just one year earlier, in April 1917, the fourth province to do so.

Over the years, the percentage of women has slowly increased from just over 4 percent in 1934 to just over 10 percent in 1941, decreasing for a period in the 1950s, then returning to just under 11 percent in 1983. We saw a boost in 1991, when just over 25 percent of the members were women. That didn’t change much until 2016, when we saw another significant boost: just over 37 percent. Today we hold 39 percent of the seats in this chamber.

It’s mind-boggling to think of a time when we wouldn’t have been allowed to be here or permitted to cast a ballot. Still, despite the incredible changes that have led to us being recognized, acknowledged and elected, we need to be thinking about what we can do to make the Legislature more accessible to those who still feel excluded. We need to work with diverse communities to identify those obstacles and clear them, creating opportunities for all to shape the future of British Columbia.

Members, I have great hopes for my daughters and your daughters and all our grandchildren. I have six female grandchildren, and I’m looking forward to seeing them running and being in this place sometime soon.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’d ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 2 standing in the name of the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 2 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 2 — LONG-TERM PRIVATE POWER
CONTRACTS AT B.C. HYDRO

R. Glumac: Many people ask me: how did I get involved in politics? I was working on animated films — Shrek 2 and Madagascar.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you move your motion, please?

R. Glumac: All right. Let me back up, then. I would like to move:

[Be it resolved that this House agree that government should no longer direct B.C. Hydro to sign long-term private power contracts that force British Columbians to buy expensive power and sell it at a loss.]

Many people ask me why I got involved in politics. I don’t have the political background. I was working on animated films like Shrek 2 and Madagascar. This is the reason. Back in 2008, I could see the coming financial disaster when the B.C. Liberals forced B.C. Hydro to buy energy we don’t need for way above market rates to sell at an 80 percent loss.

[11:05 a.m.]

The truth has finally come out in an independent report, and the scale of the financial disaster is frightening. We’re losing $16.2 billion — $16.2 billion; think about that. That’s $4,000 for every household — $4,000 out of my pocket, out of your pocket, out of the pockets of every residential ratepayer in this province and straight into the pockets of private companies to pay for energy we don’t need for at least 20 years.

How did this happen? B.C. Hydro had more than enough energy and a good plan for the future. The B.C. Liberals stepped in, and in 2008, they directed B.C. Hydro to purchase 8,500 gigawatt hours of energy per year. They would not allow B.C. Hydro to import this energy or generate any more of its own. It had to come from private companies.

The B.C. Utilities Commission tried to protect ratepayers by saying that B.C. Hydro should use Burrard Thermal in its energy planning, rather than the expensive energy from private companies. B.C. Hydro agreed. Then the CEO of B.C. Hydro was terminated in November of 2009, and Burrard Thermal was scheduled to be shut down, despite having $150 million of environmental upgrades. Then the 2010 Clean Energy Act was passed, which eliminated the role of the BCUC in all future energy purchase agreements with IPP companies and the oversight of many other projects like Site C. Instead, government would approve these plans.

The BCUC is an independent regulator. Its role was to protect ratepayers. The B.C. Liberal government did not see any value in this role. They didn’t care how much the energy would cost. Now we, the people of this province, are left to pay for this mess. The B.C. Liberals were determined to plow ahead and would listen to nobody.

In 2009, when large industrial customers were shutting down like Catalyst pulp mill, demand for energy fell. B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Energy warned the government that the market had changed. How did the government respond? As stated in the independent report, government did not heed the warning. Government could have, and should have, stopped the IPP procurements. If they had stopped, the total impact to B.C. ratepayers would have been avoided. Let’s be clear. The government did not do the right thing for the people of this province.

I got involved back in 2008 because these run-of-river projects were bad for so many reasons, environmentally and financially. The rivers flowed in the spring and the summer when energy could be purchased for $5 per megawatt hour. But instead, we bought this energy from private companies for $120 per megawatt hour. How does this make any sense?

That’s what the B.C. Liberal government did, and we are stuck paying these rates for 40 years. We don’t need the energy for at least 20 years. But even after that, we will continue to overpay for it by at least $6.6 billion. That’s $25 billion that we’re going to overpay over the terms of these contracts. It was a mistake, it was irresponsible, and the B.C. Liberals should apologize to the people of this province for the economic disaster that they left us and that we will all have to pay for, for generations to come.

P. Milobar: It’s always interesting to rise to speak to such a ridiculous motion as this, but I’ll give it a shot.

The previous member referenced $16.2 billion and is suddenly worried about how many dollars that will take out of your pocket as a taxpayer, yet not a peep out of that member when we see $10 billion of new taxes which will add thousands of dollars per capita to everybody’s tax bill on day-to-day operations of government.

The member seems to fixate on not an independent report. Let’s be very clear. This report was generated by somebody very much formerly connected with the NDP government of days of old and seems to be a hyper-politicized document at that. They’re not really wanting to reference back, I noticed — the member — that the NDP government, back in the day, seemed to think that IPPs weren’t such a bad idea as well. In fact, if someone’s trying to come into a market, they need some cost certainty when it comes to 40-year contracts, to know that their capital return is going to happen.

