Hansard — Tuesday, April 8, 2008 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		11049

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		11050
	Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 21)
	Health Care Costs Recovery Act (Bill 22)
	Hon. G. Abbott

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		11051
	Canadian Rockies International Airport expansion
	B. Bennett
	West Shore Arts Council
	M. Karagianis
	Work-life balance
	L. Mayencourt
	Emergency services dispatchers
	C. Puchmayr
	National Wildlife Week
	D. MacKay
	Enver Creek Secondary School band
	H. Bains

Oral Questions		11053
	Homelessness
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	G. Gentner
	D. Thorne
	J. Brar
	D. Chudnovsky
	Independence of Representative for Children and Youth
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen
	L. Krog

Second Reading of Bills		11057
	Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	J. Kwan
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16) (continued)
	On the amendment (continued)
	B. Lekstrom
	M. Karagianis
	J. Horgan
	On the main motion
	C. Trevena
	M. Sather
	S. Simpson
	G. Robertson
	C. Puchmayr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11085
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
	Hon. P. Bell
	C. Evans
	C. Wyse
	G. Coons
	N. Macdonald
	N. Simons
	D. Routley
	J. Brar
	H. Bains
	M. Sather

Hon. G. Campbell: Over 3,500 athletes in 53 communities across the province compete as part of the Special Olympics in British Columbia. They are supported by 2,600 volunteers. Today we are honoured to have a number of these athletes and coaches here in the Legislature with us.

They include Benjamin Attfield, David Devison and Hazen Meade of Campbell River; Nathan Bodie, Jeremy Cheverie, Maggie Tennant, Winnie Whitman, Carol Stocker, Pauline Shaw and Bill White of Victoria; Bobby Bolen, Chris Gillis, Richard Gillis and Colin Wells of Comox; Kerri Lipsack and Reg Lipsack of Parksville. Their coaches here with us today are Maureen Brinson and Lori Holmgren of Campbell River, Bill Crocker and Art Peck of Nanaimo, Larry Cagna of Comox and Barry Loney of Victoria.

I would ask the House to make all of them welcome and say to all of them on behalf of the House: congratulations on the excellent jobs that you all did in Quebec City. You made us all proud. Keep up the great work.

L. Krog: Joining us in the precincts today are a number of grade 7 students from Quarterway Elementary in Nanaimo. Accompanying them is their teacher Anne Grant and several anxious and, I'm sure, happy parents to bring them to the seat of wisdom and political intelligence in the province of British Columbia — the Legislature. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the Legislature today we have a group of grade 5 students from Huband Park Elementary School. There's a whole bunch of them — over 50 of them. They were all in my office a few minutes ago. The students are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Valerie Sheriff, who also has a very talented son who plays the piano, as well as many parent chaperones. Would the House please join me in welcoming these students from the beautiful Comox Valley.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure today to introduce in the gallery a school trustee from school district 43, Ms. Debra Burton. She is a lawyer and a resident of Port Coquitlam. Last municipal election in 2005, she swept to victory in the school board elections in our community, taking every single poll. If she chooses to run in November, which I sincerely hope she does, I have no doubt she will repeat that feat. Would the House please make her most welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: Joining us this afternoon in the chamber are two people very dear to this side of the House — Janice Robertson and her beautiful little daughter Julia Maloney, who will be a one-year-old in two weeks. Janice is very familiar with the building and with all of us on the government side, as she worked very hard with us in the government caucus communications department before she left us to be a full-time mom. Would everybody join me in making Janice and Julia very welcome.

S. Fraser: Visiting us today in the precinct are Quincey Kirschner and Glenn Urquhart, representing Arthritis Consumer Experts. ACE is the acronym. They are here to educate some of us legislators about the serious realities of arthritis in the province. I would ask all members to learn from their work and also to join me in helping make them feel very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: In the House today I would like to welcome and introduce two very special visitors who are joining us to observe question period. The first is a well-known Victoria businessman, Mr. Gordy Dodd of Dodd's Furniture. I'm sure many members will certainly recognize him through the very many television commercials he's had. You will have seen him in a number of disguises, but today he is here as he normally appears at a number of events around the community.

I know people around the province also know him because he is famous for his slogan "I won't be undersold," and it has done him very well over the years. Mr. Dodd is joined with his brother Gurnam Dodd, who is visiting him today. I hope the House would please make them all very welcome.

C. Trevena: In the last session the House passed the Maa-nulth treaty, which involved five west coast bands and included the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h'. Today I had the pleasure of having lunch with three graduating students from Kyuquot Elementary Secondary School, students who are the future for their community and for our province.

Here in the gallery, going to be watching question period, are Trevor Gillette, Tammy Billy and Chantal Smith. I have to add that it is Trevor's 18th birthday today and Chantal's 18th birthday in two days' time. They're here with their teacher Brenda Gilman and their driver and chaperone Ron Chidley. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

R. Lee: Visiting the House today and tomorrow, as well, are six groups of students from Burnaby North Secondary School — a total of 180 students. I have three children. One graduated from Burnaby North School, one is in Burnaby North School, and the other one is going into Burnaby North Secondary School. I would like the House to make those students welcome today and tomorrow.

L. Mayencourt: In the gallery today, I have a special guest. Her name is Diane Rodgers. Diane has been working with me on a couple of initiatives, the Baldy Hughes therapeutic community and also the workplace

bullying initiative that we've started there. She's a great person in our community, someone who is really dedicated to helping people. I'm very pleased to have her here today and ask the House to please make her feel welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: The Medicare Protection Amendment Act follows through on a commitment made in the 2006 throne speech to define and enshrine the Canada Health Act's five principles and add a sixth principle — sustainability.

During the Conversation on Health we heard from British Columbians across the province — over 12,000 submissions. Participants emphasized their support for the principles of the Canada Health Act.

As our government committed, we are defining and enshrining in legislation the Canada Health Act principles of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. We are also adding a new section, which will enshrine in legislation for the first time in British Columbia's history the sixth principle of sustainability.

On this side of the House we believe that the future sustainability of our public health system is important. In fact, we believe it's so important that we are defining and enshrining it in legislation.

This government is committed to ensuring the world-class health care system we have is available not only today but for future generations. That is precisely why sustainability is an important issue and one that must be addressed.

With these changes, British Columbia will be the first province in the country to define and enshrine in legislation the principles of the Canada Health Act as well as the principle of sustainability. But we're not stopping there.

During the Conversation on Health, British Columbians told us there were other important values that they believe also form the foundation of a world-class health system. British Columbians talked about the importance of individual choice, personal responsibility, innovation, transparency and accountability. We're moving today to introduce these important values into the Medicare Protection Act.

All of these amendments provide a foundation upon which we can build a sustainable, world-class public health system that serves British Columbians not only today but for future generations as well. Over the coming days our government will be introducing more bills that reflect the values that British Columbians told us were important to a sustainable, publicly funded health care system for today and the future.

I move that Bill 21 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 22, intituled Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: The Health Care Costs Recovery Act will provide the government of B.C. with the legal tools necessary to ensure that those who are responsible for the injury of an individual will also be responsible for the reimbursement of the future health care costs incurred as well as potential future health care costs.

B.C. is currently the only province not to have legislation that allows government to recover health care costs which have been paid by the province to address injuries which were the result of negligence or wrongdoing of a liable third party. The taxpayers of British Columbia currently subsidize the cost of third-party negligence and wrongdoing, and that isn't right. We have to ensure that the sustainability of our health care system is addressed, and this legislation is important to addressing that issue.

The act will allow government, first of all, to ensure that health care costs associated with wrongdoing and negligence are paid by wrongdoers and their insurers rather than expecting B.C. taxpayers to absorb the costs. It will also recover health care costs associated with an injury due to negligence or wrongdoing of a third party once a lawsuit has been settled or adjudicated. It will allow the province to effectively participate in a number of class action suits where multi-million-dollar settlements or judgments are at stake.

This legislation will expand the scope of areas where claims can be pursued to include past and future health care costs such as medical care, hospital services, ambulance service and continuing care as well as other areas where the provincial government contributes to public programs.

This legislation addresses not only the issue of sustainability in our public health care system but accountability as well. Accountability for third-party wrongdoing should rest with the third party, and this legislation ensures that that will be the case.

I move that Bill 22 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Health Care Costs Recovery Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Bennett: The Kootenay region is one of the planet's most desirable places to live, to work and to play — world-class golf courses and ski resorts, back-country adventures, alpine hiking, fly-fishing, hunting, back-country touring, a near-perfect climate and of course wonderful, friendly people.

The one challenge for international visitors has always been the air connections. A few years ago the provincial government recognized a link between the future of our tourism industry and air access. B.C.'s Premier arranged for a capital grant of $9 million — $4½ million from the province and $4½ million from Ottawa.

Our airport is now in the final throes of a major expansion, and last week the city of Cranbrook accepted in principle an offer from Delta Air Lines to start a scheduled service into the Canadian Rockies International Airport from Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is a major airline hub in the U.S. That airport serves 64 million travellers every year. Visitors from any major city in the U.S. will be able to fly into the region in one day — no overnights.

In another life, I owned and operated fly-in fishing lodges in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. I flew my customers from all over the world. I know how important good air connections are to a destination resort. Make it inconvenient, add an overnight to their trip, and they'll go elsewhere. With this new service, you can comfortably wake up in Manhattan or Burbank, fly through Salt Lake City and arrive in the Cranbrook area for dinner the same day.

This is truly a pivotal moment in the history of our region. This is about economic diversification and keeping our kids at home. I want to express my admiration for the coalition that's making the deal with Delta, the business people, Kootenay Rockies Tourism, the city of Cranbrook and YVR, the airport management company. Well done.

I also want to thank the Premier and our government for the capital funding that made this possible and also for the tourism flex funding that we're now using to market our region to the world.

M. Karagianis: It's a pleasure today to stand and share with the members of the House the story of the West Shore Arts Council in my constituency. The council is a non-profit society that works to encourage creative participation and excellence in the arts and that promotes and fosters public interest, appreciation and understanding of the arts.

Last May the West Shore Arts Council was selected by the West Shore Chamber of Commerce as the best association of the year, and it's a tribute that is truly deserved. Fairs, community festivals, arts and crafts exhibitions and tours of home studios are just a few of the ways the council is raising public awareness about the West Shore's vibrant arts and culture heritage.

My community office is one of the places that enjoys the council's roaming gallery, and I'm proud and grateful to have the exceptional works of art adorning the walls in my office on a rotating basis. Other places to see the local art, thanks to the council, are monthly art shows at the Juan de Fuca library, the Stinking Fish Studio Tour and West Shore studio tours.

The West Short Arts Council's most ambitious project is the Arts Everywhere initiative, which serves to promote arts and culture by organizing and sponsoring additional arts events and recognizing individuals for their contribution to the arts. Bursaries are made available to students wishing to further their studies and skills. Information booths and art displays are featured at municipal events.

The council is a driving force behind the West Shore Cultural Collaboration, a creative think tank that unites more than 40 representatives of the arts, municipal councillors and planners, first nations, and recreation and education planners. All of it is made possible by citizens who generously donate their time to serve. They make the West Shore a brighter, bolder and more vibrant place. I hope members will join me in recognizing the exceptional contribution of the West Shore Arts Council.

L. Mayencourt: The need for skilled workers here in British Columbia has got to be one of the biggest challenges facing businesses and our economy. Employers are having to find new and creative ways to attract and retain employees. For potential employees, there is also the concern of trying to balance a busy work schedule with personal and family time.

The solution for some companies has been the adoption of flexible workweeks and work schedules for their employees. Employers today realize that having a flexible workplace is a critical component to keeping good workers on the job. The flexible workplace produces bottom-line results. It has been proven

WorkLife B.C., sponsored by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, was created to recognize B.C. employers who have developed workplaces that support their employees' desire to balance commitments to life and to work and family. The WorkLife B.C. awards, in their second year, highlight companies that have recognized the need for employers to offer the flexibility to allow their workers to balance work and life.

The 2008 Award of Excellence recipient for Vancouver coastal region is Deloitte and Touche. This company of almost 700 employees in my riding has embraced a flexible work-life harmony program since 1998.

Each year since then, worker satisfaction has increased. Their efforts have also resulted in their lowest turnover rates ever and more women than ever in senior management and partner roles. Feedback from the yearly surveys has resulted in many additions to the wellness program, including personal care days, health and wellness subsidies, and elder care programs.

Please join me in congratulating all of the 2008 WorkLife B.C. award recipients and all the companies that are making British Columbia the best place to work, live and raise a family.

C. Puchmayr: April 8 to 15 is Emergency Services Dispatchers Week in British Columbia. Emergency services dispatchers serve the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Often sitting behind computer terminals, they are the unsung heroes working to protect the health and safety of our communities. They are the first people that the public contacts when emergency assistance is required. They coordinate all communications between police officers, firefighters and paramedics to ensure a safe, swift and appropriate response to each situation.

Their work can often be hectic, with many calls coming in at the same time. It is undoubtedly a stressful line of work. When handling incoming calls, they have to question the callers carefully to determine the type, seriousness and location of the emergency. The callers can be angry, upset, in shock and frightened. The dispatchers have to work through these obstacles to get the necessary information in order to dispatch the appropriate response.

The call centre dispatchers can often give medical instructions to those on the scene until first responders arrive. On any given shift they may have to respond to calls from victims of theft, parents with missing children or people involved in accidents. They have even been known to assist in the delivery of newborn babies.

I have toured the Kamloops dispatch centre, and I have seen firsthand the choreographed buzz of activity that exists in the call centre. Some challenges do exist and still require action. The CUPE members in the region are working diligently with management staff to ensure a resolve to address the working environment and the public safety in those offices.

I invite all members in this House to join me in thanking these dedicated individuals who provide a vital link to emergency services in British Columbia.

D. MacKay: This week in Canada we are celebrating National Wildlife Week. This is a program with the Canadian Wildlife Federation in partnership with provincial governments, Environment Canada, Parks Canada and many others.

National Wildlife Week was proclaimed an act of Parliament in 1947. It is time for us to celebrate Canada's natural heritage and give us a chance to play an active role in conservation.

This year's theme for National Wildlife Week is — wait for it — pollination. Pollination is a fundamental function of the ecosystem. Without pollination, many plants would be unable to reproduce, and we would suffer great losses in food, medicine, wood products and, of course, wildlife.

British Columbia, in particular the northern part of the province, is home to a great variety of wild flora and fauna. Many different animals rely on these plants for food during the summer months to prepare them for the cold winter months. Without conservation programs to protect these food sources, we would see a great deal of animals threatened by extinction.

We should all try to make it our goal to, first of all, raise awareness about the importance of wildlife and wildlife habitat, to inspire learning about the wildlife and the environment, to develop opportunities for British Columbians to participate in conservation through habitat conservation, to help wildlife by funding important wildlife research and to influence national policy. I know I want my four grandchildren to be able to enjoy the wilderness like I have.

H. Bains: In a recent trip out of the country I had a few hours' layover in Beijing airport. I had the unexpected pleasure to run into a group of band students from Enver Creek Secondary, a high school in my constituency.

Mr. Mike Jellema, the principal of Enver Creek Secondary, and Surrey school board trustee Laurae McNally enlightened me on the details of their trip. As it turned out, 75 students — accompanied by their principal, the band teacher Mr. Al Henderson, school trustee Laurae McNally, three staff and 24 parents — went on the trip.

The students fundraised for two years to raise money for this once-in-a-lifetime experience. They sold chocolates and magazines, had a clothing drive, plant sales and even a manure sale to help pay for the cost of this trip. With the money they raised from their efforts and, of course, great support from their parents, they were able to come up with funds for this cultural experience in China.

The band played three different venues in Beijing and Sian, and they had the rare experience of playing on the Great Wall of China. According to one parent, it was so windy that they had to pin their music sheets to the stand and hold the stands down with their feet so that they wouldn't blow away. They also had an opportunity to drive by the Beijing 2008 Olympic site.

It is an invaluable experience and a good lesson for these students to have a goal and raise money to accomplish that goal. I'm sure the memories of this trip will last a lifetime.

I would like this House to acknowledge the hard work of these students to see their goal through, their parents who supported their efforts and the extraordinary staff we have in Surrey school district, who made this experience possible for these students.

C. James: Since the B.C. Liberals came to power, homelessness in Metro Vancouver has more than doubled. That's the news today from the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., who conducted a homelessness count in Vancouver and the suburbs. These alarming numbers show that the B.C. Liberals have failed and that the Minister of Housing has consistently underestimated the problem when it comes to homelessness. Since 2002 homelessness in the Metro Vancouver area alone has gone up 131 percent.

So my question is to the Minister of Housing. Will he finally admit that he has completely underestimated the homelessness crisis in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: No number of persons homeless in British Columbia is acceptable to this government at any time, on any day, in any generation.

I actually expected, though, that the Leader of the Opposition would first of all get up and apologize on behalf of her critic, who has overestimated the housing across this province and scared people for the last two or three months in British Columbia.

But I also actually thought that — on behalf of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who wrote me a little over a year ago and begged me to buy the Carl Rooms hotel in her riding, with only 47 units — she might get up and thank me for buying 17 buildings in the city of Vancouver. Nine additional buildings across the rest of the province of British Columbia are being turned into supportive housing.

And boy, I'm waiting for the next question, because I've got so much more good news I'd like to pass on to the members opposite.

C. James: Well, it's extraordinary. It's extraordinary that this government would cheer and call a victory over a 131 percent increase in homelessness on our streets, and that this minister would stand here in this House and say that he has good news to share, when we see people living on the streets every single day. Every individual who walks in a community anywhere in our province can see the increase that has occurred under this government.

Why has that happened? Because it's this government who actually cancelled housing programs that were in place in 2001 and 2002. The B.C. Liberals froze the development of 1,700 affordable housing units and cancelled another thousand units of social housing that were going to be in place in 2002. They've been playing catch-up ever since.

So my question is again to the Minister of Housing. Will he finally admit that the B.C. Liberal policy to cancel social housing units has forced more people onto the streets in our province?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a 19 percent increase over the last three years in homelessness in the Greater Vancouver area. That's not acceptable to this government. But you know, in 2001 in the province of British Columbia, there were 1,300 units of supportive housing. Today there are over 5,000 units of supportive housing in the province. There are, hon. Member.…

Hon. R. Coleman: In addition to that, there are another 895 units under construction in the province of British Columbia. I know that, much to the chagrin of the members opposite, we've signed MOUs on lands with four major municipalities in the province of British Columbia to build over 2,000 additional units of supportive housing in the province.

C. James: There are a couple of statistics that the Housing Minister conveniently leaves out of his list of the Liberal record. That's the fact that homelessness has doubled, and we have the worst child poverty rate in this country here in British Columbia. That's the Liberal record.

The 2010 Olympic organizers have said that they need 3,200 units of social housing to meet Vancouver's needs, but organizations across this province know that's not going to happen under this government.

My question is to the Premier. Will he admit that at the current rate of homelessness increasing and government inaction, when the world is looking at us in 2010 we will see a huge increase of people living on the streets? And that's unacceptable.

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the members opposite, I know they were all about cutting ribbons and making announcements when they were government during the 1990s. I know that the budget when they left government was $120 million for housing in B.C. Today it's $380 million.

I know the members opposite don't want to recognize the fact that over just the last year alone 2,400 people in the province of British Columbia that were homeless have been connected to housing and supports by our outreach program across the province, and over 80 percent of those people are still housed today.

I know there are 4,800 families in your communities and our communities in British Columbia, low-income families, that receive a cheque quietly every month in the rent assistance program to offset their rent so that they are not at risk of housing and they can change the lives of their children and improve their lot in life — I think that's very important — and 3,000 seniors households on top of that.

It is a remarkable set of achievements that have been taking place in housing. We have the units going into the ground to deal with this issue. We're going to continue to stand up for people in British Columbia. We're going to solve the homeless issue — something they would never, ever have attempted in government.

G. Gentner: The government and this ministry seem to treat the issue of homeless people as some sort of isolated incident — that it's a crisis out of sight, out of mind, living on the downtown fringe.

However, this is no longer an isolated matter. Homeless people and their shopping carts are being found outside of Delta coffee shops. Dare I say that 80 people are now homeless in Langley, the minister's own constituency? That is remarkable.

We are witnessing a social and economic pandemic, a chronic condition that is reaching every community in the province, whether rich or poor.

When will the minister admit that under his government's watch, people who are homeless have spread well beyond the inner city and now into the very heart of suburban British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad you brought up my community of Langley, because it's one of the communities in British Columbia that stepped up with some leadership by putting some land on the table and zoning it. A neighbouring municipality put up a million dollars. We put up the money. We're building the Gateway of Hope, which will have supportive housing and new shelter capacity in the city of Langley — because our people out there actually have a heart and actually will invest and actually will back up projects in their community and work with municipalities.

D. Thorne: Since 2002 I have been sitting on the Tri-Cities Homelessness Task Force, watching the numbers of homeless people in the Tri-Cities grow. Now we all know that the numbers since 2005 alone have grown 157 percent in the Tri-Cities, and this government sits there and claps. It is astounding to me. It is more than shameful. How they can clap, I do not know.

This shocking number is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to my community, and it should be unacceptable to the minister who consistently says: "I have it all under control. It's fine. I have it all under control." Every single study, every single report that we have seen says that the numbers coming out of this government are wrong.

Question. I would like to know today if this minister is ever going to commit to funding and building the thousands and thousands of new units of affordable housing that we need to address this shameful, shameful crisis.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad the member opposite has sat on that committee in the Tri-Cities since 2003. Maybe she could explain to this House why a project that was put forward by the YWCA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take it through the process and got turned down to support housing for women in that community.

Because the opportunity was actually brought to the attention as a result of that, that municipality finally did step up with a piece of land. It just recently finally allowed a project to go forward in that community, which would help people with supportive housing in British Columbia. Guess who is the major funder on that project. The government of British Columbia.

Maybe I'll just repeat a little bit of math for the member opposite — 1,300 supportive housing units in 2001; over 5,000 units of supportive housing in 2008, with 895 more under construction; and commitments with municipalities to over 2,000 additional units across the province of British Columbia. Yeah, we have a challenge with homelessness, but you know what? We're stepping up to the plate to fight it and find long-term solutions for it.

D. Thorne: I would like to answer the question the minister has put to me, if I may.

D. Thorne: Speaking about facts, I would like to know why the minister doesn't even know the status of his own project in Coquitlam. That's what I would like to know.

The project he's speaking of, the YWCA project, is not at all as he describes it. It hasn't even gone to public hearing, let alone been turned down. So we have nothing in the Tri-Cities. We have….

D. Thorne: In the Tri-Cities since 2005…. We have a mat program that I imagine is included in the minister's figures, the same figures that we hear over and over again and are sick of hearing. We would like to hear about new advances for homelessness problems.

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact was that the YWCA had an original project that didn't go ahead. Then your municipality finally woke up and put up some land.

Hon. R. Coleman: Good. We'll be there to fund the project. That's what I said.

It's absolutely remarkable to me that this opposition won't stand up to the fact that members of their own caucus have actually written and begged me to buy buildings in their communities.

Hon. R. Coleman: One building. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — one building; 17 buildings in the city of Vancouver alone, all connected into a system of supports so our outreachers have some place to connect people so that we can reduce homelessness in the province of British Columbia.

J. Brar: Denial, failure to understand the problem and failure to take responsibility is the trademark of this minister. The facts are that the number of homeless people in the province has doubled since these people took over. The facts are that we have the highest child poverty in the country since these people took over for the last four years.

I will try one more question. We have learned today that the homelessness crisis in Surrey has gone from bad to worse. As for the new count, Surrey has only 79 shelter beds for 386 homeless people. That means only 20 percent of people can have a place to sleep at night at any given time. The number of shelter beds remained the same since the last count, and the number of homeless people has gone up significantly.

Shelter beds are not homes. My question to the minister is: can the minister commit today if his government will build the necessary units of affordable housing for the people of Surrey and when?

Hon. R. Coleman: Shelter beds are not homes. In actual fact, that's why we have outreach workers in our shelters when we actually went 24-7, so that we could connect them into housing and supports. That's why 2,500 people have been connected into housing, who were homeless in British Columbia in just the past year alone.

Over triple the budget in just the last few years. Investments that are absolutely incredible. Every jurisdiction across this country…. I recently met with all the Housing ministers across Canada, who were absolutely flabbergasted at the resources that are being poured into housing in the province of British Columbia compared to their resources across this country.

They are looking at our programs because they know we're connecting people into housing and supports. They are looking at our programs, where we're doing renovations. They're looking at our programs where we're putting in clinical help for people that need it in British Columbia. They're looking at our programs that we're going to do at Willingdon and Riverview for those that are really, really hard to house. They're saying: "We applaud British Columbia for leading the way in Canada."

D. Chudnovsky: This minister can bray and snort all he wants, and his buddies on the other side can clap and laugh when we're talking about homelessness in British Columbia in 2008. They can do that if they want. But what the minister has to do is open his eyes like everybody else in British Columbia, because everyone in British Columbia whose eyes are open knows that we have a crisis of homelessness.

This morning the Metro Vancouver figures came out — a 364 percent increase in street-level homelessness in Vancouver since 2002. Not some other century, not some other government. This government, this minister, this Premier.

Explain to the people of British Columbia how you let this happen on your watch.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, that's rich, coming from the member opposite, who has been blustering around the province that there are 10,000 homeless people in British Columbia for the last two or three months. It's rich, coming from the member opposite, who I know woke up this morning so disappointed that the numbers weren't as high as you thought they were.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 2,000…. Yeah, I mean, the member opposite spent the last few months telling British Columbians, raising the issue, saying that the number that he had was way different from what the government predicted. By the way, this is very close to what I predicted. We said that we were building…

Hon. R. Coleman: …a foundation to deal with homelessness in the province of British Columbia. It started with 2,500 people that were homeless last year, who have been connected into housing supports in the province of British Columbia, and 28 buildings in your communities and ours across the province are being renovated into housing supports for people in this province.

The construction program that's going on and has been going on for supportive housing in the province of British Columbia is raising those numbers exponentially to the fact that our relationships will take this number way over 7,000 units in the next couple years.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister and I will have the opportunity, and I look forward to it, to unpack the numbers that he presents in this House. I am totally confident that the figures we have put forward will be vindicated.

But I want to ask the minister this. Has he been, as I was last week, to Prince George and to Vanderhoof, to Burns Lake, to Hazelton, to Smithers and to Terrace and met and spoken with those people who are homeless? He sits here with his crowd, and they clap and they laugh about homelessness in B.C.

I'll tell you what happened in 2002 that has resulted, in great measure, in the crisis of homelessness we have today in British Columbia. In 2002 they cancelled the social housing program in British Columbia that existed. If it had simply gone ahead, we would have more than 4,000 additional units in this province. They made it much harder for people to get on welfare. Income assistance isn't what it should be in this province. And that's the explanation.

I challenge this minister to stand up in this House and tell us that those two actions of this government did not contribute to the crisis of homelessness in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we bought the Backpackers Inn in Prince George and are developing a project in Prince George with the city in cooperation with non-profit organizations in that city.

The member opposite should get his facts straight on one thing, though. We did review the housing projects that were in process in 2001 when we became government, and — to the member opposite — they got built. Don't confuse a review with cancelling the units. So try and put your facts where the actual facts are.

I'm glad to have the debate in estimates. He's going to question the numbers by a group of non-profit organizations he supports that went out and did the Metro Vancouver count. I didn't do the count. You didn't do the count. They did the count. We look at the count and see that there are 2,500 people today that we're concerned about with homelessness in British Columbia. We know we've got over 2,500 units in process on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

We are going to attack this aggressively like we have, and we will continue to, because on this side of the House we have a commitment to deal with homelessness in the province of British Columbia.

N. Simons: Last week the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth wrote a letter to the independent representative suggesting that the government should be allowed to make amendments to her upcoming report, referring to this as collaboration. The representative's office was created because of this government's repeated attempts to hide the truth, and now they're trying to do it again under this guise of collaboration. British Columbians demanded an independent representative, not a semi-independent representative.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Does he think that it's appropriate for his ministry to interfere with the independence of the representative's office by trying to influence the content of her report and the timing of its release?

Hon. T. Christensen: If any member of this House doubts the independence of the Representative for Children and Youth, I'd actually commend them to read the Representative for Children and Youth Act, unanimously passed by this House. It clearly sets out that the representative is independent. The only thing that provides any direction to the representative is the act itself. I have full confidence, based on any conversation that I have ever had with the representative about the Ministry of Children and Family Development, that she will act wholly independent and in a capable manner.

N. Simons: The integrity of the representative is not at question; it's the integrity of this government. The representative has been waiting for the committee to set a date so that she can release her report in committee, but the Chair is now suggesting that that

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

Wouldn't it be a better use of the ministry's resources to deal with the issues on the front line that the social workers have been telling him about many, many months and years past, instead of spending all time and resources on issues management and spin control?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think it's clear, based on comments that I have made in the past, comments that members of the select standing committee have made in the past and comments that the representative has made in the past, that we all desire that the ministry be working collaboratively with the representative to ensure that she has the most fulsome information possible in preparing her report. I think that great improvements have been made in respect of sharing of information, ensuring the ministry understands the information that the representative is looking for, and that that is provided.

I would hope that all members of this House would take great interest and encourage that degree of collaboration and that they would want the ministry to have an opportunity to provide a response to any recommendations that the representative may come forward with, to ensure that the public has a clear idea of what the recommendations are from the representative and how the ministry then intends to deal with those recommendations.

L. Krog: What is clear from what has been said is that the minister or his staff must have been aware of the Chair's actions. The Chair's letter clearly states that he is bringing forward the concerns of the ministry to the child and youth representative.

The question is very simple. Does the minister condone this clumsy attempt to stifle the independence of the child and youth representative?

Hon. T. Christensen: I have seen the letter that the Chair of the select standing committee sent to the representative. I have seen that the letter reflects conversations where the Chair said that he had asked the minister and he had asked the representative about the degree of collaboration, again, in trying to ensure that full information was exchanged.

Members will recall that in November the representative issued a report. There were great fireworks around that, and it was fully agreed that we needed to ensure a collaborative exercise in terms of the preparation of the reports and an opportunity to respond to the report.

If the ministry does not respond, it certainly doesn't give the public the insight they need in terms of what then is going to happen with the recommendations. So I would hope that all members would encourage that the ministry respond to recommendations provided by the child and youth representative.

H. Bains: Visiting this great House and within the vicinity is Dr. Cheema, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Punjab, and joining him are Randeep Singh Sarai and Gurminder Singh, a successful accountant from Surrey. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call second reading debate of Bill 19, the Electoral Districts Act, and in Section A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 19, the Electoral Districts Act, now be read a second time.

