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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21)

Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(Bill 22)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Canadian Rockies International

Airport expansion

Bennett

West Shore Arts Council

Karagianis

Work-life balance

Mayencourt

Emergency services dispatchers

Puchmayr

National Wildlife Week

MacKay

Enver Creek Secondary School band

H. Bains

Oral Questions

Homelessness

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

Gentner

Thorne

J. Brar

Chudnovsky

Independence of Representative

for Children and Youth

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

L. Krog

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)

Hon. W.

Oppal

J. Kwan

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

(continued)

On the

amendment (continued)

B. Lekstrom

Karagianis

J. Horgan

On the

main motion

Trevena

Sather

Simpson

Robertson

Puchmayr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands

Hon. P.

Bell

C. Evans

C. Wyse

G. Coons

Macdonald

Simons

Routley

J. Brar

H. Bains

Sather

[ Page 11049 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Over 3,500 athletes in 53 communities

across the province compete as part of the Special Olympics in British Columbia.

They are supported by 2,600 volunteers. Today we are honoured to have a number

of these athletes and coaches here in the Legislature with us.

They include Benjamin Attfield, David Devison and Hazen Meade of

Campbell River; Nathan Bodie, Jeremy Cheverie, Maggie Tennant, Winnie Whitman,

Carol Stocker, Pauline Shaw and Bill White of Victoria; Bobby Bolen, Chris

Gillis, Richard Gillis and Colin Wells of Comox; Kerri Lipsack and Reg Lipsack

of Parksville. Their coaches here with us today are Maureen Brinson and Lori

Holmgren of Campbell River, Bill Crocker and Art Peck of Nanaimo, Larry Cagna of

Comox and Barry Loney of Victoria.

I would ask the House to make all of them welcome and say to all

of them on behalf of the House: congratulations on the excellent jobs that you

all did in Quebec City. You made us all proud. Keep up the great work.

L. Krog: Joining us in the precincts today are a number of

grade 7 students from Quarterway Elementary in Nanaimo. Accompanying them is

their teacher Anne Grant and several anxious and, I'm sure, happy parents to

bring them to the seat of wisdom and political intelligence in the province of

British Columbia — the Legislature. I'd ask the House to please make them

welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the Legislature today we have a group of

grade 5 students from Huband Park Elementary School. There's a whole bunch of

them — over 50 of them. They were all in my office a few minutes ago. The

students are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Valerie Sheriff, who also has a

very talented son who plays the piano, as well as many parent chaperones. Would

the House please join me in welcoming these students from the beautiful Comox

Valley.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure today to introduce in the

gallery a school trustee from school district 43, Ms. Debra Burton. She is a

lawyer and a resident of Port Coquitlam. Last municipal election in 2005, she

swept to victory in the school board elections in our community, taking every

single poll. If she chooses to run in November, which I sincerely hope she does,

I have no doubt she will repeat that feat. Would the House please make her most

welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: Joining us this afternoon in the chamber

are two people very dear to this side of the House — Janice Robertson and her

beautiful little daughter Julia Maloney, who will be a one-year-old in two

weeks. Janice is very familiar with the building and with all of us on the

government side, as she worked very hard with us in the government caucus

communications department before she left us to be a full-time mom. Would

everybody join me in making Janice and Julia very welcome.

S. Fraser: Visiting us today in the precinct are Quincey

Kirschner and Glenn Urquhart, representing Arthritis Consumer Experts. ACE is

the acronym. They are here to educate some of us legislators about the serious

realities of arthritis in the province. I would ask all members to learn from

their work and also to join me in helping make them feel very welcome.

[1340]

Hon. I. Chong: In the House today I would like to welcome

and introduce two very special visitors who are joining us to observe question

period. The first is a well-known Victoria businessman, Mr. Gordy Dodd of Dodd's

Furniture. I'm sure many members will certainly recognize him through the very

many television commercials he's had. You will have seen him in a number of

disguises, but today he is here as he normally appears at a number of events

around the community.

I know people around the province also know him because he is

famous for his slogan "I won't be undersold," and it has done him very well over

the years. Mr. Dodd is joined with his brother Gurnam Dodd, who is visiting him

today. I hope the House would please make them all very welcome.

C. Trevena: In the last session the House passed the

Maa-nulth treaty, which involved five west coast bands and included the

Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h'. Today I had the pleasure of having lunch with

three graduating students from Kyuquot Elementary Secondary School, students who

are the future for their community and for our province.

Here in the gallery, going to be watching question period, are

Trevor Gillette, Tammy Billy and Chantal Smith. I have to add that it is

Trevor's 18th birthday today and Chantal's 18th birthday in two days' time.

They're here with their teacher Brenda Gilman and their driver and chaperone Ron

Chidley. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

R. Lee: Visiting the House today and tomorrow, as well, are

six groups of students from Burnaby North Secondary School — a total of 180

students. I have three children. One graduated from Burnaby North School, one is

in Burnaby North School, and the other one is going into Burnaby North Secondary

School. I would like the House to make those students welcome today and

tomorrow.

L. Mayencourt: In the gallery today, I have a special

guest. Her name is Diane Rodgers. Diane has been working with me on a couple of

initiatives, the Baldy Hughes therapeutic community and also the workplace

[ Page 11050 ]

bullying initiative that we've started there. She's a great person in our

community, someone who is really dedicated to helping people. I'm very pleased

to have her here today and ask the House to please make her feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 21, the Medicare

Protection Amendment Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: The Medicare Protection Amendment Act

follows through on a commitment made in the 2006 throne speech to define and

enshrine the Canada Health Act's five principles and add a sixth principle —

sustainability.

During the Conversation on Health we heard from British Columbians

across the province — over 12,000 submissions. Participants emphasized their

support for the principles of the Canada Health Act.

As our government committed, we are defining and enshrining in

legislation the Canada Health Act principles of public administration,

adding a new section, which will enshrine in legislation for the first time in

British Columbia's history the sixth principle of sustainability.

On this side of the House we believe that the future

sustainability of our public health system is important. In fact, we believe

it's so important that we are defining and enshrining it in legislation.

This government is committed to ensuring the world-class health

care system we have is available not only today but for future generations. That

is precisely why sustainability is an important issue and one that must be

addressed.

With these changes, British Columbia will be the first province in

the country to define and enshrine in legislation the principles of the Canada

Health Act as well as the principle of sustainability. But we're not stopping

there.

During the Conversation on Health, British Columbians told us

there were other important values that they believe also form the foundation of

a world-class health system. British Columbians talked about the importance of

individual choice, personal responsibility, innovation, transparency and

accountability. We're moving today to introduce these important values into the

Medicare Protection Act.

[1345]

All of these amendments provide a foundation upon which we can

build a sustainable, world-class public health system that serves British

Columbians not only today but for future generations as well. Over the coming

days our government will be introducing more bills that reflect the values that

British Columbians told us were important to a sustainable, publicly funded

health care system for today and the future.

I move that Bill 21 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 22, intituled Health Care

Costs Recovery Act, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: The Health Care Costs Recovery Act will

provide the government of B.C. with the legal tools necessary to ensure that

those who are responsible for the injury of an individual will also be

responsible for the reimbursement of the future health care costs incurred as

well as potential future health care costs.

B.C. is currently the only province not to have legislation that

allows government to recover health care costs which have been paid by the

province to address injuries which were the result of negligence or wrongdoing

of a liable third party. The taxpayers of British Columbia currently subsidize

the cost of third-party negligence and wrongdoing, and that isn't right. We have

to ensure that the sustainability of our health care system is addressed, and

this legislation is important to addressing that issue.

The act will allow government, first of all, to ensure that health

care costs associated with wrongdoing and negligence are paid by wrongdoers and

their insurers rather than expecting B.C. taxpayers to absorb the costs. It will

also recover health care costs associated with an injury due to negligence or

wrongdoing of a third party once a lawsuit has been settled or adjudicated. It

will allow the province to effectively participate in a number of class action

suits where multi-million-dollar settlements or judgments are at stake.

This legislation will expand the scope of areas where claims can

be pursued to include past and future health care costs such as medical care,

hospital services, ambulance service and continuing care as well as other areas

where the provincial government contributes to public programs.

[ Page 11051 ]

This legislation addresses not only the issue of sustainability in

our public health care system but accountability as well. Accountability for

third-party wrongdoing should rest with the third party, and this legislation

ensures that that will be the case.

I move that Bill 22 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Health Care Costs Recovery Act, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) CANADIAN ROCKIES INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT EXPANSION

B. Bennett: The Kootenay region is one of the planet's most

desirable places to live, to work and to play — world-class golf courses and ski

resorts, back-country adventures, alpine hiking, fly-fishing, hunting,

back-country touring, a near-perfect climate and of course wonderful, friendly

people.

The one challenge for international visitors has always been the

air connections. A few years ago the provincial government recognized a link

between the future of our tourism industry and air access. B.C.'s Premier

arranged for a capital grant of $9 million — $4½ million from the province and

$4½ million from Ottawa.

Our airport is now in the final throes of a major expansion, and

last week the city of Cranbrook accepted in principle an offer from Delta Air

Lines to start a scheduled service into the Canadian Rockies International

Airport from Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is a major airline hub in the U.S.

That airport serves 64 million travellers every year. Visitors from any major

city in the U.S. will be able to fly into the region in one day — no overnights.

In another life, I owned and operated fly-in fishing lodges in

Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. I flew my customers from all over the

world. I know how important good air connections are to a destination resort.

Make it inconvenient, add an overnight to their trip, and they'll go elsewhere.

With this new service, you can comfortably wake up in Manhattan or Burbank, fly

through Salt Lake City and arrive in the Cranbrook area for dinner the same day.

[1350]

This is truly a pivotal moment in the history of our region. This

is about economic diversification and keeping our kids at home. I want to

express my admiration for the coalition that's making the deal with Delta, the

business people, Kootenay Rockies Tourism, the city of Cranbrook and YVR, the

airport management company. Well done.

I also want to thank the Premier and our government for the

capital funding that made this possible and also for the tourism flex funding

that we're now using to market our region to the world.

Come to the Kootenays. It's getting easier every day.

WEST SHORE ARTS COUNCIL

M. Karagianis: It's a pleasure today to stand and share

with the members of the House the story of the West Shore Arts Council in my

constituency. The council is a non-profit society that works to encourage

creative participation and excellence in the arts and that promotes and fosters

public interest, appreciation and understanding of the arts.

Last May the West Shore Arts Council was selected by the West

Shore Chamber of Commerce as the best association of the year, and it's a

tribute that is truly deserved. Fairs, community festivals, arts and crafts

exhibitions and tours of home studios are just a few of the ways the council is

raising public awareness about the West Shore's vibrant arts and culture

heritage.