[11:10 a.m.]

What we will likely see moving forward, as technology improves and as the cost of those technologies comes down, is there won’t be the need for as long a contract with the next tranche of types of green energy that gets contracted out.

But to make this motion saying that we shall never, essentially, have green energy in British Columbia that B.C. Hydro will help to initiate makes absolutely no sense. Is the member perhaps saying that Burrard Thermal should still be operating? Burrard Thermal got shut down because of IPPs. I would suggest that people in that member’s riding are probably thrilled that Burrard Thermal is no longer in operation. In fact, if memory serves, I believe that people in the Fraser Valley fought very hard against Sumas 2 being permitted down in the United States for a very similar type of power generation.

I really hope the government members aren’t too afraid to actually look at the big picture and the overall global impacts of these types of statements and the decisions that were being made at the time. That would mean we actually had a government that knew how to look at the big picture of things, not just take a little myopic view of one small sliver of a report out of a wide range of topics, not just around energy generation.

Let’s look at what happened with these IPP contracts. There was a benefit to area Indigenous nations in terms of where these were located. Then we look at CleanBC. That’s saying: “We actually should be trying to expand green energy opportunities.” Yet here is the government making a motion to say to do the exact opposite.

Maybe it was just because CleanBC was created all the way back in December that that was the case. But no, wait. Let’s look at the throne speech, and let’s look, more importantly, at the budget this year that was introduced all of a week and a half ago, the budget from this government that actually states that there will be…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order.

P. Milobar: …money from the carbon tax provided to remote communities to try to get off of diesel generation. Obviously their green energy comes at a cost if you’re going to truly try to green up the environment.

I suggest the members opposite maybe read their own documents and understand what’s actually in CleanBC, what’s actually in their own budget. Well, that would be shameful if the government actually understood what was in their own budget.

Their own budget is calling for these exact types of measures. That is why it’s amazing to me that they would bring forward this and try to hyper-politicize yet again something around B.C. Hydro. When you look at the overall picture, when you look at what the global market was doing, what the spot pricing was doing, the peak demands for energy back when these contracts were signed, there was a need. So if we dial it back and start looking at the conditions they were signed under, they make perfect sense.

Unfortunately, this government seems unwilling to look at the big picture, the global picture of how these are actually improving the environment. Instead of reinvesting the increased carbon taxes into green energy projects like this, this motion is essentially saying exactly what we feared: that they want to take that extra $1.4 billion of unspent carbon tax revenues and not put them into green energy products, not do it to try to actually improve airsheds like around Burrard Thermal, where the member lives.

No, they would rather see Burrard Thermal keep pumping out and have more diesel generation everywhere, because that would be the most cost-effective, cheapest form of energy going. That way, they could keep dumping their carbon tax increases into general revenue and do what they would like to do, while still taxing an extra $10 billion of spending on people and dipping into everybody’s pocket.

Only in the NDP’s world are increased taxes to that level somehow making life more affordable for all. It certainly is not. This motion certainly does not help airsheds and air management planning around the province move forward, if they were to see this come through.

M. Dean: I’m very happy to rise and speak in support of this motion.

The recently released report by Ken Davidson, Zapped, on B.C.’s independent power industry, has revealed that sweetheart deals made by the B.C. Liberals are going to cost us, British Columbians, $16.2 billion over 20 years. That’s an extra $200 per year for 20 years for each residential ratepayer. As the B.C. Liberals signed these deals, the independent power industry filled the B.C. Liberal campaign coffers to the tune of $3 million between 2005 and 2017. The report details how the previous government manufactured an urgent need for power while disallowing B.C. Hydro to produce it, therefore requiring the public utility to buy power from private producers at inflated prices.

[11:15 a.m.]

According to the report, this is going to cost the average residential customer $4,000. The contract signed with independent power producers required B.C. Hydro to purchase power that B.C. consumers didn’t need, often at two or three times the market rate. The report demonstrates that the power B.C. Hydro was forced to purchase from these IPPs was actually largely the wrong energy profile. Of 105 contracts with IPPs since 2002, 71 were from run-of-river projects, most of which can only be relied on during the spring freshet. B.C. Hydro doesn’t need more power during that time, when the demand is low and there’s an abundance of water available in B.C. Hydro’s reservoirs.

The report also shows that even as the problems with IPP contracts became clear, the B.C. Liberal government continued to direct Hydro, often against warnings from B.C. Hydro and ministry staff, to pursue these contracts. According to the report: “In interviews, both the ministry and B.C. Hydro advise that government was made aware of the risks inherent in its directives…. Government was purposeful when the only option it left B.C. Hydro was to buy that energy from IPPs.”

