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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 31, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Neufeld

G. Robertson

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

G. Robertson

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

(continued)

Hon. R. Neufeld

/small>

G. Robertson

J. Horgan

M. Karagianis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

D. Routley

Hon. S. Bond

J. Kwan

[ Page 11493 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND

LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility

Agreement Implementation Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 32 be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 32, which is

the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act. The

TILMA agreement — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — was

signed by British Columbia and Alberta on April 28, 2006. The TILMA seeks to

reduce and eliminate barriers to the free movement of workers, goods and

services and investments between British Columbia and Alberta in the furtherance

of open, efficient and stable markets.

Bill 32 introduces provisions that do the following three things,

all of which are necessary to ensure that the province meets its obligations

under the TILMA as of April 1, 2009:

(1) It ensures the province has the statutory authority to

exercise its rights and fulfil its obligations under the TILMA agreement.

(2) It provides the right of appeal and judicial review of panel

decisions to ensure monetary awards are enforceable, all of which will

effectively implement the TILMA's dispute resolution procedures.

(3) This bill amends a total of 16 acts. Two acts are being

amended to allow the TILMA dispute resolution to be put in place. The other 14

acts are being amended to address discriminatory or other provisions that create

obstacles to trade, investment and labour mobility, as identified by the

applicable ministries. These 14 acts have specifically been identified as not

being in compliance with TILMA.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement

Implementation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Richmond: In this chamber I call committee stage of

Bill 16, intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel

Requirements) Act, in the hands of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. In

Section A, Committee of Supply, the estimates debate continues for

the Ministry of Education.

Committee of the Whole House

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON

FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

section 1.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and participate in committee

stage of Bill 16, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel

Requirements) Act, or the low carbon fuel standard act, as many have come to

know it.

We had an extensive debate at second reading on this legislation.

Our primary concern when we moved a referral motion was to ensure that we looked

at this bill with a view to food security, sustainability of products and

privacy concerns. As we get to the introductory provisions of the act and the

definitions, I have a number of questions. My colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin

will have a number of questions as we proceed through the bill.

At the outset the minister will have listened, I'm sure, intently

to the debate at second reading. His staff will have had an opportunity to

review some of the information that we on this side of the House made available

to the Legislature and the broader public here in British Columbia with respect

to the potential adverse consequences of advancing to set provisions for

alternative fuels as set out in this legislation.

In terms of ensuring that the public has a clear understanding of

the minister and the government's intent with this legislation, I'd like to

start by just simply asking if he could assist my colleagues and me and the

public with the definition of "carbon intensity" as outlined in

section 1.

Hon. R. Neufeld: First, I should introduce the two

gentlemen that are with me. On my right is Paul Wieringa, executive director of

alternative energy, electricity and alternative energy division. To my left is

Michael Rensing, air quality program analyst, bioenergy renewables branch,

electricity and alternative energy division.

[1010]

The description of carbon intensity, as I'm informed, is a

measurement of grams per unit of energy. It also will measure the full life

cycle of carbon. That means

[ Page 11494 ]

from where it was produced to where it's actually consumed, so it's that full

life cycle.

J. Horgan: One of the issues, again, at second reading was

a concern that in the case of food for fuel and the overwhelming, increasing

amount of literature on the subject, scientific debate…. As recently as just

this morning in Vancouver at a meeting of COFI, Don Roberts of CIBC World

Markets has been speaking about biofuels and, particularly, the conversion

inefficiency. I know that many of us in British Columbia want to take advantage

of the disastrous implications of the pine beetle, for example, and the

production of ethanol from wood.

Cellulosic ethanol is one of the areas where we wish to make some

progress. Someone as thoughtful and engaged in these discussions as Don Roberts

from CIBC World Markets is concerned that the inefficiency of trying to generate

a biofuel from wood waste, when you're looking at carbon intensity, really draws

into question whether or not we should be proceeding on a large scale in this

direction.

I think the argument goes that on local production for local

consumption, it may make some sense, but if you're trucking or transporting

large amounts of wood waste to a main distribution centre and then establishing

infrastructure to get that product to market, the carbon intensity ratio really

makes this an undesirable option.

I'm wondering if the minister, particularly because…. As a member

from the Interior and the north, he understands and sees almost weekly, as he's

travelling back and forth to his constituency, the devastation of the pine

beetle. We have this optimism and hope that we can somehow turn this disaster

into a positive, and biofuels and bioenergy are two of the components that the

minister is working on with his colleague the Minister of Forests.

But again, an increasing body of evidence is telling us that the

carbon intensity of this sort of initiative is really not going to work in our

favour. Could he comment on that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Certainly — and I'm not making light of

this — there is lots of discussion in regards to carbon intensity, in regards to

using food for fuel and those kinds of things. There's a lot of work being done

in British Columbia and around the world. I mean, it's not just here. It's

across Canada, across North America, in the U. S. and in Europe where they're

working on these types of issues.

We know that in British Columbia there's somebody already working

on actually getting biofuel out of trees — cellulosic, which the member talked

about. That is certainly ongoing. Part of what this act will do will drive that

a little bit more, because we have to meet that. The staff tell me that although

there are different opinions…. You can hear different opinions on almost

anything you do today, and I'm not saying one is right and one is absolutely

wrong.

[1015]

I think what we need to do is work with those experts, those

scientists that actually work on this on a daily basis, and listen to them.

That's exactly what we want to do. What we've been informed to date — the

ministry and the ministry people that work on this — is that there is less

carbon intensity in using the biofuels as a mixture with petroleum products,

including all the trucking and including all of those kinds of things that would

have to take place.

On top of that, I think we should think a little bit about the

huge, vast amount of pine that's been destroyed by the pine beetle. That is a

disaster on its own. We can't just ignore it and say that we're never going to

use it. So even if you use some of that for electrical generation — and I'll

expand the discussion a little bit — that may cost us a little bit more, but we

have to take into account what it would cost just to leave it. What are those

costs?

Those are not easy decisions to make. I shouldn't say "decisions,"

but easy information to get. But we have to look at all of those things in the

best interests of trying to reduce the carbon that we release in the atmosphere.

I know that the member must believe in it to a degree, because he

uses it in his heating fuel. If he didn't believe in it to a degree, I'm sure

that he would say: "You know what? It's ridiculous that I should use food

sources for heating my home." So really, although there's a need here to

actually bring out some of these discussions, I think the member agrees with us

that we need to figure out ways that we can lower our carbon footprint in

British Columbia and the rest of the world.

There's a huge amount of discussion around climate change, and

there are forces on each side, but I think the public generally believes that we

need to do something and that we should be doing something now. That doesn't

mean just jumping into anything, but actually looking at these things.

It's not as though we're actually doing something that's not being

done in the rest of the world. There are jurisdictions that have much higher

than 5 percent content — than us. The federal government…. It's going to be

mandated at an average across Canada by 2010 of ethanol, 5 percent. That's no

different than what we're saying in British Columbia. We're saying an average 5

percent. It's the same with diesel fuel. They're saying 2 percent by 2012; we're

just saying 5 percent by 2010.

I hope that the member finds it maybe easier to understand that we

should be looking at these things and we should be using some science, which we

are, and we should be using our universities to help us with determining whether

this makes good sense or not.

I know, also, from the discussion…. The member asked if I listened

to second reading debate, and I did listen to most of it. I can assure the

member that I did. One of his colleagues on the NDP side said that she would

like to burn bio-100 — straight biofuel. So I believe that that member really

feels strongly — in fact, a lot stronger than maybe a lot of other people.

I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying that that's the direction

that that member feels we should be moving

[ Page 11495 ]

in how we reduce our carbon footprint. I think we should recognize that, and

I do. I recognize it as positive.

What we're trying to do is actually just have a 5 percent mix and

work that out the best way we possibly can.

J. Horgan: The minister is correct. I do use bioheat in my

home. My spouse and I made that decision based on information available to us at

the time. I know I certainly don't have to speak for my colleague from

Esquimalt-Metchosin. She is very well versed in this. She and her bio-Beetle are

renowned in and around Esquimalt-Metchosin, and she will be discussing that at a

later

section in the debate.

[1020]

When I made the decision and when many people in British Columbia

and around the world made decisions to try and use this technology to bridge to

a reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels, we did so assuming that we had

the best available information. But as time has gone by, even since we had our

second reading debate last week….

I note in the media that no one less important than Gordon Brown

said the following. It's quoted in the National Post of April 11: "We

need urgently to examine the impact on food prices of different kinds and

production methods of biofuels and ensure that their use is responsible and

sustainable."

The President of Tanzania, speaking to the African Union, said

just again this week, April 10: "These days the farms have been put to biofuel

production, creating a shortage of food and, therefore, creating a problem of

high prices."

There are numerous other quotations. The United Nations issued a

release on April 9: "Warning that soaring food prices could lead to increased

poverty and unrest, several senior United Nations officials have called for

urgent measures to tackle the global crisis, which threatens to hit the world's

poor the hardest." This is a result of the transition from food to fuel.

I know that the minister and his government brought forward this

bill with the best of intentions. I, too, in my personal decisions and my

personal choices, with the best of intentions, am trying to reduce my carbon

footprint. But when evidence starts to mount that we're on the wrong track,

that's the time our constituents anticipate that we will do the right thing —

pause, reflect, look at the scientific data — and rather than drive forward with

recklessness, that we'll pause and reflect and make decisions that are in the

best interests of our community and the best interests of our planet.

When we talk about the pine beetle, again, I do defer to the

minister on this because of his constituency and the fact that he flies over it

or drives through it with greater frequency than I do. We shouldn't mix — and I

know that this will probably be the last comment on this — the bioenergy and the

biofuel debate. We will have another opportunity to do that.

The notion of using beetle kill for electricity generation is one

thing, and the prospect of perhaps creating a market for pellets. We already

know that we do very, very well in Prince George producing pellets for export,

and if we could use those pellets domestically or increase the production of

those pellets domestically, that would be a good thing for the central interior,

and it would be a good thing for the province.

As you do with sawmills, you could have moving sawmills to produce

this product, potentially. I don't see that likely to happen with respect to

biofuels, I think — a central location for production and then a distribution

network to be established. Carbon intensity, again, which is the portion of the

bill that I'm speaking to now, seems to be a bit skewed when we're looking at

cellulosic ethanol. The notion that we use food waste or wood waste to produce

biofuels makes sense to me, and it still makes sense to me.

But as I say, an increasing body of scientific evidence, world

leaders making comments, the OECD…. The minister knows. He heard the debate at

second reading.

I'm wondering that with this increasing amount of information, and

these are not…. Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail — the headline of

his

article on April 11 says: "Blame Ethanol Subsidies for These Nasty Global

Food Fights."

