Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 18 -- Friday, April 11, 1997

R. Thorpe: Today I have three guests in the gallery: two very great volunteers and supporters of mine, Laura and Don Reitlo, and their seven-year-old grandson, David Carlton, who is a keen student of the Legislature. I'd like to thank the Speaker for his hospitality to David today. In addition, David does a great impression of Elvis. Would the House please welcome very warmly my guests from Penticton.

The Speaker: I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am warmly anticipating some friendly fire from this side of the House today, as usual, and I thank you for this opportunity to discuss an issue. . .

G. Abbott: And some friendly fire from that side, as well. I look forward to it.

. . .of great concern to my riding of Shuswap, and I know to other parts of the province as well -- that is, the issue of wood waste and its disposal. Why would wood waste and its disposal be an important issue? I think that if jobs are important -- and I'm sure that all members of this House would agree that indeed jobs are important -- then the wood waste issue is important. Jobs are threatened because several sawmills in my riding -- and, I'm sure, many others across the province -- have faced and continue to face deadlines for wood waste burner phase-out.

I'd like to provide a brief background to the problem here. In 1991 the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks introduced the burner phase-out program under the wood burner and incinerator regulation. Mills were advised that burners would have to be shut down by 1996 or, in some cases a little later, depending on a variety of conditions. In the interval between 1991 and 1996 it was assumed that mills would find alternative solutions to the burning of wood waste. Most mills -- certainly in my constituency and in some of the bordering constituencies, perhaps including the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet's riding as well -- placed a lot of hope in the development of a cogeneration project by Weyerhaeuser Canada. Unfortunately, that cogeneration option foundered when the Weyerhaeuser proposal was dropped from Hydro's list of alternative power projects.

Several projects in different parts of the province -- including four on Vancouver Island, I think -- were approved, but unfortunately the Weyerhaeuser proposal did not proceed. As a consequence, mills in the Shuswap area and in other areas around Kamloops were left with no alternative. But they continued to face the deadlines that were imposed on them for 1996. At this juncture, I don't intend to debate the wisdom of the Hydro decision with respect to Weyerhaeuser. Clearly, the issue is a complex one, and not easily distilled into a sentence or two. However, as I've noted, the immediate consequence of the Hydro decision was that mills were left without a realistic or viable alternative to beehive burners. The province said, in effect: shut your burners down. But the mills were puzzled and frustrated about what to do, other than to either shut down or seek extensions. In at least one case -- and this is a mill very close to my home -- the imposed solution was to haul wood waste, and to continue to haul wood waste today, 35 kilometres to another mill to be burned in their beehive burner. In other cases, mills simply contemplated closure rather than looking at the horrendous capital costs associated with some alternatives to beehive burners.

Burner phase-out has been an issue which has been most frustrating to me since my election. I've received numerous letters from mills and from mill employees concerned with how their families will survive if their mill is shut down. Several months ago I formed the conclusion that lurching from crisis to crisis was not good enough. I believe that a realistic and constructive solution to this problem can be found, and I've worked with Shuswap mills and with Forest Renewal B.C. to try to develop a program that might achieve that goal.

I think it's vital that any solution or solutions take into account all wood producers, whether they be large or small. In my riding there are probably a dozen or more mills. Two or three of them are large, but there are lots of very small wood producers. Any solution that's going to work is going to have to be within the economic scope of what those companies can do. So I think it's vital that any solution be one that's practical and affordable for all wood producers. As well, I suspect that any comprehensive solution to this problem will have to involve B.C. Hydro as well as Forest Renewal B.C.

I think the thing we have to remember is that the disposal of wood waste has evolved over time. Mill owners have put considerable capital investment into beehive burners, and now, to achieve a social good, we've concluded that they should be phased out. If the elimination of beehive burners is warranted by the government's assessment of the social and environmental good that would flow from that, then surely B.C. Hydro should be prepared to make a contribution to the resolution of that problem as well. What I'd like to see -- and what I hope all members of this House would like to see -- is greater synchronicity between government policy and the policies of its Crown corporations.

