2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Battle of Vimy Ridge

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Mike Gray

Hon. G.

Abbott

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Reg Scholfield

Routley

Introductions by Members

Statements

Deaths of children in Merritt

H. Lali

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Public Health Act (Bill 23)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Vaisakhi

C. James

Big Brothers and Big Sisters

H. Bloy

Ridge Meadows Seniors Society

health and wellness program

Sather

Wild at Art Festival

McIntyre

Women of the World event

Chouhan

Guildford Community Partners

Society

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Deaths of children in Merritt

H. Lali

Hon. G.

Campbell

Ferry safety

G. Coons

Hon. M.

de Jong

Frank Paul public inquiry

Farnworth

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Hon. W.

Oppal

J. Kwan

L. Krog

Funding for forestry programs at

College of New Caledonia

Fleming

Hon. M.

Coell

Future of Elk Falls sawmill

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Penalty provisions for mining

industry

Macdonald

Hon. K.

Krueger

Safety inspections of mines

Puchmayr

Hon. K.

Krueger

Petitions

J. Horgan

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

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

(continued)

Macdonald

Simpson

Ralston

Karagianis

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

On the amendment

S. Simpson

M. Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands (continued)

Hon. P.

Bell

C. Evans

Fraser

Robertson

Simpson

Farnworth

Gentner

Simons

Austin

[ Page 11113 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Statements

BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, today we mark the 91st

anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. On this day in 1917 four divisions of

the Canadian Corps attacked together in formation for the first time, advancing

at the dawn on Vimy Ridge. It was a battle in which 3,598 Canadians made the

ultimate sacrifice on behalf of freedom and democracy, and it was also a turning

point for our great nation.

To this day the courage and sacrifice of those soldiers at Vimy

Ridge serves as an inspiration to all Canadians. Their legacy is a constant

reminder to all of us of our duty to defend the ideals that they fought for.

I ask today that this House join me in paying tribute to those who

gave so much at Vimy Ridge and all who served in the great wars that followed

and all who today carry on that proud tradition around the world of protecting

freedom, protecting people and trying to build a better future for all of us.

Introductions by Members

D. Chudnovsky: You will know, Mr. Speaker, because I have

told you on a number of occasions, that the two best high schools in British

Columbia are in Vancouver-Kensington. Today we have as guests a number of

students, I think 68 of them, with their teachers and supervisors visiting from

Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington.

I had an opportunity before lunch to chat with them on the steps.

It was terrific to meet with them. Could you please welcome the students from

Sir Charles Tupper.

Hon. S. Bond: Today we are absolutely delighted to be

joined in the gallery by a group of 20 individuals from across this province who

make a difference in the lives of families and children every single day. These

individuals are members of the B.C.

chapter of Big Brothers Big Sisters of

Canada, who deliver an invaluable program called Mentoring Excellence B.C.

Leading the delegation today are Rhonda Brown, executive director

of the Greater Victoria chapter; Doug Blott, the B.C. national board

representative; Doug Sheach, treasurer for the Abbotsford chapter; and speaking

very personally, someone that we know very well from Price George, Tim Bennett,

who is incredibly active in our community and in fact just recently organized

the Prince George Bowl for Kids Sake fundraiser. We had a team that

participated, and I'm proud to say that a record level of funding was actually

garnered at that event. We also have Alex Mitchell here, who is a grade 10

student and a Big Sister in the teen mentoring program.

I know that every member of the House will join me in making them

welcome and, I hope, will join Big Brothers Big Sisters later today as we

celebrate the mentoring program. Please join me in making them welcome.

R. Austin: It's not often that I have a guest visiting in

the precinct, but today I'm very delighted to introduce my father David Austin,

who is here all the way from Melbourne, Australia. He's come for a week to see

how business is done here and to attend a family celebration. Would the House

please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery and observing us for

question period are a number of individuals I know we are all familiar with.

They are the members of the UBCM executive, and I would like to introduce them

to you.

[1340]

We have Mayor Ella Brown, who is the small-community

representative from the district of Logan Lake; Councillor Kim Capri, Vancouver

representative from the city of Vancouver; Mayor Sharon Hartwell, the second

vice-president representing the village of Telkwa; Director Rhona Martin, the

SILGA representative from the Columbia-Shuswap regional district; Director Terry

Raymond, electoral area representative from the Fraser Valley regional district;

Director Rod Sherrell, the AVICC representative from Mount Waddington regional

district; Councillor Mary Sjostrom, director-at-large from the city of Quesnel;

Director Heath Slee, AKBLG representative from East Kootenay regional district;

Mayor Joe Snopek, director-at-large from the town of Creston; and Councillor

Barbara Steele, the Metro Vancouver representative from the city of Surrey.

I hope the House would please make them all very welcome. They're

here for a number of days.

Tributes

MIKE GRAY

Hon. G. Abbott: It's with great sadness that I inform the

House of the tragic loss of Mike Gray, a B.C. Ambulance Service paramedic who

suffered a sudden and unexpected collapse while he was working for the B.C.

Ambulance Service in the Lower Mainland yesterday afternoon. Mr. Gray was a

39-year-old paramedic. He was an 11-year veteran of the B.C. Ambulance Service,

who worked in Vancouver and across the Fraser Valley providing emergency medical

services to the residents of British Columbia.

This incident is a great shock to all at the B.C. Ambulance

Service. I'd ask members to keep the family and loved ones in mind in their

thoughts and prayers today, as we mourn his passing.

[ Page 11114 ]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: On a different and much happier note, I'd

like to introduce four very illustrious guests who are with us in the gallery

today. Dr. Perry Kendall is B.C.'s provincial health officer. Dr. Brian Emerson

is a medical consultant in the Ministry of Health. Dr. Richard Stanwick is chief

medical health officer for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, and Mark

Collison is the director of advocacy and stakeholder relations with the Heart

and Stroke Foundation.

They are here with us today to celebrate the introduction of new

legislation that I'll have the privilege of sharing with the House in a few

moments. All of these gentlemen, particularly Dr. Kendall and Dr. Emerson, have

worked very hard to assist in putting the new Public Health Act together. I'd

ask the House to make all of the gentlemen welcome.

C. Evans: The member for Skeena is quite a modest person,

and he did not mention that the family celebration that his father has come to

attend is his 50th birthday, which is today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

C. Evans: The second thing I wanted to do was notice and

welcome Mayor Snopek from Creston.

This is a great year to visit Victoria, Mayor Snopek, because it's

the coldest spring in almost 20 years, and the Creston Blossom Festival will be

the first sign of spring in British Columbia. Victoria has nothing yet for

flowers.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have who I really believe

is the friendliest, most outgoing mayor in British Columbia. For anyone who

doesn't believe it, he'll be down later to shake your hand. That would be my

good friend and an amazing guy, James Atebe, the mayor of Mission.

Along with James is Skip Bassford, the great president of the

great University College of the Fraser Valley. They are joined by Dennis Clark,

clerk from the district of Mission. Could the House please make all three of

them most welcome.

C. Wyse: Amongst all of the guests we have with us today,

those from the UBCM, those from Big Brothers and Sisters, and the rest of our

guests — I make them all welcome — in particular, I would like to recognize two

special guests that are here today. That includes my older sister Carol, along

with her husband Paul Molyski, who have come from Sunnyvale, California. Carol

is here to see how her younger brother is doing and behaving himself here in

this sandbox. I'd ask all the House to join in making them welcome.

[1345]

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to introduce to the House Jorge Luis

Donado, who is the prosecutor in charge of the anti–organized crime

section of

the public prosecutor's office in Guatemala; Ruben Antonio Molina, who is a

senior trial prosecutor from the public prosecutor's office of Honduras; Rick

Craig, executive director of the Law Courts Education Society; Cal Deedman, who

is a senior prosecutor with the criminal justice branch.

As well, there is Kendra Ashton, who is a grade 11 student from

Sir Charles Tupper School. She was a job placement student in my constituency

office. She is a well-rounded student who plays flute, guitar and oboe. She is a

Girl Guides ranger — I'm sure I'm embarrassing her now when I'm saying this —

and she's a soccer star as well.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

J. McIntyre: April 9 is also the birthday of a very special

friend of mine, a former member of this House and in fact my predecessor as the

member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi. Today is Ted Nebbeling's birthday.

I think some of you may be aware that Ted is embarking on a very

serious fight with cancer. I was hoping that everybody in the House today would

join me in sending him our very best wishes and keeping him in our prayers and

thoughts. If he's watching at home: happy birthday, Ted.

D. Hayer: I would also like to recognize a very special

guest in the gallery today, Barbara Steele. She's my constituent and a friend,

and she's a very hard-working councillor from the city of Surrey. She's in

Victoria to attend a Union of B.C. Municipalities executive meeting.

Also, as you know, this is the month of Vaisakhi. Vaisakhi is

being celebrated in Surrey and in communities throughout British Columbia and

around the world. Vaisakhi celebrations are important to the South Asian

community and very important to the Sikh community, as it celebrates the birth

of Khalsa in the Sikh religion.

I ask all members to welcome Councillor Barbara Steele and to

recognize and congratulate all of the South Asian and Sikh communities during

these Vaisakhi celebrations.

Hon. M. Coell: I have four guests in the Legislature today.

They're members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists

of British Columbia: their president Janet Benjamin, who is a pioneer of Power

Smart in the province; their vice-president Margaret Li; their past president

Tim Smith; and Derek Doyle, registrar. They're here for meetings with members

over the next few days. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

REG SCHOLFIELD

D. Routley: I would like the House to offer condolences to

the family of Reg Scholfield, the proprietor in Duncan of Reggie's Veggies. Reg

died last weekend at the age of 62 in his sleep. He and his wife Sharon founded

their business in 1985. Reggie was a very generous

[ Page 11115 ]

person, very helpful to our community. He was instrumental in our youth

soccer programs. I would like the House to share with me an expression of

condolence to his family.

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes: I would like to welcome back our great colleague

from Kelowna-Mission today. She's back, well on the road to recovery. I hope the

recovery is speeding along and that she's going to be with us for a long, long

time to come.

Statements

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN MERRITT

H. Lali: This is not the ideal circumstance under which I

wish to address this assembly. By now every one of us here in this chamber has

heard of the tragic events on Sunday in my hometown of Merritt. In stark

contrast to other days, I wear black today in memory of the three innocent

little children whose lives were unnecessarily and unmercifully taken on this

past fateful Sunday while their mother had briefly gone to run an errand in

town.

[1350]

Imagine a mother leaving behind three young children at home for a

brief spell to make a trip to the grocery store, only to come home and make the

gruesome discovery that her three most precious gifts, to whom she had given

birth and had left behind cheerful and playing only moments before, had all been

senselessly stabbed to death in the interval. Imagine the horror, the shock, the

disbelief, the distress, the fear, the sadness and the guilt that surely must

have gone through her mind upon making this tragic discovery.

I have lived in Merritt for over 42 years. Never has the community

witnessed such an unimaginable tragedy amongst our ranks. The friends of the

victims, the school children, the neighbours, the first responders and the

entire community are devastated. Merritt has lost three of its innocent

children. The community has lost its innocence as the suspected killer, the

father of the children, is the subject of a manhunt.