This bill implements the direction given to government by this House on the 13th of March, when the House endorsed Motion 39. That motion called for the adoption of the final recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission as modified by the alternative proposals made by the commission for the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions. Those alternative proposals are contained in appendix P of the commission's report.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission travelled the province to hear from British Columbians. They held 40 public meetings and received dozens of written submissions. They grappled with the difficult task of balancing the competing needs of British Columbians in urban and rural areas of the province.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the commissioners for their work, the hon. Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who was the commission's chair; Mr. Stewart Ladyman; and Mr. Harry Neufeld, Chief Electoral Officer for British Columbia.

Our province is large and blessed with diverse geography and a varied pattern of settlement over history. Today we are growing, we are vibrant, and we have a population of over four million people. The challenge for political representation is that recent population increases, for the most part, have happened in the urban areas of the province.

Today in British Columbia, 85 percent of the population lives on 16 percent of the land. Rural districts have lower populations, but these populations are often widely dispersed, making political representation challenging for their MLAs. Representing urban areas is challenging in different ways. While populations are grouped more densely, they are larger and often more ethnically and linguistically diverse.

This bill implements what this House believes to be the best way to ensure effective representation for all British Columbians. Specifically, the bill would create 85 electoral districts for British Columbia, up from the current 79. It would maintain the current number of districts in the north and Cariboo-Thompson regions of the province and add six new electoral districts to the faster-growing areas of the province — the Okanagan, the Lower Mainland and the capital region.

The areas and boundaries of the new districts are set out in schedule 2 of the bill. For the first time, this schedule does not have the lengthy verbal description of the boundaries known as metes and bounds. Instead, it confirms that the areas and boundaries are those as described on official versions of CD-ROMs created by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The CD-ROMs contain maps and geographic coordinates for all the districts.

The commission, through Elections B.C., accessed the province's GIS digital mapping technology. This technology permits highly accurate maps to be drawn without using the physical land surveying required with metes and bounds. It permitted the commission to produce maps more quickly, more cheaply and with less likelihood of material error, since it uses coordinates of latitude and longitude, which unlike physical landmarks do not change. This method of describing electoral boundaries is a first in Canada.

Section 2 of the bill is divided into two parts. The first part contains 77 of the 85 districts, whose boundaries are contained on the CD-ROM produced by the commission on the date it released its final report. These 77 districts would be implemented as recommended by the commission.

The second part of schedule 2 contains eight districts. These are the districts whose boundaries change under the alternative scenarios in appendix P of the commission's report. Their boundaries are contained on a separate CD-ROM produced by the commission.

The disks and their data are on file with the Chief Electoral Officer, who is also a member of the commission. As the independent officer of the Legislature responsible for administering elections in the province, his office would be responsible for implementing the new districts and their boundaries. In the run-up to the May 2009 general election, this would include creating even more detailed maps that subdivide electoral districts into smaller voting areas.

As a final note, I should confirm that this bill addresses electoral districts under our current single-member-plurality electoral system, commonly known as first-past-the-post. The commission made parallel recommendations for the single transferable vote system, or STV. Whether these boundaries will be enacted will depend upon the outcome of the provincial referendum on STV to be held at the time of the next provincial election in May 2009.

J. Kwan: Bill 19 implements Motion 39, as we know, regarding the new electoral boundaries. It was approved by this House on March 13, 2008. Bill 19 sets out the parameters for the new Legislative Assembly based on the February 14, 2008, Electoral Boundaries Commission report, which outlines 85 seats with boundaries for 77 of those seats determined by the Electoral Boundaries original proposal and the boundaries for eight rural seats based on the Electoral Boundaries Commission's appendix P.

The names of the constituencies are spelled out in schedule 1 of the bill, and the areas and the boundaries are set out in schedule 2. I won't go into those details on this item.

The opposition is in support of this bill. I want to state very clearly the reasons why, but we also want to put on record some of the concerns which were highlighted already when Motion 39 was debated.

We are in support of the bill based on the fact that it protects rural representation. That representation was arrived at independently by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. There was no political interference, such as what, quite frankly, the Premier tried to do earlier than this bill being implemented and earlier than Motion 39 being tabled in the House.

We also want to put on notice, as we did when we debated to have Motion 39, that whether or not the government has done its homework on the legality of this bill and that…. Of course we want to ensure that the government has done its due diligence in this regard. We are concerned that this could potentially be challenged in the courts. We trust that the Attorney General has done his homework to ensure that the legality of this bill stands and that it would not be subject to a legal challenge.

As mentioned earlier, when the government brought this whole issue before the House, the government had actually botched it up right from the get-go. They botched the appointment of the non-partisan commissioners. The government's original legislation was inadequate for preserving rural representation. That was the government's doing, members of the House — all members of the House — and it was the opposition who raised that issue when the first report was tabled. It was the opposition who stood up for rural communities right from the get-go.

You've got to ask the question: where was the Premier on this, if he was so concerned about rural representation? In those early days he was nowhere to be found. The Premier had failed to speak up for rural B.C.

Then the government went to compound this issue with an attempt of political interference by the Premier. Bill 39 was attempted to be brought into this House, which would add seats in areas that actually would dilute rural representation. How is that for rural representation protection? The government failed to do that with Bill 39, and of course, at the end of the day the government eventually let that legislation die on the order paper.

It was also the Premier's political interference that caused the commission to cancel its fall hearings and left little time for consultation. That was the government's doing as well.

In their final report, the commissioners put forward appendix P. Appendix P puts forward their independent response to the issue of representation in the north and Cariboo-Thompson areas. The Electoral Boundaries Commission was unable to recommend it because the government failed to provide the necessary statutory support. Therefore, the government must take responsibility for its mismanagement of the file.

That's really the history of this file. We're now at the introduction of this bill and a second reading of this bill — Bill 19, the Electoral Districts Act — and it is incumbent on all of us to recall the history of where this came from and where we're at.

We want to be very clear that on the opposition side, we will support this bill. Right from the beginning, we said that we want to ensure rural representation, and this bill does that in an independent way. More to the point, I would like to hear reassurances from the Attorney General that he has done his homework, that the legalities around this bill are assured and that it will not be subject to a legal challenge in the courts and therefore throw chaos into the Legislative Assembly should that happen.

Those are my comments for Bill 19, and I look forward to hearing other members on this bill and look forward to committee debate, a clause-by-clause debate with respect to Bill 19.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 19 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 19, Electoral Districts Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I call Bill 16, entitled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act — continuation of debate.

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON
FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT
(continued)

B. Lekstrom: I rise to speak to this bill. There's a referral motion on the floor at the present time.

The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, prior to the adjournment of the debate earlier this morning, had moved a referral motion, wanting to virtually hoist this bill. That's what it would do. It would take the bill off of the order paper and put it out of our ability to talk about and discuss and pass here in this Legislative Assembly.

The reasons were really his concerns. He's expressed a concern whether it be food for fuel. That debate is taking place now across the country and in some cases across the world. But I'm telling you, Madam Speaker, that I rise to speak against his referral motion.

I come from an agricultural area of this province, the Peace River country. I believe it's 98 percent of the grains and oilseeds that are grown in this province are grown in the Peace country. We're very proud of that.

But I can tell you that the farmers I represent have not always had an easy time making a living. They work on the land, and they provide our food that I think we all, over the years — not just in British Columbia but certainly, I think, in Canada — have taken for granted. We have taken our food for granted for a long, long time.

We've never in the past seemed to want to recognize the importance of the agricultural industry and what it means to society. We haven't worried a great deal when prices have been at an all-time low for our grains and oilseed sector — when they've struggled to seed the next year's crop, when many of them haven't been able to have the finances because of low prices from the previous year to actually put seed in the ground for the harvest in the fall.

Now that we're diversifying the opportunities for agriculture in this province, I guess I'm somewhat miffed that somebody would think that's a bad deal — that somebody would want to plant the seed that food for fuel is a bad thing and that we should only look at growing our grains and oilseeds for nothing more than food supply. The issue of biofuels, whether it be grain and ethanol or canola and biodiesel: "It's bad for the population. It's bad for society."

It's good for the farmer. It is finally great that our agricultural industry is diversifying their markets where they can market their product. But the most important thing is that nobody is telling the farmers they have to sell it into this market or that market. They have their own choice. They're going to be able to look at where they can get the best dollar for the product that they produce, and they're going to be able to make a living — a good living, hopefully. I think that's important.

We talk about the ability of blending fuels. I think everybody realizes the federal government has mandated that by 2010 for gasoline and 2012 for diesel fuel. So it is going to happen, and I fully support that.

There was some discussion about the fertilizers that are going into the ground and what's going to take place. From my experience in growing up in the Peace country…. I can tell you that the farmers I

know, whether they're growing grains and oilseeds, whether they're cattle ranchers or bison ranchers, whether they're producing sheep…. They understand the land base. They understand what it takes to grow crops and to make sure that the land is fertile in that soil. So no one better — certainly not government, not our government or the opposition — is in a position to tell a farmer what he needs to know about making sure his soil is fertile. He knows that.

I'm not too concerned about the fertilizers that will be utilized, whether we're talking about a different strain of canola when it comes to biofuels or biodiesel, or whether we talk about the grains when it comes to ethanol. If that opportunity avails itself to our agricultural industry, I think it would be a great day.

I represent my agricultural community in the Peace River country with great pride. At every opportunity I get to speak in this House or around this province in my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, I am sure — and I've said this numerous times, with no disrespect to any other industry — there is no more important industry on this planet than agriculture — none. They provide our food supply, and now the opportunity is there for them to actually diversify their markets and allow us to help with the reduction of the greenhouse gases that seem to be affecting this world in a negative way.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that I am opposed to this. I believe the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca moved it with good intentions, but I do have the ability and have been raised in the Peace country all of my life. This last year was a good year for our grains and oilseeds sector — one of the best years, probably, in the last 30. We've seen prices increase, which is something that is long overdue.

For the people that are concerned, whether it's food for fuel…. Some people have said food or fuel. I think that's a mistake. Certainly, it wasn't the member that presented the referral motion. Many of these people should have a look inside themselves and ask themselves whether they think they've taken agriculture for granted, and the cheap food policy that we seem to have enjoyed in this country.

At the end of the day, when the price of a loaf of bread goes up, there's a lot of concern in the public. Whether it be beef going up or so on, at the end of the day the farmer isn't putting more money in his pocket. It's been that way for 40 years.

We talk about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act and the referral motion that's on the floor before us. I have to oppose that — again, with the utmost respect to my colleague in the opposition from Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I think he probably moved the referral motion with the best of intent.

I do understand agriculture, and I take great pride in that. To think that we may hamper the ability of our farm and agricultural sector to pick the markets that they choose to sell into is wrong. They right now are enjoying some all-time high prices for their product. Whether it be wheat, whether it be canola or whether it be barley — we're seeing some good prices, and I'm happy for them.

The rural community in which I live doesn't survive on the boundaries of our municipality. We survive as a region, and we survive because the agricultural community supports those rural communities. That's how we built a better province.

Representing an area that develops, I believe, 98 percent of the grains and oilseeds in British Columbia and seeing a bill that will allow some diversification — and certainly new markets, possibly, for our farmers in our grains and oilseeds sector — is a good thing. It is a great thing.

If anything I could say in this debate on the issue of food or fuel or food for fuel…. If it can bring to light to the people of British Columbia the importance of what our agricultural sector means to each and every one of us as British Columbians and to each and every one of us as citizens on this planet, I'll tell you that I would accept that debate for doing something good.

That's what we have to do. We have to begin to recognize what agriculture means. For as long as I've been alive, I've watched farmers make a living. I've watched them struggle, year in and year out on occasion, and never waver from their land and their commitment to it.

Farming and agriculture is not about going into it to get rich. I can tell you that I think that's a fair statement. It's about a way of life. It's about a commitment to their animals or their herd. It's about a commitment to the land base and the soil which they make their living from.

So I will oppose the referral that's on the floor, which is to virtually lift Bill 16 from the floor of this Legislative Assembly. I'm going to vote against that referral, and I'm going to vote in favour of this bill, because I believe it does a number of things. It not only allows us to address the issue of the environment in a better way, but it's also going to enhance the opportunities for the agricultural sector that I represent in Peace River South.

I know the minister from Peace River North. Agriculture is very large in his area as well, as it is in other areas of the province.

Primarily, what we're speaking about when we talk about food for fuel…. There's a couple, and I'll speak to a couple. The ethanol industry, the ability to develop ethanol through grain — it isn't happening yet. It's been looked at for a long time. There are economic issues that have to be looked at, but that's one.

The other is canola. We can use canola for the production of biodiesel. We're very close to developing a plant in the Peace River area as I speak today here in the Legislature. This plant is not by some large multinational looking to make a dollar. This is by our farmers. The people that actually make their living off the land and farm it and take great care are coming together to put together a biodiesel facility in which they can market their canola.

Before I close, I want to again speak to the referral, speak to my opposition of this referral based on the fact

that…. It actually will give our agricultural sector more diversified markets to market this, it will actually allow people to make a living, and the money that they make is reinvested. Their children go to the schools in our communities. They play minor hockey. They do ballet. They take their music lessons.

When our agriculture sector has a good year, I think it shows across this province. We all enjoy the food they produce. We all enjoy the diversified markets that they'll enjoy in order to make a living. There's no doubt in my mind that this question is not food or fuel. It is food and fuel, and that's where we're headed with the agricultural sector and the issue of new fuel sources in this province.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the chance to speak to this. Again, I will oppose this referral motion that's on the floor.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand and speak to both the bill and the motion to refer. In fact, it should be no secret in this House that I have been a strong proponent of biodiesel since I first became elected, and I have spoken here in this House on many occasions about biodiesel and about the future of alternative fuel use here in British Columbia.

I was anticipating looking into the details of this bill to see exactly what it offered up. My first declaration here in the House was in February 2006, when I talked in this House about us seeking out more understanding and more policy on alternative fuels and talked about biodiesel as being one of the viable alternative fuels.

In April 2006, in fact, I questioned the minister responsible for Energy and Mines about biodiesel. We had a considerable dialogue, and I asked the minister what kind of plan there was in the future for biodiesel or biofuel. There appeared to be nothing in the three-to-five-year plan at that time, in April of 2006.

The minister said — and I quote from Hansard here: "The alternative fuels, biodiesel and ethanol…. Although we do some out of this ministry, most of the responsibility will be with the Ministry of Environment on those things. I can't tell you that we have a five-year plan on biodiesel."

Well, here we are a couple of years later, and apparently we do have a plan. Things have changed dramatically, and it is being introduced not by the Ministry of Environment but by the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Having had that discussion with the minister, I was very interested to see what the bill contained. I have certainly, over the past number of years, challenged this government numerous times on the biodiesel file. So when I got the bill, when we first saw the bill, I pored through it to see exactly what it contained. It broke down into three clear parts, as explained in the explanatory note here.

The first pertains specifically to the percentage of renewable fuel that would be included in policy….

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are debating the notice of motion from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca about sending this bill to a legislative committee in regards to a number of items. We're not actually discussing the bill at the present time. We're actually discussing the motion to refer it.

Deputy Speaker: The member is allowed to develop arguments about why the bill should be referred.

M. Karagianis: It is my intention to do that exactly, to develop all of my rationale for my support of the motion to refer.

When I looked at the three components of this, one which was very interesting to me immediately was the issue of a prescribed percentage of renewable fuel in the fuel supply. Because of my keen personal interest and having stood in the House and discussed and promoted the concept of biodiesel, I was very interested to see exactly what was contained in this bill with regard to either biodiesel or bioethanol.

Of course, the first thing that was obvious is that the nature of this bill does not include any kind of differentiation around bioethanol or biodiesel. In fact, that is a very compelling discussion that's taking place worldwide. I think that it is very imperative for us to consider that debate going on between the efficacy of both bioethanol and biodiesel as being a consideration here.

As I have had a keen interest and have taken a personal step in my own life to use biodiesel as a step towards alternative fuels, I have watched with great interest the growing concern between the use of biodiesel and bioethanol, and the impacts that it has, has had and is having worldwide.

In fact, a few years ago, there was a really keen movement towards ethanol. This happened some time ago. It's not a recent development. The implementation of ethanol has been slowly gaining momentum over a considerable number of years, and it is now, as we look to alternative fuels across the world, that a crisis has begun to grow around the concerns with the impacts of bioethanol on the planet.

The use of both biodiesel and ethanol — ethanol throughout the United States and South America, and the use of biodiesel in Europe…. They are going through two billion litres of biodiesel a year in Europe right now. This is a very serious consideration for all of us who believe in alternative fuels. And, frankly, we on this side of the House do believe that we have to look to alternative fuels as bridging opportunities before the next iteration for how we will travel and transport goods and services comes into being. Who knows what that will be in the long-term future?

I know that the government itself has promoted the idea of hydrogen — again, another highly questionable alternative fuel. But the government has taken quite an endeavour here to promote the concept of hydrogen. Whether or not that is going to have some bearing on the future, I think the policy with this Bill 16 is the rationale here for this motion to refer.

I will read here from a report from the Progressive States Network in the U.S. entitled Promoting Smart Biofuels Policy at the State Level. I think it's summed up very nicely here. "Biofuels policies are complex. The urgency and excitement surrounding renewable energy can result in oversight of negative environmental consequences if policy is not designed to encourage the most energy-efficient versions of biofuels. Ensuring that biofuels are developed in a sustainable manner will lead to long-term gains and finally help wean us off our oil addiction."

Madam Speaker, there is one of the very keystones of why the motion to refer is supportable. It's because there is a complex debate going on about bioethanol, about biodiesel, about other alternative fuels and what the long-term sustainability of these is and what the impact will be.

Not just here — I heard the previous speaker talk about farming in the Peace. And with great respect, absolutely, farming in the Peace…. Probably there are great opportunities there. But this discussion is not about farming in the Peace or raising bioethanol in the Peace River. This is about the entire debate around bioethanol, biodiesel, other alternative fuels and what the sustainability of those are, both in the near future and the long-term future.

The debate is shifting, somewhat like climate change. In fact, there is a lot of contrary science on this. You can find lots of arguments for and against both of these alternative fuels that we're discussing here today, as well as hydrogen.

So it concerns me greatly that without any kind of insight from this bill into what the real policies will be and whether or not there will be very distinct language around us using a strong sustainability lens on any policies in the future…. As one of the leading countries in the developed world, we owe it to ourselves to think not just of what's happening in the Peace or within our own boundaries but, if we make these choices, what the long-term impacts are worldwide?

These debates are taking place all over the world. They're taking place in Europe, where they have been much more advanced than we have in their use of bioenergy and alternative fuels; in South America, where Brazil is very, very far along on the use of bioethanol within their own transportation sector. I think they've reached levels of about 50 percent of the usage of bioethanol within their transportation sectors. Now, they're looking seriously at what the long-term impacts are within that country on the rain forest, on the long-term sustainability against food securities.

If those kind of considerations are taking place elsewhere in the world, I think we owe it here…. As a leading country within the developed nations, as well as a province that purports itself to be leading the way in Canada, I think it's really imperative for us to take a long and hard look and have a debate and do some in-depth research into this debate and determine how we are going to move forward at this point and craft policies as supporting documents to this bill. A bill without that supporting information doesn't tell us anything, doesn't give us any kind of reassurance that the issue of sustainability is going to be a key part of our decisions on what we use and how we use it and how we will legislate it in the future.

The second part of the bill here talks about carbon intensity. I was very fortunate, and I thank the minister's staff for giving me and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca a briefing on the bill, where we actually raised some of the questions that we're raising here in the House today with this motion to refer.

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I remind you that the motion is specific in terms of the items to be discussed, which are food security, sustainability and secrecy. I believe that in your last remark you were straying from those points.

M. Karagianis: Everything I'm saying here is about sustainability, about food security, absolutely, and I will get to the issue of secrecy shortly.

Deputy Speaker: Member, will you be sure that you address your remarks to those points.

M. Karagianis: Yes, I will. I did not believe I was straying from those. In fact, the motion to refer here comes very directly out of conversations we had with the minister's staff, where the minister's staff talked about a concept around carbon intensity. The reference point here was from well to wheel, as the process and the continuity link by which you judge carbon intensity. That is, what does it take to get the petroleum product out of the well? What does it take to get it to the marketplace? What are the carbon impacts each step of the way, from the time you drill, to the time you transport it, to the time it burns in your automobile? That's what the carbon intensity quotient is going to be. It's a key part of this bill.

I would say that, given the fact we are talking about alternative biofuels, there should be a new consideration here, which is from field to wheel — not just from well to wheel, because we are talking here about the carbon intensity that is produced from products that are either food security products or agricultural products or, in some cases, waste products.

Frankly, when we're talking about waste products, even, we have to be very careful. I think that the biodiesel industry itself is moving towards sustainability on using waste product to create biodiesel. But if we're trucking these products halfway across the country, like we would be with hydrogen, then our carbon intensity on that would be extreme.

It's not just what burns in your vehicle when you turn the ignition on. It is about every step of the way. So I would say that we need to think about field-to-wheel as being one of the components of this, not just well-to-wheel.

The second part of this bill, where it talks about carbon intensity, speaks again very much to the need,

within this motion to refer, for us to give that as a new consideration, because that's not being considered. I will tell you from my understanding of the briefing I received from staff that that is not part of their quotient — looking at what that price is.

What is the carbon intensity price? What is the environmental price that we would pay for these products if we are trucking them from a long distance, if we are extracting them from non-sustainable agricultural products? If we are trucking or transporting them halfway across the country, like with hydrogen, then that's creating a different carbon intensity than what you would see on the surface of it. I'd like to see that considered, and that will only come about if we can have this debate under the motion to refer, where we can look more critically at this.

The third part of this is around the administrative and enforcement part of the act. This is where the motion to refer directly speaks to the issue around freedom of information. We've heard from the freedom-of-information office themselves that there are a great number of concerns around this bill and another subsequent sort of partner bill to this.

I would say that all of the reasons for supporting this motion to refer are reflected right here in the very nature of the bill itself and the issues that I believe have not been taken under serious consideration. I am a huge proponent of biodiesel and of using sustainable products in order to create that biodiesel.

I have a great number of suspicions around ethanol. Ethanol has been something that has been — actually, let's be frank — used to eke out the oil and gas industry's hold on the transportation sectors across the world. It came from the oil and gas industry itself. They have taken control of this. It has now become a huge controversial issue around the world. So I'm highly suspicious of that.

I think it bears a second, deeper look and more research on the part of government before they institute something here that could turn into a bigger world controversy in the future. We could discover, because we've not been careful about how we set up the policies on this…. We have not put a sustainability lens on here that included field-to-wheel. We've not looked at the impacts that this could have without a strong sustainability policy, without that embedded in legislation that guarantees that the end user will be using something that is sustainable and environmentally supportive.

I think we need to support this motion to refer. It's very interesting that the previous speaker made reference to the fact that the motion somehow indicated that we thought this was a bad deal. I'm not sure it indicates that at all. What it says is that this is a very significant piece of legislation in a broader work the government is presenting on climate change and that there are lots of questions. There are new questions growing every single day out of this industry — out of the biodiesel, bioethanol and other alternative fuels. And frankly, there are other alternative fuels coming on all the time.

The government's commitment to the hydrogen highway and to hydrogen production — how does that fit into this? I'm not entirely sure that I see that government has presented us with a whole array of alternatives that have enough documentation, have enough guarantees there that we will be able to support them as sustainable in the long run.

I would have to say to the government that they should not be afraid to look deeper at this. If this is really good legislation and if all of their policies are supportable, sustainable…. They've done the research. They've looked at the impacts of both bioethanol and biodiesel and other alternatives. If they've looked at that under the guise of measuring the carbon intensity, if they feel that there's enough documentation there to support a claim that whatever moves we take, whatever policy we put in place, are not developing a higher carbon intensity than we intended or than we will have lost by our current methods, then I think they should be happy to sit down and defend that.

Even the agriculture industry — there are great opportunities here. I think there are tremendous opportunities, certainly in the biodiesel industry, for new kinds of agricultural opportunities, but they all have to be measured up against any risks that we may have.

As we have been eroding the agricultural land reserve in this province, we are diminishing the amount of acreage, the amount of agricultural land that could produce alternative crops. Are we going to be forced to make choices because of policies the government has already embarked on, actions the government has already taken, positions they already support? How do those reflect on the long-term sustainability of any kind of biofuel?

We look at the potential options for bioethanol out of the current climate change crisis with the pine beetle. In fact, what is the carbon intensity that we would see coming out of that kind of production of taking those wood products and developing an ethanol product out of that? The documentation is not here.

The bill itself, Madam Speaker, because it's enabling legislation, has very thin language in all of this, and that is where the growing concern is. I think it's for us to take a closer look, have a thorough debate and make sure, when we put this bill in motion, that we are not doing something frivolous, not doing something that we will be ashamed of later, not putting in place something that actually jeopardizes many of the things that we are trying to achieve.

This is a government that said we will reduce greenhouse gases by a tremendous amount, with deadlines in the future that may or may not be achievable. Certainly, given the government's actions outside of this bill — where we are building superhighways, we are building new bridges, we are encouraging more traffic, and we have not put in place other alternative modes of transportation at the rate that will allow people to get out of their cars faster and sooner — means that we have continued to create this automobile and oil and gas dependency for a long, long time.

The idea of moving people to alternative fuels is very interesting, very provocative, very attractive.

Biodiesel itself, if it's done sustainably…. Frankly, the industry itself wants to move directly into sustainability, because they realize that that's a key part of long-term production and making sure that people use it as an alternative. All of those things need to be discussed and thoroughly examined to make sure that whatever the government is doing, it is not completely counterproductive to what its end goal is.

The motion to refer here simply says: "Let's go away and have a discussion on this and have a debate." Let's take a very frank look at the worldwide controversy that's taking place right now around bioethanol, biodiesel — the long-term impacts on food security, and what's happening in Europe, South America, the U.S. — and let's think about what actions we take.

Frankly, we will be dependent on many of those centres to produce the products that we are going to be requiring, because we in British Columbia will be unable to be self-sustainable in any way in a biodiesel or bioethanol market. If we think we can grow everything here that would feed into any of these biofuel products, then that's complete folly. There is no way on earth we would become self-sustainable. So that means that we are dependent on other markets to bring this in.

Currently, our biodiesel…. I run it in my car every single day. We don't produce it here in British Columbia. All of the production system around this is still in a fledgling state.

Even if we were to mandate that tomorrow people had to use B5 in every diesel automobile in British Columbia, we couldn't produce it. There is no way to access it. All of the system that needs to be grown in place here is dependent on product that comes from areas that may not be sustainable.

I have great respect for the previous speaker who talked about farming in the Peace and about what a great opportunity this is for them. It is a great opportunity — right? — for farmers in northern Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, who are only putting two-thirds of their field to plant these days. One-third of their lands are not going into grain, because the market is not creating economic stability for them. Sure, there are lots of opportunities there, but we have to make sure that whatever we're doing is not at a greater cost, and that we actually calculate this field-to-wheel cost, think about the carbon intensity and think about whether or not it is sustainable in the long run.

I would think that every member of this House would be looking to be responsible to that, to ensure that whatever we are doing is sustainable, that it is not jeopardizing food prices elsewhere in the world and that it is not jeopardizing the environment because the field-to-wheel carbon intensity is far greater than anything we anticipated.

Do we have all those facts? They are controversial. There's no question about it. I've made a study of this for several years, and I can tell you that there are no clear answers. It becomes more controversial all the time.

Frankly, the oil and gas industry itself is wading in and out of this. They are huge players in the ethanol debate. As a consequence, you have to look and say: what have they found? Why are they promoting ethanol? Is it really going to get us the kind of alternatives that we're anticipating here? I don't get any answers out of all of this.

I think that it does come down to public policy on this. That cannot be created in the middle of a bill that has no details to it and has no policy attached to it. Public policy on this is going to be what affects us the most and what will stay with us the longest in the future. That's what we're asking for in this motion to refer.

It's highly supportable. I would think that the government would be happy to support the idea to refer this to a committee, where we have a discussion, where we all, in tandem, take a hard look and say: "We're not making mistakes. We're not doing this at the expense of other countries, other cultures. We're not doing this at the expense of the rain forest. We're not doing this at the expense of food and corn crop prices in the U.S. that affect families."

I know that the minister has these things on his mind as well. I know that this is a concern for all of us who support the concept of alternative fuels. We know we have to find some bridge between here and the future. We know that we have to find ways to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel dependency.

There are some great opportunities here. There are also some great hazards in the debate. Why would we not want to sit down and have that discussion and make sure that we support the idea of alternative fuels with sustainability, with public policy that we can all be very proud of long into the future?

I think that this motion is highly supportable. Without it, the bill, unfortunately, doesn't take into consideration all of the other concerns. If the whole concept of this carbon intensity of fuel transport does not take into consideration some of the issues with biofuel, with bioethanol in particular…. Frankly, it's no secret that I'm not a big fan of bioethanol, because I do know that its impacts are harsh, both on food prices and food security. As well, the long-term sustainability here is highly questionable.

I am much more confident about biodiesel, because it uses waste product. It can actually help get waste product out of the landfill. Much of what it's based on is either recycled or using waste product from other food crops, like soy, that are grown for protein. The waste by-product of that is used for biodiesel.

Certainly, we have some huge opportunities around using meat-packing waste that would normally go into the landfill but could be used, and it's highly stable for the use of biodiesel. There are other crops coming up, and there are other alternative fuel options coming in the future.

I think that for us to sit down and make sure that when we initiate this legislation and initiate policy, we know exactly what we're doing and can go and face the world and not be caught in that controversy, not be

caught in that debate. As long as our policies here in British Columbia are under the guise of new greener, cleaner greenhouse gas–reducing climate change planning, but we can't look the rest of the developed countries in the eye…. We can't look at the critics of bioethanol and biodiesel and say: "We have done a thorough job of making sure we will, in British Columbia, behave very responsibly around this."

If we haven't done that, then what is the purpose of having climate change planning you can't actually defend in public? So I would say that all of these are critical not just to this enabling legislation but to the longer-term impacts for us in British Columbia.

The public policy on this has to be something that we are proud of, that we can defend, that we are knowledgable about. That will come out of this motion to refer to a committee and us having this discussion off and out of this House, in a venue where we can actually discuss and dismantle…. We can make sure that whatever we are doing here is something we have examined thoroughly and know we've been responsible about.

I highly support the motion to refer. I can't imagine why anyone would not want to have a thorough discussion about this — what they would be afraid of, why government would be in any way hesitant from having that debate. It's all supportable around this legislation. It doesn't hurt the legislation at all. It doesn't change it. We refer it, we have that discussion, and then we come back with public policy to back this up that is very sustainable and supportable and that we're proud of.

Then we can go out to the world and say: "We've now created legislation." We've created legislation that could be a blueprint for other communities to follow. We like to think, in B.C., that we're doing that, with a climate change plan. Let's make it real. Let's make it deep and substantial and realistic.

