Clear Full Forecast

Bell Says Throne Speech Had Good News for Forestry Workers

By 250 News

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 05:00 PM

Prince George, B.C. - Although critics say the Speech from the Throne presented nothing for unemployed forestry workers in B.C., Minister of Forests and Range, Pat Bell says there is clearly a push for bio-energy and that will mean more jobs in the forestry sector.

The speech indicated the BC Utilities Commission will be “given direction” to pull the coal fire Burrard Thermal energy plant off the grid. “That’s good news for forestry” says Bell. With the Burrard plant off line, there will be a need to fill the energy gap with clean energy production and bio energy fits the bill.

“I had initially anticipated 1 million cubic meters would be extracted for bio-energy in 2009, it now looks like it will be more like 2 to 3 million cubic meters.  So we’ve made significant headway” says Bell. He says every 100 thousand cubic meters creates about 10 jobs and that does not include the indirect employment for truck maintenance companies and other suppliers.

But the BCUC recently slammed B.C. Hydro’s long term energy plan which proposed to fill the gap with power created by independent power producers.  Bell says the BC Utilities Commission will be  given direction from Cabinet to clear the way for the IPPs, and failing that, there could be legislation to make sure the changes happen.

Another item in the throne speech was a reference to the wood innovation and design centre that is to built in Prince George.   Promised in the last provincial budget, the centre has yet to materialize. Bell says that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been activity “There has been a lot of work going on with UNBC, the College of New Caledonia, the Ministry of Advanced Education, but I had hoped we would have some conceptual drawings ready by now, but we aren’t quite there yet.” He says he is hopeful those drawings will be ready within the next couple of months.”This is meant to be demonstration centre to show what we can do with wood. When I’ve been in China trying to sell the idea of building with wood, they ask what have we done, and this centre will be able to show others the possibilities.”

The speech also called for a close look at Health Authorities and how they spend their money. That comes at a time when Health Authorities are already facing challenges of balancing current budgets. Bell says the review will look for ways to better administer the dollars the Health Authorities already receive. He says that doesn’t mean there will be budget cuts, “The health authorities are getting a 20% increase over the next three years.”


Previous Story - Next Story

Email Email | Print Print | Share on Facebook Facebook | Tweet! Twitter | Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 05:00 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: Moses on August 25 2009 6:08 PM
Even long-term, faithful supporters of the provincial liberals, like me, are disgusted by the depth and breadth of their pre-election lies.

Pat should be embarrassed over his party's shameless deception of the public on the issue of the economy.
Comment Posted by: dirtcheap on August 25 2009 6:30 PM
Mr. Minister of Forests and Range sounds kinda like a broken record. It just keeps on saying the same thing over and over again while nothing changes.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on August 25 2009 7:02 PM
"Pat should be embarrassed over his party's shameless deception of the public on the issue of the economy."

C'mon now. If you couldn't see the implications of the worldwide financial crisis and think that wasn't going to affect us in some significant way, then I don't know what to tell you.

And we're not out of the woods yet. Hard decisions have to be made... and they will be unpopular.
Comment Posted by: Moses on August 25 2009 7:29 PM
'If you couldn't see the implications of the worldwide financial crisis and think that wasn't going to affect us in some significant way, then I don't know what to tell you.'

The election was in May (3 months ago) - the worldwide recession had been in full swing for months before then.

They campaigned on controlled spending and tax moderation and are delivering the oppposite, all because of the 'recession'.
Comment Posted by: northman on August 25 2009 7:35 PM
Bell is doing a better job with the ministry of forests than that useless lawn jockey Rich Coleman ever did. The only reason you guys are trashing him is because of his affiliation with the liberal party.
Comment Posted by: NMG on August 25 2009 7:48 PM
What's worse:

(a) A political system which is based upon offering the gullible and naive public promises that are deliberately optimistic and often times unachievable OR

(b) A populous who would refuse to vote for politicians who are honest, yet more realistic in regards to what they can accomplish and the things that they will have to do, sometimes negative, to accomplish them

My vote goes for (b). People demand honesty from politicians, yet they are too scared to accept honesty and support it. They don't want to hear that health care premiums may have to go up to fund better health care. They don't want to hear that their own eating and personal habits are one of the main reasons why the health care system is taxed. They don't want to hear that we simply don't have enough money to pave every freaking pot hole in the city. They don't want to hear that the government really can't control the economy. The don't want to hear that governments will do the wrong thing, if it means getting re-elected because of it. They don't want to hear that the person representing them as an MP or MLA may be less intelligent than their neighbour who is a lawyer, a nurse, a farmer or a carpenter.

