2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 32, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Private Members' Statements

Changing lives for the better

H. Bloy

D. Chudnovsky

Job losses in Fraser Valley

H. Bains

R. Hawes

A shot in the arm

L. Mayencourt

C. Evans

Health and equality for all B.C. children

D. Cubberley

R. Cantelon

Motions on Notice

Contributions of Armed Forces members

(Motion 15)

D. Jarvis

M. Karagianis

Support for run-of-the-river power projects

(Motion 53)

R. Hawes

S. Simpson

J. McIntyre

N. Macdonald

J. Horgan

J. Rustad

[ Page 11923 ]

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

CHANGING LIVES FOR THE BETTER

H. Bloy: Thank you for the opportunity to rise in the House

today to speak about the importance of early learning and literacy in British

Columbia. As I recently became a grandfather, this is a subject that's growing

even closer to my heart — a baby boy, James Lawrence, from my son Jeremy and his

wife Jen.

I know that investment in the early childhood years is critical to

future success. Research on infant brain development tells us that a child's

experience in the first three years of life directly impacts their later

development and learning. There is also a 90 percent probability that a child

will remain a poor reader at the end of fourth grade if the child is a poor

reader at the end of grade 1.

This government recognizes the importance of supporting the

development of British Columbian children at an early age. Families in British

Columbia want their children to be given every possible opportunity to succeed

in life, and I am pleased to see that the early learning and literacy programs

being developed and supported in our province are doing exactly that.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I would like to start by talking about the success of StrongStart

B.C. early learning centres in British Columbia. StrongStart centres are funded

by the Ministry of Education and offer a free drop-in early learning program for

parents or caregivers and their children prior to kindergarten.

In 2006 Coquitlam was chosen as one of the sites for the initial

StrongStart B.C. centres. Due in large part to the success in Coquitlam, we now

have 86 StrongStart B.C. centres across the province, which include six in and

around my riding of Burnaby and Coquitlam.

[1005]

These centres are a wonderful resource for parents and caregivers

who wish to give their preschool-age children the opportunity to be comfortable

in a school setting. As we all know, the school is the centre of the community

in many areas of our province.

Qualified early childhood educators lead activities — including

stories, music and crafts — to help children grow linguistically, physically and

socially and to become more comfortable in a school-like environment.

In Coquitlam, StrongStart centres at Roy Stibbs and Riverview Park

have been awarded $50,000 to prepare an in-school space and fund the first year

of operating costs, including staff and supplies and healthy snacks. The centres

will receive another $30,000 each in the next two years. StrongStart B.C.

centres are being funded in my riding at Forest Grove Elementary School, and

there are many more coming on the Burnaby side.

Our government's commitment in the 2007 throne speech was to open

80 centres. There are currently 86 centres operating in the province. The

initial centres that are up and running around B.C. have been a true success,

with positive feedback being given from school districts and parents and

caregivers alike. Because these centres have been so successful, the government

is committed to creating 400 centres and having them operating by 2010.

B.C.'s Balanced Budget 2008 includes an additional $38 million to

make these centres a reality for B.C. children and families. At the beginning of

April the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance announced that it will

spend up to $150,000 to provide approximately 700 parents on income assistance

with preschool-age children with a bus pass for three months to encourage

families to utilize the StrongStart B.C. centre in their neighbourhood.

Another extremely positive early learning program in our province

that deserves recognition is B.C. Books for Babies. This initiative promotes the

concept of lifelong learning. It is a community-based literacy program that

focuses on the value of reading to newborns. Through the program, every baby

born in British Columbia will receive a book bag containing a board book, a CD

and information about libraries in their community and other services. Bag

distribution is coordinated by the public library in each community.

Research clearly shows the importance of talking, singing and

reading to newborn babies. Books for Babies helps create connections between

B.C. libraries and families at a very early stage.

Parents, caregivers and families want options and choice for their

children. This government is committed to exploring options and making more

early learning choices available to families.

For a number of years now, for six years, I've been visiting every

kindergarten class in my riding. I give a book to every kindergarten child. It

is really important to me because I remember when Anita and I read to our

children when they were very young. When they got to be about kindergarten age,

they would start to read to us. Even though some of it was from memory, they

were learning the words, and they could point them out.

This is what I tell all the kindergarten children that I visit —

how we as parents read to our children and how they started to read to us. So

they each get a book to take home. I've met some great teachers while I've been

in the schools. The teachers encourage all the children to come back and tell

her about the books that they received.

In British Columbia, in our 2008 throne speech, it was announced

that a new early childhood learning agency will be established to assess the

feasibility and cost of full-time kindergarten for five-year-olds. It will also

undertake a feasibility study for providing parents

[ Page 11924 ]

with a choice of day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010 and for

three-year-olds by 2012. The report will be completed later this year. I look

forward to this report and this study so that there's more choice for parents

for early childhood care.

I am proud to see the initiatives that this government is taking

to provide for children of British Columbia. This government recognizes the

importance of providing options for families and exploring new avenues for early

childhood education.

[1010]

B.C. is moving forward from the StrongStart B.C. centres

initiatives to the Books for Babies programs. Children in British Columbia are

reaping the benefits of early learning programs, and our province can only gain

by providing more options for caregivers.

D. Chudnovsky: I'd like to thank the member for Burquitlam,

I think it is, for bringing forward the issue of child care to us today. I think

that it's worthwhile talking about the breadth of child care programs and the

need for a diversity of child care.

The member and the government have focused on the StrongStart

program. There are important benefits to the StrongStart program, and we support

the StrongStart program as one of a range of child care programs. [Applause.]

I would encourage the members opposite to have patience before

they get too excited.

The StrongStart program, as we know, is a program that requires an

adult to accompany the child to the child care. That is a problem for thousands

of my constituents. My constituents are working people. Most of them are

families where two adults work.

To focus the government's resources and ideas on only one of a

possible range of child care programs — the result being that the preponderance

of new resources go to a child care program which, in the end, is available only

to those who have the ability to go with their child to the programs — is

certainly a problem.

It is, in fact, discrimination against those who need to work, who

are at work. It's discrimination against single-parent families where one person

has to work. It's discrimination against dual-parent families where both are

working. It's discrimination against those people who are isolated in our

communities and don't have an adult who can accompany the child to the child

care.

What I would put forward in response is that the diversity of

child care programs that are available…. Preschools, parent participation

preschools, group day cares — all of these are programs that should and could be

supported by government.

We know from the messages that we've gotten and from the response

of the child care community over the last couple of years that there is a

disappointment and a frustration and, in fact, a bitterness in the province with

respect to the other types of child care, the incredibly important range of

child care experiences which many, many children across the province need and

want and deserve.

I would encourage the member for Burquitlam to be broader in his

understanding and broader in his support for resources for a range of child care

experiences which young people in this province need and deserve.

[1015]

I call the member's attention, for instance, to the reductions

that were introduced by government over the last couple of years for the child

care resource facilities across the province. I know that in my constituency the

information, the help and the support that was derived from those facilities was

and is incredibly important. A reduction in its availability is something that

has a concrete impact on the ability of my constituents to access and to use a

range of child care experiences for their children.

H. Bloy: I'd like to thank the member for

Vancouver-Kensington for his support of the StrongStart programs, but from there

it seemed to go downhill. No matter what the opposition thinks of what we've

done as a government and about a broader range of support, I believe that this

government has stood up for children and brought more to British Columbia than

ever over the last number of years.

The government's priorities for 2008 include partnerships to

increase child care options; increasing spaces; recruitment and retention of

early childhood educators; supporting vulnerable children and families; and

developing a policy on early-years strategy. The province is investing close to

$300 million for child care services in 2008 and 2009, an increase of $212

million from 2001. Provincial operating funding of more than $62 million a year

supports over 4,600 child care facilities, including more than 87,000 child care

spaces.

Creating child care spaces is a key priority of this government.

Since 2001, capital funding has created more than 3,300 new licensed child care

spaces in the province of British Columbia. The ministry has set out even more

ambitious guideposts for the years ahead, allocating $12.5 million in 2007-08

with the goal of creating approximately 2,000 new spaces by the end of 2010.

I know that this program is well on the way. It's been extremely

successful. A lot of people were working on developing these spaces. Child care

partnerships like the social housing–child care partnerships with B.C. Housing

and the school spaces initiative are effectively bringing together a wide range

of government and community contributors, families and service providers.

This government has made child care subsidies available to the

families of almost 50,000 individual children each year. Last fall we increased

the maximum subsidy rate for out-of-school child care to the benefit of more

than 13,000 children in the province. We've extended higher subsidy rates for

young children to carry on throughout a child's entire kindergarten year.

Let's not forget that these latest improvements follow a major

expansion of the program. In October 2005 it made subsidies available to about

65 additional children, while an additional 6,000 children saw an increase in

their existing subsidy. We're supporting recruitment and retention of qualified

staff through two exciting new pilot programs: the early childhood educators

loan assistance program and the early childhood educators incentive grant

program. Across….

[ Page 11925 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

H. Bloy: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today,

Madam Speaker.

JOB LOSSES IN FRASER VALLEY

H. Bains: I want to talk about job losses in the Fraser

Valley.