My community office is one of the places that enjoys the council's

roaming gallery, and I'm proud and grateful to have the exceptional works of art

adorning the walls in my office on a rotating basis. Other places to see the

local art, thanks to the council, are monthly art shows at the Juan de Fuca

library, the Stinking Fish Studio Tour and West Shore studio tours.

The West Short Arts Council's most ambitious project is the Arts

Everywhere initiative, which serves to promote arts and culture by organizing

and sponsoring additional arts events and recognizing individuals for their

contribution to the arts. Bursaries are made available to students wishing to

further their studies and skills. Information booths and art displays are

featured at municipal events.

The council is a driving force behind the West Shore Cultural

Collaboration, a creative think tank that unites more than 40 representatives of

the arts, municipal councillors and planners, first nations, and recreation and

education planners. All of it is made possible by citizens who generously donate

their time to serve. They make the West Shore a brighter, bolder and more

vibrant place. I hope members will join me in recognizing the exceptional

contribution of the West Shore Arts Council.

WORK-LIFE BALANCE

L. Mayencourt: The need for skilled workers here in British

Columbia has got to be one of the biggest challenges facing businesses and our

economy. Employers are having to find new and creative ways to attract and

retain employees. For potential employees, there is also the concern of trying

to balance a busy work

schedule with personal and family time.

The solution for some companies has been the adoption of flexible

workweeks and work schedules for their employees. Employers today realize that

having a flexible workplace is a critical component to keeping good workers on

the job. The flexible workplace produces bottom-line results. It has been proven

[ Page 11052 ]

both to attract new employees and to help retain them once they've been

hired.

WorkLife B.C., sponsored by the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, was created to recognize B.C. employers who have developed

workplaces that support their employees' desire to balance commitments to life

and to work and family. The WorkLife B.C. awards, in their second year,

highlight companies that have recognized the need for employers to offer the

flexibility to allow their workers to balance work and life.

The 2008 Award of Excellence recipient for Vancouver coastal

region is Deloitte and Touche. This company of almost 700 employees in my riding

has embraced a flexible work-life harmony program since 1998.

Each year since then, worker satisfaction has increased. Their

efforts have also resulted in their lowest turnover rates ever and more women

than ever in senior management and partner roles. Feedback from the yearly

surveys has resulted in many additions to the wellness program, including

personal care days, health and wellness subsidies, and elder care programs.

Please join me in congratulating all of the 2008 WorkLife B.C.

award recipients and all the companies that are making British Columbia the best

place to work, live and raise a family.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCHERS

C. Puchmayr: April 8 to 15 is Emergency Services

Dispatchers Week in British Columbia. Emergency services dispatchers serve the

public 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Often sitting behind computer terminals, they are the unsung

heroes working to protect the health and safety of our communities. They are the

first people that the public contacts when emergency assistance is required.

They coordinate all communications between police officers, firefighters and

paramedics to ensure a safe, swift and appropriate response to each situation.

[1355]

Their work can often be hectic, with many calls coming in at the

same time. It is undoubtedly a stressful line of work. When handling incoming

calls, they have to question the callers carefully to determine the type,

seriousness and location of the emergency. The callers can be angry, upset, in

shock and frightened. The dispatchers have to work through these obstacles to

get the necessary information in order to dispatch the appropriate response.

The call centre dispatchers can often give medical instructions to

those on the scene until first responders arrive. On any given shift they may

have to respond to calls from victims of theft, parents with missing children or

people involved in accidents. They have even been known to assist in the

delivery of newborn babies.

I have toured the Kamloops dispatch centre, and I have seen

firsthand the choreographed buzz of activity that exists in the call centre.

Some challenges do exist and still require action. The CUPE members in the

region are working diligently with management staff to ensure a resolve to

address the working environment and the public safety in those offices.

I invite all members in this House to join me in thanking these

dedicated individuals who provide a vital link to emergency services in British

Columbia.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK

D. MacKay: This week in Canada we are celebrating National

Wildlife Week. This is a program with the Canadian Wildlife Federation in

partnership with provincial governments, Environment Canada, Parks Canada and

many others.

National Wildlife Week was proclaimed

an act of Parliament in

1947. It is time for us to celebrate Canada's natural heritage and give us a

chance to play an active role in conservation.

This year's theme for National Wildlife Week is — wait for it —

pollination. Pollination is a fundamental function of the ecosystem. Without

pollination, many plants would be unable to reproduce, and we would suffer great

losses in food, medicine, wood products and, of course, wildlife.

British Columbia, in particular the northern part of the province,

is home to a great variety of wild flora and fauna. Many different animals rely

on these plants for food during the summer months to prepare them for the cold

winter months. Without conservation programs to protect these food sources, we

would see a great deal of animals threatened by extinction.

We should all try to make it our goal to, first of all, raise

awareness about the importance of wildlife and wildlife habitat, to inspire

learning about the wildlife and the environment, to develop opportunities for

British Columbians to participate in conservation through habitat conservation,

to help wildlife by funding important wildlife research and to influence

national policy. I know I want my four grandchildren to be able to enjoy the

wilderness like I have.

ENVER CREEK SECONDARY SCHOOL BAND

H. Bains: In a recent trip out of the country I had a few

hours' layover in Beijing airport. I had the unexpected pleasure to run into a

group of band students from Enver Creek Secondary, a high school in my

constituency.

Mr. Mike Jellema, the principal of Enver Creek Secondary, and

Surrey school board trustee Laurae McNally enlightened me on the details of

their trip. As it turned out, 75 students — accompanied by their principal, the

band teacher Mr. Al Henderson, school trustee Laurae McNally, three staff and 24

parents — went on the trip.

The students fundraised for two years to raise money for this

once-in-a-lifetime experience. They sold chocolates and magazines, had a

clothing drive, plant sales and even a manure sale to help pay for the cost of

this trip. With the money they raised from their efforts and, of course, great

support from their parents, they were able to come up with funds for this

cultural experience in China.

[ Page 11053 ]

The band played three different venues in Beijing and Sian, and

they had the rare experience of playing on the Great Wall of China. According to

one parent, it was so windy that they had to pin their music sheets to the stand

and hold the stands down with their feet so that they wouldn't blow away. They

also had an opportunity to drive by the Beijing 2008 Olympic site.

It is an invaluable experience and a good lesson for these

students to have a goal and raise money to accomplish that goal. I'm sure the

memories of this trip will last a lifetime.

[1400]

I would like this House to acknowledge the hard work of these

students to see their goal through, their parents who supported their efforts

and the extraordinary staff we have in Surrey school district, who made this

experience possible for these students.

Oral Questions

HOMELESSNESS

C. James: Since the B.C. Liberals came to power,

homelessness in Metro Vancouver has more than doubled. That's the news today

from the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., who conducted a

homelessness count in Vancouver and the suburbs. These alarming numbers show

that the B.C. Liberals have failed and that the Minister of Housing has

consistently underestimated the problem when it comes to homelessness. Since

2002 homelessness in the Metro Vancouver area alone has gone up 131 percent.

So my question is to the Minister of Housing. Will he finally

admit that he has completely underestimated the homelessness crisis in British

Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: No number of persons homeless in British

Columbia is acceptable to this government at any time, on any day, in any

generation.

I actually expected, though, that the Leader of the Opposition

would first of all get up and apologize on behalf of her critic, who has

overestimated the housing across this province and scared people for the last

two or three months in British Columbia.

But I also actually thought that — on behalf of the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who wrote me a little over a year ago and begged me to

buy the Carl Rooms hotel in her riding, with only 47 units — she might get up

and thank me for buying 17 buildings in the city of Vancouver. Nine additional

buildings across the rest of the province of British Columbia are being turned

into supportive housing.

And boy, I'm waiting for the next question, because I've got so

much more good news I'd like to pass on to the members opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Well, it's extraordinary. It's extraordinary that

this government would cheer and call a victory over a 131 percent increase in

homelessness on our streets, and that this minister would stand here in this

House and say that he has good news to share, when we see people living on the

streets every single day. Every individual who walks in a community anywhere in

our province can see the increase that has occurred under this government.

Why has that happened? Because it's this government who actually

cancelled housing programs that were in place in 2001 and 2002. The B.C.

Liberals froze the development of 1,700 affordable housing units and cancelled

another thousand units of social housing that were going to be in place in 2002.

They've been playing catch-up ever since.

So my question is again to the Minister of Housing. Will he

finally admit that the B.C. Liberal policy to cancel social housing units has

forced more people onto the streets in our province?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a 19 percent increase over the last

three years in homelessness in the Greater Vancouver area. That's not acceptable

to this government. But you know, in 2001 in the province of British Columbia,

there were 1,300 units of supportive housing. Today there are over 5,000 units

of supportive housing in the province. There are, hon. Member.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1405]

Hon. R. Coleman: In addition to that, there are another 895

units under construction in the province of British Columbia. I know that, much

to the chagrin of the members opposite, we've signed MOUs on lands with four

major municipalities in the province of British Columbia to build over 2,000

additional units of supportive housing in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: There are a couple of statistics that the Housing

Minister conveniently leaves out of his list of the Liberal record. That's the

fact that homelessness has doubled, and we have the worst child poverty rate in

this country here in British Columbia. That's the Liberal record.

The 2010 Olympic organizers have said that they need 3,200 units

of social housing to meet Vancouver's needs, but organizations across this

province know that's not going to happen under this government.

My question is to the Premier. Will he admit that at the current

rate of homelessness increasing and government inaction, when the world is

looking at us in 2010 we will see a huge increase of people living on the

streets? And that's unacceptable.

[ Page 11054 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the members opposite, I know

they were all about cutting ribbons and making announcements when they were

government during the 1990s. I know that the budget when they left government

was $120 million for housing in B.C. Today it's $380 million.

I know the members opposite don't want to recognize the fact that

over just the last year alone 2,400 people in the province of British Columbia

that were homeless have been connected to housing and supports by our outreach

program across the province, and over 80 percent of those people are still

housed today.

I know there are 4,800 families in your communities and our

communities in British Columbia, low-income families, that receive a cheque

quietly every month in the rent assistance program to offset their rent so that

they are not at risk of housing and they can change the lives of their children

and improve their lot in life — I think that's very important — and 3,000

seniors households on top of that.

It is a remarkable set of achievements that have been taking place

in housing. We have the units going into the ground to deal with this issue.

We're going to continue to stand up for people in British Columbia. We're going

to solve the homeless issue — something they would never, ever have attempted in

government.

G. Gentner: The government and this ministry seem to treat

the issue of homeless people as some sort of isolated incident — that it's a

crisis out of sight, out of mind, living on the downtown fringe.