In short, the general population is full of people who want the government to have magical powers and "save them" from everything and come up with magical solutions.

Until people are SERIOUSLY committed to supporting honesty in politics (meaning that they abandon their fairy tale view of BOTH what can reasonably be accomplished by government and what their own personal contribution to a functioning society needs to be), we won't achieve it.
Comment Posted by: Steamer on August 25 2009 8:15 PM
From Pat's speil:

The speech indicated the BC Utilities Commission will be “given direction” to pull the coal fire Burrard Thermal energy plant off the grid. “That’s good news for forestry” says Bell.

From the BC Hydro site:

The 950 MW Burrard Generating Station near Vancouver has a capability of 7,050 gigawatt hours per year (GWh/a). Burrard is a conventional thermal plant fuelled by natural gas.

Course its easier to tell folks something has to go if you claim its a coal burner rather than a gas burner.

Just to mention, the clean air folks want the mills here to switch to nat gas on bad air days instead of the usual bio fuels. I guess as long as its not being burned where its being used (lower mainland) its all good.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on August 25 2009 10:33 PM
Well said, NMG. People demand honesty as long as it suits their fantasy worlds. Bad news is not tolerated, hence politicans of all stripes try to put a rosy spin on things rather than say what needs to be said.
Comment Posted by: gus on August 25 2009 10:33 PM
Steamer. Please read the portion you extracterd from the articel once more an d pay attention to where the quotation marks are.

The suggestion that the Burrard Plant is a coal fired plant is that of the author of the article not that of Bell. There are no words in quotation marks that suggest the plant is coal fired.

As far as I know, there are no coal fired plants in BC. There are, however, coal fired plants in Alberta and the comments that have been made is that if we do not have the capacity to supply our own energy, then we import it from Alberta which means we support coal fired plants.
Comment Posted by: acrider54 on August 26 2009 5:35 AM
Until the Liberals get rid of Campbell as the leader of the party, I don't and won't believe a word any of them have to say. They're all Campbell's puppets with no backbone to stand up for themselves or their constituents. If any of the MLA's try to have the backbone to stand up to Campbell they're out on their ass.
Comment Posted by: Denaljo on August 26 2009 5:58 AM
BlahblahblahTAXESblahblahblahCORPORATEWELFARE
blahblahblahSERVICECUTSblahblahblahGORDOISKING
blahblahblahLIESblahblahblah!
Comment Posted by: He spoke on August 26 2009 6:56 AM
Sure, I voted Liberal, but I kind of think he should find a exit door next summer. Probably after he basks in the sunlight with the Olympics, and then jam us with the HST.
Comment Posted by: hammmy on August 26 2009 7:53 AM
Mr. NMG, pull your head out of the ground. In the 80's we never had GST nor a carbon tax, and not that many casino's. Now tell me where the hell is all that tax payers money going to. Get off the wine, there is no such thing as honesty from any politician.They give themselves raises every 6 months and then tell the tax payer we have to make cuts to services. The people need to string these people up, and hold them ACCOUNTABLE for their Lies, Deception.Someone should find out just exactly how much this government makes off the B.C. Lottery Corp. also. Were the only province that doesn't show the public the spinning of balls when the numbers are drawn, a computer does it. We all know we can manipulate a computer. So tell me where is all the tax money going, if your getting so much honesty out of Gordon and his pals.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on August 26 2009 8:14 AM
"Now tell me where the hell is all that tax payers money going to."

Most of it maintains our bloated healthcare system.