These are challenges that I think we have a responsibility to be

aware of, at a minimum, and once we become aware of this information, that there

are vast tracts of forest being removed in Brazil to produce food for fuel, we

need to pause and say: "Is our policy direction contributing to the problem or

alleviating the problem?"

I don't see, again, with the definition for carbon intensity as it

has been described by the minister and was explained to me by his capable staff

in a briefing, how we manage to do that in British Columbia with domestic

supply, much less if we're relying on bioproducts from other jurisdictions to

meet these targets.

When contemplating this legislation and this direction, did the

minister and his government envision the establishment of a domestic supply

chain for this, or are we going to be relying on food from other jurisdictions

to produce this biofuel?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Look, I appreciate the member's argument.

I appreciate that regardless of what issue we talk around or we discuss or have

discussed in this Legislature about climate change, about reducing greenhouse

gases, there has been total opposition from the opposition. I mean, it's always:

"Let's wait for another ten or 20 years to figure something else out." That's

how nothing happens. That's how we don't deal with things. If we don't upfront

start dealing with things, we're not going to actually deal with them.

[1025]

It may be the opposition's position to…. "Let's read the

newspaper, and let's make decisions on that." Look, it's a little different when

you're in government, and we need to actually reduce our carbon footprint.

That's the difference between us and the NDP.

This government believes in climate change. It set a target for

reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 33

[ Page 11496 ]

percent. I think it's incumbent on us to do that. It amazes me that an NDP

opposition…. When I actually was in opposition, when they were here, they talked

so glowingly about looking after the climate, and today it's: "We don't want to

do any of it. We don't want to do cap-and-trade. We don't want to have a carbon

tax. We don't want to have greenhouse gas reductions. We don't want to have

renewable fuel — none of it."

So there is a difference of opinion, and I talked about that

earlier in my remarks. You folks have one opinion, and your opinion…. I get it

loud and clear, and I think the public is getting it loud and clear. You don't

have a policy on it, you're not really sure about it, and you don't want to do

it. That's okay. That's okay. We're elected to actually make some of these

decisions and move those things ahead, and we will continue to do that in the

best interests of British Columbians.

Maybe I should read into the record a couple of other things about

food for fuel. I know you play on that all the time, but there are other ways

that you can actually make biofuels, that you can make ethanol, than using food

products. There are lots of other ways. They're being developed as we speak. I

said earlier that in British Columbia there are companies that are doing that.

We should actually encourage that. We should actually figure out how we can

encourage that.

There's nothing wrong with doing those kinds of things in British

Columbia. I don't think there is. It means jobs and investment. It means people

actually will have less of a carbon footprint. If we can do those things,

shouldn't we challenge ourselves to do them? Or should we just stand in the

House and say: "Well, we read Jeffrey Simpson today, and I'm not sure."

So there is a difference of opinion, Member, a huge difference of

opinion. We think we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We believe we have

to. We believe that it's incumbent on us for generations to come that we start

looking after where we live today. If that means that the rest of the world is

not always with us, that's okay. But if we can do it in British Columbia, we

should be looking at doing it, and we should actually be proud of that fact.

The member talked about food for fuels. In 2007 food prices

increased about 4 percent overall. In 2007, the same year, the U.S. produced a

record amount of ethanol from corn. The U.S. increased its surplus of corn to

more than 1.4 billion bushels. In a record ethanol year the U.S. actually fed

more of the world by increasing its exports of corn by 6 percent — increasing,

not decreasing.

I know that you're pulling on the heartstrings of people and that

you're trying to spread a little bit of that fear out there. We're not out there

to take food off the tables of homes. We're actually trying to figure out how we

can leave this place, when we do leave, in as good a shape or better than we

came to it. If that means we have to look at different ways of doing it, we

shouldn't be shy about doing those kinds of things.

It's actually going to happen with ethanol across Canada, whether

you like it or not. So shouldn't we kind of start to prepare for that? Shouldn't

we start thinking about that in the province of British Columbia? Or should we

wait till that day? I guess that's what the NDP would do — wait till the day

that the federal government says you have to meet those standards and say: "Oh

my goodness. We never thought about it. We're not going to do it."

This is all about moving forward with some rational…. The bill

doesn't say you have to use food totally. You can use all types of sources to

make biofuels or ethanol.

I go back to the member. It's interesting. He says that there was

no information about these kinds of things that we're talking about right now —

about food for fuel and those kinds of things — when he made the decision to

actually use biofuel in heat at his home.

[1030]

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, it was. This has been a discussion

going around for a while. It didn't just happen last Friday. There's been a

discussion about this for quite a while. So I go back to the fact that the

member must think it means something, or he wouldn't be going out to buy

biofuels. Other members in that caucus must think it means something, or they

wouldn't be wishing to burn 100 percent biofuel instead of diesel fuel.

You know, I can't quite understand that rationale. We can discuss

this for a long time if the member wishes, or we can get on with doing the right

thing and start looking at how we can decrease our carbon footprint in the

province of British Columbia through a way that is actually less than most other

jurisdictions — a 5 percent mix is less than many jurisdictions.

I think the U.S. is going to a higher mix, as I understand. Europe

is doing the same thing, as we speak. So it's not as though we're way out there

on a limb. We're actually trying to get prepared to meet the targets that we

have to meet along with what the federal government is putting in.

Our reason for putting this in is that we want to reduce the

carbon footprint in the province of British Columbia, and we want to do it

through a number of mechanisms. We can disagree on those mechanisms if we want,

and I apparently see that today. We're for reducing the carbon footprint; you're

for increasing it. I guess it's just that simple.

The Chair: Members, I've listened to both members, and the

debate is interesting, but it does sound like we are redoing second reading

debate. We are in committee on

section 1.

J. Horgan: I was speaking to the definition of carbon

intensity, which is basically the foundation of the legislation. We're

discussing whether we should do our level best to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. At second reading we had a litany of evidence that we presented to

government as to why we should remove this bill from debate and go to a larger

committee and

[ Page 11497 ]

listen to all British Columbians and review the scientific data on the

question.

I appreciate that the Chair…. I'll try very hard to stick with

carbon intensity and the definition so that I can better understand how the

minister came to the conclusion that proceeding at this time is in the interest

of all British Columbians.

I heard clearly what the minister said, but consistency is the

hobgoblin of little minds, I think. I'm quite prepared to admit that I was

precipitous in my jump to bioheat. I've discussed this with the producer in my

community, the company that gives me my heating oil, and I'm going to do what I

can to do more research on a personal level. But that's what I'm supposed to do.

I have a different responsibility as I stand here as the critic to

the minister and also as a member of the Legislature for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

The people of my constituency expect me to ensure that what happens in this

place is in their best interest, and as the minister said, we all want to leave

this place a little bit better when we're done.

That's why I'm curious as to why the minister would want to ignore

the increasing amount of evidence that the carbon intensity, which we're

discussing here in

section 1, is not necessarily achieved in the title of the

bill and in the intent of the bill.

The Vancouver Sun on April 16 — again, this is since we

concluded second reading debate — says quite clearly that as part of the trend

that has seen record prices for rice, wheat, soybeans and other products,

"largely as a result of an American policy to support biofuels, particularly

corn-based ethanol…." So that's The Vancouver Sun . They say that the

greenhouse gas is little better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas

emissions, and the wholesale razing of forests and grasslands to raise ethanol

food stocks make matters worse.

So when we're trying to determine what the impact, with respect to

greenhouse gases, is on the production, distribution and use of biofuels, I

don't see how evidence that we've put forward, and that the scientific community

is producing on a daily basis, allows us to proceed with this. If our objective

is to reduce greenhouse gases, and we're creating more by using the fuel, how

does that work? I don't get it.

[1035]

Just one more quote, and I'll leave the floor to another colleague

to raise more questions. Again, a Globe and Mail editorial of the 15th

titled "Ethanol and Hot Air." It goes as follows: "It will be no more comfort to

the world's most vulnerable, as they struggle to find affordable food, that

their plight has finally tarnished the allure of ethanol…. Once depicted as a

non-polluting alternative to the world's dependence on fossil fuels, ethanol has

turned out to be full of hot air. That should prompt governments, including

Canada's, to curb their requirements for higher ethanol usage."

So, hon. Chair, as a member of this place, if I'm reading the

daily media, I'm reviewing science on this question, and it's increasingly

telling me that we're on the wrong track, don't you think it's my responsibility

to put to the minister that quite possibly our target, as defined in carbon

intensity, is not going to be met? That seems to me to be the responsible thing

to do, and I'm wondering if the minister has not had access to this information

and that's why he continues to drive down this course.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I'm pleased to introduce three wonderful

individuals that we have today in the gallery from the city of Surrey, which is

the second-largest city in the province. Of course, I'm one of those MLAs who

have been elected from the city of Surrey, including Madam Chair coming from

that city.

We have visiting us today Bukhtavar Singh Sandhu, who is a

community activist very active in many, many community issues and a good friend

of mine. With him is his brother who is visiting us from India, Mr. Sandhu. He

has been a chairperson of many different departments with the current government

of Akalis, the government we have in Punjab at this point in time, headed by

Parkash Singh Badal.

With them, I'm also pleased to introduce Bob Hans, who was a

candidate against me in Surrey–Panorama Ridge from the Liberal side.

So I will ask the members to make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the member wanting to

reinforce the fact that they don't believe that we should have a lower carbon

intensity in the province of British Columbia — that they don't agree that we

should reduce our carbon footprint in British Columbia. I appreciate that he

continues to reinforce that with the public — any public that's out there

actually listening. I'm not sure whether many of them at this hour of the day

are out there listening or not, but you never know. There could be some, and

there are some in the gallery today.

As I said earlier, it makes it very clear. I mean, the government

believes we have to reduce our carbon intensity — that we need to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. The opposition, for whatever reason — I don't know —

says: "No, we shouldn't. We should continue down the same path."

In fact, one of the other members in second reading debate

actually confirmed…. The one that's so totally opposed to oil and gas in the

province of British Columbia said that we should continue to use fossil fuels.

We shouldn't use any biofuels at all. So there are some rather big

contradictions in that opposition.

But I gather that the critic — I think it's the critic that would

be relating the position of the NDP, if they have one on this; it's a little bit

different depending on who you talk to — doesn't want to reduce carbon

intensity.

[ Page 11498 ]

Let me read into the record a couple of other things. The member

talked about rice. Interesting. Actually, the cost of rice is up 77 percent. But

rice is not used in the production of biofuels. It's not, in the world. It

doesn't have anything to do with the price of rice.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, the high cost of petroleum

products…. To be able to go out there if, in fact, they're using that kind of

product to grow or to fallow their fields or whatever they do to grow rice —

that would probably contribute. But to say the reason the cost of rice is up is

because of biofuels is completely incorrect.