As the community tries to come to grips with this tragedy, I ask

all my colleagues to keep Darcie Clarke, the mother of the children, and the

people of Merritt in your thoughts and in your prayers and to join me in a brief

moment of silence in memory of Kaitlynne, aged ten; Max, aged eight; and Cordon,

aged five. May their souls rest in peace.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Health Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 23, the Public Health Act,

be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: The new Public Health Act creates a modern

legislative framework establishing the tools and provisions necessary to fulfil

the commitments for a healthier British Columbia outlined in our recent throne

speech.

A few years ago Canada was affected by the global SARS outbreak.

B.C. was remarkably well served by our public health officials during that

incident. However, it brought to light across Canada the need for increased

vigilance to global public health risks. This legislation provides public health

officials with the tools to quickly and effectively mobilize public health

initiatives to address these global threats.

If governments across Canada are going to address the

sustainability of our public health care system, we need stronger tools to

support health promotion initiatives. More than 1.3 million people in British

Columbia suffer from one or more chronic conditions, and over 90,000 people

suffer from four or more chronic conditions. While these individuals represent

34 percent of the B.C. population, they consume 80 percent of the combined MSP,

Pharmacare and acute care budgets. Addressing this challenge is fundamental to

the sustainability of our health care system for the future.

While our government has already taken steps in addressing chronic

diseases, we know there's much to do. We'll use the tools established by the new

Public Health Act to ban the use of trans fats in the preparation of foods in

schools, restaurants and food services establishments by 2010. Through the tools

in the Public Health Act we will be better placed to continue to make further

investments to address chronic disease.

Safe and healthy communities are another goal of public health and

of this government. The new Public Health Act will address government's throne

speech commitment to require communities to include provision for mental health

and addiction service facilities in their community plans.

The new Public Health Act is an important addition to our

legislative toolkit that we hope will serve the people of British Columbia for

the next 100 years. It is also a reflection of the fact that addressing public

health issues is a job not only for the provincial government but for local

governments and for individual citizens themselves.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

Bill 23, Public Health 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.

[ Page 11116 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) VAISAKHI

C. James: This month communities across B.C. will be

celebrating Vaisakhi. The growing enthusiasm about the festival of Vaisakhi

shows how much pride British Columbians take in the tradition and culture of

B.C.'s Sikh, Indo-Canadian and South Asian communities. Vaisakhi allows all of

us to come together and celebrate the South Asian community's culture as part of

our province's collective heritage. It helps us learn about one another and

strengthen our pride in our shared customs.

The Sikh community has played a central role in building this

province and in bringing the core principles of Sikhism to every aspect of our

province. Those principles — equality, social justice, respect and tolerance —

are key to B.C.'s future and ones we must all continue to strive for. I want to

take this opportunity to thank B.C.'s Indo-Canadian and Sikh community for their

contributions to B.C.

Recently we marked two most important dates in the history of B.C.

in Canada. On March 26 the community remembered the day in 1907 when people of

Indian origin were deprived of their right to vote, and last week on April 2 we

remembered the community leaders and the organizations who worked so hard to

regain the right to vote in 1947.

Almost six decades later, here we are together celebrating

Vaisakhi with several members of the Indo-Canadian community here in this House

as MLAs. I hope this Vaisakhi we all reflect on the achievements and

contributions of B.C.'s Indo-Canadian community.

Vaisakhi di lukh lukh vdhayee .

BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS

H. Bloy: I'm delighted to rise in the House today to

recognize the second annual Big Brothers and Big Sisters day at the Legislature.

This is a special day when MLAs from both sides of the House will be meeting

with Big Brothers and Big Sisters throughout the day, learning more about the

organization's strategic focus of increasing the number of children in B.C. with

a mentor, increasing its in-school teen mentorship program and developing new

literacy and numeracy skills.

For more than 80 years Big Brothers and Big Sisters have been

providing support to children across the country. There are over 23,000 children

who benefit from the one-on-one mentorship that is provided through this

program.

Through mentoring and support, the Big Brothers and Big Sisters

help children receive the acceptance, understanding and respect they deserve as

individuals. A mentor can be instrumental in helping a child find his or her way

in the world while encouraging and challenging them to do their best.

I like to call mentoring an investment for success, because by

investing in the success of the younger generation of British Columbians,

everyone benefits. A positive adult role model will directly contribute to

increased academic achievement, better family and peer relationships, a

substantially lower reliance on social services, and a more successful

transition from school to work.

Children who spend time with a mentor gain confidence, self-esteem

and new skills, and develop their ability to relate to others. I ask my

colleagues here today to join me in congratulating Big Brothers Big Sisters of

Canada for all their success and contribution to our youth.

RIDGE MEADOWS SENIORS SOCIETY

HEALTH AND WELLNESS PROGRAM

M. Sather: Maple Ridge has an active seniors community, and

the hub of this activity is the Ridge Meadows Seniors Centre. Once a week in a

room down a hall, you will find the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society health and

wellness program. Greeted with a smile by one of the many volunteers, seniors

come to have their blood pressure monitored, their height and weight recorded,

get a massage or just sit and have a chat with friends both old and new.

The health and wellness program was started in 2002 by Peggy

Lambert, retired nurse and current director of the program. Peggy says she

started the program because she was angry that seniors health was falling

through the cracks, and there was no focused, comprehensive program for seniors

in the community.

Over the years the program has grown. Through word of mouth and

referrals from local doctors, approximately 550 seniors have frequented the

program, with up to 83 seniors dropping by weekly to the Tuesday morning

program.

[1400]

Not restricted to the seniors centre, clinics are also held at

Willow Manor every third Wednesday and at the Pitt Meadows Seniors Centre twice

a month. With 14 volunteer nurses, peer counsellors and a massage therapist, the

health and wellness program emphasizes prevention and early detection of

potential health concerns as well as health awareness and support of seniors in

maintaining their well-being.

Community support includes free hearing-aid cleaning, glasses

repair and hearing tests by Crystal Optical, and pharmaceutical and diabetic

education by professionals from the local Safeway pharmacy to assist seniors

with any medication or diet concerns.

With cuts to seniors health care, preventative care becomes more

crucial. Please join me in thanking Peggy and the volunteers of the Ridge

Meadows Seniors Society health and wellness program for their dedication to the

seniors of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

WILD AT ART FESTIVAL

J. McIntyre: I rise to applaud the community of Squamish

for putting on a terrific arts and entertainment event with the theme of motion.

A successful

[ Page 11117 ]

one-day local festival in 2004 has escalated to the ten-day annual Wild at

Art Festival featuring original displays, with hopes to expand for the duration

of the games in 2010.

This year the Wild at Art Festival was moved to coincide with the

Haywood Ski Nationals and the 81st annual Canadian Cross-Country Ski

Championships. Taking place at the new Callaghan Valley Olympic Park, the event

attracted almost 200 athletes from 16 countries around the world. The Callaghan

Valley Local Organizing Committee, headquartered in Squamish, was a co-sponsor

of Wild at Art and took full advantage of the cross-opportunities to showcase

the venue, the site of the Nordic Olympic events.

On March 14, I attended the opening of the festival, and for the

second year it again involved a spectacular art display at the West Coast

Railway Heritage Park, this time accompanied by musical acts. Wild at Art,

supported by provincial and VANOC funding to participate in the 2008 Cultural

Olympiad, successfully celebrates the richness and diversity of the local arts

community. On March 16, a crisp, sunny morning, I was at the opening ceremonies

of the cross-country nationals starting with the team sprint events. This

cross-country championship event received a significant grant from Hosting B.C.

to assist in mounting a first-class international event.

Both these events could not have happened without exceptional

local support, without hundreds of volunteers who put together an art festival

and a sporting event that wowed the community. I'd like to congratulate Carolyn

Grass, who assumed the role as festival coordinator in 2007. She, along with her

team of volunteers like Judy McQuinn and Sonja Lebans, has brought refreshing

energy and passion to the festival. I'd also like to congratulate Denise Imbeau

and her CALOC team for making B.C. proud and showing the country and the world

that we have the know-how.

For me, this is what the Olympic spirit is all about — bringing

communities together in the pursuit of excellence in sport, arts and culture and

innovation.

WOMEN OF THE WORLD EVENT

R. Chouhan: Last weekend Lougheed and Brentwood malls in

Burnaby were transformed into the United Nations of women events. It was called

the Women of the World event. Along with several other MLAs, MPs, mayors, city

councillors, park commissioners, the Burnaby fire chief and the RCMP

superintendent, I attended the opening ceremonies at the Lougheed Mall. The

primary goal of the event was to provide information on employment readiness and

opportunities to immigrant and low-income women through educational workshops

and mentoring.

Burnaby is a very diverse community. For example, at one of the

community schools in my constituency, more than 85 different languages are

spoken. Burnaby Family Life, incorporated in 1971, is a non-profit society. It

provides leadership and many important services to immigrant and low-income

families. Eight women currently enrolled in Burnaby Family Life programs were

selected as protégés for mentorship. The mentorship program will provide these

women inspiration and guidance as they develop their career paths.

I would like to congratulate Burnaby Family Life, Lougheed and

Brentwood town centres, Burnaby Now newspaper, Burnaby Board of Trade and

the province for sponsoring such a great event in Burnaby to help women of the

world.

[1405]

GUILDFORD COMMUNITY

PARTNERS SOCIETY

D. Hayer: Communities are made up of people who live in

them and on a volunteer basis work for them. One of the strongest communities in

my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead is Guildford. It is that way because of the

Guildford Community Partners Society.

Among the many volunteers who contribute hundreds of hours every

year to make Guildford Partners very successful are the president Rob Terris,

vice president Lenora Bradley, treasurer Diane Chiasson, secretary Diane

Demarinis and directors Joan Basic, Jean Munday, Steve Boyd, Barry Baskin and

seniors representative Seiny Van Vliet.

Formed in 1994, Guildford Partners Society helps develop

recreation facilities for young people and for seniors, and works with the RCMP

on crime prevention school liaison programs and on drug awareness in schools.

Guildford Partners, along with the Guildford Lions Club, also raises funds for

the Surrey Baseball Association and is advocating for an Olympic-sized swimming

pool for our communities, supports inner-city schools and works on youth

leadership programs.

This entirely volunteer non-profit society also raises funds for

the Guildford library computer lab and computers, and works to resolve poverty

and crime issues. It celebrates the culture and social fabric of Guildford and

raises funds for all good causes, including $260,000 toward the Guildford

recreation facility.

It has also been involved in all-candidate meetings, Guildford

Night Alive program, a home-invasion forum and an earthquake awareness meeting.

It works successfully to keep Holly swimming pool open and helps fund the

Etcetera Kids after-school activity program, Etcetera youth leadership programs

and after-school youth programs and activities.

I would ask everybody in the House to join me in congratulating

all the volunteers for everything they do to make our communities a better

place.

Oral Questions

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN MERRITT

H. Lali: I want to start off by thanking the Solicitor

General for calling me last night. We discussed the situation in Merritt and

exchanged briefings with each other. I also want to extend my thanks to the

Minister

[ Page 11118 ]

of Education for passing me a note, offering her help in any way and the

ministry's help in this situation.