As far as the BC Lottery Corp, who cares? It's a voluntary tax. The governement's take doesn't go up if there's no 6/49 winner... what are you getting at exactly? Adjust your tinfoil hat a little bit.
Comment Posted by: herbster on August 26 2009 8:40 AM
How idiotic is it to shut down a natural gas plant when the price of natural gas is the equivalent of $18/barrel of oil? For another 10-20 jobs! Bell needs his bell rung by someone with some common sense. BC Hydro is supposed to be focused on providing the greatest value to BC, not the Liberal hacks and has-beens that populate the board of directors of these so-called bio-energy companies.
Comment Posted by: ammonra on August 26 2009 8:41 AM
Didn't the Liberals make a huge deal a few years back about not intrfering with the BCUC? Didn't they rather viciously attack the NDP and say they would never, ever do such a disgusting thing?

Yet, here we now are with the Liberals ordering the BCUC to pave the way for the run of river projects by getting rid of an electricity generating facility that makes then unnecessary. Yet another flip flop from Campbell. Yet another example of talking out of both sides of his mouth.

The Alberta coal fired plants are an interesting point. My understanding is that they take some time to fire up, so it is more economical and more responsive to the electrical demands in that province to keep them running all the time, even when demand is at its lowest.

In plain English, the coal is burned regardless of the amount of electricity used. If BC did not buy the excess electricity then the coal would still be burned. When BC does buy excess electricity at a low demand time, it is able to reduce water flow over our Hydro plants and replace the electricity with that from Alberta.

Later, of course, that excess can be sold at a higher price when US demand is high, making it a pretty good business practice and a well run publicly owned and operated corporation which benefits the taxpayer to the tune of millions of dollars.

Is it more environmentally friendly to use all the power generated by a coal fired plant, or waste a lot of it and have the pollution anyway?
Comment Posted by: herbster on August 26 2009 8:59 AM
How many jobs are going to be lost in the oil patch his winter with the low price of natural gas? A lot more than 10-20. And yet this is the sector that has being paying the freight in BC for the last number of years. Liberals can't wait to crow how much they are getting from land sales. Shut down a very large natural gas generating station, what message does that give to the oil and gas industry?
Comment Posted by: woodchipper on August 26 2009 11:03 AM
The last word from our premier is that it is looking at dismantling the Burrard power plant because it is an outdated dirty power plant which burns natural gas.

This plant apparently only operates when there is a shortage of other hydro power, so it essentially is a backup generator.
Somehow this facility has become the publicity pawn in a game between the utilities commission and the appearances of green policies of the liberals.

Somehow this Burrard backup generator is reported as an impediment to other green energy projects.Do we have to tear it down so that we have to jump to build new generation capacity (which will be a secret longterm contract of privately produced for profit) somewhere else?
Does that make any sense knowing that the replacement generation which claims to be green actually has it own environmental footprint? Which scientific story are we being fed and which of these are accurate fullsome explanations of the overall longterm consequances?

While the utilities commission mandate is primarily economic, it certainly is not mandated to oppose against green energy. It is just mandated against pricing vulnerability/dependance of what seems to be a bunch of secret private energy contracts that are politically motivated and are; "at any cost" to the taxpayor and the consumer of this energy.

When a political party gets this attitude that it sets policy and be damned with the consequences, that something has to almost certainly be wrong with this "policy". The sale of the BCR comes to mind where privatising our key infrastructure (generating a little short term cashflow)is more important than the longterm viability of the infrastructure and the overall economy.

While people are generally convinced that green energy is more expensive to produce and therefore there is a cost increase (which most people say) are willing to pay extra for this green power...the exact details of how this increased cost is justified and just how much environmental benefit has/will be accomplished becomes a much more illusive set of questions.

Just how much more can we and our industries pay for electricity before our economy collapses? Just how much should we have to pay a profit motivated private power sector to replace our publicly owned utilities infrastructure?

An open fact based cost-benefit analasys is what is lacking in this politically charged debate..a debate with huge longterm consequances to everyone in BC.