[1040]

Let me read into the record, Madam Chair. This comes from the

president of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, the president of the

United States Renewable Fuels Association, the secretary general of the European

Bioethanol Fuel Association and the president of the Brazilian Sugarcane

Industry Association. Just one quick little thing. It says: "Worldwide hunger

does not result from insufficient food production but rather from low income and

unemployment, which limit the access to food."

You can argue all you want. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look

at all of those kinds of things. We should trust the experts — the people in our

universities, which we fund — to give us that information so that we can

actually make good, rational decisions about carbon intensity.

I've told you that we have an opinion about carbon intensity that

we've been given. It may be different than the one the member opposite has been

given. Yes, it is his responsibility to stand up here and talk about these

issues, but let's talk about them in a rational way.

We should not be different on trying to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. But I find it amazing that the NDP don't think we should and that we

shouldn't look at carbon intensity as a way of doing that. That's actually how

you reduce your carbon footprint.

I'm a guy that's out there with oil and gas, where I come from,

but if there are ways that we can do it — this isn't the end-all, be-all — I

think it's incumbent on us to look at those ways so that we do have less of an

impact on the environment.

I think all of us really believe that. We might have different

ways of getting to that process, but looking at carbon intensity is a pretty

straightforward way of dealing with less carbon into the atmosphere. We're not

taking rice away from people to make biofuels.

G. Robertson: Well, as someone who's spent many years

working in the food business and as a farmer, I'd just like to clarify with the

minister that, yes, it is true at this point that rice is not a biofuel crop,

but the shortages in the food system that are being created by biofuels are due

to crop displacement.

It's a very simple principle where farmers start growing fuel and

convert rice paddies into other crops for biofuels — such as corn, in this case;

such as palm oil in the tropics. It's very, very simple. This is what's

happening, in fact, across North America as corn crops are grown for fuel rather

than soybeans or other grain or oilseed crops. It's a very simple formula that

displaces the food in the system as acreage is converted for fuel.

If the minister hasn't done his research on this, which would be

shocking, and is simply trying to defend a case on the spot in desperation as

the world around us turns its opinion against biofuels and the production of

biofuels from primary sources, unsustainable sources…. We really need to figure

out what work has been done.

Maybe we're not cutting the minister and his government enough

slack here. We can only hope that they've done the research to ensure that

carbon intensity created by 5 percent requirement of biofuels in B.C. will be

lower than the fossil fuels that are currently burned to produce that energy.

In terms of what's been done in research for this bill to be

produced, what percentage of the biofuel requirement being put in place here is

anticipated to come from domestic production?

[1045]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, here we are. Now we're talking to

the member of the NDP, the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who stood up in second

reading debate and said we shouldn't use any biofuels. You know, the member said

we should actually continue using fossil fuels. I remember listening, and it was

with amazement that I heard it from that member.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

G. Robertson: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I reserve my right

to make a point of privilege.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's amazing to listen to the member for

Vancouver-Fairview, who by the way, wants to be — as I understand — the mayor of

Vancouver. Yeah, it is kind of funny. You know, here's someone who thinks he

wants to be the mayor of Vancouver, who wants to run as the mayor of Vancouver.

Let me read into the record the number of communities that have

actually looked at carbon intensity as something that we should be doing. Lo and

behold, Vancouver was the leader — Vancouver.

There's a whole page of communities across the province of British

Columbia that are registered with B.C. biofuels and using biofuels in all the

equipment they have on their streets. Now we have a person who lives in

Vancouver, who says: "No, they shouldn't be doing that." It's interesting to

hear the discussion from the member that we shouldn't be using biofuels, that we

shouldn't reduce our carbon footprint.

Let me also say that — and I'm not a farmer; I was born and raised

on a farm, but I left the farm at a fairly

[ Page 11499 ]

young age — the notes I get from those who know about issues about rice say

clearly that you don't grow corn in rice paddies. The member just finished

saying that they're converting rice paddies to corn. That is in the record. That

just came two minutes ago. I'm saying that doesn't happen.

I know the member talks incessantly about we shouldn't produce oil

and gas in the province. He has no answers and no alternatives other than to

stand and say we shouldn't actually be reducing our carbon intensity in British

Columbia. That's what this bill is about. I can read into the record all the

communities that actually use biofuels in their fleets. It's extensive. Most of

the communities have caught on. Most of them understand.

It would be helpful if the opposition would maybe listen to some

of those communities and say: "My goodness, what are you doing that for? You're

destroying the planet." That's what you're trying to tell me today.

We say we want to reduce greenhouse gases in the province of

British Columbia. This is not the end-all and be-all, but this is one part of

how we get there — one part of how we actually leave a better place for those

young people up there watching us right now than what we inherited.

We can discuss different ways of doing it, but different ways of

doing it are different ways of doing it — not just the opposition saying we

shouldn't do it at all. It's okay for me as a person to do it, but the public

shouldn't have to do it.

What I'm saying clearly is that we ought to get on with it.

Instead of standing in this House arguing about whether we should reduce our

carbon footprint and help with climate change for those coming a long time in

the future, we should actually get together on those kinds of things and think

about how we can do them instead of just saying no.

G. Robertson: I agree with the minister that we must reduce

our carbon footprint. Every single member on this side of the House agrees that

we must reduce our carbon footprint and that greenhouse gas emissions need to go

down very significantly in this province. We'll support all the initiatives that

will do that, which will ensure that we hit those targets and beyond. We want

more aggressive approaches to reducing our carbon footprint.

[1050]

Here's a very simple question for the minister related to Bill 16

and carbon intensity. Can the minister tell us in this House today: how much

will this bill and its ensuing 5 percent requirement for biofuels in the

province of B.C. reduce our carbon footprint and our greenhouse gas emissions by

2020? He must have done the work to substantiate that. How much will it directly

reduce our carbon footprint?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Biofuel alone will reduce by 2½ percent

the 33 percent target that we want to meet. The low carbon fuel standard still

remains to be worked on to figure out exactly how we're going to do that, but we

want to be 10 percent less by 2020. That's in the bill.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just clarify that last part

about the 10 percent?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. It's not in the bill. I said

it, actually, in first and second reading in regards to the bill. We want to

target 10 percent by 2020.

G. Robertson: Ten percent of B.C.'s greenhouse gas

emissions? Can the minister explain what he's saying there in terms of 10

percent?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said, I've said it in the first and

second reading debates. It's 10 percent by 2020 — the low carbon fuel standard

that we want to actually achieve. It's not 10 percent of the 33 percent.

G. Robertson: One would assume — based on this 2½ percent

greenhouse gas emission reduction resulting from the biofuel standard here —

that the work would have gone into precise carbon intensity reductions resulting

from these biofuels. Therefore, the constituents in the biofuel supply chain

must have had some analysis as well.

What percentage of the supply envisioned by 2020 is from

cellulosic ethanol?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member knows from discussions earlier

that there is a lot of study going on. There's study going on in our

universities in the province in regards to cellulosic ethanol.

[1055]

We don't have a number right now for that. What we have set is

targets — 5 percent of biofuel and diesel fuel and 5 percent of ethanol into

gasoline. What we want to do is reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the

province of British Columbia by 33 percent. That will come through other ways

also — tailpipe emissions, cap-and-trade, offsets and all of those kinds of

things. There is a whole host of things that will get us to the 33 percent

reduction of greenhouse gases.

G. Robertson: It's reasonable to not have specific targets

in carbon intensity from cellulosic ethanol production, as it's in its infancy.

At the same time, if a 2½ percent greenhouse gas emission reduction target is

envisioned resulting from this bill, there must be substance and research to

support that target.

What specifically was done in terms of research and biofuel

sources to substantiate the 2.5 percent reduction? Were actual biofuel sources

and their carbon intensity specifically analyzed over this period in terms of

their net reduction to greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The staff tell me that they presently use,

amongst numerous different ways of attaining the information and the results,

GHGenius. It's a program that's used extensively across Canada and the United

States to make decisions and work on these issues.

As I understand, the Canadian government is using it now to

actually meet their targets that they've put in

[ Page 11500 ]

place by 2010 and 2012. That's just one of probably many. If the member wants

to know all of the studies that have been done, we can provide tons of

information, probably, to the member on work that's been done in Canada, the

U.S. and Europe, but I'm sure he's well aware of all of these kinds of things.

G. Robertson: I'm actually more interested in a very

specific analysis that should have been done to move aggressively forward on a 5

percent biofuel requirement, as envisioned in this bill.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

What percentage of the biofuel source is domestic, from production

in B.C.? Obviously, transportation is a huge factor in the carbon intensity of

fuels. A great deal less carbon intensity results from fuels produced here in

B.C. My question is whether the government has done analysis and set specific

targets for the amount of this biofuel that is produced here in B.C.

[1100]

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have not set an internal British

Columbia target which must be developed within British Columbia. I think the

member probably knows full well that of the biofuel that is being used by, I

don't know, 25 or 30 municipalities now across the province of British Columbia,

most of it is generated, I think, south of the border, and they mix it in

different ways, similar to the way Columbia Fuels does it.

We would hope that this would actually create a biofuel industry

in the province. I know we've said that over three years we would look at

incentives to farm-owned organizations in British Columbia to produce some of

the biofuels that we would need right away. There are plants that are being

built across western Canada. Husky, for instance, has, I believe, a 10 percent

mix of ethanol in all their gasoline and has been bringing that from

Saskatchewan, most of it, some from Alberta, for a decade or probably better.

G. Robertson: I continue to be very concerned that the

detailed work hasn't been done to ensure that the carbon intensity of biofuels

mandated by this legislation is, in fact, lower than what's currently in use.

This is obviously the great emerging concern around the world

about the potential pitfalls of using biofuels. It doesn't sound like there's

been specific work other than plugging numbers into software packages and coming

out with general targets like 2.5 percent by 2020. If there isn't detailed work,

if there isn't clear analysis of what is produced here in B.C., about what is

potentially produced from cellulosic ethanol versus agricultural crop, one

wonders how there can be specific targets and therefore specific requirements

set into law in B.C.

The minister has said continually this morning: "We need to get on

with doing the right thing so that we can reduce our carbon footprint." Yet if

our carbon footprint is not precisely measured…. In this case, he has done

nothing to specifically demonstrate that that work has been done. That leads the

opposition to conclude that the 5 percent requirement is a shot in the dark and,

quite possibly, a shot that was taken before the emerging body of science that

demonstrates the perils of biofuels was known.

At this point, there is still the opportunity for this minister

and his government to reassess what's being put in place here. I think the

opposition will put forward amendments to try and bring some sanity into this

piece of legislation before it's too late and before a requirement is put in

place that has not been fully considered and researched.