From time to time, both sides of the House are able to work in a

spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship. I'm going to ask a couple of questions

in that spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship on behalf of my constituents,

who have asked me to put forward their issues.

My community is in dire need of help right now. Indeed, the entire

province is reeling from the deaths and the murders of three innocent children,

and people across the province are struggling to come to terms with this heinous

crime.

I was in Merritt in the past few days. The community is grieving,

and the people are afraid that the murderer is still at large.

I would like to respectfully ask the Attorney General: what

supports and services are the Attorney General and the government providing and

willing to provide to help the grieving mother, the children at Diamond Vale

Elementary — I thank the Minister of Education for her note — and the families

in the neighbourhood and the entire community to help them get through this

unfortunate tragedy?

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the member's questions. I

also appreciated the comments that the member made earlier, hon. Speaker.

I think at a time like this, with a tragedy like this that occurs,

we have to recall that it touches all of us. All the people of the province are

saying: "How can this kind of thing take place?" There's no question it raises a

number of significant questions, and our first concern, obviously, is for the

mother. I can't imagine what it must be like to discover that kind of horrendous

scene. Our concerns also are for the police officers. Again, I can't even begin

to understand what it must be like to come upon a scene like that.

I'm sure the member will agree that every member of the

detachment, every member of the community and indeed all of us are trying to

struggle with how we cope with something so senseless. You can't comprehend it.

[1410]

Our concern, like the member's, is for the family first, for the

mother first and the supports we can provide to her and for the children in the

schools. Clearly, this is an enormous event in their lives. It may touch them

forever. We have to offer all the support we can, and we will. To the members of

the detachment, to the members of the public…. We're trying to ensure that all

necessary resources are available not just as we search for the suspect but also

to provide the support and succour to the community that they require.

It is, I think, really important for all of us to understand that

everyone has been touched by this — the RCMP, the judiciary, members of the

community, families and people around the province. So the government will make

available all required resources, all necessary resources to provide support to

ensure that we get through this, that we learn as much as we can from this and

that we provide not just the RCMP but the public with the support they require.

At the end of the day, I think all of us have to be patient enough

to allow the work to be done that needs to be done. It's not a time for a rush

to judgment. It's a time to provide support, to provide understanding and to

reach out to the community, to the family and to everyone who's involved to try

and ensure that we can all get through this, that we all learn from this and

that we do everything in our power to stop anything like this from ever

happening again.

Three children, hon. Speaker — ten years old, eight years old and

five years old. This weekend I'm sure they were laughing, they were smiling and

their eyes were dancing with light. They were full of life, and then that was

taken from them. We all lose when that happens.

The government and all of its resources will be there to try and

aid and assist the community, and particularly the family, in all ways we can.

FERRY SAFETY

G. Coons: I visited 30 ferry-dependent communities on the

coast of B.C., and everywhere I heard major concerns about fares and operational

safety. The Transportation Safety Board report on the sinking of the Queen of

the North and the Morfitt safety audit alluded to many safety management

concerns. The recent near collision in Active Pass with a contracted-out captain

at the helm highlights Morfitt's concerns with on-time management performance

bonuses compromising operational safety. On-time payouts are a key goal in

performance measure for this government's quasi-privatized corporation.

My question is to the Premier. Since the Minister of

Transportation has washed his hands of the marine highway, what is the Premier

doing to ensure that B.C. Ferries on-time bonuses do not compromise safety and

put passengers and crew at risk?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the absence of the Transportation

Minister, I'll take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Member for North Coast, is it a new question?

G. Coons: I do have a new question, hon. Speaker. Morfitt's

safety audit had 41 recommendations that would reassure public confidence in our

ferry system. This government and this Premier have stated that B.C. Ferries has

committed to implementing every single one of the Morfitt recommendations. The

public needs more than a commitment from B.C. Ferries. They want a commitment

from this government, from this Premier and from the minister responsible.

I'm asking the Premier: what is the Premier doing to ensure that

every single one of the Morfitt recommendations is implemented?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, in the absence of the

Transportation Minister, I'll take the question on notice.

[ Page 11119 ]

FRANK PAUL PUBLIC INQUIRY

M. Farnworth: In 2001 the then Solicitor General, the

current Minister for Housing, wrote to the Police Complaint Commissioner and

informed him that he would not be calling a coroner's inquest into the death of

Frank Paul. He said: "I'm significantly concerned with the possibility of

opening a coroner's inquest during which culpability, liability and issues of

racial discrimination are likely to become central features of attempted

cross-examination."

My question is to the current Solicitor General. Can he explain

when it would ever be appropriate that a Solicitor General's political concerns

should outweigh full disclosure, especially in a case like the Frank Paul one?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There is a process in place right now

to examine that issue, and I can't comment any further than to let that process

work.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: In fact, I wasn't asking about the process. I

was asking about how it was handled.

Having said that, I have a second question, which I will ask the

Attorney General. In the last few weeks, as the public inquiry continues, both

former Coroner Larry Campbell and former Police Complaint Commissioner Don

Morrison have testified that there should have been an inquest. The former

Solicitor General, the current Minister for Housing, has yet to explain why he

rejected the call for an inquest.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will he recommend that his

cabinet colleague testify at the public inquiry?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, Frank Paul died in December 1998.

Suffice to say that there were sufficient issues that remain outstanding that we

asked for and commissioned a commission of inquiry. The government appointed the

hon. Mr. Justice Davies to conduct the commission of inquiry.

I think it would be totally inappropriate for me to direct the

commissioner, while the commission of inquiry is ongoing, to embark on a

particular course of conduct. In fact, it would be wrong for me to order what

the hon. member is asking me to do.

J. Kwan: When the government finally called the inquiry

into Frank Paul's death, they promised a full and open inquiry. But now this

government is going to court in an attempt to prevent Crown prosecutors from

testifying about the decision not to lay charges against the police. Justice

Davies has ruled that hearing from the Crown prosecutors is critical to actually

having a full and open inquiry.

To the Attorney General: will he live up to his government's

commitment to openness and allow the Crown prosecutors to testify in this

inquiry?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, I reiterate. We want all the answers.

We want to know what happened to Frank Paul in December 1998. That's why we

commissioned this inquiry. The issue raised by the member regarding the evidence

or the compellability of Crown counsel to testify at this inquiry is a legal

issue. Certain legal objections have been taken with respect to their

compellability and their ability to testify, and that matter is now being heard,

or will be heard, in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Justice Davies is clear in suggesting that what we

need to ensure a full and open inquiry into the death of Frank Paul is to ensure

that the Crown prosecutors testify. The government has made the commitment that

there would be a full and public inquiry into this matter so that we can learn

about that death and, more importantly, so that we can prevent it from ever

happening again.

Again to the Attorney General: will he make the commitment today

to ensure that openness is in fact followed and to ensure that the Crown

prosecutors do in fact testify in the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can assure the member…. I can assure the

House that we want an open inquiry. We want the answers. We want to know what

happened to Frank Paul on that evening. The fact is that there is a very

important legal issue, a very important constitutional issue, that needs to be

decided before the Supreme Court. That issue is a serious issue, and the issue

is being advanced by members of the criminal justice branch independently of me.

[1420]

L. Krog: My recollection is that the motto over the law

school at UBC is "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall." I'm wondering

if the Attorney General, in his interest in pursuing a fine legal point, is

prepared to acknowledge that…. If the prosecutors wish to give evidence

voluntarily, will he support them in that decision?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure that member well understands the

Crown Counsel Act, which was passed in 1991. That act grants independence to

members of the criminal justice branch. They are exercising their independence

independently of whatever I have to say. They have that right. The Crown Counsel

Act allows for and permits independence in the discretion of discharging their

duties, and that's what is taking place.

I think the wise course of action here is to wait for the results

of the hearing that will be held in the Supreme Court. We all anxiously wait for

the results of that hearing.

FUNDING FOR FORESTRY PROGRAMS

AT COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA

R. Fleming: Last month the Minister of Advanced Education

told B.C.'s college and university presidents

[ Page 11120 ]

that he wouldn't honour his ministry's three-year budget. Instead of the

scheduled increase, they were given two weeks' notice to go and cut $60 million.

Now the institutions are being forced, predictably, to look at layoffs, program

cuts and deficits.

So far the minister has dismissed every college and university

president's warning about program eliminations. Today in the media he downplayed

it by saying: "I think they will do just fine." The College of New Caledonia in

Prince George is now cancelling the forest technologist program and the

aboriginal access forestry programs.

To the minister: does he think eliminating forest technologist

programs at the College of New Caledonia is just fine to him?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that during the last seven

years, the budget for advanced education has gone up by 40 percent. He also

knows that we've spent $1.5 billion on infrastructure, added five new trade

schools and added two new university campuses. There's $68 million more going

into advanced education this year than last year, and we're asking them to

target it to areas that are of importance to British Columbians as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: What everyone in the forest sector knows is

that the future of the industry requires B.C. to work smarter to build new

market opportunities when the industry rebounds. But here we have the minister

responsible for training that future workforce cutting forest technologist

programs that build capacity to better manage our forests — including programs

for aboriginal people, I note.

This isn't just a temporary enrolment decision. College internal

documents show that this decision is forever. All faculty and staff of this

forestry program are receiving layoff notices, and unless the minister acts, it

will be wound down.

So will the minister step in with the very modest amount of

funding needed to ensure that training for professional foresters and

technicians isn't wiped out in the central and northern region of British

Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that colleges have the

ability to bring in courses as they see fit. He also knows that the budget for

colleges and universities has gone up by $68 million this year.

We continue to build post-secondary education in this province

with new trade schools in every part of the province, new funding for trades,

new funding for aboriginal seats and new funding for graduates. We're targeting

those funds to what British Columbia needs as a whole, while continuing to build

a great system in British Columbia.

[1425]

FUTURE OF ELK FALLS SAWMILL

C. Evans: I think in the last three years, 18 sawmills have

closed in B.C. In a month Elk Falls in Campbell River, with 275 workers, I

think, will become the 19th unless something happens to end their proposed

layoff date. The Minister of Forests has stated on several occasions that he

thinks the Elk Falls mill is inefficient and not economically viable.

My question is: are you still of the opinion that the Elk Falls

mill is not economically viable, or would you support capital investment and an

attempt to make that mill make money and keep those people on?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've actually met with the Steelworkers

who are trying to put together a business plan with regards to Elk Falls, and we

are supporting that effort on their part. We hope we'll be able to assist them

in seeing that that opportunity exists.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I don't think there are any

Steelworkers at Elk Falls. The minister has met with a group that isn't there.

Okay, assuming that that's simply a slip of the tongue and that

the minister meant to say the CEP, who I think is the union of record there, is

the minister then saying that the government — the Crown, the Ministry of

Forests — would like to come to the table and assist the consultant to CEP and

potential investors and rebuild and reopen Elk Falls and save Campbell River?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member: you're right. It was a slip

of the tongue. I met with the union from Elk Falls, which is the CEP. My

ministry, I believe, has advised them that we're actually going to assist them

with some financing dollars with regards to the business plan, and they are

working together at this point in time. I haven't seen the results of that, but

I do understand those conversations have taken place.

B. Simpson: The minister was very explicit when we had

early debates about Elk Falls — that Elk Falls was an antiquated mill and that

there was no way it could run. That really was TimberWest's argument about that

mill. What in reality was happening was that TimberWest was starving the mill of

the logs that it needed to run.

TimberWest still has public forest licences, yet they've told

their shareholders that they are log exporters and land developers. Will the

minister commit today to put those public forest licences back on the table so

that those 275 workers can get back to work with a guaranteed supply of wood to

that mill?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: We've canvassed the rules and statutory

responsibilities around transfers of licences in this House before, and we will

deal with this issue as it comes before us.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 11121 ]

B. Simpson: Those rules that the minister is talking about

as canvassing are the rules that this government put in place in 2003, which

gutted the Forest Act, which took the relationship away from communities, which

took the relationship away from mills, and which caused Elk Falls and many other

mills in this province to go down. That's what this minister is talking about

canvassing, and we have agreed to disagree on that.

I was just in Kamloops yesterday — same situation. Mill

permanently closed and the forest licences sold.

Again to the minister. The issue for those folks who are working

so hard to get Elk Falls up and running again — they have a business case; they

have the proof that the mill can run — is that they need a guaranteed fibre

supply. Will the minister commit today to make sure that mill gets the logs it

needs to put those 275 people back to work again?

[1430]

Hon. R. Coleman: We haven't seen the business case, hon.

Member. Maybe you've read something that I haven't, but when we see the business

case, we'll deal with the issue.

PENALTY PROVISIONS

FOR MINING INDUSTRY

N. Macdonald: I ask again about the recommendations from

the Sullivan mine inquest. Teck Cominco built a structure that four people died

in. Teck Cominco broke two regulations. One required workers to register when

they entered and left the property. As well, they broke the rule that required

people working alone to call in every two hours. Because of that, somebody died

and was left dead on Teck Cominco property for two days.

Now, the coroner's jury heard that and said that that cannot

happen again. They said there had to be regulations in place; there had to be

penalties as well. Recommendation 12 is clear. When will the minister put in

place meaningful penalty provisions for companies that break mining regulations?

Hon. K. Krueger: The chief inspector of mines attended the

site of this tragedy immediately after the event. The chief inspector of mines

said that, in his opinion, the infractions did not lead to the tragedy. No

penalties were assessed by the chief inspector of mines, and ministers do not

interfere with the recommendations and decisions of the statutory officer.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: There was an inquest, the coroner's inquest,

which lasted a week. The jury heard the information and made a decision, and

they were clear. Recommendation 12 is clear. Penalty provisions for companies

that break regulations must be increased in meaningful ways. That is the

conclusion of a jury that heard information for a week. You cannot pick and

choose who you're going to listen to. That is the recommendation that they put

in place.

I know that companies like Teck Cominco do not want that, and I

know that Teck Cominco is the major donor to the B.C. Liberals, but there is a

clear choice that this government needs to make. It could not be clearer. Does

the minister serve the corporate interests of the major donor to the B.C.

Liberals, or is he going to do the right thing?

The right thing is clear. Without this piece, the minister has

failed the families of the Sullivan mine accident. They have failed Kimberley,

and we will not accept that. We need the penalty provisions. When are they going

to come?

Hon. K. Krueger: Following two full investigations by the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that were managed and

coordinated by the chief inspector of mines, with absolutely no political

interference and following the coroner's inquest and its recommendations, the

chief inspector of mines, fulfilling his mandate, convened a code review

committee. The code review committee consisted of three representatives from

unions and three representatives from management, as it's properly constituted,

with the chief inspector of mines chairing.

The code review committee came back with recommendations, which

did not include any changes to penalties, and all of the recommendations of the

code review committee were enacted by an order-in-council which I gave to the

member the same day. It would be inappropriate for us to interfere and add

recommendations to the code review committee's recommendations.

SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF MINES

C. Puchmayr: The code review has nothing to do with the

matter that's before us right now. We're talking about a recommendation from a

coroner's jury, the last of the judicial inquiry into the deaths of those miners

and those paramedics. The code review has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

What has everything to do with it is the fact that there was not

one penalty, not one nickel of a fine levied against Teck Cominco, when four

people died on the site. When will the ministry look at taking away the

responsibility of mines inspections and putting it with WorkSafe B.C.?

[1435]

Hon. K. Krueger: This question has been raised repeatedly

by Mr. Jim Sinclair of the B.C. Federation of Labour and by some of the members

opposite. For over a hundred years the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum

Resources, by its various names, has been responsible for the health and safety

of miners and mines themselves.

The mining industry in British Columbia has one of the very best

safety records in the province of any heavy industry. That is because of a

collaboration that goes on every day between the workers, their unions,

[ Page 11122 ]

mine managers, the companies and the government. When an accident happens,

inspectors get there immediately. Inspectors do random checks on the mines

constantly. They act on any infractions they find. They have the power to shut

down the entire site, which is a tremendous penalty.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Almost all provinces in Canada have taken the

inspections of the mines over to WorkSafe or to their workers compensation

boards. After the Westray disaster the mines minister even went on record saying

that there is no way that a ministry that is promoting mining should also be

enforced with the safety of mining.

Again to the minister: will the minister encourage this government

to divest the inspections of mines and turn it over to WorkSafe B.C. so that it

has a clearer sense of independence?

Hon. K. Krueger: This is a government that believes….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: This is a government that believes in

measuring by result, and it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate that the

mining industry, its workers, the community and the environment, which are the

first consideration in every mining permit process, the very first thing that

government thinks about and the last thing…. A mining permit is only issued when

a mine application is spelled out from the very earliest stages right through

construction, operation and reclamation of the site, with the safety of workers,

communities and the environment first and foremost.

When you compare the results that the collaboration that I just

spoke of delivers day in and day out, every day of every year, no one can

demonstrate that people in communities and workers would be safer under the

alternate arrangement that is proposed.

[End of question period.]

B. Simpson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

B. Simpson: I have the pleasure of introducing my nemesis

in the House, or at least one of them. In the last election, the Green candidate

Doug Gook is here. Doug and I go way back and have fought a number of battles

over the years about what constitutes sustainability and sustainable

communities.

Doug, welcome. I ask the House to welcome Doug Gook to the

Legislature.

Petitions

J. Horgan: I'd like to table a petition signed by over 400

residents of Sooke, in my community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca, calling on the

government to reinstate protections for manufactured home park residents in the

Residential Tenancy Act.

Orders of the Day

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

reading debate on Bill 16, and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the

information of members, continued debate on the Ministry of Agriculture and

Lands.

[1440]

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON

FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT

(continued)

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak on second reading for Bill

16, the greenhouse gas reduction act, which is, of course, enabling legislation.

For those that are just joining into this debate, it provides the legal

framework which will allow a series of things to be put into place.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The focus of my comments will deal around, basically, the issue of

secrecy. That will be the focus of my comments. I'm also going to speak somewhat

about the larger issue, which is about the effectiveness of this sort of a

strategy in dealing with greenhouse gases.

Enabling legislation is, in my experience, not unusual. It is

something that is used, but there are elements of this that cause problems for

me. Essentially, these allow the vast majority of what is going to unfold to

unfold through regulation, which means that essentially you're going to have the

Premier and cabinet making a number of very, very important decisions that will

not be made with the scrutiny and the tools that we have available when they are

made here in the Legislature. There is an element of "trust me" with this

legislation that I simply am not comfortable with.

What we have seen with the greenhouse gas initiative to date is a

tremendous amount of secrecy, and what I would say is that there is an

unnecessary amount of secrecy in pushing this forward. I would even go as far as

to say that the secrecy is, in fact, destructive.

What is going to be needed if we are going to make meaningful

changes is that we are going to have to engage the population as a whole. They

are going to have to be making decisions that they fully understand and that

they decide is something that they want to support. Without that you really are

not going to have the success that you need. You are not going to get the

commitment and the buy-in from people if they do not

[ Page 11123 ]

fully understand what is going on, if they do not fully understand the

implications of some of the choices that the government is going to ask them to

make.

To date we have a secretariat that has a tremendous amount of

government and public resources put towards it, and that may be a reasonable

thing to do. Obviously, to work through what we are going to put forward, we

need to put resources towards plans that are going to be sensible.

But in my mind what is not sensible is the secrecy that surrounds

it. This group meets in secrecy, what they discuss is in secret, and most

troubling, who actually comes in and talks to this group is also secret. So you

take a process that the public is invited to participate in and that the public

is going to pay for, and you leave them out of the decision-making process. You

do not give them the information that the secretariat is considering as they

come up with these plans. We don't even know who is providing the information,

and that is the key.

[1445]

Now, with the B.C. energy plan, what I would assert — and this is

the wider B.C. energy plan that has been put forward over the past number of

years — is that you had all of the right language being used around

sustainability, around green power, all of that language being used, and yet the

reality of the B.C. energy plan as it emerges shows that the primary focus of

the government has been putting in place a framework that benefits certain

businesses, and that that is the primary beneficiary of the B.C. energy plan. It

is not the public, as you would expect, that is going to benefit from it.

With this enabling legislation, the difficulty with it is that it

sets up a framework for making decisions on biofuels. But a number of key

decisions that will be made by the Premier and by cabinet will be made in

secret. How they make those decisions, what sort of decisions they made, who

speaks to them, whose interests are the decisions being made in — all of that

will be beyond the public purview.

We will not know, really, an awful lot of what we need to know.

Even the Privacy Commissioner, the gentleman responsible for freedom of

information, Mr. Loukidelis, has very specifically written…. He doesn't write on

a tremendous number of bills the government puts forward, but on this one he

specifically writes that he has concerns.

Granted, it is around a specific provision,

section 22. My concern

is far broader than that. But even he is specifically concerned about

section 22

and asks that the government consider what it is doing there and think about

changing it and making it more open so that the public is actually able to see

what is going on with the legislation that will flow from this enabling act.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of public input that is going

to flow from this bill. What I would suggest is that it follows a pattern that

we've seen here in this Legislature — in fact, not only in the first term of

this government but in this second term.

We were here in the fall talking about TransLink. What we see now

is that you have TransLink meeting in secret and making decisions in secret —

all of this with huge implications for the public. But the public not being able

to fully understand what is going on, not able to fully judge whether the public

good is being served or some private good is…. That's never a good thing.

We have VANOC meeting in secret. We have the consistent

mishandling of freedom-of-information legislation — really, the abuse of that

tool for opposition. We have changes to the Public Inquiry Act, a consistent

pattern of moving things into secret.

What I would say is that when you do that, you are fundamentally

weakening the public's ability and the opposition's ability to question

government policy and to see if they are doing things for the good of the

province.

We have set up this system, and the system has emerged over

several hundred years for a very particular purpose. It is based on the premise

that with a system where assertions by government are challenged in a very

formalized way, you will find the truth on how money is spent, and you will get

to the truth about whether a policy is good and defendable or whether it's weak

and sloppy.

What we have seen is that when we weaken those tools, when we

weaken the tools of opposition, we have poor decisions being made. I'll choose

just one to talk about, and I'll talk about it just for a minute.

The Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project. It was shrouded

in secrecy, and what we saw is government trying to hide the facts about what

was going on consistently for a long period of time. It allowed a sloppiness of

decision-making that will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia hundreds of

millions of dollars. There is no question that there was a sloppiness and

mismanagement that is far more likely to happen in secret where the scrutiny of

the media, the scrutiny of the public and the scrutiny of the opposition are

absent.

[1450]

What all governments need to think about is that this institution

will continue long after they're gone, and they need, as one of their legacies,

to have strengthened it. So the difficulty then is that if you allow things to

move away from a public forum and allow decisions such as this legislation would

allow — key decisions — to be made in private, in the secrecy of cabinet,

without the scrutiny that this Legislature affords, there is the probability, I

would suggest, of legislation, of changes of direction that are not properly

scrutinized. That is a weakness with this legislation.

There is also the issue of the direction that this legislation

takes us on biofuels. What other members have spoken about — I think very

eloquently — is the concern around biofuels. I think that it is clear, from

experience in other jurisdictions, that the conclusions on biofuels…. The

effectiveness of this strategy in dealing with greenhouse gases is in no way

agreed to. In fact, there are many prominent people in the world, prominent

scientists working on greenhouse gases, that question the effectiveness of this

direction.

The implications for this initiative need to give us reason to

pause. We really need to think about whether

[ Page 11124 ]

we would go in this direction — which is why I thought it was such an

effective suggestion that was put forward by the critic for Energy where he

suggested that we pause and go and speak to people and fully understand what we

are entering into before we enter into it.

As I said, there are many jurisdictions that have experimented

with biofuels. They have found that the unintended consequences are

significantly problematic, and we need to think those through. With all of the

things that we do with greenhouse gases, we need to be very careful, first, that

we are doing them with sincerity, that we are not saying that we're doing one

thing and doing another.

What I would argue is that, with the B.C. energy plan, that's

exactly what's happening. The government is putting forward the idea that they

are dealing with environmental issues, when really they're putting in place a

structure that will benefit corporate friends.

We need to make sure that is not what we're going to be doing,

because if we're going to deal successfully with greenhouse gases, the first

steps this province takes cannot breed cynicism in the population. We have to

make sure that it is done sincerely, that it is done properly and that all of

the steps that we take are measured.

Not only do I have concerns about the fact that this enabling

legislation will put decision-making into a secret place — a place that I'm

uncomfortable to put it, because I do not have faith that the right decisions

will be made in that place….

Secondly, it needs to be based upon solid ideas that are actually

going to work to fix the problem that we want to see fixed. If we're going to be

moving with efforts that will come at a cost to the public, we need to make sure

that we are doing things that we know are going to be beneficial. If it is in a

direction where many, many other jurisdictions are saying, "We've tried it.

There are problems. You better sort this out before you go forward," then that

should give us pause to stop. That's the second reason why I really think that

the initiative needs to be reconsidered and that there are problems with Bill 16

in that way too.

[1455]

My main concern, though, is with the secrecy and with the

concentration of power, again, with the Premier and cabinet — the stripping away

of a very necessary and important public process where people are able to

actually look at the legislation, the rules, the regulations that are going to

be the meat of what we actually do with this issue. We have to get them into the

public purview, and they should be back in this Legislature and properly

debated.

In my mind, there's no reason why that should not happen. In fact,

I feel strongly that it's absolutely essential that it will. But this bill will,

in essence, remove that opportunity for the public to see. So it's secrecy that

I have my main problem with.

I know that other members will speak in greater depth on the

particular issue around biofuel, but with that, I'll take my seat.

Madam Speaker, as always, I thank you for the opportunity to speak

on the issue.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Cariboo North. [Applause.]

B. Simpson: Now, hold your applause. You should find out

what I'm going to say first.

Interjections.

B. Simpson: Hold it until the end.

I want to start with some context for this bill, because I think

that often as we get stuck here in Victoria in the legislative session, as we

get stuck in the legislative precincts, it doesn't give us an opportunity,

because of the hectic pace that we have, to stand back and reflect on what we're

really supposed to be doing here. Then I'll get into the substance of the bill.

I want to make it clear that I cannot support the bill as it

stands. I would love to support a bill that brings forward biofuels,

second-generation biofuels from sustainable sources, that drives the biofuels

industry in British Columbia. I would love to do that. That's not this bill.

We live on a planet that's been around for a little while — even

longer than some of the members on that side who've been serving here for a long

time and even longer than the Clerk of the House, Mr. MacMinn, who has been

involved in parliamentary democracy for a long time. But as human beings, we've

only been on it for a very short time, on a relative scale. I think it's time

that we admit in places like this that the human endeavour, human civilization,

is putting at risk the planet's ability to continue to sustain our way of life.

More and more evidence each and every day comes forward saying

that we are threatening our very existence on this planet, and we're certainly

undermining the ability and the possibilities of future generations. That is a

very serious charge to this Legislative Assembly and to all legislative

assemblies and democracies around the world to take that very, very seriously

whenever we're in public policy debate.

For a reference to that, there's a very interesting report that I

would suggest all members of this assembly should read. It's from the United

Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. It's entitled Living Beyond our

Means . In the

summary section, which is entitled "Running Down the Account,"

the sub-bullet, the bottom line…. I would like to read into the public record:

"At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning. Human

activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the

ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer

be taken for granted. The provision of food, fresh water, energy and materials

to a growing population has come at considerable cost to the complex systems of

plants, animals and biological processes that make the planet habitable.

"As human demands increase in coming decades, these

systems will face even greater pressures and the risk of further weakening the

natural infrastructure on which all societies depend. Protecting and improving

our future well-being requires wiser and less destructive use

[ Page 11125 ]

of natural assets. This in turn involves major changes in the way we

make and implement decisions."

A stark warning to us.

It goes on to say: "This assessment shows that healthy ecosystems

are central to the aspirations of humankind."

I've had the opportunity, over the last few months in particular,

to speak with young people all over this province, and one of the things I've

challenged them to do is come up with a different definition of "sustainability"

for us.

The idea of sustainability as a three-legged stool of equal

balance between ecology, economy and social systems has outlived its purpose.

It's outlived its usefulness. It was useful for us to start putting environment

on the table and to start balancing economic decisions with social and

environmental decisions. But that day is long gone.

[1500]

What we need is an understanding of sustainability that first and

foremost puts ecosystem integrity and resilience at its core. That has to be the

first criterion for any decisions we make about anything in this House. Will it

garner us a better opportunity to have a sustainable planet that can sustain

human life and a whole host of other life for many generations to come? As I

look at this bill, I look at it through that lens. I have to say — and I will

explain why — that no, this bill does not meet that test. We can debate all

aspects of climate change, and I'll speak about that. But I don't think this

bill is debatable.

The second filter is that if we are going to engage in truly

addressing climate change, we have to engage in it together. It is going to

cause us all to change the way we live. It is going to demand of all of us

personal sacrifice and changes in the way that our daily lives unfold, the way

we get to work, the kind of work we do, the kinds of schools we build, the kinds

of institutions, the economic structures that we have. In order to do that

change, we have to embrace the fundamental concept of democracy — the right to

know — and the second fundamental concept of democracy — the right to debate.

This bill, as this government has been warned by the Privacy

Commissioner, fails on the right to know. As we've seen with the climate change

secretariat, this government and this Premier fail on the right to public

debate. That we have a climate change secretariat that is beyond the pale of FOI

is, I think, a tragedy, and it undermines our democratic processes.

One could argue back that this is only enabling legislation.

What's the big deal? It's because we don't know what this government is going to

be enabled to do with this legislation. Enabling legislation simply means the

government is giving itself the right to determine through regulations, which

are done behind closed doors and see the light of day when they're finally

printed….

It's going to allow them to do all of the hard work of determining

targets, determining penalties, putting in place all the things that will

determine this biofuel strategy in offices, in the bureaucracy with cabinet and

with various politicians involved. That's wrong. We need to see the details. We

need to see in this bill some of the substance of this biofuel strategy.

We have an obligation to present and future generations. We have

the huge challenge of climate change. We have to build societies. We have to

build economic and social systems that are resilient with resilient ecosystems.

We can debate in this House carbon tax and how you do that. We can debate

cap-and-trade, which we will in Bill 18, and how you do that. We can debate how

you drive change. But quite frankly, there is no debate on this bill, because

this bill is behind its time. This is not an ahead-of-the-time bill. This is a

behind-the-times bill.

Right now there is a massive debate in the U.K. and in the EU.

What is the nature of the debate? Is it about: should we put targets on or not?

No. It's: how fast should we get away from the targets that were already put on?

How can we rescind those targets and get out of the biofuels business?

I'd like to read again into the record some substance to this.

This is the Environment Commissioner for the European Union in an interview with

the BBC. He says that the environmental and social problems caused by biofuels

are "bigger than we thought they were," and said that the EU has to "move very

carefully." His comments follow a media interview by the development

commissioner. It goes on. He agrees for the first time that there should be a

moratorium on new targets while they debate whether or not to rescind the

targets that they have.

We have Bob Watson. Now, who's Bob Watson? Apparently, Al Gore has

called him the hero of the planet. He is the chief scientific adviser to

Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and he was

previously the World Bank's chief scientist. What does he say? He says that

biofuel in reality is a policy that's led to an increase in greenhouse gases

rather than a decrease and that it is an insane policy.

[1505]

He goes on: "He urged the British government to hold off on

compulsory quotas on biofuel content in transportation fuels before the

environmental impact of such a move is better understood. His views are similar

to those of Sir David King, until recently the British government's chief

scientific adviser. He, too, said the biofuel quotas should be put on hold."

Madam Speaker, that's all we're saying. We're not saying no to

biofuels. We're not saying no to going down this path and looking for

alternative fuel sources. We're just saying the way the economy of biofuels is

structured just now, other jurisdictions have already been the pathfinders, and

they're now pulling back off that path. Why are we going to go on it?

If that's not enough, the U.S. targets are being challenged by the

Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota. They asked the research

question as to whether or not the land conversion that's needed for biofuels is

sustainable. "Is it worth it?" is the question, and the categoric answer…. But

they say it's a surprising answer, because the answer is no.

So other jurisdictions that have targets are pulling back, and

what are we doing? We're going down a

[ Page 11126 ]

path that others are retreating from. It doesn't make sense.

There's a book I'm reading just now called Peak Everything .

In Peak Everything the author says there's not a lot of wisdom in the

world anymore. He says there's lots of conventional wisdom — and conventional

wisdom is where everybody agrees that what we're doing today is okay — but

there's not a lot of true wisdom. What we need right now is true wisdom. True

wisdom would indicate that we back off.

There's a UN report that gives lots of policy advice. I suggest

the minister read it if he hasn't had his staff read it already. They said:

"Before we continue on this path of biofuels, here's what we need:

internationally agreed standards and other certification models for the

production, conversion, use and trade of bioenergy systems to protect both

society and the environment; that we need to develop sustainability criteria and

analytical tools for these biofuels." Don't have them. Shouldn't go there.