There's a lot going on in the minds of citizens in the Fraser

Valley. If it's not the health care services that they worry about, they worry

about the safety of their families in their neighbourhoods or whether their

children will get the required resources in their schools. These are some of the

concerns that they live through on a daily basis in Surrey, in other Lower

Mainland communities and in Fraser Valley communities.

The biggest worry that is increasingly on their minds recently is

whether the family-supporting jobs that they hold will be there when they show

up for work in the morning. When they see what is going on around them and what

is happening to their neighbours, it is real enough to lose sleep at night. They

know that this is becoming reality in their communities.

[1020]

I will try to put together some numbers that reflect the reality

in this region going back to 2001, when this government took power. Here's the

list of forest industry jobs that once belonged to steelworkers and are no

longer there: Weyerhaeuser's Canadian White Pine mill in Vancouver was one of

the first casualties, shutting its doors to close to 400 family-supporting jobs.

The minister said he could do nothing, despite the fact that the

company was required to operate this mill at that time under the appurtenancy

clause and despite the fact that this mill was one of the two most profitable

mills in the company. The minister went on to say that it is their business

decision and that they would not be able to help the workers.

Then came the turn for their two other value-added mills next

door. K3 and a specialty board mill went down soon after, throwing another 100

jobs in the waste bin. Vancouver local 1-2171 has seen the Squamish mill

permanently shut down, laying off over 200 family-supporting jobs. This was

despite the fact that the workers, the community and the local management team

gave everything they could to keep the mill running.

Then Silvertree sawmill shut its doors permanently, laying off

close to 200 jobs. The same company, another division — the Vancouver division —

shut down its only remaining mill in south Vancouver, throwing another 200

workers on the streets. Howe Sound sawmill on Kent Avenue shut its doors,

costing another 150 jobs. Sawarne Lumber, a remanufacturing plant on Mitchell

Island has not operated for over six months — another 100 jobs on indefinite

layoff.

This is the story of members in one of the locals of steelworkers

in the Lower Mainland. Although all these plants were located in Vancouver, most

of them live in Surrey and surrounding areas, for a total loss in the last five

years of…. Over 1300 well-paying, family-supporting jobs are no longer there.

The same trend exists in the Fraser Valley local of the

steelworkers. Here's a list: Fraser Mills, shut down December 2001, 200 jobs;

McDonald Cedar, 50 jobs; Westminster Wood, Interfor, 50 jobs; Canfor Harrison

Logging, 70 jobs; Interfor Specialty Division, 50 jobs. Ellison Pass logging, 50

jobs; Interfor Hope logging, 40 jobs; J.S. Jones, Boston Bar, 180 jobs; Lineham

Logging, 40 jobs; Meeker Cedar, 60 jobs; Western Forest, New Westminster

division, 300 jobs; Mission Ridge Enterprise, seven jobs; Interfor Queensboro,

110 jobs; Marine Way Independent Industries, 20 jobs; Lytton Lumber, 50 jobs;

Interfor Elgin, 25 jobs; and most recently Canfor panel and fibre, 100 jobs, for

a total of 1,372.

It's a total in these two locals of over 2,700 jobs. When these

mills were going down because of lack of fibre — one of the reasons, as most

mills will tell you — the log exports from this province continued at a record

level.

One of the greenest operations, panel and fibre, as I mentioned,

shut its doors in New Westminster, giving pink slips to over 100 jobs. According

to the steelworkers, not a word in response from the Premier, who has pledged

about $1 billion in gas and oil subsidies by 2010, and nothing back from the

Forest Minister — who thought, as one Panel Fibre employee found out, that

Canfor made 2-by-4s at this mill. Imagine that — a Forest Minister who does not

even know what a major facility in the Lower Mainland produces.

All the job losses, this government would like you to believe, are

due to market conditions.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

R. Hawes: Standing orders for private members time state

that statements are not to be overtly political, nor are they to cast aspersion

on individual members of the House. I believe that's what this member is doing,

and I would ask that you ask him to refrain doing so.

H. Bains: These are the facts that face these workers in

these communities.

A reality check shows that many of these job losses in the forest

industry are as a direct result of this government's forest policies and of this

government's inaction to help the industry and the workers to overcome some of

the difficult times that they face today.

It is a direct result of the government's removal of the social

contract that existed between the people of the province — the real owners of

our forests — that required the forest company to harvest logs from Crown land

and manufacture them in B.C. to create jobs for British Columbians.

[1025]

Now, thanks to this government, that social contract does not

exist, and the major industry has become log brokers. As a result, there's a

record level of raw log exports, while the local mills are starved of the logs.

Mackenzie sawmill is pleading with this minister at

[ Page 11926 ]

this time not to approve an OIC that sits on the minister's desk for approval

to allow their log source to export logs. This minister is non-committal.

Point of Order

R. Hawes: Again, I rise on a point of order. Standing order

25a(5)(

b) states that in private members' time: "Statements and

discussions…shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in

the same session."

On Thursday of last week this issue was canvassed in question

period. Madam Speaker, I would ask that you ask that member to refrain from

getting specific on items that have been already discussed in this session.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second.

Member, because something has been brought up in question period

does not preclude it from being discussed in this forum. Private members'

statements state difference of opinions and controversy, not a problem, but

debate is not within the spirit or intent if they are highly partisan remarks

that reflect negatively on individual members or groups of members within the

spirit or intent.

Members, all just refrain in terms of that general rule that we

have all agreed upon.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: When I brought all those stats reflecting what

went on in the last five years, I think this also is in the view that the

industry made a pledge to reinvest in this industry close to $1 billion so that

they could make this industry competitive.

What happened since? Rather than investing back into the industry,

Interfor — that was one of the operations who made that pledge — shut its mills

down here in the Lower Mainland, but they invested in Washington and Oregon,

purchasing mill after mill.

That was a betrayal to the province of British Columbia by the

industry, and I think the government stood by and allowed that to happen. I

think the citizens of this province, especially citizens of the Fraser Valley….

Many of those mills that I talked about that have shut their doors…. Those

members live in the Fraser Valley and Surrey area.

R. Hawes: That was an interesting litany of job loss.

Everyone feels badly any time a job is lost in forestry or any other industry in

British Columbia.

As the member knows and perhaps doesn't want to think about,

first, the American economy, which is the major place that our manufactured

products are sold, is in a huge recession, and the market is all but dead to the

United States.

Second, the Canadian dollar is absolutely crucifying our forestry

manufacturers right now. The combination of those two things really has had a

horrible impact on the forestry industry.

[1030]

The third item that perhaps the member doesn't want to talk about

— and the one that many of us sit and try to figure out — is that last year,

steelworkers and the coastal forest industry went on strike at the worst

possible time, asking for more money and better conditions when the industry was

in a state of collapse. It was falling on its knees because the markets were

drying up in terms of log exports.

There are fewer log exports today than there were a decade ago in

British Columbia. The big thing is that today there is no market for the logs in

the United States or elsewhere. There's a very narrow market in some Asian

countries for certain species. But for the most part, there is no market for raw

logs or manufactured product for us.

One of the problems we have is that our manufactured products

actually are having difficulty competing on the world stage because our costs of

production are too high. We have logging groups who want to ask for export

permits to send logs out of the country because the price is a little bit

better. We have manufacturing and mills that want to buy those logs at a

domestic price that's much lower and is lower than the cost of bringing the logs

out of the bush. So what we have is one side of the industry who wants to have

basically a subsidized price from the other side of the industry, and it's

driving people out of the bush.

Our loggers now are beginning to shut down. Our milling operations

can't sell their product because there's no market. The limited market that

there is, and a very limited market for some, is only there if you can buy the

logs at a price that's lower than it costs to bring them out of the bush. Now,

how do we survive in that kind of a climate?

It's easy to point fingers and say: "Oh, fix this and fix that."

The bottom line is that there is no easy fix. I know that the minister is

working hard with industry to try to find a way out of this morass, but overly

simplistic solutions put forward actually don't help anyone here.

The bottom line is that by saying that there will be no log

exports, and there's precious little now…. No log exports means no jobs in the

bush. No logs coming out. No logs supplied domestically.

Mills have the right to block any log that goes on the surplus

list. Any log that goes on the surplus list can be blocked and can be purchased

by a local mill. The fact is that they're not buying them because, firstly, they

can't afford to pay the price for the logs and then manufacture and sell at a

profit, and secondly, there is no market even when they have logs to

manufacture.

[ Page 11927 ]

We have some major mills in this province that have lost…. Canfor

lost almost a million dollars a day over the last quarter. They both log and

manufacture, and they can't make money. There is no one in the industry making

money. In the job losses cited by the member earlier….

I'm familiar with some of those mills. Some are in my community.

Some of those mills have nothing whatsoever to do with the state of forestry in

British Columbia. They were a matter of management within the mill. I know for a

fact that one of them is. I'm very familiar with the entire operation, and I

worked hard to try to save that mill. But, in fact, Meeker Cedar went bankrupt

because it wasn't running properly.

The member or any member can sit and put names on a list, but it

means nothing. It means nothing if you don't recognize the state of the industry

in this province today. By holding out any kind of hope that there's a quick fix

is actually giving false hope, and I think it's irresponsible. The minister has

said that it's going to take some time.