Then we can go out and say: "Here's public policy. Here's what we created in a bill. Here's the background to it." Here's the public policy that goes with it that actually defines sustainability and makes sure that whatever we do in British Columbia is sustainable into the long future, until we see alternatives beyond fossil fuel dependency or alternative fuel dependency, and something like, ultimately, a solar-powered electric car that costs the environment nothing to operate.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to once again take my place in this debate on my referral motion….

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is clarification from the Chair. This morning the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca began second reading debate, actually carried on second reading debate for a while, and then introduced a motion and spoke on that motion until we broke for lunch.

After lunch the member was not in the House, in fact, to carry on the debate, and the member for Peace River South carried on the debate on the member's motion. I just would like some clarification of what takes place now, because I believe that the member has already spoken to his motion, he's already spoken to second reading, and we need to move on with the motion the member brought forward, but by other members of the opposition.

Deputy Speaker: Members, at the call of the Chair, we will recess for five minutes.

J. Horgan: I thank members of the House for indulging me. My brief absence after question period prohibited me from taking my place in the debate.

I want to be brief and to the point. I think I made the points fairly clearly before the lunch break. My view, and the rationale for the referral motion, is that this is a golden opportunity for all members of the House to come together as one in committee — whether it be a newly constituted committee or one that is appointed by the committee on legislative initiatives — to look at this issue, to bring in experts, to have a debate internally in the glare of the public eye, and come to a conclusion on the efficacy and value of biofuels.

Now, I don't want to leave the public or members of this House with the impression that this is something I've just come upon recently. I've been doing a lot of research on this. I've been giving it a lot of thought, and so has the scientific community; so has the media.

I have in my hand this month's edition of Time magazine. On the cover there is a cob of corn surrounded by bills. It says "The Clean Energy Myth." It goes on to say that politicians and big business and others are pushing biofuels as corn-based solutions to our energy crisis. That may or may not be true, but the public that we represent — bombarded by media, bombarded by different opinions, different ideas on this debate — look to us as legislators, whether we be government or opposition, to help sort through the different opinions in the marketplace.

I have a document here. It is from Britain's House of Commons, the Environmental Audit Committee. "Are Biofuels Sustainable?" is the headline. This is from the 2007-2008 session, published in January 2008. The summary reads as follows: "But most first-generation biofuels have a detrimental impact on the environment overall. In addition, most biofuels are often not an effective use of bioenergy resources in terms of either the cutting of greenhouse gases or value for money."

Now, if I'm someone concerned about climate change, rising energy costs or displaced agricultural production for energy consumption, I'd have to take a look at Britain's House of Commons and the MPs assembled there in committee — non-partisan; bipartisan; tripartisan, I suppose, if the Liberal Democrats are

participating. They've come to conclusions that say, they publish, that they are not in the interests of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The report goes on to say: "The commission did not foresee all of the problems that EU" — or the European Union — "biofuels policy would cause. This means implementing a moratorium on the current targets until technologies improve."

So we've got other jurisdictions — the mother of all parliaments, Westminster, committee assembled — saying: "We better stop and take a look at this." Again, it's not me; it's the British House of Commons.

We've got the OECD report I mentioned earlier, and I'd like to just quote briefly from that document. The OECD — of course, everyone knows what that is; I don't think I have to repeat that — have significant concerns, as well, about the implementation of biofuel policies.

When I'm in my constituency office and people contact me and, I know, other members from both sides of the House…. Citizens are concerned about climate change. We've certainly taken it up as a fundamental issue that this parliament is going to try and address. Government has made reference to it in the throne speech as we have this, our first significant bill in that regard.

We want to be supportive of that initiative. We want to ensure on this side of the House that we're doing everything we can, doing all of the due diligence we can, to support government policies that lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases.

We supported the legislated cap last fall. In order to meet that cap, to meet those targets, we need to implement policies as a government, as a province, to effect those changes. The minister and I are in agreement on that. Where I think we divide and where I think this is a great opportunity….

I'm hopeful that the House Leader will review the Blues and will review the debates and the arguments we're putting forward, and that members on the government side will think about this for a minute and say: "Well, maybe that Malahat–Juan de Fuca guy has a point today for a change." Give me the benefit of the doubt.

My colleague from Penticton is scratching his beard, but give me the benefit of the doubt here. This is a good opportunity for all of us to sit down in committee.

My colleague from Peace River South and I have travelled on the Finance Committee. We found many, many reasons to agree in the course of listening to citizens across B.C. The Finance Minister sent me and others out again as a Finance Committee to hear the views of citizens, and people talked about biofuels. People talked about ethanol as an opportunity or biodiesel as an opportunity.

The notion that we can come together as a group and say, "We need to value our agricultural products more. We need to ensure that farmers are getting a fair dollar for the hard work they put into producing food so that we can be sustained…." In the process of doing that, in implementing enabling legislation like Bill 16…. This motion, I'm hopeful, will say to the government: "Why don't we sit down, both sides of this place? Why don't we sit down and try and burrow through some of these contradictions in the scientific community?"

The OECD said the following. This was published in November 2007 in a policy brief from the OECD. "Additional research on the economics of biofuels and related agricultural markets, on the environmental costs and benefits of biofuel production using different feedstocks…on a wider range of energy policy alternatives, including those that might accelerate the scientific and technological development of second-generation biofuels, is needed."

More work needs to be done. Why not, as a Legislature assembled, strike a committee to go forth and do a little bit of this work, a little bit more research, so that we can have answers to some of these challenges?

The OECD goes on: "Can Biofuels Live Up to Public Expectation?" That's one of the challenges that I was really grappling with when the minister made his staff available to me to discuss this issue and be briefed on it. How can we as a Legislature meet public expectation on this file? How can we ensure that we're going down the right road? I'm not convinced that we're there yet.

Just yesterday the Globe and Mail wrote: "Europe's Biofuel Road Paved with Potholes." It makes reference to Bob Watson, who was at one time the chief scientific adviser to the World Bank and is currently the adviser to Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Al Gore referred to him as a hero of the planet. This is a climate change crusader who's concerned about sustainability, concerned about food security and concerned about the other issues that are referenced in my referral motion.

This is what Mr. Watson had to say in a BBC interview. "If one started to use biofuels…and in reality that policy led to an increase in greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane." This is Al Gore's poster child for the environment and for greenhouse gases saying that we may want to look at this a little more closely. We may want to ensure that we're on the right road with respect to this bridging technology that moves us from our dependence on fossil fuels.

How do we do that? Through life-cycle analysis. Again, the minister and other members of the House, I think, would benefit — all of us would benefit — from bringing in some experts and addressing this issue.

Nobel prize winner Rajendra Pachauri — this is a Nobel prize winner, an environmental scientist, a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — said the following with respect to biofuel solutions: "We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impacts on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security."

These are Nobel prize winners. This is not the NDP opposition waving a flag of doom and gloom. This is a genuine and sincere overture on our part, as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to appeal to government,

appeal to the members on the other side. Let's get together. Let's sit down and grapple with this so that we can value our agricultural products, ensure that the public knows that the cost of a loaf of bread is incumbent on a whole host of issues and understand what life-cycle analysis really means to addressing climate change.

I believe sincerely — I really do — that in order to break this knot and give the public some certainty that we are here doing the best we can to make the world a better place, we can't just go with the flavour of the month. I'm not suggesting that those who are currently involved in biofuel production, those who are advocates for biodiesel, even those who are still of the view that ethanol is a cheap, cost-effective and environmentally sound way to address our fossil fuel dependence….

All people should have some confidence that if British Columbia is to truly be a leader, as the Premier would like us to be, as the press releases continue to say…. If that's going to be genuine and sincere, why wouldn't we put together a committee of members of this place with expertise?

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has done a great deal of work on this file. I'm certain that we could take some more time away from the minister, or the member — soon to be minister, certainly — for Peace River South and from other members of the Legislature who have a passion for these issues and have a desire to be able to respond to their public, to their constituents, about the importance of making sure we get it right.

One of the e-mails I've received on this — and there have been many…. In fact, I would think that since this session started, there's been more traffic in my in-box on biofuels than there has been on just about any other subject. Coming from Malahat–Juan de Fuca — home of the Bear Mountain interchange and various other subsurface rights issues that I'm going to be very excited to talk to the Minister of Mines about in estimates — there's no shortage of issues. I know the Minister of Education knows, in the two districts I represent…. No shortage of issues.

Why do you think biofuels, bioenergy and climate change would be at the top of people's minds? Because they're uncertain. That's why. They're uncertain that we're on the right path.

The minister has brought this legislation forward in good conscience, trying to achieve the government's objectives. I'm standing here today as his critic, having reviewed the material, having tried to do my due diligence to be prepared for the debate on this question. I've come to the conclusion — and it's shared by many colleagues — that the best course of action in this instance…. This isn't to hoist it and send it away and not think about it for six months. This is to call on this Legislature….

We have a committee of this place that has not met. I'm a member of it, so I'm fairly certain that it has not met. It's called the Committee on Legislative Initiatives. This is a perfect opportunity to strike that committee. If the Premier had the time and inclination to think about this, I'm sure he would agree. I could quote chapter and verse. I've got clips here from Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute, Friends of the Earth, BirdLife International — no shortage of environmental groups who are concerned that this may well not be the right course of action at this point in history.

Why wouldn't we sit down and try and figure that out? I know the climate action committee is busy working away. I don't know who they're meeting with. The minutes are confidential. The meetings are held in private. But we could have a committee of this place looking at this very issue. We could be very specific, very narrow in our focus. It would meet the objectives of this motion. It would meet the objectives of those who have spoken so far — even my friend from the north, from Peace River South.

Let's address the impacts on the agricultural community. Let's address the impacts on climate change. Are we making any progress? The literature that I've quoted here today tends to say that's not the case. At the same time — and I mentioned this just before we broke for lunch — in my community Columbia Fuels is a provider of bioheat energy, as they call it, or bioenergy to my house. I'm on the train. I've got additives in my fuel to heat my home.

I'm doing so because I thought that was the right way to go. I bought into the arguments of the early part of this century that additives or alternatives were a bridging technology that we should all be getting on to. I bought into it. I said: "You bet. Let's do that." I looked at the literature at the time. It made sense to me, and I proceeded. We're making expenditures in my home to try and achieve the objectives of this legislation.

But then the bills come forward. The e-mail starts coming in. I know that members have heard my arguments on this question. I know that we're going to have a vote on this referral motion. I'm ever hopeful that the government will recognize that this is not a nefarious attempt by the opposition to sidetrack their climate change initiative. It's an opportunity, in fact, to reduce the number of hours of debate in this Legislature and put our hard-working MLAs to some good purpose out in the community.

We could travel a little bit. I'm sure that we could get to Vancouver. We could get to the Interior and even into the Peace country to hear from farmers about what their views are on biofuels — a golden opportunity, as I said before.

Let's demonstrate to the people who sent us here that we really are serious about these issues as they come to this place. We're genuinely serious about working together to find solutions to the challenges of climate change.

British Columbia, if it is to lead the way, should do so in a responsible and thoughtful manner, not just based on science that may in fact be somewhat outdated. We've had Nobel prize winners and top scientists from the World Bank tell us that we're on the wrong track. I would argue and through this motion urge the Legislature to support it.

Let's move this bill to an all-party committee struck with direction from the minister, if he sees fit. That's entirely up to him — entirely up to the government.

They're setting the agenda here. The appeal from the opposition today on this question is quite clear and straightforward. Let's work together.

Let's make sure we get it right the first time. Let's not have to come back to this in two or four or five years and say: "We've made a mistake." Nobody wants to do that. Everybody wants to get on the right side of this issue.

I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the House to support me and vote in favour of this motion.

Deputy Speaker: You've heard the amendment. We'll now call the vote on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion before you, moved by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca:

C. Trevena: I'm speaking against this bill. In the discussion that was heard about the motion to refer, there were a lot of the issues that I think you'll be hearing from this side of the House about why we are concerned about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act.

It's very sad to talk about a bill like this and to think that you are actually speaking against it, because I think we all agree, on both sides of the House, on the imperative of reducing greenhouse gases. There's no question that this is the issue that is facing us in this Legislature, in other legislatures across the country and around the globe. People are looking at how to reduce greenhouse gases and how to make sure that our carbon footprint is so reduced that we can reverse some of the effects that we as a race have had on this planet, which we've seen impacting with climate change.

Sadly, this bill is not the answer. The suggestions in this bill do not work to reduce greenhouse gases. I think there are a couple of areas that I'll be looking at. One is the environmental issues, the sustainability issues. The other is the food security issues.

First, I'd just like to touch on my concern about the lack of information. This is an important bill, but it is very, very thin. I know that it is enabling legislation. That's why we don't see many details here — because it is allowing the government to act and then giving the government the right to have the legislation, when they've drawn it up through orders-in-council in cabinet, and to be able to say that this is what they're going to do.

It is really very concerning that we are being asked to pass a piece of legislation that doesn't have details — so disconcerting, in fact, that the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Loukidelis, has written to the minister about the bill. Quoting section 22 in particular, he says: "Section 22 of the bill would override the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

If we're getting letters of concern from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia to the minister, copied to our side of the House, I think we have to question ourselves why this is going through as it is. Again, it's a disappointment that the government didn't accept our motion to refer, which would have been able to look at this and possibly deal with this, put some more information into it, deal with the fear of industrial and commercial confidentiality and perhaps open it up and allow more information to be put into here. That isn't my prime concern.

I've got to say that in this we don't know what would be covered. Some of the prime polluters, we know, are cruise ships. Is marine diesel involved? Ferries are exempt. We know that. So what actually is included? We really don't know enough about the bill.

I'd like to concentrate primarily on two areas that do concern me about this bill. It is the environmental

and what's described as food security. I would say that it's the morality issue of this bill. Environmentally, we have been looking at moving to ethanol, moving to biofuels, as an alternative to fossil fuels. This was touted as the answer — that we could grow a renewable source of fuel, a renewable source of energy, and that we could fuel our industry, our cars, our vehicles and our transportation system with, literally, something that we could renew.

Environmentally, it sounds great. It's sort of: "The magic bullet is here." However, we are replacing the growing of food by the growing of fuel, and it really won't be the answer. For those who don't know, ethanol is…. I think it's 180 percent proof grain alcohol with additives in it. The additives make it work. It's got energy density of a third less than gasoline, so you have to burn more of it to actually get the same amount of power.

There is an added problem with ethanol, in that it absorbs water, so you can't transport it using pipelines. You have to transport it using truck or rail. So you're already adding to the carbon footprint by the fact that you produce this, and then you have to transport it through either truck or by rail. At that stage there's the increased carbon footprint simply in the production of ethanol.

It was seen, as I say, as the easy answer, the magic bullet, the green fuel, but there are huge amounts of fossil fuels that go into producing the ethanol that people are expecting to rely on. We've got to have the diesel to plow the fields. We've got the gas to transport it. We've got to transport the gas to get to fill the combines.

The whole buildup to actually growing the ethanol is the agribusiness combine, which we already know is being harmful. No matter what my colleague from Peace River South says about the benefits of agriculture, there are also many costs to agriculture. Obviously, we need agriculture. We need agriculture for food, but do we need to use those costs to be growing our fuel? There is the other issue of agriculture of the fertilizers — the natural gases that go into producing fertilizers and then the impact of those fertilizers themselves.

Ethanol is being seen as a big answer for the United States. The United States has decided that they are going to be developing ethanol and using ethanol extensively. The farmers in the United States are growing ethanol to an extraordinary extent, to such an extent that the Gulf of Mexico is almost a dead zone because of the fertilizers that are running off the fields where some of this is being produced.

It's very interesting, when you're doing some research about what the impacts may be and what the environmental strength of this is…. As my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca mentioned, there are lots of people — whether it be Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, various institutes looking at this, Oxfam — who are very concerned about this.

Looking at the government's own B.C. Stats Environmental Statistics of earlier this year, it says that there are different types of biofuels and different types of ethanol. B.C. Stats says that one of the least efficient inputs appears to be corn, which is the predominant base for biofuels in North America.

It quotes the rising concerns and the rising investigations — that this actually creates more greenhouse gases than it removes. I think that it's not just that it is one for the other that use ethanol instead of gas — that would be possibly okay — but it is the fact that you are creating more greenhouse gases.

Talking about the fertilizer argument. It says, and I'm referring here to Environmental Statistics of B.C. Stats: "A recent study claims that previous research has underestimated the impacts of fertilizers used in the production…and these can contribute as much or more to global warming by nitrous oxide emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings." So actually, you're going to make the situation much worse.

Really, in many situations biofuels are possibly more detrimental to the environment than fossil fuels, and we think fossil fuels are bad. I think we've really got to be…. What this brings into question is our whole way of life. We are looking for a magic bullet. We are looking, clearly, for something that can fuel the comfortable way of life that we have here in the north, in the developed world, with our cars and our transit — you know, one- or two-car households and people living very comfortably and heating their homes regularly with fossil fuels, and so on. We have to really rethink the way that we do things, if we can't find the magic bullet.

It's a concept which I think scares a lot of people, but I think it's something that we really have to start working on, and we have to start working on it very soon. This magic bullet — this magic bullet of biofuel, this magic bullet of ethanol — isn't ready yet. This first generation — it clearly isn't ready. There may be, as time goes on, alternatives. As technology moves on, as work goes on, as the research continues into the different possibilities, there may be alternatives, but at the moment what we're seeing with the current biofuels is that they will not cut it.

We have to look at finding alternative fuels. We have to look at finding alternative ways. Alternative ways of living is some of it. On the present idea and on the idea of ethanol, which is quoted clearly here in the bill and which is really…. What has sparked a lot of people's concern is that ethanol doesn't just take the fertilizers and diesel and the transport and all of their costs. Another huge environmental impact that is only just starting to be realized is the use of water to produce ethanol.

A typical ethanol factory producing 50 million gallons of biofuels a year will need 500 gallons of water a minute. That's an astounding amount of water. Already we're talking about the increasing droughts with climate change and the lack of access to water. In fact, some people are talking that water could really spark the next world war. The need for water in areas that have been damaged through desertification are really going to be desperate for water. Here we are looking at a massive use of water to produce the fuel that will run

our cars in the rich countries. The water that is used goes into the boiling and cooling processes. Some is lost through evaporation.

In the United States, where, as I say, there is a huge concentration of ethanol, a lot of work is going into developing ethanol, and a lot of subsidies are going to the producers of the crops that will create the ethanol. A whole other story is how much money the companies and the farmers are getting to create the ethanol.

In Missouri residents went to court to halt a facility being built by one company, which was projected to draw 1.3 million gallons of water every day from their aquifer, the Ozark aquifer. In the United States projects are being challenged in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and central Illinois, all of which are states where corn is being grown to produce ethanol.

I mean, this is the thing. What we're talking about here is that we're talking about corn. We're talking about maize. We're talking about a crop being grown to produce a fuel. The demand for corn is such that more and more land is being plowed to grow corn across the United States, and we're seeing this in other countries. The intensity of the demand is so huge that farmers are just turning to corn. This is the second aspect of my concern, which is the food security — the fact that we are growing a food to fuel our need and our desire to replace the fossil fuels.

I'll just touch on one last environmental side before I move on completely to the idea of the morality issues. I keep coming back to the morality issues. It is immoral to be growing food to fuel a car. I think people have heard the arguments that to fuel an SUV with ethanol uses enough food, enough grain, to feed a person for a year. That is immoral. That is why we have to be looking at alternatives to ethanol. This is not the magic bullet.

That is why it is such a pity that the motion to refer didn't pass, because we could have tried to look at alternatives. We could have said: "Let's be honest. There isn't anything at the moment. We need to find alternatives. Let's work. Let's look at the research. Let's see where we can go. Let's look at the second-generation ones. Then, in the meantime, let's look at how we can make sure that we've got better working transit, that people have alternatives and that we are encouraging people to use less fossil fuels."

Going back to the environmental side, the other issue about the land use and the growing of crops for ethanol is deforestation. Deforestation costs 20 percent of all carbon emissions. Forests and wetlands are well known as carbon sinks, but these are being cleared. Wetlands in Indonesia and forests in South America and other places are being cleared to grow the maize for ethanol. So again, the natural carbon sinks are being pulled up to grow something that is being touted as an environmental alternative, which is no environmental alternative.

Indonesia, which has started planting crops for ethanol, has moved from 21st position as a carbon emitter to third because it's clearing its wetlands to grow palm oil, which is also used as a fuel. So there is the irony that we have natural carbon sinks, natural places where we can clear the atmosphere, and internationally, we are pulling them up so we can feed this drive for ethanol.

The moral issue is the issue of growing crops to feed our hungry need for fuel. The member for Peace River South, when he was talking about the motion, referred to the benefits of farming. Of course we have benefits of farming. We all need food, and we live in a complex society, a global society, where we see our food grown thousands and thousands of kilometres away. We see the imports on our shelves. We know that it's a hugely complex system in which we live and in which we rely on our food.

The fact is that he has agriculture in his constituency, and he's very, very involved with the issues there. I think it's obviously very important for him. But I think we're talking about apples and oranges. The need for the space to grow the crops to produce the biofuels and the growing of crops for food or the agriculture in the member's constituency of Peace River South are somewhat different.

According to the International Energy Agency's calculations, the amount of arable land needed for biofuels to meet just 4 percent of the world's transport demands in 2030 is going to be greater than the size of France and Spain put together. That's a huge amount, and that will just be for 4 percent. So when we're talking about how this is going to encourage agriculture, I think we've got to be realistic about this. This isn't going to encourage agriculture. This is going to take over agriculture. It's going to subsume what we have.

We are seeing a huge change in the way that we're living. We are all aware of the need to reduce our carbon footprint, and I think we're all aware of the interrelatedness of our societies. But the fact that we can encourage people to grow food for fuel is very, very sad.

Thirty million tonnes of extra maize is going to be going into ethanol, which is half the fall in the world's grain stocks. It's really an extraordinary amount.

What we're already seeing, through climate change…. As I say, we've got the whole water issue. We've got a change in the way that our agriculture is going to happen worldwide. We're seeing more droughts. We're seeing in B.C., with the pine beetle…. We're going to see a greater aridity across B.C. We see warmer temperatures. We know that we're going to have different crops growing here.

Are we looking at this as the answer for B.C. — that we're going to be growing crops for fuel? The issue of growing crops for fuel also is very much an economic issue, obviously, but it's an issue where we are already seeing the impact. We're seeing rising food prices around the world. That is not totally due but is partly due to arable land, agricultural land, being turned to produce fuel.

We've seen riots in Mexico. We've seen problems in Egypt. We've seen prices of rice on the rise. We're seeing it around the world. We are seeing a huge increase in food prices, and we're seeing the pressure that that is

having on some of the most vulnerable and poorest people around the world — not just here, not just in B.C., but around the world. That's why I say it's a moral issue — because we have moral responsibility not just for ourselves but for other people, wherever they may be, to ensure that what we do doesn't harm them.

I think this is one of the huge problems with this bill. With the limited information that we have about what's going to happen there, it's very shortsighted. It doesn't look at the bigger picture. It doesn't look at the more global picture of responsibility. We can't live in that sort of bubble, where we can just say: "Well, it's going to be okay for us. It's going to make it better for us. It's going to make us look good. It's going to make us look as though we're reducing greenhouse gases, because we've got the bill with that name."

In reality, it doesn't reduce greenhouse gases. Nor does it benefit anyone else in the world, because everywhere else in the world the most vulnerable people are paying more for their food or have no access to the food or are seeing that they have to grow crops which are not for food but for fuel.

The World Bank estimates that 33 countries "face potential social unrest because of the acute hike in energy and food prices." That has largely got to do with biofuels.

The Egyptian Investment Minister was in Britain recently. He is seeing this affect his country directly. He said: "It sends the wrong message to the world, especially its poorer nations. It takes…the food of people to feed thirsty automobiles used by the relatively rich." And that's what it's about. It's not the big rich. It's the relatively rich.

As I say, it's immoral. It's immoral to be doing that, and it is going to get worse. There is no question that this is going to get worse.

The UN has a special rapporteur on the right to food. An interesting concept — the right to food. We have the right to water. Canada ruled against the right to water. Let's hope we don't rule against the right to food. The special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, who is in the UNHCR, said last year on World Food Day:

I think that is something that we really should bear in mind — that we as a Legislature have a very important role to play. If we start legislating that we want to use food for fuel, we are violating people's rights.

Colleagues have talked about those who have been voicing their concerns. A few years ago, yes, ethanol, biofuels were seen as the answer. But we've seen, more and more, the impact they're going to have. We've seen, more and more, the problems that are going to be faced by ethanol and biofuels.

We've got the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, warning about it. We've got the UN warning about it. We've got the UNHCR warning about it. We've got the Commons in Britain warning about it. In fact, a Commons parliamentary committee, the Commons Environmental Audit Committee in Britain, said in its report recently: "Biofuels produced from conventional crops should no longer receive support from the government. Instead, the government should concentrate on the development of more efficient biofuel technologies that might have a sustainable role in the future."

The EU has rushed into the biofuels market, as has the United States. There have been huge pressures on the EU to bring in a sustainability criteria, to rescind its targets on sustainability criteria. If there is the pressure on the EU, if the pressure is growing on the United States, why are we as the small province of British Columbia rushing into it ourselves?

Why are we, when we have voices being heard…? We've got international governmental organizations, environmental organizations, aid agencies — whether it's Greenpeace or it's Oxfam. As I say, it's the UN, the OECD, Nobel prize laureates warning against biofuels. I think that we should listen to these warnings. We should heed them.

When we have a Nobel laureate saying we should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuels solutions that have major impacts on the production of food grains and that may have implications for overall food security, we should be listening to these warnings. We should be saying: "Is this right for us?" Or should we, like the Commons in Britain is suggesting, be looking at the development of more efficient biofuel technologies that might have a sustainable role in the future?

I've talked in the past in this House about this side of the House's vision on sustainability and our concepts of looking at things through a sustainable lens that will look at long-term sustainability, look at social justice, look at protection of commons, look at issues of that long-term sustainability, look at the issues of security and look at the issues of food security. If the government was looking at it through a lens similar to that we are looking at it — through a sustainability lens, as we have with our Sustainable B.C. document — they might have come up with a different answer.

They might not have come up with this biofuels answer. They have might have come up with an answer that said: "Okay, this is a huge problem. This is

Madam Speaker, I see that my time is running short. I would urge the House, if they didn't support the motion to remove it…. The House really should oppose this bill. There are the environmental reasons — the use of land, the use of the natural carbon sinks, the excessive use of water at a time when we're seeing the problems with water, the added issue of the fertilizers, the energy it costs to grow the crops and the energy it costs to transport biofuels.

But this also should be opposed for moral reasons, because essentially, we shouldn't be using food for fuel. We should not be using food to support a lifestyle which is essentially unsustainable. We need to look at our lifestyles. We need to look at the alternatives, and we need to take a good look at the morality of this when we come to vote on this bill.

M. Sather: I rise reluctantly, I have to say, to speak against Bill 16, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act. I was actually hoping that after my colleague from North Island spoke, a member of the governing party would stand to address this bill, because it surely is problematic in many respects.

We on this side of the House are bringing forward some of the issues that we have with the bill. These are certainly issues that those who are in the business of looking at biofuels as a renewable resource and as a replacement for the non-renewable carbon emission fuels that we're now extracting from the ground are also concerned about.

I think this subject warrants considerable discussion and debate, and I'm sorry that I missed the discussion from the member for Peace River South this morning. I will certainly look at Hansard afterwards, because I am interested in what he has to say about it.

My reluctance comes from two directions. First of all, anything that we can do to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels has to be looked at. It's incumbent upon us to try to come forward with solutions and alternatives to fossil fuels, which we know are running out. We've reached peak oil, and even things like the tar sands in Alberta are problematic in terms of how much energy we get out of them compared to how much energy we have to put into the tar sands to extract that oil, but particularly if we start bringing gas down from the Mackenzie Valley to do that — notwithstanding the fact that those tar sands, of course, are the highest emitters, as far as I'm aware, of greenhouse gases in North America. It's important for us to look at alternatives.

I can understand the government bringing forth a bill like this. I think it would be remiss of them, actually, if they didn't bring forward some bill to discuss alternate fuels, renewable fuels, biofuels. However, it's a subject that has evolved in terms of the science, the knowledge around this, and many of the experts in the field and intelligent observers are seeing that there are some considerable unintended consequences of the use of biofuels.

That should, I think, lead the government to consider whether or not they are going about this in the right way. That's why I'm very disappointed that the government did not support the motion that was introduced by the critic, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

M. Sather: He is the critic — that's right — and doing a very good job of it, I might say.

It's unfortunate that the government didn't support that motion, because that would have given us an opportunity to discuss this subject in the way that it needs to be discussed, in a fulsome way. The government not having supported that motion, I'm certainly hopeful that they're going to put up more members to discuss this bill, because if they don't, I think I would have to conclude that they don't see that this is not an open-and-shut case.

They don't see that the issues surrounding biofuels…. Or they're being wilfully blind. I hope that's not the case. As I said, this issue certainly does need to be addressed, and I'm hopeful that the government is going to do that. Now, maybe they're going to do that via some of the regulations that they bring in later on, surrounding this legislation.

The energy plan which we sort of operate on in this province that this government brought in, in 2003, I believe, and then again in 2007, commits B.C. to 5 percent of gasoline and diesel from renewable resources by 2010. That's two years from now. That would lead me to believe that there's going to be some pretty rapid development of this field in order to meet that target.

The problem I also have with this legislation is that I can't figure out exactly where the government is going on the subject of biofuels. Again, I would like to know what specifically the government is intending to do.

The B.C. energy strategy says that B.C. biofuel is to meet 50 percent or more of renewable fuel requirements by 2020. So we can see that the government has considerable investment in this area. My concern is that they are not willing, I have to say, to really discuss some of the concerns that we have around this issue and that a whole lot more people than us have around this issue.

More research is needed around the issue of products like ethanol and biodiesel, because it's not clear that they're going to have the intended consequence — which, of course, is to reduce the carbon content, the greenhouse gases. That's the whole purpose of this legislation, I think — to reduce greenhouse gases. So we have to keep our eye on the prize here. That's the prize. Is the legislation actually going to do that, and is it going to do it in a significant enough way to really have an effect?

As I said, there are a number of problems with ethanol, for example. It's said that it takes six times more energy to produce some of these biofuels — particularly from corn, which seems to be the worst one —

than is contained in the product in the end. In the production of these products, of course, there is often the release of greenhouse gases, whether it be carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

B.C. Stats, for example, has talked about some of the problems around ethanol in terms of nitrous oxide, which is a considerable issue with regard to reducing greenhouse gases. They said that the nitrous oxide from fertilizers and producing ethanol is as much or more than the greenhouse gases saved from not using fossil fuels.