The U.K. House of Commons — again, full report, happy to give it

to the minister and his staff. The U.K. House of Commons was asked to look at

the European Union's targets and give the House of Commons advice. What was the

advice? They said that the EU was reckless in going into these fuels and that

the U.K. should not go down that path. Here's from their report: "Biofuels can

reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport, but most first generation

biofuels have a detrimental impact on the environment overall, and they're not

an effective use of bioenergy resources."

They say that they want a moratorium on current targets until

technology improves, robust mechanisms to prevent damaging land use are

developed and international sustainability standards are agreed.

Now, here's a kicker. "It will take considerable courage for the

government and the EU to admit that the current policy arrangements for biofuels

are inappropriate." Inappropriate, Madam Speaker. "The policy realignments that

are all required will be a test of the government's commitment to moving the

U.K. towards a sustainable low carbon economy."

For a Premier that wants, apparently, as his legacy to leave this

province in a better place, to put us on the path of sustainability, to address

climate change…. Surely we can learn the lesson of jurisdictions that have been

on the path before us — not take this reckless course of action, not do this and

have the courage to withdraw this bill, which is what we asked be done.

Then, of course, that left-wing think tank the Royal Society of

London, established in 1660 to promote excellence in science, have their own

report. Again, happy to share it with the minister if he hasn't read it. What

does it say? Don't do it. Don't do it. "Biofuels in their current form undermine

biodiversity, threaten food security, increase greenhouse gases in their full

life cycle. More importantly, they are exacerbating poverty around the world and

the disparity that exists between ourselves and developing countries."

[1510]

The toxicity of these production methodologies are such that we

may be sterilizing the Gulf of Mexico and wiping out its entire biological life.

We are mowing down the Amazon in order to stay in this game. It is wrong.

I'll give you again….

Interjection.

B. Simpson: I'm happy to share all of this with the

minister. I'll give him all of the documentation.

It's because — if the minister is not informed — the minute you're

not producing crops for food and you're producing crops for fuel, you pour on

the fertilizer like mad. You pour on the pesticides like mad. There are no

standards that apply to food crops for the use of fertilizers and pesticides.

It's an education in science. But where does all that stuff go? A

very tiny percentage of it goes into the crops. The rest of it goes into the

water table. Where most of this crop is being grown in Mexico and the United

States, it's flooding down into the Gulf of Mexico and toxic-loading that in

such a rapid way that yes, we are sterilizing it. Again, happy to give that

information to the minister.

The World Wildlife Federation came out with a report last week.

Again, I hope the minister has taken a look at this, because it says that what

we really need to do is move away from biofuels, because what biofuels do is

continue our dependency on the internal combustion engine. They continue our

dependency on other petrochemicals.

He says they're no different, really, than other fuels in our

dependence on the single-occupancy vehicles and, in the report, makes a very

good case for moving to electric vehicles and other forms of transport.

Why is that important? Because the report from the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development also looks at the economics of

biofuels. First and foremost, they say — and they agree with everybody else:

"Regulations mandating usage or blending percentages and fuel tax preferences to

stimulate production of biofuels are used by many countries. In most cases these

policy measures do not distinguish among biofuels according to their feedstocks

or production methods, despite wide differences in environmental costs and

benefits."

That's precisely the point. We don't distinguish. And because this

bill is enabling legislation, we have no guarantee, on behalf of the public of

British Columbia, that this government has in mind biofuels from sustainable

resources. Therefore, we can't support it.

Let's see how the government is going to support that. The OECD

goes on to say that it's of particular importance to government to recognize

that this is market interference. Now, for a government that was pooh-poohing

that in question period…. "Oh, we don't interfere in the marketplace." Well,

what are targets? It's market interference. What is a subsidy? Market

interference. What are tax incentives? Market interference.

I'm sure they must be swallowing hard that they're going down this

path and interfering with the marketplace, but the critical point here is that

this tool of

[ Page 11127 ]

market interference, which good governments do use to the benefit of society,

doesn't discriminate between tax incentives for sustainable biofuels and

non-sustainable sources. It doesn't distinguish between targets for sustainable

biofuels and unsustainable sources, and it doesn't distinguish between subsidies

for sustainable versus unsustainable sources.

In fact, this government references the federal government and its

targets and what it's doing. Right now the federal government subsidies apply to

ethanol from wheat — not from waste, not from waste wood, but from wheat. This

government has a plan in the Peace along those lines.

Are there sustainable sources? Yes. Does British Columbia have the

opportunity to grow those? Yes. Not through this bill. This bill doesn't do it.

This bill doesn't discriminate. So we're using market interference, and what

will happen….

There's a study again that the minister…. It may have come across

his desk because I think it's from his ministry — on the biodiesel possibilities

in British Columbia. It shows that if we took every piece of waste available —

agricultural waste, organic matter waste and other wastes — and turned it into

biodiesel, the most we would make, if we did all of that, was 3.5 percent of our

net demand in British Columbia — the most.

[1515]

Our target, apparently, in British Columbia is going to be 5

percent. So even in a best-case scenario for biodiesel, we're going to be

sourcing 1½ percent from other sources. Without international standards, without

sustainability criteria, we will not know where those sources are coming from,

and we will be contributing to the continued demise of the planet's ecosystems.

Not on. Not going to happen.

We have a special obligation to make sure our planet is resilient

and adaptable and capable of sustaining future generations of British

Columbians. We have a special obligation to make sure that British Columbians

are engaged in the debate around these issues and that it's fully disclosed —

what these additives are going to be, what they're sourced from and what the

impact on the environment is.

We have a special obligation because this is market interference.

The government is going to be a driver of the biofuels marketplace. We have a

special obligation to make sure that's from sustainable sources and meets

sustainable principles.

The NDP, through our party, has come up with a very substantive

set of principles for sustainability. They've called it Sustainable B.C. As we

get into the debate about other things here — cap-and-trade, carbon pricing and

all that stuff — we should actually have a set of criteria that we use to make a

determination as to whether we're in or out. I'd like to put this on the record,

because it's very good work done by very dedicated people over a long period of

time.

Here are the principles. First off, anything we do must protect

ecosystems. It must protect the life support systems of the planet. Does this do

that? The science indicates: not on your life. It is undermining the life

systems of the planet.

It should lead to resource conservation. Does it do that? No. In

fact, many biofuels use more resources in their full life cycle than simply

going and getting the fossil fuels out of the ground.

Does it protect biodiversity? The answer to this is a clear and

unequivocal no. In fact, it's one of the major threats of biofuels. As we mow

the Amazon down, as we convert peat, as we convert deserts, as we convert all

kinds of other special ecosystems over to fuel crops, we are undermining the

biodiversity of the planet.

Does it promote resilience? No, it does not.

Does it promote protection for the commons and for the general

public? The commons are our public resources like water, air, fish and wildlife,

heritage of parks and protected areas. No. It's polluting water, it's polluting

our air, and the production of these fuels is undermining the fish and wildlife

throughout the world.

Does it promote food security? Again, the clear answer to that is:

definitely not. Food security is now becoming a major issue. Talk to the

ranchers in the Cariboo. They'll tell you that one of the biggest insults to

their bottom line that they have had over the last two years is ethanol

subsidies, and they can't absorb it. We've seen wheat and rice prices go up.

We're seeing prices for basic foodstuffs go up. That's not food security. As we

convert more and more land base to fuel, that will be exacerbated.

Does it promote social equity? No. We are exacerbating poverty

through this. We are making more and more people live on the margins because

they can't afford basic food as a result of this biofuels policy around the

world.

Does it involve full-cost economics? No. You won't go into

biofuels if you do full-cycle pricing and costing. That's what the European

Union found out, that's what the United States is finding out, and that's what

the U.K. has found out. Full-cycle costing — you don't do it.

Precautionary principle. Now, the precautionary principle is a

good one for us to consider. What the precautionary principle says is that if

the science is unclear — not in this case, where it's clear — and the jury is

still out, err on the side of caution. Back off. Wait. See or engage in more

science and more research. It doesn't adhere to that.

[1520]

Does it adhere to adaptive management, where we're continually

learning from the best available practices and technologies? Again, definitely

not. There are people on this path who are backing off of it, and we're going on

it. The analogy is that everybody is running off of the path that we're just

stepping onto, and we think that somehow maybe there's a nice rainbow at the end

of that path. It isn't there.

Does it promote democracy and due process? As the Privacy

Commissioner has raised, due process under FOI — getting meaningful information

out to the public — is not protected in this. In fact, it's worsened in this

bill. The democratic process, as we've already pointed out and the member for

Columbia River–

[ Page 11128 ]

Revelstoke has already pointed out, is being undermined not only by this but

by the climate change secretariat.

Finally, does it contribute to a just transition to whatever a

sustainable world looks like? Does it bring everybody along equally? Does it

prevent picking winners and losers? The answer on this one is a categorical no

as well.

It's not as if this is debatable science anymore. It's not as if

this is now some sort of contest out there. It's simply that this government is

too late out of the gate on this bill, and we should learn from those who have

gone ahead of us.

I'd like to finish up with a couple of quotes from the

environmental community, because the environmental community in British Columbia

and in Canada is slowly waking up to the biofuels boondoggle. And again,

boondoggle in this case is not a word that I've used. It's a word used by one of

the other authors here. Some are calling it a juggernaut that's out of control.

On January 14, 2008, Friends of the Earth, in response to the

Royal Society's report, make the following comments. They first say: "The report

warns that biofuels risked failing to deliver significant reductions in

greenhouse gas emissions from transport and could even be more environmentally

damaging, unless the government puts the right policies in place."

Then they go on to say: "When the U.K.'s targets come into place,

the U.K.'s use of biofuels is likely to accelerate climate change" — for a

Premier who wants as a legacy addressing climate change, that should be a stark

warning — "and lead to social and environmental devastation around the world.

Consumers will have no way of distinguishing between good and bad biofuels, and

biofuel companies will not be held to account for the negative impacts of their

products. The government must put the obligation on hold" — that's all we're

asking for here; the same as they're asking for there —"until it can guarantee

that only biofuels that lead to significant greenhouse gas savings without

causing social and environmental destruction will count towards it." That was

January 2008.

Then on April 2, 2008, a group of environmentalist NGOs got

together. They wrote a letter to the EU, the ambassador of the European Union,

and they said: "Given the overwhelming scientific evidence emerging in recent

months, which highlight the risk posed by biofuels, it is inconceivable that the

decisions on sustainability should be rushed."

We're not saying no to biofuels. We're not saying no to finding

some kind of transition to help us get off our dependency on oil. But there are

better ways to use market interference on the part of the government — better

ways to use tax incentives, to use subsidies and to use targets — than biofuels.

We should learn the lesson the rest of the world is learning just

now and a lesson that was hard-learned, because the planet's ecosystems have

been undermined because of our headlong rush into biofuels in the first

generation.

So I ask the minister responsible, I ask the Premier, to withdraw

this bill, to go back to the drawing board, to come back with something that

give us the guarantees that biofuels will be from sustainable sources.