Everyone knows that right now our main market is the United

States. They're not buying, obviously, with seven million homes in foreclosure.

We're trying to open up Asia and new markets for manufactured products, but

frankly, it's tough to compete when your wage structure here is so high.

If the investment the member had talked about had happened, we

would have mechanized mills, and job loss would have occurred due to

modernization.

H. Bains: You know, listening to the responses from the

government side, it's no wonder that we find no solutions. We have no solutions

because the members on that side and that government believe there's nothing

wrong in the industry, that everything…. "Let's blame the Americans. Let's blame

somebody else."

Well, let's talk about the American market, if that's the only

reason. Let me remind the members on the other side. Where do you think all

those logs are going? They are going to the United States. They are now being

processed in United States mills rather than being processed in B.C. That's

where they should be being manufactured in the first place, to create jobs here.

[1035]

That was the intent of the social contract that this member and

everyone on that side allowed to be written off — gave everything to the

industry that they wanted plus some but got nothing back from the industry for

British Columbians or for the province of British Columbia. I think that is a

shame, and that's what we need to talk about.

Let's talk about what a log export was ten years ago. It was

250,000 cubic metres a year. Most of that was from the private lands. Let me

tell you what went on during the tenure of this government: over 4.5 million

cubic metres a year. That's the equivalent of ten good-sized mills running two

shifts that would employ close to 2,500 members. Those are the numbers that I

talk about that we have lost in the Fraser Valley alone, and those would be the

direct jobs.

When you add that and multiply it by four, you're looking at close

to 10,000 jobs that are no longer there — thanks to the policies of their

government and thanks to the inaction of their government — that we need at this

time, when the industry is going through tough times, when the workers are

losing sleep because they know that they may not have a job to go back to

tomorrow. The minister on the other side says: "Well, you know, everything is

fine. You don't have to worry about it. Allow the industry to come out of

this.…"

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

H. Bains: Through the Chair, Madam Speaker. And the

minister is saying: "Leave everything alone, and the industry will look after

itself." Well, guess what. In the last seven years they gave everything to the

industry and nothing got back from the industry to the workers or to the

province. I think that is a clear case of abdication of this government and this

minister's duty to the province and to the citizens of this province.

They talk about simplistic solutions. Well, sometimes simplistic

solutions could work. But what you have coming from their government is no

solutions at all, no solution whatsoever.

So what happened to the pledge by the industry? The industry got

everything that they wanted, and they made a pledge that they would reinvest in

the industry to make this industry a competitor around the globe. One billion

dollars was pledged. Where is that minister…

Deputy Speaker: Member. Thank you.

H. Bains: …and where is the member over there…?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

A SHOT IN THE ARM

L. Mayencourt: I'm glad to be here this morning and to be

able to talk about a shot in the arm. The shot in the arm in this case is really

good news. It's good news for our arts community in British Columbia. Never

before in the history of this province has a province ever invested as much as

it has in this particular year to ensure that we have a vibrant and important

and relevant arts and cultural community here in British Columbia.

You know, the arts for me is a couple of things. It's a

conversation. The arts, in my view, allow us to see the world through other

people's eyes. It gives us a chance to deal with taboo subjects. It gives us an

opportunity to talk about things that are important culturally, between one

nation and another, to be able to reflect on our first nations history, to be

able to explore how other people deal with the challenges that they face in

their community. The arts community is something very, very important to me, and

it gives me the opportunity to look at the world through different eyes and to

allow us all to be able to see what the differences are and why they're so

beautiful.

The arts are also a walk. They are a walk through our lives. They

are an opportunity to see and work and

[ Page 11928 ]

see other people's lives and have an opportunity to participate in that. The

simple fact that we have an arts and culture community in Vancouver-Burrard, for

example, is something that attracts a lot of people to Vancouver.

I know that Microsoft thought that our arts and culture scene,

Sierra Wireless thought that our arts and culture scene…. Many, many others have

come to British Columbia because there is this vibrant arts community. It's not

just important to people that live here, but it's also for people that are

visiting, and it's also for people that are going to be moving here.

In British Columbia the arts and culture community employs over

63,000 individuals. That's very impressive, and it contributes almost $3 billion

to the economy in British Columbia. That means people going to plays; that means

people buying popcorn; that means people are going to see the ballet; or what

have you.

[1040]

We have many different opportunities in British Columbia for the

visual arts — to be able to see someone that has drawn something or painted or

perhaps someone that is involved in photography. Photography has been around for

a long time, but it's only been in the last five to ten years that it's really

been recognized in British Columbia as a true art form. I know many people that

worked in that area, and to see that visual art coming forward as a way of

provoking thought, as a way of provoking conversations, is important.

We have a vibrant performing arts community as well. We have

theatre where anyone can go and watch a play. I just love going to the Arts Club

Theatre or to the Stanley and being able to watch a live performance and see the

kind of talent that British Columbia offers. We have magnificent actors and

actresses. We have wonderful people that work in dance.

Last week I had the opportunity to go to the dance centre. The

dance centre is on the corner of Burrard and Davie. It's a great place that was

built as a collaboration between all of the dance community in British Columbia

to bring some focus, to create some synergies, to create conversations, to

create an opportunity for dance companies from around this province to work

together, to learn from each other, to observe. It was very exciting for me to

be there.

If I could just plug one thing. My good friend Linda Blankstein,

who is really involved in the dance centre, turned 50. Happy birthday, Linda.

The arts are also an opportunity to educate people. It's an

opportunity for kids to be able to become involved in the arts and see a way to

be creative. Something that comes to mind immediately when I think about kids

and art is the Arts Umbrella, a great organization that's located on Granville

Island and that's doing amazing work at helping kids experience art on all of

the various levels. It's really exciting to see that kind of thing happening.

Two weeks ago I was in my riding, and I went to a place called

ArtStarts. ArtStarts is a gallery on Richards Street, I think, where the entire

art gallery is dedicated to children's art. I can remember when I was really

little, drawing this wonderful painting of a ship and how great it was. It ended

up on the refrigerator, and then it ended up somewhere else, and before long it

was gone.

Well, at ArtStarts they actually sit down and they say: "Hey, this

is so great that we're going to actually frame it. We'll matte it. We'll frame

it. We'll hang it. We'll have a card that tells about the artist and all that

sort of stuff."

When I saw that, I went: wow, what quality. What an exciting time

we live in that kids can understand that what they're contributing to the arts

is appreciated and valued and honoured by being hung in a gallery.

The arts is also about business. We have a wonderful film business

here in British Columbia. We have opportunities for sound stages, for people

that work in camera work, to driving rigs from one movie set to another. It's a

wonderful opportunity for us to see art in action, and I'm very, very proud of

the work that we've done in British Columbia.

I will spend a little bit more time. I want to talk about some of

the investments that British Columbia has made in the last several years towards

the arts community, to the point that we are working with organizations to

create Arts and Culture weeks. I know that members here, in whatever ridings

they were in, were celebrating Arts and Culture Week in their own ridings

towards the end of April.

It's really a great opportunity for us to say to the arts

community: "Hey, you know what? You're doing great work, and we want to help

you. We're going to help you by bringing you some exposure. We're going to help

you by giving you some money. We're going to help you by supporting you as

sponsors. We're going to help you by making sure that your work is valued,

whether you are a grade 3 student or a senior that's living at the performing

arts lodge in Coal Harbour, and that the arts community is valued in British

Columbia in a way that it has not been for many, many years."

Arts and Culture Week was an excellent time for us to reflect on

the important role that artists have in our life. We were very, very happy to

see people travelling throughout their communities and going and seeing a play,

going and seeing some photographic work and becoming part of the arts and

culture in British Columbia.

There are many, many other opportunities that we have, and I'm

going to talk about one of those coming up in education with the Emily Carr

Institute of Art and Design.

[1045]

C. Evans: Thank you to the member for his contribution on

the subject of the arts. I was utterly unaware that he was going to talk about

the arts, but I am pleased, because it gives me a chance to respond.

I come from Nelson. In the community of Nelson we did an economic

analysis a few years ago and found out that there was a higher percentage of

people who self-proclaimed themselves as working in the arts in Nelson than

there was in Stratford, Ontario, which is essentially just about the theatre

company. Therefore,

[ Page 11929 ]

it's a subject that matters a great deal where I live. The member is

absolutely correct that the assistance of the Crown is necessary and desirable

in the growth of the arts.

I want to say, though, what I think is really going on, and I'm

going to do it in a completely non-partisan way by denigrating or critiquing the

party I belong to as well as the government. It seems to me that for the last

quarter century we have essentially abandoned arts and culture as part of our

communities and have begun to reflect only on that part of the arts that makes

money and employs people. I haven't seen a minister of arts and culture in this

building in 20 years.

Historically, it was an important portfolio. It's now an add-on to

the Ministry of Labour or whomever at the time. Once it was the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. It is added onto whomever the Premier of the day and whatever

party governs think might have some interest. Once upon a time it was actually a

part of how we lived.

When I first moved to the community I live in, there were six

softball teams, twelve choirs — especially Doukhobor choirs — and there were two

little theatre companies. There was theatre in New Denver and in Vallican in

every single year. There were square dances on Friday night. There were museums

in every community.