I'll just ask one more question specific to the food supply

implications of this bill — again, with the hopes that the work has been done to

look at the potential impact of biofuel crops on the food system. What

percentage of the biofuel supply that is anticipated with this legislation will

result from food crop sources on agricultural land?

[1105]

Hon. R. Neufeld: It always interests me, I guess, when this

member stands and starts talking about the people who work in the ministry that

actually get this information for us aren't doing a good enough job of doing it.

I tend to think a little bit differently. I tend to actually admire the work

that's gone on in my ministry on many of these issues relating to how we're

going to deal with reducing our carbon footprint here in the province of British

Columbia.

The member knows full well that there are other jurisdictions

around the world. To say that we haven't thought it through and that we're just

doing something that's absolutely terrible — that it's going to ruin the world

and that it's the end of British Columbia as we know it today — is ignoring

what's happening in the rest of the world. We're not higher than the rest of the

world. The rest of the world is actually higher than us in many cases. The rest

of the world is actually ahead of us in many cases, not in all countries but in

some countries, in reducing their carbon footprint. They're actually ahead of

us. We're behind. We should be thinking about catching up.

I understand that the member would rather stand still, would

rather just look out the window and say: "No, we shouldn't do anything." I can

understand that. I've heard from him constantly through these debates that he

doesn't believe we should actually be looking at reducing our carbon footprint,

that he doesn't believe we should be reducing greenhouse gases by 33 percent.

And we're not fixated on the….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: You had your chance to ask the question. I

remained quiet while you actually asked. I mean, if we want to get into the

heckle part of the world, we can. I'm actually not bad at heckling. If we want

to do that, we can get there relatively quick.

British Columbia is looking at other ways. There are new

generations of biofuels that are coming on, and

[ Page 11501 ]

we should give credit to our universities instead of putting them down,

instead of saying that we can't do it, instead of saying: "No, you can't look at

other ways of actually creating biofuels from trees or from algae — from all

kinds of things, not just food products." Right now, it's canola. It's non–food

grade wheat that's used in the production of ethanol. That's probably the most

of it.

I'm going to maybe take a little step into the farming world. The

member talked about being a farmer. You know what? I live in a part of the

province that has the largest amount of hectares under cultivation in the

province of British Columbia. For once, just once, those farmers actually have

an opportunity to more than just break even, to live a life like the member

across the way has probably lived — maybe not quite as well, but at least bring

their standard of living up a little bit better.

I've watched as some of those family farms have disappeared, not

because of ethanol or biofuel but because they couldn't make a living on the

land. I watched those families leave. The average farmer in British Columbia, I

think across western Canada, is in their 60s. The young people don't even want

to take it on, because they can't make a living at it.

What would be wrong with having a farm community actually make a

living in northeastern British Columbia or in the Cariboo? What would be wrong

with that? I know….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: You shouldn't talk about the ALR. Yeah.

You should remember Six Mile Ranch. That's what you should remember about the

ALR.

So what's wrong with actual farmers in the northeastern part of

British Columbia having an opportunity to make a living, provide a living for

their families, to actually have a decent living? I don't think there's anything

wrong with it. I know the member doesn't care about it, because he's from

Vancouver. He talks about caring about it, but I don't think he cares about it,

or he would think about it a little bit more.

[1110]

So yes, the ministry and the institutions in British Columbia do a

lot of work on this. You can be opposed to it. If you want to maintain the

carbon footprint we have today and continue to use 100 percent fossil fuels,

that's entirely up to you. We actually want to reduce it in a way so that we can

do it meaningfully. That's where we're moving to.

You can be on the other side of the fence. You can vote against

it. You can vote to keep the carbon intensity up. We actually want to keep the

carbon intensity down and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

J. Horgan: I'll just make a few comments as we wrap up

section 1 here. Certainly, the minister just said that we're behind and playing

catch-up. I would suggest that had he not thrown the climate action plan of 2000

in the waste bin when he became minister, then we might not be in that position

today.

There certainly were plans in place, following the Kyoto protocols

in 1997, here in the province of British Columbia that were ignored and

dismissed by his government. If we are playing catch-up, I think that there are

plenty of places to place blame, and I wouldn't necessarily be focusing it on

this side of the House.

I also want to correct the record. The member suggested that I had

alluded to rice as a biofuel, and that was just one of many food products in a

list in a quotation. He knows that, but I want the record to show that I didn't

suggest that. It was just a list of food products that were in a quote from a

newspaper.

Lastly, again, before we move to the next section, my colleague

from Surrey-Whalley, a well-read and learned member, corrected me on a quotation

that I gave to the House from Ralph Waldo Emerson that goes as follows: "A

foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen

and philosophers and divines." So I just want to make sure that those that are

watching at home are clear on what Mr. Emerson said. He said that in the 1800s.

It's as correct today as it was then.

With that, I'll take my seat.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

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

section on requirements for renewable fuel content, in

part 2 of the bill.

Specifically, I want to refer the minister to correspondence he received from

W.E. Stoner of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, a letter dated March

4. The minister will be aware of this. There have been a number of news stories

on this. CKNW radio broke the story a couple of days ago.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute wrote to the minister

with respect to this bill and said that they, too, had concerns about consumers

in our province becoming guinea pigs or test subjects for this when distribution

networks, the efficacy of the fuel blends, and a whole host of other issues had

not yet been canvassed.

But what struck me in the correspondence, which makes four

significant points about the potential impact of this legislation in the time

frame of 2010 on the distribution network, is that…. The minister will know that

I have significant concerns about the cost of fuel. I fuelled up this morning on

the way in — $1.25 a litre. Certainly those people who live in my constituency —

and certainly in northern constituencies, like the minister's — don't have

access to alternative means of transportation. I'm concerned when I see someone

from big oil say that this bill could "create supply risks."

When I hear the oil and gas sector say that supply risks may be on

the horizon, what that says to my constituents is that the prices are going to

go up, and they're going to go up significantly.

On this issue of the requirements for content and in light of Mr.

Stoner's correspondence to the minister, can he assure the driving public that,

since we don't

[ Page 11502 ]

really have fixed targets or any idea of what the net benefit of the carbon

intensity issues will be…? Can he quantify the costs to consumers of this

legislation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the question. Yes, I did get

the letter. Golly, if we responded to policy decisions to actually reduce

greenhouse gas emissions in the province of British Columbia by 33 percent by

every letter I receive from every petroleum organization, I guess we'd probably

be…. We might not be doing anything.

[1115]

I appreciate that the member knows that the price of crude

actually has a huge impact on the price of the product that comes from that

crude. I'm not going to stand and say that it won't have a small effect. It

probably will, but the price of gasoline and diesel fuel actually corresponds in

most cases, always, to the price of crude.

I think the price of crude was at $113 today. It's right up there.

The member says he fuelled up today and paid $1.25. We've been paying more than

$1.25 for a while. I appreciate that.

None of us wants to see the price of gasoline or diesel go up. But

as the raw product goes up…. That's not because we're going to mix renewable

fuel in it. It's because of OPEC, it's because of the supply of oil in the

world, and it's because it's controlled.

When we see people saying that we shouldn't actually be exploring

for any more oil and gas in the province of British Columbia…. As that supply

dwindles, the price will go up. I think the member would agree with me. He knows

that full well.

J. Horgan: I heard $115 a barrel on the radio this morning

as I was driving in. You know, the minister is off by a couple bucks, and it

could be up by a couple more before the day is done. So I appreciate that.

That's an issue that, of course, my colleague from Fairview canvassed at second

reading — that in an era of peak oil and with rising, escalating prices, it's a

commodity that has value beyond transportation that we may be foreclosing on, as

a result of our desire to get it out of the ground and use it up.

So the minister is not alone in recognizing that we have

challenges here and that consumers are going to be adversely affected by the gas

tax that we're going to see coming in legislation in the next number of weeks.

I'm not absolutely comfortable, as the minister could well

imagine, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, but

they do make some reasonable comments with respect to how this legislation will

affect their sector, and it's an important sector. The minister spent some time

there in his private life, so he knows the challenges that the distribution

network faces when trying to meet moving goalposts.

One of the suggestions…. And again, I rarely defer to Ottawa. I

think the record should be clear on that. I'm not one that likes to wait for the

federal government to take action. I think the minister and I are at one on that

issue.

But in this instance, when we're dealing with an international

problem that a national government should be taking leadership on, would it not

be prudent, as suggested by Mr. Stoner, to harmonize the implementation of these

policies to be consistent across the country, rather than to get out ahead of it

— when the science is divided, when consumers are facing increased costs on an

almost daily basis? Would it not be prudent, in the interests of managing the

transition, that we do so in harmonization with the federal government? I'll

just put that to the minister for his comment.

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, it is coordinated with ethanol.

The standard for Canada is 5 percent by 2010. That's what ours is — 5 percent by

2010 for gasoline. For diesel fuels, we do different. What we're saying is that

we want 5 percent by 2010. The federal government says a mix of 2 percent by

So I appreciate what the member says, but the industry itself is

going to have to adapt to a changing world, and it is changing. They're going to

have to figure out how they're actually going to do it. They know how to do it.

It's actually mixing biofuels and ethanol, although there are different ways of

doing it, and some are probably better than others. That's not something that

takes the revamp of a complete refinery. It does take some changes. I appreciate

that.

I'm always interested when the member stands up and defends big

oil. I was going to say it, but then I thought: "No, I'm going to be nice. I'm

not going to say that." But the member said it himself.

[1120]

I just maybe would read into the record from the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. It says: "Ethanol gets a bum rap." Just one part of it, and I'll

quote: "'Transportation and gasoline costs would actually be even higher if

ethanol weren't part of the mix,' Glauber said. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture is still studying the exact impacts, but ethanol's small 5 percent

role in transportation fuels may actually translate into a 15 percent reduction

in overall oil prices."

So there are varying views on these issues around the world. I say

we should actually work as best we can to get to that target of 5 percent of

each, so that we can reduce our carbon footprint here in the province of British

Columbia.

J. Horgan: Mr. Stoner goes on, and this is again going back

to the supply risks. He says:

"Currently B.C. enjoys the flexibility of being

served from within the province, transfer from south and east of the province

and marine imports. The demand on additional winter blending distillates,

which will be required to create the B.C. requirement of 5 percent biodiesel,

currently have limited sources on the west coast. This situation will force

significant volumes of imports, which may have an increased potential for

unintended consumer supply disruptions."

Again, whenever I hear big oil say there's going to be potential

disruptions or there's instability in Nigeria or — heaven forbid — instability

in Alberta, that means my constituents are going to be paying more. So with

[ Page 11503 ]

this proposed — or suggested from the industry — increase in volumes of

imports, will that not have an impact on the carbon intensity of that 5 percent

target?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it will be considered in that 5

percent component.