Well, if that's true, we've got a real problem. I want to hear a strong case from the government that tells me and the people of British Columbia that that's not true, that we're not going to be wasting our time by producing ethanol, that the greenhouse gases we produce are not going to, in fact, overwhelm the savings that comes from not using fossil fuels. It's a pretty basic proposition, if you will, Madam Speaker, and I want to hear it. I'm looking forward to more speakers from the government side to refute that, because I hope it's not true, if this is the way we're going.

I wanted to talk for a minute about the issue of farming around biofuels. This is the other reason, Madam Speaker, why I have some reluctance to oppose this bill, but I feel I must. This is particularly why I wanted to hear the comments from the member for Peace River South, because I know he's in a farming area.

As I may have mentioned in this House before, I was born and raised in the Peace River country, the same region that he's from. My family continue to farm in the area. One of the major crops that they produce is canola, which formerly went by the perhaps less fortunate name of rapeseed. It's a big crop in the Peace River country.

I understand when the member for Peace River South says, you know: "Give the farmers a break." I fully understand what he's saying, because I know through the decades that we were selling our product, wheat, at 1930s prices decades later. It's very difficult to make a living when, in fact, the product that you're selling on the open market is pretty much worthless when you throw in inflation and the costs of machinery and fertilizers and pesticides, which are a huge cost and are used a lot in producing those products.

I understand that the member has said he sent out a press release saying that we're against farming. I said that, well, he's going to have to compete with the press release being sent out by the member for Cariboo South, who is having a difficult time getting the Minister of Agriculture to address that we've got a problem with meat regulations. I guess they're going to have competing press releases. I'm certainly not against farming, and I don't think we on this side of the House are either.

The demand for biofuels is good news in terms of income for farmers that produce it. There's no doubt about that. They're having a bonanza of production of biofuels south of the border that are being very strongly encouraged by the Bush administration. Iowa is producing so much ethanol, or in the process of, from corn — and it's the Corn State, if I'm not mistaken — that they're even going to be importing corn.

It's good news in that way, but again, we have to look at the big picture here. What is the purpose of producing biofuels? It's not a make-work project. It's supposed to have…. Its intended consequence is to reduce greenhouse gases. That means we have to have a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, it is reducing greenhouse gases, and if so, by how much.

That's where the rubber hits the road on this whole issue of biofuels. That's where it seems to me that, as far as we can tell from this bill, or as far as I can tell — it's vague; it's general; it's enabling legislation — it doesn't really address the nuts and bolts of the issues.

So if it's not here in the bill and it's not the nuts and bolts of the issue, that's why we need more government members to stand up and defend the bill. I'm sure they feel that they have a good case to defend this bill, and I truly would like to hear from them, from the other side. As I say, I am torn about this bill. I know how long the farmers have been waiting for….

It's been a long time that farmers have been waiting for increased income for their product. However, is it actually doing what it's supposed to do?

One of the issues that's really come up around the concern about biofuels is what effect it has on the use of agricultural land. We've seen that it's driving the use of agricultural land quite considerably in parts of the world and in the United States. I wonder what's going to be happening in our province, in our country, with regard to the production of biofuels driving the use of agricultural land.

This is a worldwide issue. North America is not the only area of the world that's producing biofuels and that's looking at this whole issue. Europe's looking at it. It's happening big time in South America. It's happening in Indonesia. So what's happening there is also related to what's happening here. If we are going down the biofuels production strategy in a big way, we need to acknowledge that what is happening in other parts of the world….

In the Amazon we see that the production of soy is exploding for soya oil and sugar cane for biodiesel, and it's replacing ranchlands. Those ranchlands are looking around for a place to be. So where are they going? They're going into the Amazon, into the rain forest — cutting down more rain forest to have a place for them to do their ranching. The problem with that is manifold, but to just deal with the problem with regard to this issue, 20 percent of the greenhouse gases that we're producing in this world are the result of deforestation.

Like I say, I wonder what is happening here. What is the intent of the government around biofuels in British Columbia? Now, hearing the member for Peace River South, I feel pretty strongly that we're definitely headed in the way of producing more canola, for

example, for biofuels. I talked about some of the problems that I think there are around that.

In addition to that, what about some of the other areas of the province that right now aren't being used for the production of a biofuel product? Might they be used for that purpose? It's the question I have, and if it's entirely off base and incorrect, I'm sure, or at least I'm hoping, that the members opposite will tell me.

What's happening, for example, or what might happen, let's say, with the grasslands in the Cariboo? Ranchers use them to have their cattle out on the grassland, and then they slaughter the cattle for food. Wildlife use those grasslands a great deal. Are they going to be used for the production of biofuels? I don't know. I want to hear from the minister or the government about whether or not that could be the case. I don't know, in fact, whether they could be used for biofuels, but if not, then I hope to hear clearly from the government that no such thing would happen, because it's problematic.

Studies have been done on grasslands that showed that carbon lost in converting grasslands is not captured for 93 years. The point is that grasslands store a lot of carbon, and if we convert those grasslands to biofuel use, we lose that carbon storage. According to some analyses, at least, it would take decades and decades to recoup that loss. Again, this is what the whole purpose of this legislation is supposed to be about — reducing greenhouse gases. An important part of reducing greenhouse gases is sequestration or storage of carbon. We have natural storage in our forests; we have natural storage in our grassland. What would happen if we were to start converting that for biofuel?

Same thing I wonder about with the…. We have a huge beetle-kill problem. Everybody knows that. The government talks about expansion sometimes of the agricultural land reserve and how they're adding more lands to the agricultural land reserve, but of course, it's not in the Lower Mainland. Whatever has been added either by this government or a previous one has been mainly up north, and I think some of it is in those areas where we have the beetle-kill problem.

Are we going to be converting some of that land to biofuels? I don't know. I'd like to hear from the government whether or not that's going to be the case, because I would suggest, in terms of the greenhouse gas reduction strategy, that could be problematic, assuming that we have forests returning there that will be green and will be retaining carbon. We have to hope for that. I know we don't just have pine that's been stricken the worst up there. We do have some other species that are still managing to stay green.

What is the intent? Is the intent, for example, to use wood to produce ethanol? Wood waste is a big subject, of course, in the Interior and in the north where the aforementioned beetle-kill problem is so predominant. What are we going to use these wood waste products for?

Some analyses have said that using wood wastes — or wastes in general; there are a variety of wastes, of course — is more advantageous in terms of reducing greenhouse gases than, say, growing canola for ethanol. My understanding is that the economic viability of that process is not there yet anyway. Again, I'm waiting for more information and elucidation of this subject from the government.

There is a whole need, then. What it points to is that there's a whole need for us to differentiate between…. What are the so-called feedstocks? Where do we start from? What are we producing the biofuels from? What are the production methods? What is the carbon balance when we look at that in reality? A lot of questions are emerging about that, and this is the place and this is the time to address those issues.

Mentioning wastes, there are other kinds of wastes that can be used for biofuels. I think a member mentioned earlier that using waste from restaurants, food products, has…. A small scale has been proven quite useful. At the very least, intuitively, that sounds good to me because that product ends up in landfills where it's producing methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. So if we can use that for biofuels, that sounds like a good plan.

The member tells me that there are even some gas stations that are dispensing this product, although she said she had to get a cardlock, because you had to be, I guess, an industrial user rather than a regular consumer. She had to get access to that. There may be some potential there.

What about agricultural wastes, whether it's manure or whether it's the waste from growing a crop? It actually is dodgy, though, calling that a waste. Oftentimes that's a fertilizer that should be and often is recycled back into the soil to grow another crop.

When we look at the problems with agriculture, and this is with the potential of alienating agriculture…. I think the one phrase that I heard that sort of draws the focus for me for it is: are we producing biofuels — are we using our agriculture — to feed our cars rather than to feed our people? If that's the case, you know, we've got some problems, because food production should never fall off the agenda. It should never be denigrated in any way.

I must say, listening to the Minister of Agriculture's estimates a little earlier, I have concerns that he fully comprehends that issue. We've got B.C. farmers producing only 48 percent of the meat and vegetables that we consume.

The Energy Minister and the government are really keen to talk about self-sufficiency when it comes to electricity. Well, how about self-sufficiency when it comes to agriculture? We need to ensure that we're maintaining our food lands for food. Our population is not declining — it's increasing — and we're going to need that land and more.

Now we're probably looking at, if we're going down this road, as I said, canola production in the Peace country for biofuel. But what about the Lower Mainland? That's our breadbasket in British Columbia, really. Well, the member for Peace River South and maybe Peace River North might disagree with me. In

actual fact, my choice of words was not good, because we don't produce that much bread down here. We do produce other products, and the land is incredibly rich in the Lower Mainland.

Are we, then, going to be displacing use of some of that land? That's another question that I want the government to clarify — that we're not intending to be producing biofuels in the Lower Mainland. Maybe they are. Maybe it's a one-shoe-fits-all. But it doesn't.

You know, when we talked about the so-called run-of-the-river issue and self-sufficiency and that in the B.C. Utilities Commission bill a little while ago, the point we were making with the government there was that yeah, the idea that we need to look at other sources of production of energy, whether it's electrical energy or whether it's a biofuel, is true. We do need to look at other sources of energy. But that doesn't mean that it's a holus-bolus approval of how it's done.

That's why we have a big problem with how the so-called run of the rivers are being done. It's also, similarly, in some respects, why I think we have some problems with the way it seems that the biofuel issue is progressing.

But as I say, the caveat for me is that I have bona fide questions about this issue. I'm willing to be, and I'd like to be, further educated by the members of the government side if they can do that — to quell my concerns that we may be going down the wrong road with biofuel production in British Columbia.

It will take us, to maintain our current level of food self-reliance…. By 2025 we're going to have to increase agriculture production by 30 percent. But since 1986 our food lands — lands in production — have only gone up by 1 percent. I see that in my community. We're on the urban-rural divide, and our agricultural lands are constantly under threat of being taken out of agricultural production for other uses.

I hope that this is not going to add another threat to food production in the Lower Mainland. Given all the pressures that we're facing from development, that we have from speculators who are holding their land, believing that they're going to make windfall profits from development and sometimes do, this kind of additional stressor we really can do without. I'm hoping that's not in any way where we're heading.

Perhaps the question we really should be looking at here is: should we be looking so much at alternative fuels, or should we be looking more at reducing our consumption of fossil fuels?

I'm not convinced that we're in any way heading in the right direction. We've had some considerable discussions about transit development in the Lower Mainland, where the Gateway program and TransLink are involved in some endeavours, but I don't see the emphasis on transit. I see the emphasis on roads and bridges, but I don't see the emphasis on transit.

For example, we're getting two new bridges to Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, and that's fine. One of them is the Golden Ears bridge across the Fraser River, and it doesn't have any capacity for transit on it. That's not forward-looking. That's, in fact, leading to more car dependency, and car dependency, as we know, leads to more greenhouse gases.

So why aren't we focusing more on ways to reduce greenhouse gases than on the direction that the government's going? I look forward to their comments.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and contribute a few observations to the debate around second reading of Bill 16, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act.

I do believe that this bill has been submitted in good faith. I think that the intent of the bill — to try to find ways to get at reducing our use of fossil fuels through alternate means — is a good objective. There's no doubt about that, and it's an objective that I think everybody in this House would strive to try to achieve and find some solutions that would get us there. As I said, generally, both sides of the House — and the minister, certainly — have made that effort in this bill.

Unfortunately, I think there are some glaring issues in relation to the bill and the way that it has come forward. Maybe part of that concern, as much as anything, is that — as comments have been made about other legislation that we'll talk about in the coming weeks that are before us — it may have been done as an enabling bill but in a rather hasty way, which doesn't provide or afford us the opportunity to look at a range of issues that are critical in dealing with this question of biofuels in particular.

What the bill does…. Part of the challenge here is that because of its nature as an enabling bill rather than as a substantive bill that has content, it leaves much information out, and that is information that will all come at some point through regulation when the bill is adopted.

The concern around that, I think, is threefold. I have three issues that particularly relate to this bill. The first is around the secrecy question, the second is around the effectiveness of the initiatives that are contemplated in Bill 16 to actually reduce greenhouse gases, and the third is the question of food security, which has been referenced by other members in the House.

As we know now, there have been serious concerns raised about the secrecy of this bill, Bill 16, and of Bill 18, which we'll debate at some further time in this session. They are concerns that have been raised around certain confidentiality clauses that are in Bill 16, clauses that raise real red flags around the approach that the government is taking.

I would note that this is a problem that's not exclusive to Bill 16 — or to Bill 18, which we'll debate in the future. It's a problem that has been identified and is endemic to all of the initiatives that the government has been advancing — or, at least, the snippets that we get to hear about the government advancing — in relation to climate change.

We have seen levels of secrecy around this issue that are unprecedented in terms of government action, whether they be around the role of the climate change committee, the secretariat or the department of senior staff who are supporting the cabinet committee.

All of this is being done in secret. I would note, and I've seen these references in the media a number of times, that even on the question of who has been talking to the cabinet committee and the secretariat…. It's challenging even to just get information on who's been talking to those committees — without actually getting at the content of what they're being told — and who's actually having those discussions.

I think what we're seeing with Bill 16 now is that we're starting to see this come to a new level. I would note that with this the concern…. This is not a common occurrence at all, when the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Mr. Loukidelis, writes to a minister to raise concerns around this. Mr. Loukidelis has written to the minister in this case.

On April 4 he wrote to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to raise very strong concerns about the confidentiality clauses in this bill. He raised those concerns because he feels that it certainly is an attempt to end-run the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, the piece of legislation that he administers through his office. In this, he lays out in real detail the concerns around this matter and the concerns that he has.

I won't go into reading the sections and the concerns he raised but just quote from his closing couple of sentences in relation to this. Mr. Loukidelis, in writing to the minister, said: "I am concerned about the significant encroachment that section 22 represents on the overriding Freedom of Information and Privacy Act policy of accountability through access to information — a particularly important consideration in relation to climate change measures and their enforcement — and urge you" — the minister — "to withdraw these changes."

We'll see, I guess, as we go on. I do hope that the minister will bring an amendment to his act, when we get to committee stage, that will withdraw the offensive sections that have been identified by Mr. Loukidelis.

Quite frankly, I was a little surprised and certainly disappointed that the minister chose to continue with the bill and to bring the bill without making those changes. He certainly could have pulled the bill back, made the adjustments and changes, and reintroduced the bill, but he chose not to do that. We can now only hope that he will make the decision to do that through amendments when it comes to committee stage.

I would note, and this is secondhand information, that the Minister of Environment, as I said before, received a comparable letter in relation to Bill 18. It's my understanding, from talking to some of our media friends around this place, that in their conversations with the minister, he acknowledged the concerns of Mr. Loukidelis and suggested that he would be looking to try to find an accommodation that would satisfy the Information and Privacy Commissioner's concerns. We certainly hope he'll do that when it comes time to deal with Bill 18, or preferably before.

I do hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources will make the decision to do that as it relates to Bill 16. The concerns that were raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner on this were significant.

It's interesting that we've now seen a press release, released here from the Campaign for Open Government, that shares those concerns. I would note that this is an interesting organization, the Campaign for Open Government. It's one of the more diverse coalitions of groups that I've seen. It's a group that would include the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, along with the civil liberties folks and others. These are not people who are always known to be getting along, but they do share a concern about access to information

Just to quote the concerns that they raise. They say that Bills 16 and 18 both concern the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Both also have confidentiality clauses that will override B.C.'s Freedom of Information Act and would allow extremely important information to be withheld from public view.

One of the quotes here from one of the representatives said: "Combined with the B.C. government's creation of a climate action committee last year that is outside the reach of B.C.'s Freedom of Information Act, it's starting to show a pattern of secrecy when it comes to government plans and actions around climate change. Global warming is currently the most talked about topic, but the B.C. government is treating it as top secret." I think these are concerns that we're hearing.

Part of the concern that I have is…. As I look at that and as I see these clauses in these bills, it raises great concern about all of this being put into the regulatory regime rather than actually being in legislation, where we can have some legislative oversight in this chamber by the people who are elected to be here to discuss this.

That's not what's going to happen with this bill, because everything essentially goes back into regulation and will be set by regulation. That's the nature of this enabling act. So that raises some significant concerns for me, as to how we deal with this.

I do think, as we move through these bills and through these matters, that we need to think about whether, in fact, what we have in front of us will do the job that needs to be done. As has been pointed out by others, there is a significant debate going on globally right now on the question of biofuels, and particularly around first generation biofuels. There is a significant debate in play as to whether biofuels will help us to achieve the objectives around greenhouse gas emissions that I believe the government is looking for and hoping for and that this side, also, is very hopeful that we'll be successful in reducing.

But what we see is a raft of information coming forward from very well respected sources that raise serious concerns about whether, in fact, this will be accomplished. We know when we look at, for example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD…. They released one of their

Observers, which is a policy brief, in November of last year, where they talked about the issue of biofuels for transport and the possibilities and the policies that would need to be there. I think they, like everybody else, are hopeful that bioenergy and biofuels will become part of the solution.

One of the things they said in this report that they released, just to read briefly a clause from this report, was:

What we hear the OECD telling us is that some of the assumptions that have been made about what we might accomplish from the use of biofuels…. There are serious questions as to whether, in fact, they are going to accomplish those things that we're all hoping will be accomplished through this.

They weren't alone. There's a significant and growing body of concern among experts, many of whom I think were initially very hopeful that biofuels, particularly first generation biofuels, would begin to take us down the road that we need to go, to find success in bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.

We've also seen this…. For example, we saw here from a climate change scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, as well, very recently in The Vancouver Sun — I'll quote him from March 27 — comments that he made in speaking to the European Parliament. As he said: "We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impacts on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security." Dr. Pachauri was the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This is a very eminent individual who is telling us that we need to show some caution here, and that comes right home to us too. In January of this year B.C. Stats, an excellent organization that's part of our government here and that provides very important information on a range of issues, put out a circular around environmental statistics titled "It Ain't Easy Being Green: Why Biofuels May Not Be the Answer." The conclusion, and they go into some depth here, that they came to on this question is, and these are our own officials here:

Again, that's from B.C. Stats. We're seeing this growing body of evidence that is raising the flags and the concerns that we should heed and pay some attention to.

I don't want to be critical of the intention of the government around the initiative, because I think that people have been thinking about this notion of whether we could do this with biofuels, whether it in fact would accomplish the objectives that we were looking for and how that might be done. I think the intent is all good there.

The problem we have is that the growing body of independent and empirical evidence is that it may not be all we had hoped it would be in the beginning. I think that raises significant concerns that we need to pay some attention to as we move forward and look at these issues around Bill 16.

Another issue that we need to pay attention to — it's a very critical issue for us, absolutely — is the matter of food security. We know that this is an issue that is of growing concern to British Columbians. We continue to hear debates around the role of the agricultural land reserve and the need to protect our land that rests in the reserve, the need to support our farmers, the need to find ways to make advances in relation to farming and to the food stocks and goods that we produce.

This is a challenge that we need to get our heads around right now, and I think most of us would agree. What we see today is that based on the Ministry of Agriculture's own report, B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance, which was released by the Minister of Agriculture…. They tell us that B.C. farmers produce only 48 percent of the meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables that we consume — so about half of all of our food needs and food requirements we're able to produce — and then we need to purchase the rest and bring the rest in.

As was pointed out earlier, if we want to maintain that level into 2025, it will require us to increase our food production in British Columbia by 30 percent over what it is today if we're going to be able to maintain the standard of producing roughly half of everything that we eat. Unfortunately, the challenge we face today suggests that we're not seeing growth in ALR land. I think we've had about a 1 percent growth in the amount of land since 1986. So we have a situation where we face real challenges around food and food production.

As was pointed out — this was in regard to global questions, of course — by Dr. Pachauri when he spoke to the European Parliament, that needs to be a very real concern when we measure how in fact we deal with the questions of biofuels.

We know from looking at what's happened in some of the states in the U.S. — Iowa and others, where we're seeing a very rapid growth in the amount of

biofuels that are being produced or in the products that are being produced, corn and other products, in order to get at production — that there is money to be made. I appreciate that for our farmers…. They have challenges, and they need to have income. There's money to be made, but not to be made, necessarily, by producing things for us to eat.

To give you some sense of the value of these investments in biofuel, in 1995 the estimate was that there was about $5 billion of investment in biofuels globally. In 2005 that went to about $38 billion, and it's projected to top over $100 billion by 2010 — the investment, essentially, in production for biofuels. So we have a situation where it's growing quickly.

I understand why we have a number of farmers and others who are looking to move to corn or to other products that they can sell for first-generation biofuel production, but it has to raise concerns for us when we look at our food requirements. Certainly, in the United Nations…. We've seen their concern at a more global level about whether this is taking away from the needs of food production for many of the people in the world who obviously have a much greater struggle every day just to feed their families than we do here.

To give you some sense of context for that, as I think was pointed out by one of the previous speakers, the amount of grain that would be required around ethanol to be able to fill up your average SUV would provide about a year's food for one person. It's a significant amount of food.

While we certainly can appreciate the objective of the bill, it unfortunately doesn't get us where we need to go. It doesn't accomplish the objectives. The secrecy issues that I raised earlier raise even greater concerns for us as to what that might look like.

The question, then, is: what should we do? What would be the right thing for us to do in terms of trying to get at this? Well, there are areas where I think we should be looking hard at the production of biofuels or biodiesel. We have those opportunities to look at alternate energy sources, whether it be around how we deal with wood waste — we know that there's work being done on that — or municipal waste, whether there's work to be done on that.

We talked about foodstuffs or animal by-products. There's a variety of possibilities around the production of second generation biofuels. I think that for us in British Columbia, particularly as we look at the future we face and the alternatives that we have, it would be very worthwhile for us to explore that. I would like very much to see the government make the commitment to be looking at those things and having a discussion here.

Unfortunately, and not wanting to talk necessarily about things that have gone on previously in this House earlier today, we do know that the referral from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca that was moved and defeated earlier would have, in fact, given a legislative committee the opportunity and the mandate to have explored this issue in a more substantive way and to have come back to this House and reported out and been able to deal with a number of these questions. I'm sure these are questions around whether it will achieve objectives around emissions reductions, whether it does compromise our food security issues.

I'm sure those are questions that are shared by members on the government side — the minister, the Minister of Environment, senior officials in government who are struggling with the challenges around these issues. I'm sure that they share those concerns, as well, and are looking for answers.

What we need here is to know that, in fact, that work has been done and to have a piece of legislation that, rather than being enabling in this sense, is more substantive and actually deals with some of those issues and that talks about which options around biofuels would or would not be acceptable.

That's not what we have here. We do have this broad bill that allows a whole variety of things, from ethanol to other products, to be looked at in a way that, for most British Columbians and for the Information and Privacy Commissioner, have a level of secrecy around them that is unacceptable, and — without the legislation giving a free pass to Bill 16 and Bill 18, depending on what the results of that are, and assuming that we don't see amendments to these bills, which I hope we do — essentially, in the view of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in fact breach the act that he is mandated to enforce.

Those are his concerns, and I think that they are serious concerns. As we know here…. I would hope every minister and every member here would take heed when Mr. Loukidelis sends that kind of letter and raises those kinds of concerns.

One of the things that we need to do around this, I believe…. At the most recent convention of our party, we passed a document called Sustainable B.C. It was a document that really looked at a more holistic approach to dealing with a range of issues around the sustainability of our province, looked at food security issues, looked at climate change issues, looked at biodiversity questions, looked at our resiliency as a society to be able to address those things and to frame our society in a way that allowed us to meet the challenges that we know we will inevitably face in coming years and will be able to ensure that we can bounce back from those challenges when they get difficult.

It's a level of resiliency that needs to be framed in the legislation that we adopt. To be successful, that resiliency needs to engage people, and that means it needs to be prepared to bring local communities, individual citizens and all of us together to be able to meet these challenges.

To close, we have a situation here where we have a document that I believe has a level of secrecy that is unacceptable, certainly, to this side of the House, to most British Columbians and to the commissioner.

We have a document where we need to have a better discussion and much better understand and have confidence that the government has dealt with this vast array of issues and has begun to deal with

these questions that need to be answered. We need a piece of legislation that's much clearer in its intent, in terms of what its actual objectives are, how it plans to meet those objectives and what that means in practical terms for how we begin to address these issues around biofuels as a potential source for helping us to deal with climate change matters.

Unfortunately, that's not what we have here, and without those kinds of changes, without that kind of focus, it certainly would make it very, very hard for me to support this bill. As a consequence, I will not be voting for this particular piece of legislation in its current form, unless, of course, the government was to see fit to make the kinds of changes that we think are necessary to bring this legislation to a place where it actually can work for all British Columbians.

It was an effort. I think the bill was a serious effort but, unfortunately, an effort that failed. As a consequence, I won't be voting for this bill.

I do hope that we get a chance to maybe talk through some of these details when we get to committee stage, and I do look forward to that.

G. Robertson: Well, I'd like to start with an expression of my concern that we are not seeing members opposite rise to discuss in second reading and debate the merits of the bill that they have proposed and tabled here in the House — Bill 16, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act.

No doubt there are some good intentions behind the introduction of this bill. However, on close reading, and certainly on detailed research on the subject of biofuels both here in B.C. and around the planet, there are serious concerns and serious challenges to the directions proposed in this bill. It's astounding that the members opposite, on the government side, are not rising to address any of the issues.

Biofuels are no doubt a hot issue, not solely for their economic opportunities. They have created great economic opportunities, certainly south of the border. They are beginning to here in Canada and, in a number of countries around the world, are a significant new entry into the economies of various nations.

However, probably the most alarming issues arising around biofuels are to do with environmental impact, with food security impacts and with the false economics that are now being proven out, as massive investments in biofuel technology and infrastructure take place without these food security and environmental factors in the argument.

A number of these issues need to be voiced. I have great concerns with this bill as it is currently written. I do appreciate the government's intentions, particularly on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. All efforts to do that are absolutely critical and are the responsibilities of all of us elected to this House.

However, when the content of legislation proposed in this House does the reverse and may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, it's critical that we as members stand in this House and question the direction.

So I am standing to question the direction and to voice my opposition to the bill as it's currently written.

This bill has great potential to undermine B.C.'s food security and have food security implications that go global. This bill, as it's currently written, has potentially great impacts on our environment here in B.C., and our environment in B.C. is interconnected with that of the rest of the world. The greenhouse gas emissions that we produce here — or that we export — and the fuels we extract here affect the rest of the world.

I want to raise questions around the economics being proposed here related to biofuels and, of course, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, the process, the secrecy that's taken place in the development and, as we are sitting here today, the lack of engagement in debating the merits or potential problems in this legislation.

Let's start first and foremost with food security. There may be some short-term gains here in this legislation resulting for oilseed and cereal farmers here in B.C., creating more markets for what they grow. Obviously, farmers in other developing countries who produce soybeans and palm oil — although most of that is grown on a very, very large scale and is agribusiness, corporate agribusiness, and not directly connected to small farmholdings….

But overall, the bill, as it's written, creates huge problems for food supply and food security. The United Nations world food program has been very vocal recently about what they describe as a looming food catastrophe and, essentially, a perfect storm that will have disastrous implications for the world's food supply. There are three factors contributing to this perfect storm threatening the world's food supply.

The first and the foremost is population growth. Obviously, population growth has been taking place for many, many generations now and at an extremely high rate over the last hundred years. However, the production of food managed to keep pace for most of the decades in the 20th century. We're seeing that no longer take place. We're seeing the production of food unable to keep pace with population growth. We're seeing the shift in diet in Asia and China and India in particular, with increased meat consumption, triggering a much higher rate of consumption of grain. That's resulting in the world's grain supply not keeping pace with population. Population growth is the first.

Second, climate change is taking its toll now on world food production. We see in Australia, with the droughts, a sharp decline in wheat exports. Australia was the world's second-largest wheat exporter. We're seeing that coming apart at the seams. Climate change, or more accurately climate chaos, will take its toll on world food production in ways that we can't even predict at this point, but it is already having significant impacts.

The third major factor in terms of global food security is biofuels and the drive to feed cars, not people. This is being led by the United States and increasingly participated in by the European Union, although that is coming under a great deal of criticism and sober second thought.

There's a huge amount of farmland being diverted into the production of biofuels globally. In United States this year about 30 percent of the U.S. grain harvest will be for ethanol, which is a very significant shift in the U.S. grain destination — no longer going to food. It's looking like the European Union has commitments to 10 percent of its production from agricultural land going to transport fuel. The biofuels are meant to represent — or the goal is to represent 10 percent of European transport fuel, and this will have enormous implications for the continent of Europe in terms of food security.

The challenge here is that, as a very famous woman from India whose name is Vandana Shiva, the director of the Indian-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, quoted recently: "If more and more land is diverted for industrial biofuels to keep cars running, we have two years before a food catastrophe breaks out worldwide."

I think the nature of this potential catastrophe is just dawning on us, as the rapid growth of biofuels combined with the shifting diet in Asia and the climate change impact on a number of growing regions all converge, and we see global food stocks stretched to their limit.

Right now we know that in 2006 to 2007 food costs, globally, rose 23 percent, which is having a devastating effect, particularly in developing countries where more than half of people's average income is dedicated to food. We're going to see more and more problems stemming from the shift into biofuel production on agricultural land.

As is being said in an OECD document: "International Energy Agency's estimate is that by 2030 biofuels may account for only 4 percent to 7 percent of road transport fuels. According to the IEA, the amount of arable land needed for biofuels to meet just 4 percent of the world's transport demand in 2030 is equal to more than that of France and Spain."

So the scale of land that is required to produce biofuels is staggering. In a recent Science journal article, from the report, "In all cases, forestation of an equivalent area of land would sequester two to nine times more carbon over a 30-year period than the emissions avoided by the use of the biofuel." I'll come back to this Science article.

It's basically an alarming trend. Just to replace 10 percent of the gasoline and diesel fuel would require an estimated 43 percent of crop land in the U.S. and 38 percent of crop land in Europe, which is a staggering impact on agricultural land.

That's looking at some global stats. If we look here in B.C., I guess the question we have to ask ourselves in this House is: does energy security trump food security? Do the members opposite feel that energy security is more important than food security?

For starters, this government has no plan for food security. Recently the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands' own report, called B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance, said that farmland with irrigation must increase by about 50 percent by 2025 to provide a healthy diet for British Columbians. We've only seen a 1 percent increase over the last 20 years in the farmland with access to irrigation. Therefore, the trend is going nowhere near where it needs to.

Less than half of our food consumed here in B.C. is grown in B.C. So we already have very, very significant threats in terms of food security. If we want to load on top of that the impact of transitioning agricultural land from food crops to fuel crops, we're going to see a whole lot more instability here in B.C. in terms of the food we can grow ourselves. And as the global food security crisis hits us, this could have massive consequences for the people of B.C.