All those things are just about gone. Why is that? It's because we

have defined the arts as business. We have abandoned culture. We have abandoned

assisting people where they live to get together to have cultural events.

Essentially, this House under all governments — Social Credit, New Democrat, and

Liberal — has allowed television and electronic communication to replace culture

in our lives.

The chief medical health officer of British Columbia told me one

time that the plague of our times was alienation. We have become alienated from

one another, from our history, from where we're going. All those things are

related to culture — culture in big cities, culture in neighbourhoods, culture

in villages. We have abandoned one another and relate to a box from somewhere

else, providing us with information to define who we are.

The chief medical health officer said that most of the diseases

and troubles that people die of in British Columbia are actually self-medicating

to fill the hole that culture used to provide when we cared — before we decided

to allow television to tell us who we are.

To whomever governs, I would say: let's put arts and culture back

into the cabinet portfolio. Let's see if we can't define ourselves to ourselves

and not just see the arts as business and the economy, but see it as the

investment in the community to allow the community to express itself, wherever

it is — not just in the big city where it makes money, in the big city where the

TV and the movie theatres want to be, in the big city where the ballet company

wants to be, in the big city where the big museums are. Let's see it as our

ability to invest in ourselves, to be ourselves.

L. Mayencourt: I apologize to the member if, by mentioning

that it's a $3 billion industry, I touched a raw nerve.

The arts is not just a business, and I quite agree with the

passion that was put on display just a moment ago by the member. There are times

when it's very important to put some form of measurement into whether an

industry is doing well or not. So in that context, I do believe it's important

that we recognize that the arts are not just about the arts. There is some

economic benefit, and that can be used as a lever to generate more revenue or

more support for the arts.

The neighbourhood that I live in, as the member from Nelson was

saying…. I've been really blessed. I've got the opera. I've got the symphony.

I've got the playhouse. I've got the QE Theatre. I've got the cultural precinct

that's being planned by the Premier. I've even got a community centre that is

dedicated to the arts called the Round House.

But what I see happening right now is not just buildings and that

sort of stuff. I see a new commitment to the arts community here in British

Columbia, and that is demonstrated by some of the ways in which we have put

money into it.

[1050]

I mentioned that the Emily Carr Institute of Design is now

becoming a university, subject to the vote in the House, of course. Right now

we're saying that it's a serious enough business that we want to dedicate a

university to it. I think that's a good move for British Columbia.

There are times when you do have to use numbers, because numbers

can tell a little bit of the story. In British Columbia, as I said, we're

putting an unprecedented amount of dollars into the arts and culture. We're not

telling them what they should do with the arts. We're telling them: "Here's the

support so that you can pay the rent on your dance centre or pay the rent on

your studio, or what have you, so that you can support the artists as they're

growing."

This year we put $13.8 million into the arts through the B.C. Arts

Council. We furthered that with another $12 million that was going to be

distributed by others. We've also, in March, announced $209 million for the arts

in British Columbia; $150 million of that is for the BC150. We're celebrating

our 150th birthday. That's something that's going to generate artistic efforts

in communities like Nelson, Castlegar and Prince George and all of the places in

British Columbia.

We also put aside $50 million to support the cultural precinct, to

make sure that the Vancouver Art Gallery remains a place that is relevant and

has the opportunity to display British Columbia art. We've put $9 million into a

really nice little project, the Vancouver East Cultural Centre — a great, great

place in our neighbourhood, something that's worthy of support.

HEALTH AND EQUALITY

FOR ALL B.C. CHILDREN

D. Cubberley: Thank you to the House for the opportunity to

speak to the theme of health and equality for all B.C. children.

[ Page 11930 ]

The matter of playgrounds for kids and investments to support the

development and renewal of those playgrounds has been a very hot topic of late.

It's not my intent to discuss that topic. I want to look beyond the controversy

surrounding grants and their distribution to something which I think emerged out

of that controversy, which all members of the House will be aware of. That's the

intense interests of parents and communities in giving children of all ages

access to playgrounds at neighbourhood schools, and in parks as well.

I've had the chance, as this has unfolded over the last couple of

weeks, to talk with lots of parents who've been involved in advisory councils at

schools. A couple of things are common to all the contacts I've had. The first

of those is the conviction that all kids at every age need to have access to

inducements to play — access to an apparatus that actually invites them into

safe physical play, where they can burn off some of their superabundant energy

and do what kids love most, which is simply to get caught up and lost in the

sheer pleasure of using their bodies just for fun.

Anyone raising a child knows this. Anyone who has raised a child

can bring it back to mind immediately. Kids need to move, and they need

inducements to play. Parents understand it, I think, instinctively as they find

themselves rearing kids in circumstances that, from generation to generation,

are only becoming more confining for children.

There simply isn't the physical freedom available to our kids

today that you and I, Madam Speaker, may have enjoyed when we were young. The

run of the neighbourhood or, indeed, of the whole local area or the town that I

grew up in was open to me. That opportunity to roam is now severely shackled.

Kids are, in effect, hobbled, and we face the entirely novel risk of kids being

absorbed into physically passive electronic worlds.

There are, if anything, more barriers to kids being active, so a

playground with enough apparatus to draw kids in, in ways that vary with their

age and their inclination, is a basic necessity for healthy, active living and

for a calm and happy state of mind for kids. As the parent of a school-age

child, I get this conviction that all parents engaged in raising children share,

which is that kids need to have access to playgrounds in order to flourish.

[1055]

Like the parents who populate PACs at the schools in catchments

fortunate enough to have active PACs — which is far from all — I often wonder:

well, where do playgrounds come from? Who's responsible for creating

playgrounds, upgrading playgrounds, renewing playgrounds?

What those PAC parents learn — and that's the other thing I get

from conversation with them — is that no one's ultimately responsible today in

the sense that if a playground hasn't been made to appear, there really isn't

any window you can go to, to formulate the demand and say: "Hey, we didn't get

one. We need to have a playground here."

What PAC parents learn is that they've, in fact, inherited the

responsibility, and this leaves them scratching their heads in confusion, if not

frustration, because they consider — and they are right in this — functioning

playgrounds to be part of the fundamental equipment the school should come with,

no less important than the gym — even more vital, in fact, because playgrounds

serve the function of play, which is broader than the idea of organized sports

use.

It's all about healthy physical expression, daily physical

activity, and most importantly, about play that catches kids up and keeps them

moving. But for reasons that I don't comprehend entirely — and I do not seek to

lay blame here — playgrounds seem to fall off the side of whatever desk

investments in them are being directed from. They become a kind of luxury

instead of the primary equipment for active living that they should be.

One consequence of this is that access to playgrounds varies

dramatically. It's virtually assured in better-off neighbourhoods, at local

schools and parks. But in less well-off neighbourhoods access to playgrounds may

be much more restricted — in some cases, non-existent. In those same

neighbourhoods parents struggle more frequently to put the basics together for

their families, have less inclination and time to participate in the endless

meetings of PACs and the ongoing efforts to raise small amounts of money through

bake sales, book sales, and the like.

This very fact disadvantages those neighbourhoods where, for the

very same reasons, there are higher incidences of children who are inactive,

overweight and obese; higher incidences of the metabolic syndrome, which is a

precursor to type 2 diabetes; higher incidences of those not developmentally

ready for kindergarten — higher incidences, in fact, of all the risk factors for

poor health, physical inactivity and failure to perform at grade level.

It is, I would submit, both unjust and shortsighted to further

marginalize struggling communities by not establishing a fair and equitable

access to playground funding. Indeed, targeting those very communities for

funding for playgrounds is precisely the policy direction and the program

direction we should be taking, because if for no other reason, lack of

opportunity to be physically active breeds much more expensive problems down the

line.

We know exactly where the neighbourhoods with the greatest need

are, because we have the B.C. early development index to rely upon. We know that

our boards of education have the means to rate the needs at schools and to

ensure that funding is prioritized towards the areas of greatest need.

Personally, I think it's a shame that we have to consider

rationing funding so that needs actually do have to be ranked rather than…. I

think it would be better if every child could have access to playground spaces

within walking distance of where they live. Every single child. I believe that's

a goal that's as worthy as that of any athletic undertaking, and that it should

be and it could be reached if we made an Olympic-sized commitment

[ Page 11931 ]

similar to all the other Olympic-sized commitments that government feels it

has the wherewithal to make.

Imagine if we said that we'll commit ourselves to putting a

playground within easy reach of every child in British Columbia. That would, I

would submit, be a very fitting Olympic legacy for us to tackle.

R. Cantelon: I want to thank the member opposite from

Saanich South for his comments, and I intend to respond in the same non-partisan

vein he expressed his opinions, and I think, perhaps, in sharp contrast to how

the morning was going this morning.

I think when he mentioned earlier that in a different generation

children had the free rein of the streets and road hockey was king…. Where I

grew up, I can recall, we used to have baseball games at the end of the street.

We weren't organized; we just picked teams. We were very grateful when some

caring parent put up a chicken wire fence for our baseball backstop. That was

the way it was in those days. There were no real organized sports.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Perhaps a continuation of his thought — we maybe overorganize all

our children. Today too often you have to be in some sort of organized sports.

Kids aren't allowed just to organize themselves, which they actually could do

quite well, and play in the schools.

[1100]

I think it is a broader concern, as the member expressed, than

just schools, though I'll touch briefly on that too.

The community that I grew up in…. I'll relate it specifically to

where I live now, not where I grew up. I came there as an adult of course. The

city was very far-thinking, and every subdivision created tot lots for children

to play in that were accessible and near the neighbourhoods. That was a good

idea, but they didn't have any budgets for equipment.

That is changing, and I think it really is a fact that as our

society becomes more affluent, communities can get together and respond and

receive matching grants from the city to develop playgrounds, which I think is

very useful. Also, lately, with the advent of the B.C. Gaming, many communities

and individual groups are responding — rotary clubs and service clubs and

community groups — to matching grants to develop play areas. I think it's very

important that we have a wide variety of play areas within the communities and

also within the schools.

So it became a recognition that, indeed, the schools were on the

short end of the stick, in that the schools receive capital funding when the

schools are built, but after that they're on their own. I'm afraid, very often

for school districts, it's a higher priority to put money into programming and

other situations, and the schools haven't been renewed.

It was quite encouraging when, basically, the B.C. Gaming opened

up the opportunity for schools, with PACs, to apply for funding, and it's been

very well received. A total of $7 million has either gone into or is going into

funding for playgrounds within schools, and 182 schools have achieved or are

having new playgrounds being built in their school. This is certainly a good

thing for all the children there, and I think it's important.

Our government has recognized the importance of physical

activities in other ways, and I'll briefly mention those. I think, certainly,

the member opposite would endorse the ActNow programs that we have. It was on

the lawn of the Legislature last week, and we all had a go at it, and it was a

pretty challenging thing. I think these kinds of things to focus on activity are

good, broadly speaking.

Also, getting junk food out of the schools is a very, very vital

thing that, again, I'm sure both sides of this House would agree on and endorse

that this is a good thing. We need to teach our children to eat healthier, and

going along with that, to be more active in our communities.

Getting back to and, finally, briefly commenting on the

playgrounds in schools, it was a good start, a very good start. I think the

member opposite raises issues that are valid with respect to equality. I know

and I'm confident that the Minister of Education will be re-evaluating this

approach, because we recognize that it's a very beneficial thing to have our

children active and alert. It improves their performance in schools as well.

So I think we'll look at that now to see how we can expand it more

broadly within the school system, more fairly and equitably, certainly as we

have. We've been very sensitive to socioeconomic scales with programs such as

StrongStart, which, again, in my city and the community of Nanaimo has focused

on those areas that need the most. We've then supported them with bus passes to

make sure they can get to it. I think this is a very equitable approach.

It was a good plan. It was a good start to start these school

playgrounds, but as with many plans there are occasionally, what are I'm sure

both members would consider, unintended consequences. Those unintended

consequences are now being addressed and reconsidered in ministry policy, and

I'm sure we'll see a more broadly based approach in the future.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to

the member. Apart from one or two comments I'm going to make, I'm going to

sidestep the issue of whether the existing grant initiatives were successful or

not.

What I would say is this, which I think we would have to agree on.

If 182 schools got grants — grants for a maximum of $20,000 each, I believe,

which would be no more than a quarter, and perhaps as little as one-fifth, of

the cost of fully equipping a playground today — there were 700 schools that did

not, among those that applied.

[1105]

The scale of activity, I think, is what needs to be looked at. To

come back to ActNow B.C., the gist of what

[ Page 11932 ]

I'm talking about is that yes, we would definitely support the principles of

ActNow B.C., the direction of ActNow B.C., but we would make the point to

members opposite that physical activity needs an infrastructure. It will not

happen without opportunities being created for kids to get themselves into

playgrounds on a daily basis and enjoy that physical activity.

We need to look more closely at the scale of the problem, because

the problem is large. While access to grants from the Gaming Commission is good

— and in fact, that opportunity was there throughout the '90s in the form of

parents participating directly in local activities in order to generate revenue

to their organization for things like playground grants — the problem today is,

in fact, larger than it has ever been before.

One of the reasons for that is that the entire infrastructure that

was in place up until the late '90s was of a certain design. It was put together

in a certain way. It reflected a certain understanding of the need on the part

of the agencies providing it to ensure that kids could play safely.

All of the standards around risk and safe play for children on

school grounds have now shifted, especially in the schoolground apparatus

affecting the youngest children. Therefore, schools and municipalities are

struggling everywhere because they literally have to replace the whole stock.

This requires much more attention on our part than we've given it. I'm speaking

in the most non-partisan manner I can. This is a much larger problem.

We need to get an infrastructure in place for those kids. We can't

take 20 years to do it. It has huge consequences in all kinds of lives — that

we're not doing that. I would mention just one. If you think about the standards

of licensing for child care, they do not allow children to play in the standard

playground equipment that was provided in the '90s. That means on those sites

that have co-located child care, those kids can't play on a playground even if

the other kids at the school are allowed to because they're that much older.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Motion 15, in the hands of the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House

is required to proceed with Motion 15 without disturbing the priorities of

motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

CONTRIBUTIONS OF

ARMED FORCES MEMBERS

D. Jarvis: I'm honoured to rise in the House to speak to

this motion.

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes the contributions

of British Columbian members of Canada’s armed forces who risk their lives to

bring stability to the world and security to Canada.]

A few weeks ago, the members for Prince George–Omineca and

Surrey–White Rock informed me that there are hundreds of veterans from our past

wars that have been buried in unmarked graves without the honour that they so

deserve. Operation Remembrance was implemented in order to honour our veterans,

and I'm pleased that it has been so successful, even in my own riding of North

Vancouver.

I began at that time to think further of how Canadian soldiers

have helped to make this country what it is today — a great country — and that

the many sacrifices are sometimes not as respected as they should be.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

To explain further, I would preface it with a few stories of our

men and women in service, who have, over the years, served this country and the

world.

Some 84 years ago, for example, the world was locked in a war of

devastating proportions. It was 1914, and Canada — or as we called it at that

time the Dominion of Canada — entered the European theatre with a purely

volunteer contribution to the cause of freedom.

I will try and give you a brief sketch of some of the encounters

in order to give you some idea of the enormity and the horrors and the heroics

that those people went through and also that surrounded all of the combatants,

and why the basis for this motion. The battles of the Somme, Passchendaele and

Vimy Ridge were perhaps the most remembered engagements, but they do not take

away from the equally terrifying events such as Ypres, Verdun and the yellow

gas.

The major Battle of the Somme in 1916 lasted 109 days between the

United Kingdom and their volunteers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand,

Newfoundland, France and, I guess, the German professional army. The casualties

over the first seven days were: the Allies 900,000 and the Germans 500,000. The

Allies gained five miles of land.

[1110]

By the way, Newfoundland was not part of Canada at that time, but

its regiment suffered 91 percent casualties at the Somme. Over 800 young men

from Newfoundland marched into battle that first day, and only 68 made it out

unharmed. With over 500 dead, nearly an entire generation of Newfoundland's

future was killed that one day.

The Battle of Passchendaele was equally as tragic. Men and boys

charged across no man's land on duckboards, and the liquid mud was so thick that

many of the fallen soldiers just simply drowned. The Allied powers lost 448,000

lives, and 16,000 of those were Canadians. Hundreds and thousands were injured

for life, all for a few hectares of land.

In 1917 the combined Allied armies had tried to take the ridges of

Vimy, but the German army had been ensconced there since the start and

controlled the

[ Page 11933 ]

entire front, which had just resulted in a basic stalemate. Thousands and

thousands had already died, and it was at that point that the Allied command

decided the Canadians were to be the next to be thrown up against an

impenetrable force on hills called Vimy Ridge. Just weeks before that, the

French army had lost 150,000 men.

So it was in the early dawn of Easter Monday of April 1917 when

97,184 Canadians from all across our country charged across no man's land and

onto the ridges. In less than two hours, three of the four divisions of Canadian

soldiers had taken their objectives. The fourth division, whilst assaulting the

highest point of the ridge, had over 50 percent casualties.

After that, the British and French generals said: "In what we had

seen in the past day in those few minutes of time, we witnessed the birth of a

nation." The battle for Vimy was a great victory but with staggering costs in

the dead and wounded — some 800,000 casualties. Many soldiers just disappeared.

Today our country still volunteers our young men and women to make

the sacrifice for a country that will always contribute in times of strife in

order to aid its world neighbours. Canada has actually spearheaded all the great

victories in the 1914-18 war, as 10 percent — Canada's entire population of that

time being seven million — served in the First World War, and nearly 60,000 were

killed.

The Second World War was no different, with the Dieppe raid where

5,000 Canadian boys hit the beaches that morning. By noontime 4,000 were dead.

Time makes me cut back on a few of the stories, but I'll just say

that Canada has 1 percent of the world's population and has provided 10 percent

of the world's peacekeeping forces. We are credited as being the greatest

peacekeepers on this earth. We have had 39 missions on UN mandates and six

non-UN duties from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia and now in

Afghanistan.

I conclude by saying that Canadians should be proud and be made

aware that our ideals and freedoms do come at a high cost. We should honour our

fallen soldiers and, at the very least, mark their graves respectfully.