I also ask them to use the targets and incentives and the market

interference that they want to engage in this for better urban transport and for

better alternatives to the internal combustion engine. That's a better use of

the government's limited resources until this biofuels issue gets straightened

out and until we grow the second-generation biofuels industry that can be

sustainable and can help us through the transition.

[1525]

B. Ralston: I rise to join the debate on Bill 16. Bill 16,

as my colleague from Cariboo North has pointed out, is enabling legislation, so

it's difficult to make a lot of judgments about the bill because most of what

one would expect in the bill — the guts of the bill — will be promulgated by

regulation. The cabinet, in the privacy and secrecy of the cabinet room, will

develop regulations which will then be announced publicly. So it's not the same

kind of public legislative process that this particular process is, and it poses

some obvious concerns.

I do have some comments on the bill. I want to begin with the

rather extraordinary development of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

addressing a letter to the minister and asking him to withdraw certain changes

that are proposed in the bill.

Ordinarily, the Information and Privacy Commissioner does not

undertake such steps, so one can well imagine that he feels strongly and, in the

exercise of his independent jurisdiction, feels obliged to bring these matters

publicly to the attention of the minister and to the opposition in order that

his opinions be added to the debate of this bill.

It is important to recognize just what he is saying here. He is

concerned that the definition

section in

section 22 would be at odds with policy

choices reflected in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

and, in particular,

section 21.

He says — and I'm quoting from his letter dated April 4 to the

hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — that in relation to

these two classes of information it specifies,

section 22 would "deem

information to have been 'supplied', even where the information has been

generated by government officials through inspection, thus effectively

eliminating the requirement, in the circumstances of a given case, to prove

supply of information under s. 21(1)(b)."

He also goes on to express further concern about

section 22. "It

would deem information to have been supplied 'in confidence,' thus effectively

eliminating the requirement, in the circumstances of a given case, to prove

confidentiality under s. 21(1)(b)."

Thirdly, "section 22(1)(

a) would protect 'information with respect

to a trade secret,' not simply a 'trade secret,' thus broadening the scope that

may be available under s. 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act."

I can say, having been legally trained, that the phrase

"information with respect to a trade secret" is very standard lawyer's

circumlocution — the kind of

[ Page 11129 ]

thing that, in what is called plain drafting, is to be avoided — and really

is, I think, Delphic in its ambiguity. It's perfectly unclear as to what it

might mean. Quite properly, the Information and Privacy Commissioner raises a

concern about that choice of phrase.

He says — this is returning to the comments of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner, a statutory officer, independently appointed by both sides

of the Legislature and who serves for a fixed term unencumbered by any concerns

about his tenure or his independence: "I am concerned about the significant

encroachment that

section 22 represents on the overriding FOIPPA" — Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act — "policy of accountability through

access to information, a particularly important consideration in relation to

climate change measures and their enforcement, and urge you to withdraw these

changes."

The "you" that's being addressed here is the minister responsible

— the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, whom the letter is

addressed to.

[1530]

There has been some subsequent public comment by the Campaign for

Open Government — Gwen Barlee, who's the policy director of the Western Canada

Wilderness Committee. She's also a member of the Campaign for Open Government.

She pointed out that these bills — she's also referring to Bill 18, which we'll

discuss later — combined with the B.C. government's creation of a climate action

committee last year that is outside the reach of B.C.'s Freedom of Information

Act, is starting to show a pattern of secrecy when it comes to government plans

and actions around climate change.

Then I'm quoting her. "Global warming is currently the most

talked-about topic, but the B.C. government is treating it as a top secret,"

concluded Barlee. She goes on to refer to the clauses that are the subject of a

letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. She is quoted as saying:

"You could drive a truck through that definition." This is the director of the

Campaign for Open Government: "It's very sweeping and very ambiguous."

In another article, what Mr. Evans says is: "It's vital that our

democratic values not be abandoned by the creation of a rapidly growing,

quasi-governmental grey zone where government and the private sector mix.

Transparency and accountability should prevail wherever public work is done and

taxpayers' funds are spent." That's from a column by Stephen Hume, who supports

that point of view.

Very significantly in this piece of legislation, there's public

intervention by the Information Commissioner offering his strong recommendation,

his urging of the minister that that aspect of the legislation be withdrawn.

On occasion bills that come forward have a few blemishes or are

less than perfect. It's a process, one would hope, where the comments of the

public and the opposition are taken into account by the government. I'm hopeful

that the minister, the Premier and the cabinet will listen to the public concern

that's being raised about this bill, particularly these aspects of this bill,

from a broad range of the community and will reconsider that particular section.

So I ask the minister to consider that.

In addition to that, there are other concerns that this bill

raises on a broader policy basis, which have been addressed by many of my

colleagues in speeches here today and previously.

I think that what has happened here as the issue has advanced….

One understands completely the desire of the government to seek legislative ways

and means to combat climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's

probably an understandable direction to take, I suppose, because this direction

has been taken in many other jurisdictions before. But what is becoming

increasingly apparent around the world is that biofuels — while they were

previously thought of as a potential solution, a good solution to some of those

concerns — are no longer viewed in the same light and indeed are viewed as

taking the world in the opposite direction.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In these kind of debates, one often hears — I imagine it's sincere

in most cases — a concern for the planet, an exhortation to adopt a broader

perspective, to think globally, to think about the impact of all these changes

not only on ourselves and our own jurisdiction here in British Columbia but on

Canada and on the globe as a whole. The biofuels debate is truly a global

debate, and it is one that is rapidly evolving over the last several years.

I'm going to quote briefly from an

article in The Guardian

think it's called The Manchester Guardian anymore — by John Vidal, who's

the environment editor. He says in his article:

"Two years ago, the United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization expected biofuels to help eradicate hunger and poverty for up to

two billion people. Yesterday" — and this

article is dated last Saturday, April

5, so just a couple of days ago — "the United Nations secretary general Ban

Ki-moon raised real doubt over that policy amid signs that the world was facing

its worst food crisis in a generation.

[1535]

"Since the FAO's report in April 2006, tens of thousands of

farmers have switched from food to fuel production to reduce U.S. dependence on

foreign oil. Spurred by generous subsidies and an EU commitment" — that's the

European Union — "to increase the use of biofuels to counter climate change, at

least eight million hectares — 20 million acres — of maize, wheat, soy and other

crops that once provided animal feed and food have been taken out of production

in the U.S. In addition, large areas of Brazil, Argentina, Canada and eastern

Europe are diverting sugar cane, palm oil and soybean crops to biofuels. The

result, exacerbated by energy price rises, speculation and shortages because of

severe weather, has been big increases of all global food commodity prices."

"Lester Brown, the director of the Earth Policy

Institute in Washington" — very reputable and well known globally as an

environmentalist — "said yesterday that land turned to biofuels in the U.S.

alone in the last two

[ Page 11130 ]

years would have fed nearly 250 million people with average grain

needs. 'This year, 18 percent of all U.S. grain production will go to biofuels.

In the last two years, the U.S. has diverted 60 million tons of food to fuel on

the heels of seven years of consumption of world grains exceeding supply. This

has put a great strain on the world's grain supplies.'"

What thoughtful and leading thinkers about these issues

have concluded is that while, understandably, people may have thought initially

that biofuels offered an avenue for one solution to some of the real concerns

raised about climate change, they ought to be reconsidered, should be

reconsidered. One would expect — hope, in the case of this piece of legislation

— that it will be reconsidered.

Bringing the debate a little bit closer to British Columbia with

some British Columbia sources, B.C. Stats, which is a provincial government

agency, issued a newsletter in January 2008 entitled It Ain't Easy Being

Green: Why Biofuels May Not Be the Answer .

Basically, this was very helpful — well written, short and to the point. It

says that there are two basic concerns about biofuels, where the promise that

biofuels offered doesn't appear to have been borne out by subsequent analysis.

One is that there's a doubt about the validity of the claims that

ethanol and other biofuels conserve energy. There's also evidence to suggest

they may actually create more greenhouse gas emissions than they remove. So

rather than heading in the direction we all wish to head in, they will take us

in the opposite direction.

I would agree with the member for Cariboo North about some of the

options that biofuels do present. They do mention some in this particular piece,

including perennial grasses, lignocellulosic…. That's wood, plants and oil

palms.

What's happening in terms of the economics of biofuels…. The cost

of producing biofuels from these materials is currently much higher than the

cost of using corn or rapeseed, and it is not economical to mass-produce

biofuels using these other materials. This leaves corn as the primary input for

biofuel production in North America. Based on the evidence, many critics believe

that corn-based ethanol is not an optimum substitute for fossil fuels and may

cause even more environmental damage than those other fuels, at least when corn

is grown using current farming methods.

It may generate biofuels. Particularly, ethanol may generate more

emissions rather than less. They take vast amounts of land out of production for

food, having the effect on the world's global food economy of increasing prices.

It is truly an international conflagration that is spoken of here.

In this

article in The Guardian , Robert Zoellick,

who is the president of the World Bank, said this week, April 5, that prices of

all staple food have risen 80 percent in three years and that 33 countries faced

unrest because of food price rises.

[1540]

He urged rich countries to give the UN's world food program $500

million for emergency aid. In Bangladesh, for example, where families spend up

to 70 percent of income on food, more than 50,000 households are getting

emergency food after rice price rises. The government source said that one

reason is the overall drop in food production because of biofuels has prevented

food from being exported.

There have been protests, and there's a long list: Guinea, Egypt,

Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Haiti,

Bolivia and Indonesia. In the last two months Vietnam, Cambodia, Egypt, India,

the Philippines and Thailand have stopped crop exports or raised prices to more

than $1,200 a tonne to discourage exports. So the impact of the production of

corn and other crops for biofuel is at least contributing — not the total cost —

to rising food prices around the world and civil unrest.

Again, to return to British Columbia and this piece of

legislation, it would seem prudent — given the international concern by the Food

and Agriculture Organization, by the UN Secretary-General, by the president of

the World Bank, by officials in the European Union, by Members of Parliament in

Britain — that this legislation be reconsidered at least to specify more clearly

not in regulation but in the legislation just what kinds of biofuels might be

considered and for the government to demonstrate some sensitivity to these

issues.

Frankly, I don't get a sense at this point that the minister is

prepared to accept the representations of the opposition, to accept the science

that's offered, to accept the opinion from various international sources that's

offered, and to deter from the course that he has been placed upon no doubt by

his cabinet colleagues and by direction of the Premier.

This bill does leave much to be desired. Again, it's a bit like

going to a boxing match with a skeleton on the other side, because there's

really no flesh and meat on this particular skeleton. The substance of the

legislation will be brought forward in regulation, and it's very difficult to

know just what that might be. Obviously, the members of the opposition will be

following this bill closely as it proceeds through the stages of debate in this

Legislature, particularly at committee stage.

I think it's significant that these concerns are raised at this

stage and that there is an opportunity for the government to make a graceful and

considered sidestep here so that we can move forward together and use the

potential of biofuels, which is perhaps not as vast as initially thought. There

is potential there to use it as one means to begin to combat climate change.

I support that, but this legislation doesn't head in that

direction. With that, I'll conclude my remarks, Madam Speaker.

M. Karagianis: I would say it's clear from the debate that

has taken place here in the last couple of days that there's lots of information

and lots of controversy on this topic and that the variety of opinions to either

endorse or refute biofuel ranges from mild to extreme.

I've been very clear in my remarks speaking to the motion to refer

this to committee, which failed yesterday, what my feelings are about the

controversy that's

[ Page 11131 ]

waging out there around biofuel. Certainly, it's no secret to the House or to

members in the House that I am a proponent of alternative fuel use and have

taken those very significant steps within my own life and made it a point to

educate myself and to in fact promote where I can the use of alternative fuels.

I think the issue around the controversy, which has been taking

momentum and seems to be growing at a faster and faster rate as time goes by….

In the past few months there's been sort of an escalation of the controversy

around this topic. It's kind of epitomized in something that landed on my desk

48 hours ago.

[1545]

This is from canada.com and was sent to me by someone who knows my

interest in this topic.

"General Motors has just formed a partnership with a

biofuels company whose patented bacteria are able to turn most forms of garbage

into ethanol at a cost of about a dollar a gallon, less than half the current

cost. The process turns 97 percent of dirty waste into fuel, leaving a 3 percent

ash residue. 'Clean feedstock such as wood chips and grasses are completely

consumed,' says the GM spokesperson. GM wants the company to be producing 100

million gallons of ethanol per year by 2011 on a test basis."

But then they go on to say, which I think is another part

of this very compelling debate…. The GM chief said that GM themselves "remain

committed to developing the electric car and eventually a fuel cell electric

vehicle. Fuel cells, however, won't be commercially available for another decade

or two, and building the infrastructure to fuel them could take decades longer."

So I think it is a compelling argument that we will need to find

some kinds of alternatives as we try and change our culture away from fossil

fuel dependency to a future that is some kind of fuel cell, some kind of solar

electric. There will be a long gap between now and then, if GM themselves admit

that they are not going to be able to commercially produce anything in the way

of a fuel-celled electric car for a decade or two. So we're talking perhaps 20

years in the future. We're talking about an infrastructure that goes even

further than that.

Then we have, conceivably, 20 to 30 years where we are going to

have to provide some kind of bridge, some kind of alternative for people. I am a

huge proponent of that being alternative biofuel. But I recognize that the

discussion here has two very real components that in many ways compete with each

other. One is the biodiesel industry; the other is the ethanol industry. In

fact, those two industries are driven by very different forces and in some ways

have very opposing goals at the end of it.

The ethanol industry itself has been primarily driven by the oil

and gas industry, and now we see that General Motors has become a partner in

this and is looking at partnering with a company that's developing a very

leading-edge concept of bacteria that would eat through garbage and form

ethanol. The way that industry is driving the debate on ethanol has become

enormously controversial, much more controversial in many ways than the

biodiesel debate that is going on, partially because of the world view on what

is happening.

I know the previous member, the member for Surrey-Whalley, talked

about the World Bank's position, talked about some of the discussions that are

going on around the world. Those are very real and significant debates that are

going on, and I think it's imperative and important that we here in British

Columbia really heed those as we move forward and determine what our future is

going to be.

Conversely, the biodiesel industry itself, which is primarily

working initially on waste product, on finding ways to use products that are

left over from other uses…. Soy is grown for protein. The waste product of that

is used for biodiesel. They are looking at meat-packing plant waste as being a

good and very stable biocompound for biodiesel. In my meetings with the

biodiesel industry, which have gone on for the past couple of years, I hear

coming from them a real concern about sustainability, about ensuring that what

they're doing is sustainable not only from a moral point of view but from a

commercial point of view.

Frankly, there is a growing concern among consumers around what

they purchase and what the source is of the things they purchase and use.

Certainly, I think that those individuals out there in society — who are

embracing immediate change and trying to find ways within their own lives to

reduce their footprint, find alternatives, kind of look to new ideas that are

coming along and engage in them — are very concerned about this whole issue of

sustainability.

[1550]

I think it should be, and I hope it will be, one of the lenses

that this government applies to this bill. I'll be interested, really, in

hearing what the response is from the minister, having heard from this side of

the House our concerns and knowing that we are not opposed to the concept of

alternative fuels. But we do expect that whatever is done in the future is

enormously responsible and that in putting together and putting in place

legislation, we can actually ensure that what we do here is very responsible and

shows tremendous leadership out there for the world.

I think other provinces will be looking to us and to our

legislation and saying that we are taking steps here. Are we ensuring that we

are responding responsibly to the debate that is going on worldwide and the

debate that is going on here in this country, and that in fact we are listening

to the consumer and to our constituents out there who are asking us to take

those responsible steps?

Having very clearly outlined over the past number of years my

support for moving into alternative fuels that are based on sustainable and

responsible governance and policies, I say it's unfortunate that that is not

laid out here for us so that we find a way to support legislation that would

start to lead us in that direction.

There is a complete lack of any guarantee or assurance that the

things that concern us most about this new, growing alternative biofuel industry

have been in fact key components in drafting this legislation. That

[ Page 11132 ]

language around sustainability hasn't become a significant part of the

legislative bill before us. Perhaps it may. We can hope that through the course

of our debate, we may have a way of influencing some language changes in this —

some amendments that would give us assurance that sustainability and responsible

policies will be key components of this.

The second portion of the bill that is of concern is the carbon

intensity component, which is a key evaluation that the government is going to

use. Again, many of the details of this will only become clear when the policy

is drafted. I'd like to hear from the government some assurance that as part of

the debate on the sustainability and efficacy of biofuels as a long-term product

that will grow in the marketplace, we are actually considering the carbon

intensity as a part of our gauge on what it is we use.

If we are going to legislate an initial 5 percent ethanol, 5

percent biodiesel component in fuel, then I think that in the carbon intensity,

it cannot only be about the fossil fuel component of that. Up to this point,

that's how we judged things. As the ministry staff has sort of clearly stated —

and I think it's a catchy term — they judge carbon intensity well-to-wheel. I

think that's a great way for us to determine the carbon intensity and, in fact,

the full range of what implications there are in our fuel consumption.

I would hope that the minister will reassure us that a part of

that as well on the biocontent of both of these choices and anything in the

future that may come up also include the source to the wheel so that we look

very clearly at what we are expecting as components to a biofuel and what those

implications are.

Many of the speakers who have gone before us here, many of the

members on this side of the House, have talked about that. When they talk about

corn, when they talk about food security, when they talk about the implications

of these new fuels on agriculture and on the amount of resources it takes to

deliver these, that's what they're talking about. They are talking about carbon

intensity as including the bioproduct, the biofuel additives, in the case of

both biodiesel and ethanol, and so I think it's imperative. I don't see that. I

haven't seen or heard that. I didn't hear even from the ministry staff that that

is a part of the component in judging what the carbon intensity is.

[1555]

If we're going to judge that, then I think it's got to be really

clearly laid out. In that portion of the bill we could incorporate the kind of

sustainability that would in fact satisfy the market, the environmental

community — all the people out there across the province who are very concerned

about making sure that the next alternative we move to is not worse than the one

we're coming from. The carbon intensity part of this is where we could clearly,

again, outline the sustainability and that we will include that as a huge

component of our consideration on what we expect producers or suppliers to bring

into the province.

The third concern around the administrative aspect of this is

around the concerns that have now been voiced by the freedom-of-information

office itself and the officer. I know that other members have spoken very

eloquently to this, including the member for Surrey-Whalley, who outlined very

clearly the responsibility we have to make sure that before we even establish a

legislative bill….

We've had warnings from the freedom-of-information office on some

components of that, and I'll be looking forward to hearing from the minister

responsible what amendments will be brought forward to ensure that there is

transparency in this process.

I don't think anybody on this side of the House anticipates or

would support the concept of us undermining industrial privacy around formulas

and all of the industrial secrets that manufacturers and producers like to…. You

know, the secret recipe or whatever it is. We're not asking to in any way

interfere with that. Nor are we expecting that the freedom of information will

jeopardize that component of it.

Because this is such a significant step that government is taking,

I think it's really important — and I think it's an imperative — that any of

these concerns around freedom of information that have been voiced be resolved

before this bill is considered any further. If the public has a feeling that

somehow…. Not only are we embarking on something that's very controversial in

the world-view around the long-term sustainability of any kind of alternative

fuels and not only are we unclear on whether or not we as a province are going

to incorporate sustainability as part of the carbon intensity considerations

here — the source of the bioproduct — but now we actually in some ways have

veiled this in secrecy so that the public begins to wonder.

What is the secret? Why would we need to have anything secret,

other than industrial recipes for their product or perhaps in the case of the

bacteria that's used to turn garbage into ethanol? I'm sure that company itself

will want to protect and patent what the bacteria are and how that system works.

It's their right to do that, and we're not asking that to be compromised in any

way.

The fact that we are going, in some ways, to conduct business out

of the public eye at the very end of the day will have an enormous bearing on

the next steps, the bridging and alternative fuel use. From now until the time

we produce the fuel cell or solar-operated electric car that has zero footprint

on the Earth, I think we can't operate in secret.

In fact, I would expect that the minister would want to give every

appearance of transparency and openness here. If the government is serious about

wanting support for this bill from the public if not from opposition, then I

think it is incumbent on them to assure us and the public that there will be no

secrecy — that there's nothing here that's being veiled. Other than protecting

industrial recipes, there is no reason or rationale whatsoever to conduct any of

our business out of the Freedom of Information Act and out of the public eye.

I would hope that the minister is going to, in his closing remarks

— and I hope he is going to close off debate on this at some point — explain to

us how he

[ Page 11133 ]

can reassure us on all of the concerns that we and the public have — that he

makes sure he doesn't embroil us in a further controversial debate with the

world at large around our actions somehow jeopardizing food security anywhere

else in the world and that in fact we seriously consider carbon intensity as

taking in all aspects of alternative fuels.

The minister will know — it's no surprise to him — that I've

talked before about availability and production as well, and how this

legislation fits into that component. Where is the framework here for us to

access product? Where is the production on this? What are the plans around the

production of this?

[1600]

If, as GM has told us, the fuel cell electric car is in the works

but is not going to be readily available for ten, 20 or 30 years and the

infrastructure won't be there to support it for 30 years…. Well, that gives us a

long time to flounder around hoping that we will have those alternatives at some

point in our life. Frankly, in 30 years I'll be a very, very old woman driving

an electric car.

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: I will.

Hand in hand with this, we need to hear the government say to us

that if we're going to put these kinds of fuel requirements into place, they're

in fact available in the marketplace. So far we're not terribly successful at

that.

Having driven a biodiesel car for a few years now, I can tell you

that it's not easy to find. I can't find B100 like I would like to run in my

automobile. I can find it only if I go off the grid completely and go to those

independent little co-ops that are mining cooking oil from Wendy's and rendering

it down in their back yard. Frankly, as entertaining and interesting as the

concept is, I'm not sure that the warranty on my car would actually permit me to

use backyard hooch to run my car.

Until we have the kind of production system in place that allows

the consumer to do this, we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. I

don't see the companion piece to this, which is