I'll raise that right off the bat as a major alarm that is not factored into this bill in any way, shape or form. I think we take our food for granted at great risk and at a great risk for the generations to come, if we have taken apart agricultural land to derive fuels from and impacted our viable agricultural land base for generations to come.

I just want to move on to the environmental impacts and start by painting what is not a pretty picture, but an increasingly common one related to the biofuels industry. There's massive destruction taking place, as we sit here in this House, in Brazil and Indonesia, in rain forest that is a critical piece of mitigating climate change and obviously critical in terms of its biodiversity, which is increasingly threatened in this world. We're seeing unbelievable tracts of rain forest being wiped out for the eventual use of producing biofuels.

We look at this impact taking place. The recent Science journal study researched that impact and found that destroying these natural ecosystems to grow corn or sugar cane for ethanol, or to grow soybeans or palm oil for biodiesel, releases 17 to 420 times the CO₂ that is saved by burning biofuel grown there on that land versus the fossil fuels. That's in addition to all the biodiversity that's lost.

It's an unbelievable impact that takes place. This wasn't factored into a lot of the biofuel work that took place to develop policy around biofuels, in the rush for greener technologies and the hope that there would be a green option that we could shift to, to reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

Unfortunately, that land, the forested land that's being wiped out for biofuels, has the ability to sequester two to nine times more carbon over a 30-year period than the emissions that are avoided by the use of the biofuel versus the fossil fuels. So where we end up here is that the emissions cost of liquid biofuels exceeds that of fossil fuels. That's just purely a greenhouse gas emission cost, to say nothing of the environmental impact to the land base, to the forest itself.

So we need to see a whole lot more work put into this piece of legislation to ensure that we're not going down that same road. Obviously, the impacts are different in equatorial rain forests and in the production of palm oil and soybeans, but in terms of the impacts here in B.C., we need to know what they're going to be, and we need to be able to compare that to the emissions that we currently create from our fossil fuels.

The potential here to replace fossil fuels is minimal, and that's generally accepted in this biofuels development. There is, therefore, very little energy improvement in terms of efficiency. Crops are very low energy density versus fossil fuels. Therefore, massive quantities of land are required to produce that same amount of energy and replace the fossil fuels. So if we look at what's possible here in terms of the output from the land base, the ability for our lands here to produce a significant percentage of what's being burned and emitted through fossil fuels, it just isn't there.

If we look at the OECD report, again, the International Energy Agency is estimating that those transport fuels are really going to eat up massive quantities of acreage. If we look at the impact on that land base, and notably, I think, in the Peace country and other parts of the north where we have thin soils, soils that will be forced into development to grow more crops as the pressure from both food and fuel increases, the potential for erosion and an impact on those as yet undisturbed land bases is very significant.

I just want to go back to the impact from biofuels, specifically on life-cycle analysis, and, unfortunately, what may be a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. We have a B.C. Stats report that outlined that we are, in fact, not taking into consideration the entire life cycle of the product and that the carbon intensity is going to be a real issue here — that these biofuels may actually create more greenhouse gas emissions than they remove.

There's a study that was quoted in this B.C. Stats environmental statistics January 2008 report. I'll just quote from it:

In other words, as this study outlines — and that quote specifically was from Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in 2007 — and what B.C. Stats outlines here is that the implications are that biofuels are no better than using oil and, quite possibly, even more detrimental to the environment. That's some local knowledge in terms of environmental impact and concerns.

In England, in the United Kingdom, the House of Commons is this year raising similar concerns about the sustainability of biofuels, and quite an alarming summary quote that I'll read from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report. "Biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport, but most first generation biofuels have a detrimental impact on the environment overall. In addition, most biofuels are often not an effective use of bioenergy resources in terms either of cutting greenhouse gas emissions or value for money."

I'll come back to value for money later, when talking more broadly about the economic reality with biofuels. We're seeing Europe on the verge of a 180, related to biofuels. This report goes on to state: "The EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas recently admitted that the commission did not foresee all the problems that EU biofuels policy would cause…and that implementing a moratorium on current targets until technology improves, robust mechanisms to prevent damaging land use change are developed, and international sustainability standards are agreed. Only then might biofuels have a role to play."

Pretty strong and surprising language coming from the House of Commons in the U. K. Again, the members opposite don't seem to be leaping to their feet to address any of these significant concerns and, unfortunately, have put together a piece of legislation that doesn't answer to any of these concerns, any of the concerns raised by my colleagues on the opposition side.

We're very concerned. We have high hopes about the potential for achieving our greenhouse gas reduction targets, but when we see pieces of legislation like this that haven't been thought through, that don't take into consideration the global body of evidence that's growing around biofuels not being a critical piece of the solution, and, in fact, potentially complicating and compromising the solutions that we seek, we wonder what the true intention is here of this government. Is it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or not?

I want to just point out that the Science journal from February 2008 that I have referenced here concluded that corn ethanol and soy biodiesel produce twice the emissions of gasoline when the deforestation is factored in.

You know, if there's an answer to this, if there's some contradictory, peer-reviewed, published research that the government members can produce to ease our fears on this side of the House, that we're going down the wrong path here and potentially causing a lot more problems than we're solving, it would be great to hear. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear anything along those lines.

Environmental groups, it's no surprise, have been raising the alarms in Europe, as they're starting to throughout the rest of the world, calling for credible biofuel safeguards, for standards that ensure that the sources of our biofuels are sustainable, and that if we are going down a low carbon fuel path, that the sources

are actually consistent with that low carbon path and that we are able to replace the emissions resulting from fossil fuels with technologies and with fuel stock that actually does reduce the emissions. We're not seeing any commitment in this legislation to do that, nor are we hearing from the members opposite how they propose to do that — perhaps within regulation enabled by this legislation.

I want to just spend a few minutes, while I have the floor, to talk about the economic piece of the puzzle here. In 2007 the United States produced 25.6 billion litres of biofuel at a cost of $8 billion to taxpayers. So the ethanol produced in the United States last year actually created what's called a negative energy imbalance and at great cost to taxpayers due to subsidies to that ethanol.

Well, the question is: what is the cost of these greenhouse gas reductions? If this is a strategy, as the bill in its title indicates, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is this the most cost-effective way to do that? Is this economically viable? Is this the approach that should be at the top of the list? If we look at the tools that this government is putting forward to achieve these targets, obviously biofuels are close to the top of the list. We are debating this as an early step, and we're not seeing a case made that these are the most effective and economically effective ways of reducing greenhouse emissions.

Again, I come back to the report that the OECD produced related to that cost, and I'll quote from that report: "The costs for achieving any goals governments might have to reduce CO₂ emissions through the increased use of biofuels are high. It is estimated that the costs per tonne of CO₂ that is saved through the production and use of biofuels is in the order of $500 U.S. and even higher in many cases. This compares to prices for emission rights in the European emission trading scheme peaking at around €30 per tonne and currently hovering around €24 per tonne for 2008 futures." That's €24 per tonne for emissions trading versus a cost of €350 per tonne through the biofuels.

So the case, as it is being debated in Europe, is not compelling. The economic argument that this is a cost-effective way to do greenhouse gas reductions is not there. So I'm very, very concerned that this is a poor investment for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which one would think is the intention of the bill.

The opposition feels strongly that we do need to pursue low-carbon fuels, that we need to look at food waste and new technologies — such as those looming, hopefully, with cellulosic ethanol — and using wood waste. However, what's proposed here in this legislation does not answer to those. The 5 percent requirement in the new energy plan cannot be met by sustainable sources of biofuel. In fact, the complications that then roll out related to environment and related to food security are potentially significant and devastating.

We think it's important, on this side of the House, to broaden this debate — to ensure that the people of B.C. understand what's at stake here, to ensure that the government members can actually defend what they're proposing here. We have yet to see that.

We'd love to see an open and inclusive and transparent process to debate the direction on climate change and how we best reduce our emissions and how we beat our targets — how we get there sooner than 2020 and develop technologies that make sense not only for B.C. in our economy and our communities but that make a difference for the rest of the world and that model how a province and a country like ours, with all the tools and talent we have, can set an example, develop promising new directions, help the world to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions and avert the most significant impacts of climate change that are looming before us.

C. Puchmayr: I rise also with great concern on this bill. We've heard some very compelling arguments why we should take a sober second look at this.

I really was appreciative of the motion from our critic. The motion was a good one. The amendment motion was one to go to a select standing committee of the Legislature and really have a good analysis of this supposed new direction that people at one time thought was the next way to go with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The science isn't there. The science is starting to play itself out all over the world. We heard the member from the north speaking about his concerns about farming. He heckles across that he's going to do a press release that we're opposed to farmers.

Well, some farmers are also cattle farmers, and it's the cattle farmers in the United States that started to sound the alarm. At least, the alarm that I first started hearing was from the cattle farmers in the United States, the hog farmers in the United States. They're seeing that 1/5 of corn production in the United States is going into biofuels. Imagine that. One-fifth of the corn that's being produced is going into biofuels.

It has become a very powerful and significant commodity. People that play the commodity markets…. Those that are investing in corn and hedging in corn are certainly going to make a whole lot of money, because the value of corn is rising rapidly as people start to get into producing the ethanol. That should have been the first signal here.

We look at the effects of turning our farming, turning our farm productions that historically have been used for producing food…. We start producing fuel instead. Once we start producing fuel, we're actually subsidizing the oil that is still in the ground. We're certainly creating some longevity in the supply of that oil. Then, when you look at the ethanol component that goes with that oil, you can actually see the incredible negative effects that that is going to have.

There was a very interesting article that came out last week in Time magazine. It's called "The Clean Energy Scam."

It's really odd. It used to be the cattlemen that were the bad guys in Brazil, that were destroying the rain forests so they could put rangeland in for cattle. They're now seeing an elimination of the rain forests at

such a drastic volume that has been unprecedented. It is because those lands are now being planted to produce corn so that the corn can produce ethanol and to also produce sugar cane so that it can produce ethanol.

You have a country like Brazil. They're almost totally self-sufficient on ethanol. They've done a good job of getting away from dependency on foreign oil, yet while they have done that, they have also become the No. 4 emitter of greenhouse gas in the world.

That has to tell you something. You have to really take a good, long, sober look at that. How does somebody become so energy-efficient in ethanol fuel, and yet they have now skyrocketed to the fourth producer of greenhouse gas? The reason they're producing greenhouse gas is because they're devastating their forests. They're slashing and burning their forests so that they can grow more corn so that they can produce more ethanol.

We look at the bill, and you know, it sounds good. The bill says: "Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act. You think about it. You're not going to find anybody in the street that isn't going to agree that we need to reduce greenhouse gases.

If you take the science of what it costs to reduce those greenhouse gases — what the actual impact is — and how you are now pitting the food market against the oil market, you're driving up the cost of food so that certainly people in poor countries, and even people in this country, are going to be walking through the supermarkets and realizing that a lot of foods are becoming almost unaffordable for them because somebody is buying that commodity that has elevated a price that is extremely high right now.

As the price of fuel is high…. We've seen the energy cartels and the oil companies. You only have to drive down the street to see that when fuel goes up two cents a litre at one gas station, a competitor two miles down the road…. Their fuel will go up that same price. The price is going up in unison all over the Lower Mainland and probably right across this country in sort of their regions of pricing.

So now you have these same people that are supposed to be free enterprise corporations that compete against each other. Yet they're not competing against each other, because they're setting the price of gasoline and the price of diesel at the pump. They're price-fixing those prices.

Now you have those same players that have had the ability to do this in the corn business, in the ethanol business and in the biofuel business. I think one of the companies made over $30 billion in profit last year. Just to fathom that — $30 billion in profit, after-tax profit. You have that same company that is now able to manipulate the grain market or the corn market. Then to factor it in so that it runs parallel with the fuel market…. At the same time it creates a longevity for the oil that is still in the ground. It takes away some of the incentives towards looking at other technologies.

There are other technologies out there. Every time I ride in a taxicab, it's usually a Prius. It's usually an electric vehicle, and some of them burn less fuel in city driving than they do on the highway. Some can get — if you go to the miles-per-gallon model, because I'm still from the old school — 70 miles per gallon in the city and 60-some-odd miles per gallon on the highway. So we have vehicles that are extremely efficient and that use very little fuel.

You're always going to have an abundance of fuel, because you're using the food source of the people. You're using that food source, and you're blending it in with the fossil fuel that's still being pumped out of the ground on a daily basis. It takes away some of the incentive to really look at the other alternatives or options.

You know, people talk about biodiesel and I've looked and studied biodiesel, and on first blush, again, it looks great. If people are using biodiesel and they're using it as a by-product of industry — they're getting the oils from industry, blending it and using it — that's great. But if you turn every vehicle into a biodiesel vehicle, then there aren't enough Wendy's or McDonald's to really provide that fuel. So then you have to start getting into the fuel source and into the grains. You have to start taking from the table the food and putting it into the fuel so that you can have something that possibly, in some cases, is emitting less greenhouse gas.

But what is the compromise and what is the sacrifice? What is the impact that you're having once you start deforesting our lands? You know, forests are huge carbon sinks. They collect carbon. So you start taking that out, and you're actually magnifying the impacts on the environment by taking the carbon-reducing greens out of the environment, taking the forest out of the environment in order to plant something that you think is an environmentally sound fuel.

Again, the title sounds progressive, and it sounds like something that everyone could buy into, but the sciences are quite alarming. The European Union is starting to look at it. They're changing their position on it. The organization of exporting countries and developing countries are looking at it. The House of Commons has looked at it, and they certainly have come out with concerns. The royal society and the United Nations have come out with some real concerns.

Our job here isn't to just flower everything up and make it look good and say to everybody: "Trust us. This is going to be the saviour of the planet." Our job here is to say: "Wait a minute here. This needs to be addressed."

We need to look. There are other examples in the world that are way ahead of us already on producing ethanol, and we're seeing the impacts. We're seeing the impacts on the farmers in the United States. We're going to see the impacts on the farmers here. We're going to have one group of farmers that is going to be making money selling corn at higher prices, at new commodity market prices, and you're going to have another group of farmers that isn't going to be able to afford to feed their hogs and their cattle so that they can put those to market.

Then, you know, you have the two pushing against each other. Now you have cattle farmers in the Amazon

that are coming out and sounding the alarm. I think just in the rain forests last year, like in less than a year, an area the size of Rhode Island was deforested and burnt. It was all done for the sole purpose of going into the ethanol market.

There are some areas there where you have 10,000 different species of plants that you don't find anywhere else in the world. A lot of the plants make our medicines, the medicines that we buy. The medicines that we depend on to get healthy are coming from those areas. So if you continue to deforest those areas in the name of being able to put fuel in your Hummer or in your SUV, the impacts on society are very severe. It isn't going to be too many generations that we're going to have left.

This is just the most opportune time for a really sober second look at this legislation. There is such a need here to go back to the drawing board, have a committee look at it and have a look at putting in some targets, if you're going to do anything in that direction. I mean, this legislation certainly doesn't have all of the safeguards in place that I can support, and I'm extremely concerned when you bring in legislation such as this.

This sets requirements, and it doesn't really go far enough into the plan. It's really basically enabling legislation, but it doesn't have any of the technical parts of the enabling legislation to go forward for us to really see what the long-term impacts on that are going to be. Are the cattle farmers in Chilcotin going to now become ethanol farmers? Are the cattle farmers in the Peace River going to go into ethanol farming? There are some extreme concerns with this legislation.

The other is the fact that the alarm is being sounded across the border. You know, people were citing this as the direction to go in the future. People were looking at taking regular garbage and turning it into ethanol. Maybe there's something there that can be looked at, but to deforest to go into ethanol is very troubling, very alarming, and it certainly needs to have a really good look.

The oil companies certainly are going to support this because it does provide huge dividends for them. At first it was kind of a marketing tool. You know, you'd go into the gas station, you'd see the green gas pumps, and it would say: "10 percent of our fuel is ethanol." So what we're saying to them is that you have to increase it to, I think, 33 percent.

You're setting targets on that, but you're doing that without even looking at the impacts that that is going to have on the planet. I absolutely cannot support this legislation and won't support this legislation.

I kind of look forward to the member from the Peace country. I'd like to read his press release that he's going to put out. I wonder what the fallback is going to be when he has to address the issues with the different types of land users in the areas that are going to be affected by this legislation.

There's been a move to go with different grasses, certainly, in different parts of the world as well. You know, we're now starting to see that some of that isn't working. It's turning those areas into quite an arid climate. They're not reproducing as much. The more greenhouse gas that you put into the environment, the more impact it's going to have on the ability to grow those plants. All of those things are going to multiply as we go forward.

You know, maybe British Columbia, if we don't go forward with it, could stop it right now. Maybe we can be leaders in the world. Maybe we can show the world a better option for saving the planet rather than just saying: "Well, George Bush says that it's okay, so it must be okay. Let's do it. Shell Oil says that it's okay. It must be okay with them, so let's go do it."

People that are investing in the stock market, that are buying the commodities, that are hedging on high prices for corn, they're going to say that it's okay because they're going to make nothing but money. But you know what? When this planet's gone, you can't take that money with you.

We could really be leaders in this. We could actually show the world that we have looked at the sciences, we have read the reports, and we have done the analysis. We are concerned enough with this type of legislation that we are not going to go there. We are going to do something different and be leaders in that capacity. I think that electric technology in British Columbia is a great technology. We could be leaders in that, as opposed to leaders in subsidizing fossil fuels, which is precisely what this does.

There are some real concerns right now in the Third World and in Africa, even in Pakistan, with the world food program. They can't afford…. The moneys are being sent in for food, from some of these organizations. These non-profit organizations are really seeing a shortfall. They can't afford to buy the grains or the product of the grains to feed those that are dying in those countries.

You know, when there's a continent where 30 million people a year die from famine-related disease, with children dying from famine-related disease…. Now we're setting legislation, or we're tag-teaming with other multinationals, and saying: "We're going to go with you on this, and we're going to bring in regulations for you in the future so that you can exploit our grain market." How does that support the people that are doing the good non-profit work, that are trying to save the lives of people in those countries?

The poor are always going to be the first to suffer. The poor. When you go from plate to gas tank, who suffers first? We're seeing it now. We're seeing it in Pakistan; we're seeing it in Africa. We have to look at what the world food program is doing and what kinds of impacts there are on them with respect to this type of legislation.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased in the past year to be able to roll out an agriculture plan for the province of British Columbia. It's been two years in the making. I'm sure the member opposite will want to spend some time reviewing the ag plan. I can tell you that it has been broadly received across Canada. We've had other jurisdictions looking at it and really seeing a new opportunity for agriculture by taking a far more focused, niche-based approach.

Particularly, some of the areas that have had a tremendous amount of interest shown in them are the food miles program, an innovative approach to identifying to the consumer the value of locally grown product. We've also worked hard to develop an agriculture plan that meets the needs through a refocus of effort on extension programs, on research and development and, really, on providing services out to the agricultural community.

We've reinforced within the agriculture plan the importance of the agricultural land reserve and our desire to preserve agricultural land for the future of our children and our grandchildren.

In addition, I'd like to touch on some of the other key components of the ministry. The land use planning process has shown some very real success in the past year with signings of the Sea to Sky land use plan, along with the land use plan for Haida Gwaii. The north coast–central coast plan has been in full development with the implementation of legalized ecosystem-based management objectives — something that has been celebrated around the world as an innovative approach to forestry that really speaks to the long-term ecosystems that we all look to preserve.

Finally, I might add to my general comments that I think the results of our mountain caribou recovery strategy speak for themselves. It was a historic day when we had people from the environmental movement — specifically ForestEthics and Wildsight, representing ten different environmental organizations — standing on the stage with the Council of Forest Industries, the B.C. Snowmobile Federation and HeliCat Canada, the organization that represents the heli-ski, cat-ski industry — all to suggest that this was the right approach to recovering what is an incredibly important species in the province of British Columbia.

It's been a very busy year. In the past year there were many successes, and I look forward to the challenges and opportunities that the 2008-2009 fiscal year brings us.

C. Evans: Hon. Chair, in order to help the minister manage staffing, I'll just say that it is our intention that this day be spent on agriculture. I don't think that either lands or fisheries people need be present, and we'll review the subject matter as we go along, probably tomorrow morning. It's my expectation that we'll try to deal with agriculture, as much as we can, as a whole, then move on to lands and finish with fisheries.

I wanted to start with meat regulations. I've had the opportunity to visit numbers of communities in the last few months around the province. I think it is clear to everybody — to MLAs for sure, because of their visits to their constituency offices, on either side of the Legislature; probably to ministers, by virtue of their mail; to citizens, by virtue of media; and certainly to farmers who have talked to me about it — that the meat regulations implemented, I think, in October of last year are the front-of-mind farm crisis of the day. I'd like to deal with that first.

I'll put on the record my own thoughts and those of my party on the subject of regulation of the meat supply first, before I get to my questions. It is our belief that guaranteeing safe, clean, healthy food is absolutely the right thing to do and a prerequisite in order to maintain trust in B.C. food suppliers, including the meat industry. We don't have any problem with the notion that there would be regulation in the sale of meat.

However, I think that the regulatory regime passed in 2004 and implemented over the last couple of years and law since last October — while it may be benign or even beneficial public policy — is the most poorly implemented piece of public policy I've ever seen except maybe the federal gun law, in terms of the vast disconnect between the objective of the government that brought it in and the wishes of the people and the experience delivered to those that the law applies to.

It is our position that there ought to be a farm-gate or not-for-resale stamp possible, allowing farm-gate sales for any producer of any species of animal where there's not a legal and licensed abattoir within 100 kilometres of the farm gate. It's our belief that that farm-gate sales ought to be allowed until such time as the Crown and the private sector or cooperative, or whatever entity wishes to step into the breach, can put a legal licensed abattoir within 100 kilometres of that farm gate.

It's our belief that that farm-gate sale, that not-for-resale stamp, ought to apply only to meat sold person to person and not be allowed into a commercial refrigerator truck, a store, a restaurant, across a provincial boundary or across an international boundary. I think that would have created a transition period that would have allowed the culture of traditional farming in British Columbia to carry on and even to prosper while we move to a fully regulated system.

This is not news to the minister. I said all these things before, in October 2007, in an attempt to assist the government to avoid the crisis that we are presently experiencing.

It is also our wish that the funding to MTAP be continued and increased in order to assist to fill those black holes, those parts of the province where there are at present inadequate or no kill plants or kill facilities available for the species raised within 100 kilometres of that territory. The minister knows where those black holes are, species by species, and it is our position that assistance should carry on until there are no holes in the province.

It is also our position that every region needs to have the capacities to dispose of SRMs. Even if a person gets past the provincial and federal regulations, then they come up against a regional district and waste management legislation about the disposal of SRMs. At that point a good many entrepreneurs withdraw their plans because of the difficulty of disposing of SRMs.

Those are our suggestions. That is our position thus far. I want to say that it's built by discussions with farmers all the way from 100 Mile House to Vernon, Salmon Arm, all through Vancouver Island and through my territory of the West Kootenay.

My questions will start right at the beginning, because I want to canvass this in such a way that the people watching this will understand. I really want to get the answers. People are asking me questions as I travel around, and the answers more accurately would come from the minister.

Starting at the beginning, what was the inspiration, the genesis? What was it that moved the Crown in 2004 to pass the meat regulations?

Hon. P. Bell: The member actually asks a number of good questions, but since he has indicated he wants to approach this in a methodical fashion, I'll try and keep my answers concise and to the point for the member opposite.

I will just say that this has been a very challenging file for everyone in the transition period. I know this has been one of those files that has been relatively non-partisan, and I appreciate that. I think everyone has worked hard to try and find constructive solutions to this particular file.

The member asked specifically what the motivation of this legislation was originally. In 2004 it was a reflection of the desire on the part of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association in particular but the agriculture industry generally to increase processing capacity within the province as a result of the BSE crisis. The understanding was that in order for us to have a profitable industry, an industry that would be stable, we could not rely on the American processing industry — the American feeding industry — to service our cow-calf sector, which is largely what British Columbia is.

That was the original motivation or desire. I think it still makes sense today, and our desire is to get to a place where we have sufficient capacity across the province to make sure that we can service the industry's needs.

C. Evans: The minister is advising us that the initiative actually started with the agriculture sector itself, which approached the ministry and asked for provincewide regulation. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, the industry was looking for increased capacity in terms of the number of abattoirs around the province so that the product could be processed here in B.C.

I should also apologize and identify the staff with me from the ministry. I am joined by Larry Pedersen, who is the deputy minister for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Daphne Stancil and Harvey Sasaki, who are both assistant deputy ministers.

C. Evans: I'm really glad the minister helped me understand the difference between requesting prohibition and requesting increased capacity. Now I understand that the agriculture sector and specifically the B.C. Cattlemen's Association asked the Crown to assist to increase the capacity of licensed and registered kill plants in the province. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: I hope I answer the question, but if I don't, I'm sure the member opposite will clarify the question.

The process of developing the strategy evolved out of the BSE crisis and the awareness that we needed to have increased capacity in the province of British Columbia. There was very little capacity at the time — 25 licensed abattoirs in B.C. in 2004. The vast majority of our product left the province to be fed and to be processed. So there was a need to increase that processing capacity in the province, which was recognized by industry, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and by the Ministry of Health.

I was not the minister at the time. I can't say who was the first one to put up their hand and say that it's time we move forward on this. But it was a consolidated discussion and a desire to build the capacity

within the industry and have sufficient processing to allow the industry to be successful.

I might add — and I'm sure the member will recall this — that the border was, in fact, shut down at that point in time, and there was no flow of product outside of British Columbia into the United States. So there truly was insufficient capacity within Canada, and specifically within B.C. There was a real need to develop that capacity quickly.

I'm not entirely sure I answered the question. I don't mean to be evasive. If I haven't, I'm sure the member will remind me.

C. Evans: Now, I understand it wasn't the initiative of the B.C. Cattlemen or of agriculture, generally. It was a coalition, or a group discussion, between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and the B.C. Cattlemen during the BSE crisis that decided that there was a necessity to increase capacity. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't know that I would exactly describe it that way, but I think we're splitting hairs. Neither the member opposite nor I can afford to split too many hairs, and I less than the member opposite.

I think that the notion…. We were in a very difficult time in 2004 when the border was closed. There was no way of processing animals here in British Columbia, and there was not sufficient capacity in Canada. There was a desire on the part of the industry, on the part of government, to correct that.

I might add as well — and I think the member realizes this — that this actually is Ministry of Health legislation, not Ministry of Agriculture and Lands legislation. The provincial health officers are the ones that have responsibility for delivering the inspection regime and ensuring compliance and enforcement, and I am relatively certain that the member opposite knows that.

B.C. was not the first to enter into a model that required licensed abattoirs. In fact, it was virtually the last province that required this sort of mechanism for processing of meat. But I'd be happy to continue on if the member has other questions in this area.

C. Evans: Okay. So I think we now understand that the initiative, while it's a little bit hazy — and I appreciate that the minister wasn't the minister at the time — on who initiated the conversation, there was a conversation between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and some parts of B.C. agriculture, and the initiative was to increase capacity. There was a BSE crisis. We were the last province to have regulation, and we needed to move to a regulatory regime.

At the meetings that I attended…. Every single time, somebody gets up and says: "Tell me whoever got sick buying my meat." There is a feeling, amongst the farm community, of pride in their production, and I believe that the minister has made it clear on the record that this was a desire to deal with the BSE crisis and to find increased capacity, and there was not an illness-driven rationale for the creation of the meat regulations. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: I think, to the member's question, it was a bit of both, actually, in terms of developing sufficient capacity. The member will recall that you have never been able to slaughter animals on farm and sell into the commercial marketplace for resale. That has never been the case.

The natural opportunity for farmers to move their product through to the marketplace was through inspected slaughterhouse facilities. Those were all located outside of the province, either in Alberta or in the United States. We relied heavily on the United States for these services.

That was cut off when BSE came along in 2004. So we were looking for the opportunity, as was the industry, to be able to move their product into the mainstream marketplace, into the resale marketplace. The on-farm component of that, of course, is relatively small versus the complete sales of product. I don't know what the number is. Whether it's 10 percent or less, I'm not sure. But the on-farm farm-gate sales were a relatively small component of that.

So it was a combination of both in terms of disease control and ensuring that the public has confidence in the product that is delivered from our farms. I think we all agree that that's important. The member has identified that already in his view. I think he shares that. And also opening up the remainder of the marketplace so that British Columbia's product can be sold into the retail market….

As the member pointed out earlier, we are unable to do that, or were unable to do that, in the restaurants and the retail marketplace. With this new policy and the structure that's being built…. I'm happy to be able to tell the member that we now have 53 licensed facilities in the province, up from 25 in 2004, and we are actually making progress towards that end state.

The member made a couple of comments earlier on. I just want to touch on them, even though they are not related directly to the question. But in terms of looking at alternatives and how we can ensure that places — I'll just use as an example Tlell on the Queen Charlotte Islands — would have adequate capacity and service…. Those are all still the things that we're working through to find constructive solutions.

The central Cariboo poultry processors association — and I may have that acronym wrong by a letter or two somewhere in there — is working on a very innovative approach right now with the member for Cariboo North. I received a presentation on it about a week or so ago. I actually think it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for the industry in my part of the province where I live in Prince George and that region.

I do think this can be a positive outcome. I think we need to continue to work hard to find constructive solutions, and I think the member has pointed out a couple of areas that we're certainly thinking about now.

C. Evans: I agree with the minister about the excellence of the idea of increasing capacity in order to allow rural people to reach an urban market with a regulated meat supply. However, the idea of increasing capacity to create business and entrepreneurial activity hardly requires making something that you've always done against the law.

We're talking about allowing something, encouraging something, making something happen that allows a new market to divert cow-calf operations from shipment to Alberta or to the United States or to keep the kill plants from being elsewhere. We need to encourage the kill plants to be in British Columbia.

The disconnect here….Well, let me use a metaphor. If you wanted pulp mills…. Suppose it was 1950 and you had sawmills all over the place, and you had no pulp mills in the province and you wanted to get pulp mills. You wouldn't start by creating capacity for pulp mills by making sawmilling against the law.

That's essentially what we did here. Instead of saying, "You know what? We want registered abattoirs, and we're going to assist. We'll help you find land or capital funding or partners. We want this to exist in order to create new business," what we've said is: "Everything you've ever done is against the law. You are now, as of October 2007, a criminal if you do what you used to do."

My question — really, everybody's question — is: in order to make something wonderful happen, how come you said that what you used to do is against the law? Or, more so, how come we had to say: "What you used to do…?" Instead of saying, "You can do that until we get this brand-new, wonderful capacity together that we all agree on," how come we made that person a criminal?

The risk, of course, is that that part of the business that was fed by farm-gate sales and local sales previously, where there is not a legal licensed facility, will disappear, and it will not come back because, although we have wonderful initiatives going on everywhere, they are not coming fast enough for the folks who have traditionally been in this work.