I believe that is what our utilities commission is worried about.
Comment Posted by: herbster on August 26 2009 1:27 PM
Natural gas power plants emit half the carbon of coal fired plants. If the Liberals are really serious about reducing our carbon footprint, then they should cut off our electricity imports from Alberta, and replace them with power from the Burrard generating station.
But all this talk of green power is just a smokescreen for Liberal insiders getting electricity contracts from BC Hydro at outrageous prices. Christy Clark at Plutonic is no doubt thrilled at this decision. Plutonic can now sell power at three times the going rate to BC Hydro. Plutonic, being a run of the river power producer,will sell Hydro this power during the spring run-off, when Hydro's reservoirs are already full.
See the sucker at this card game? Its the BC Hydro customer. Only in BC could the Liberals play virtually every one of its constituents for fools, and get away with it.
Comment Posted by: gus on August 26 2009 3:26 PM
http://static.corporateknights.ca/Carbon2008.pdf

Liberals, BCLiberals, Conservatives, Greens, right wingers, left wingers, centrists ...... it really does not matter.

The world is moving into carbon neutral energy production no matter what party or whate industrialized country.

That can be done by generating electricity by hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, wave, tidal, or going geothermal or probably oen or two others.

That can also be done by using fossil fuels and sequestering the CO2 produced in several ways.

Finally it can be done by using biofuels to burn them directly or create liquids from them which can be used as fuels. In those cases, the CO2 still is burned and emitted into the atmosphere, but the bean counters at their desks will not count that CO2 because some scientists argue that as the biomass is allowed to naturally decay it creates CO2 and methane anyway, so the short circuiting is merely helped along a bit. The fact of the matter is that if one is really concerned about increases of the CO2 in the atmosphere it really does not matter how that CO2 gets there and is increased. So those who insist on pumping CO2 into the air by burning wood are not helping the matter any.

To me, replacing the Burrard plant with a biofuel plant is a no sum game when it comes to the "environmental" aspect of it. From the Carbon Credit point of view, and that has a $ value under the cap and trade system that no one has touched on yet on this discussion, there is an advantage to switch from natural gas to biomass.

This discussion is really far too political to get to the real issues. The political aspect only deals with how the different parties would sell the idea. In the end, in my opinion, every single one of them will buy into the cap and trade system.
Comment Posted by: gus on August 26 2009 3:29 PM
"If the Liberals are really serious about reducing our carbon footprint, then they should cut off our electricity imports from Alberta, and replace them with power from the Burrard generating station."

Under the world recognized cap and trade system, that is only going half way. Switching to biomass is one step better. Switching to a non carbon based source is the best.
Comment Posted by: herbster on August 26 2009 4:32 PM
Gus the point is that the Liberals are not serious about reducing our carbon footprint. This is all about a get rich quick scheme to enrich their friends by impoverishing the rest of us. At the moment, BC doesn't need any electricity. Want more cheap electricity with zero carbon emissions? Let Hydro build Site C. All the rest is BS.
Comment Posted by: NMG on August 26 2009 4:37 PM
"Mr. NMG, pull your head out of the ground. In the 80's we never had GST nor a carbon tax, and not that many casino's. Now tell me where the hell is all that tax payers money going to"

Well in the 80's we also only had 3 Universities in BC, hospitals weren't acquiring CT Scan machines at a price tag of at least 3-4 million dollars a pop, schools at all levels weren't full of computers that needed upgraded every few years (did they even have computers back then, LOL), the population spike that resulted from the baby boom generation was still at a healthy age and whereas now they are older and much more dependent on a health care system that is more complex that anything ever imagined in the 80's, etc.

By the way, I stand by the rest of my post regardless of what side of the political spectrum you fall on. Every party is full of gullible and naive people :)

To be honest, it sounds to me like you are stuck in the 80's. It's time to recognize that times have changed immensely since then and so has the requirement to fund all of those changes. But hey, if you want to stop funding more advanced medical research and instead go back to 1980's cancer survival rates, I'm sure there is some 2nd or 3rd world country somewhere that would love to have you. I'll take my chances here and realize that living in a country like Canada comes with a hefty price tag.
Comment Posted by: Windigo on August 26 2009 6:13 PM
Here are two links that you all may want to read before you conclude what are lies or truths and who is the teller of these lies or truths.