They were advised by professionals and disregarded that advice, with not an insignificant consequence for British Columbians, especially those living in poverty. As the report from January 2019 shows: “The proportion of Canadians who are $200 or less away from financial insolvency at month end has now risen a significant six points over the last three months from 40 to 46 percent.”

One in five children in B.C. lives in poverty. While the B.C. Liberals were making their sweetheart deals, children in B.C. suffered without any plan to tackle poverty in the province. Instead of having to pay the price for the Liberals’ sweetheart deals in my community, a senior on a fixed income could buy a coat to get through the rainy winter. A single mom could buy an apple a day to add to her children’s school lunches. A young woman would be able to buy feminine sanitary products through the year. A student could afford a bus pass for most of the year.

Not only is the burden downloaded to British Columbians; the potential revenues leave the province. The report stated that most of the money has left and continues to leave the province, with 81 percent of the money flowing to companies not headquartered in B.C. This money could have funded critical programs for British Columbians like building affordable housing, lifting children out of poverty, increasing allowances for people living with disabilities, enhancing health services, caring for seniors.

Off the backs of hard-working people in Esquimalt-Metchosin, the B.C. Liberals were creating sweetheart deals and adding costs to families already struggling to get by. Our government is ending this by ensuring that future energy purchases from private power producers are properly managed, including indefinitely suspending B.C. Hydro’s standing offer program, effective immediately.

We will introduce regulatory and legislative changes to roll back past government directions that have restricted the BCUC’s oversight of B.C. Hydro. We will look out for British Columbians.

G. Kyllo: It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on behalf of my constituents in Shuswap. We need to keep an eye on the important factors here. One is that in B.C., we pay the fifth-lowest hydro rate in North America. So as much as there is concern raised by members opposite around the direction of the current government to the B.C. Utilities Commission, we have to remember that we are paying the fifth-lowest rate in North America. That’s extremely important.

We also have to take a look at the fact that under a previous government, we made record investments in B.C.’s crown jewel, B.C. Hydro, which is such a significant Crown corporation providing electrification for British Columbians. That’s in stark contrast to the 1990s, when the then-NDP government made almost zero investment in B.C. Hydro’s infrastructure across our province.

[11:20 a.m.]

We also have to give consideration to some of the very important factors to the development of IPPs, unlike the incorrect statement that the member for Port Moody– Coquitlam made by indicating that B.C. Hydro was able to meet its power needs. That is categorically wrong. In the early 2000s, 18 percent of B.C. Hydro’s energy was purchased on the open market — 18 percent. Whereas the member opposite, in his statement, actually tried to indicate something that is categorically wrong.

You have to also consider what was happening in the early 2000s. We had the economic crisis down in California, where we saw electrical rates in the mid-$200 range per megawatt hour — the mid-$200s. At the time, B.C. had a decision to make. There was a focus of the previous government to become self-sustainable with respect to the electrification of British Columbia. At the same time, there was definitely a concern by Metro mayors, largely in Vancouver, about the concerns of GHG emissions. They were pressuring the current government to actually shut down Burrard Thermal.

There was a focused effort of getting away from purchasing power from natural gas–fired and coal-fired plants and a move towards more clean, renewable energies. We have to have a look at the impact that made. British Columbians largely wanted to see B.C. Hydro move towards more renewable, and I think British Columbians are proud of the fact that 98 percent of our energy is currently renewable in this province.

IPPs — whether we look at wind, solar or run-of-the-river projects — are all renewable sources. They attracted $8.6 billion of foreign investment into this province to actually provide and meet the demands of British Columbians and meet the demands of B.C. Hydro. These are extremely important.

It should not be lost on either the current government or British Columbians that renewable energy sources are more expensive than purchasing power from gas- or coal-fired generation. If the current government somehow thinks that that should be the move, that in order to be respectful to ratepayers, we should avoid at all costs purchasing renewable energy from renewable sources and go back to purchasing power at the cheapest, lowest-cost form by increasing GHG emissions by burning coal or natural gas, they should actually say that.

At the same time, when they talk about the direction to the B.C. Utilities Commission…. The NDP, in their own election platform, made a commitment to freeze hydro rates. Now, where is the independence of the B.C. Utilities Commission when the government, in their election platform, make a commitment to British Columbians that they’re going to freeze hydro rates?

The Energy Minister last year made an announcement that they were freezing, capping, B.C. Hydro rates, only to find out…. About a week later she had to walk that back because, unfortunately, that is actually directing the Utilities Commission — exactly what this motion is about. This member’s motion is actually offensive, and I would like to hear more from members opposite about exactly how they believe that they are going to meet their new clean energy B.C. plan by failing to actually move forward on IPP projects in this province.

D. Routley: When I looked at this motion, I thought about the history. I’d like to clear up a bit of the misconception that was just presented to us — that in fact, the idea of self-sufficiency that was offered by the previous government was a failure of reason.