It is a mistake when government makes culture against the law. It was wrong when we said potlatch was against the law when it's part of somebody's culture. Me being able to sell you a chicken is part of our culture. That's how we live. There are thousands of families around the province whose very existence statistically as a farmer…. Twenty-five hundred bucks — that's how we got it: me selling you a chicken. And I became a criminal in October 2007 in order to create some wonderful new capacity. It's a disconnect.

My question, then, is: how come, if we were trying to do something we all agree is wonderful and creative, we did it by saying that what we used to do is against the law? Even if we intended it someday to be against the law, why didn't we create a transition period in which people could adjust when there was a legal kill plant in their territory?

Hon. P. Bell: I might remind the member that we're actually here to discuss the estimates of the ministry, not debate a policy that's been in place for three years.

However, I will say that the member is getting, perhaps, a bit wound up at this point over something that everyone is working hard to find constructive, positive solutions for. There are some very good, constructive things happening around the province right now.

In fact, in Smithers we just recently had a major facility that was licensed and ready to go and now has real opportunities for selling their product into the mainstream marketplace and creating incremental value for farmers in that region.

In Prince George we have an abattoir that has significantly increased their capacity and developed very real opportunities and who are now selling their product into the mainstream marketplace. I actually met with a Richmond farmer very recently who's had real success with his products as well.

Mr. Chair, I think that the member should focus his attention on the estimates from here forward.

C. Wyse: I have some actual specific examples of ranchers in the Cariboo area that have felt the effect of the new meat regulations. One of them happens to be Terry Jasper, who had a lambing operation in the Chimney Valley area.

Walter Noble had a hog operation in the 150 Mile area. Walter has been running his operation for about seven years. He's getting out of the business. He got rid of the hogs that he could through slaughter, and he's actually going to put down his breeding stock. The effect on both these particular families in my area has been the direct result of the meat industry regulation.

My question to the minister is: given that this has put a pressure upon these two operations for maintaining their agricultural tax status and items of that nature, will the minister commit to providing a five-year bridging time gap for agricultural status for operations like the Jaspers and Nobles so that they have time to find a new means to maintain the agricultural lifestyle that they've had for a number of years?

Hon. P. Bell: That's outside the scope of this ministry. The regulation and legislation resides with the Ministry of Health and should be asked under that ministry's estimates.

C. Wyse: What I was looking for was the support of the minister for bridging time for agricultural operations while they attempt to maintain their agricultural status. They are under the threat of losing that status because they can't produce enough agricultural products to meet that threshold in order to maintain their agricultural identity.

I'm looking for the minister's support for looking for a bridging period of time for that status to be maintained so that agricultural operations that have been in existence for years have the chance to maintain that status without having the additional economic pressure of increased taxes put upon operation.

Before I turn it over to the minister, it seems to me that this particular item deals directly with issues around agriculture and that it belongs in this ministry, but I'll wait to hear the response from him.

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize, Mr. Chair. I stand corrected. That is the responsibility of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, and would best be asked under that minister's estimates.

C. Wyse: I'm very new at this operation, and sometimes, without doubt, I end up in the wrong ministries. It does seem to me, being from upcountry, that when you're looking for support for the agricultural industry, one of the places where you would start from would be with the Minister of Agriculture.

I have two other situations. Wally Bray in Bridge Lake has a poultry operation. As a result of the meat and industry regulations, Wally now has to transfer his turkeys at least five hours in one direction in order to deal with the slaughter of those particular animals. That's assuming that he can obtain time in either the Okanagan or in the upper Fraser Valley.

Likewise, the Woods of the Lac la Hache area did have a small feed operation, and they have advised me that it took two persons four hours and $80 of fuel to transfer to the nearest slaughter facility.

In addition, in meeting once more with the Woods within the last two weeks, they have informed me that with the proposed new fuel tax, this particular operation is looking at a further increase of expenses for their operation of $1,000 annually in order to remain in the ranching industry. The Woods have told me they are not going to be able to survive without some type of assistance.

Would the minister support a change in policy for a not-for-sale sticker aspect for allowing for the sale of slaughtered animals that aren't resold right on the operation, whether it be poultry, hogs, lambs, cattle?

Hon. P. Bell: The member describes a variety of different issues, and I think what that really highlights is the need for us to continue to be creative and to work to find solutions for all producers across the province. I think that I pretty clearly stated that previously. I'm happy to state that again to the member.

I do work with the Minister of Health on an ongoing basis on this file to try and find solutions to the types of challenges that the member opposite describes. I think that as this file evolves over the coming year, we certainly will find creative solutions to many of the challenges.

C. Wyse: While we're looking for these creative solutions, I have increasing numbers of operations in both the ranching and the farming component in Cariboo South that are advising me that without some type of changes immediately, they are going to be forced out of business. I have given four examples by name of operations in my particular area.

Generally speaking, the Chilcotin area lacks any type of a slaughtering process, and it's a very, very large area, geographically speaking. If my feet aren't held too close to the fire and we use 100 kilometres for almost all the ranches that are contained out in the Chilcotin, they are going to be well in excess of 100 kilometres from any type of a slaughtering operation.

I know that there has been an application in front of the various ministries for funding out in the Chilcotin. Increased funding for increased slaughtering operations right throughout British Columbia, but specifically in the Cariboo, would greatly assist these farming and ranching operations to stay in operation.

My question to the minister is whether I can count on his support for increasing the amount of funding for the increased construction of new slaughter facilities around British Columbia — and particularly in my riding of Cariboo South, of course, taking it back to home.

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the member's comments. The Chilcotin is a very important cattle segment of the business in British Columbia, and I would be pleased to work with the member opposite to find solutions in capacity in the region and help support the construction of some capacity within the region.

C. Wyse: Once more, I thank the minister for his time, for the answers to the questions that he's given me. I would like to just leave on the record that I was hoping for a stronger commitment from the minister and that if he's not able to give it here — and I can understand where that might be the case — in other meetings, other caucuses, other committees that he sits on, his support will appear in those particular areas.

C. Evans: It is my impression that the present government requires a business scan to be done to determine the implications to business and to the economy before it passes a piece of legislation. My question is: what was the analysis? What's the business scan on this particular legislation, prior to its being created?

Hon. P. Bell: That is a piece of legislation that the Ministry of Health has responsibility for, and I would suggest that the member ask that of the Minister of Health.

C. Evans: I utterly reject the minister's answer. The Ministry of Agriculture, throughout history, for 100 years, has been the advocate for farmers in all ministries — Environment, Labour, highways, Forests. Farmers interact with everybody — wildlife, it doesn't matter what it is. Where farmers go for assistance and to get answers to the questions is to the Ministry of Agriculture, who acts not as a great big budget dispensing largesse but as advocate.

My questions, and those of the previous MLA here…. We are asking questions of what we perceive to

be the advocate for farmers. Thousands of people who are watching, or will be distributed this particular debate, look to this gentleman, this minister, as their advocate.

He may not be responsible, but — through the Chair to the minister — you either help, or you are perceived as abandoning those folks who make their living in your sector. Nobody expects that it's your law. We understand who brought the law in. The question is: are you going to assist those people that it lands on?

I'm going to assume that no business scan was done, because I have been offered none. So I'm operating on nothing, and the only one I have to operate on is that which was done by the North Okanagan regional district. With your permission, Chair, I'd like to share a copy of their business scan with the minister so that we can refer to the same pages at the same time.

The Chair: I would like to remind the member that we're here to discuss the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and there's no room for discussion of legislation in this debate.

C. Evans: You bet. I get it. I got it from both sides, and I'll follow your direction and my instinct.

On page 2 of the document that I just shared with you, this document is identified as the product of the North Okanagan regional district and the Community Futures produced between November 15 and November 21, 2007, and its subject is the impact of meat inspection regulation on slaughter capacity in the North Okanagan regional district. My question to the the minister is: are you familiar with this document?

C. Evans: On page 4, for the benefit of the minister, the North Okanagan regional district identifies that they have, since November of 2007, lost custom processing estimated at over 1,850 beef; 2,775 pigs; 3,000 lambs; and 3,000 rabbits with an economic value of $4,635,250.

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Chair, this has absolutely no bearing to the discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and I would encourage the member opposite to get back on topic.

C. Evans: Would you agree that this year in the farmers' reported income from the North Okanagan regional district, we are likely to be missing $4,635,250 when your ministry's statistics report back at the end of the year?

The Chair: Member, your question has to relate to the budget estimates for this year.

C. Evans: The minister will, in his budget estimates, assign staff to do work. My question is: will part of the work you assign to your staff be to try and replace $4,635,250 worth of farm income in the North Okanagan?

Hon. P. Bell: The North Okanagan actually is one of the key areas where we are working to develop capacity. We understand the importance. There's a very strong agricultural community in the region. We're seeing some supply management moving into the region, as well, right now. This is probably one of the top two or three priorities for us, developing that capacity in the region.

I think that's what the member was trying to get at, although I'm not sure. Maybe the member could actually settle himself down a little bit. Otherwise he might have a cardiac issue.

C. Evans: I'm very pleased that the minister is concerned, and I assure you that my health is way better than the small poultry producers, hog producers, cow producers and turkey producers in British Columbia.

The North Okanagan is a small geographic region of the province with a large number of producers. My question is: has he asked his staff to take the figures produced in the North Okanagan and do an estimate of what their impact would be provincewide?

In other words, under the estimates of the minister, has he asked his staff to ascertain whether the $5 million lost in the North Okanagan by virtue of this law is the norm in British Columbia and will be replicated elsewhere?

Hon. P. Bell: No, we're focusing our resources on long-term solutions for the industry.

C. Evans: I refer the minister's attention to page 5, last paragraph, when the North Okanagan regional district identified that "inspection regulations in other provinces including Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have local inspection either by Health, Agriculture or local veterinarians; or allow on-farm slaughter and farm-gate sale of meat that is not provincially inspected."

My question is: what other provinces in Canada allow some form of farm-gate sales of meat products?

Hon. P. Bell: We're working from our corporate memory here, so it's possible that we may not have this entirely correct. We certainly would be happy to provide the member opposite, if he would like, the exact breakdown on it. I am led to believe that Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan all have those opportunities, and Manitoba as it relates specifically to poultry but not to red meat.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for being here. I'm glad that earlier you mentioned Tlell, because I do have a question about how much, through your ministry, is going to be spent on any new processing plants — say, between Smithers and the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm unable to identify a specific number because there are proposals that are currently under request. I actually received some paper from Tlell very recently — that's why it was top of mind for me — looking for some options on how they could proceed with a constructive, collaborative solution.

We work on an ongoing basis with a map of B.C. that identifies the different regions. We look specifically at where the gaps are across the province. Clearly, there are significant gaps between Smithers and right out to the Queen Charlotte Islands — no processing capacity at all in that region. It's one of the areas that we continue to focus on to ensure that there is the capacity required.

G. Coons: I realize that there are some feasibility studies, as I believe you mentioned. In the interim, because these studies will take awhile, what can we say to the people in Tlell? What are their options versus Don Richardson? He at one point had to go to Alberta, a 4,300-kilometre trip with 1,000 litres of fuel, and it took him seven days. He's been doing this for 80 years with his neighbours.

I'm just wondering. What are the options, the alternatives, for those on the island right now while they're waiting for the feasibility study and to fill in some of the gaps?

Hon. P. Bell: We are working on a number of options right now, but nothing that I am in a position to talk publicly about. But the ministry and the Ministry of Health are actively looking at what options would be available specifically for Tlell but also in all the underserviced communities across the province.

This is an active file. I've been very upfront about that. We continue to look at all of our options, including incremental funding and other options. Until we find the appropriate solutions, we will continue to do that.

G. Coons: Just one last question. It's the same with the Bella Coola Valley. I believe that the closest one is somewhere in the Williams Lake area. Again, we're looking at an eight-hour trip along the highway, a very interesting trip. In the Bella Coola Valley, again, for decades they have been servicing the people in that region.

I'm wondering whether or not, in the budget, there are going to be mobile abattoirs that will be available as an interim, either on the Charlottes or in the Bella Coola Valley. I just want to know. What can the minister say to alleviate the concerns of those on the Queen Charlotte Islands and in the Bella Coola Valley?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I relayed to the member already that we are actively looking at all our options. There's nothing I'm in a position to announce here today; nor would it be appropriate for me to. But the Bella Coola Valley is another one of the areas where clearly there's a big gap.

We've not received, actually, any direct input from producers in the region yet — that I'm aware of, anyway — although I suppose there's always a possibility something might be in the system. I haven't seen anything from the Bella Coola Valley.

It is clearly one of those areas, coming up the hill out of Bella Coola, as I have personally done as well, that is very challenging. If anyone was going to move large quantities of animals to abattoirs in Williams Lake, it would be a real problem. So it is one of the areas that we're looking at. I'm hoping to have some constructive solutions as we move further into the spring.

C. Evans: I want to go back to the subject that my colleague from Cariboo South was discussing, which is the farm assessment loss. Given that I am unable to see the government's business scan of the impact of the regulations, I'm going to have to go with the North Okanagan regional district impact. It's the only one I know of.

I refer the minister to page 14 of the document that I shared with him a few minutes ago. The document has several quotes. I'll just read a couple from farmers who, now that they're unable to sell meat, are losing their farm status for tax purposes.

First quote: "We are unable to get farm status on the property that we purchased because of the new regulations. Our taxes will increase substantially along with water costs, etc. We produce chickens and pork and have a ready market for any we could produce."

Second quote: "We will lose farm status. We do not have an alternative. We are in the ALR but don't have much flat or productive land and are not irrigated, so we are limited as to what we can grow."

The North Okanagan regional district identified 40 percent of the responders to their questionnaire, 23 producers who expect to lose their farm status and another 11 producers who are not sure if they will lose their farm status. That's through a very small number of respondents in a very small part of the province.

My question to the minister is: what is the ministry's expectation of the numbers of farmers around the province that will lose farm status in 2007, 2008 and 2009 because of the impact of the meat regulations?

Hon. P. Bell: I can't answer that question, but what I can tell the member is that strategy 13 in the agriculture plan includes a very specific item. I'm quoting from it. A farm assessment review panel will consult with the agricultural community and local governments and prepare a report on farm classification process and assessment regulation for farms in British Columbia.

This initiative did not start as a result of what the member is suggesting right now but is in full swing now. The Minister of Small Business and Revenue has appointed the committee. There are a number of members on that committee from across the province. They are doing a detailed analysis around farm assessment and, I'm sure, will include this as one of the items that they'll be considering in that work.

C. Evans: I find it unfathomable that the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture did not prepare a briefing note

for the minister of the day to say how many farmers require farm-gate sales in order to meet their $2,500 minimum.

My question is: what is the ministry's estimate of the number of farmers who will lose farm status during this period of review following the implementation of the meat regulations? There are 23 in the North Okanagan who already have. I am sure that the minister has a provincewide number for farmers who will lose farm status.

Hon. P. Bell: I would again refer the member to the ag plan, strategy 13. The reason why I can't answer the question is that I don't know the outcome of what that review will be. I'm sure they will be considering transitional strategies as it relates to income. There may be a broad variety of different things that they'll consider within that.

Farmers clearly have good years and bad years. They have years where they have significant incomes, incomes that are lower. All those things will need to be factored in to accurately answer the member's question.

C. Evans: I understand that there's a review. The review won't start until November, and it won't report out until after the next election. In the meantime, I would argue that during that time thousands of farmers are at risk of losing farm status.

It is my understanding that in general numbers we have approximately 18,000 to 20,000 farmers. Say that 5,000 of them make more than 50,000 bucks year and that 15,000 make less. I think somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 farmers will disappear before that review even reports out, based on the implications of the meat regulation and the business scan of the North Okanagan regional district.

If the minister can't answer the question of how many farmers he thinks will lose status and refers us to the review, then could the minister agree to give a three-year moratorium so that whatever people's farm income was prior to October 2007, it will be left at that level for three years in order to allow them to adjust to the meat regulation changes?

C. Evans: Maybe somebody should straighten me out. I did not ask the minister to make a decision, a regulation or a law. I asked the minister if he could recommend or perhaps…. I'll moderate my words. Would the minister consider the fact that before the review reports out, thousands of farmers will lose farm status?

When they lose farm status, their taxes go up. Their availability to water goes down. They will ask to get out of the ALR, and the community of farming will begin to fracture.

If we're going to have a review and the minister thinks the review would fix it, would the minister consider leaving those people on the list of legitimate farmers while they adjust to the meat regulations?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll always consider whatever I can do to support farmers to be viable.

I want to move to the regulatory mess that is identified by the North Okanagan regional district in relationship to the meat licensing issue. On page 18 the regional district identifies that obtaining a licence — that would be a meat licence — can involve up to eight provincial agencies, including B.C. Centre for Disease Control, B.C. Food Processors Association, Interior Health Authority, Ministry of Environment, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, the regional district of North Okanagan and/or a municipal government in addition to utilities and other agencies.

When citizens deal with multiple agencies, they become confused. This happens with any of us when we get a building permit. This often happens within the medical system. Obviously, if you're going to have eight regulatory agencies involved in the licensing of one facility, there needs to be a lead agency — a one-stop shop, a phone number that you can phone for assistance and advocacy. To the minister: who is the lead agency amongst the eight I just named?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to answer that question. The province provided funding to the B.C. Food Processors Association. They have, I believe, two or three dedicated staff who do nothing but act as a single-window entry point for businesses, individuals, consortiums or groups that want to develop plans and get their appropriate approvals for an abattoir facility. What the member is pointing out exists already. It's being funded through the province, on a contract basis, with the B.C. Food Processors Association.

C. Evans: Should working with the lead agency fail to obtain the outcome that the citizen requires and the citizen wishes to communicate with their government, who is the lead minister and what is the lead level of government, then? Who is it at cabinet that is in charge of melding the various interests of the provincial agencies together to make licensing of an abattoir work?

Hon. P. Bell: The Minister of Health is the lead. The Minister of Agriculture and Lands acts as an advocate for the local farmers.

Could the minister advise me whether or not there is a working group of ministries where the advocate assists the lead to understand the impact of their activities?

C. Evans: I wonder: what are the various ministries involved in that committee?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Health, the CDC, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

N. Macdonald: Just one question, and it's about meat inspection regulations as well. I'm sure it's been mentioned here before that nobody objects to regulations that make sure that we have safe food, so we all agree with the intention of what's going on. The difficulty has been with the implementation. I think that the minister knows that there have been a tremendous number of issues that have been worked through or that have needed to be worked through.

With the NDP rural caucus we've raised rural residents' concerns for years now. I've shared concerns with the minister, from families who farm in Columbia River–Revelstoke. I think that some of the families that you have on file — the Bells, the Caccacis, the Downeys and many others from the area — have raised concerns about keeping their farms going with the regulations that were in place and about the need to really look at the regulations, to make sure that we adjust them so that farming and agriculture in the region can work. I know that the critic has given you…. Publicly we've talked about five or six things that we hear from people who are farming that would improve the system.

I also know that there's been no shortage of time. I know that the minister was recently in the area, in my constituency. He had an opportunity — among other things, I'm sure — to meet with people and to look at the issue.

I guess the question in a very concrete way, if he could…. He's aware of the issues that have been raised. We have been talking about this for a long time. I wonder if he could speak to the residents of Columbia River–Revelstoke and just talk about the concrete things that have been done so that the regulations that are being put in place have been adjusted to make them work for people in the region.

Hon. P. Bell: The member may have to ask a supplemental if I miss some of the components here, but I think the question he asked was: what are some of the things we have done? I think it's also worth thinking about: what are some of the things we need to do going forward?

Some of the obvious things that were implemented immediately were a 13-month extension from the original deadline for the development of abattoirs, from September 1, 2006, to September 30, 2007. There was a fund established of $5 million that different organizations, Community Solutions or individuals could apply into at various levels of funding — $50,000 for the development of an individual abattoir, $100,000 for a Community Solutions abattoir. There is also $12.5 million available for SRM disposal solutions that we are considering across the province right now. There's the single-window application process that was established through the B.C. Food Processors Association.

In terms of what that has all accomplished through that period of time, we have gone from 25 licensed facilities in 2004 to 53 as of today — the latest count, unless something has happened today that I'm not aware of — and there are many more solutions that we're working on around the province.

Going forward, there is lots of work left to do. We need to continue to drive the agenda hard. I know that the member is interested in the potential for an abattoir in his region, and I do think that there is sufficient capacity in the region to develop something. It needs to continue to be a collaborative solution. I don't see this as a partisan issue in any way. It is the right thing to do. It will create opportunities for our agriculture sector to sell their products into the mainstream marketplace.

I do think that that is the model going forward. It's certainly the one that we've articulated in the ag plan as the opportunity to fill the niche markets, the high-value marketplaces, as opposed to the very kind of bottom end of the markets, which has been a traditional role for our producers in the province. I think there are positive outcomes, but I think there's lots of work left to do and there's been lots of work done already.

C. Evans: I want to move now to page 24 of the document that I shared with the minister. These are the recommendations of the North Okanagan regional district.

Their first recommendation was to establish a task force to review implementation of the meat regulations and the task force to include representatives of small producers and also small-scale abattoir operators and meat cutters and local government, like the mayor and council of Vernon or Armstrong or Salmon Arm.

Second, to make provision for a one-time approval to legalize slaughter for those producers who are in extreme distress. Throughout the document, and we haven't canvassed it all, there are actually tens of thousands of animals that they identify that have been euthanized because of the inability of the producer to find a legal kill plant. They are suggesting that there be a provision for the one-time on-farm kill of those animals in order to allow farmers to clear stocks of animals through an unregulated system.

To streamline the requirements for mobile slaughter operations because they don't work very well on small farm operations. People think that they could be made to work if docking facilities were made less onerous to construct.

Their recommendation (e) is that the government undertake an interministry review to achieve a streamlined, coordinated and simplified licensing process for small-scale slaughter establishments, and they would like that review to have input from the affected parties. I have read hundreds of letters — a really big pile — from people with wisdom, who wish to be part of suggestions to make the system work. They're asking if we couldn't have a review.

Their next set of recommendations is to provide for on-farm slaughter using the models in other provinces. The minister identified three provinces that allow

on-farm slaughter in some capacity and a fourth which allows it for only some species. The North Okanagan regional district would like that system considered in British Columbia with a not-for-resale stamp on it to keep the meat out of the commercial stream. They go on to suggest that there should be substantial funding for making the licensed facilities come into existence.

Their last recommendation is that the ministry provide substantial funding to find solutions for the SRM problem. I do not wish to be esoteric or talk about stuff that people don't know but it's, essentially, that part of animals which has been identified as a risk of creating BSE — spinal cords and brains and the like. Citizens all over the province, and certainly in the North Okanagan, are having difficulty finding a way to get rid of that material, short of shipping it to Alberta.

It is my impression, trying to sort this out with lots of people, that in a hospital where there is human waste, we allow the existence of an incinerator to burn waste at 1,700 degrees, but we're not going to allow that in regional districts for getting rid of SRMs unless we are more than 3,000 meters from a home or business, which is pretty much impossible to get in much of the province.

I think that these are wonderful recommendations, and I don't find an ideological or an unkind word in any of it. It's problem-solving. I don't find that these people are opposed to the regulation of licensed meat. They are asking that we back up and, in the way that W.A.C. Bennett used to do things, have some sober second thought. That's why Canada has a Senate, because sometimes we do things too fast.

Could we have some sober second thought, review the regulations and figure out ways to make them work that involve local government and local producers? Will you consider the recommendations of the North Okanagan regional district?

Hon. P. Bell: The member actually asked a series of questions. I was waiting for him to stop, but he kept asking another one. I'm sure I will miss some of them. Perhaps I'll just answer the last one first, and then we can….

The member asked for some assurances around sufficient funding to develop SRM disposals across the province. The member may not be aware that we actually have $12½ million sitting with the Investment Agricultural Foundation that is specifically for that purpose.

I actually share the member's frustration on this issue. It has been very challenging. There have been a number of potential solutions that have been brought forward by different communities. For a number of reasons, none of them have been allowed to execute through to fruition, and it's been very frustrating. Local communities….

I know that the member was interested in the development of an abattoir not far from where he lives and, I think, found that some of the local residents created a significant push-back on his desire to see that move forward. I know he's aware of some of the local emotions.

Westwold is another example of a community. I'm sure the member has been watching the media around that one as well. So we do have $12½ million there. Incineration is an option, a positive option, something that can work. We need to get on with the opportunities as it relates to SRM disposal, because as the member quite rightly points out, the trucking option is not one that is sustainable or should be relied upon for any length of time. That was kind of an earlier question, and then I know that there were a couple in between.

The last one was: will I consider the report of the North Okanagan regional district as we move forward on these strategies? Are we looking at creating different sorts of solutions to where we are at today? He points out that the North Okanagan regional district is not opposed to the notion of licensed abattoirs and appropriate facilities to allow producers to sell into the mainstream marketplace. Those are all things that we consider on an ongoing basis. As I said, this is a file that we continue to be very active on, and I expect that as we move into the spring months and the early summer months, we'll continue to find creative solutions.

I really don't think that we are in significantly different places on this. We're looking for solutions and we certainly factor into that all of the feedback we get on an ongoing basis.

C. Evans: I appreciate that the minister will consider the recommendations. I have recommendations from all kinds of other people, but I think that the North Okanagan recommendations kind of encapsulate the commonsense ideas of people everywhere. So the minister will consider them. That's great.

There is a concern that now that we have regulated meat, we are going to take the same kind of mindset of making things illegal to other foods in the marketplace and, again, interrupt good, healthy food interaction in creating an economy. The minister identifies the ag plan, which I appreciate and read, and I think it's full of good stuff. But it talks largely about the 100-mile diet.

I think that the 100-mile diet is at risk, as various agencies decide that local food is dangerous. I want to read part of a letter to the minister from the Vancouver Island Health Authority to a Mr. Eastick on Gabriola about the sale of eggs. Actually, it would be kinder, I think, if I shared it with him. Can I share a copy with the minister? I didn't mean to hold a piece of paper that the minister couldn't see.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority essentially is saying to this farmer that he cannot, even though he has a licence from the province, sell eggs to a restaurant, because they are not battery eggs. They say: "Although it may seem counterintuitive, eggs from free-range chickens may be more likely than battery hens to harbour salmonella, because the chickens are exposed to wild birds which carry the bacteria."

The letter goes on to essentially say to the farmer that he is not allowed to sell eggs to a restaurant that are free-range, and the restaurateur has received a letter advising him that it is against the law for him to

buy eggs that are free-range and ordering the restaurateur to go to the store and buy eggs from away.

My question is: does the minister know of any law anywhere that says free-range eggs are a health risk to citizens and can not be consumed through a commercial establishment?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll try and answer the question. Again, if I don't get it all, I'm sure the member will remind me.

There is an act — which was passed some time ago, when both the member and I perhaps had some hair — which has within it the Shell Egg Grading Regulation. Under the Shell Egg Grading Regulation, it is legal for farm-gate sales of free-range eggs, but not for resale. It's similar to what the member opposite was advocating for the potential use of non-licensed abattoirs or for farm-gate sales, where it would receive a stamp that would suggest that it would not be available for resale.

This particular regulation articulates that key principle. This act, I am led to believe, goes back perhaps to the '60s or somewhere in that time range. It's a relatively old piece of legislation.

C. Evans: I think that the minister's staff will be aware that I have been on farms with quota — one, I think, belonging to the son of a former Minister of Agriculture — selling free-range eggs through stores. It is a desirable commodity. Like it says in the ag plan, people want different kinds of foods. I believe that we have licensed, quota-holding, free-range-egg producers in British Columbia selling through stores and restaurants. Am I wrong?

Hon. P. Bell: No, the member is not wrong. If the farm has a grading station or if the eggs go through a grading station, then it is legal to sell, for resale, eggs from a free-range operation. However, that is not the case if they come straight from the farm gate. However, they are allowed to sell at the farm gate.

The Chair: Division has been called. The committee will recess until after the division.

My question is respecting the issues around meat regulations and the programs in place for farmers in my constituency of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I'm wondering if the minister can let me know what's in place now in terms of funding for the transition program and what potentially could be covered by that funding.

Hon. P. Bell: There are two programs that are currently in place. One originally had funding of $5 million. It's the meat industry enhancement strategy. It would allow for Community Solutions to apply for up to $100,000 and individuals to apply for up to $50,000 in support funding, on a 50-50 basis, to construct and operate an abattoir in their community or in the region.

The meat industry enhancement strategy is a single-window entry point. We'd be happy to provide this information to the member in writing, as well, so that he has it to share with his constituents.

The meat industry enhancement strategy is a single-window entry point that would allow the farmer or the producer or the processor to apply to a single point and have all of the necessary permits accumulated back into that individual point so that they don't have to go to the number of different ministries and organizations that are required to get the appropriate information.

In addition to that $5 million, there is $12.5 million available through the SRM disposal strategy. That funding is currently residing with the Investment Agriculture Foundation. That would be money that would be made available in order for a community or an individual operator to have a solution to the necessary disposal of the waste materials that are acquired as a result of slaughter capacity.

The second program continues to operate and be fully funded. The first one…. We continue to look and accept applications and hope to have enough resources to meet all the requirements around the province over time — and it must have been a regular, not king-size.

N. Simons: If I'm not mistaken, the Food Processors Association is still administering some funding for the program for Community Solutions? So communities are still able to apply, and there's still funding available, if I'm not mistaken.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. Although there has been extensive work done specifically in the Powell River area, we have yet to receive an application for funding from the region. But we're hopeful that we will find a solution and that the community will come forward with an application.

N. Simons: Some of the problems in the community had to do with who would be the lead agency or the proponent to identify and, I guess, spend that money, in accordance with the requirements.

Now, is that funding, the $10,000, available to do more than a business plan for an abattoir? Can it look at options for the community that may entail some unique solutions specific to that community, being a small community with not a huge agricultural industry? Would it be possible to even use that funding to see how the industry could be enhanced, if that's in fact the only way that they'd be able to sustain an abattoir, or does that have to come from a different…?

Hon. P. Bell: The funding that the member mentioned, $10,000…. The funding is actually up to $100,000, and it can be used and is actually intended to

be used for bricks and mortar, for the physical construction capital cost of a facility on a 50-50 shared basis. So the intent would be to ensure that it is done in an affordable way.

In addition, in a place like Powell River it may make more sense — not sure about this — to consider a mobile solution. There are mobile solutions that have been built, I believe, in the order of the $130,000 range.

So there are opportunities in that area. I know there has been extensive work done in the region, continues to be extensive work, and we're hopeful we'll find a solution.

N. Simons: Well, I'm concerned, because when I speak to farmers in Powell River, not much has really progressed in terms of being able to adhere exactly to the new regulations. I would suggest that when funding has to be 50-50 with a community, that $50,000 for a program would be very difficult for the community to raise, even if they put all the farmers together and said: "We need to put…."