However, this is no longer an isolated matter. Homeless people and

their shopping carts are being found outside of Delta coffee shops. Dare I say

that 80 people are now homeless in Langley, the minister's own constituency?

That is remarkable.

We are witnessing a social and economic pandemic, a chronic

condition that is reaching every community in the province, whether rich or

poor.

When will the minister admit that under his government's watch,

people who are homeless have spread well beyond the inner city and now into the

very heart of suburban British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad you brought up my community of

Langley, because it's one of the communities in British Columbia that stepped up

with some leadership by putting some land on the table and zoning it. A

neighbouring municipality put up a million dollars. We put up the money. We're

building the Gateway of Hope, which will have supportive housing and new shelter

capacity in the city of Langley — because our people out there actually have a

heart and actually will invest and actually will back up projects in their

community and work with municipalities.

[1410]

D. Thorne: Since 2002 I have been sitting on the Tri-Cities

Homelessness Task Force, watching the numbers of homeless people in the

Tri-Cities grow. Now we all know that the numbers since 2005 alone have grown

157 percent in the Tri-Cities, and this government sits there and claps. It is

astounding to me. It is more than shameful. How they can clap, I do not know.

This shocking number is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to my

community, and it should be unacceptable to the minister who consistently says:

"I have it all under control. It's fine. I have it all under control." Every

single study, every single report that we have seen says that the numbers coming

out of this government are wrong.

Question. I would like to know today if this minister is ever

going to commit to funding and building the thousands and thousands of new units

of affordable housing that we need to address this shameful, shameful crisis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad the member opposite has sat on

that committee in the Tri-Cities since 2003. Maybe she could explain to this

House why a project that was put forward by the YWCA spent hundreds of thousands

of dollars to take it through the process and got turned down to support housing

for women in that community.

Because the opportunity was actually brought to the attention as a

result of that, that municipality finally did step up with a piece of land. It

just recently finally allowed a project to go forward in that community, which

would help people with supportive housing in British Columbia. Guess who is the

major funder on that project. The government of British Columbia.

Maybe I'll just repeat a little bit of math for the member

opposite — 1,300 supportive housing units in 2001; over 5,000 units of

supportive housing in 2008, with 895 more under construction; and commitments

with municipalities to over 2,000 additional units across the province of

British Columbia. Yeah, we have a challenge with homelessness, but you know

what? We're stepping up to the plate to fight it and find long-term solutions

for it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: I would like to answer the question the minister

has put to me, if I may.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Thorne: When I get asked a question, I expect to give an

answer.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 11055 ]

D. Thorne: Speaking about facts, I would like to know why

the minister doesn't even know the status of his own project in Coquitlam.

That's what I would like to know.

The project he's speaking of, the YWCA project, is not at all as

he describes it. It hasn't even gone to public hearing, let alone been turned

down. So we have nothing in the Tri-Cities. We have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Thorne: In the Tri-Cities since 2005…. We have a mat

program that I imagine is included in the minister's figures, the same figures

that we hear over and over again and are sick of hearing. We would like to hear

about new advances for homelessness problems.

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact was that the YWCA had an original

project that didn't go ahead. Then your municipality finally woke up and put up

some land.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Good. We'll be there to fund the project.

That's what I said.

It's absolutely remarkable to me that this opposition won't stand

up to the fact that members of their own caucus have actually written and begged

me to buy buildings in their communities.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: One building. The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — one building; 17 buildings in the city of Vancouver

alone, all connected into a system of supports so our outreachers have some

place to connect people so that we can reduce homelessness in the province of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Brar: Denial, failure to understand the problem and

failure to take responsibility is the trademark of this minister. The facts are

that the number of homeless people in the province has doubled since these

people took over. The facts are that we have the highest child poverty in the

country since these people took over for the last four years.

I will try one more question. We have learned today that the

homelessness crisis in Surrey has gone from bad to worse. As for the new count,

Surrey has only 79 shelter beds for 386 homeless people. That means only 20

percent of people can have a place to sleep at night at any given time. The

number of shelter beds remained the same since the last count, and the number of

homeless people has gone up significantly.

Shelter beds are not homes. My question to the minister is: can

the minister commit today if his government will build the necessary units of

affordable housing for the people of Surrey and when?

Hon. R. Coleman: Shelter beds are not homes. In actual

fact, that's why we have outreach workers in our shelters when we actually went

24-7, so that we could connect them into housing and supports. That's why 2,500

people have been connected into housing, who were homeless in British Columbia

in just the past year alone.

Over triple the budget in just the last few years. Investments

that are absolutely incredible. Every jurisdiction across this country…. I

recently met with all the Housing ministers across Canada, who were absolutely

flabbergasted at the resources that are being poured into housing in the

province of British Columbia compared to their resources across this country.

They are looking at our programs because they know we're

connecting people into housing and supports. They are looking at our programs,

where we're doing renovations. They're looking at our programs where we're

putting in clinical help for people that need it in British Columbia. They're

looking at our programs that we're going to do at Willingdon and Riverview for

those that are really, really hard to house. They're saying: "We applaud British

Columbia for leading the way in Canada."

D. Chudnovsky: This minister can bray and snort all he

wants, and his buddies on the other side can clap and laugh when we're talking

about homelessness in British Columbia in 2008. They can do that if they want.

But what the minister has to do is open his eyes like everybody else in British

Columbia, because everyone in British Columbia whose eyes are open knows that we

have a crisis of homelessness.

This morning the Metro Vancouver figures came out — a 364 percent

increase in street-level homelessness in Vancouver since 2002. Not some other

century, not some other government. This government, this minister, this

Premier.

Explain to the people of British Columbia how you let this happen

on your watch.

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, that's rich, coming from the member

opposite, who has been blustering around the province that there are 10,000

homeless people in British Columbia for the last two or three months. It's rich,

coming from the member opposite, who I know woke up this morning so disappointed

that the numbers weren't as high as you thought they were.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Interjections.

[ Page 11056 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The truth hurts.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 2,000…. Yeah, I mean, the member

opposite spent the last few months telling British Columbians, raising the

issue, saying that the number that he had was way different from what the

government predicted. By the way, this is very close to what I predicted. We

said that we were building…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: …a foundation to deal with homelessness in

the province of British Columbia. It started with 2,500 people that were

homeless last year, who have been connected into housing supports in the

province of British Columbia, and 28 buildings in your communities and ours

across the province are being renovated into housing supports for people in this

province.

The construction program that's going on and has been going on for

supportive housing in the province of British Columbia is raising those numbers

exponentially to the fact that our relationships will take this number way over

7,000 units in the next couple years.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister and I will have the

opportunity, and I look forward to it, to unpack the numbers that he presents in

this House. I am totally confident that the figures we have put forward will be

vindicated.

But I want to ask the minister this. Has he been, as I was last

week, to Prince George and to Vanderhoof, to Burns Lake, to Hazelton, to

Smithers and to Terrace and met and spoken with those people who are homeless?

He sits here with his crowd, and they clap and they laugh about homelessness in

B.C.

I'll tell you what happened in 2002 that has resulted, in great

measure, in the crisis of homelessness we have today in British Columbia. In

2002 they cancelled the social housing program in British Columbia that existed.

If it had simply gone ahead, we would have more than 4,000 additional units in

this province. They made it much harder for people to get on welfare. Income

assistance isn't what it should be in this province. And that's the explanation.

I challenge this minister to stand up in this House and tell us

that those two actions of this government did not contribute to the crisis of

homelessness in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we bought the Backpackers Inn in

Prince George and are developing a project in Prince George with the city in

cooperation with non-profit organizations in that city.

The member opposite should get his facts straight on one thing,

though. We did review the housing projects that were in process in 2001 when we

became government, and — to the member opposite — they got built. Don't confuse

a review with cancelling the units. So try and put your facts where the actual

facts are.

I'm glad to have the debate in estimates. He's going to question

the numbers by a group of non-profit organizations he supports that went out and

did the Metro Vancouver count. I didn't do the count. You didn't do the count.

They did the count. We look at the count and see that there are 2,500 people

today that we're concerned about with homelessness in British Columbia. We know

we've got over 2,500 units in process on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

[1425]

We are going to attack this aggressively like we have, and we will

continue to, because on this side of the House we have a commitment to deal with

homelessness in the province of British Columbia.

INDEPENDENCE OF REPRESENTATIVE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

N. Simons: Last week the Chair of the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth wrote a letter to the independent representative

suggesting that the government should be allowed to make amendments to her

upcoming report, referring to this as collaboration. The representative's office

was created because of this government's repeated attempts to hide the truth,

and now they're trying to do it again under this guise of collaboration. British

Columbians demanded an independent representative, not a semi-independent

representative.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Does he think that it's appropriate for his ministry to interfere with the

independence of the representative's office by trying to influence the content

of her report and the timing of its release?

Hon. T. Christensen: If any member of this House doubts the

independence of the Representative for Children and Youth, I'd actually commend

them to read the Representative for Children and Youth Act, unanimously passed

by this House. It clearly sets out that the representative is independent. The

only thing that provides any direction to the representative is the act itself.

I have full confidence, based on any conversation that I have ever had with the

representative about the Ministry of Children and Family Development, that she

will act wholly independent and in a capable manner.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: The integrity of the representative is not at

question; it's the integrity of this government. The representative has been

waiting for the committee to set a date so that she can release her report in

committee, but the Chair is now suggesting that that

[ Page 11057 ]

meeting is only going to take place once that collaboration I referred to

earlier takes place.

Wouldn't it be a better use of the ministry's resources to deal

with the issues on the front line that the social workers have been telling him

about many, many months and years past, instead of spending all time and

resources on issues management and spin control?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think it's clear, based on comments

that I have made in the past, comments that members of the select standing

committee have made in the past and comments that the representative has made in

the past, that we all desire that the ministry be working collaboratively with

the representative to ensure that she has the most fulsome information possible

in preparing her report. I think that great improvements have been made in

respect of sharing of information, ensuring the ministry understands the

information that the representative is looking for, and that that is provided.

I would hope that all members of this House would take great

interest and encourage that degree of collaboration and that they would want the

ministry to have an opportunity to provide a response to any recommendations

that the representative may come forward with, to ensure that the public has a

clear idea of what the recommendations are from the representative and how the

ministry then intends to deal with those recommendations.

L. Krog: What is clear from what has been said is that the

minister or his staff must have been aware of the Chair's actions. The Chair's

letter clearly states that he is bringing forward the concerns of the ministry

to the child and youth representative.

The question is very simple. Does the minister condone this clumsy

attempt to stifle the independence of the child and youth representative?

[1430]

Hon. T. Christensen: I have seen the letter that the Chair

of the select standing committee sent to the representative. I have seen that

the letter reflects conversations where the Chair said that he had asked the

minister and he had asked the representative about the degree of collaboration,

again, in trying to ensure that full information was exchanged.

Members will recall that in November the representative issued a

report. There were great fireworks around that, and it was fully agreed that we

needed to ensure a collaborative exercise in terms of the preparation of the

reports and an opportunity to respond to the report.

If the ministry does not respond, it certainly doesn't give the

public the insight they need in terms of what then is going to happen with the

recommendations. So I would hope that all members would encourage that the

ministry respond to recommendations provided by the child and youth

representative.

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: Visiting this great House and within the vicinity

is Dr. Cheema, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Punjab, and

joining him are Randeep Singh Sarai and Gurminder Singh, a successful accountant

from Surrey. Will the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call second reading

debate of Bill 19, the Electoral Districts Act, and in

Section A, I call

Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the

Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 19, the Electoral Districts

Act, now be read a second time.

This bill implements the direction given to government by this

House on the 13th of March, when the House endorsed Motion 39. That motion

called for the adoption of the final recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission as modified by the alternative proposals made by the commission for

the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions. Those alternative proposals are

contained in appendix P of the commission's report.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission travelled the province to hear

from British Columbians. They held 40 public meetings and received dozens of

written submissions. They grappled with the difficult task of balancing the

competing needs of British Columbians in urban and rural areas of the province.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the commissioners

for their work, the hon. Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen of the Supreme Court of British

Columbia, who was the commission's chair; Mr. Stewart Ladyman; and Mr. Harry

Neufeld, Chief Electoral Officer for British Columbia.

Our province is large and blessed with diverse geography and a

varied pattern of settlement over history. Today we are growing, we are vibrant,

and we have a population of over four million people. The challenge for

political representation is that recent population increases, for the most part,

have happened in the urban areas of the province.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Today in British Columbia, 85 percent of the population lives on

16 percent of the land. Rural districts have lower populations, but these

populations are often widely dispersed, making political representation

challenging for their MLAs. Representing urban areas is challenging in different

ways. While populations are grouped more densely, they are larger and often more

ethnically and linguistically diverse.

[1435]

[ Page 11058 ]

This bill implements what this House believes to be the best way

to ensure effective representation for all British Columbians. Specifically, the

bill would create 85 electoral districts for British Columbia, up from the

current 79. It would maintain the current number of districts in the north and

Cariboo-Thompson regions of the province and add six new electoral districts to

the faster-growing areas of the province — the Okanagan, the Lower Mainland and

the capital region.

The areas and boundaries of the new districts are set out in

schedule 2 of the bill. For the first time, this

schedule does not have the

lengthy verbal description of the boundaries known as metes and bounds. Instead,

it confirms that the areas and boundaries are those as described on official

versions of CD-ROMs created by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The CD-ROMs

contain maps and geographic coordinates for all the districts.

The commission, through Elections B.C., accessed the province's

GIS digital mapping technology. This technology permits highly accurate maps to

be drawn without using the physical land surveying required with metes and

bounds. It permitted the commission to produce maps more quickly, more cheaply

and with less likelihood of material error, since it uses coordinates of

latitude and longitude, which unlike physical landmarks do not change. This

method of describing electoral boundaries is a first in Canada.

Section 2 of the bill is divided into two parts. The first

part

contains 77 of the 85 districts, whose boundaries are contained on the CD-ROM

produced by the commission on the date it released its final report. These 77

districts would be implemented as recommended by the commission.

The second part of

schedule 2 contains eight districts. These are

the districts whose boundaries change under the alternative scenarios in

appendix P of the commission's report. Their boundaries are contained on a

separate CD-ROM produced by the commission.

The disks and their data are on file with the Chief Electoral

Officer, who is also a member of the commission. As the independent officer of

the Legislature responsible for administering elections in the province, his

office would be responsible for implementing the new districts and their

boundaries. In the run-up to the May 2009 general election, this would include

creating even more detailed maps that subdivide electoral districts into smaller

voting areas.

As a final note, I should confirm that this bill addresses

electoral districts under our current single-member-plurality electoral system,

commonly known as first-past-the-post. The commission made parallel

recommendations for the single transferable vote system, or STV. Whether these

boundaries will be enacted will depend upon the outcome of the provincial

referendum on STV to be held at the time of the next provincial election in May

J. Kwan: Bill 19 implements Motion 39, as we know,

regarding the new electoral boundaries. It was approved by this House on March

13, 2008. Bill 19 sets out the parameters for the new Legislative Assembly based

on the February 14, 2008, Electoral Boundaries Commission report, which outlines

85 seats with boundaries for 77 of those seats determined by the Electoral

Boundaries original proposal and the boundaries for eight rural seats based on

the Electoral Boundaries Commission's appendix P.

The names of the constituencies are spelled out in

schedule 1 of

the bill, and the areas and the boundaries are set out in

schedule 2. I won't go

into those details on this item.

The opposition is in support of this bill. I want to state very

clearly the reasons why, but we also want to put on record some of the concerns

which were highlighted already when Motion 39 was debated.

[1440]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We are in support of the bill based on the fact that it protects

rural representation. That representation was arrived at independently by the

Electoral Boundaries Commission. There was no political interference, such as

what, quite frankly, the Premier tried to do earlier than this bill being

implemented and earlier than Motion 39 being tabled in the House.

We also want to put on notice, as we did when we debated to have

Motion 39, that whether or not the government has done its homework on the

legality of this bill and that…. Of course we want to ensure that the government

has done its due diligence in this regard. We are concerned that this could

potentially be challenged in the courts. We trust that the Attorney General has

done his homework to ensure that the legality of this bill stands and that it

would not be subject to a legal challenge.

As mentioned earlier, when the government brought this whole issue

before the House, the government had actually botched it up right from the

get-go. They botched the appointment of the non-partisan commissioners. The

government's original legislation was inadequate for preserving rural

representation. That was the government's doing, members of the House — all

members of the House — and it was the opposition who raised that issue when the

first report was tabled. It was the opposition who stood up for rural

communities right from the get-go.

You've got to ask the question: where was the Premier on this, if

he was so concerned about rural representation? In those early days he was

nowhere to be found. The Premier had failed to speak up for rural B.C.

Then the government went to compound this issue with an attempt of

political interference by the Premier. Bill 39 was attempted to be brought into

this House, which would add seats in areas that actually would dilute rural

representation. How is that for rural representation protection? The government

failed to do that with Bill 39, and of course, at the end of the day the

government eventually let that legislation die on the order paper.

[ Page 11059 ]

It was also the Premier's political interference that caused the

commission to cancel its fall hearings and left little time for consultation.

That was the government's doing as well.

In their final report, the commissioners put forward appendix P.

Appendix P puts forward their independent response to the issue of

representation in the north and Cariboo-Thompson areas. The Electoral Boundaries

Commission was unable to recommend it because the government failed to provide

the necessary statutory support. Therefore, the government must take

responsibility for its mismanagement of the file.

That's really the history of this file. We're now at the

introduction of this bill and a second reading of this bill — Bill 19, the

Electoral Districts Act — and it is incumbent on all of us to recall the history

of where this came from and where we're at.

We want to be very clear that on the opposition side, we will

support this bill. Right from the beginning, we said that we want to ensure

rural representation, and this bill does that in an independent way. More to the

point, I would like to hear reassurances from the Attorney General that he has

done his homework, that the legalities around this bill are assured and that it

will not be subject to a legal challenge in the courts and therefore throw chaos

into the Legislative Assembly should that happen.

Those are my comments for Bill 19, and I look forward to hearing

other members on this bill and look forward to committee debate, a

clause-by-clause debate with respect to Bill 19.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney

General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 19.

[1445]

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 19 be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 19, Electoral Districts Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I call Bill 16, entitled Greenhouse Gas

Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act — continuation of

debate.

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON

FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

B. Lekstrom: I rise to speak to this bill. There's a

referral motion on the floor at the present time.

The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, prior to the adjournment of

the debate earlier this morning, had moved a referral motion, wanting to

virtually hoist this bill. That's what it would do. It would take the bill off

of the order paper and put it out of our ability to talk about and discuss and

pass here in this Legislative Assembly.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The reasons were really his concerns. He's expressed a concern

whether it be food for fuel. That debate is taking place now across the country

and in some cases across the world. But I'm telling you, Madam Speaker, that I

rise to speak against his referral motion.

I come from an agricultural area of this province, the Peace River

country. I believe it's 98 percent of the grains and oilseeds that are grown in

this province are grown in the Peace country. We're very proud of that.

But I can tell you that the farmers I represent have not always

had an easy time making a living. They work on the land, and they provide our

food that I think we all, over the years — not just in British Columbia but

certainly, I think, in Canada — have taken for granted. We have taken our food

for granted for a long, long time.

We've never in the past seemed to want to recognize the importance

of the agricultural industry and what it means to society. We haven't worried a

great deal when prices have been at an all-time low for our grains and oilseed

sector — when they've struggled to seed the next year's crop, when many of them

haven't been able to have the finances because of low prices from the previous

year to actually put seed in the ground for the harvest in the fall.

Now that we're diversifying the opportunities for agriculture in

this province, I guess I'm somewhat miffed that somebody would think that's a

bad deal — that somebody would want to plant the seed that food for fuel is a

bad thing and that we should only look at growing our grains and oilseeds for

nothing more than food supply. The issue of biofuels, whether it be grain and

ethanol or canola and biodiesel: "It's bad for the population. It's bad for

society."

It's good for the farmer. It is finally great that our

agricultural industry is diversifying their markets where they can market their

product. But the most important thing is that nobody is telling the farmers they

have to sell it into this market or that market. They have their own choice.

They're going to be able to look at where they can get the best dollar for the

product that they produce, and they're going to be able to make a living — a

good living, hopefully. I think that's important.

We talk about the ability of blending fuels. I think everybody

realizes the federal government has mandated that by 2010 for gasoline and 2012

for diesel fuel. So it is going to happen, and I fully support that.

There was some discussion about the fertilizers that are going

into the ground and what's going to take place. From my experience in growing up

in the Peace country…. I can tell you that the farmers I

[ Page 11060 ]

know, whether they're growing grains and oilseeds, whether they're cattle

ranchers or bison ranchers, whether they're producing sheep…. They understand

the land base. They understand what it takes to grow crops and to make sure that

the land is fertile in that soil. So no one better — certainly not government,

not our government or the opposition — is in a position to tell a farmer what he

needs to know about making sure his soil is fertile. He knows that.

I'm not too concerned about the fertilizers that will be utilized,

whether we're talking about a different strain of canola when it comes to

biofuels or biodiesel, or whether we talk about the grains when it comes to

ethanol. If that opportunity avails itself to our agricultural industry, I think

it would be a great day.

[1450]

I represent my agricultural community in the Peace River country

with great pride. At every opportunity I get to speak in this House or around

this province in my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, I am

sure — and I've said this numerous times, with no disrespect to any other

industry — there is no more important industry on this planet than agriculture —

none. They provide our food supply, and now the opportunity is there for them to

actually diversify their markets and allow us to help with the reduction of the

greenhouse gases that seem to be affecting this world in a negative way.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that I am opposed to

this. I believe the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca moved it with good

intentions, but I do have the ability and have been raised in the Peace country

all of my life. This last year was a good year for our grains and oilseeds

sector — one of the best years, probably, in the last 30. We've seen prices

increase, which is something that is long overdue.

For the people that are concerned, whether it's food for fuel….

Some people have said food or fuel. I think that's a mistake. Certainly, it

wasn't the member that presented the referral motion. Many of these people

should have a look inside themselves and ask themselves whether they think

they've taken agriculture for granted, and the cheap food policy that we seem to

have enjoyed in this country.

At the end of the day, when the price of a loaf of bread goes up,

there's a lot of concern in the public. Whether it be beef going up or so on, at

the end of the day the farmer isn't putting more money in his pocket. It's been

that way for 40 years.

We talk about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low

Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act and the referral motion that's on the floor before

us. I have to oppose that — again, with the utmost respect to my colleague in

the opposition from Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I think he probably moved the referral

motion with the best of intent.

I do understand agriculture, and I take great pride in that. To

think that we may hamper the ability of our farm and agricultural sector to pick

the markets that they choose to sell into is wrong. They right now are enjoying

some all-time high prices for their product. Whether it be wheat, whether it be

canola or whether it be barley — we're seeing some good prices, and I'm happy

for them.

The rural community in which I live doesn't survive on the

boundaries of our municipality. We survive as a region, and we survive because

the agricultural community supports those rural communities. That's how we built

a better province.

Representing an area that develops, I believe, 98 percent of the

grains and oilseeds in British Columbia and seeing a bill that will allow some

diversification — and certainly new markets, possibly, for our farmers in our

grains and oilseeds sector — is a good thing. It is a great thing.

If anything I could say in this debate on the issue of food or

fuel or food for fuel…. If it can bring to light to the people of British

Columbia the importance of what our agricultural sector means to each and every

one of us as British Columbians and to each and every one of us as citizens on

this planet, I'll tell you that I would accept that debate for doing something

good.

That's what we have to do. We have to begin to recognize what

agriculture means. For as long as I've been alive, I've watched farmers make a

living. I've watched them struggle, year in and year out on occasion, and never

waver from their land and their commitment to it.

Farming and agriculture is not about going into it to get rich. I

can tell you that I think that's a fair statement. It's about a way of life.

It's about a commitment to their animals or their herd. It's about a commitment

to the land base and the soil which they make their living from.

So I will oppose the referral that's on the floor, which is to

virtually lift Bill 16 from the floor of this Legislative Assembly. I'm going to

vote against that referral, and I'm going to vote in favour of this bill,

because I believe it does a number of things. It not only allows us to address

the issue of the environment in a better way, but it's also going to enhance the

opportunities for the agricultural sector that I represent in Peace River South.

I know the minister from Peace River North. Agriculture is very

large in his area as well, as it is in other areas of the province.

Primarily, what we're speaking about when we talk about food for

fuel…. There's a couple, and I'll speak to a couple. The ethanol industry, the

ability to develop ethanol through grain — it isn't happening yet. It's been

looked at for a long time. There are economic issues that have to be looked at,

but that's one.

[1455]

The other is canola. We can use canola for the production of

biodiesel. We're very close to developing a plant in the Peace River area as I

speak today here in the Legislature. This plant is not by some large

multinational looking to make a dollar. This is by our farmers. The people that

actually make their living off the land and farm it and take great care are

coming together to put together a biodiesel facility in which they can market

their canola.

Before I close, I want to again speak to the referral, speak to my

opposition of this referral based on the fact

[ Page 11061 ]

that…. It actually will give our agricultural sector more diversified markets

to market this, it will actually allow people to make a living, and the money

that they make is reinvested. Their children go to the schools in our

communities. They play minor hockey. They do ballet. They take their music

lessons.

When our agriculture sector has a good year, I think it shows

across this province. We all enjoy the food they produce. We all enjoy the

diversified markets that they'll enjoy in order to make a living. There's no

doubt in my mind that this question is not food or fuel. It is food and fuel,

and that's where we're headed with the agricultural sector and the issue of new

fuel sources in this province.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the chance to speak to

this. Again, I will oppose this referral motion that's on the floor.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand and speak to both the

bill and the motion to refer. In fact, it should be no secret in this House that

I have been a strong proponent of biodiesel since I first became elected, and I

have spoken here in this House on many occasions about biodiesel and about the

future of alternative fuel use here in British Columbia.

I was anticipating looking into the details of this bill to see

exactly what it offered up. My first declaration here in the House was in

February 2006, when I talked in this House about us seeking out more

understanding and more policy on alternative fuels and talked about biodiesel as

being one of the viable alternative fuels.

In April 2006, in fact, I questioned the minister responsible for

Energy and Mines about biodiesel. We had a considerable dialogue, and I asked

the minister what kind of plan there was in the future for biodiesel or biofuel.

There appeared to be nothing in the three-to-five-year plan at that time, in

April of 2006.

The minister said — and I quote from Hansard here: "The

alternative fuels, biodiesel and ethanol…. Although we do some out of this

ministry, most of the responsibility will be with the Ministry of Environment on

those things. I can't tell you that we have a five-year plan on biodiesel."

Well, here we are a couple of years later, and apparently we do

have a plan. Things have changed dramatically, and it is being introduced not by

the Ministry of Environment but by the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Having had that discussion with the minister, I was very

interested to see what the bill contained. I have certainly, over the past

number of years, challenged this government numerous times on the biodiesel

file. So when I got the bill, when we first saw the bill, I pored through it to

see exactly what it contained. It broke down into three clear parts, as

explained in the explanatory note here.

The first pertains specifically to the percentage of renewable

fuel that would be included in policy….

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just a point of order, Madam Speaker. We

are debating the notice of motion from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca about

sending this bill to a legislative committee in regards to a number of items.

We're not actually discussing the bill at the present time. We're actually

discussing the motion to refer it.

[1500]

Deputy Speaker: The member is allowed to develop arguments

about why the bill should be referred.

Continue, member.

M. Karagianis: It is my intention to do that exactly, to

develop all of my rationale for my support of the motion to refer.

When I looked at the three components of this, one which was very

interesting to me immediately was the issue of a prescribed percentage of

renewable fuel in the fuel supply. Because of my keen personal interest and

having stood in the House and discussed and promoted the concept of biodiesel, I

was very interested to see exactly what was contained in this bill with regard

to either biodiesel or bioethanol.

Of course, the first thing that was obvious is that the nature of

this bill does not include any kind of differentiation around bioethanol or

biodiesel. In fact, that is a very compelling discussion that's taking place

worldwide. I think that it is very imperative for us to consider that debate

going on between the efficacy of both bioethanol and biodiesel as being a

consideration here.

As I have had a keen interest and have taken a personal step in my

own life to use biodiesel as a step towards alternative fuels, I have watched

with great interest the growing concern between the use of biodiesel and

bioethanol, and the impacts that it has, has had and is having worldwide.

In fact, a few years ago, there was a really keen movement towards

ethanol. This happened some time ago. It's not a recent development. The

implementation of ethanol has been slowly gaining momentum over a considerable

number of years, and it is now, as we look to alternative fuels across the

world, that a crisis has begun to grow around the concerns with the impacts of

bioethanol on the planet.

The use of both biodiesel and ethanol — ethanol throughout the

United States and South America, and the use of biodiesel in Europe…. They are

going through two billion litres of biodiesel a year in Europe right now. This

is a very serious consideration for all of us who believe in alternative fuels.

And, frankly, we on this side of the House do believe that we have to look to

alternative fuels as bridging opportunities before the next iteration for how we

will travel and transport goods and services comes into being. Who knows what

that will be in the long-term future?

I know that the government itself has promoted the idea of

hydrogen — again, another highly questionable alternative fuel. But the

government has taken quite an endeavour here to promote the concept of hydrogen.

Whether or not that is going to have some bearing on the future, I think the

policy with this Bill 16 is the rationale here for this motion to refer.

[ Page 11062 ]

I will read here from a report from the Progressive States Network

in the U.S. entitled Promoting Smart Biofuels Policy at the State Level .

I think it's summed up very nicely here. "Biofuels policies are complex. The

urgency and excitement surrounding renewable energy can result in oversight of

negative environmental consequences if policy is not designed to encourage the

most energy-efficient versions of biofuels. Ensuring that biofuels are developed

in a sustainable manner will lead to long-term gains and finally help wean us

off our oil addiction."

Madam Speaker, there is one of the very keystones of why the

motion to refer is supportable. It's because there is a complex debate going on

about bioethanol, about biodiesel, about other alternative fuels and what the

long-term sustainability of these is and what the impact will be.

[1505]

Not just here — I heard the previous speaker talk about farming in

the Peace. And with great respect, absolutely, farming in the Peace…. Probably

there are great opportunities there. But this discussion is not about farming in

the Peace or raising bioethanol in the Peace River. This is about the entire

debate around bioethanol, biodiesel, other alternative fuels and what the

sustainability of those are, both in the near future and the long-term future.

The debate is shifting, somewhat like climate change. In fact,

there is a lot of contrary science on this. You can find lots of arguments for

and against both of these alternative fuels that we're discussing here today, as

well as hydrogen.

So it concerns me greatly that without any kind of insight from

this bill into what the real policies will be and whether or not there will be

very distinct language around us using a strong sustainability lens on any

policies in the future…. As one of the leading countries in the developed world,

we owe it to ourselves to think not just of what's happening in the Peace or

within our own boundaries but, if we make these choices, what the long-term

impacts are worldwide?

These debates are taking place all over the world. They're taking

place in Europe, where they have been much more advanced than we have in their

use of bioenergy and alternative fuels; in South America, where Brazil is very,

very far along on the use of bioethanol within their own transportation sector.

I think they've reached levels of about 50 percent of the usage of bioethanol

within their transportation sectors. Now, they're looking seriously at what the

long-term impacts are within that country on the rain forest, on the long-term

sustainability against food securities.

If those kind of considerations are taking place elsewhere in the

world, I think we owe it here…. As a leading country within the developed

nations, as well as a province that purports itself to be leading the way in

Canada, I think it's really imperative for us to take a long and hard look and

have a debate and do some in-depth research into this debate and determine how

we are going to move forward at this point and craft policies as supporting

documents to this bill. A bill without that supporting information doesn't tell

us anything, doesn't give us any kind of reassurance that the issue of

sustainability is going to be a key part of our decisions on what we use and how

we use it and how we will legislate it in the future.

The second part of the bill here talks about carbon intensity. I

was very fortunate, and I thank the minister's staff for giving me and the

member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca a briefing on the bill, where we actually raised

some of the questions that we're raising here in the House today with this

motion to refer.

One of the things that the minister's staff referred to is….

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I remind you that the motion is

specific in terms of the items to be discussed, which are food security,

sustainability and secrecy. I believe that in your last remark you were straying

from those points.

M. Karagianis: Everything I'm saying here is about

sustainability, about food security, absolutely, and I will get to the issue of

secrecy shortly.

Deputy Speaker: Member, will you be sure that you address

your remarks to those points.

M. Karagianis: Yes, I will. I did not believe I was

straying from those. In fact, the motion to refer here comes very directly out

of conversations we had with the minister's staff, where the minister's staff

talked about a concept around carbon intensity. The reference point here was

from well to wheel, as the process and the continuity link by which you judge

carbon intensity. That is, what does it take to get the petroleum product out of

the well? What does it take to get it to the marketplace? What are the carbon

impacts each step of the way, from the time you drill, to the time you transport

it, to the time it burns in your automobile? That's what the carbon intensity

quotient is going to be. It's a key part of this bill.

I would say that, given the fact we are talking about alternative

biofuels, there should be a new consideration here, which is from field to wheel

— not just from well to wheel, because we are talking here about the carbon

intensity that is produced from products that are either food security products

or agricultural products or, in some cases, waste products.

[1510]

Frankly, when we're talking about waste products, even, we have to

be very careful. I think that the biodiesel industry itself is moving towards

sustainability on using waste product to create biodiesel. But if we're trucking

these products halfway across the country, like we would be with hydrogen, then

our carbon intensity on that would be extreme.

It's not just what burns in your vehicle when you turn the

ignition on. It is about every step of the way. So I would say that we need to

think about field-to-wheel as being one of the components of this, not just

well-to-wheel.

The second part of this bill, where it talks about carbon

intensity, speaks again very much to the need,

[ Page 11063 ]

within this motion to refer, for us to give that as a new consideration,

because that's not being considered. I will tell you from my understanding of

the briefing I received from staff that that is not part of their quotient —

looking at what that price is.

What is the carbon intensity price? What is the environmental

price that we would pay for these products if we are trucking them from a long

distance, if we are extracting them from non-sustainable agricultural products?

If we are trucking or transporting them halfway across the country, like with

hydrogen, then that's creating a different carbon intensity than what you would

see on the surface of it. I'd like to see that considered, and that will only

come about if we can have this debate under the motion to refer, where we can

look more critically at this.

The third part of this is around the administrative and

enforcement part of the act. This is where the motion to refer directly speaks

to the issue around freedom of information. We've heard from the

freedom-of-information office themselves that there are a great number of

concerns around this bill and another subsequent sort of partner bill to this.

I would say that all of the reasons for supporting this motion to

refer are reflected right here in the very nature of the bill itself and the

issues that I believe have not been taken under serious consideration. I am a

huge proponent of biodiesel and of using sustainable products in order to create

that biodiesel.

I have a great number of suspicions around ethanol. Ethanol has

been something that has been — actually, let's be frank — used to eke out the

oil and gas industry's hold on the transportation sectors across the world. It

came from the oil and gas industry itself. They have taken control of this. It

has now become a huge controversial issue around the world. So I'm highly

suspicious of that.

I think it bears a second, deeper look and more research on the

part of government before they institute something here that could turn into a

bigger world controversy in the future. We could discover, because we've not

been careful about how we set up the policies on this…. We have not put a

sustainability lens on here that included field-to-wheel. We've not looked at

the impacts that this could have without a strong sustainability policy, without

that embedded in legislation that guarantees that the end user will be using

something that is sustainable and environmentally supportive.

I think we need to support this motion to refer. It's very

interesting that the previous speaker made reference to the fact that the motion

somehow indicated that we thought this was a bad deal. I'm not sure it indicates

that at all. What it says is that this is a very significant piece of

legislation in a broader work the government is presenting on climate change and

that there are lots of questions. There are new questions growing every single

day out of this industry — out of the biodiesel, bioethanol and other

alternative fuels. And frankly, there are other alternative fuels coming on all

the time.

The government's commitment to the hydrogen highway and to

hydrogen production — how does that fit into this? I'm not entirely sure that I

see that government has presented us with a whole array of alternatives that

have enough documentation, have enough guarantees there that we will be able to

support them as sustainable in the long run.

[1515]

I would have to say to the government that they should not be

afraid to look deeper at this. If this is really good legislation and if all of

their policies are supportable, sustainable…. They've done the research. They've

looked at the impacts of both bioethanol and biodiesel and other alternatives.

If they've looked at that under the guise of measuring the carbon intensity, if

they feel that there's enough documentation there to support a claim that

whatever moves we take, whatever policy we put in place, are not developing a

higher carbon intensity than we intended or than we will have lost by our

current methods, then I think they should be happy to sit down and defend that.

Even the agriculture industry — there are great opportunities

here. I think there are tremendous opportunities, certainly in the biodiesel

industry, for new kinds of agricultural opportunities, but they all have to be

measured up against any risks that we may have.

As we have been eroding the agricultural land reserve in this

province, we are diminishing the amount of acreage, the amount of agricultural

land that could produce alternative crops. Are we going to be forced to make

choices because of policies the government has already embarked on, actions the

government has already taken, positions they already support? How do those

reflect on the long-term sustainability of any kind of biofuel?

We look at the potential options for bioethanol out of the current

climate change crisis with the pine beetle. In fact, what is the carbon

intensity that we would see coming out of that kind of production of taking

those wood products and developing an ethanol product out of that? The

documentation is not here.

The bill itself, Madam Speaker, because it's enabling legislation,

has very thin language in all of this, and that is where the growing concern is.

I think it's for us to take a closer look, have a thorough debate and make sure,

when we put this bill in motion, that we are not doing something frivolous, not

doing something that we will be ashamed of later, not putting in place something

that actually jeopardizes many of the things that we are trying to achieve.

This is a government that said we will reduce greenhouse gases by

a tremendous amount, with deadlines in the future that may or may not be

achievable. Certainly, given the government's actions outside of this bill —

where we are building superhighways, we are building new bridges, we are

encouraging more traffic, and we have not put in place other alternative modes

of transportation at the rate that will allow people to get out of their cars

faster and sooner — means that we have continued to create this automobile and

oil and gas dependency for a long, long time.

The idea of moving people to alternative fuels is very

interesting, very provocative, very attractive.

[ Page 11064 ]

Biodiesel itself, if it's done sustainably…. Frankly, the industry itself

wants to move directly into sustainability, because they realize that that's a

key part of long-term production and making sure that people use it as an

alternative. All of those things need to be discussed and thoroughly examined to

make sure that whatever the government is doing, it is not completely

counterproductive to what its end goal is.

The motion to refer here simply says: "Let's go away and have a

discussion on this and have a debate." Let's take a very frank look at the

worldwide controversy that's taking place right now around bioethanol, biodiesel

— the long-term impacts on food security, and what's happening in Europe, South

America, the U.S. — and let's think about what actions we take.

Frankly, we will be dependent on many of those centres to produce

the products that we are going to be requiring, because we in British Columbia

will be unable to be self-sustainable in any way in a biodiesel or bioethanol

market. If we think we can grow everything here that would feed into any of

these biofuel products, then that's complete folly. There is no way on earth we

would become self-sustainable. So that means that we are dependent on other

markets to bring this in.

Currently, our biodiesel…. I run it in my car every single day. We

don't produce it here in British Columbia. All of the production system around

this is still in a fledgling state.

[1520]

Even if we were to mandate that tomorrow people had to use B5 in

every diesel automobile in British Columbia, we couldn't produce it. There is no

way to access it. All of the system that needs to be grown in place here is

dependent on product that comes from areas that may not be sustainable.

I have great respect for the previous speaker who talked about

farming in the Peace and about what a great opportunity this is for them. It is

a great opportunity — right? — for farmers in northern Alberta, in Saskatchewan,

in Manitoba, who are only putting two-thirds of their field to plant these days.

One-third of their lands are not going into grain, because the market is not

creating economic stability for them. Sure, there are lots of opportunities

there, but we have to make sure that whatever we're doing is not at a greater

cost, and that we actually calculate this field-to-wheel cost, think about the

carbon intensity and think about whether or not it is sustainable in the long

run.

I would think that every member of this House would be looking to

be responsible to that, to ensure that whatever we are doing is sustainable,

that it is not jeopardizing food prices elsewhere in the world and that it is

not jeopardizing the environment because the field-to-wheel carbon intensity is

far greater than anything we anticipated.

Do we have all those facts? They are controversial. There's no

question about it. I've made a study of this for several years, and I can tell

you that there are no clear answers. It becomes more controversial all the time.

Frankly, the oil and gas industry itself is wading in and out of

this. They are huge players in the ethanol debate. As a consequence, you have to

look and say: what have they found? Why are they promoting ethanol? Is it really

going to get us the kind of alternatives that we're anticipating here? I don't

get any answers out of all of this.

I think that it does come down to public policy on this. That

cannot be created in the middle of a bill that has no details to it and has no

policy attached to it. Public policy on this is going to be what affects us the

most and what will stay with us the longest in the future. That's what we're

asking for in this motion to refer.

It's highly supportable. I would think that the government would

be happy to support the idea to refer this to a committee, where we have a

discussion, where we all, in tandem, take a hard look and say: "We're not making

mistakes. We're not doing this at the expense of other countries, other

cultures. We're not doing this at the expense of the rain forest. We're not

doing this at the expense of food and corn crop prices in the U.S. that affect

families."

I know that the minister has these things on his mind as well. I

know that this is a concern for all of us who support the concept of alternative

fuels. We know we have to find some bridge between here and the future. We know

that we have to find ways to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel dependency.

There are some great opportunities here. There are also some great

hazards in the debate. Why would we not want to sit down and have that

discussion and make sure that we support the idea of alternative fuels with

sustainability, with public policy that we can all be very proud of long into

the future?

I think that this motion is highly supportable. Without it, the

bill, unfortunately, doesn't take into consideration all of the other concerns.