http://www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/33099/33099E.pdf

http://www.straight.com/article-220116/maude-barlow-runofriver-projects-not-green-not-public-not-us

These are just two of many many more articles and responses that do not shine a very nice light on the Run of the river projects that are happening right now in B.C. and that have the complete support of our government.
Most of these projects do not appear to have gone through the appropriate consultation process, including the public review process.
The government appears to have gone ahead with projects at will based on a plan that possibly was conceived in a back room over whiskey and cigars prior to the election. It appears they are going to use their power to pass legislation to pass all IPP projects regardless of consequence. I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that all the IPP projects that have been in the planning stages for the last few years have been given the green light already regardless of consequence to environment or the general public well being. I heard today that their was a ROTRP (Run of the river project) already approved somewhere on the Skeena River and that the blasting has already begun. How can this be possible when my understanding is that the Skeena River Steelhead were and still are in danger. Just goes to show you how important our Eco system and our survival is to our government and corporations like these that would progress with a project like this without care or consideration for a species of fish that is struggling for it's survival. Do you think there is any consideration for our own personal well being as a human species?.....the answer is no....all that appears to matter to our government and the corporations who support them is money power greed and votes.

Pretty sad huh.
Comment Posted by: Pojeb_sa on August 26 2009 11:31 PM
NMG wrote, "My vote goes for (b). People demand honesty from politicians, yet they are too scared to accept honesty and support it. They don't want to hear that health care premiums may have to go up to fund better health care."

Are you on drugs?

The liberals are far, far from honest. They ordered backups destroyed to cover their lies, they lied about the HST, you can't trust anything they say.

There are some good people in the Liberal party, and it's a crying shame because they want to do good for their electorate but didn't count on their party being mafia.

What the Liberal party don't outright lie about, they distort or leave out crucial facts to suit their agenda.

You seem to think people want government to wipe their rears, and it's not true! We just don't want things we've paid a LOT OF MONEY FOR in tax dollars over the years given away to corporate friends of the government in backroom deals, and then have these corporations charge us a a fortune in the name of "market rates."

We don't want to see huge tax breaks to corporations in the name of being "competitive," while shifting the tax burdon to an already heavily overtaxed (and shrinking) working class!

You're completely wrong! It's madness to drive down the standard of living for working class people in the name of corporate profit.
Comment Posted by: Pojeb_sa on August 26 2009 11:39 PM
NMG wrote, "Well in the 80's we also only had 3 Universities in BC, hospitals weren't acquiring CT Scan machines at a price tag of at least 3-4 million dollars a pop, schools at all levels weren't full of computers that needed upgraded every few years (did they even have computers back then, LOL), the population spike that resulted from the baby boom generation was still at a healthy age and whereas now they are older and much more dependent on a health care system that is more complex that anything ever imagined in the 80's, etc."

In the 1980s computers cost roughly 4 times what they do now. What is spent on computers in hospitals and education is more than in the 1980s, but it has also eliminated a lot of positions (like number of secretaries, couriers, bookkeepers, transcription, etc...) required to run an organization.

The population of BC has not doubled or tripled since the 1980s.

What you know about health care, public education and computers could be written on the back of a penny.
Comment Posted by: gus on August 27 2009 12:21 AM
"Gus the point is that the Liberals are not serious about reducing our carbon footprint"

I think you are right. It is the politically expedient thing to do. And most, if not all, other parties will do the same with slightly different variations.

In my view, our society follows a path of convenience. Change actually comes very slowly and it happens in mini-steps until finally one realizes what has happened and then it is too late.

The invention of the automobile - look at what it has done versus what other personal transportation systems, in hindsight, may have generated if we had known what was technologically possible. It is an extremely unsafe system, extremely expensive system, and extremely energy intensive and fossil fuel oriented. To overhaul it now will cost Trillions of $ over many decades and then that too will be outmoded.

But then that is what the economy is all about, isn’t it? We could have had a utopia decades ago, but instead we slave away trying to undo what had been done in the past and start all over again.

Look at something as simple as urban sprawl in cities like PG. People knew the likely consequences - people planned for the opposite in official planning documents - but time and time again the politicians did what was expedient at the time, little increments at a time.