If you dropped down from another planet and looked at how could B.C. provide its energy needs — what assets does it have, what tools does it have, and what challenges does it have — would you have designed a system where you demanded the power to be produced at a time when we don’t need it and then purchase it for 80 percent more than it’s worth? I don’t think that would be the choice that would be made by any rational being of any kind.

If you look back at what happened, the premise was sold to British Columbians by the previous government that we were not self-sufficient. That took into account only the number of megawatts we consume versus we produce. What was happening was B.C. had a really good business plan that that side destroyed.

What B.C. would do is fill its dams at night and not generate energy. Then, during the day, when energy was at a high price, we would sell our energy. We would run our dams at full capacity. Then at night, we’d buy cheap, downgraded, discounted power off the grid.

[11:25 a.m.]

The grid is a battery. The grid is an account. We put energy in; we take energy out. We had a system where B.C. sold its energy for $1 billion more each year than the energy it had to buy at night. That was a good business plan.

What did the B.C. Liberals do? They tried to sell British Columbians on the fact that they were not self-sufficient. And in an atmosphere of cheap private money, they pushed BCUC out of the way, and they leveraged…. The only way their private friends could get the capital to build these projects was if this government guaranteed we’d buy the power at four times what it’s worth. That they took to the bank. That they could finance in an atmosphere of, basically, zero interest and free money everywhere. And it was a gold rush. It was the next gold rush on our rivers.

Gordon Campbell’s government had thousands of claims on rivers in British Columbia. It was ridiculous. And it was constructed to create a bubble where, in fact, it wasn’t rivers that were being diverted; it was the public interest. It wasn’t rivers that were being contained and diverted into their friends’ pockets; it was the public interest. And funds that should go towards supporting people in this province won’t do that now.

The run-of-the-river gold rush forgot that the grid is a battery, forgot that there are two sides to the balance sheet. These business-minded people forgot that we could sell energy at a huge profit rather than have to generate it at night or generate it in the spring when we have too much anyway. It was ridiculous, and it was intentional.

What we had was a privatization. The privateers are at the helm of the good ship public interest in B.C., and what they’ve done is steer it aground. They’ve steered it aground so that $16 billion needs to be paid by British Columbians — $16 billion not to support schools, not to support hospitals, not to support child care but to be directed directly into the pockets of their friends. It’s a heist on the public purse, and they are privateers.

This is what they’ve done. They took the public interest. They said: “Treasure, my friends, treasure. We’ll shovel it out the back door for you.” All you have to do is promise to build a ridiculous power plant that we don’t need, that will damage our environment.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: And all for your friends, Members opposite. All for them. And when it comes to the…. Who pays? All those people who come through my office and your offices who can’t get housing, who can’t get what they needed for the last 16 years.

Now this government is making different choices, putting the public interest first instead of auctioning it off, instead of liquidating the public purse the way they did to pay off their friends. That’s what happened in B.C. A false crisis was created and the solution offered. It was a solution that benefited the donors of the B.C. Liberal Party, and we will pay for the rest of our days because of their ridiculous choices in managing the public interests of this province.

It’s a terrible failure, and British Columbians won’t forget. Thank you very much, Members, for bankrupting B.C. Hydro and flushing the public interest.

T. Shypitka: It gives me a great sense of duty today to rise and speak against this private member motion from Port Moody–Coquitlam. There is so much to this motion that reeks of hypocrisy, as well as a lack of plain common sense, that five minutes are not near enough to describe it all, but I’ll try.

There are three things I’d like everyone to take away from my statement today. First, B.C. leads the country and most of the world with 98 percent of its power generated from clean power green sources. Former governments such as the B.C. Liberal Party had the vision and courage to put forth not only large-firm sources of energy — such as Sites A, B and now C — but also saw the vision of incorporating an alternative, independent side to power production.

This bold move brought this province to where we are today as world leaders, producing 98 percent clean, green, renewable power production. As a contrast, Alberta and Saskatchewan are around 13 percent clean power. The amazing thing about all of this is that we’re the fifth-least-expensive electricity in North America.

[11:30 a.m.]

The second thing to remember is that our current government is mandating 100 percent of all vehicles to be zero emission, to be put in place by 2040. That is a lot of infrastructure needed and a lot more capacity required to facilitate the electricity needed to run this super-aggressive initiative. If we are to meet this challenge, as well as our climate targets, then we will need to partner up with the private sector, to some degree. Long-term contracts were put in place. That partnership will need to go forward.

The third and final piece is that of balance. In my riding, I have the clean power station in Sparwood that provides much-needed jobs for so many families. To the north of my riding, about a 40-minute drive from Cranbrook in the Columbia River–Revelstoke riding, we have the Skookumchuck Pulp Mill that just celebrated its 50th anniversary.

The Skookumchuck Pulp Mill employs close to 300 families. Its secret to sustainability is partly accredited to the implementation of its cogeneration power plant that produces clean energy from over 10,000 truckloads of biomass every year. This biomass that feeds this co-gen plant is largely scrap bark and post peelings from all around the East Kootenays. Before Skookumchuck Pulp Mill had contracts with B.C. Hydro to purchase this green power, the biomass around the East Kootenays was burned on site in beehive burners, putting carbon emissions back into the atmosphere equivalent to about 18,000 automobiles per year.