I ask you all to treat and support my motion with that respect. I

would encourage all parties to participate in Operation Remembrance and to

honour those who gave their lives to this great nation. I'd ask you all to

acknowledge our fallen soldiers through Operation Remembrance so that their

sacrifices can be remembered for years to come.

For further information, if they want — and it's quite an easy

task — you can contact either the Prince George–Omineca member or the

Surrey–White Rock member or my office as well.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, it's an honour today to stand

and speak to this motion, particularly because, as you mentioned, I'm the member

for Esquimalt-Metchosin. Just across the blue bridge not far from here is the

CFB, Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, also known as MARPAC, which is the Maritime

Forces Pacific base.

[1115]

It goes without saying that not only as a representative for

Esquimalt-Metchosin but, in fact, having really strong ties to the Armed Forces,

it's easy for me to stand here and talk about recognizing the contributions of

our Armed Forces.

My father-in-law was the lieutenant commander here in the navy —

Lt. Cdr. Aubrey Karagianis. His two brothers Jack Karagianis and Les Karagianis

were also career navy. My uncle Les is now 92 years old and is currently living

in the Maritimes too, where he joined his family but came out here recently for

a visit. So I have these very strong family ties. The generation that came after

them, their sons…. Many of them served in the navy for a time, none with quite

the same commitment as those three brothers who were career naval officers.

My ties to my community and to Esquimalt are very strong. You

actually can't go anywhere in Esquimalt, and anywhere in my constituency as

well, without finding some reminder of the important role that MARPAC and those

people who serve in the Armed Forces have, both in this community and across the

world.

Currently, CFB Esquimalt has 4,200 military and 2,000 civilians

working on the base. That constitutes a significant number of members of my

constituency and also of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca's, where many of

these military individuals live. The base is one of the largest economic

employers here in the lower Island and contributes about $650 million to the

local economy. So they are in fact a significant component of what the south

Island is all about and certainly the city of greater Victoria.

At any given time we have members deployed all over the world.

Currently, we have four ships that are deployed overseas, some of them in very

dangerous situations. I appreciate the member bringing forward the motion about

Operation Remembrance and the veterans, but I'd also like to talk about

recognizing the contributions of those supports for our armed services. Those

are the families of the Armed Forces.

When the member talked about the history of veterans in the wars

and many of the battles that they've served in, at all times we must remember

there were families at home, as there are today, supporting these members

wherever they are.

The families in my constituency are unsung heroes. The member for

Malahat–Juan de Fuca and I attended a very interesting event here last year in

the spring, which was Red Shirt Day. This was in recognition of all the families

who stay at home and are the support base for those members who are involved in

the Armed Forces — whether they're serving here, overseas, in the air force, in

the navy or in the army, because our Armed Forces combine all of those

disciplines.

The men and women who are here raising their families, raising

their children while their partner or

[ Page 11934 ]

spouse is away representing our safety and our peacekeeping efforts around

the world, I'd also like to recognize them because I think their contributions

are significant. For the mom or dad who is away serving, they spend a great deal

of time away from their children. All of us here know how important it is that

the nucleus of the family is held together and continues to function very well

in communities while a loved one is away making a sacrifice on behalf of the

safety for all of us.

Thank goodness there are resources such as the family resource

centre here. My friend Gaynor Jackson has done a terrific job with the staff and

volunteers she works with, who assist the families who are moving in at any

given time, settling into the community, or moving out. Often those significant

life-changing events such as moving across the country occur while a member is

still serving.

[1120]

I've known families who've come here and had their mother or

father — whoever is serving in the Armed Forces — deployed immediately either

out on exercise, or perhaps someplace in a peacekeeping mission or perhaps

deployed in some place more dangerous. At home the families have to find a way

to settle in, make themselves part of a new community and find their way in

raising their families under significant duress and stress.

I would say, also, that significant change in how our Canadian

government deploys peacekeeping and peacemaking and the subtleties between those

two methods of representation around the world…. That's also caused an

additional strain on families. So it's really important when we look at a motion

like this that recognizes the contribution, that we also recognize the shift

that we have made — as a country, as a nation in response to the war on

terrorism, in response to pressures from our neighbours to the south — to

actually subtly change the way we deploy our troops.

For all those veterans who remember and continue to help us

remember all the time the sacrifices that they have made, I think it's

important, as well, for us to really look strongly at the future of our Armed

Forces deployment and how we view our role worldwide. In fact, we have more

members at risk now and more of our Armed Forces personnel coming home here

draped in a flag. That is certainly not a situation, I believe, that we

anticipated seeing as we came out of several world wars.

As we sit and talk to veterans, as I talk to my uncle Les, who is

92…. He said how heartbreaking it is for him to think that we are now once again

deploying young men out in the world and bringing them home draped in a flag and

having funerals rather than celebrations for their return.

All of those things cause enormous duress to the families who sit

at home waiting. In fact, their contribution is often unrecognized. So I would

like to remind all members that while we are recognizing the contributions of

our veterans — and a great honour to continue to remember and to recognize them

and certainly to support the Operation Remembrance — I also think it's important

for us to think about the families who are at home and about what it is,

intrinsically, that we want out of our troops in the future.

I think that all of us want exactly what the families wanted back

in the First and Second World Wars and any of the other really dangerous

missions that our veterans have participated in. We all want our Armed Forces

members to come home safe and sound. We want them to come back and pick up the

reins of raising their families, supporting their spouses, contributing again to

the community. We want their peacekeeping to be something that keeps all of us

safe and secure, but we want them to come home and to continue to contribute

that way to our community.

I'm happy to say that we are in support of recognition of the

contribution of our Armed Forces — kudos to the member for bringing forward this

motion — but I want all of us to reflect on not just the past and the work of

veterans. In talking to veterans, I know they want us to concentrate, as well,

on what's happening now both to our people who are deployed overseas in

dangerous circumstances and to the families who wait at home for their member to

be returned safe and sound to them. So we're happy to stand in support of this

motion.

Hon. C. Richmond: Since neither of the members moved to

adjourn the debate, I will do so.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond: I now call Motion 53, in the hands of the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the

House is required to proceed with Motion 53 without disturbing the priorities of

the motions preceding it on the order paper.

[1125]

Leave granted.

SUPPORT FOR

RUN-OF-THE-RIVER POWER PROJECTS

R. Hawes: I'm pleased to stand up and support this motion,

which does read:

[Be it resolved that this House support the concept of

independent power projects to help achieve electricity self-sufficiency in

British Columbia by 2016 through continuing to support

environmentally-friendly run-of-river hydroelectric projects as it has for two

decades.]

Madam Speaker, in putting that motion forward, I deliberately said

"for two decades," because through the 1990s, under the previous government,

there was an IPP process, an initiative, as reflected…. I'll just read quickly

from B.C. Hydro's 1994 annual report: "The IPP initiative was undertaken in 1991

to encourage the

[ Page 11935 ]

private sector to develop small electricity projects, allowing Hydro to defer

the construction of major projects."

The previous government did support the IPP process, as do we. We

are now caught in an energy crunch in this province, and I don't think that

there are too many who would deny that in most years we are net importers of

power and that we do need to develop new sources as our province develops.

Certainly, over the past few years the rate of growth in our economy indicates,

and is reflected in, a huge growth in the use of power and the need for power in

this province.

Hydro didn't embark on run-of-the-river projects themselves

because they don't really have the expertise for that type of project. Hydro's

expertise does lie in the big projects, and that's where it always has been.

These small projects take a huge amount of time and a huge amount of expertise

to put together. Hydro doesn't have the staff to run a whole number of these

projects and put them together. So it is left to the private sector, as it

should be and as it has been in the past.

Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of discussion around

a proposal in the Pitt River area in my own riding, and there were meetings that

were attended by lots of people. The bottom line, and through those…. I'll just

paraphrase what Joe Foy from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee had to say

on The Bill Good Show a few weeks ago. He said: "I could support

run-of-the-river projects in certain places, providing they're public versus

private." In other words, what… [Applause.]

I see the members opposite clapping.

So really what they're saying is that this isn't about whether or

not a run-of-the-river project is environmentally proper. It's about an ideology

— a political ideology. It's about: should we look at private investment, or

should we only have public investment? Should the government be the only ones

who take money from taxpayers' pockets — because that's where government gets

its money, from taxpayers — and then should the government be the ones who

invest it, or should we let private industry? Should we partner with private

industry and leverage the funding that can come from private investment?

Through the '90s that was the strategy followed by Hydro. We've

continued with that strategy. We think that the leveraging of private funds and

the leveraging of the expertise that comes from private industry make a lot of

sense, and so we have continued with it.

This is about a political ideology. But to me, it's also about

leadership. When we talk about leadership, there is a process in place for

developing a run-of-the-river project. There is a huge amount of work that has

to be done: the scientific work, the scientific information — engineering,

hydrological information, biological, biodiversity.

[1130]

There are all kinds of studies that must be done on every one of

these proposals before they can move on to an approval stage. DFO, the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has a lot to say about it, as does the

Ministry of Environment. Finally, there is the environmental assessment office

that takes all of the scientific information, does an assessment and makes a

recommendation.