You know, we can all say: "No, we shouldn't change." Change is

difficult for anyone. I don't care who it is, whether it's that side of the

House or this side of the House. That's why I'd like to see a change in opinion

from the NDP and that they would actually agree with us that we should reduce

our carbon footprint, but maybe I hope for too much.

We need to actually make those changes. Anything that I have done

since I was fortunate enough to become minister in this ministry required some

change. You can't change direction…. I mean, if we want to continue down that

path of "use all you want; waste all you want; pollute all you want; do all that

kind of thing," that's one issue.

But if we actually want to change and take a different direction

and start looking at conservation — something that wasn't high on everyone's

agenda — looking at our carbon footprint, looking at where we get it from,

looking at how we develop it, all of those kinds of things…. That's a change.

I know that's what the member is bringing forward, and I

appreciate that. As a critic, he should, but change requires some change. We

can't do things the way we used to if we're going to actually change and reduce

our carbon footprint. To reduce by 33 percent, to change our carbon footprint,

and to have 5 percent mix of biofuels and gasoline and diesel fuel will require

some change. It will require some change from the refiners — exactly.

If you don't want to do that change, if that's what the member is

actually advocating — that we don't want to do that change because that may cost

a little bit, and we want to stay on the old path of use all you want, however

much you want, and forget the carbon content….

That might be the position of the NDP, but that's not the position

of us. We actually want to move ahead with reducing our carbon footprint in the

best way we can manage to do that. I think it actually is something that we all,

regardless of what political party we belong to, should be thinking about to

move forward to do those kind of things.

[1125]

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

M. Karagianis: This morning I think we have canvassed a

number of very cogent arguments from this side of the House following up on

second reading debate. Some great questions have been asked here without

necessarily satisfactory answers for this side of the House.

In this particular section, "Low Carbon Fuel Requirements," it

sets the requirements for carbon intensity. In reading through this

section I

realize that there is an opportunity here for us to provide exactly what the

minister has been talking about here this morning, which is the framework for

change.

I would at this point propose an amendment to this

section of the

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

the bill out, that

section 6 be amended as follows:

[SECTION 6 is amended by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), the prescribed

level must be

(

a) calculated from source to consumer, and

(

b) based on an acceptable biofuel sustainability

standard.]

Just for the record, that clarifies subsection 6(1) that says: "A

Part 3 fuel supplier must, for each compliance period, ensure that the weighted

average of the carbon intensities of all

Part 3 fuels it supplies in the

compliance period, as determined in accordance with the regulations and subject

to subsection (2), is no greater than the prescribed level." My amendment then

adds the terminology for the prescribed level.

On the amendment.

M. Karagianis: The impetus for this amendment…. As I

mentioned earlier, we canvassed part of this issue at great length in second

reading, and we have touched on it again this morning. I think the minister

fairly outlined that change is required, a paradigm shift is required, but I

also think that the arguments being put forward by this side of the House are

around providing some guidance on how that shift occurs and reducing the risk.

Frankly, government is generally risk adverse, and really, this is

a way of us reducing the risk that in the future there will be any

interpretation of this bill outside of the intention of this House today. The

minister has talked considerably about the intentions of government and the

intentions of the House today while we work on this bill, but we often know that

legislation becomes interpreted in the future by other members of government,

other ministers, other jurisdictions within government.

The importance of including the language here in my proposed

amendment today is around providing both that clarity as well as a framework

that gives, I think, more security to the controversial debate taking place

around the globe and certainly escalating day after day.

We see more and more controversy within all aspects of our

society, whether it's industry response, as we've heard today outlined by the

member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca; whether it is the concerns of economists, as

we've heard outlined both in the media and by sources — World Bank and other

leading voices here in the economy; and the public debate on this as well.

I think the intention here is to alleviate the risk that in any

way we will be engaged in this controversy in a negative way. In fact, I think

it adds to the quality of this legislation and the intention of government as we

move forward.

[1130]

[ Page 11504 ]

We've canvassed at great length here the concerns we have for how

biofuel, and in particular bioethanol and biodiesel, will be produced in the

future. When speaking to point (

a) under my amendment, where the calculation is

from source to consumer…. This speaks very directly to us calculating the carbon

intensity and, therefore, the costs to the government and to society of

recognizing that the source from which any of these biofuels come is as

imperative a concern as our need to shift to alternatives here.

Food security is a growing concern, and as was outlined earlier in

discussions here this morning, it is not necessarily about what's occurring

within our own province. It's not necessarily about what's occurring within our

own country. Because much of our biofuel sources from outside the borders, this

is also about what's occurring in other countries and about the inevitable, I

think, international standards that will have to be imposed in order to ensure

that our move to alternative fuels and alternative options here, as we leave

behind fossil fuel and move into the future, is going to…. We're going to have

to move to protect food security.

Climate change has already left us at risk, for food security,

without the added burden of us now having to compete for food lands with

alternative fuel. The key to all of this is sustainability. We talk about that.

We talk about it in a whole variety of ways here in the House, but finding a way

to incorporate a standard that, I believe, will be engaged in internationally….

I know that many countries are now moving to creating biofuel sustainability

standards, and I believe we have an opportunity here to lead.

I know that the government is interested in leading on this

debate. Hence, they're bringing forward this bill. I think we need to engage in

that. The content of my amendment here speaks to that, and it speaks to, I

believe, what's already happening in the industry. I know that the industry, in

the biodiesel end of the biofuel sector, is actually engaging very seriously in

sustainability and looking at the product that they produce and ensuring that

there is not that competition for food and ensuring that what we're doing is, in

fact, using waste product here, which makes our lives better in a whole variety

of ways.

I talked in second debate about General Motors engaging in new

science around bacterial breakdown of human refuse and garbage and using that as

a product. There are a whole lot of options around that create sustainability,

that are not about threatening food crops or crop displacement or any of the

other things that are occurring as we engage in this paradigm. There is no doubt

in my mind that it does require a huge shift in the way we think about this

issue around transportation, alternative fuels and what the future may bring,

and how we actually show leadership in ensuring that we demand a sustainability

level that is appropriate, responsible and thoughtful.

I would urge the minister to show support for this. I know the

public will support the concept and engage in the change that's necessary in

shifting to alternatives if we show that we are doing it in the most responsible

way possible. The public will not engage in this — the public will not adopt new

ways of approaching their transportation needs — if we don't set up the

framework for them that shows and demonstrates and offers a security that we are

doing this in the most sustainable and responsible way and that this kind of

legislation will set the baseline for us moving forward.

I know the minister has characterized our concerns on how we move

through creating this new green legislation as somehow being not in support of

legislation. I would say that nothing could be further from the facts. What we

are trying to do is engage with government to say: "Here are some of the missing

components of creating a real greenhouse gas reduction act, and here are the

pieces that are missing."

[1135]

In fact, all of the controversy that's going on around the world

and within our own community here on biofuels and alternative energy sources,

whether it be hydrogen…. The government is engaged very aggressively in the

hydrogen highway, which, frankly, is an untested, unproven, unsustainable system

that probably is not going to bear any kind of results that communities can

engage in for decades, if at all.

Right now it consists of a corridor that runs north and south

along the coastline of North America. What that provides to the rest of the

country, I don't know, but I see government is engaged in that and believes that

that's an alternative option that may bear fruit in the future.

I think we have a real opportunity right now to create changes and

amendments to this act that, in fact, would move us past the controversial point

around alternative fuels and move us into such a leadership role that we will

set the tone for the rest of the national and international and global debate

that will take place.

This has already begun to happen in other countries, so we can

learn some lessons and actually embed in our legislation some real language and

some real legislative framework that sets us ahead of the game and, in fact,

leads the way and gives us an opportunity to then go out and convince the public

that biofuels are not products that are devastating or harming others elsewhere

in this country or on the planet. Frankly, I think that people will engage more

enthusiastically if they know that what they're doing is not hurting but is

helping, is taking us forward, is moving us forward.

Every argument I've heard on this side of the House speaks to the

need for us to create legislation that is thoughtful, realistic and sustainable.

It does show such enormous leadership that both sides of the House here can

engage in this, can support this and can move forward to promote alternatives in

our community. We can't do it as long as food sources are being threatened or

the economies of nations are being altered by the pressures of producing ethanol

corn in order to satisfy urban uses and rural uses in the transportation sector.

I would hope that the government sees this as being a

participatory amendment and that they would see

[ Page 11505 ]

that this language in no way compromises the intention of their legislation

but, in fact, enhances it, gives it a framework and, in the case of a biofuels

sustainability standard, gives it the tools of real leadership. I would

encourage the minister to give us a sign that this is an amendment that

government would support, and I look forward to hearing further debate on this.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the member's remarks. I know

that she passionately believes in biofuels, in having less of an impact on the

environment. I know that simply because of the lobbying she's done for

government to actually start using more biofuels, to actually have members of

the Legislature start using more biofuels, and she is on record as saying that

she would use 100 percent biofuel if it was available.

I know the member passionately believes in this, and I appreciate

that in every way that I can. I'm appreciative that she stands up and speaks to

section 6 passionately, and I want to put on the record that — and I appreciate

the amendment — it's already in the bill.

Actually, if you go to

section 25(b)…. I'll read into the record

25(b): "establishing the greenhouse gas emissions that are deemed to be

attributable to a

Part 3 fuel, including, without limitation, greenhouse gas

emissions related to the life cycle of the fuel and its fuel feedstock whether

they occur inside or outside British Columbia."

[1140]

I'm glad that the member brought that forward, because that's

already in the act further on. Certainly, the ministry will be reviewing that as

we move forward with regulations to make sure that we look at all of those

things that she spoke about, about sustainability. Also, in the definition

section, under "component," it further adds to the issues that the member

brought forward in her motion.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I appreciate the way the

member brought it forward to us and brought it to our attention, but I want to

actually say to the House that those things are already in the bill as we speak

today.

G. Robertson: I rise to speak strongly in favour of this

amendment. I think it is extremely well considered. If we are to look at the

pitfalls of biofuels that have emerged around the world, it's all about the

source and how sustainable the source of the biofuel is, coupled with the carbon

footprint of distribution of that biofuel. That combination right there is

absolutely critical for ensuring that biofuel's carbon intensity is, in fact,

lower than that of the fossil fuels consumed to produce the biofuel.

There are very troubling statistics around the carbon intensity of

ethanol; around the net carbon intensity of clearing tropical rain forest to

plant biofuel crops; the resulting loss of carbon in taking, in some cases, up

to a century of biofuel crop production to actually come back into balance; and

the ensuing carbon intensity reduction from that biofuel. If it takes a hundred

years for a biofuel crop that has been carved out of an Indonesian jungle to get

back to a net positive carbon intensity, one can see the folly of pursuing

biofuels as an urgent, short-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions for the coming decades will be significantly

higher if we're pursuing biofuels from unsustainable sources, such as clearing

standing rain forest in the tropics. The statistics on ethanol production in the

U.S. and the use of nitrous oxide fertilizers with impacts on greenhouse gas

emissions are very significant and troubling as well.