If the whole concept of this carbon intensity of fuel transport does not take

into consideration some of the issues with biofuel, with bioethanol in

particular…. Frankly, it's no secret that I'm not a big fan of bioethanol,

because I do know that its impacts are harsh, both on food prices and food

security. As well, the long-term sustainability here is highly questionable.

I am much more confident about biodiesel, because it uses waste

product. It can actually help get waste product out of the landfill. Much of

what it's based on is either recycled or using waste product from other food

crops, like soy, that are grown for protein. The waste by-product of that is

used for biodiesel.

Certainly, we have some huge opportunities around using

meat-packing waste that would normally go into the landfill but could be used,

and it's highly stable for the use of biodiesel. There are other crops coming

up, and there are other alternative fuel options coming in the future.

[1525]

I think that for us to sit down and make sure that when we

initiate this legislation and initiate policy, we know exactly what we're doing

and can go and face the world and not be caught in that controversy, not be

[ Page 11065 ]

caught in that debate. As long as our policies here in British Columbia are

under the guise of new greener, cleaner greenhouse gas–reducing climate change

planning, but we can't look the rest of the developed countries in the eye…. We

can't look at the critics of bioethanol and biodiesel and say: "We have done a

thorough job of making sure we will, in British Columbia, behave very

responsibly around this."

If we haven't done that, then what is the purpose of having

climate change planning you can't actually defend in public? So I would say that

all of these are critical not just to this enabling legislation but to the

longer-term impacts for us in British Columbia.

The public policy on this has to be something that we are proud

of, that we can defend, that we are knowledgable about. That will come out of

this motion to refer to a committee and us having this discussion off and out of

this House, in a venue where we can actually discuss and dismantle…. We can make

sure that whatever we are doing here is something we have examined thoroughly

and know we've been responsible about.

I highly support the motion to refer. I can't imagine why anyone

would not want to have a thorough discussion about this — what they would be

afraid of, why government would be in any way hesitant from having that debate.

It's all supportable around this legislation. It doesn't hurt the legislation at

all. It doesn't change it. We refer it, we have that discussion, and then we

come back with public policy to back this up that is very sustainable and

supportable and that we're proud of.

Then we can go out to the world and say: "We've now created

legislation." We've created legislation that could be a blueprint for other

communities to follow. We like to think, in B.C., that we're doing that, with a

climate change plan. Let's make it real. Let's make it deep and substantial and

realistic.

Then we can go out and say: "Here's public policy. Here's what we

created in a bill. Here's the background to it." Here's the public policy that

goes with it that actually defines sustainability and makes sure that whatever

we do in British Columbia is sustainable into the long future, until we see

alternatives beyond fossil fuel dependency or alternative fuel dependency, and

something like, ultimately, a solar-powered electric car that costs the

environment nothing to operate.

I would urge all members of this House to support the motion to

refer.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to once again take my place in this

debate on my referral motion….

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is clarification from the Chair. This

morning the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca began second reading debate,

actually carried on second reading debate for a while, and then introduced a

motion and spoke on that motion until we broke for lunch.

After lunch the member was not in the House, in fact, to carry on

the debate, and the member for Peace River South carried on the debate on the

member's motion. I just would like some clarification of what takes place now,

because I believe that the member has already spoken to his motion, he's already

spoken to second reading, and we need to move on with the motion the member

brought forward, but by other members of the opposition.

[1530]

Deputy Speaker: Members, at the call of the Chair, we will

recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:31 p.m. to 3:36 p.m.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

J. Horgan: I thank members of the House for indulging me.

My brief absence after question period prohibited me from taking my place in the

debate.

I want to be brief and to the point. I think I made the points

fairly clearly before the lunch break. My view, and the rationale for the

referral motion, is that this is a golden opportunity for all members of the

House to come together as one in committee — whether it be a newly constituted

committee or one that is appointed by the committee on legislative initiatives —

to look at this issue, to bring in experts, to have a debate internally in the

glare of the public eye, and come to a conclusion on the efficacy and value of

biofuels.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Now, I don't want to leave the public or members of this House

with the impression that this is something I've just come upon recently. I've

been doing a lot of research on this. I've been giving it a lot of thought, and

so has the scientific community; so has the media.

I have in my hand this month's edition of Time magazine. On

the cover there is a cob of corn surrounded by bills. It says "The Clean Energy

Myth." It goes on to say that politicians and big business and others are

pushing biofuels as corn-based solutions to our energy crisis. That may or may

not be true, but the public that we represent — bombarded by media, bombarded by

different opinions, different ideas on this debate — look to us as legislators,

whether we be government or opposition, to help sort through the different

opinions in the marketplace.

I have a document here. It is from Britain's House of Commons, the

Environmental Audit Committee. "Are Biofuels Sustainable?" is the headline. This

is from the 2007-2008 session, published in January 2008. The

summary reads as

follows: "But most first-generation biofuels have a detrimental impact on the

environment overall. In addition, most biofuels are often not an effective use

of bioenergy resources in terms of either the cutting of greenhouse gases or

value for money."

Now, if I'm someone concerned about climate change, rising energy

costs or displaced agricultural production for energy consumption, I'd have to

take a look at Britain's House of Commons and the MPs assembled there in

committee — non-partisan; bipartisan; tripartisan, I suppose, if the Liberal

Democrats are

[ Page 11066 ]

participating. They've come to conclusions that say, they publish, that they

are not in the interests of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The report goes on to say: "The commission did not foresee all of

the problems that EU" — or the European Union — "biofuels policy would cause.

This means implementing a moratorium on the current targets until technologies

improve."

So we've got other jurisdictions — the mother of all parliaments,

Westminster, committee assembled — saying: "We better stop and take a look at

this." Again, it's not me; it's the British House of Commons.

We've got the OECD report I mentioned earlier, and I'd like to

just quote briefly from that document. The OECD — of course, everyone knows what

that is; I don't think I have to repeat that — have significant concerns, as

well, about the implementation of biofuel policies.

[1540]

When I'm in my constituency office and people contact me and, I

know, other members from both sides of the House…. Citizens are concerned about

climate change. We've certainly taken it up as a fundamental issue that this

parliament is going to try and address. Government has made reference to it in

the throne speech as we have this, our first significant bill in that regard.

We want to be supportive of that initiative. We want to ensure on

this side of the House that we're doing everything we can, doing all of the due

diligence we can, to support government policies that lead to a reduction in

greenhouse gases.

We supported the legislated cap last fall. In order to meet that

cap, to meet those targets, we need to implement policies as a government, as a

province, to effect those changes. The minister and I are in agreement on that.

Where I think we divide and where I think this is a great opportunity….

I'm hopeful that the House Leader will review the Blues and

will review the debates and the arguments we're putting forward, and that

members on the government side will think about this for a minute and say:

"Well, maybe that Malahat–Juan de Fuca guy has a point today for a change." Give

me the benefit of the doubt.

My colleague from Penticton is scratching his beard, but give me

the benefit of the doubt here. This is a good opportunity for all of us to sit

down in committee.

My colleague from Peace River South and I have travelled on the

Finance Committee. We found many, many reasons to agree in the course of

listening to citizens across B.C. The Finance Minister sent me and others out

again as a Finance Committee to hear the views of citizens, and people talked

about biofuels. People talked about ethanol as an opportunity or biodiesel as an

opportunity.

The notion that we can come together as a group and say, "We need

to value our agricultural products more. We need to ensure that farmers are

getting a fair dollar for the hard work they put into producing food so that we

can be sustained…." In the process of doing that, in implementing enabling

legislation like Bill 16…. This motion, I'm hopeful, will say to the government:

"Why don't we sit down, both sides of this place? Why don't we sit down and try

and burrow through some of these contradictions in the scientific community?"

The OECD said the following. This was published in November 2007

in a policy brief from the OECD. "Additional research on the economics of

biofuels and related agricultural markets, on the environmental costs and

benefits of biofuel production using different feedstocks…on a wider range of

energy policy alternatives, including those that might accelerate the scientific

and technological development of second-generation biofuels, is needed."

More work needs to be done. Why not, as a Legislature assembled,

strike a committee to go forth and do a little bit of this work, a little bit

more research, so that we can have answers to some of these challenges?

The OECD goes on: "Can Biofuels Live Up to Public Expectation?"

That's one of the challenges that I was really grappling with when the minister

made his staff available to me to discuss this issue and be briefed on it. How

can we as a Legislature meet public expectation on this file? How can we ensure

that we're going down the right road? I'm not convinced that we're there yet.

Just yesterday the Globe and Mail wrote: "Europe's Biofuel

Road Paved with Potholes." It makes reference to Bob Watson, who was at one time

the chief scientific adviser to the World Bank and is currently the adviser to

Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Al Gore referred to

him as a hero of the planet. This is a climate change crusader who's concerned

about sustainability, concerned about food security and concerned about the

other issues that are referenced in my referral motion.

This is what Mr. Watson had to say in a BBC interview. "If one

started to use biofuels…and in reality that policy led to an increase in

greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane." This

is Al Gore's poster child for the environment and for greenhouse gases saying

that we may want to look at this a little more closely. We may want to ensure

that we're on the right road with respect to this bridging technology that moves

us from our dependence on fossil fuels.

How do we do that? Through life-cycle analysis. Again, the

minister and other members of the House, I think, would benefit — all of us

would benefit — from bringing in some experts and addressing this issue.

Nobel prize winner Rajendra Pachauri — this is a Nobel prize

winner, an environmental scientist, a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change — said the following with respect to biofuel solutions: "We

should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have

major impacts on production of food grains and may have an implication for

overall food security."

[1545]

These are Nobel prize winners. This is not the NDP opposition

waving a flag of doom and gloom. This is a genuine and sincere overture on our

part, as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to appeal to government,

[ Page 11067 ]

appeal to the members on the other side. Let's get together. Let's sit down

and grapple with this so that we can value our agricultural products, ensure

that the public knows that the cost of a loaf of bread is incumbent on a whole

host of issues and understand what life-cycle analysis really means to

addressing climate change.

I believe sincerely — I really do — that in order to break this

knot and give the public some certainty that we are here doing the best we can

to make the world a better place, we can't just go with the flavour of the

month. I'm not suggesting that those who are currently involved in biofuel

production, those who are advocates for biodiesel, even those who are still of

the view that ethanol is a cheap, cost-effective and environmentally sound way

to address our fossil fuel dependence….

All people should have some confidence that if British Columbia is

to truly be a leader, as the Premier would like us to be, as the press releases

continue to say…. If that's going to be genuine and sincere, why wouldn't we put

together a committee of members of this place with expertise?