At the beginning of the process there is a meeting held that will

involve the public, and when that meeting is held, it's to set the terms of

reference. It allows the public to have some say in the terms of reference that

will follow for the studies that must be undertaken.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Hawes: I'm just going to speak for a second about what

political leadership is. When you hold a public hearing, political leaders do

understand…. Real leaders understand that oftentimes when you hold a public

meeting, you will pack an auditorium quite easily with protesters and those that

are opposed.

People who are in favour of something rarely show up to a public

meeting. You don't see people waving banners saying: "I support a new bus line,"

or "I support a new store being built on the corner of my block." They don't do

that. Protesters come. But real political leaders understand…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Hawes: …that the arguments that are put forward….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Members, every member of this House deserves a right to be heard.

Continue, Member.

R. Hawes: They'll have their turn, but the truth hurts

sometimes, and I understand. When they heckle, that means they're listening, and

that's a good thing. Maybe they'll learn something.

Real leaders understand that it is not the quantity of the

argument that comes at a public meeting. It's not the volume and how loud people

yell. It's the quality of the argument. That's what should count.

They know that if there are a thousand people in a meeting, there

are probably 20,000 people at home who actually haven't said anything. Any

political leader that makes their decision based purely on what is said at a

public meeting is, I think, lacking in leadership.

Now, what happened in Pitt Meadows in my riding is a good example

of that. First, the public hearing that was held was about a power line through

a park. The minister dealt with that, and I think he dealt appropriately. The

other part of that meeting, though, was about setting the terms of reference for

that proponent to

[ Page 11936 ]

move ahead, if they wished to move ahead, to say: "These are the studies that

you must undertake, and no decision can be made until the science is in." Let's

do the science.

That, to me, makes some sense. That's the process we have in

place, and frankly, for these sorts of things, we should honour process.

Instead, we had the Leader of the Opposition and some members from the other

side, from the NDP, get up at that public meeting and extol the terrible,

terrible toll this would take on the environment somehow, with no.… [Applause.]

And there they are clapping.

With absolutely no science whatsoever, these people somehow are

able to make a decision, because they don't need science. This is a "fly by the

seat of your pants" type of government that they propose. That's what we had in

the '90s. That's how we wound up with fast ferries.

This is the problem with that group. We have a scientific process

that works in place. We say: "Let's honour the process. Let's not jump the gun

and say no or yes to any proposal. Let's get the science and honour the

process." But the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand process.

Obviously, the members here don't understand process. They understand two

busloads of protesters advertised for and put on the bus and probably offered a

free lunch to show up and protest. That's how they would form government.

Frankly, I don't want to live in a province that has a government

that would make all of their decisions based on the number of protesters that

show up at a meeting. It makes no sense. That's the kind of government we saw

from these folks in the '90s. Really, very clearly we are going to see, if they

were ever — and God forbid it should happen…. If they ever got an inkling of

power again in this province, that's exactly what we would see — a more

seat-of-the-pants type of government. Horrible, horrible way to govern anything.

The IPP process is in place. It's going to provide us with energy

self-sufficiency by 2016 when combined with the other works that B.C. Hydro is

conducting.

[1135]

The IPP process is a proper process. It's environmentally

friendly, and it works. It has worked for actually 50 years in British Columbia.

It worked through the '90s when this group was in power. Now they want to say:

"Oh no. It's the private sector. Oh, it's bad."

We happen to believe that people in the private sector are honest.

They are reliable, and we don't have a fear. I actually am ashamed of them for

the kind of aspersions that they cast on the honourable people who make

investments in this province. They should be ashamed of themselves.

S. Simpson: If the member wanted to show how much this is

based on science, maybe he and his party could send back the hundreds of

thousands of dollars in cheques from the people who are getting these contracts,

who they're allowing to get these contracts.

The member talks about the 1980s and 1990s. Well, let's talk about

that. Between 1980 and 2000 there were about 90 water licences let in this

province for energy purposes. Since this government has come to power, under the

private power we currently have 730 projects that have either been licensed or

are in the application process over that period of time — 90 projects; 730

projects. We have 8,200 projects that have been identified by this government as

being there, as being potential problems.

So what we have here is what's been called quite appropriately the

gold rush. This has nothing to do with meeting the interests of British

Columbians around power. It has nothing to do with trying to develop a green

alternative. It has everything to do with the gutting of B.C. Hydro. It has

everything to do with selling B.C. Hydro by stealth because this government

doesn't have the courage to stand up and say that's their objective.

This member and, more importantly, his leader know that. They're

trying to undermine B.C. Hydro. That's what they're doing. That's why it's not a

couple of busloads. It's thousands and thousands of people across this province

saying: "Enough, and stop now." That's what we have.

What are people asking for? People are saying at least do some

kind of planning, but planning is foreign to this government. We saw how they

planned for the convention centre — $450 million overrun. We're seeing how

they're running for the roof of B.C. Place, another embarrassment of

incompetence.

So people are saying: "Let's do some regional planning. Let's move

forward with some regional planning. Let's look at cumulative impact in

environmental terms." Cumulative impact is not allowed by this government —

can't do that. When did that happen? It happened when this government gutted the

environmental assessment process in 2002. There are a lot of good people who

work in that office, but this government ensured that environmental assessment

would not be effective in British Columbia when they gutted the process in 2002.

That's the one thing they're good at planning for. I'm sure that

in 2002 when they were saying, "How do we sell off B.C.'s natural resources…?"

I'm sure in 2002 they were saying: "How do we sell our rivers or give them away

to our friends so they can make a profit? How do we do that? Well, jeez, if they

have to go through an effective environmental assessment process, this will

never work. I guess we better gut the environmental assessment process first."

So they did.

Here's what happened. I mean, this is the government that when

they got elected, first of all, abolished the Ministry of Environment. Then they

said: "Well, we got rid of it, so we better cut its budget." So they cut its

budget by 30 percent, laid off 300 people, got rid of the scientists, got rid of

the biologists and got rid of the conservation officers.

There has never been a government that has been more prepared to

sell and give away to their friends

[ Page 11937 ]

the legacy inherited by British Columbians than this one. It's a shock, and

it's embarrassing.

[1140]

People want power. People want renewable energy. There's no doubt

about it. There are lots of options for that. There are options for

conservation, but it's not about filling the coffers of your friends so they'll

give you cheques at election time, and that's all this government cares about —

that and its inane ideological bent to privatize everything that moves in this

province, including B.C. Hydro.

It's an embarrassment to the public interest. The member is an

embarrassment to the public interest. His whole government is. It's a sad, sad

day for British Columbia. It's upsetting that they would bring this kind of

drivel forward in this House.

J. McIntyre: I thought I would begin my remarks this

morning with reading a letter into the record. It was a letter to the editor in

The Province on April 14. It's from John Winter, the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce. I think it's very succinct, and it sums up exactly the nub of a lot of

this argument.

"It is amazing that in a province abundant with

as many natural resources as we have, we still import electricity from the

United States and Alberta. B.C. needs more electricity, and it is in all of

our best interests that British Columbians get behind the need for clean,

made-in-B.C. solutions. The recent gnashing of teeth from opponents to

run-of-the-river power generation is highly suspect, because independent

analysis shows small hydro is environmentally friendly. It's clear that much

of this talk about privatization of our energy sector is politicized bunk."

Politicized bunk is exactly what it is, and you just heard it from the

Environment critic.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. McIntyre: I just want to continue reading the letter.

"Contrary to the spin, the B.C. government

decides what happens with the water and the land at the end of contracts, and

the risk in building these green-energy plants rests with the private sector

which will build it better and cheaper. That's a clear win for taxpayers.

Business in B.C. accepts that electricity costs will go up. The challenge is

to square this increase with the need to keep our competitive advantage with

low rates and maximum benefits."

I'd like to talk a little bit about the myth, because I agree. The

NDP has really hit their stride in politicizing this issue with many myths and

fearmongering. Let me just start with one of them. I've heard the Energy critic,

the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, talk about this all the time. "B.C. doesn't

need to be electricity self-sufficient by 2016." No, he thinks that the B.C.

Liberals are moving way too fast on this file.

So let me just say that right now we're consuming more electricity

than we produce. We're right now net importers. We're importing from other

jurisdictions. We're importing carbon-intense sources from coal, from national

energy…. We're not producing enough.

No, nothing happened under the NDP in the '90s. They didn't invest

in infrastructure.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, to participate, it is

necessary to be in your seat.

J. McIntyre: Anyway, our critics, whom you heard from this

morning, would have us purchase power from these carbon-intense sources rather

than being able to produce from clean, green, natural abundance of sources that

we have in water and small hydro and large hydro.

They also talk about us undermining B.C. Hydro and not having B.C.

Hydro have a role in this. That's also bunk. B.C. Hydro is already at stage 2 of

the feasibility looking at Site C project. They're looking at expanding

generation at the Revelstoke and Mica dams. B.C. Hydro's specialty is these

large projects.

This government has found a role for smaller independent power

producers in alternate sources — in wind, in thermal, in the small run of the

river. But of course, the NDP doesn't want any part of that at all. They're

ideologically opposed, as the member on our side of the government spoke.