This co-gen plan cost the company around $55 million in 1999 and costs about $5 million a year just to maintain it. A long-term commitment was required to bring this initiative on line. These energy purchase agreements were set out in 2001 and were indeed long-term contracts. This agreement not only provided certainty to 300 families from going hungry but eliminated a massive amount of greenhouse gases and a dangerous supply of fuel for forest fires.

These are the valuable offsets that the former government looked at when putting the wheels in motion for our current long-term contracts. It’s this balance that gives B.C. options going forward for a greener tomorrow. The hypocrisy of all this is that the NDP, who put this motion forward to stop long-term contracts, were the ones promising these independent power producers that they would help them.

Speaking to independent power producers, this is what the now Environment Minister had to say: “As the Premier has said, and as I have said, we see the future of energy, electricity generation in B.C., as being smaller scale, incremental. We see your sector as having the expertise and the experience and the innovation to develop it. We want to work with you, not against you.”

Another quote from the Environment Minister: “We want to promote a different energy position for B.C., one that includes your sector: renewables, small-scale distributive power.”

The hypocrisy continues. The NDP accuses the former government of directing the independent BCUC on policy for long-term contracts for IPPs, when it was this NDP Energy Minister that promised British Columbians to freeze hydro rates, as the member before me has stated, then actually announced a rate freeze but, since then, has promptly increased them.

On top of that, their new energy plan predetermines B.C. Hydro’s income until after the next election. Our Energy Minister has even stated having “regular meetings” with the BCUC to brief her on the things they were working on. That comes from Hansard of May 28, 2018.

Long-term contracts and partnerships with IPPs bring several things to the table. One, it reduces risk, cost and liability to government, implementing infrastructure and operation of alternative energy….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

T. Shypitka: So, Madam Speaker, I cannot support this motion.

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to support the motion introduced by the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House agree that government should no longer direct B.C. Hydro to sign long-term private power contracts that force British Columbians to buy expensive power and sell it at a loss.” That’s the motion.

First of all, I sincerely appreciate the member for this motion because it gives us all an opportunity to debate the choices governments make and to debate the reasons behind those choices. Our government is putting people first. That’s why we are making choices to make life better for all British Columbians.

[11:35 a.m.]

Under the last government, only the few at the top benefited, while opportunities became further out of reach for most British Columbians. The long-term private power contracts signed by the previous government were not good for the people and not good for our economy in the long run.

A recent report clearly points out that the old government signed contracts worth billions of dollars in sweetheart deals with their friends in the independent power industry. These insider deals will cost every B.C. Hydro customer an extra $200 every year for 20 years. That’s the cost the people are going to pay. That means people will have to pay about $4,000 over the next 20 years. In total, people in B.C. will have to pay a staggering $16 billion in unnecessary costs. We could have built 16 hospitals or maybe 300 schools in the province of British Columbia with that money. Now we are forced to pay that money to their friends, all because the old government put their friends first and people last.

Many of the independent power projects were B.C. Liberal donors. No surprise there. This is a prime example that the members on the other side continue to prove they put their friends first and the people last.

The energy experts have said time and again that we have surplus energy in B.C. To be very clear about that, B.C. Hydro currently generates approximately 60,000 gigawatt hours per year. Site C, to be built with a price tag of about $12 billion, will produce about 5,100 gigawatt hours per year. So it is shocking to note that the surplus energy for the year 2018, which is last year, was approximately 5,000 gigawatt hours, the same as Site C energy will produce.

This very objective and eye-opening information did not stop the B.C. Liberals from signing long-term contracts with independent power projects. In 2002, the previous government decided that except for Site C, all new power should be produced by private producers. A choice was made to sign long-term deals to benefit their own friends and insiders. It was based on pure greed, not based on the need of the people of British Columbia.

The current export market price for power ranges between $23 to $41 per megawatt hour. The price for power purchased from a private power project is about $100 per megawatt hour. B.C. Hydro would be selling this surplus energy at a significant loss, about 60 percent less price. Therefore, the people of British Columbia have to continue paying the price for the next 20 years — a really bad choice by the old government, a really bad deal for the people of British Columbia, a bad business decision.

We are taking a different approach. On this side, we’re putting people first. Our government is making life better and life more affordable for the people of British Columbia, so I support the motion. I hope the members on the other side will support the motion.

R. Coleman: I’m surprised the member from Cowichan, who spoke earlier, didn’t mention how the Harmac pulp mill is actually in operation today because it has an IPP. It actually saved that particular mill and the jobs in his particular riding.

In the 1990s, by the way, and in the 2000s, British Columbia has been doing IPPs. The former government to the B.C. Liberal government did IPPs. The only IPP they did that didn’t go ahead was a $162 million investment in a power plant in Raiwind in Pakistan. It went down the tube, just flushed.