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has done a great deal of work

on this file. I'm certain that we could take some more time away from the

minister, or the member — soon to be minister, certainly — for Peace River South

and from other members of the Legislature who have a passion for these issues

and have a desire to be able to respond to their public, to their constituents,

about the importance of making sure we get it right.

One of the e-mails I've received on this — and there have been

many…. In fact, I would think that since this session started, there's been more

traffic in my in-box on biofuels than there has been on just about any other

subject. Coming from Malahat–Juan de Fuca — home of the Bear Mountain

interchange and various other subsurface rights issues that I'm going to be very

excited to talk to the Minister of Mines about in estimates — there's no

shortage of issues. I know the Minister of Education knows, in the two districts

I represent…. No shortage of issues.

Why do you think biofuels, bioenergy and climate change would be

at the top of people's minds? Because they're uncertain. That's why. They're

uncertain that we're on the right path.

The minister has brought this legislation forward in good

conscience, trying to achieve the government's objectives. I'm standing here

today as his critic, having reviewed the material, having tried to do my due

diligence to be prepared for the debate on this question. I've come to the

conclusion — and it's shared by many colleagues — that the best course of action

in this instance…. This isn't to hoist it and send it away and not think about

it for six months. This is to call on this Legislature….

We have a committee of this place that has not met. I'm a member

of it, so I'm fairly certain that it has not met. It's called the Committee on

Legislative Initiatives. This is a perfect opportunity to strike that committee.

If the Premier had the time and inclination to think about this, I'm sure he

would agree. I could quote

chapter and verse. I've got clips here from

Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute, Friends of the Earth, BirdLife

International — no shortage of environmental groups who are concerned that this

may well not be the right course of action at this point in history.

Why wouldn't we sit down and try and figure that out? I know the

climate action committee is busy working away. I don't know who they're meeting

with. The minutes are confidential. The meetings are held in private. But we

could have a committee of this place looking at this very issue. We could be

very specific, very narrow in our focus. It would meet the objectives of this

motion. It would meet the objectives of those who have spoken so far — even my

friend from the north, from Peace River South.

Let's address the impacts on the agricultural community. Let's

address the impacts on climate change. Are we making any progress? The

literature that I've quoted here today tends to say that's not the case. At the

same time — and I mentioned this just before we broke for lunch — in my

community Columbia Fuels is a provider of bioheat energy, as they call it, or

bioenergy to my house. I'm on the train. I've got additives in my fuel to heat

my home.

I'm doing so because I thought that was the right way to go. I

bought into the arguments of the early part of this century that additives or

alternatives were a bridging technology that we should all be getting on to. I

bought into it. I said: "You bet. Let's do that." I looked at the literature at

the time. It made sense to me, and I proceeded. We're making expenditures in my

home to try and achieve the objectives of this legislation.

[1550]

But then the bills come forward. The e-mail starts coming in. I

know that members have heard my arguments on this question. I know that we're

going to have a vote on this referral motion. I'm ever hopeful that the

government will recognize that this is not a nefarious attempt by the opposition

to sidetrack their climate change initiative. It's an opportunity, in fact, to

reduce the number of hours of debate in this Legislature and put our

hard-working MLAs to some good purpose out in the community.

We could travel a little bit. I'm sure that we could get to

Vancouver. We could get to the Interior and even into the Peace country to hear

from farmers about what their views are on biofuels — a golden opportunity, as I

said before.

Let's demonstrate to the people who sent us here that we really

are serious about these issues as they come to this place. We're genuinely

serious about working together to find solutions to the challenges of climate

change.

British Columbia, if it is to lead the way, should do so in a

responsible and thoughtful manner, not just based on science that may in fact be

somewhat outdated. We've had Nobel prize winners and top scientists from the

World Bank tell us that we're on the wrong track. I would argue and through this

motion urge the Legislature to support it.

Let's move this bill to an all-party committee struck with

direction from the minister, if he sees fit. That's entirely up to him —

entirely up to the government.

[ Page 11068 ]

They're setting the agenda here. The appeal from the opposition today on this

question is quite clear and straightforward. Let's work together.

Let's make sure we get it right the first time. Let's not have to

come back to this in two or four or five years and say: "We've made a mistake."

Nobody wants to do that. Everybody wants to get on the right side of this issue.

I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the House to

support me and vote in favour of this motion.

Deputy Speaker: You've heard the amendment. We'll now call

the vote on the amendment.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[1555]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion before you, moved by

the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca:

"That the bill be not now read a second time but that the

subject matter of Bill 16 be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on

Legislative Initiatives to discuss the implications of this bill as it relates

to issues of food security, sustainability and secrecy."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

NAYS — 40

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

[1600]

On the main motion.

C. Trevena: I'm speaking against this bill. In the

discussion that was heard about the motion to refer, there were a lot of the

issues that I think you'll be hearing from this side of the House about why we

are concerned about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel

Requirements) Act.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It's very sad to talk about a bill like this and to think that you

are actually speaking against it, because I think we all agree, on both sides of

the House, on the imperative of reducing greenhouse gases. There's no question

that this is the issue that is facing us in this Legislature, in other

legislatures across the country and around the globe. People are looking at how

to reduce greenhouse gases and how to make sure that our carbon footprint is so

reduced that we can reverse some of the effects that we as a race have had on

this planet, which we've seen impacting with climate change.

Sadly, this bill is not the answer. The suggestions in this bill

do not work to reduce greenhouse gases. I think there are a couple of areas that

I'll be looking at. One is the environmental issues, the sustainability issues.

The other is the food security issues.

First, I'd just like to touch on my concern about the lack of

information. This is an important bill, but it is very, very thin. I know that

it is enabling legislation. That's why we don't see many details here — because

it is allowing the government to act and then giving the government the right to

have the legislation, when they've drawn it up through orders-in-council in

cabinet, and to be able to say that this is what they're going to do.

It is really very concerning that we are being asked to pass a

piece of legislation that doesn't have details — so disconcerting, in fact, that

the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Loukidelis, has written to the minister about the

bill. Quoting

section 22 in particular, he says: "Section 22 of the bill would

override the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

If we're getting letters of concern from the Information and

Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia to the minister, copied to our side of

the House, I think we have to question ourselves why this is going through as it

is. Again, it's a disappointment that the government didn't accept our motion to

refer, which would have been able to look at this and possibly deal with this,

put some more information into it, deal with the fear of industrial and

commercial confidentiality and perhaps open it up and allow more information to

be put into here. That isn't my prime concern.

[1605]

I've got to say that in this we don't know what would be covered.

Some of the prime polluters, we know, are cruise ships. Is marine diesel

involved? Ferries are exempt. We know that. So what actually is included? We

really don't know enough about the bill.

I'd like to concentrate primarily on two areas that do concern me

about this bill. It is the environmental

[ Page 11069 ]

and what's described as food security. I would say that it's the morality

issue of this bill. Environmentally, we have been looking at moving to ethanol,

moving to biofuels, as an alternative to fossil fuels. This was touted as the

answer — that we could grow a renewable source of fuel, a renewable source of

energy, and that we could fuel our industry, our cars, our vehicles and our

transportation system with, literally, something that we could renew.

Environmentally, it sounds great. It's sort of: "The magic bullet

is here." However, we are replacing the growing of food by the growing of fuel,

and it really won't be the answer. For those who don't know, ethanol is…. I

think it's 180 percent proof grain alcohol with additives in it. The additives

make it work. It's got energy density of a third less than gasoline, so you have

to burn more of it to actually get the same amount of power.

There is an added problem with ethanol, in that it absorbs water,

so you can't transport it using pipelines. You have to transport it using truck

or rail. So you're already adding to the carbon footprint by the fact that you

produce this, and then you have to transport it through either truck or by rail.

At that stage there's the increased carbon footprint simply in the production of

ethanol.

It was seen, as I say, as the easy answer, the magic bullet, the

green fuel, but there are huge amounts of fossil fuels that go into producing

the ethanol that people are expecting to rely on. We've got to have the diesel

to plow the fields. We've got the gas to transport it. We've got to transport

the gas to get to fill the combines.

The whole buildup to actually growing the ethanol is the

agribusiness combine, which we already know is being harmful. No matter what my

colleague from Peace River South says about the benefits of agriculture, there

are also many costs to agriculture. Obviously, we need agriculture. We need

agriculture for food, but do we need to use those costs to be growing our fuel?

There is the other issue of agriculture of the fertilizers — the natural gases

that go into producing fertilizers and then the impact of those fertilizers

themselves.

Ethanol is being seen as a big answer for the United States. The

United States has decided that they are going to be developing ethanol and using

ethanol extensively. The farmers in the United States are growing ethanol to an

extraordinary extent, to such an extent that the Gulf of Mexico is almost a dead

zone because of the fertilizers that are running off the fields where some of

this is being produced.

It's very interesting, when you're doing some research about what

the impacts may be and what the environmental strength of this is…. As my

colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca mentioned, there are lots of people —

whether it be Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, various institutes looking at

this, Oxfam — who are very concerned about this.

Looking at the government's own B.C. Stats Environmental

Statistics of earlier this year, it says that there are different types of

biofuels and different types of ethanol. B.C. Stats says that one of the least

efficient inputs appears to be corn, which is the predominant base for biofuels

in North America.

[1610]

It quotes the rising concerns and the rising investigations — that

this actually creates more greenhouse gases than it removes. I think that it's

not just that it is one for the other that use ethanol instead of gas — that

would be possibly okay — but it is the fact that you are creating more

greenhouse gases.

Talking about the fertilizer argument. It says, and I'm referring

here to Environmental Statistics of B.C. Stats: "A recent study claims

that previous research has underestimated the impacts of fertilizers used in the

production…and these can contribute as much or more to global warming by nitrous

oxide emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings." So actually, you're going

to make the situation much worse.

Really, in many situations biofuels are possibly more detrimental

to the environment than fossil fuels, and we think fossil fuels are bad. I think

we've really got to be…. What this brings into question is our whole way of

life. We are looking for a magic bullet. We are looking, clearly, for something

that can fuel the comfortable way of life that we have here in the north, in the

developed world, with our cars and our transit — you know, one- or two-car

households and people living very comfortably and heating their homes regularly

with fossil fuels, and so on. We have to really rethink the way that we do

things, if we can't find the magic bullet.

It's a concept which I think scares a lot of people, but I think

it's something that we really have to start working on, and we have to start

working on it very soon. This magic bullet — this magic bullet of biofuel, this

magic bullet of ethanol — isn't ready yet. This first generation — it clearly

isn't ready. There may be, as time goes on, alternatives. As technology moves

on, as work goes on, as the research continues into the different possibilities,

there may be alternatives, but at the moment what we're seeing with the current

biofuels is that they will not cut it.

We have to look at finding alternative fuels. We h