They're completely opposed to us being able to use our natural resource and

produce hydro here in our own province. Instead, they subject us to significant

price increases and volatility by importing.

I'm not having any part of that, thanks very much. Where we can be

self-sufficient, I support it.

[1145]

Let me talk about something else too. I heard the Environment

critic talking again. Now the number has gone from 500-something to, all of a

sudden, 730 licences. The NDP talks about it as if those were projects that are

all happening, all on the go. Well, guess what. There are about 59,000-plus

mining claims in the province too. Do we think there are going to be 59,000 new

mines in the province in the next short while? I don't think so.

Let's talk about what really happened. What's happened is that

there are about 80 water licences that have been approved, and only about 40 of

those have resulted in projects. Madam Speaker, guess what. More than half of

the 40 were built under the NDP. So I'm sorry; they kinda can't have it both

ways. Let's make sure the public gets the facts instead of the fearmongering and

running around about a gold rush. It's absolute bunk.

They also say that all of the private sector — and worse than

that, the U.S. — is going to own all of our rivers and streams. They're trying

to create fear in the public. No, it was actually the NDP that was preparing for

the privatization of B.C. Hydro in the late '90s, not our government. Our

government in 2003 brought in legislation that put all the heritage assets — the

dams, the water, everything — in public hands.

[ Page 11938 ]

Madam Speaker, I want to say that any opportunity I can get to

debunk those NDP myths and fears, I welcome. I'm sorry. In the interests of

other people who also want to speak on this, I will wind down. I want to put on

the record that I support the efforts to return this province to electricity

self-sufficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating jobs here in

B.C.

N. Macdonald: The week before last I attended a number of

gatherings in the Kootenays. We had a gathering in Nelson of 200 people at seven

o'clock in the morning. We had meetings in Field, Invermere, Kimberley and

Golden, and there was a total of over 500 people that came out to talk about the

B.C. energy plan. I can tell you that the things that were said were pretty

negative, as they should be.

The implementation of this disastrous energy plan depends entirely

on escaping the scrutiny of an informed public and by removing the rights of

local government to make decisions. I can tell you that the people in the

Kootenays do not accept the denial of their democratic rights. Let's be clear on

that. This B.C. energy plan can go ahead only if it is implemented by the one

person that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission thinks should be making all

decisions in this province. If it is up to the people, they are going to look at

this policy and see it for the destructive policy that it is.

It has been described as the worst piece of public policy in the

history of this province by the Toronto Globe and Mail . If members want

to become informed on this, they can have a look at Liquid Gold by Dr.

Calvert. They can look at Lost in Transmission by Dr. Schaffer. Read

those, and see if you can come to any sort of conclusion.

If this government is able to stand in front of a group and

convince them that it is the right thing to do, then they should come and try to

do that. The Minister of Energy can come to the Kootenays. He can get in front

of a crowd there and explain to them how it makes any sense at all.

He will not be able to do it. He won't do it. This House very

deliberately removed the rights of local government so that he wouldn't have to.

It is because the member that represents the riding that has the Ashlu could not

stand up in a meeting and convince the people in that area or convince their own

local government that they were on the right track, because they were not. They

were not on the right track. Local government said no.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: In each and every case, local government will

say no, and that is why this government…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, Member.

N. Macdonald: …has chosen to do something else.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission voted to remove democratic

rights. There was one B.C. Liberal that understood what was going on here and

stood up and did the right thing. Every single NDP MLA believes in democratic

rights for rural people, but the B.C. Liberals don't. As that member says,

everything gets decided by one person — by the Premier. If any local people have

anything to say, that's the rabble that shows up at meetings just because — what

did you say? — they want a lunch. How dismissive of local democracy.

I only have four minutes. This is a disastrous policy. It will

only go ahead if local people are removed from decision-making. With that, I

turn it over to the next speaker.

[1150]

J. Horgan: It's as always a delight to participate on a

Monday morning ramble here in the Legislature — a little bit of cut-and-thrust,

a little bit of back-and-forth, a little bit of fun with members on both sides

of this Legislature.

I was very, very pleased to see that the member for Maple

Ridge–Mission or out the valley way had the courage to bring this motion before

the House, because he withdrew it not that long ago. It was a couple of Mondays

ago that we were expecting to have this debate, but a funny thing happened on

the way to the circus. The Pitt River project was spiked by someone in the

Premier's office, and the Minister of Environment had to stand up the day after

saying that it was a good project and say: "Well, we've decided it's not a good

project anymore."

Following that, we missed the opportunity to hear the eloquent

words of the government Whip and his steadfast embrace of private sector

ingenuity and the profit motive as being vital to the people of British

Columbia.

I'd like to say pish posh, hon. Speaker, but I'm certain that

someone will call that out of order. I heard "bunk" earlier on; I can use

"bunk." Apparently, that's acceptable in this place.

The challenge we have, as we gather here on a Monday to share our

views and ideas and talk about democratic representation, is that we hear the

government Whip, the guy who keeps discipline on that side of the House, the guy

who says: "No discouraging words, or you're out the door — save and except our

good friend from Peace River South…." When we hear the government Whip say that

a thousand people at a public meeting is insignificant and nothing and worthy

only of a sandwich and a bowl of soup, how outrageous can you be?

Seventy-nine of us elected to this place to represent the people

in our community, and the government Whip, Mr. Totalitarian over there, says:

"Not on my watch. A thousand people are nothing; that's nothing. I

[ Page 11939 ]

get them out to a barbecue on a Saturday afternoon to give donations to the

B.C. Liberal Party. That's nothing. I could get a thousand people under the

sails without even batting an eyelash."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But I know my colleague from Pitt Meadows had a few things to say.

This is clearly not a debate of substance. It's not a debate of anything other

than style. We on this side of the House are in favour of public power, as W.A.C.

Bennett was, as Bill Bennett was, as — dare I say — Bill Vander Zalm was, as

were Mike Harcourt, Glen Clark and every Premier since the 1960s except the one

on that side of the House now.

Everyone in this place has been in favour of public power except

for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and I think that's very important to

get on the record. Everyone in this place has supported public power until the

guy from Point Grey and his corporate limousine pulled into the parking lot.

J. Rustad: I'm glad to have an opportunity to rise and have

a few words on Motion 53. I recognize that we are close in time, but I want to

get a few things on record.

In particular, when I think about independent power production,

what is it that it conjures up in my mind about independent power? I see that we

need to have billions of dollars of investment. The last number I heard was $4

billion or more of private investment that's going to go into this province. If

we were to take that on ourselves, first of all, we don't have the staff to go

through 80 or a hundred different small proposals like that. The private sector

is far better at doing these small projects. It's the large projects that the

public sector is far better at doing and that B.C. Hydro is able to deliver, but

I also want to say this.

Think about this: $4 billion of investment and counting. What

would happen if that was added onto our debt? What would happen if we were to do

that instead of driving that investment? Even at 5 percent interest, you're

talking about $200 million a year in interest charged just to service that debt,

not to mention the other side. Where would those dollars come from, which the

members opposite seem to think the public sector should be investing in?

When you look at that kind of investment, when you look at those

opportunities, particularly…. Those are going to be happening in rural B.C.

Those are going to be happening outside of the urban areas. Those are going to

be driving some job opportunities and that kind of investment. We welcome that

kind of investment. In Prince George–Omineca we welcome the idea of being able

to drive some independent power production, to drive some of those

opportunities. As a matter of fact, many of my constituents are looking at that

and wondering how those can be done.

[1155]

When I hear the opposition stand up and rail away about

independent power production, when I hear them say that it's bad and it's going

to create all kinds of challenges in this province, all I can say is this. This

is private investment we're attracting in this province. We are building

opportunities. We're building jobs. We're going to help meet the need that we

have for power in this province instead of importing it from places like the

United States and Alberta, which that opposition seems to be perfectly happy

suggesting.

Independent power production, run-of-the-river projects — these

are green projects. They are good investment projects. They're the kinds of

things that we need to see happen in this province. As my colleagues have all

said, we welcome that kind of investment. We welcome the opportunity for the

private sector to be able to bring those dollars, create those jobs and help

build this province to stop its being a have-not province in terms of

electricity.

It's shameful what that government over there did in the 1990s. We

had tremendous assets in this province, which we still have, but there was no

foresight. They refused to make the kind of investment needed to make sure we

had that competitive advantage and self-sustainability that we want to have in

this province.

People in this province don't want to be relying on coal power

generated from the United States or power imported from Alberta. People in this

province are proud, and they want to see us being self-sustainable.

Independent power production is a very important part of meeting

that need. It drives that investment. It's going to meet those needs, and the

spinoff benefit of that is that this technology, as things develop, is something

we can also export to other places in the world. We can become a leader in that

kind of generation.

That is why I am supporting this motion. It is exactly what we

need to see in this province. It is exactly the right direction that we need in

this province, instead of a group over there that seems to be muttering around

trying to figure out how they even take a position or a policy on things.

I note that we're close to the time, so I just want to close with

a few more comments. Independent power production is something that has been

around in this province. Even that opposition, when they were in power,

recognized that it was a need. But we also recognize that it is absolutely

critical for our province to be able to drive those kinds of investment

opportunities and to bring those investment dollars into the province.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175