[11:40 a.m.]

Let’s talk about how we get here today. I went through 162 meetings. We did our climate action work with Dr. David Suzuki all the way through, from industry to interest groups, environmental groups. The one thing they told us back in the early 2000s was that B.C. was not — surprising to me, because I thought we were — self-sufficient in electricity. The other problem was, the criticism was that we were buying dirty power. We were buying coal power from Alberta, and we had Burrard Thermal sitting there that could do 2,000 megawatts.

Now, the member has talked about the cost of this stuff. Well, can you imagine if all those kids who had ear, nose and throat infections in the Fraser Valley before we cleared up the air had lifetime irritants today and were jamming up our hospitals because the energy wasn’t clean in the areas where they breathed the air?

The reality is this. We bought dirty power, and we went through a process about our environment and what the values of British Columbians were going forward. That’s why, against the opposition from the now government, we actually brought in a carbon tax, revenue-neutral, to push technology to clean all aspects of our industry in B.C. And we reinvested it — not took it into general revenue but reinvested it in clean projects and opportunities.

It is about this that we need to understand. IPPs are independent power. There’s a pulp mill in Kamloops. There’s one in Skookumchuck. There are sawmills around this province that use wood waste to create energy, and they sell it back into the grid to B.C. Hydro. Without that, some of these organizations wouldn’t be in business today. What would be happening is thousands more jobs lost because we can’t figure out how to make bioenergy work by numbers when it affects jobs.

Bioenergy is part of your green plan. You won’t be able to get that power for the same price as you can get out of a dam, but you need to make the decision for the environment, for the cleanliness of the air and for the future health of British Columbians. You make that because you’ll actually spend or invest.

Now, let’s remember something else. In the 1990s, no capital was invested in new projects and upgrades for B.C. Hydro. There was a huge capital deficit that existed. That’s why the $2 billion project on Vancouver Island to upgrade the John Hart dam that had wooden penstocks that were creosoted every year above a salmon stream. That’s why the Ruskin dam has been done for the tune of $900 million. All projects were done when we were government because we recognized we couldn’t live with a structural deficit of infrastructure if we wanted to actually have self-sufficiency in power and long-term power for the people of British Columbia.

That was important, and it’s important it was done clean. That’s why we’re 98 percent clean today. We’re 98 percent clean because we actually concentrated on the environment. Now, these guys have a report that says to reopen Burrard Thermal, repollute the Fraser Valley, repollute the air in British Columbia. Why? Why would you do that? Concentrate on clean power. Concentrate on the fact that you’re going to need a lot more power as you go electric.

I remember asking a question of B.C. Hydro one time: what happens if every car in British Columbia goes electric? The answer was two to three more Site Cs, because that’s how much power it’s going to take to do this. So we have to do it smart, we have to do it right, and we have to balance costs off for human health and the environment.

If you want to flush the environmental stuff, on that side of the House, you go right ahead. We weren’t prepared to do that. We knew we had to make tough decisions to go clean, tough decisions to make British Columbia 98 percent clean energy and to keep it that way — not for us but for our children and our grandchildren and their children.

We need to do our part in British Columbia, and flushing that idea of clean energy, which the government wants to do by reopening places like Burrard Thermal, does nothing for the future health of British Columbians or the environment. As a matter of fact, it just means they don’t care.

B. Ma: It was in 2016 that I sat down with an impressively well-informed former accountant and North Vancouver resident named Norman Farrell at a local Starbucks on Marine Drive. It was my first time meeting him, and as a newcomer to the political scene, I had no idea what to expect. For years, Norm had been doing deep dives into the inner workings of B.C. Hydro and coming up with more and more shocking revelations of the B.C. Liberal government’s management choices of the massive Crown corporation.

[11:45 a.m.]

“Reluctant accountability,” he wrote in a September 30, 2016, blog.

“Scant hours before the legal reporting deadline, B.C. Hydro finally issued the 2015-16 report required by the Financial Information Act. Late on Friday, September 30, the end of quarter 2, the agency also issued its first-quarter report. Together, these documents demonstrate appalling mismanagement. It’s what happens when unqualified political hacks take charge of complicated corporations worth tens of billions of dollars.”

Sipping on lattes in the corner of a busy, noisy coffee shop, Norm unloaded years of research on me in a short couple of hours. The story he told was incredible yet his research, entirely credible: hundreds of millions of dollars of long-term contracts signed to purchase electrical power from independent, for-profit power producers, known as IPPs, based on electrical demand projections that proved entirely false over and over and over again. What’s more, the independent power would be available exactly when B.C. Hydro’s public assets would already be awash with inexpensive energy rather than at times when reserves were likely to be low.

He told me of the contracts that locked the province into purchasing power at ever-increasing rates, despite totally stagnant prices for power on the market, with built-in requirements for the province to purchase the energy at enormously inflated prices, whether it needed it or not, for decades to come with no way out. He told me the public would be paying billions of dollars they never used without so much as an asset to their name at the end of the day.