There are biofuel sources that are sustainable — second-generation

biofuels, biofuels produced from waste. There are good-news stories in the

biofuels realm. What this amendment encourages and mandates is that we be

dedicated as a province to ensuring that we source biofuels sustainably,

ensuring that the carbon intensity is not in fact greater and ensuring that the

carbon footprint is in fact lighter from the biofuels produced.

The bill itself, with all due respect to the minister's

interpretation of these sections, is pretty thin and allows for a lot of

flexibility. There is no definition about life cycle in this bill that I've seen

here, and the life cycle is absolutely critical in terms of analysis.

This amendment specifies "source to consumer," which is a pretty

clear pathway in terms of the fuel chain. I think it's important to be specific

here. It's critical, given the potential impacts on the environment and the

potential costs to the planet. I will just restate my strong support for the

amendment moved by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and encourage members of

the House to stand in support of this amendment.

[1145]

J. Horgan: I, too, want to support my colleague from

Esquimalt-Metchosin and echo the closing comments of the member for

Vancouver-Fairview — that the minister has characterized this debate as rigid

opposition on this side to reducing carbon footprint. Nothing could be further

from the truth.

Our challenge here as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is

to ensure that as much rigour and due diligence as possible can go into the

implementation of public policy. That's our job, and that's what we're doing. At

no time has anyone on this side of the House ever suggested that we do not want

to see our targets of 33 percent reduction by 2020 met. We unanimously supported

that legislation last fall. I think there is no better indication of our support

for the position than the fact that we stood here and supported it. So for the

minister to suggest that we don't want to get there is not necessarily correct.

Although I thank the minister for pointing us to

section 25, which

will be regulation by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council sometime in the future, it

doesn't — as the members who spoke before me said — get us from source to

consumer, and that's the challenge.

What we want to know — and why the member for Vancouver-Fairview

was asking questions under

section 1 on this issue of the requirements and the

carbon

[ Page 11506 ]

intensity — is how much it's going to cost to get biofuels from Brazil to

Fort St. John. We want to know what the impact is going to be in the life cycle

of the product. I know that the life cycle is sprinkled throughout the document

— and the member will likely stand and point again to

section 25 — but those

regulations are not yet before this House.

Absent that, we want to ensure that in the body of the bill in

section 6,

part 3, we have, as the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has put before

us, an amendment that will ensure that the public will have some confidence that

the government will be moving in this direction swiftly and that we can

calculate and quantify what the cost is going to be from source to consumer. I

don't think it's a difficult amendment to support. I know that if the government

was genuine and sincere about wanting to find all-party support for this

initiative, this modest amendment would meet the test.

With that, I'll encourage the minister to accept this amendment

and we can move on to the next section.

Hon. R. Neufeld: To the members that spoke, both members: I

appreciate the arguments, but I will go back…. I mean, when it said in here that

there's nothing to do with life cycle in the bill, it's actually in 25(b), "life

cycle." It's there. It already says in 25(b)…. The member talked about

"calculated from source to consumer." That's in the amendment, and I appreciate

that. That's already in the body of the legislation, which says: "…related to

the life cycle of the fuel and its fuel feedstock whether they occur inside or

outside British Columbia."

You know, "outside British Columbia" is outside British Columbia.

That includes what the member talks about, Brazil. He wants to use Brazil as an

example? That would include Brazil. In the legislation, that is already there.

There will be regulations that we will bring, which is normal. I

know that I get the argument lately that we should have all the regulations with

the bills all the time, but that's not generally the way it works. Those

regulations will be developed as we move forward, to make sure that we actually

take into account the body of what the member is trying to say. Don't take

umbrage at all. I'm pleased that the member is reinforcing with an amendment

what we already have in the bill, but there's no need to put it in there twice

in two different places. We actually have the intent of that in the bill, and I

think we should move on.

[1150-1155]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Brar

Farnworth

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Wyse

Sather

Conroy

NAYS — 39

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

J. Horgan: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR

EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

[ Page 11507 ]

On Vote 25: ministry operations, $5,675,357,000 (continued).

Point of Order

(continued)

D. Cubberley: Before we begin today, I'm just going to ask

for clarification of a point that was raised in two previous sittings

surrounding the legitimate use of the laptop computer during the course of

estimates.

There was an initial

interpretation that everyone accepted, which

is that it was not to be used for speaking notes during a presentation when a

speaker had the floor, but it could be used outside of that, when a speaker did

not have the floor.

Then there was the subsequent

interpretation that there should be

no use of it at all. I'm simply going to request clarification of what the

protocol is so that we know what we're about and what the parameters are for

using the device.

The Chair: Member, on April 16 the member for Saanich South

raised a point of order regarding the use of electronic devices by members who

are engaged in debate during Committee of Supply,

Section A. Pursuant to the

recent statement delivered by the Speaker on March 4, members of Committee A are

reminded that they may use laptop computers and hand-held electronic devices,

such as BlackBerry devices, to access textual information.

The practice governing the use of electronic devices in Committee

A is identical to the practice in the House. However, it is important to clarify

that members may use electronic devices to access information in support of the

debate, but they must not rely on these devices once they have been recognized

by the Chair.

Electronic devices cannot be used as speaking notes or be quoted

from while in possession of the floor and engaged in debate. Of course, all

electronic devices must be operated silently. This matter is, again, before the

Speaker, and the Speaker always reserves the right to reconsider.

I would like to add one other point about electronic devices and

cellular phones. Cellular phones are not to be answered in the House or put up

to the ear while leaving the House.

Please continue, Member.

D. Cubberley: Mr. Chairman, thank you for that. You'll get

no argument from me on the latter point about cell phones in the House.

I would just ask for one further thing to be done, which is to

ensure that all persons serving as Chair in here and all members of the Clerk's

office have a common understanding about the response that was just given so

that we don't bump into it again.

Having said that, I'm going to cede the floor to my colleague,

unless the minister wishes to comment on that.

Debate Continued

D. Routley: Can the minister inform me as to what the

directions have been to the special adviser who has been appointed to Cowichan

Valley school district?

[1015]

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the precise letter that was

actually sent to the board here today, with us at this moment, but we will

certainly get that sent to us. Now that we've had the ruling clarified, we can

actually get that information.

I can tell the member opposite that the framework for the terms of

reference was taken right out of School Act, in fact, with the appointment of a

special adviser. It comes under

section 171.1. In general, it is "to assist the

board in the conduct of the affairs of the school district in respect of any

educational, financial or community matters."

In fact, the key points would have included communication. We were

concerned about the communication and the approach that had been taken. But

generally speaking, it adheres to the requirements that are laid out in the

School Act.

D. Routley: Since the appointment of the adviser, the local

board of education has indicated its plans to reconfigure its grade

configurations and build a plan by the end of June related to school closures

and possible cutbacks. Does the minister think that amount of time is adequate

for the community to have input and for the community's interests to be

identified when it comes to the significant issue of reconfiguration?

The minister should remember that during the public meetings that

the school board held throughout our district, there were resounding noes

expressed unequivocally to the school board around school closure, investment in

the Cowichan Place project partnership and reconfiguration of the grades.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, anytime a board of education

discusses any of those issues that the member opposite articulated — things like

school closures or reconfiguration — there's always a very significant…. I

shouldn't say always. There's usually a fairly emotional response, and one can

understand that.

I'm not about to speculate today about the time frames that have

been suggested, because we have sent in a special adviser, a very capable person

who is highly regarded in the education system in general — Dr. Lee Southern.

What we've actually asked Dr. Southern to do is come back to me

with a report — May 15, I believe, is the deadline — and work through those

issues with the board of education. I'm not aware of the specific circumstances

that the member opposite has cited and will be relying very heavily on the

special adviser that we've appointed to bring back his report to me, which will

then obviously go to the school board for their final decisions.

D. Routley: Definitely there is an element of emotion, and

that was displayed by the Cowichan elders who

[ Page 11508 ]

pleaded with the board not to take their children from the school that they

were in and pleaded with the board to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Oftentimes in these debates and in these consultations, emotional

responses are discouraged. In fact, the declared intention at the beginning of

the meetings is to ignore the emotional component, which I think is a huge

mistake. Of course, the commitment of communities to their small schools is what

has kept them going so far.

It's always been claimed that these school closures were something

that the board wanted to avoid. There's never been a statement by the board that

they desired to close these schools. In fact, all of the trustees who are

elected currently declared that without community agreement, they would not be

in favour of closing small schools. The four small schools that are identified

are all growing schools.

[1020]

Oftentimes the minister and others who have advocated for small

school closures refer to the educational or pedagogical reasons for doing these

things — program issues. But in our case, in Cowichan Valley, that is not the

reason being offered. The reason being offered is funding shortfall, and the

reason that's being offered for that is an enrolment decline.

Can the minister commit that if the district and the community

decide that it is their desire to keep these small schools open, that there is

no driving pedagogical reason to close them and that if the only reason is

funding, she will step up and guarantee and ensure that funds will be available

to keep those schools open?

Hon. S. Bond: I will begin by articulating the

responsibilities of the special adviser. We've made part of the assignment

basically that the special adviser would consider the decision-making processes

of the board and trustees, the district's management structure and its oversight

functions, effectiveness of long-term planning and risk assessment of those

plans, stewardship of capital assets, effectiveness of the board's community

consultation and responsiveness, the state of finances and the level of student

achievement.

I will correct for the record a statement that the member opposite

just made. As Minister of Education I have not and would not advocate for small

school closures. That is not my job; it is certainly not my intention.

Having said that, I also want to put on the record for the

member's awareness the fact that in this particular school district, when we

look at the number of students enrolled in this district today compared to what

there was in 2000 and 2001, there are actually 18.6 percent fewer children in

the school district. That would accumulate to almost 2,000 fewer children —

1,930 fewer children.

Like other boards across the province and around the world,

districts are facing — and we can debate the use of the word "dramatic…." I

would suggest that a reduction of almost 2,000 children in one school district

is a fairly dramatic decline over a six-year period. It is unfortunate; it is

difficult. But we do need to address the fact that we believe — and I believe

personally, of course — that using resources is most important to put in

classrooms that have children in them, not half-empty buildings.

This board, along with boards around the province, has to grapple

with that issue. Of course today I cannot, as Minister of Education, stand up

and suggest that because this particular board makes a decision that they don't

want to close schools, I could simply save those. I would not be in a position

to do that.

D. Routley: The minister has claimed that she would not

advocate for school closures, and yet her own policies drive districts to

consider that the optimum size for school districts is 400 for elementary

schools. That would be the optimum size.

In our school district we've reduced that. We see our goal as

being 200 students. But if we go with the 200-student goal, that closes most of

our elementary schools — certainly the ones that we have here.

When the minister quotes the loss of enrolment in Cowichan school

district, she points not to a demographic decline but to a failure of her

ministry to fund education properly and to driving conditions into our district

that have driven people into the private system.

[1025]

In fact, the projections for school district 79 over the next five

years are for K-to-6-aged children to chart downwards — yes, but only by 79

students over five years — from 4,086 down to 4,007. That is 79 students

expected in decline spread over 18 schools — hardly reason to close these four

schools. The loss of these schools would mean the loss of two programs of

choice. One is a rural traditional program, which the ministry took great pains

in promoting when it was first established in another school — which, I will

add, was closed a few years ago.

We would not only lose that; we would lose the aboriginal school,

Koksilah, which has cultural programs and language programs developed over a

30-year period and have been in place for three years — in fact, the first

school of choice, not the one that the minister pointed to before. Those would

be lost. We would lose over 140 child care spaces, 66 in Tansor School alone.

These are all important functions for the community, and we will

pay a price for losing them. In fact, when districts have resisted the closure

of schools, the ministry has intervened through phone calls, through pressure on

boards. It's clear that is the case. The ministry cannot hide behind the

autonomous decision-making of school districts when in fact they're driven into

corners that they have no choice but one to fight out with, and that is the

closure of schools and the sale of property.

When the ministry says that 50 percent of capital projects must be

paid by the districts, where does the minister expect the districts will get

that money, except through school closure? Whether or not the minister has stood

in public and said that she stands for small school closure, her policies

certainly have driven that.

[ Page 11509 ]

I would like to examine what the minister has just claimed. She

has just claimed that we have lost enrolment at double the rate provincially,

and I'll agree with her. But the fact is that enrolment in private schools in

our district is more than two times greater than the provincial average, and

that has been created by the driving of students out of our system. When our

school district closed Mount Brenton Elementary, there were over 140 students.

The next year fewer than 100 of those were still in our district. We lost those

students and their full funding package, far more than we could ever save by

closing the school.

In our district we have 29 percent of our secondary-aged students

in private school. In our district we have 17 percent of our elementary-aged

students enrolled in the private system, 25 percent for middle schools. This is

the result of the very policies that we're trying to resist right now — policies

that are driving us to close these schools and that are driving parents to enrol

their students in private schools.

The minister should address her own ministry's responsibility for

the decline in enrolment in Cowichan school district. What does she have to say

to those assertions?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite has asked me to comment

on his assertions, and I'm frankly quite glad that the word "assertion" was

used. I want to make it perfectly clear to the member opposite that there is not

a policy in British Columbia today that looks at optimum size of schools. We

have schools across this province that vary in size. There are bigger ones and

smaller ones. To suggest there's a policy that says we're only going to build

400-student schools is inaccurate.

The second inaccurate assertion is that there is a policy around

50 percent of buildings having to be paid for by school districts — absolutely

inaccurate. In fact, we continue to invest. In British Columbia over the last

number of years we've spent over a billion dollars building and replacing

schools. One can't imagine that school districts could even begin to contemplate

50 percent.

Perhaps the most egregious assertion that's been made is a

suggestion that there's pressure from our staff on school districts in terms of

making decisions. That's absolutely inaccurate.

[1030]

I want to clearly articulate for the record the facts that exist

in this school district. I don't want for a minute to deny there is passion and

emotion and difficulty, but let's be clear. This school district has almost

2,000 fewer students in it than it did in 2000-2001. The district is expected to

receive this year the same amount of operating grants, despite the fact that

there is going to be a decline in enrolment.

Perhaps the member would like to check that with the school board.

I'd be happy to hear if our number is inaccurate. But at the moment the number

that we've been given from the school district, in terms of their drop of

full-time-equivalent students, will be 416 this year. If you were to actually

use the member's assertion that we build schools at the size of 400 or 200, that

number alone would have a dramatic impact on this school district.

Perhaps the most significant piece of information that I'd like to

share with the member opposite is the fact that this school district is actually

expected to receive more than $1.36 million in enrolment decline and funding

protection from supplementary funding next year to deal with declining

enrolment. So to suggest for a moment — first of all, the three assertions that

I've already corrected for the record — that this is essentially a funding issue

is inaccurate.

D. Routley: I'm sure the trustees around the province will

be very pleased to hear that there's no such agenda. Having served as a trustee,

it was very clear that there was. Through the consultants who are appointed,

through ministry direction to local administrators, it's very clear that there

is. The minister and I can disagree on that, but I'll take my position to the

school trustees who I've had experience with and particularly to the parents and

students that I've served. I'm sure they'll support that.

It should be noted that the per-student capital spending in this

province declined by 40 percent since that time and is only now climbing to a

place that's equivalent to the per-student capital funding before the minister's

government came to power. In fact, we have seen a decline in enrolment that is

disproportionate to the demographic decline in our school system, particularly

in the Cowichan school district. That is indicated by the participation in

private schools. That is being driven by the conditions being forced upon the

school district by the minister's and the ministry's policies.

In 2002 the school district adopted a budget model of concentric

circles. For the minister's benefit, I'll describe that. The concentric circle

model is a dot — the centre dot. That dot represents the student. Then services

are layered out from that in circles further and further away from the dot, as

they are judged to be less directly important to the student — the teachers, of

course, administrators, maintenance and transportation. The supportive services

for students wound up having the gravity of Pluto in that environment.

In fact, deep cuts were made to supportive services for students,

both professional assessment services and physiotherapy services. There were

deep cuts to teacher-librarian time. There were deep cuts to class-size ratios.

There were very deep cuts to maintenance and transportation, which the school

board is still staggering to deal with. We are dealing with mouldy buildings and

deteriorating facilities, and yet it is true that we are being demanded to

participate in these capital projects and put up money.

So we are driven into these ridiculous situations — the situation

like J.H. Boyd elementary, which had been closed in the past but was being used

as a maintenance facility and transportation facility in Lake Cowichan. Its

fields were available for public use. That school site was bought for $1 in

1967, I believe, from B.C. Forest Products — $1.

[ Page 11510 ]

Now the community, in order to keep it in public use, is being

asked to pay $785,000 to the district to purchase it. Does the minister think

that's fair treatment for the people of Lake Cowichan?

[1035]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to do a couple of things. First of

all, I want to just read something to the member opposite so that we continue to

have this debate. The member opposite is absolutely correct. We're going to

agree to disagree regularly, and I'm going to continue to put the facts on the

record.

In Ontario alone, 550 schools have closed. In Saskatchewan the

student population has dropped by 10,000 students and is projected to drop a

further 13,000, and Saskatchewan has faced significant school closures. As we

look across the country, Newfoundland and Labrador experienced sharper decreases

in enrolment than any other province. In fact, in Newfoundland they saw a 20

percent drop in enrolment. The model in the province for dealing with declining

enrolment looks at virtual classrooms, e-delivery.

If you perhaps do not take my word for it, we might want to look

at what Statistics Canada tells us about the age populations in schools today.

It is expected that we will lose millions of students across this country. What

that requires is sound management by locally elected boards of trustees to deal

with those issues.

I am delighted to put on the record this government's funding

record in terms of the fact that we have 50,000 fewer children, and we continue

to see increased funding. On the capital agenda, since 2001 this government has

spent — with 50,000 fewer children in the system — $1.3 billion to build 26 new

schools, 41 replacement schools, 147 additions, 25 renovations and 20 site

acquisitions across British Columbia.

I think the record speaks clearly for itself. By the end of our

term in 2008-2009, this government will have invested more than $3.1 billion in

seismic and school capital projects across British Columbia.

In terms of the acquisition or disposal of property, there is an

order in place that requires boards of education to actually declare what is

surplus when it has been deemed surplus. That's a board's choice. It's based on

their thinking about the future and the long- and short-term planning that they

do. Once it's been declared surplus, it is presented to the Ministry of

Education and Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. It will go through a

process where we look at other potential government uses for that.

The second level of inquiry will then be around municipal

governments. Local governments, I guess, is the best way to describe that. At

that point there is a negotiation that takes place. The value that would be used

would be fair market value.

D. Routley: As long as we get stuck at this point in the

debate, I'll have to go back again to my daughter and her allowance and my

request that the minister manage her allowance. If she's getting $15 a week, the

minister could raise her up to $20 and tell her she's getting more than she's

ever gotten. Then she could pay the MSP premium increases, her mom the teacher's

salary raise and all the other downloaded costs — GAAP accounting, BCeSIS and on

and on and on. The costs have been added on to school districts, and that's why

we've had to cut. That is clearly the case, and that is a fact that can be laid

on the table.

[1040]

When the minister talks about jurisdictions that have lost similar

or greater populations and about their tactics, I would ask her: what did they

do? Did they add costs to the school districts at a time when they were losing

enrolment? Did they pin the funding for the system on that declining factor? Did

more money per student, in their experience, and fewer students add up to cut

programs, closed schools, reduced capacity? Is that what happened?

I think that we have to talk about intent. I think we have to talk

about why these things are being motivated. I think we have to ask about the

drive to close smaller schools and consolidate populations.

I think we have to consider the commitments of this government to

climate change and carbon emission reduction when we are displacing hundreds and

hundreds of children in every community every year by small school,

neighbourhood school closures. At the same time, the boards are being forced to

make cuts to transportation. Our own board is considering a $200,000 cut to its

busing in order to meet the demands of the ministry's funding formula. That will

put hundreds of cars on the road every single day — thousands and thousands of

tonnes of carbon added to the atmosphere.

Does that meet her government's goals? Is her ministry playing its

part in reducing carbon emissions when it closes small neighbourhood schools?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to go back, actually, just

momentarily, if I might. I know that staff and others certainly monitor the

conversations that go on here, and I want to put on the record that the

information we've been provided with in terms of independent school enrolment in

the member opposite's riding indicates that in '06-07 there were 2,531 students

enrolled in independent schools. And in '07-08 the number is actually 2,517. So

the numbers that the district has provided us or that we have looked at in the

database show a decline in the number of students in independent schools in that

school district.

I also want to reiterate for the member opposite, because this

will continue to be a discussion about the basic disagreement that the member

opposite and I have over the facts. That continues each time the member comes

and presents his view, which is absolutely appropriate.

I will simply give, once again, the block funding issues and the

enrolment for the Cowichan school district for the member opposite. The

enrolment changes over the last five years alone in this school district show

that they have lost 12.6 percent of their students,

[ Page 11511 ]

and the funding increases they've received are 10.5 percent. So we have fewer

students and more money.