Now they are trying to undo the damage and can't. People are used to what they have now. They grew up with it, and only see dirt and squalor downtown instead of excitement and desirable places to be.

We move along a path quite aimlessly. Some, such as the average politicians, actually think they have something to do with changing the big picture direction when the actual driver is simple chance.
Comment Posted by: NMG on August 27 2009 6:33 AM
"Are you on drugs"

No, but judging from the fact that you inferred things that I didn't even address, I would suggest that you may be :)

"In the 1980s computers cost roughly 4 times what they do now. What is spent on computers in hospitals and education is more than in the 1980s, but it has also eliminated a lot of positions (like number of secretaries, couriers, bookkeepers, transcription, etc...) required to run an organization"

Indeed they did and there may have been a handful of computers in each school (maybe), instead of literally hundreds of them now. You've also conveniently forgotten about the fact that high cost Information Technology support staff and entire divisions would have been added as another NEW cost since the 80's and those salaries would far outweigh those of the secretaries and clerical staff who MAY have been displaced by technology.

"What you know about health care, public education and computers could be written on the back of a penny"

A penny? What is that? Oh right, that's that measure of currency from the 80's that probably had some level of relevance back then and now isn't worth the time it takes to pick up if you found it on the street. Funny how times change eh? LOL.
Comment Posted by: Pojeb_sa on August 27 2009 8:32 AM
NMG wrote,

"Indeed they did and there may have been a handful of computers in each school (maybe), instead of literally hundreds of them now. You've also conveniently forgotten about the fact that high cost Information Technology support staff and entire divisions would have been added as another NEW cost since the 80's and those salaries would far outweigh those of the secretaries and clerical staff who MAY have been displaced by technology."

Unlike you, I've seen what was in schools during the 80s and know what was used.

Highschools the size of Quesnel, Williams Lake, etc.... usually had two labs of PC XT computers with amber screens, and were running on Novell. These XT class computers (and later AT) cost about $3000 to $4000 each. True, there were not dedicated IT staff to maintain them, but they were simple enough they did not require the support. Often maintenance was handled by teachers who had an interest.

Computer technicians in school districts (if they're covered under a union) in the lower mainland earn about $21 an hour, which puts them in line with custodians.

In rural communities it spreads between $21 and $27 an hour. (I'm not sure what PG school district computer techs earn). Of course, most support positions are in the same range in rural communities from being unionized. Unionized Computer techs are generally in the high end of the pay scale, but not always.

Go see for yourself what computer techs earn in school systems.

http://jobsearch.educationcanada.com/

A lot of jobs won't even list the wage in the job posting because it's so low (think $12-$14 an hour for Alberta districts).

The number of computer technicians in each district are not as numerous as you think. It's not uncommon for a district the size of Quesnel to have around 3 technicians plus a manager (who only manages) to maintain every computer in the district.

You can bet your booty public education jobs have been have been eliminated from computers. Go talk to any high school secretary who's been around since the 80s. Ask any school librarian. Ask any typing teacher (yes, that used to be a title in itself).

Some districts have contracted out their technology altogether.
Comment Posted by: gus on August 27 2009 9:58 AM
Computers ....

1983 - IBM XT announced in New York
1984 - IBM PC/AT announced
1986 - IBM PC-XT 286
1987 - IB PS/2C (first IBM 386)

I am not familiar with the Quesnel School District. I did know that Quesnel had IBMs and PG had Apples.

I suspect when you are refering to the 1980s you really mean the last half of that decade. The dates shown above are the introduction dates on the market, not the dates when Quesnel might have decided to purchase the computers.

The prices were certainly up there in the $3,000 range. There eere, of course, educational and bulk purchasing offers to be had.

The computers, however, were on in the high schools and, as you say, one lab and eventually perhaps two labs per high school. That makes the HS student ratio for computers about what? 1 to 20 perhaps? or even 1 to 30 or 40?

Now the district declares that it has a ratio of 1 computer for EVERY THREE students in the SD.

So, I think it is easy to figure out that the total cost of computers has not only gone up, but so has the maintenance of the systems as well as the writing of instructional materials for the new tool.