To require matching funds for an industry that is largely not for export at all…. It's mostly community-supported, and it's self-sufficient in a sense. That kind of funding would really put them out of the market for accessing that funding.

I'm wondering if the minister would agree that it might be an opportunity to use that funding in a way that will actually address the specific needs of a landlocked community. As you know, in Powell River–Sunshine Coast you can't get anywhere without taking a ferry or doing a significant hike up to Tweedsmuir Park or something.

The solutions that other small or rural communities might be able to access by pooling resources aren't really that possible in Powell River, nor are they possible in the lower Sunshine Coast. I'm wondering if some funding has been allocated or has been earmarked for the lower Sunshine Coast and whether the same programs could be in place or available to the lower Sunshine Coast, where we have the same issue with the economy of scale? We have small-sized producers, people who raise livestock for sale.

Are the programs — and the meat transition assistance plan — available community by community? Are we looking at regions? I guess I'll ask the second question after.

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, I want to answer a question that the member didn't ask initially, which I think is worth the member knowing the answer to, and that is that although $50,000 is a lot of money, we do consider sweat equity and in-kind contributions to be part of the funding provided from the community.

If the community was to come forward and provide labour and materials that could be donated for a solution, that would be considered as full value towards the 50 percent contribution for the development of the facility. I think that would be helpful, particularly for the Powell River location. Perhaps it could be done for a very nominal amount of local contribution outside of the in-kind donations or sweat equity donations.

The answer to the question that the member did ask is yes. The same solutions would be available for the south end of the Sunshine Coast. The criteria that we consider, really, is the proximity to the next closest abattoir.

As an example, if there was one in north Surrey and one in south Langley, we might consider that to be servicing the same marketplace. But clearly, if there's one in Sechelt and one in Powell River…. I don't recall exactly, but it's kind of three hours — if you happen to catch the ferry at the perfect time — between those two locations, or perhaps more. Clearly, the south Sunshine Coast would be considered as a separate area.

N. Simons: I guess the lower Sunshine Coast would need a proponent, as well, to apply for funding. It's an issue that…. Nobody wants to be acting outside of the law, but I've also heard of farmers ending their careers as farmers, and I don't think that's the intention. It might be the unfortunate collateral damage of the meat regulations.

I'm trying to see how we might be able to consider the exemption, but I understand from the minister that any exemptions will only be considered after the exercise of doing a business plan for an abattoir is complete. Am I understanding that correctly?

Hon. P. Bell: There currently is no opportunity within the legislation or regulation that would allow an exemption. However, there is what we call a class C or a transitional licence that is available. The criteria for that is that the local organization, whether it be a community solution or an individual from a region, brings forward an approved set of plans for implementation into the future.

Whoever the existing abattoir facility was prior to the reg coming into place can apply for a class C or transitional licence. The meat, in that particular case, is stamped as being not for resale, not inspected, so it kind of meets the expectation of what the member for Nelson-Creston spoke about earlier in terms of where that meat would be available for sale.

The transitional licence is good for six months with extension possibilities beyond that six-month period. As long as there is a clear effort to develop an abattoir within the region, they are able to extend that class C licence.

So if there is an interest…. Powell River would probably be a good example of a community where clearly there has been an interest. Were we to receive an application and approved set of plans, then they would immediately qualify for a class C licence and be able to operate within the parameters of the law.

N. Simons: My additional concern with…. Even if there were an opportunity for the residents of Powell River to contribute, even in sweat equity, to the construction of an abattoir, I would only imagine that the ongoing operational costs would be to such a high cost

that, with the small number of farmers, it would not be economically feasible. Would the funding for the transition plan include that kind of analysis as to whether or not it's even feasible?

What if we come up with a study that indicates that under no scheme we can picture, including, I might add, the mobile abattoir…? That has been considered. That was considered carefully. It isn't appropriate because of the number of livestock producers that we've got and driveways that are too narrow, no docking station, no freezer space, no butchers if everything was done on the same day — which isn't going to be possible either. We're talking about an industry that's not exactly all coordinated one with the other.

If in fact due diligence is used in every possible avenue of overcoming this barrier to farming, if it's found that it's still not possible to adapt, what should I tell the farmers? That's my concern.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think, actually, that what the member points out is an issue in Powell River. However, I could envisage…. I had mentioned Tlell earlier as a potential community where that problem could exist, and we need to look at and consider our options in that case. I really don't think it's an issue for Powell River.

I think there will be an economic solution. There's nothing preventing a cooperative — I think this actually is probably the right solution for Powell River — from building an abattoir. The ongoing operational costs can be very minimal for the facility. It doesn't need to have ongoing power, as an example, if it's not in use. Everything can be shut down. The actual slaughtering process can be done by the farmers themselves when they bring their livestock or poultry in, or whatever it happens to be. So there is lots of flexibility within the rules.

The key is pre- and postmortem inspection. The cost of that is covered by the provincial government. I don't think that it's an issue in Powell River. I do think it may be an issue in other communities in B.C. That's one of the issues that we're looking at. How do we deal with that particular issue in the event of — again, going back to Tlell as an example — a very small community like that?

C. Evans: Referring to this question of the Sunshine Coast, I think, is an excellent example of what happens in small communities. The minister suggests that a cooperative is a good idea, and I agree. Where I live, a cooperative was formed. The minister suggests that you should try to build the thing as cheaply as possible so that your servicing cost is as low as possible, and I agree.

But in a community where you have to kill chickens and turkeys and pigs and sheep and cows and, God forbid, even buffalo, which is true where I live — all those things, in the thousands, are raised within 50 miles of where I live, and perhaps on the Sunshine Coast — you wind up with a capital cost, in our case, of $1½ million for land and equipment and the various requirements, which become quite onerous when the CFIA is involved. And then your local health people are involved, and the Ministry of Agriculture is involved.

By the time you're finished, your capital cost creates a debt level — even with the funding from the various levels of government, which is appreciated — which makes running a small abattoir with very high capital costs exceedingly difficult. I don't mean to say it's impossible — if it was impossible, I wouldn't be trying to do it in my own constituency in two different towns — but it's hard to do in a hurry. And in fact, to do it in a hurry is folly because then you absorb more debt than you can service and you go bankrupt.

I think that the Sunshine Coast is an excellent example of a landlocked community that cannot have economies of scale simply because of the transportation difficulties. We have similar problems in some communities in the Rockies, little villages surrounded by mountains; similar problems in the West Kootenay, where there are ferries to get across a lake; and all through the Gulf Islands. There are producers on Pender Island, and we are adding exponential costs to get the animal off the island.

As the minister knows, the capital costs of getting a licence have doubled from $75 to $150 — the kill cost of a cow in many of the facilities that we have licensed. So even if you get them off-island, you're paying twice the cost and then you're hauling the product back.

My question, especially for the Sunshine Coast and Tlell and all the Gulf Islands and mountain communities that are too far from an alternative: will the minister consider allowing a not-for-resale stamp in a community where that is inspected by a vet before and after kill and where the product is not allowed to travel in a commercial vehicle, get on a ferry boat, be sold in a restaurant or enter the commercial stream, cross a provincial line or a federal line — so that the folks in Powell River or Pender Island could trade products between themselves with a vet inspecting it, if they agreed it would never get on a ferry boat or go in a commercial vehicle?

Will the minister consider using veterinarians as the inspector facility for those small communities where, I submit, we may never get a capitalized, inspected and licensed facility?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not quite ready to give up on this. The member, I think, does articulate some of the challenges that we're facing. However, I will point out to the member that veterinarians are actually one of the professions that can do the pre- and postmortem inspections. That was actually included in their regulations, so that exists currently today.

I think the real opportunity here is for different organizations to focus on acquiring a class C licence as quickly as they can. We're happy to help them do that. That simply requires an improved set of plans for a facility. Then they would be able to do exactly…. Well, not exactly. Actually, they'd be able to do more than what the member is suggesting, because there isn't a pre- and postmortem inspection required, but there is a stamp that is applied to the meat that says: "Not for resale; not government inspection."

N. Simons: If the residents of Powell River region and, separately, the residents of the Sunshine Coast regional district area were to propose a design for an abattoir using one, maybe available anywhere…. So if both proponents, both fraternal twins of the constituency, the upper Sunshine Coast and the lower Sunshine Coast, were to say, "We have plans for an abattoir," would that, in and of itself, be sufficient to say that the proposal is on the table and they're eligible for a class C licence?

Hon. P. Bell: They actually currently are required to have an approved set of plans. I'll give the member an example of that. There is a group in the Cariboo, out of Quesnel, that has now an approved set of plans for a mobile abattoir. It hasn't started construction yet. They haven't actually done anything to build the plans. There are a set of plans that presumably would be transposable to the member's application. I would think a photocopier would probably provide an adequate measure of material information that's necessary.

Off of that one mobile abattoir there actually will be a series of class C licences issued. That particular one is a poultry abattoir. It's not a red meat abattoir. But because of the model that they are proposing, there could easily be a class C licence issued in Quesnel. I think there already has been one issued in Quesnel.

I know there are two different proponents in the Prince George area who are separated by quite some distance, who are both considering applying for a class C licence — again, off of the approved set of plans for that one mobile abattoir.

I think the member's question was how to best proceed in the Sunshine Coast. If there were an approved set of plans for a mobile abattoir and the proposal was to move between the Sechelt area and the Powell River area and provide services to both, then presumably you could have organizations apply for a class C licence in each of those two locations and have them approved immediately.

I might also just mention to the member…. I didn't take time to fully read my note on an earlier question that the member was asking. He was talking about capacity within the Sunshine Coast and how could there be sufficient product developed and if there was funding available to do that sort of study or research or work.

There is actually funding available through the Investment Agriculture Foundation, IAF. Local communities could quite readily apply into that fund for dollars that could be used for the development of capacity within the region or for a study that would assess that.

C. Evans: I would like to return to the subject we were discussing prior to the division — Peter Eastick, producer of free-range eggs, and Harvest Time Restaurant, traditionally the buyer of Peter's eggs, which has been ordered by the Vancouver Island Health Authority to cease trade in free-range eggs.

Before the break I identified for the minister the quote from the Vancouver Island Health Authority identifying that the risk of salmonella in chickens is the rationale for the regulation that requires hens to be raised in a battery — in other words, in cages — in order to sell eggs to a restaurant. I asked the minister if such a regulation actually exists, and the minister said: "Yes, such a regulation does in fact exist in law in British Columbia." Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: The shell egg grading regulation states that free-range eggs that do not move through a grading station cannot be sold for resale but free-range eggs that are produced and moved through an approved grading station may be sold for resale.

Hon. P. Bell: I am advised the rationale is that the grading station checks the egg for cracks. In the event that any air were to get into the egg — which is how it would get into the egg, through the crack — the potential for salmonella increases significantly inside the egg.

The act has been in place, I gather…. When I say the '60s, it may be older than that. I'm not sure. That has been the science behind this for quite some time and still exists today as a valid reason for ensuring that eggs are appropriately graded and that they are not, in fact, cracked.

C. Evans: This is a little bit confusing. The Vancouver Island Health Authority suggests that if the hens were raised in a battery, they could be sold to the restaurant. But the minister is suggesting that it isn't whether they're free range or battery, it is whether or not they've gone through a grading station.

My question to the minister is: is it true that if the free-range eggs went through a grading station, then they would be legal to be sold to the restaurant, and the Vancouver Island Health Authority's concern is not relevant?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is correct. If free-range eggs go through a grading station, they may be sold for resale — so in a restaurant or anything of that nature.

C. Evans: I submit that there's a bit of a disconnect between the Vancouver Island Health Authority and their inspector, Anthony Griffin — BSc, B.Tech and a bunch of initials — registered environmental health officer, and the provincial regulations. I submit further that that is the norm.

What has happened is that we have decentralized provincial health officers to the various health authorities, and the various health authorities interpret the provincial law in various different ways. We wind up with letters, which appear to be incorrect, citing risk that doesn't exist or is not, in fact, the law, because a

health authority doesn't have an understanding of the provincial regulations or has a different interpretation, health authority by health authority.

My question is: is there a committee or a symposium or something where the provincial Ministry of Agriculture sits with the various health officers to assist them to interpret the law in a way that provides clean food and is good for farming and business?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands does meet with the Centre for Disease Control, CDC, on an ongoing basis. They, in turn, collectively engage with different health officers around the province to discuss issues of this nature.

I think that the member perhaps is reading more into this than I am, but it's the first time I've seen this letter. My understanding is that as long as free-range eggs go through a grading station, they may be sold into restaurants or any retail marketplace for resale. The same applies to eggs that are not free-range eggs, that are so-called battery eggs, and that also have the same issues. So I'm not sure that the member is pointing to something that is not, in fact, shared and harmonious here.

To answer the member's question: yes, there are ongoing meetings and consultation between the ministry, the Centre for Disease Control and the individual health officers.

C. Evans: I'm just trying to move quickly here. I guess philosophically the problem we have here is that the minister and the ag plan endorsed the 100-mile diet and the idea of buying your food locally, and just like the meat regulations, we have an egg producer on an island and a restaurant on the same island, and no egg-grading facility or health officer on that island. The two people can't do business because of a regulatory regime or a lack of understanding of a regulatory regime.

I think it's in the minister's interests, and it's certainly in the interests of farming, to figure out a way that I can do business with you if I happen to live down the road. The idea that government would make it so that we can't do business is wacko to me. I'm sorry for Hansard to have to spell "wacko," but it doesn't make any sense.

You can, by the way, raise eggs, free-range eggs, take them to the Gabriola Island Farmers Market, and — so long as they're clean, not cracked, and have been refrigerated — sell them to your neighbour. You just can't buy them at the restaurant. The neighbour can't take them to the restaurant. It does not make any sense.

Can we initiate a cross-ministry committee and invite the various health officers to discuss the 100-mile diet and how to interpret the regulations liberally in order that we can do exactly the business that the agriculture plan endorses? Or are we going to carry on this road where every health officer goes out and behaves like a cop to stop Fred and Mary from buying and selling one another's products?

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the member's comments, and I don't think they're unreasonable. This is a new file, and not one that we've seen up until now. We're certainly more than happy to take this file away and have a closer look at it.

I think the member's general point is that we want to try and create greater opportunities for local producers to sell into the local marketplace where there is not a health risk, and that we need to be more creative and willing to work collaboratively across ministry with the Centre for Disease Control, with the local public health officers, to make sure that that can happen and not allow regulations to create a barrier to entry into the system within the context of good health practices. The member has pointed out a number of times that that is one of the key principles that he agrees with. So I don't think there's any disagreement.

If the member would like us to look closer at this file individually, I'd be happy to do that, and I think the member's premise of us working to develop those local marketplaces and working cross-ministry is appropriate and certainly one that we'll be doing through the agricultural plan.

C. Evans: I appreciate the minister's answer. Yes, I think not only is it appropriate, but I don't think any other ministry or agency is going to do it. There's a whole bunch of people out there who think it's their job to be police.

The agency whose job it is to advocate for food production, distribution, and making money is the Ministry of Agriculture. So my question was: would the Ministry of Agriculture attempt to bring all these other agencies — health agencies, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment, the CFIA and the Centre for Disease Control — together and act as advocate to try to get them to, at minimum, agree on what the regulations are and, at maximum, reduce them in order that people can do business?

I'm asking: will the Ministry of Agriculture take the initiative, be the advocate and bring them together? Because I don't think they're coming on their own.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll try and be more clear with my answer this time, obviously, than I was last time, because the member seems to have misinterpreted it. The answer to the question is yes.

C. Evans: We're really getting somewhere. I like this. I've got one more request.

Will the Minister of Agriculture ask an employee of the Ministry of Agriculture to go to Gabriola Island, bring this chicken producer, this restaurateur and this health officer together, and attempt to work out this specific file in order that this person can go on selling eggs under some kind of clean and responsible production?

Hon. P. Bell: I will commit to looking at the specific file. If it's necessary for us to go over and try and bring the various parties together, we'll do that. If we can resolve it in some other way, we'll do that.

The wine industry traditionally has been located in the territory of high heat units — Oliver, Osoyoos, Penticton area. It is expanding to an area with less heat units by the introduction to British Columbia of varieties less susceptible to mould, for example, to where there might be more moisture, more humidity, and to areas where there might be more cold — such as where I live in the West Kootenay, here on Vancouver Island or on the Sunshine Coast area — than the exceedingly warm and dry microclimate of the South Okanagan.

That ability to spread the industry, which I think is great and healthy for farmers, has been assisted of late by the introduction into British Columbia of grape varieties produced by a Swiss plant breeder by the name of Valentin Blattner. My question to the minister: is the ministry's staff aware of the work and varieties introduced to British Columbia of Valentin Blattner?

C. Evans: Would the minister agree that the two benefits of these varieties are ostensibly to allow grape production in territories colder than the traditional South Okanagan and with reduced possibility of mould and disease?

Hon. P. Bell: The two characteristics that the member points out of the Blattner varieties are ones that are, in fact, a benefit to B.C. production for other regions around the province, but there are other characteristics of Blattner varieties that are also beneficial to British Columbia, over and above those two.

C. Evans: What are those benefits? I was unaware of them. Just for education's sake, maybe the minister could tell me.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to provide the member with a full, detailed list of them. Certainly, disease resistance would be one of the characteristics that would be beneficial, but it is a new varietal, relatively early on in B.C. I had an opportunity to look at a couple of vineyards that have Blattner varieties planted in them right now. I think it creates a very interesting opportunity to an industry that certainly is working very well in the province right now.

C. Evans: Given that we have agreement that the varieties are cold-hardy, my interest, obviously, is that if we can spread wine production towards southeastern British Columbia, in colder climates, we offer more ability for diversification in the farm community. It's the same with up the west coast, on Vancouver Island and the like. It would seem to me that if we have a variety that is less susceptible to disease and problems related to humidity, then we have less need for sprays, less tractor, less carbon — essentially, less inputs and input costs to the farmer.

I think we have agreement on both sides of this discussion that the Blattner varieties would have benefit, especially to those of us who are attempting to build a wine industry. Now, my next question for the minister: is it true that the Blattner varieties are expressly denied access to VQA registration?

Hon. P. Bell: As the member probably knows, there is an approved grape list in the province that is available for VQA registration under the wine authority. Currently, Blattner varieties are not on that list. However, there is a process to add varieties to that wine list.

I understand that the wine authority, as recently as this morning, has agreed that it is appropriate for many of the Blattner varieties that are currently planted in B.C., with the exception of the labrasca varietals, to be added to that list. I have not actually received that list officially from the wine authority, but I am anticipating and advised by the chair of the wine authority that that was agreed to this morning and will be passed on to me.

C. Evans: That's great. Look at the progress we're making here. We're asking questions, getting answers, and simply the threat that we might ask these questions gets these answers. At 11 o'clock in the morning they have a conference call and they solve the problem, so we don't…. I love the minister's answers. I'm glad they're being added to the list.

I never could fathom why…. VQA, I thought, was a statement of quality. I thought it was a test that said, "This is excellent. You come to British Columbia. You buy VQA. It's excellent" — which would be a test of taste, quality, not some list that says you can't grow a specific variety here in British Columbia, especially if it was a variety that would expand to other parts of the province.

Given that we've solved the specific problem here today, I will wait until future years to ask the more philosophical question of: why do we have a list at all? I can't imagine alpaca owners saying: "You can't call an alpaca an alpaca if it's brown. Only white ones count." The idea of having VQA have a list of varieties — in any industry — is like saying creativity, entrepreneurship, thinking, development of your skills, is denied. You can't make the list if you think up something that isn't on the list. We don't do that with any other industry that I know of, so I hope we're going to stop doing it with wine.

Now, I will take my seat and thank the minister, and I have another colleague who has more meat questions.

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to point out to the member that there actually is a process for adding different varieties. The fact that Blattner happened to be recommended this morning to come forward was not a coincidence of

today's estimates debate. It was a relatively long process that took place with agreement amongst the members of the wine authority to bring forward that specific varietal, and that is an opportunity for other varietals as well.

The idea of either a list of acceptable varieties or a list of unacceptable varieties could be argued either way. To my way of thinking, you're better off to have the list that is accepted and have people apply into the process to have those added. I think it appears to have worked in this situation, but I'll take my seat, and we'll go back to my favourite topic.

D. Routley: I have a question for the minister regarding a constituent of mine, Erika MacLeod. Erika and her family are farmers. She's a young farmer. She grew up on farms but was raising several different types of animals and had a small abattoir on her property.

When the new regulations came into force, she considered whether or not it made sense for her to upgrade her facility and determined that it didn't, so she's out of that business. This is not a person who is not optimistic. This is a very optimistic young woman who has bought a large farm now and is raising blueberries.

She wonders why regulations that were meant to assuage international trade fears were brought into effect and basically put her out of business when she was providing a good, safe product for local consumption. If the minister can offer an explanation as to how that can make sense for local farmers.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm tempted to refer the member back to the Hansard from earlier on, because we've covered this area off a number of times already. The emphasis and the desire here was certainly not to put anyone out of business. It was to, in fact, create incremental opportunities for farmers to move their product through into the mainstream marketplace, as opposed to strictly an uninspected, not-for-resale type of market. That has been the desire for some time.

There may be an opportunity — and I'd be happy to work with the member's constituent on this issue — to consider a class C licence for the person in question. If there is an approved set of plans for the region for an abattoir, she would be able to qualify immediately for a class C licence. I'm not familiar with the specific situation, but certainly would be happy to work with the member. The desire here is to create a broader-ranging opportunity for our agricultural sector to sell into the mainstream marketplace.

D. Routley: I think it's too late for Erika, because they made this decision. They've sold their original farm, and now they've moved on to raising blueberries. It's an unfortunate outcome. There are several other people in the Cowichan region who are struggling in the same way, so I would like to take the minister up on that offer of help, in helping them qualify.

One of the questions Erika asked when the critic from Nelson-Creston and I visited her farm last week was: why are there not dual-inspection tracks? Why can we not establish regulations that apply only to local sales for farms that would never input their product into an international market, would never put them in a refrigerator truck to be transported? Can there be an accommodation?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, there is already. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the agency that would inspect product that is sold into the international marketplace for export or transprovincial shipments, and the B.C. regime that we have in place now is strictly one for sales within the province.

I think, probably, what the member is pointing to would be a third tier, which would be a local sale, not-for-resale marketplace, and that currently exists under the model of the class C licence. But, as the member points out, his constituent has chosen to go into the blueberry business, which…. Actually, blueberries are very viable — one of the most profitable crops that we have in B.C. Regardless, it was probably a good decision on his constituent's part.

D. Routley: I would agree that, economically, it was a good decision. But when it comes to our farmers being able to raise meat and find service, it is difficult. There have been questions asked, and they may already have been asked without me being present, so I may be covering old ground. Will the minister consider exemptions from these regulations where abattoirs don't exist within 100 kilometres of farms?

Hon. P. Bell: That question was asked earlier, and my response was that it does not currently exist within the regulatory body. I do not have the authority to do that.

D. Routley: One of the other questions I've been asked to ask on behalf of a constituent — actually a constituent of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca — Lyle Young, who runs Farmhouse Poultry. He asked me to ask the minister whether there are any programs that can help farmers with the increased costs imposed by the new regulations. He, on his part, has made a huge investment in a chicken processing plant in Cowichan Bay. His concern is now with rising costs. He has the rising costs of the facility, but now his costs of animal feed are rising. All the farmers are facing that issue.

He is unafraid of facing these challenges, but he feels there ought to be more investment in support when it comes to Buy Local programs, and he suggests the well-established Island Farmers Alliance Rooster Booster. It's a well-established trademark of sorts on the Island. He's wondering if there's any help available from the ministry in supporting those kinds of programs.

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the first two initiatives in the agriculture plan both speak to the opportunities that Mr. Young is looking for. The first one is the food miles program that will specifically identify the distance traveled from farm to retail outlet and will encourage

the consumer to buy local, as in the 100-mile diet approach to eating. The second one is a million dollars a year for regional marketing initiatives.

The B.C. Ag Council is working collaboratively to develop strategies. One of the things that we've heard pretty clearly, and I think the member has just articulated it, is that there is an interest — as opposed to strictly a Buy B.C. program — in a program that speaks more to local, regional types of initiatives like Buy Vancouver Island, Buy Fraser Valley, that sort of thing. Part of the ag plan, actually, is $2 million annually — $1 million for food miles and $1 million for regional marketing initiatives — that will speak exactly to what the member has just asked about.

D. Routley: Lyle mentioned several other issues where billboard advertising would be helpful. There are strategic places on Vancouver Island where ferry traffic comes. Our communities are linear along the Island Highway pretty much all on the east coast of the Island, and most people pass along those routes. So that's a suggestion from Lyle.

He also noted that there were several local grocers who had no idea, really, what local producers had to offer. When we did a tour of farms a couple of years ago, there were some of these grocers on that tour. It was just a case of not knowing what was there, because once they did, they ordered. Lyle and other people on that tour now have established good customers locally.

But it seemed a little bit unfortunate that that awareness wasn't already there, that so many people are working so hard to conform and perform as entrepreneurs — these farmers finding new ways to market their products — and that there's a disconnect. I wonder if the ministry has any plans to connect marketers — grocery store chains, the wholesalers, the retailers — to our products.

Hon. P. Bell: That's exactly the type of initiatives that are built into the ag plan.

I absolutely agree with the member that it's key that we develop continuity through the value chain, that producers are talking to processors who are talking to wholesalers and retailers through to the consumer so that we're producing the right product for the right marketplace that can be profitable throughout that chain. That's exactly what the ag plan is all about. I think the member is just…. We are in absolute and total agreement that that's an important area.

D. Routley: That being said, I'll rise steadily to my feet without shaking because we're in total agreement. I'm appreciating that.

It would be helpful if we could find a way to reduce the paperwork burden on farmers as well. There are particularly so many meat inspection regulation requirements. That was an issue that was brought forward. I'm going to ask two questions together here, if I could. The other piece would be around labour force development and training for people to enter the agribusiness. What involvement is the ministry taking in labour force development?

Hon. P. Bell: So two separate questions. One is the paperwork issue and how can we better manage that process for industry.

We're always interested in deregulation opportunities. Specifically, we are relocating what used to be called CAIS, that Canadian agricultural income stabilization, now called the AgriStability program, that was delivered through the federal government out of Winnipeg, Manitoba, to British Columbia later on this year. It was one of the clear messages we heard from our industry. They wanted access to the individuals so that they could walk into an office, talk to people about their needs and deal with those. We expect to deliver that a little later on.

Also, expansion of our extension services, working individually with farmers. We started a student summer extension program a couple of years ago that continues to grow. We're trying to deliver more services through the field wherever we can, so a broad variety of initiatives in terms of reducing the implications of paperwork and general process on farm.

The second question is: what sort of initiatives do we have in place? Again, I'd refer the member to the agriculture plan. We worked very closely with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education. We'll be bringing forward a variety of programming that will be available at institutions across the province to encourage young people to get into the agricultural sector. We think that there's a very real opportunity there. We've increased the resourcing to the 4-H program. We think that's one of the initiatives that's very, very important.

We do work in terms of bringing temporary farmworkers to the province through the WALI program, which helps us bring temporary Mexican farmworkers into British Columbia to help support the larger, more commercial-sized producers and provide the human resource benefits that are necessary to them.

I'd refer the member to the ag plan. There are quite a variety of different initiatives that speaks to the point that the member just made.

D. Routley: As a final question, it would be an offer or an ask. The minister has indicated there's $1 million in marketing initiatives available. The Island Farmers Alliance have established this trademark of sorts. I bought a whole bunch for our Island caucus, and we wear them proudly in Vancouver and everywhere. It's a well-known symbol, and it has been very effective in connecting people to the local nature of the product.

I wonder if I could ask the minister to meet with the Island Farmers Alliance and some of the local producers or assign a staff member who could help us through that process and access that support, because it would be very beneficial.

Hon. P. Bell: So kind of two answers to that question. One is that I'm always happy to meet with local

producers and particularly industry associations. I'd be happy to meet with the member's constituents.

The second question, will we help them access funding that would be appropriate for the development of the strategy or the ongoing implementation of the strategy. Of course, the answer to that would be yes as well.

C. Evans: Now we're going to move on from wine and meat to the issue of veterinarians and the ongoing dispute between two groups of veterinarians in British Columbia. This has been going on, at least to my knowledge, since 2002 between the association and some members outside the association who are East Indian veterinarians.

I want to start by saying that I have absolutely no knowledge of veterinary science and no interest in deciding who's right and who's wrong nor a wish to have any opinion, ever, on who has skills and who doesn't have skills in veterinary medicine. Nor am I a lawyer. I want nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong in the law. Nor am I a mediator. I want nothing to do with solving this problem. But I do have some questions on the subject.

It's my understanding that at least since 2002 there has been a language requirement, a test on veterinarians. It's my understanding that the test is a universal test applied by a third-party contractor. It is used as a measure of English language skills in other professions like, for example, taxi drivers and doctors. When Canada wishes to invite people from another country, we give them a language test sometimes, to see if they can perform their job adequately in one of the two official languages of the country.

It is my understanding that that language test has been imposed on veterinarians at least since 2002. Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to correct the member on one point. He said that there was the BCVMA, which is the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, and there were some people that were outside of the BCVMA who were disagreeing. Actually, everyone is inside the BCVMA. They're all members of the BCVMA.

The member also suggested that this group of constituents is East Indian. While they are, there is a much larger group, I believe in the order of 80 or so veterinarians, who are East Indian. This group fluctuates in size, but I understand that it's getting relatively small, down to just a few members, perhaps. I don't know the exact numbers. At one point it was about 20 members, and I think it's smaller than that now.

The member asked a question if this rule was in place since 2002. To the best of our corporate knowledge here it goes back further than that — that this is a practice, the language test, that was in place prior to that time. We don't have the corporate knowledge to be able to say when that came into place. It may have been in the '90s; we're not sure.

C. Evans: I have no trouble with the test or when it was brought in, and I thank the minister for correcting mistakes in my introduction.

My questions have to do with the level of language skills required. It is my understanding that the language test — and I want to be corrected if I'm wrong — is a universal test. It is the same test that would be applied if you wanted to be a veterinarian or a doctor or an engineer. The test has two evaluators, two judges, and what they do is give points out of 60. Is my understanding of how the test is administered and how the point schedule works the same as the ministry's?

Hon. P. Bell: It should be pointed out that the BCVMA is a self-regulated body, that they create their own regulations. My understanding is that the rules for the BCVMA are the same as the rules that are in place in Alberta for the veterinary medical practice, and in Saskatchewan.

Our corporate knowledge here at this table varies a little bit on whether it is exactly the same test. I do believe that it is very similar, if not the same test, for other medical professions. I have not pursued it beyond that to determine whether or not it would be the same test for engineers, which I think the member pointed out. Certainly, we'd be happy to get that information and provide it in writing back to the member, if he is looking for that level of information.