When we look at what the formula recognizes, in terms of….

Districts are very different. I know that where I live, there are many small

communities. The school district serves a very widely dispersed area, as do many

other districts in the province. In fact, our funding formula recognizes a

number of things, including enrolment decline, of which many, many districts are

taking advantage.

In fact, we spend, I believe, about $100-and-some million a year.

We'll get that number so it's accurate. The formula recognizes districts with

small and remote schools, districts in climates that require higher than usual

heating and cooling and also protection from year-to-year funding declines. I

think it's fair to say that the formula looks to try to reflect the variations

that we see in districts across the province.

D. Routley: Does the minister measure programs' success by

the amount spent or by their outcomes?

[1045]

Hon. S. Bond: You know, all of us in this room and in this

building have, I hope, one goal in common, and that's to see individual student

success. That's what matters to us. It matters to every member of the team

that's sitting in this room today — supporting the work of students across the

province. We care that children in British Columbia are successful. We have

gaps. We're working on those. Our primary goal is ongoing improvement, student

by student, class by class, school by school.

D. Routley: Does the minister measure that by cuts in

programs or by closed schools?

I don't know how she can make these claims, when in fact it seems

rather Orwellian to suggest that so much more funding put into the system, so

many fewer students to serve…. Yet what we have as outcomes are closed schools,

cancelled programs, loss of services to disabled students, failure to meet the

obligations of Bill 33 in terms of class composition, failure to support special

needs students and failure to address autism in the public school system to an

adequate degree. Those are the outcomes.

How does the minister explain this math — more funding, fewer

students, fewer services?

Hon. S. Bond: I have to be totally candid. The member

opposite's comments are incredibly disheartening from the perspective that….

Perhaps it's time to stand up and recognize that in British

Columbia today we have some of the best outcomes for education in the world.

There are no students in the world that exceed our students' outcomes. If the

member opposite would like to speak about outcome measurements, British

Columbia's system is one of the finest in the world. That speaks volumes about

the programs, the teachers, the people who make a difference.

It simply does not mean that we do not have to grapple with 50,000

fewer children in our school system and the fact that…. If British Columbia were

facing that alone, then perhaps the member would have legitimate questions about

policy. This is in fact a global phenomenon. Families are different today than

they have been. We are grappling with that, and this government, despite

declining enrolment, has provided record levels of funding for public education

in British Columbia.

D. Routley: A little thing called inflation, a little thing

called downloaded costs — all those things add up to burdens on districts that

equal cuts, because those things must be paid for. There's no place to go other

than services in our classrooms.

When the minister talks about what process school properties that

are deemed to be surplus go through before disposal, she mentioned that the

government looks at other public purposes and then to local government. Two

sessions ago I put on the order paper Motion 70, which called for the government

to do an inventory of closed public buildings of all kinds, including schools,

and do an assessment of their value for public use.

That was defeated by the government. Only one member spoke against

it, the member for Prince George–Omineca, who has constituents who want to use

closed schools for a variety of public purposes and petitioned him on that

during the Standing Committee on Education's tour up there. If that's the screen

it's being filtered through, I'd say the screen has got some pretty big holes in

it.

When local area director Loren Duncan of the CVRD moved a bylaw —

which was supported unanimously, including by a potential B.C. Liberal candidate

— that public school properties be first designated for public use and that

public assembly should continue in those buildings after closure by school

districts, that bylaw was unanimously supported. That bylaw received submissions

from the public. There were 63 positive submissions and one negative.

If the minister is listening to the community she's serving, she

will hear that 63 to 1 in favour of keeping public properties public speaks

volumes.

[1050]

Will she stand up and support that bylaw, which was passed in the

Cowichan Valley regional district? If there is pressure from the school

district, which hopes to realize market value for that property…. If there is

pressure through the Ministry of Community Services and that minister, will this

minister resist that pressure, support that bylaw and support that public

purpose being maintained for public properties?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's be clear: there's no pressure.

What there is, is the reality of dealing with the disposition of assets. We've

been clear in a ministerial order — I think it was in September of last year —

that there is a process that boards of education must follow and must consider,

and that's precisely what will continue to happen in British Columbia.

[ Page 11512 ]

Ironically, it would be really energizing to hear the member

opposite actually talk about some of the positive things that have happened with

buildings across British Columbia, and there are extraordinary examples.

In my own community, in fact, just weeks ago, a brand-new concept

for Prince George was a hub model in a school that had been closed. The

community was very disappointed in school closures initially. Obviously, that's

a difficult circumstance. We have three school buildings in Prince George that

through partnerships between people like the Northern Health Authority, the city

of Prince George and the Family Y…. All of those people have come together to

create new life for those buildings and new programs for families.

Is that always possible? Not necessarily, but I can assure you

that partnerships exist in this province that utilize that asset in a creative

and thoughtful way. That was led by the board of education in Prince George, and

I am seeing those kinds of partnerships all across this province.

D. Routley: I'll talk about some positive things. I'll talk

about Honeymoon Bay Elementary School, which was renovated, seismically upgraded

and promptly closed. I'll tell her some positive things about Koksilah

Elementary, the excellent aboriginal programming and the success that that's

bringing to children, and the fact that her policies will drive that school to

closure. I'll tell her some positive things about alternate ed in Cowichan

Valley.

The Chair: Member, all comments should be made through the

Chair, and all comments should come back and be directed at Vote 25, the

estimates for the Ministry of Education.

D. Routley: Absolutely, and in response to the remarks by

the minister challenging me to be positive…. And I will be, because it was very

positive.

The alternate ed programs in Cowichan Valley were serving students

who had struggled immensely in this system before they were introduced to those

programs, and now those programs will be closed. That was the discussion last

night in the school district.

Those are the outcomes. Those were positive things, and they're

gone, or they will be, if the minister doesn't step up today in this meeting, in

response to these questions, and assure the people of the Cowichan Valley that

their choices will be honoured. They choose to keep those schools open. They

choose to have those services restored.

Will the minister support them and ensure that there's adequate

funding to do those things?

Hon. S. Bond: What this minister will do is clear. I will

support locally elected boards of education — I know that the member opposite

was a member of one — in making the difficult decisions that are necessary to be

made. This board came to the ministry — to me, to the minister — and said: "We

need some help." I took the very unusual step of actually appointing a special

adviser at the request of a board of education.

If the member opposite would like to make some assumptions or

assertions about that, I would challenge him to do that. We'd be happy to

respond to them. The fact of the matter is that we received a letter from the

board of education requesting assistance in a variety of areas. That's precisely

what we're going to do. We're going to provide assistance to that board of

education, and we will look at a number of things.

I am not today going to speculate about the outcomes of the work

of the special adviser. A very capable person was selected to work alongside the

board, but the board was candid. They were having difficulty managing some of

these issues. The fact of the matter is that boards of education across British

Columbia have been managing difficult issues since long before this government

came to power.

We are providing assistance. We will wait to see the outcomes of

the special adviser's report, but — and the member would well know this, having

been a school trustee — the board, locally elected, will ultimately make the

final decisions. It is not my place or my intention today to either speculate

about the outcomes or to make a decision about anything other than that the

report will be done. It will be provided to the board, and they will do the job

that they were elected to do.

[1055]

D. Routley: Well, that is very disappointing, because I'm

not asking the minister to speculate on the work of the special adviser. I'm

asking the minister to commit to supporting my community.

My community has clearly, through public meetings, through

submissions to the regional district on that bylaw, time and time again…. She's

aware of the number of public meetings that have gone on, the organization, the

strong push-back against these policies. Will she listen to those voices? If the

community expresses that its will is that those schools remain open — they are

viable schools with increasing enrolment, with a wait-list at Koksilah — will

she support those decisions with adequate funding to keep those schools in

operation?

Hon. S. Bond: Unlike the member opposite, I will not

intervene in the role of a locally elected board of education. The decisions

will lie with that board of education. They may be difficult. They may be

uncomfortable. But they belong in the jurisdiction of locally elected school

boards, and I will not be intervening in that process.

D. Routley: I'm not asking the minister to intervene. I'm

asking the minister to step up and do her job and support our district with

adequate funding for the goals that it establishes for itself — the reasonable

goals and expectations that its neighbourhood schools which are well populated

will remain open.

We've already closed nigh on 25 percent of our elementary schools,

and with this, we'd be over 30 percent. That is far in excess of our enrolment

decline. I don't think that it should be too big a reach for the minister

[ Page 11513 ]

to be able to say that if the community of the Cowichan Valley says it wants

those schools to remain open and if the trustees want them to remain open, then

she will support that.

The minister refers to the board asking for help. The motion to

ask for a special adviser was introduced at the close of a meeting, with no

notice of motion. Every trustee who had voted against school closure knew

nothing of its introduction. Every trustee who voted for school closure

supported it. Everyone who didn't, didn't support the appointment.

There was a clear sense in the room, from everyone there, that

this was an orchestrated event. The minister can deny it if she wants, but

pressure comes from her ministry to districts to close small schools. Enrolment

decline is always the excuse, but it's never a good enough reason. It's

certainly not in our district, where we have resisted those closures on all the

right grounds, educationally, but the minister's policies have forced us into

that position.

If the district, if the people of the valley express their desire

to keep those schools open, is the minister prepared to ensure resources? Is the

minister prepared to ensure resources to keep Koksilah Elementary open? It's 140

students, 98 percent aboriginal, 30 years in development of its aboriginal

language and cultural programs. Will she commit at least to protecting that?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to just clearly articulate for the

record…. I think that the member opposite should think very careful about the

statement that he just made.

This ministry responded to a request from a locally elected board

of trustees. If there is some question about the process that took place with

the board of education, the member's comments are best directed to the board of

education.

I will clearly and unequivocally for this record suggest that he

be very thoughtful about the comments that he made and would want the member to

reconsider his suggestion that there were questions about that process. That is

a very serious allegation that was made in this House and chamber under the

protection that's provided to the member opposite. He may want to consider

making that assertion in the hallway.

I would like to finish answering the question by simply pointing

out that as Minister of Education I received a request signed by the board chair

of the Cowichan Valley school district. Let me, for the record, read what the

letter said.

[1100]

At its open meeting of March 5, 2008, the board of education of

school district 79, Cowichan Valley, approved the following resolution:

"Whereas the board of education of school

district 79 is experiencing significant difficulty balancing the educational

programs of students, the budget and the interests of the community. And

whereas there is a provision with the School Act for the minister to appoint a

special adviser to assist the board to conduct the affairs of the school

district in respect of any educational, financial or community matters…. The

board of education requests that the Minister of Education appoint a special

adviser to school district 79…as soon as possible."

In fact, that letter is unusual by the very nature that, I think, there have

only been four special advisers ever appointed in British Columbia. It's a