The release of the Ken Davidson independent report on IPPs on February 13 was, no doubt, a cathartic and vindicating moment for Norm, who had estimated the losses at $800 million a year. The report confirmed he was right on the money. The people of B.C. will pay a staggering $16 billion over 20 years in completely unnecessary costs to private interests for absolutely nothing in return. Nothing, not even an old piece of infrastructure to point at, at the end of the day — $16 billion, of which 80 percent will go to companies based outside of the province. We can’t even say that investment at least helps the local economy.

It’s difficult to imagine what $16 billion really means for a province until you break it down by households. So $16 billion, as many of my colleagues have already said, is $4,000 for every ratepayer in this province.

Government and B.C. Hydro staff warned the former B.C. Liberal government against requiring lengthy contracts with independent producers, but the advice was rejected. Why? People would be forgiven for wondering whether the $3 million in political donations the B.C. Liberals got from the companies that received these contracts had anything to do with their decisions to sign these sweetheart deals.

Norm Farrell offered some insight to me recently.

“After years of writing about the subject, I applaud the new government’s decision to commission and publish the report. Had I been involved, I would probably have pushed for it to be even harsher on the people that developed the private power policy. I am convinced that while the initial purposes had some validity, a malignancy developed, and it allowed schemers to take advantage and score profits that were unearned and undeserved.”

With all of the work our new government is doing to try to clean up the mess they left behind, it feels like every time we turn over a B.C. Liberal rock, there’s another brain-sucking sludge monster waiting to attack the public and take advantage of them, with the Liberals’ mismanagement of B.C. Hydro and its IPP contracts piling on top of the dumpster fire that the previous government left behind with ICBC and the rat’s nest of rot that continues to shock the world when it comes to money laundering in our province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s really quite incredible what they’ve managed to leave behind. No wonder the public is calling for a public inquiry into what’s actually been happening in this province. I know I’d sure like to know.

[11:50 a.m.]

J. Rustad: There’s so much in this motion and quite frankly, in the politics behind that report, it’s not even worth addressing some of it. But there are some things that do need to be talked about. First of all, you’ve heard speaker after speaker talk about increases to the taxpayers, yet they throw $10 billion increases in taxation to the ratepayers, to the people in this province, and they don’t bat an eye at it. It’s quite interesting what they will talk about and what they don’t.

I want to take a little trip through memory lane. In the 1990s, the NDP refused to put any capital into B.C. Hydro. What happens if you defer repairs to your home or to your vehicle? Guess what. Those repairs become more and more expensive over time. So when we came into power in the early 2000s, we had to do significant investments to upgrade the grids, to upgrade dams, to upgrade facilities, all because they refused to do that in the 1990s. Why? For politics. No other reason. Simple incompetence and politics.

So we go forward, and we make major investments in B.C. Hydro. We do the improvements that are necessary. What do we see today? Guess what. They’ve decided they’re going to defer over $2.7 billion in maintenance and upgrades on the grid. Back to the 1990s again. They didn’t learn their lesson then, and once again, they’re damaging B.C. Hydro and our infrastructure in their policies going forward.

Let’s take that aside for a minute. Green power and green energy. The members opposite…. I remember these debates back in ’08 and ’09. I believe even the Premier at the time participated in these debates. The debate was that we should not go ahead with these projects, that we don’t need them. The debate from the other side was that we could be buying this cheap power.

Let’s get this right. Where was this cheap power coming from? It was coming from coal-fired power from Alberta and from other power from down in the United States. That was the argument of the day — that we didn’t need to be clean, and we could be using that cheap power, not to mention Burrard Thermal. That’s their vision for this province, so that we could be hooked on power that comes in from outside our jurisdiction, that is not clean, that is coal, because it’s good for the environment, I guess, somehow. I don’t know. I don’t understand their arguments. But here they are making the same types of arguments.

Let’s look at other policies going forward. You want to have a clean B.C. policy. You want to electrify the northeast and put in the grid. You want people to move away from natural gas and electrify the homes, and these types of things. All this takes power.

I did the math. Just one-third of the passenger vehicles in this province, if they were to be electrified — just one-third — would consume 100 percent of Site C. That’s just passenger vehicles. If you want to do every passenger vehicle, like the party opposite here — the government is currently talking about doing them by 2040 — you would need three Site Cs just to power that, not to mention a fourth Site C to deal with all the other increases in power that are required in the province. Where’s that going to come from?

Where is that power going to come from? It’s certainly not going to come from another dam. They opposed the original dam at Site C. They opposed that as well. It’s amazing. They’ve opposed everything. But you know what else is interesting about this debate? The Green Party is conspicuously absent from debating this particular issue.

I want to talk for a second, in the limited time I have, about independent power projects, because I’ve got a number in my riding. Let’s talk about an organic rankine cycle power project at Nechako Lumber in Vanderhoof. This is an independent power project that’s actually using waste heat to generate power. I’ve got other power projects on the mill in Fraser Lake that are using waste wood. There are a number of these things.