C. Evans: Thank you. I am actually looking for that level of information, and I don't wish to be obscure or pedantic. I'm getting to the point here.

It's my understanding — and I may be wrong, and that's why I want to get corrected — that on the test to be a doctor of human beings in British Columbia you have to score 50 out of 60. It's my understanding that on the test to be a teacher and be hired by a school board you have to get 50 out of 60. And it's my understanding that to be a veterinarian in British Columbia you have to get 55 out of 60. My question to the minister: is my understanding correct?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have that level of information here, but we'd be happy to get that for the member. We could provide that to him tomorrow.

C. Evans: Thank you, and I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong. Obviously, as I said in my preamble I want nothing to do with judging who should be a vet or who is right and who is wrong; however, if there is a chance that we have a test which precludes trained people for language skills that are tougher than being a doctor or the teacher of my kids, that would seem inappropriate. It is the inappropriateness that I was getting at.

I have one final question before my colleagues have some. Whatever the level of language excellence that is required for veterinarians, I would ask if the minister would invite the language examiners to come here to the Legislature. All MLAs of all parties would be invited to take the test and see if they could pass. I will

personally go to each MLA's office and invite them to come and take the test. I kind of doubt that some of us would be allowed to pass this test and work in our own province where we are, in fact, MLAs.

To the minister: will you invite the testing authority here so that we MLAs can find out whether, in fact, we would be allowed to immigrate to British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: The member started his comments with saying he didn't want any part of determining whether or not an individual should be able to practice veterinary medicine or be part of the measuring process or the criteria-setting process, and I actually agree with the member on that. That's why there is a Human Rights Tribunal process that is ongoing here in British Columbia as well as several court cases between the various parties involved in this particular dispute.

The fact that they are an independently regulated body and that there is an active process ongoing is appropriate. I'm sure that the outcomes of that process will be fair once they have been allowed to flow through to completion, and an accurate measure of language proficiency will be in place. I'm eagerly awaiting the results of those processes.

I share the member's view that I have little interest in intervening in a situation of this nature, especially when there are appropriate organizations such as the Human Rights Tribunal that are far more qualified to make those judgments than I.

C. Evans: I appreciate the minister's answer. Can I take it from the fact that I asked the minister if I was right that the language exam for veterinarians exceeded that of doctors and the minister did not answer me specifically…? Can I take it that the minister doesn't, in fact, know the answer to that question?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, I believe that it is the case, but I am not absolutely certain of that. What I advised the member was that I would provide them with the accurate information tomorrow during the estimates process, so I'd be happy to do that. I just don't want to provide information to the member which may or may not be accurate.

However, I do have the view that the Human Rights Tribunal was established to determine fair process and to ensure that people are treated equitably and without prejudice. That's why I do think it's appropriate that this particular decision be made at the Human Rights Tribunal. I have every confidence that the outcome of that, when it is completed, will be fair to all parties.

C. Evans: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the information the minister is going to provide me.

My last question has to do with…. I know it sounds kind of silly, but I really want MLAs to take the language test. I think that if you represent the people of British Columbia and you can't pass the language test, then it's inappropriate for a professional association to say that that's the level that you have to have to work in B.C. We work in B.C. We run B.C.

You're the Chair of the organization that is British Columbia right now, and I don't know if you could pass the test.

I'm dead serious. Will you invite them here to give us all the exam to see if we would pass, or at least supply me with the name of the independent company that does the test so that I can ask them?

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, it would be my hope that I could pass the test.

Hon. P. Bell: Knowing the Chair reasonably well, I would have some concerns about that. [Laughter.]

I do not consider it as my responsibility to engage in that sort of discussion, but we'd be happy to provide the member opposite with the name of the organization that does the testing.

J. Brar: I think that there are a few things which are clear from the debate between my colleague here and the minister. I want to pursue a couple of more questions on the same issue.

My understanding is that the minister is saying that this may be the case, which means that the test, actually, for the veterinarians is higher than the standards we have in the province as well as in this nation, which is that they're being asked to take 55 out of 60.

The complaint that we have heard from them is that this is not a standard test for the quality of care, which is of course very, very important when you talk about veterinarians or any other professional. We understand that piece. We don't support sacrificing the quality of care when it comes to language or any other issue. But the dispute between the Indo-Canadian veterinarians and the association is going on. One of the key factors, of course, is the English test.

My question to the minister is…. Yes, they've gone to the Human Rights Tribunal. Why was it not appropriate for the minister to intervene and resolve this issue, which I think is a very, very important issue and which, of course, falls into the minister's responsibility?

I think that the government is responsible for enforcing the acts that we establish in this House. I think we do have that responsibility. If we find something, and if there's an issue that comes to the table, to the minister, I think that the minister has a responsibility to make sure that the act passed by this House is being respected by the independent bodies. The minister can tell me if that's not true.

My second question will be…. Having said that, I think one of the things that the minister could have done, which is easy, is ask the association to review the

English test to make sure that the test meets the requirements of fairness as well as quality of care.

I think that's a very, very fair question to ask of the minister. If I had been in that chair, I would ask that question. My question to the minister is: is that something that the minister is prepared to do?

Hon. P. Bell: Before I answer that question, I'd just like the member to perhaps take the time to read the act. He would understand that I don't have the authority to intervene in an act and require a change in a self-regulated body. It's not a case of whether I would or would not like to make a change; I simply do not have the authority to make that change.

The actual question that the member asked is would I ask the BCVMA to review the language requirements and ensure that they are fair. In fact, I did that about a year and a half ago — perhaps in that range, but quite some time ago. I asked them to review and ensure that the proficiency requirements did allow for an open, fair and transparent process. They responded back to me that they felt that requirement had been met. That is the extent of my authority over the BCVMA.

J. Brar: Last question, and thanks to the minister for the clarification. I just want to make the record straight. I have not said that the minister can go and change the act. That's not my comment, and that was not my comment.

What I'm saying here is that if the minister believes that the act, which is part of the ministry…. If any independent party which is established under that act is not respecting the act — that's what I said — then in that situation probably the minister can intervene. That's what I said, just so we're clear about that.

I appreciate the minister saying that the minister did intervene in the situation, but my understanding is that the test is still the same. How can the minister say that they took action and that things were taken care of? If the minister can explain that a bit.

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, I did not say that. The member asked me if I would consider requesting that the BCVMA review their language proficiency requirements to see whether or not they were fair. I did, in fact, request that they do that review. They did that review. They reported back to me that they believed — they being the BCVMA — that their requirements were fair. This is currently the topic at a Human Rights Tribunal, so certainly there is another appeal mechanism or methodology for review of that.

I am eager to see the outcome of that process. I'm confident that that process will provide a fair and balanced outcome. I'm not going to be the judge of what that outcome might be. I'll allow that process to execute. I think it is the appropriate one.

H. Bains: Minister, I think that the issue that sometimes is brought to us as legislators…. Yes, there are a number of self-regulated bodies out there, but at the end of the day the buck stops with the minister. The minister is ultimately responsible for what goes on in that ministry.

I think that it is the minister's responsibility to make sure that the laws of the land, the laws that we have, are upheld when they are making policies in those self-regulated organizations. It is up to the minister to make sure that the laws are seen to be applied lawfully as well.

The question that arises is…. I'm just going to go back a little bit. I understand that the minister was involved in this dispute some time ago, either directly or indirectly, trying to get the two sides together. Is that correct?

H. Bains: My understanding, also out of that, is that through the involvement of the minister, the parties got involved and agreed to go through the mediation. I believe that Justice Sloan and Mr. Ted Hughes were involved. Can the minister tell us what the outcome was of the mediation?

Hon. P. Bell: We facilitated and believed that it was important that the groups get together with the mediator. It appeared to me that both sides in the dispute were unprepared to move off of their original positions unless there was someone who was able to bridge that gap. We thought that was the appropriate process.

The two parties agreed to co-fund the services of a mediator. The two parties signed a confidentiality agreement that I gather the mediator recommended was important to the process. They're still bound by that confidentiality agreement, and I've not been provided with any information on the outcome of that process, nor would it be appropriate for me to receive that under the confidentiality agreement that the two parties signed initially.

H. Bains: I think, as the minister knows fully well, that this is a very divisive issue. Again, I am with the minister and with my colleagues here that we're not here to judge who is right or who is wrong here, but there are all kinds of allegations. I don't think that it does anything good to the BCVMA or to its members or to the ministry when the allegations of racism or systemic racism are thrown around in the media and in the community.

For that reason we're forced to ask the minister if the minister could think of anything, outside of this Human Rights Commission complaint that is there — if there is anything that the minister can do to bring the parties together to see if there's any systemic element in their complaint, whether it's real or perceived, even.

Under the system that we work I think that the perception also can be very damaging, at a time when we are boasting as a government, I might say, that we are inviting the world — actually, all the skilled workers — to come to B.C so that we could utilize their skills.

We need those skills. But when they see these kinds of reports going back to their homeland, I think it is not very constructive for our province. It's not very good for our image in the outside world, where Canada actually is considered to be a champion of upholding human rights and a champion of expressing our human rights values across the world.

In that vein I am asking the minister if there's anything that the minister can find…. If the minister finds that the test may have some element of systemic discrimination, then is the minister prepared to look into the situation and make recommendations — whether it means changing the act or doing whatever it takes, you know, the power the minister may have — so that if there's anything of that nature that exists in their policies, that can be changed?

Hon. P. Bell: What the member is asking me to do is to pre-empt the Human Rights Tribunal, and I'm not going to do that. That is exactly why the Human Rights Tribunal was established in the first place. It's exactly why it needs to flow through the process in a proper and orderly way, and that's why I have complete and total confidence in the outcome of the Human Rights Tribunal.

The member for Nelson-Creston opened his remarks by suggesting that he didn't want to be a judge in this case. He didn't want to determine what was fair, who was right, who was wrong. I think that's absolutely appropriate. I can't agree more than I would with the comments from the member for Nelson-Creston. That's absolutely the case.

What the member is asking me to do is to become the judge of whether or not something is or is not fair. I do not have that expertise. I don't have the knowledge that is necessary to make that determination, but I do believe that the Human Rights Tribunal is the appropriate place for this determination to be made, and I fully support that.

I am very concerned about this dispute and have been from day one. That's why I have agreed to and have met with both sides to this.

I really hesitate and caution the member opposite, you know, not to call this the East Indian veterinarians versus the BCVMA, because there's a large group of veterinarians in British Columbia who are East Indian. There's a portion of them that are in this group that currently has a disagreement with the BCVMA, but there's also a much larger portion that are outside of that as well. So don't see this as necessarily a racial issue. It really does have people sitting on both sides of it.

I am supportive of the process, and I'm very concerned about it. That's why we engaged and tried to act to bring people together. Unfortunately, that process doesn't seem to have moved along, although I do understand that there has been some headway made recently over the last few months in this area. There have been a number of disputes settled through the BCVMA dispute resolution mechanism that they currently have, and I'm hopeful that we we'll see a conclusion to it.

I do agree with the member that this is a very disturbing set of files and something that I would like to see brought to a conclusion through the Human Rights Tribunal process.

H. Bains: Maybe I could ask another question of a different nature. How much funding goes from the ministry to BCVMA, if anything?

Hon. P. Bell: There's no funding that is provided to the BCVMA by the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

H. Bains: If I asked, on the test administered…. It was established here that in 2002 this new test came in and that the points requirement is 55 out of 60. Can the minister tell us: what were the required numbers before this?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have that information here, but I'd be happy to provide that to the member in due course.

H. Bains: Thank you. I will be waiting for that information, and that will be a really good help.

You know, I do agree with the minister and other members that we don't want to be even seen to be commenting on a human rights complaint. I don't want to do that. It is before the very competent tribunal, and both sides are making their argument. Fair enough — that's where it should be decided. But does the minister know how many hearings they have actually gone through?

H. Bains: I may want to advise the minister that the hearings that they've gone through are countless. There are more and more scheduled. I want to put it on the record so that the minister knows that.

Perhaps the minister can find out exactly how many hearings they have already gone through and how many are scheduled. Perhaps the minister could bring that information tomorrow when we come back to the House again, because I think that it will be for the interest of the minister to know that type of information and what actually is going on, rather than commenting on the case itself.

I would end here by asking the minister for the last time…. I'd just probably remind him that there are certain times in our history, as you know, where we have seen some cases, whether they were intentional or unintentional…. There was a requirement that to join the fire department in Vancouver, one must be 5 feet 11 inches, for example. That requirement would eliminate a number of our new immigrants, especially from those countries where the average height is not 5 feet 11 inches. We have to make some changes to fix that problem, and we are making progress.

I think, in that vein, I'm asking the minister to keep a watch on this file. If it's going on and it's been dragged through so long and getting so much negative media attention, not only here but outside our country as well, it probably would be for our benefit collectively as a province that we watch it very carefully. If there's anything that the minister sees that needs action by the minister to make sure that justice is done, then I would ask the minister to perhaps comment on that.

Hon. P. Bell: I didn't mean, by indicating to the member that I didn't know how many hearings had been held or how many more were scheduled, that we were not following this file along. In fact, I'm very concerned about it, and I do want to see resolution to it.

But, to be clear — and I could almost repeat the words from the member for Nelson-Creston — I have no interest in becoming the judge, jury or executioner on this case. That will happen at the Human Rights Tribunal. It will happen in due course and with due process, and that's absolutely where it should happen.

However, that all said, as the member knows, I am very concerned about this file and have met with both sides a number of times. I continue to follow it along and encourage them, in all of my comments, to get together and work collaboratively to try and find a solution to this issue.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions about the agricultural plan as it relates to some agricultural issues in my community.

First of all, I wanted to ask about the issue of bridging the urban-agricultural divide, because that's such a huge issue in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. We're dealing with that constantly and trying to come to terms with all the pressures of development that we have and, at the same time, trying to maintain our agricultural lands.

I wanted to read a statement by the government on this and proceed from there. It says:

Now the issue that I wanted to talk about, first of all, is with regard to an area called Jackson Farm, in Maple Ridge. This is the site of a historic farm — I think it was some hundred years old or so — which is still the subject of considerable discussion in Maple Ridge, particularly with regard, at this point, to the green zone. But it's not the green zone that I want to ask the minister about.

The municipality recommended to the Agricultural Land Commission around 2000 or 2001 that it not be removed from the ALR. Unfortunately, the commission didn't agree with their recommendation, and the farm has been removed from the ALR. It's good agricultural land. We often have discussion and debate in Maple Ridge about whether some of the land is good agricultural land or not, but I don't think that anybody disputes that with regard to Jackson Farm.

I think it's a travesty that that land was removed from the ALR. I think that this speaks very much to this policy of reviewing the provisions of the ALR to ensure that it continues to meet our goal of preserving agricultural land over the long term and the commitment, thereof, of the government.

I wanted to get some comment from the minister. He may or may not be aware of this particular situation, but I'm glad to tell him more about it. Given that I have the facts correct, does he feel that this is not an issue that would lend itself to a reconsideration of the role of the ALR as stated in the plan with regard to protecting agriculture in the long term?

I should introduce Colin Fry who is with the Agricultural Land Commission and who has joined me now. This government is absolutely committed to ensuring that agricultural lands across the province are protected.

I think that's been pretty clearly demonstrated in terms of the very low levels of land that have come out of the reserve, particularly over the last seven years since we've been in government. We continue to be committed to that. We thought that it was important in the agricultural plan to specifically identify that, because the absence of that comment, if it was not demonstrated to be there, would have said volumes.

I think it was very important to clearly articulate in the agricultural plan our commitment to protecting agricultural lands across the province, long term, and it's meant to send a signal, as well, to the development community that they shouldn't be purchasing agricultural lands with the expectation that they will eventually, if they continue to work away at it over time, be able to remove those lands and have them excluded for development purposes.

We all know the impacts through the Fraser Valley in terms of increased prices for agricultural land. In the Okanagan it is the same problem. Prices have really got to a point where they've become very unaffordable for agricultural purposes.

I think a lot of that has been because people have certainly been speculating that there may be the opportunity to have them excluded at some point in time, even though the statistics don't support that, clearly. I can go through the statistics for the member, if he'd like them, that land has not been excluded at an increasing rate. In fact, it's a decreasing rate over the last seven years.

I think it was important to send a strong signal to the development community that we intend to protect those agricultural lands and that they should not expect to have them excluded.

M. Sather: I certainly appreciate the minister's comments. I couldn't agree with him more that this is

an excellent statement to have the government to have clarified. It should be in the plan for many reasons. One of the ones he referred to as the speculative pressures that are on land. That's exactly the case in this incidence. Speculative pressure has led to what appears to be the demise of this property, although it's still quite a bit in doubt because of the issue of it being in the green zone and that it can't be released from the green zone, at least at this point.

However, I disagree with the minister about the removal of agricultural land. Certainly, when it comes to the Lower Mainland, I've seen loss of lands in Maple Ridge — this being only one of them. We see them in Chilliwack. We see them in Abbotsford and, of course, in Delta most recently. There is a lot of concern there.

I want to get back to the issue, though, of the commitment to reviewing the provisions of the ALR to protect agriculture over the long term. I understand, again, the issues around speculation, and I think this is a good message.

My question is: how could this happen? This is a farm. It was a farm. It was actually a farm in production. It seems to me that there must be something wrong with the commission's considerations that they could remove a property like this from the ALR. Surely, that commitment to reviewing the provisions should include a commitment to reviewing the commission's mandate, which I understood to be protecting agriculture.

Would there not be a review of that mandate too, with respect to what's happened here?

Hon. P. Bell: I would expect that the review will include both the ALC and the ALR and ensure that there are the appropriate mandates in place.

It's very hard for me to comment here today on a specific file. If the member would care to provide us with the details on that file, we'd be happy to sit down and have the Agricultural Land Commission provide him a detailed briefing on why the decision was made in the way it was.

I should point out that the Agricultural Land Commission is a quasi-judicial body. It works at arm's length from me. Their decisions are made independent from the politics of this place — as is appropriate, I believe — and will continue to be made in that method.

M. Sather: I want to clarify there that the minister said the review would include issues around the Agricultural Land Commission as well as, I think, issues around speculation. Now, what did he mean by the review? Is there a review in progress?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll just read the wording from the ag plan. It says: "Review the ALR to ensure the preservation of agricultural land for future generations of farm and ranch families." That'll be happening this year. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, my ministry, and the Agricultural Land Commission will be doing that jointly.

I wanted to move on another part of the ag plan and another issue in my community. This one is around producing local food in a changing world, a safe and secure food supply, and a strategy for…. Under the plan it's the promotion of human, plant and animal health and food safety. The issue here is around the Formosa Nursery, which I'm sure that the minister has heard about before, and the tremendous impacts on that organic farm by the placement of the Abernethy Connector to the Golden Ears bridge, right through the middle of their organic blueberry farm.

These people are tremendously resilient. They want to continue and are to continuing to this day in the production of agricultural product — to wit, organic blueberries. But they have a problem, as I understand it, with their ongoing certification because of the road that's going to go through their property and the pollution from cars — what effect it will have on their ability to maintain their viability.

Does the minister agree, then, that the family is put at risk, that even consumers may be put at risk due to the toxins that are going to result from this road? Is there any way that the agriculture plan and the provisions thereof — although I know they're not law — can come to play here with regard to assisting this family and this operation in terms of maintaining the health of their product and their operation?

Hon. P. Bell: Two questions. First of all, my understanding was that the Wus negotiated a settlement agreement with TransLink on the displacement of their operation and that that was something that was agreed to independently. They could have chosen to go to arbitration if they'd wanted to, I suppose. I don't want to be the judge of whether or not how that was done was fair, but that was the settlement agreement that was made with the Wus.

In terms of the other piece, the organic certification, COABC, the Certified Organic Association of B.C., is the one that determines organic certification for product, so they need to independently provide that service. It wouldn't be appropriate for the ministry to step in and say: "Well no, it should be certified organic, even though you don't think it meets the standards." That would degrade the brand of a certified organic product.

However, it would be appropriate for us, and we will be happy to work with the Wus in any way that we can, to allow them to get access back into that organic market and to provide them with the certification that they're looking for. I know that the member has pointed out a couple of things that may be beyond our ability or anyone's ability to resolve, and that is specifically as it relates to emissions from the immediate road. But one would presume that the Wus took that into account when they made their decision on their settlement agreement.

M. Sather: I don't know whether they did, in fact. The member for Nelson-Creston may have some further information on that if he wishes to talk about it.

Their settlement agreement, I think, had a lot to do with the loss of their capacity, the loss of their actual plants and the way that it has upset their operation now. They don't have any underpass to get to the other side of the road where they need to, to do their work, so that's a real problem for them.

I also wanted to mention to the minister, though…. It's on the same farm issue, only somewhat different, with regard to the agriculture plan and strategy 7 in addressing climate change and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from food production and processing.

In addition to the assault — I think that's not too strong a word — on Formosa Nursery on their operation from the ill-placement of the Abernethy Connector, it's unfortunate that the municipality, now the city of Pitt Meadows, is considering a second road which would transect the Formosa Nursery.

It would also displace agricultural lands to the west and would move the boundary as it has been indicated by the council in Pitt Meadows for over these past numbers of years. They've indicated that there wasn't going to be urban sprawl into the agricultural reserve or commercial sprawl beyond the Lougheed Highway. This road would alienate agricultural lands north of the Lougheed Highway, and it would also, once again, go through Formosa Nursery to connect with the Abernethy Connector.

My question, then, to the minister is: how does…? I understand that the placement of the road is not his responsibility and that the Agricultural Land Commission is a quasi-judicial body and will judge the applications to remove land from the agricultural reserve to put this road in. But how does it square with the ag plan to address climate change and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions?

They don't have a chance to produce food if they're going to be continually assaulted by one road after another. I appreciate the minister's former comments that the ministry will do whatever they can to assist the Wu family in dealing with the issues around their certification for organic farming.

But can the minister do anything else? Is he willing to do anything else — perhaps discuss this issue with the council from the city of Pitt Meadows to make them understand or at least to give the support for agriculture issues around the fact that this second road would be completely damaging to agriculture in the area and particularly to Formosa Nursery?

Hon. P. Bell: There is a decision currently in front of the Agricultural Land Commission in this matter, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specific application, the nature of it or the appropriateness of it.

The member asked if I would consider meeting with the local council. I would presume that as the member from the region, he's already done that or would take responsibility for that. That would normally be a local MLA function. I find myself in a situation where because the commission is currently trying to make a decision on this particular issue, it would be awkward for me to be out there advocating a specific position on it, nor would it be appropriate for me to make that sort of a comment.

C. Evans: No, it's not my pleasure. I'm inspired to carry on this discussion about Formosa Nursery because some of what I've heard is either inaccurate or else I misheard.

I do not believe that the Agriculture Land Commission is trustworthy to determine the second road because I watched as they dealt with the first road. The Agricultural Land Commission staff showed me the map where the road was gazetted in the 1950s, I think, on the edge of Formosa Nursery prior to the plantation of the farm.

At the same time, I think, through language breakdown with a family for whom English is a second language, they okayed a road bisecting the farm. I saw nothing in the process that suggested that the Agricultural Land Commission would stand up for the farmer or even understand the farmer. Ultimately, there was a letter, which the land commission representative knows, that apologized for the lack of understanding. Still, the farm was bisected.

Secondly, it was reported by the minister that the Wus had agreed to some kind of settlement. There is no settlement. The land was expropriated, and the dirt on which the road is, three acres or something, has been paid for. But a business was wrecked for two years. There's no agreement on the loss of business for two years.

A house is now separated from the rest of the business. There is a four-lane road between the house and the nursery. There is no agreement on how to solve that. There's no agreement on a tunnel to allow these people to service their building, and there's no overpass although, orally, those things were promised.

There is a fence with no gate in it separating the two parts of the blueberry field. You can't pick blueberries and get them cooled off fast enough so that they don't spoil. You can't get the U-pick pickers to the blueberries. There is no agreement on that.

There's no payment for business loss. There's no payment for the loss of the blueberries. There's no payment for something like $80,000 worth of legal fees, and there's no payment for the business losses for the years involved.

I begged, and I continue to beg, that ministry staff intervene between TransLink and the family, as advocates for farmers. I thought that was the role of the Ministry of Agriculture. I don't think that the land commission did their job, and I don't think that they're going to do it again, unless somebody acts as advocate.

TransLink is an organization trying to build a road without spending too much money. They're not going to understand agriculture. They've had two separate

audits of the value of organic blueberries. Why is that? Because TransLink doesn't believe the valuation of the plants. Who could act as advocate? Who, historically, for 100 years has stood up for farmers when some larger organization decided to intervene? It's the Ministry of Agriculture.

The minister's staff are incorrect if they advised the minister that there was a settlement, but I don't care. My question is: would you ask your staff to act as advocate and stand next to the Wu's until this process of negotiation of business losses is finished and they're back farming?

Hon. P. Bell: There are two things that disturb me about that member's little outburst right now. The first was that he says that he doesn't trust the Agricultural Land Commission.

Well, I absolutely trust the Agricultural Land Commission. They are a dedicated group of folks who work hard to protect agricultural land throughout this province. They have done an admirable job in extremely difficult circumstances — some of the most challenging circumstances that they have ever faced. I do support the work they've done, and I believe that they have made good decisions throughout this province over a very long, difficult history.

The second thing that disturbs me about this member's comments is that he said: would I intervene? Well, that's exactly what this member did. He intervened in the Agricultural Land Commission on June 10, 1998, to overrule the Agricultural Land Commission, who said that the property should stay in what was known in the day as the Six Mile Ranch, in the Kamloops area, that that property should be used for agricultural use.

That member chose to say that that property should be excluded, and he specifically signed an order-in-council, which I am holding right here, when he was the minister of the day, to overrule the commission, intervene with the commission and say that they were wrong, that he was right and that that land should come out of the agricultural land reserve.

This member is dead wrong. The Agricultural Land Commission is an entity that we should have faith in and that we should trust. They do admirable work. They have clearly proven their value, and this government will support this Agricultural Land Commission and make sure they continue to have the ability to make their decisions independently.

C. Evans: I accept all personal criticism. That's irrelevant to me on this issue.

I endorsed the work of the Agricultural Land Commission. However, at Formosa farm they did not behave in a way, on the first road, that would lead somebody to trust that they're the appropriate body to adjudicate the second road — did they? They allowed the bisecting of the farm and didn't stay through the process to see to it that the farm was put back together. Knock Humpty Dumpty off the wall, and then who's going to stand with him?

I accept the minister's criticism. He can say anything he wants about me. My question is: would he ask his staff to stand next to the Wus and assist them to negotiate fair settlement, to finish the job, to put the farm back together?

I'm not asking the minister to intervene. I'm asking the minister to ask his staff to act as advocates for the farmer until this business is finished with TransLink, they get their house on the other side of the road, they get a bridge and a tunnel, and they get cash for their business losses. I accept the criticism. I'm asking: will the Ministry of Agriculture act as advocates for farmers in the case of Formosa Nursery?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I want to completely and totally reject the member's thesis that the Agricultural Land Commission is not trustworthy. I have complete and total faith in the Agricultural Land Commission. They've done, I think, a marvellous job in the just under three years that I've had responsibility for their legislation.

We'll continue to support the Agricultural Land Commission, unlike the member opposite — who clearly does not have faith in the commission, as he's clearly stated here today and demonstrated through his actions when he was the minister.

The member's question was: will the ministry support the Wus in the current negotiation? I gather that they are going through it. I'm not aware of a negotiation. They've not put in a request that I'm aware of, but if the Wus were to put in a request to the ministry, we would, of course, work with them to ensure that they had access to the resources they need to make the right decisions going forward.

C. Evans: That's great. We've approached de-escalation. Will the minister tell me who it would be appropriate for the Wus to contact to ask for such assistance?

C. Evans: That's a great answer. I'm going to bypass what the minister thinks of my credibility.

I want to start split classification issues. I appreciate that there's a review panel assigned to deal with the assessment authority and split classification questions. I do, however, have some questions related to the issue of split classification.

Just to put on the record, sometimes the assessment authority, in doing its job, visits a farm, decides that part of the land is not being farmed, and applies the highest and best-use rule — saying that that land is severed from the farm and will be assessed for tax purposes at the highest and best use, which might be recreational or residential or industrial rather than farm use. So a five-acre farm might have two acres hived off and assessed at residential value rather than farm value.

I attended a symposium led by the assessment authority, and I learned a lot from the good people that put forward the explanation of the law.

My question is…. It is my impression, based on the information provided at that symposium, that every farmer in British Columbia, when asked by an assessment authority individual, "Are you farming that portion of land?" has the right to sign a paper that says: "I intend someday to farm that land." Once that paper is signed, split classification is withdrawn.

Hon. P. Bell: That specifically relates to the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and would best be asked to that minister during his estimates.

C. Evans: This comes to this question of advocacy. If in fact such a piece of paper exists, as I have been advised by the very ministry the minister alludes to — that such a piece of paper exists — then the ministry that advocates for farmers needs to distribute that information to farmers.

Let me rephrase my question: does the Ministry of Agriculture act as advocate for farmers in assisting them to manage their business for tax purposes? And does the Ministry of Agriculture advise farmers that they can sign a piece of paper that says they intend to farm the land in future and thereby maintain farm classification?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member is asking a broader, more generic question in terms of the advocacy role of the ministry in working with farmers when there are challenges — whether it be different ministries, health authorities, different regulating agencies, provincial or federal government, municipal governments and the like. And yes, the ministry does have an active role in that.

We see expanding the extension services within the ministry. That's been articulated in the agricultural plan. Wherever we have an opportunity to put more people regionally around the province we take advantage of that, as well as an aggressive expansion of the student extension program that we started three summers ago in the ministry. Those are all roles that we need to play.

I might add that the member did touch on this early on in his remarks — the reason for the split classifications. The reason why the Minister of Small Business and Revenue decided to engage in a review of the practices of the B.C. Assessment Authority was exactly because of these challenges that relate to classifications and the viability of farming operations as a result of those.

That work is committed to, and the agricultural plan…. I do expect that there will be detailed work done specifically on the issue of split classifications. I hope that we can find a way of resolving it, because it is a barrier to successful operations on farms.

C. Evans: It is my understanding, based on things I was told, that we could actually resolve 95 percent of this issue right here today. If a declaration form exists within another ministry that a farmer can sign that says, "I intend to farm" and thereby avoid split classification, would the minister (a) ascertain whether or not such a form exists and (b) if it does, put it on the Ministry of Agriculture's website so that every farmer in B.C. can see it?

C. Evans: On this cheerful note…. Noting the hour, you can do whatever you want, or I'll bring up another subject.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 30

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Macdonald

	NAYS — 40

Coell	Ilich	Chong
Christensen	Les	Richmond
Bell	Krueger	van Dongen
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Jarvis	Nuraney	Whittred
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad