H0417am 02

H0417am 02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, April 17, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 31, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, April 17, 2008 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11493 Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32) Hon. C. Hansen Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11493 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16) J. Horgan Hon. R.

Neufeld G. Robertson Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) ...................................................................................... ...................................... 11498 G. Robertson Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11498 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16) (continued) Hon. R. Neufeld G. Robertson J. Horgan M.

Karagianis Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 11506 Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued) D. Routley Hon. S. Bond J. Kwan

11493 THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 The House met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Introduction and First Reading of Bills TRADE, INVESTMENT AND LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act. Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 32 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 32, which is the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act.

The TILMA agreement — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — was signed by British Columbia and Alberta on April 28, 2006. The TILMA seeks to reduce and eliminate barriers to the free movement of workers, goods and services and investments between British Columbia and Alberta in the furtherance of open, efficient and stable markets. Bill 32 introduces provisions that do the following three things, all of which ar e necessary to ensure that the province meets its obligations under the TILMA as of April 1, 2009:

(1) It ensures the province has the statutory author- ity to exercise its rights and fulfil its obligations under the TILMA agreement.

(2) It provides the right of appeal and judicial review of panel decisions to ensure monetary awards are enforceable, all of which will effectively implement the TILMA's dispute resolution procedures.

(3) This bill amends a total of 16 acts. Two acts are being amended to allow the TILMA dispute resolution to be put in place. The other 14 acts are being amended to address discriminatory or other provisions that create obstacles to trade, investment and labour mobility, as identified by the applicable ministries. These 14 acts have specifically been identified as not being in compliance with TILMA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation 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. [1005] Orders of the Day Hon. C. Richmond: In this chamber I call committee stage of Bill 16, intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, in the hands of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In

Section A, Committee of Supply, the estimates debate continues for the Ministry of Education. Committee of the Whole House GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION (RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; S. Hammell in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m. On

section 1. J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and participate in committee stage of Bill 16, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, or the low carbon fuel standard act, as many have come to know it. We had an extensive debate at second reading on this legislation. Our primary concern when we moved a referral motion was to ensure that we looked at this bill with a view to food security, sustainability of products and privacy concerns. As we get to the introductory provisions of the act and the

definitions, I have a number of questions. My colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin will have a number of questions as we proceed through the bill. At the outset the minister will have listened, I'm sure, intently to the debate at second reading. His staff will have had an opportunity to review some of the information that we on this side of the House made available to the Legislature and the broader public here in British Columbia with respect to the potential adverse consequences of advancing to set provisions for alternative fuels as set out in this legislation.

In terms of ensuring that the public has a clear un- derstanding of the minister and the government's intent with this legislation, I'd like to start by just simply asking if he could assist my colleagues and me and the public with the definition of "carbo n intensity" as outlined in

section 1. Hon. R. Neufeld: First, I should introduce the two gentlemen that are with me. On my right is Paul Wieringa, executive director of altern ative energy, electricity and alternative energy division. To my left is Michael Rensing, air quality program analyst, bioenergy renewables branch, electricity and alternative energy division. [1010] The description of carbon intensity, as I'm informed, is a measurement of grams per unit of energy. It also will measure the full life cycle of carbon. That means

11494 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 from where it was produced to where it's actually consumed, so it's that full life cycle. J. Horgan: One of the issues, again, at second reading was a concern that in the case of food for fuel and the overwhelming, increasing am ount of literature on the subject, scientific debate…. As recently as just this morning in Vancouver at a meeting of COFI, Don Roberts of CIBC World Markets has been speaking about biofuels and, particularly, th e conversion inefficiency.

I know that many of us in British Columbia want to take advantage of the disastrous implications of the pine beetle, for example, and the production of ethanol from wood. Cellulosic ethanol is one of the areas where we wish to make some progress. Someone as thoughtful and engaged in these discussions as Don Roberts from CIBC World Markets is concerned that the inefficiency of trying to generate a biofuel from wood waste, when you're looking at carbon intensity, really draws into question whether or not we should be proceeding on a large scale in this direction.

I think the argument goes that on local production for local consumption, it may make some sense, but if you're trucking or transpor ting large amounts of wood waste to a main distribution centre and then establish- ing infrastructure to get that product to market, the carbon intensity ratio really makes this an undesirable option. I'm wondering if the minister, particularly because…. A s a m e m b e r f r o m t h e I n t e r i o r a n d t h e n o r t h , h e understands and sees almost weekly, as he's travelling back and forth to his constituency, the devastation of the pine beetle.

We have this optimism and hope that we can somehow turn this disaster into a positive, and biofuels and bioenergy are two of the components that the minister is working on with his colleague the Minister of Forests. But again, an increasing body of evidence is telling us that the carbon intensity of this sort of initiative is really not going to work in our favour. Could he comment on that? Hon. R. Neufeld: Certainly — and I'm not making light of this — there is lots of discussion in regards to carbon intensity, in regards to using food for fuel and those kinds of things.

There's a lot of work being done in British Columbia and around the world. I mean, it's not just here. It's across Canada, across North America, in the U. S. and in Europe where they're working on these types of issues. We know that in British Columbia there's somebody already working on actually getting biofuel out of trees — cellulosic, which the member talked about. That is certainly ongoing. Part of what this act will do will drive that a little bit more, because we have to meet that. The staff tell me that although there are different opinions….

You can hear different opinions on almost anything you do today, and I'm not saying one is right and one is absolutely wrong. [1015] I think what we need to do is work with those ex- perts, those scientists that actually work on this on a daily basis, and listen to th em. That's exactly what we want to do. What we've been informed to date — the ministry and the ministry people that work on this — is that there is less carbon intensity in using the biofuels as a mixture with petroleum products, including all the trucking and including all of those kinds of things that would have to take place.

On top of that, I think we should think a little bit about the huge, vast amount of pine that's been destroyed b y t h e p i n e b e e t l e . T h a t i s a d i s a s t e r o n i t s o w n . W e can't just ignore it and say that we're never going to use it. So even if you use some of th at for electrical generation — and I'll expand the discussion a little bit — that may cost us a little bit more, but we have to take into account what it would cost just to leave it. What are those costs? Those are not easy decisions to make. I shouldn't say "decisions," but easy information to get.

But we have to look at all of those things in the best interests of trying to reduce the carbon that we release in the atmosphere. I know that the member must believe in it to a degree, because he uses it in his heating fuel. If he didn't b e l i e v e i n i t t o a d e g r e e , I ' m s u r e t h a t h e w o u l d s a y : "You know what?

It's ridiculous that I should use food sources for heating my home." So really, although there's a need here to actual ly bring out some of these discussions, I think the member agrees with us that we need to figure out ways that we can lower our carbon footprint in British Columbia and the rest of the world. There's a huge amount of discussion around climate change, and there are forces on each side, but I think the public generally believes that we need to do something and that we should be doing something now. That doesn't mean just jumping into anything, but actually looking at these things.

It's not as though we're actually doing something that's not being done in the rest of the world. There are jurisdictions that have much higher than 5 percent con- tent — than us. The federal government…. It's going to be mandated at an average across Canada by 2010 of ethanol, 5 percent. That's no different than what we're saying in British Columbia. We're saying an average 5 percent. It's the same with diesel fuel. They're saying 2 percent by 2012; we're just saying 5 percent by 2010.

I hope that the member finds it maybe easier to understand that we should be looking at these things and we should be using some science, which we are, and we should be using our universities to help us with determining whether this makes good sense or not. I know, also, from the discussion…. The member asked if I listened to second reading debate, and I did listen to most of it. I can assure the member that I did. One of his colleagues on the NDP side said that she would like to burn bio-100 — straight biofuel.

So I be- lieve that that member really feels strongly — in fact, a lot stronger than maybe a lot of other people. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying that that's the direction that that member feels we should be moving

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11495 in how we reduce our carbon footprint. I think we should recognize that, and I do. I recognize it as positive. What we're trying to do is actually just have a 5 percent mix and work that out the best way we possibly can. J. Horgan: The minister is correct. I do use bioheat in my home. My spouse and I made that decision based on information available to us at the time. I know I certainly don't have to speak for my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin. She is very well versed in this. She and her bio-Beetle are renowned in and around Esquimalt-Metchosin, and she will be discussing that at a later

section in the debate. [1020] When I made the decision and when many people in British Columbia and around the world made decisions to try and use this technology to bridge to a reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels, we did so assuming that we had the best available information. But as time has gone by, even since we had our second reading debate last week…. I note in the media that no one less important than Gordon Brown said the following.

It's quoted in the National Post of April 11: "We need urgently to examine the impact on food prices of different kinds and production methods of biofuels and ensure that their use is respon- sible and sustainable." The President of Tanzania, speaking to the African Union, said just again this week, April 10: "These days the farms have been put to biofuel production, creating a shortage of food and, therefore, creating a problem of high prices." There are numerous other quotations.

The United Nations issued a release on April 9: "Warning that soaring food prices could lead to increased poverty and unrest, several senior United Nations officials have called for urgent measures to tackle the global crisis, which threatens to hit the world's poor the hardest." This is a result of the transition from food to fuel. I know that the minister and his government brought forward this bill with the best of intentions. I, too, in my personal decisions and my personal choices, with the best of intentions, am trying to reduce my carbon footprint.

But when evidence starts to mount that we're on the wrong track, that's the time our con- stituents anticipate that we will do the right thing — pause, reflect, look at the scientific data — and rather than drive forward with reck lessness, that we'll pause and reflect and make decisions that are in the best interests of our community and the best interests of our planet. When we talk about the pine beetle, again, I do defer to the minister on this because of his constituency and the fact that he flies ov er it or drives through it with greater frequency than I do.

We shouldn't mix — and I know that this will pr obably be the last comment on this — the bioenergy and the biofuel debate. We will have another opportunity to do that. The notion of using beetle kill for electricity genera- tion is one thing, and the prospect of perhaps creating a market for pellets. We already know that we do very, very well in Prince George producing pellets for ex- port, and if we could use those pellets domestically or increase the production of those pellets domestically, that would be a good thing for the central interior, and it would be a good thing for the province.

As you do with sawmills, you could have moving sawmills to produce this product, potentially. I don't see that likely to happen with respect to biofuels, I think — a central location for production and then a distribution network to be established. Carbon intensity, again, which is the portion of the bill that I'm speaking to now, seems to be a bit skewed when we're looking at cellulosic ethanol. The notion that we use food waste or wood waste to produce biofuels makes sense to me, and it still makes sense to me. But as I say, an increasing body of scientific evi- dence, world leaders making comments, the OECD….

The minister knows. He heard the debate at second reading. I'm wondering that with th is increasing amount of information, and these are not…. Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail — the headline of his

article on April 11 says: "Blame Ethanol Subsidies for These Nasty Global Food Fights." These are challenges that I think we have a respon- sibility to be aware of, at a minimum, and once we become aware of this information, that there are vast tracts of forest being removed in Brazil to produce food for fuel, we need to pause and say: "Is our policy direction contributing to the problem or alleviating the problem?" I don't see, again, with the definition for carbon intensity as it has been described by the minister and was explained to me by his capa ble staff in a briefing, how we manage to do that in British Columbia with domestic supply, much less if we're relying on bioproducts from other jurisdictions to meet these targets.

When contemplating this legislation and this direc- tion, did the minister and his government envision the establishment of a domestic supply chain for this, or are we going to be relying on food from other jurisdictions to produce this biofuel? Hon. R. Neufeld: Look, I appreciate the member's argument. I appreciate that regardless of what issue we talk around or we discuss or have discussed in this Legislature about climate change, about reducing greenhouse gases, there has been total opposition from the opposition.

I mean, it's always: "Let's wait for an- other ten or 20 years to figure something else out." That's how nothing happens. That's how we don't deal with things. If we don't upfront start dealing with things, we're not going to actually deal with them. [1025] It may be the opposition's position to…. "Let's read the newspaper, and let's make decisions on that." Look, it's a little different when you're in government, and we need to actually reduce our carbon footprint. That's the difference between us and the NDP. This government believes in climate change.

It set a target for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 33

11496 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 percent. I think it's incumbent on us to do that. It amazes me that an NDP opposition…. When I actually was in opposition, when they were here, they talked so glowingly about looking after the climate, and today it's: "We don't want to do any of it. We don't want to do cap-and-trade. We don't want to have a carbon tax. We don't want to have greenhouse gas reductions. We don't want to have renewable fuel — none of it." So there is a difference of opinion, and I talked about that earlier in my remarks. You folks have one opinion, and your opinion….

I get it loud and clear, and I think the public is getting it loud and clear. You don't have a policy on it, you're not really sure about it, and you don't want to do it . That's okay. That's okay. We're elected to actually make some of these decisions and move those things ahead, and we will continue to do that in the best interests of British Columbians. Maybe I should read into the record a couple of other things about food for fuel. I know you play on that all the time, but there are other ways that you can actually make biofuels, that you can make ethanol, than using food products.

There are lots of other ways. They're being developed as we speak. I said earlier that in British Columbia there ar e companies that are doing that. We should actually encourage that. We should actually figure out how we can encourage that. There's nothing wrong with doing those kinds of things in British Columbia. I don't think there is. It means jobs and investment. It means people actually will have less of a carbon footprint. If we can do those things, shouldn't we challenge ourselves to do them?

Or should we just stand in the House and say: "Well, we read Jeffrey Simpson today, and I'm not sure." So there is a difference of opinion, Member, a huge difference of opinion. We think we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We believe we have to. We believe that it's incumbent on us for generations to come that we start looking after where we live today. If that means that the rest of the world is not always with us, that's okay. But if we can do it in British Columbia, we should be looking at doing it, and we should actually be proud of that fact. The member talked about food for fuels.

In 2007 food prices increased about 4 percent overall. In 2007, the same year, the U.S. produced a record amount of ethanol from corn. The U.S. increased its surplus of corn to more than 1.4 billion bushels. In a record ethanol year the U.S. actually fed more of the world by increas- ing its exports of corn by 6 percent — increasing, not decreasing. I know that you're pulling on the heartstrings of people and that you're trying to spread a little bit of that fear out there. We're not out there to take food off the tables of homes.

We're ac tually trying to figure out how we can leave this place, when we do leave, in as good a shape or better than we came to it. If that means w e h a v e t o l o o k a t d i f f e r e n t w a y s o f d o i n g i t , w e shouldn't be shy about doing those kinds of things. It's actually going to happen with ethanol across Canada, whether you like it or not. So shouldn't we kind of start to prepare for that? Shouldn't we start thinking about that in the province of British Columbia? Or should we wait till that day?

I guess that's what the NDP would do — wait till the day that the federal government says you have to meet those standards and say: "Oh my goodness. We never thought about it. We're not going to do it." This is all about moving forward with some ra- tional…. The bill doesn't say you have to use food totally. You can use all types of sources to make biofuels or ethanol. I go back to the member. It's interesting.

He says that there was no information about these kinds of things that we're talking about right now — about food for fuel and those kinds of things — when he made the decision to actually use biofuel in heat at his home. [1030] Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, it was. This has been a dis- cussion going around for a while. It didn't just happen last Friday. There's been a discussion about this for quite a while. So I go back to the fact that the member must think it means something, or he wouldn't be going out to buy biofuels.

Other members in that caucus must think it means something, or they wouldn't be wishing to burn 100 percent biofuel instead of diesel fuel. You know, I can't quite understand that rationale. We can discuss this for a long time if the member wishes, or we can get on with doing the right thing and start looking at how we can decrease our carbon foot- print in the province of British Columbia through a way that is actually less th an most other jurisdictions — a 5 percent mix is less than many jurisdictions. I think the U.S. is going to a higher mix, as I under- stand. Europe is doing the same thing, as we speak.

So it's not as though we're way out there on a limb. We're actually trying to get prepared to meet the targets that we have to meet along with what the federal government is putting in. Our reason for putting this in is that we want to reduce the carbon footprint in the province of British Columbia, and we want to do it through a number of mechanisms. We can disagree on those mechanisms if we want, and I apparently see that today. We're for reducing the carbon footprint; you're for increasing it. I guess it's just that simple.

The Chair: Members, I've listened to both members, and the debate is interesting, but it does sound like we are redoing second reading debate. We are in committee on

section 1. J. Horgan: I was speaking to the definition of carbon intensity, which is basically the foundation of the legislation. We're discussing whether we should do our level best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At second reading we had a litany of evidence that we presented to government as to why we should remove this bill from debate and go to a larger committee and

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11497 listen to all British Columbians and review the scientific data on the question. I appreciate that the Chair…. I'll try very hard to stick with carbon intensity and the definition so that I can better understand how the minister came to the conclusion that proceeding at this time is in the interest of all British Columbians. I heard clearly what the minister said, but consis- tency is the hobgoblin of little minds, I think. I'm quite prepared to admit that I was precipitous in my jump to bioheat.

I've discussed this with the producer in my community, the company that gives me my heating oil, and I'm going to do what I can to do more research on a personal level. But that's what I'm supposed to do. I have a different responsibility as I stand here as the critic to the minister and also as a member of the Legislature for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. The people of my constituency expect me to ensure that what happens in this place is in their best interest, and as the minister said, we all want to leave this place a little bit better when we're done.

That's why I'm curious as to why the minister would want to ignore the increasing amount of evidence that the carbon intensity, which we're discussing here in

section 1, is not necessarily achieved in the title of the bill and in the intent of the bill. The Vancouver Sun on April 16 — again, this is since we concluded second reading debate — says quite clearly that as part of the trend that has seen record prices for rice, wheat, so ybeans and other products, "largely as a result of an American policy to support biofuels, particularly corn-based ethanol…." So that's The Vancouver Sun.

They say that the greenhouse gas is little better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and the wholesale razing of forests and grasslands to raise ethanol food stocks make matters worse. So when we're trying to determine what the impact, with respect to greenhouse ga ses, is on the production, distribution and use of biofuels, I don't see how evidence that we've put forward, and that the scientific community is producing on a daily basis, allows us to proceed with this. If our objective is to reduce greenhouse gases, and we're creating more by usin g the fuel, how does that work?

I don't get it. [1035] Just one more quote, and I'll leave the floor to another colleague to raise more questions. Again, a Globe and Mail editorial of the 15th titled "Ethanol and Hot Air." It goes as follows: "It will be no more comfort to the world's most vulnerable, as they struggle to find affordable food, that their plight has finally tarnished the allure of ethanol…. Once depicted as a non-polluting alternative to the world's dependence on fossil fuels, ethanol has turned out to be full of ho t air.

That should prompt governments, including Canada's, to curb their require- ments for higher ethanol usage." So, hon. Chair, as a memb er of this place, if I'm reading the daily media, I'm reviewing science on this question, and it's increasingly telling me that we're on the wrong track, don't you think it's my responsibility to put to the minister that quite possibly our target, as defined in carbon intensity, is not going to be met? That seems to me to be the responsible thing to do, and I'm wondering if the minister has not had access to this information and that's why he continues to drive down this course. J.

Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. Brar: I'm pleased to introduce three wonderful individuals that we have today in the gallery from the city of Surrey, which is the second-largest city in the province. Of course, I'm one of those MLAs who have been elected from the city of Surrey, including Madam Chair coming from that city. We have visiting us today Bukhtavar Singh Sandhu, who is a community activist very active in many, many community issues and a good friend of mine. With him is his brothe r who is visit ing u s from India, Mr. Sandhu.

He has been a chairperson of many different departments with the current government of Akalis, the government we have in Punjab at this point in time, headed by Parkash Singh Badal. With them, I'm also pleased to introduce Bob Hans, who was a candidate against me in Surrey–Panorama Ridge from the Liberal side. So I will ask the members to make them feel welcome. Debate Continued Hon. R.

Neufeld: I appreciate the member wanting to reinforce the fact that they don't believe that we should have a lower carbon intensity in the province of British Columbia — that they don't agree that we should reduce our carbon footprint in British Columbia. I appreciate that he continues to reinforce that with the public — any public that's out there actually listening. I'm not sure whether many of them at this hour of the day are out there listening or not, but you never know. There could be some, and there are some in the gallery today. As I said earlier, it makes it very clear.

I mean, the government believes we have to reduce our carbon intensity — that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The opposition, for whatever reason — I don't know — says: "No, we shouldn't. We should continue down the same path." In fact, one of the other members in second reading debate actually confirmed…. The one that's so totally opposed to oil and gas in the province of British Columbia said that we should continue to use fossil fuels. We shouldn't use any biofuels at all. So there are some rather big contradictions in that opposition.

But I gather that the critic — I think it's the critic that would be relating the position of the NDP, if they have one on this; it's a little bit different depending on who you talk to — doesn't want to reduce carbon intensity.

11498 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 Let me read into the record a couple of other things. The member talked about ri ce. Interesting. Actually, the cost of rice is up 77 percent. But rice is not used in the production of biofuels. It's not, in the world. It doesn't have anything to do with the price of rice. Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, the high cost of petro- leum products…. To be able to go out there if, in fact, they're using that kind of product to grow or to fallow their fields or whatever they do to grow rice — that would probably contribute.

But to say the reason the cost of rice is up is because of biofuels is completely incorrect. [1040] Let me read into the record, Madam Chair. This comes from the president of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, the president of the United States Renewable Fuels Association, the secretary general of the European Bioethanol Fuel Association and the president of the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Associa- tion. Just one quick little th ing.

It says: "Worldwide hunger does not result from insufficient food production but rather from low income and unemployment, which limit the access to food." You can argue all you want. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at all of those kinds of things. We should trust the experts — the people in our universities, which we fund — to give us that information so that we can actually make good, ration al decisions about carbon intensity. I've told you that we have an opinion about carbon intensity that we've been given. It may be different than the one the member oppo site has been given.

Yes, it is his responsibility to stand up here and talk about these issues, but let's talk about them in a rational way. W e s h o u l d n o t b e d i f f e r e n t o n t r y i n g t o r e d u c e greenhouse gas emissions. But I find it amazing that the NDP don't think we shou ld and that we shouldn't look at carbon intensity as a way of doing that. That's actually how you reduce your carbon footprint.

I'm a guy that's out there with oil and gas, where I come from, but if there are ways that we can do it — this isn't the end-all, be-all — I think it's incumbent on us to look at those ways so that we do have less of an impact on the environment. I think all of us really believe that. We might have different ways of getting to that process, but looking at carbon intensity is a pretty straightforward way of dealing with less carbon into the atmosphere. We're not taking rice away from people to make biofuels. G.

Robertson: Well, as someone who's spent many years working in the food bu siness and as a farmer, I'd just like to clarify with the mi nister that, yes, it is true at this point that rice is not a biofuel crop, but the shortages in the food system that are being created by biofuels are due to crop displacement. It's a very simple principle where farmers start growing fuel and convert rice paddies into other crops for biofuels — such as corn, in this case; such as palm oil in the tropics. It's very, very simple.

This is what's happening, in fact, across North America as corn crops are grown for fuel rather than soybeans or other grain or oilseed crops. It's a very simple formula that displaces the food in the system as acreage is converted for fuel. If the minister hasn't done his research on this, which would be shocking, and is simply trying to defend a case on the spot in desperation as the world around us turns its opinion against biofuels and the production of biofuels from primary sources, unsustainable sources…. We really need to figure out what work has been done.

Maybe we're not cutting the minister and his government enough slack here. We can only hope that they've done the research to ensure that carbon intensity created by 5 percent requirement of biofuels in B.C. will be lower than the fossil fuels that are currently burned to produce that energy. In terms of what's been done in research for this bill to be produced, what percentage of the biofuel requirement being put in place here is anticipated to come from domestic production? [1045] Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, here we are.

Now we're talking to the member of the NDP, the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who stood up in second reading debate and said we shouldn't use any biofuels. You know, the member said we should actually continue using fossil fuels. I remember listening, and it was with amazement that I heard it from that member. Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) G. Robertson: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I reserve my right to make a point of privilege. Debate Continued Hon. R. Neufeld: It's amazing to listen to the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who by the way, wants to be — as I understand — the mayor of Vancouver.

Yeah, it is kind of funny. You know, here's someone who thinks he wants to be the mayor of Vancouver, who wants to run as the mayor of Vancouver. Let me read into the record the number of commu- nities that have actually l ooked at carbon intensity as something that we should be doing. Lo and behold, Vancouver was the leader — Vancouver. There's a whole page of communities across the province of British Columbia that are registered with B.C. biofuels and using biofuels in all the equipment they have on their streets.

Now we have a person who lives in Vancouver, who says: "No, they shouldn't be doing that." It's interesting to hear the discussion from the member that we shouldn' t be using biofuels, that we shouldn't reduce our carbon footprint. Let me also say that — and I'm not a farmer; I was born and raised on a farm, but I left the farm at a fairly

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11499 young age — the notes I get from those who know about issues about rice say clearly that you don't grow corn in rice paddies. The member just finished saying that they're converting rice paddies to corn. That is in the record. That just came two minutes ago. I'm saying that doesn't happen. I know the member talks incessantly about we shouldn't produce oil and ga s in the province. He has no answers and no alternatives other than to stand and say we shouldn't actually be reducing our carbon intensity in British Columbia. That's what this bill is about.

I can read into the record all the communities that actually use biofuels in their fleets. It's extensive. Most of the communities have caught on. Most of them understand. It would be helpful if the opposition would maybe listen to some of those communities and say: "My goodness, what are you doing that for? You're destroying the planet." That's what you're trying to tell me today. We say we want to reduce greenhouse gases in the province of British Columbia.

This is not the end-all and be-all, but this is one part of how we get there — one part of how we actually leave a better place for those young people up there watching us right now than what we inherited. We can discuss different ways of doing it, but dif- ferent ways of doing it are different ways of doing it — not just the opposition saying we shouldn't do it at all. I t ' s o k a y f o r m e a s a p e r s o n t o d o i t , b u t t h e p u b l i c shouldn't have to do it. What I'm saying clearly is that we ought to get on with it.

Instead of standing in this House arguing about whether we should reduce our carbon footprint and help with climate change for those coming a long time in the future, we should actu ally get together on those kinds of things and think about how we can do them instead of just saying no. G. Robertson: I agree with the minister that we must reduce our carbon footprint. Every single member on this side of the House agrees that we must reduce our carbon footprint and that greenhouse gas emissions need to go down very significantly in this province.

We'll support all the initiatives th at will do that, which will ensure that we hit those targets and beyond. We want more aggressive approaches to reducing our carbon footprint. [1050] Here's a very simple questi on for the minister related to Bill 16 and carbon intensity. Can the minister tell us in this House today: how much will this bill and its ensuing 5 percent requirement for biofuels in the province of B.C. reduce our carbon footprint and our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020? He must have done the work to substantiate that. How much will it directly reduce our carbon footprint? Hon. R.

Neufeld: Biofuel alone will reduce by 2½ percent the 33 percent target that we want to meet. The low carbon fuel standard still remains to be worked on to figure out exactly how we're going to do that, but we want to be 10 percent less by 2020. That's in the bill. G. Robertson: Can the minister just clarify that last part about the 10 percent? Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. It's not in the bill. I said it, actually, in first and second reading in regards to the bill. We want to target 10 percent by 2020. G. Robertson: Ten percent of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions?

Can the minister explain what he's saying there in terms of 10 percent? Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said, I've said it in the first and second reading debates. It's 10 percent by 2020 — the low carbon fuel standard that we want to actually achieve. It's not 10 percent of the 33 percent. G. Robertson: One would assume — based on this 2½ percent greenhouse gas emission reduction result- ing from the biofuel standard here — that the work would have gone into precise carbon intensity reduc- tions resulting from these bi ofuels. Therefore, the con- stituents in the biofuel supply chain must have had some analysis as well.

What percentage of the supply envisioned by 2020 is from cellulosic ethanol? Hon. R. Neufeld: The member knows from discus- sions earlier that there is a lot of study going on. There's study going on in our univer sities in the province in regards to cellulosic ethanol. [1055] We don't have a number right now for that. What we have set is targets — 5 percent of biofuel and diesel fuel and 5 percent of ethanol into gasoline. What we want to do is reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the province of British Columbia by 33 percent.

That will come through other ways also — tailpipe emis- sions, cap-and-trade, offsets and all of those kinds of things. There is a whole host of things that will get us to the 33 percent reduction of greenhouse gases. G. Robertson: It's reasonable to not have specific targets in carbon intensity from cellulosic ethanol pro- duction, as it's in its infancy. At the same time, if a 2½ percent greenhouse gas emission reduction target is envisioned resulting from th is bill, there must be sub- stance and research to support that target.

What specifically was done in terms of research and biofuel sources to subs tantiate the 2.5 percent reduction? Were actual biofuel sources and their carbon intensity specifically analyzed over this period in terms of their net reduction to greenhouse gas emissions? Hon. R. Neufeld: The staff tell me that they presently use, amongst numerous different ways of attaining the information and the results, GHGenius. It's a program that's used extensively across Canada and the United States to make decisions and work on these issues.

As I understand, the Canadian government is using it now to actually meet thei r targets that they've put in

11500 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 place by 2010 and 2012. That's just one of probably many. If the member wants to know all of the studies that have been done, we can provide tons of information, probably, to the member on work that's been done in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, but I'm sure he's well aware of all of these kinds of things. G. Robertson: I'm actually more interested in a very specific analysis that should have been done to move aggressively forward on a 5 percent biofuel requirement, as envisioned in this bill. [K.

Whittred in the chair.] What percentage of the biofuel source is domestic, from production in B.C.? Obviously, transportation is a huge factor in the carbon intensity of fuels. A great deal less carbon intensity results from fuels produced here in B.C. My question is whether the government has done analysis and set specific targets for the amount of this biofuel that is produced here in B.C. [1100] Hon. R. Neufeld: We have not set an internal British Columbia target which must be developed within British Columbia.

I think the member probably knows full well that of the biofuel that is being used by, I don't know, 25 or 30 municipalities now across the province of British Columbia, most of it is generated, I think, south of the border, and they mix it in different ways, similar to the way Columbia Fuels does it. We would hope that this would actually create a biofuel industry in the province. I know we've said that over three years we would look at incentives to farm- owned organizations in British Columbia to produce s o m e o f t h e b i o f u e l s t h a t w e w o u l d n e e d r i g h t a w a y .

There are plants that are being built across western Canada. Husky, for instance, has, I believe, a 10 percent mix of ethanol in all their gasoline and has been bringing that from Saskatchewan, most of it, some from Alberta, for a decade or probably better. G. Robertson: I continue to be very concerned that the detailed work hasn't been done to ensure that the carbon intensity of biofuels mandated by this legislation is, in fact, lower than what's currently in use. This is obviously the great emerging concern around the world about the potential pitfalls of using biofuels.

It doesn't sound like there's been specific work other than plugging numbers into software packages and coming out with general targets like 2.5 percent by 2020. If there isn't detailed work, if there isn't clear analysis of what is produced here in B.C., about what is potentially produced from cellulosic ethanol versus agricultural crop, one wonders how there can be specific targets and therefore specific requirements set into law in B.C.

The minister has said cont inually this morning: "We need to get on with doing the right thing so that we can reduce our carbon footprint." Yet if our carbon foot- print is not precisely measured…. In this case, he has done nothing to specifically demonstrate that that work has been done. That leads the opposition to conclude that the 5 percent requirement is a shot in the dark and, quite possibly, a shot that was taken before the emerging body of science that demonstrates the perils of biofuels was known.

At this point, there is still the opportunity for this minister and his government to reassess what's being put in place here. I think the opposition will put for- ward amendments to try and bring some sanity into this piece of legislation before it's too late and before a requirement is put in place that has not been fully con- sidered and researched. I'll just ask one more question specific to the food supply implications of this bill — again, with the hopes that the work has been done to look at the potential impact of bio- fuel crops on the food system.

What percentage of the biofuel supply that is anticipated with this legislation will result from food crop sources on agricultural land? [1105] Hon. R. Neufeld: It always interests me, I guess, when this member stands an d starts talking about the people who work in the minist ry that actually get this information for us aren't doing a good enough job of doing it. I tend to think a little bit differently. I tend to actually admire the work that's gone on in my ministry on many of these issues relating to how we're going to deal with reducing our carb on footprint here in the province of British Columbia.

The member knows full well that there are other jurisdictions around the world. To say that we haven't thought it through and that we're just doing something that's absolutely terrible — that it's going to ruin the world and that it's the end of British Columbia as we know it today — is ignoring what's happening in the rest of the world. We're not higher than the rest of the world. The rest of the world is actually higher than us in many cases. The rest of the world is actually ahead of us in many cases, not in all countries but in some countries, in reducing their carbon footprint. They're actually ahead of us.

We're behind. We should be thinking about catching up. I understand that the member would rather stand still, would rather just l ook out the window and say: "No, we shouldn't do anything." I can understand that. I've heard from him constantly through these debates that he doesn't believe we should actually be looking at reducing our carbon footprint, that he doesn't believe we should be reducing greenhouse gases by 33 percent. And we're not fixated on the…. Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: You had your chance to ask the question. I remained quiet while you actually asked.

I mean, if we want to get into the heckle part of the world, we can. I'm actu ally not bad at heck ling . If we want to do that, we can get there relatively quick. British Columbia is looking at other ways. There are new generations of biofuels that are coming on, and

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11501 we should give credit to our universities instead of putting them down, instead of saying that we can't do it, instead of saying: "No, you can't look at other ways of actually creating biofuels from trees or from algae — from all kinds of things, not just food products." Right now, it's canola. It's non–fo od grade wheat that's used in the production of ethanol. That's probably the most of it. I'm going to maybe take a little step into the farming world. The member talked about being a farmer. You know what?

I live in a part of the province that has the largest amount of hectares under cultivation in the province of British Columbia. For once, just once, those farmers actually have an opportunity to more than just break even, to live a life like the member across the way has probably lived — maybe not quite as well, but at least bring their standard of living up a little bit better. I ' v e w a t c h e d a s s o m e o f t h o s e f a m i l y f a r m s h a v e disappeared, not because of ethanol or biofuel but because they couldn't make a living on the land. I watched those families leave.

The average farmer in British Columbia, I think across western Canada, is in their 60s. The young people don't even want to take it on, because they can't make a living at it. What would be wrong with having a farm community actually make a living in northeastern British Columbia or in the Cariboo? What would be wrong with that? I know…. Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: You shouldn't talk about the ALR. Yeah. You should remember Six Mile Ranch. That's what you should remember about the ALR.

So what's wrong with actual farmers in the north- eastern part of British Columbia having an opportunity to make a living, provide a living for their families, to actually have a decent livin g? I don't think there's any- thing wrong with it. I know the member doesn't care about it, because he's from Vancouver. He talks about caring about it, but I don't think he cares about it, or he would think about it a little bit more. [1110] So yes, the ministry and the institutions in British Columbia do a lot of work on this. You can be opposed to it.

If you want to maintain the carbon footprint we have today and continue to use 100 percent fossil fuels, that's entirely up to you. We actually want to reduce it in a way so that we can do it meaningfully. That's where we're moving to. You can be on the other side of the fence. You can vote against it. You can vote to keep the carbon intensity up. We actually want to keep the carbon intensity down and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. J. Horgan: I'll just make a few comments as we wrap up

section 1 here. Certainly, the minister just said that we're behind and playing catch-up. I would suggest that had he not thrown the climate action plan of 2000 in the waste bin when he became minister, then we might not be in that position today. There certainly were plans in place, following the Kyoto protocols in 1997, here in the province of British Columbia that were ignored and dismissed by his government. If we are playing catch-up, I think that there are plenty of places to place blame, and I wouldn't necessarily be focusing it on this side of the House. I also want to correct the record.

The member suggested that I had alluded to rice as a biofuel, and t h a t w a s j u s t o n e o f m a n y f o o d p r o d u c t s i n a l i s t i n a quotation. He knows that, but I want the record to show that I didn't suggest that. It was just a list of food products that were in a quote from a newspaper.

Lastly, again, before we move to the next section, my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, a well-read and learned member, corrected me on a quotation that I gave to the House from Ralph Waldo Emerson that goes as follows: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." So I just want to make sure that those that are watching at home are clear on what Mr. Emerson said. He said that in the 1800s. It's as correct today as it was then. With that, I'll take my seat.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. Horgan: I just want to spend a minute or two on this

section on requirements for renewable fuel content, in

part 2 of the bill. Specifically, I want to refer the min- ister to correspondence he received from W.E. Stoner of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, a letter dated March 4. The minister will be aware of this. There have been a number of news stories on this. CKNW radio broke the story a couple of days ago.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute wrote to the minister with respect to this bill and said that they, too, had concerns ab out consumers in our prov- ince becoming guinea pigs or test subjects for this when distribution networks, the efficacy of the fuel blends, and a whole host of other issues had not yet been canvassed. But what struck me in the correspondence, which makes four significant points about the potential im- pact of this legislation in the time frame of 2010 on the distribution network, is that…. The minister will know that I have significant concer ns about the cost of fuel.

I fuelled up this morning on the way in — $1.25 a litre. Certainly those people who live in my constituency — and certainly in northern co nstituencies, like the minis- ter's — don't have access to alternative means of trans- portation. I'm concerned when I see someone from big oil say that this bill could "create supply risks." When I hear the oil and gas sector say that supply risks may be on the horizon, what that says to my con- stituents is that the prices are going to go up, and they're going to go up significantly. On this issue of the requ irements for content and in light of Mr.

Stoner's correspondence to the minister, can he assure the driving public that, since we don't

11502 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 really have fixed targets or any idea of what the net benefit of the carbon intensity issues will be…? Can he quantify the costs to consumers of this legislation? Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the question. Yes, I did get the letter. Golly, if we responded to policy deci- sions to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the province of British Columbia by 33 percent by every letter I receive from every petroleum organization, I guess we'd probably be….

We might not be doing anything. [1115] I appreciate that the member knows that the price of crude actually has a huge impact on the price of the product that comes from that crude. I'm not going to stand and say that it won't have a small effect. It probably will, but the price of gasoline and diesel fuel actually corresponds in most cases, always, to the price of crude. I think the price of crude was at $113 today. It's right up there. The member says he fuelled up today and paid $1.25. We've been paying more than $1.25 for a while. I appreciate that.

None of us wants to see the price of gasoline or diesel go up. But as the ra w product goes up…. That's not because we're going to mix renewable fuel in it. It's because of OPEC, it's because of the supply of oil in the world, and it's because it's controlled. When we see people saying that we shouldn't actually be exploring for any more oil and gas in the province of British Columbia…. As that supply dwindles, the price will go up. I think the member would agree with me. He knows that full well. J. Horgan: I heard $115 a barrel on the radio this morning as I was driving in.

You know, the minister is off by a couple bucks, and it could be up by a couple more before the day is done. So I appreciate that. That's an issue that, of course, my colleague from Fairview canvassed at second reading — that in an era of peak oil and with rising, escalating prices, it's a commodity that has value beyond transportation that we may be foreclosing on, as a result of our desire to get it out of the ground and use it up.

So the minister is not alone in recognizing that we have challenges here and that consumers are going to be adversely affected by the gas tax that we're going to see coming in legislation in the next number of weeks. I'm not absolutely comfortable, as the minister could well imagine, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, but they do make some reasonable comments with respect to how this legislation will affect their sector, and it 's an important sector.

The minister spent some time there in his private life, so he knows the challenges that the distribution network faces when trying to meet moving goalposts. One of the suggestions…. And again, I rarely defer to Ottawa. I think the record should be clear on that. I'm not one that likes to wait for the federal government to take action. I think the minist er and I are at one on that issue. But in this instance, wh en we're dealing with an international problem that a national government should be taking leadership on, would it not be prudent, as suggested by Mr.

Stoner, to harmonize the implemen- tation of these policies to be consistent across the country, rather than to get out ahead of it — when the science is divided, when consumers are facing increased costs on an almost daily basis? Would it not be prudent, in the interests of managing the transition, that we do so in harmonization with the federal government? I'll just put that to the minister for his comment. Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, it is coordinated with ethanol. The standard for Canada is 5 percent by 2010. That's what ours is — 5 percent by 2010 for gasoline. For diesel fuels, we do different.

What we're saying is that we want 5 percent by 2010. The federal govern- ment says a mix of 2 percent by 2012. So I appreciate what the member says, but the in- dustry itself is going to have to adapt to a changing world, and it is changing. They're going to have to fig- ure out how they're actually going to do it. They know how to do it. It's actually mixing biofuels and ethanol, although there are different ways of doing it, and some are probably better than others. That's not something that takes the revamp of a complete refinery. It does take some changes. I appreciate that.

I'm always interested when the member stands up and defends big oil. I was going to say it, but then I thought: "No, I'm going to be nice. I'm not going to say that." But the member said it himself. [1120] I just maybe would read into the record from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It says: "Ethanol gets a bum rap." Just one part of it , and I'll quote: "'Transpor- tation and gasoline costs would actually be even higher if ethanol weren't part of the mix,' Glauber said. The U.S.

Department of Agriculture is still studying the exact impacts, but ethanol's small 5 percent role in transportation fuels may actu ally translate into a 15 percent reduction in overall oil prices." So there are varying view s on these issues around the world. I say we should actually work as best we can to get to that target of 5 percent of each, so that we can reduce our carbon footprint here in the province of British Columbia. J. Horgan: Mr. Stoner goes on, and this is again going back to the supply risks.

He says: "Currently B.C. enjoys the flexibility of being served from within the province, transfer from south and east of the province and marine imports. The demand on addi- tional winter blending distillates, which will be required to create the B.C. requirement of 5 percent biodiesel, currently have limited sources on the west coast.

This situation will force significant volumes of imports, which may have an increased potential for unintended consumer supply disruptions." Again, whenever I hear big oil say there's going to be potential disruptions or th ere's instability in Nigeria or — heaven forbid — instability in Alberta, that means my constituents are going to be paying more. So with

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11503 this proposed — or suggested from the industry — increase in volumes of imports, will that not have an impact on the carbon intensity of that 5 percent target? Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it will be considered in that 5 percent component. You know, we can all say: "No, we shouldn't change." Change is difficult for anyone. I don't care who it is, w h e t h e r i t ' s t h a t s i d e o f t h e H o u s e o r t h i s s i d e o f t h e House.

That's why I'd like to see a change in opinion from the NDP and that they would actually agree with us that we should reduce our carbon footprint, but maybe I hope for too much. We need to actually make those changes. Anything that I have done since I was fortunate enough to become minister in this ministry required some change. You can't change direction…. I mean, if we want to continue down that path of "use all you want; waste all you want; pollute all you want; do all that kind of thing," that's one issue.

But if we actually want to change and take a different direction and start looking at conservation — some- thing that wasn't high on everyone's agenda — looking at our carbon footprint, looking at where we get it from, looking at how we develop it, all of those kinds of things…. That's a change. I know that's what the me mber is bringing forward, and I appreciate that. As a critic, he should, but change requires some change. We can't do things the way we used to if we're going to actually change and reduce our carbon footprint.

To reduce by 33 percent, to change our carbon footprint, and to have 5 percent mix of biofuels and gasoline and diesel fuel will require some change. It will require some change from the refiners — exactly. If you don't want to do that change, if that's what the member is actually advocating — that we don't want to do that change because that may cost a little bit, and w e w a n t t o s t a y o n t h e o l d p a t h o f u s e a l l y o u w a n t , however much you want, and forget the carbon content…. That might be the position of the NDP, but that's not the position of us.

We actually want to move ahead with reducing our carbon footprint in the best way we can manage to do that. I think it actually is something that we all, regardless of what political party we belong to, should be thinking about to move forward to do those kind of things. [1125] Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved. On

section 6. M. Karagianis: This morning I think we have canvassed a number of very cogent arguments from this side of the House following up on second reading debate. Some great questions have been asked here without necessarily satisfactory answers for this side of the House. In this particular section, "Low Carbon Fuel Require- ments," it sets the requirements for carbon intensity. In reading through this

section I realize that there is an opportunity here for us to provide exactly what the minister has been talking about here this morning, which is the framework for change. I would at this point prop ose an amendment to this

section of the bill. I have that here, and I know that minister has a copy of this. I will read the bill out, that

section 6 be amended as follows: [SECTION 6 is amended by adding the following subsection: 6

(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), the prescribed level must be (

a) calculated from source to consumer, and (

b) based on an acceptable biofuel sustainability standard.] Just for the record, that clarifies subsection 6(1) that says: "A

Part 3 fuel supplier must, for each compliance period, ensure that the weighted average of the carbon intensities of all

Part 3 fuels it supplies in the compliance period, as determined in accordance with the regulations and subject to subsection (2 ), is no greater than the prescribed level." My amen dment then adds the termi- nology for the prescribed level. On the amendment. M. Karagianis: The impetus for this amendment…. As I mentioned earlier, we canvassed part of this issue at great length in second reading, and we have touched on it again this morning.

I think the minister fairly out- lined that change is required, a paradigm shift is required, but I also think th at the arguments being put forward by this side of the House are around providing some guidance on how that shift occurs and reducing the risk. Frankly, government is generally risk adverse, and really, this is a way of us reducing the risk that in the future there will be any

interpretation of this bill outside of the intention of this House today. The minister has talked considerably about the intentions of government and the intentions of the House today while we work on this bill, but we often know that legislation becomes interpreted in the future by other members of government, other ministers, other jurisdictions within government.

The importance of including the language here in my proposed amendment today is around providing both that clarity as well as a framework that gives, I think, more security to the contro versial debate taking place around the globe and certainly escalating day after day.

We see more and more cont roversy within all aspects of our society, whether it's industry response, as we've heard today outlined by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca; whether it is the concerns of economists, as we've heard outlined both in the media and by sources — World Bank and other leading voices here in the economy; and the public debate on this as well. I think the intention here is to alleviate the risk that in any way we will be engaged in this controversy in a negative way. In fact, I think it adds to the quality of this legislation and the intention of government as we move forward. [1130]

11504 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 We've canvassed at great length here the concerns we have for how biofuel, and in particular bioethanol and biodiesel, will be produced in the future. When speaking to point (

a) under my amendment, where the calculation is from source to consumer…. This speaks very directly to us calculating the carbon intensity and, therefore, the costs to the government and to society of recognizing that the source from which any of these biofuels come is as imperative a concern as our need to shift to alternatives here. Food security is a growing concern, and as was outlined earlier in discussions here this morning, it is not necessarily about what's occurring within our own province. It's not necessarily about what's occurring within our own country.

Because much of our biofuel sources from outside the borders, this is also about what's occurring in other countries and about the inevitable, I think, international standards that will have to be imposed in order to ensure that our move to alternative fuels and alternative options here, as we leave behind fossil fuel and move into the future, is going to…. We're going to have to move to protect food security. Climate change has already left us at risk, for food security, without the added burden of us now having to compete for food lands with alternative fuel. The key to all of this is sustainab ility.

We talk about that. We talk about it in a whole variety of ways here in the House, but finding a way to incorporate a standard that, I believe, will be engaged in internationally…. I know that many countries are now moving to creating biofuel sustainability standards, and I believe we have an opportunity here to lead. I know that the government is interested in leading on this debate. Hence, they 're bringing forward this bill. I think we need to enga ge in that. The content of my amendment here speaks to that, and it speaks to, I believe, what's already happening in the industry.

I know that the industry, in the biodiesel end of the biofuel sector, is actually engaging very seriously in sustainability and looking at the product that they produce and ensuring that there is not that competition for food and ensuring that what we're doing is, in fact, using waste product here, which makes our lives better in a whole variety of ways. I talked in second debate about General Motors engaging in new science ar ound bacterial breakdown of human refuse and garbage and using that as a product.

There are a whole lot of op tions around that create sustainability, that are not about threatening food crops or crop displacement or any of the other things that are o c c u r r i n g a s w e e n g a g e i n t h i s p a r a d i g m . T h e r e i s n o doubt in my mind that it does require a huge shift in the way we think about this issue around transportation, alternative fuels and what the future may bring, and how we actually show leadership in ensuring that we demand a sustainability level that is appropriate, responsible and thoughtful. I would urge the minister to show support for this.

I know the public will support the concept and engage in the change that's necessary in shifting to alternatives if we show that we are doin g it in the most responsible way possible. The public will not engage in this — the public will not adopt new ways of approaching their transportation needs — if we don't set up the frame- work for them that shows and demonstrates and offers a security that we are doing this in the most sustainable and responsible way and that this kind of legislation will set the baseline for us moving forward.

I know the minister has characterized our concerns on how we move through creating this new green legislation as somehow being not in support of legislation. I would say that nothing could be further from the facts. What we are trying to do is engage with government to say: "Here are some of the missing components of creating a real greenhouse gas reduction act, and here are the pieces that are missing." [1135] In fact, all of the controversy that's going on around the world and within our own community here on biofuels and alternative energy sources, whether it be hydrogen….

The government is engaged very aggres- sively in the hydrogen highway, which, frankly, is an untested, unproven, unsustainable system that probably is not going to bear any kind of results that communities can engage in for decades, if at all. Right now it consists of a corridor that runs north and south along the coastline of North America. What that provides to the rest of the country, I don't know, but I see government is engaged in that and believes that that's an alternative op tion that may bear fruit in the future.

I think we have a real opportunity right now to create changes and amendments to this act that, in fact, would move us past the controversial point around alternative fuels and move us into such a leadership role that we will set the tone for the rest of the national and international and global debate that will take place.

This has already begun to happen in other countries, so we can learn some lessons and actually embed in our legislation some real language and some real legislative framework that sets us ahead of the game and, in fact, leads the way and gives us an opportunity to then go out and convince the public that biofuels are not products that are devastating or harming others elsewhere in this country or on the planet. Frankly, I think that people will engage more enthusiastic ally if they know that what they're doing is not hurting but is helping, is taking us forward, is moving us forward.

Every argument I've heard on this side of the House speaks to the need for us to create legislation that is thoughtful, realisti c and sustainable. It does show such enormous leadership that both sides of the House here can engage in this, can support this and can move forward to promote alternatives in our community. We can't do it as long as food sources are being threat- ened or the economies of na tions are being altered by the pressures of producing ethanol corn in order to satisfy urban uses and rural uses in the transportation sector.

I would hope that the government sees this as being a participatory amendment and that they would see

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11505 that this language in no way compromises the inten- tion of their legislation but, in fact, enhances it, gives it a framework and, in the case of a biofuels sustainability standard, gives it the tools of real leadership. I would encourage the minister to give us a sign that this is an amendment that government would support, and I look forward to hearing further debate on this. Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the member's remarks. I know that she passionately believes in biofuels, in having less of an impact on the environment.

I know that simply because of the lobbying she's done for gov- ernment to actually start using more biofuels, to actually have members of the Legislature start using more biofuels, and she is on record as saying that she would use 100 percent biofuel if it was available. I know the member passionately believes in this, and I appreciate that in every way that I can. I'm ap- preciative that she stands up and speaks to

section 6 passionately, and I want to put on the record that — and I appreciate the amendment — it's already in the bill. Actually, if you go to

section 25(b)…. I'll read into the record 25(b): "establishing the greenhouse gas emissions that are deemed to be attributable to a

Part 3 fuel, including, without limitation, greenhouse gas emissions related to the life cycle of the fuel and its fuel feedstock whether they occur inside or outside British Columbia." [1140] I'm glad that the member brought that forward, because that's already in th e act further on. Certainly, the ministry will be reviewing that as we move forward with regulations to make sure that we look at all of those things that she spoke about, about sustainability. Also, in the definition sect ion, under "component," it further adds to the issues that the member brought forward in her motion.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I appreciate the way the member brought it forward to us and brought it to our attention, but I want to actually say to the House that those things are already in the bill as we speak today. G. Robertson: I rise to speak strongly in favour of this amendment. I think it is extremely well considered. If we are to look at the pitfalls of biofuels that have emerged around the world, it's all about the source and how sustainable the source of the biofuel is, coupled with the carbon footprint of distribution of that biofuel.

That combination right there is absolutely critical for ensuring that biofuel's carbon intensity is, in fact, lower than that of the fossil fuel s consumed to produce the biofuel. There are very troubling st atistics around the carbon intensity of ethanol; around the net carbon intensity of clearing tropical rain fore st to plant biofuel crops; the resulting loss of carbon in taking, in some cases, up to a century of biofuel crop production to actually come back into balance; and the ensuing carbon in- tensity reduction from that biofuel.

If it takes a hundred years for a biofuel crop that has been carved out of an Indonesian jungle to get back to a net positive carbon intensity, one can see the folly of pursuing biofuels as an urgent, short-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions. The carbon emissions for the coming decades will be significantly higher if we're pursuing biofuels from unsustainable sources, such as clearing standing rain forest in the tropics. The statistics on ethanol production in the U.S. and the use of ni trous oxide fertilizers with impacts on greenhouse gas emissions are very significant and troubling as well.

There are biofuel sources that are sustainable — second- generation biofuels, biofuels produced from waste. There are good-news stories in the biofuels realm. What this amendment encourages and mandates is that we be dedicated as a province to ensuring that we source biofuels sustainably, ensuring that the carbon intensity is not in fact greater and ensuring that the carbon footprint is in fact lighter from the biofuels produced. The bill itself, with all due respect to the minister's

interpretation of these sectio ns, is pretty thin and al- lows for a lot of flexibility. There is no definition about life cycle in this bill that I've seen here, and the life cycle is absolutely critical in terms of analysis. This amendment specifies "s ource to consumer," which is a pretty clear pathway in terms of the fuel chain. I think it's important to be specific here. It's critical, given the potential impacts on the environment and the potential costs to the planet.

I will just restate my strong support for the amendment moved by the member for Esquimalt- Metchosin and encourage members of the House to stand in support of this amendment. [1145] J. Horgan: I , t o o , w a n t t o s u p p o r t m y c o l l e a g u e from Esquimalt-Metchosin and echo the closing com- ments of the member for Vancouver-Fairview — that the minister has characterized this debate as rigid opposition on this side to reducing carbon footprint. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our challenge here as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to ensure that as much rigour and due diligence as possible can go into the implementation of public policy. That's our job, and that's what we're doing. At no time has anyone on this side of the House ever suggested that we do not want to see our targets of 33 percent reduction by 2020 met. We unanimously supported that legislation last fall. I think there is no better indication of our suppo rt for the position than the fact that we stood here and supported it.

So for the minister to suggest that we don't want to get there is not necessarily correct. Although I thank the minister for pointing us to

section 25, which will be regulation by Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council sometime in the future, it doesn't — as the members who spoke before me said — get us from source to consumer, and that's the challenge. What we want to know — and why the member for Vancouver-Fairview was asking questions under

section 1 on this issue of the requirements and the carbon

11506 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 intensity — is how much it's going to cost to get biofuels from Brazil to Fort St. John. We want to know what the impact is going to be in the life cycle of the product. I know that the life cycle is sprinkled throughout the document — and the member will likely stand and point again to

section 25 — but those regulations are not yet before this House. Absent that, we want to ensure that in the body of the bill in

section 6,

part 3, we have, as the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has put before us, an amendment that will ensure that the public will have some confi- dence that the government will be moving in this direc- tion swiftly and that we can calculate and quantify what the cost is going to be from source to consumer. I don't think it's a difficult amendment to support. I know that if the government was genuine and sincere about wanting to find all-party support for this initia- tive, this modest amendment would meet the test.

With that, I'll encourage th e minister to accept this amendment and we can move on to the next section. Hon. R. Neufeld: To the members that spoke, both members: I appreciate the arguments, but I will go back…. I mean, when it said in here that there's noth- ing to do with life cycle in th e bill, it's actually in 25(b), "life cycle." It's there. It already says in 25(b)…. The member talked about "calculated from source to con- sumer." That's in the amendment, and I appreciate that.

That's already in the body of the legislation, which says: "…related to the life cycle of the fuel and its fuel feedstock whether they occur inside or outside British Columbia." You know, "outside British Columbia" is outside British Columbia. That includes what the member talks about, Brazil. He wants to use Brazil as an example? That would include Brazil. In the legislation, that is already there. There will be regulations that we will bring, which is normal. I know that I get the argument lately that we should have all the regulations with the bills all the time, but that's not generally the way it works.

Those regulations will be developed as we move forward, to make sure that we actually take into account the body of what the member is trying to say. Don't take umbrage at all. I'm pleased that the member is reinforcing with an amendment what we already have in the bill, but there's no need to put it in there twice in two different places.

We actually have the intent of that in the bill, and I think we should move on. [1150-1155] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 21 Brar Farnworth Kwan Ralston Cubberley Hammell Thorne Simons Gentner Routley Fraser Horgan Bains Robertson Karagianis Krog Austin Chudnovsky Wyse Sather Conroy NAYS — 39 Falcon Reid Coell Ilich Christensen Les Richmond Bell Krueger van Dongen Roddick Hayer Lee Jarvis Nuraney Cantelon Thorpe Hagen Oppal de Jong Taylor Bond Hansen Abbott Penner Neufeld Coleman Hogg Sultan Lekstrom Mayencourt Polak Hawes Yap Bloy MacKay Black McIntyre Rustad J.

Horgan: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:58 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having re- ported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11507 On Vote 25: ministry operations, $5,675,357,000 (continued). Point of Order (continued) D. Cubberley: Before we begin today, I'm just going to ask for clarification of a point that was raised in two previous sittings surrounding the legitimate use of the laptop computer during the course of esti- mates. There was an initial

interpretation that everyone accepted, which is that it was not to be used for speak- ing notes during a presentation when a speaker had the floor, but it could be used outside of that, when a speaker did not have the floor. Then there was the subsequent

interpretation that there should be no use of it at all. I'm simply going to request clarification of what the protocol is so that we know what we're about and what the parameters are for using the device. The Chair: Member, on April 16 the member for Saanich South raised a point of order regarding the use of electronic devices by members who are engaged in debate during Committee of Supply,

Section A. Pur- suant to the recent statement delivered by the Speaker on March 4, members of Committee A are reminded that they may use laptop computers and hand-held electronic devices, such as BlackBerry devices, to access textual information. The practice governing the use of electronic devices in Committee A is identical to the practice in the House. However, it is important to clarify that mem- bers may use electronic devices to access information in support of the debate, but they must not rely on these devices once they have been recognized by the Chair.

Electronic devices cannot be used as speaking notes or be quoted from while in possession of the floor and engaged in debate. Of course, all electronic devices must be operated silently. This matter is, again, before the Speaker, and the Speaker always reserves the right to reconsider. I would like to add one ot her point about electronic devices and cellular phones. Cellular phones are not to be answered in the House or put up to the ear while leaving the House. Please continue, Member. D. Cubberley: Mr. Chairman, thank you for that.

You'll get no argument from me on the latter point about cell phones in the House. I would just ask for one further thing to be done, which is to ensure that all persons serving as Chair in here and all members of the Clerk's office have a com- mon understanding about the response that was just given so that we don't bump into it again. Having said that, I'm going to cede the floor to my colleague, unless the minister wishes to comment on that. Debate Continued D.

Routley: Can the minister inform me as to what the directions have been to the special adviser who has been appointed to Cowichan Valley school district? [1015] Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the precise letter that was actually sent to the board here today, with us at this moment, but we will certainly get that sent to us. Now that we've had the ruling clarified, we can actually get that information. I can tell the member opposite that the framework for the terms of reference was taken right out of School Act, in fact, with the appointment of a special adviser. It comes under

section 171.1. In general, it is "to assist the board in the conduct of the affairs of the school district in respect of any educational, financial or community matters." In fact, the key points would have included commu- nication. We were concerned about the communication and the approach that had been taken. But generally speaking, it adheres to the requirements that are laid out in the School Act. D.

Routley: Since the appointment of the adviser, the local board of education has indicated its plans to reconfigure its grade configurations and build a plan by the end of June related to school closures and possible cutbacks. Does the minister think that amount of time is adequate for the community to have input and for the community's interests to be identified when it comes to the significant issue of reconfiguration?

The minister should remember that during the public meetings that the school board held throughout our dis- trict, there were resounding noes expressed unequivocally to the school board around school closure, investment in the Cowichan Place project partnership and reconfiguration of the grades. Hon. S. Bond: First of all, anytime a board of edu- cation discusses any of those issues that the member opposite articulated — things like school closures or reconfiguration — there's always a very significant…. I shouldn't say always. There's usually a fairly emotional response, and one can understand that.

I'm not about to speculate today about the time frames that have been suggested, because we have sent in a special adviser, a very capable person who is highly regarded in the education system in general — Dr. Lee Southern. What we've actually asked Dr. Southern to do is come back to me with a report — May 15, I believe, is the dead- line — and work through those issues with the board of education.

I'm not aware of the specific circumstances that the member opposite has cited and will be relying very heavily on the special adviser that we've appointed to bring back his report to me, which will then obviously go to the school board for their final decisions. D. Routley: Definitely there is an element of emotion, and that was displayed by the Cowichan elders who

11508 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 pleaded with the board not to take their children from the school that they were in and pleaded with the board to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Oftentimes in these debates and in these consulta- tions, emotional responses ar e discouraged. In fact, the declared intention at the be ginning of the meetings is to ignore the emotional component, which I think is a huge mistake. Of course, the commitment of communi- ties to their small schools is what has kept them going so far.

It's always been claimed that these school closures were something that the board wanted to avoid. There's never been a statemen t by the board that they desired to close these schools. In fact, all of the trustees who are elected currently declared that without community agreement, they would not be in favour of closing small schools. The four small schools that are identified are all growing schools. [1020] Oftentimes the minister and others who have advo- cated for small school closures refer to the educational or pedagogical reasons for doing these things — program issues.

But in our case, in Cowichan Valley, that is not the reason being offered. The reason being offered is funding shortfall, and the reason that's being offered for that is an enrolment decline. Can the minister commit that if the district and the community decide that it is their desire to keep these small schools open, that there is no driving pedagogical reason to close them and that if the only reason is funding, she will step up and guaran tee and ensure that funds will be available to keep those schools open? Hon. S. Bond: I will begin by articulating the respon- sibilities of the special adviser.

We've made part of the assignment basically that the special adviser would consider the decision-makin g processes of the board and trustees, the district's management structure and its oversight functions, effectiveness of long-term planning and risk assessment of those plans, stewardship of capital assets, effectiveness of the board's community consul- tation and responsiveness, th e state of finances and the level of student achievement. I will correct for the record a statement that the member opposite just made. As Minister of Education I have not and would not ad vocate for small school closures.

That is not my job; it is certainly not my inten- tion. Having said that, I also want to put on the record for the member's awareness the fact that in this particular school district, when we look at the number of students enrolled in this district to day compared to what there was in 2000 and 2001, there are actually 18.6 percent fewer children in the school district. That would accu- mulate to almost 2,000 fewer children — 1,930 fewer children.

Like other boards across the province and around the world, districts are facing — and we can debate the use of the word "dramatic…." I would suggest that a reduction of almost 2,000 children in one school district is a fairly dramatic decline over a six-year period. It is u n f o r t u n a t e ; i t i s d i f f i c u l t . B u t w e d o n e e d t o a d d r e s s the fact that we believe — and I believe personally, of course — that using resources is most important to put in classrooms that have children in them, not half-empty buildings.

This board, along with bo ards around the province, has to grapple with that issue. Of course today I cannot, as Minister of Education, stand up and suggest that because this particular board makes a decision that they don't want to close schools, I could simply save those. I would not be in a position to do that. D. Routley: The minister has claimed that she would not advocate for school closures, and yet her own policies drive districts to consider that the optimum size for school districts is 400 for elementary schools. That would be the optimum size. In our school district we've reduced that.

We see our goal as being 200 students. But if we go with the 200-student goal, that closes most of our elementary schools — certainly the ones that we have here.

When the minister quotes the loss of enrolment in Cowichan school district, she points not to a demo- graphic decline but to a failure of her ministry to fund education properly and to driving conditions into our district that have driven people into the private system. [1025] In fact, the projections for school district 79 over the next five years are for K-to-6-aged children to chart downwards — y e s , b u t o n l y b y 7 9 s t u d e n t s o v e r f i v e years — from 4,086 down to 4,007. That is 79 students expected in decline spread over 18 schools — hardly reason to close these four schools.

The loss of these schools would mean the loss of two programs of choice. One is a rural traditional program, which the ministry took great pains in promoting when it was first established in another school — which, I will add, was closed a few years ago. We would not only lose that; we would lose the aboriginal school, Koksilah, which has cultural programs and language programs developed over a 30-year period and have been in place for three years — in fact, the first school of choice, not the one that the minister pointed to before. Those would be lost.

We would lose over 140 child care spaces, 66 in Tansor School alone. These are all important functions for the commu- nity, and we will pay a price for losing them. In fact, when districts have resisted the closure of schools, the ministry has intervened through phone calls, through pressure on boards. It's clear that is the case. The ministry cannot hide behind the autonomous decision-making of school districts when in fact they're driven into corners that they have no choice but one to fight out with, and that is the closur e of schools and the sale of property.

When the ministry says that 50 percent of capital projects must be paid by the districts, where does the minister expect the districts will get that money, except through school closure? Whether or not the minister has stood in public and said that she stands for small school closure, her policies certainly have driven that.

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11509 I would like to examine wh at the minister has just claimed. She has just claimed that we have lost enrol- ment at double the rate provincially, and I'll agree with her. But the fact is that en rolment in private schools in our district is more than two times greater than the provincial average, and that has been created by the driving of students out of our system. When our school district closed Mount Brenton Elementary, there were over 140 students. The next year fewer than 100 of those were still in our district.

We lost those students and their full funding package, far more than we could ever save by closing the school. In our district we have 29 percent of our secondary- aged students in private school. In our district we have 17 percent of our elementary-aged students enrolled in the private system, 25 percent for middle schools. This is the result of the very policies that we're trying to resist right now — policies that are driving us to close these schools and that are driving parents to enrol their students in private schools.

The minister should address her own ministry's responsibility for the decline in enrolment in Cowichan school district. What does she have to say to those as- sertions? Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite has asked me to comment on his assertions, and I'm frankly quite glad that the word "assertion" was used. I want to make it perfectly clear to the member opposite that there is not a policy in British Columbia today that looks at optimum size of schools. We have schools across this province that va ry in size. There are bigger ones and smaller ones.

To suggest there's a policy that says we're only going to build 400-student schools is inaccurate. The second inaccurate assertion is that there is a policy around 50 percent of buildings having to be paid for by school districts — absolutely inaccurate. In fact, we continue to invest. In British Columbia over the last number of years we've spent over a billion dollars building and replacing schools . One can't imagine that school districts could even begin to contemplate 50 percent.

Perhaps the most egregious assertion that's been made is a suggestion that there's pressure from our staff on school districts in terms of making decisions. That's absolutely inaccurate. [1030] I want to clearly articulate for the record the facts that exist in this school di strict. I don't want for a min- ute to deny there is passion and emotion and difficulty, but let's be clear. This school district has almost 2,000 fewer students in it than it did in 2000-2001.

The dis- trict is expected to receive this year the same amount of operating grants, despite the fact that there is going to be a decline in enrolment. Perhaps the member would like to check that with the school board. I'd be happy to hear if our number is inaccurate. But at the moment the number that we've been given from the school district, in terms of their drop of full-time-equivalent students, will be 416 this year. If you were to actually use the member's assertion that we build schools at the size of 400 or 200, that number alone would have a dramatic impact on this school district.

Perhaps the most significant piece of information that I'd like to share with the member opposite is the fact that this school district is actually expected to re- ceive more than $1.36 million in enrolment decline and funding protection from su pplementary funding next year to deal with declining enrolment. So to suggest for a moment — first of all, the three assertions that I've already corrected for the record — that this is essen- tially a funding issue is inaccurate. D. Routley: I'm sure the trustees around the prov- ince will be very pleased to hear that there's no such agenda.

Having served as a trustee, it was very clear that there was. Through the consultants who are appointed, through ministry direction to local administrators, it's very clear that there is. The minister and I can disagree on that, but I'll take my position to the school trustees who I've had experience with and particularly to the parents and students that I've served. I'm sure they'll support that. It should be noted that the per-student capital spending in this province declined by 40 percent since that time and is only now climbing to a p

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0417am 02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0417am 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6e332ce9fa07c7bc0954d4b47d15b9858b5f97e9

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).