I’ve visited many, many First Nations — a project on Vancouver Island that’s using solar, all through an independent power; other First Nations that have gotten off diesel because of independent power; First Nations that have signed treaties and agreements because they had opportunities to generate power and to move forward; First Nations that want these opportunities to be able to create economic opportunity, to get their people out of poverty, that have partnered in these things. Just go talk to the chief of Kanaka Bar about the independent power project and what that’s meant for his community.

Yet the members opposite seem to ignore all those things. There’s no question in my mind that we are going to need significantly more power as we go forward. As we all decide to go towards a greener economy and driving things, we’re going to need significantly more power, and that power has to be able to come from somewhere.

These independent power projects have been able to step up. We’ve created an industry in this province. They have been able to fill a gap and meet the needs. Quite frankly, we need more of these types of things going forward, given the types of policies that this province should be looking for.

[11:55 a.m.]

B. D’Eith: I rise to support the motion put forth by the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

First, let’s look at the B.C. record. Let’s look at the B.C. Liberal record over 16 years. What’s the legacy of the B.C. Liberals? An income gap that’s widening. An economy that worked for the 2 percent and no one else. A housing crisis that was unaddressed. Dirty money in our casinos and real estate market, an ICBC dumpster fire, service cuts, hundreds of schools closed and battles with teachers. And, of course, the Crown jewel of mismanagement by the B.C. Liberals: B.C. Hydro.

They ignored the B.C. Utilities Commission racking up $5.5 billion in deferrals. Deferrals are just a way of creating the illusion of profit under mismanagement, because that’s what happened.

Now, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources did want to freeze rates while we got to the bottom of this. But this is the difference. We went to the Utilities Commission, and when the Utilities Commission advised against that, we listened. I know that’s something that people on the other side don’t want to hear about because they didn’t listen to the Utilities Commission. We are listening to the Utilities Commission.

The other thing that we’re doing is trying to deal with this problem, and it’s patently clear, through the first report, that the B.C. Liberal government interfered in the operation of B.C. Hydro to the benefit of their friends to the tune of billions of dollars on the back of B.C. ratepayers. Ken Davidson was a former B.C. Treasury Board director who consulted often with the B.C. Liberal government. He delivered his report Zapped: A Review of B.C. Hydro’s Purchase of Power from Independent Power Producers, and from this report, as part of the B.C. government’s green plan…. This is a quote from the report.

“The government provided clear direction that, moving forward, B.C. Hydro would not increase its internal generating capacity and was no longer allowed to rely on importing power to meet demand…. Also, to add to the urgency of the process, the government directed B.C. Hydro to apply new parameters to its energy planning processes. These parameters created the appearance of an urgent need for 8,500 gigawatt hours per year of new firm energy.”

There were three conclusions from the report. B.C. Hydro bought too much energy and the energy with the wrong profile. B.C. Hydro paid too much for the energy it bought, and B.C. Hydro undertook these actions at the direction of the government.

In his report, Mr. Davidson alleges that the previous B.C. Liberal administration manufactured an urgent need for electricity but barred B.C. Hydro from producing it. This forced B.C. Hydro to buy power from private providers, and the result, as we’ve heard from the other speakers, was $16.2 billion on the backs of ratepayers. That’s $4,000 over 20 years. That’s $200 per ratepayer per year for 20 years. Just think of what we could have done with that money. Think of the programs and the services and the infrastructure. It’s unbelievable.

The worst part is that the energy purchased was the wrong kind of power; 71 out of 105 contracts are run-of-the-river projects that are only reliable in the spring. Of course, the spring is the very time when B.C. Hydro doesn’t need the extra power. Demand is lower because of the warm weather, and the reservoirs are full.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources stated: “Professional staff within government and B.C. Hydro warned them,” the B.C. Liberals, “against that course of action, but that government refused to listen. As a result, these contracts have already cost consumers $3.2 billion and are set to cost billions over the next two decades.” The minister goes on to say: “B.C. didn’t benefit. B.C. Hydro customers didn’t benefit. A small number of well-placed independent power producers benefited, and the consumers were stuck with a 40-year payment plan.”

While the B.C. Liberals will say that they were trying to move towards clean energy, the reality is that the way they went about it resulted in the wrong kind of energy produced at the wrong time for a cost that was far greater than the potential revenue, the cost, and it was borne by the ratepayers.

How can a party that supposedly represents free enterprise and good fiscal management justify this result? It doesn’t add up. How does it make sense to produce power that costs more than you can sell it for? The other result is that billions of dollars were granted through sweetheart deals to their friends in the independent power industry. These companies donated $3 million to the B.C. Liberal Party. Friends first. B.C. people last. The B.C. Liberal Party way.

We’re a different government. We listened to the B.C. Utilities Commission, and that’s how we will deal with this issue.

B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12 noon.