In conclusion for now -- and I look forward to the comments of my friend from Yale-Lillooet across the floor -- I hope all members of this House can endorse the notion that it

is vital to resolve this issue; furthermore, that it is appropriate for Forest Renewal B.C. and B.C. Hydro to play an active, constructive role in helping to resolve this very important issue.

H. Lali: I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Shuswap for his thoughtful remarks. I understand the frustrations faced by sawmills in the interior and other parts of the province and in small communities, as outlined by my hon. colleague. I won't say that I disagree with some of his comments. However, I'm going to just take a slightly different approach and talk about some of the alternative uses.

Under the 1995 wood residue burner and incinerator regulations, the provincial government's wood waste burner phase-out program is in place to protect public health by removing burners which cause excessive pollution in populated areas. It also encourages the development of alternative uses of wood residue, such as fuel, feedstock additive or as a consumer product. In British Columbia, wood residue is currently being diverted away from burning and towards six operational wood stove pellet plants, two operational gasifier projects and several sites which turn wood residue into chips or hog fuel for pulp mills, and 105 jobs are expected in Quesnel.

There are also three medium-density fibreboard plants in various development stages in the central interior. In Prince George there are expected to be 115 jobs created; in Williams Lake, 165 jobs; and Canfor's proposed MDF plant in Prince George would prompt a shutdown of seven wood waste burners. Proposed projects in the works that will also take wood residue include a wood pellet plant proposal in Vanderhoof. There are three electrical generation proposals: Purcell Power in the East Kootenays is one, Canyon Power co-gen in Lytton is another, and Intercon co-gen in Prince George is the third one. There are also two proposed charcoal briquetting plants in Smithers and Hazelton, taking wood residue from Northwood Pulp of Houston, B.C., as well as from other sawmills in the region. The total estimated benefit from ongoing and proposed projects is approximately $600 million in capital investment, for a total of about 500 direct jobs.

There are numerous examples of existing and emerging alternatives of wood residue, such as composting, landscaping, presto logs, cattle feed and bedding, chemical extractives like ethanol and cedar oil, and hog fuel energy-recovery systems. As a minimum-wood-residue management practice, industry should build new clean-burning incinerators. This technology is widely available and can be adapted to recover heat.

Small forest companies dealing with wood waste can also participate in diverting wood residue to alternative uses. A variety of options exist. The simplest would be to install shredding and storage facilities to allow wood residue to be hauled off-site to a cooperative incinerator, a burner in a more remote location or a pulp mill. Other examples include separating the white wood from the bark -- as the sale of white wood can reduce the cost of disposal of bark -- and using white wood as animal bedding or feed stock for fibreboard plants, using white wood as pulping stock at pulp mills, using bark as hog fuel for wood-fired boilers, separating larger chunks of wood for use as firewood, and using wood waste in composting, to assist with reforestation and other land use applications.

So there are a variety of things that can be done. I know my time is nearing its end, so I'm looking forward to hearing my hon. colleague's closing remarks. I also thank him for some of the thoughtful insight he started off with.

G. Abbott: I first want to thank the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet for what I think were some useful and constructive comments. I think he makes an excellent point, particularly in underlining the variety of uses for wood waste that are being used and contemplated in this province. I think we have to temper that somewhat with the realization that there has to be a market for the many products that sometimes flow from that kind of wood waste development, and that niche markets for those products often tend to be quite limited.

But I think his point is a very good one: that there may perhaps be 101 solutions to the wood waste problem, rather than trying to seek out the one big solution that's going to take care of everything. In the Shuswap riding or the Yale-Lillooet riding there may be 101 solutions to the different problems.

In dealing with the situation, I think the important thing is that we not push people into actions which render their operations uneconomic or unaffordable. Again, the most important point I hope I've made here today is that Forest Renewal B.C. and B.C. Hydro can play a very important role in finding some of the solutions. They may not be all of the solutions, but I think those Crowns will be critical in developing solutions to this very important problem.

So I again thank the member for his comments, and thank you for you rapt attention, Mr. Speaker.

J. Sawicki: Just about every year around this time, members will recognize that I stand in this House and make a private member's statement in honour of Earth Day, to remind us all of why we need to care about this planet.

I'm a couple of weeks early this year. But I didn't know if I'd have another chance, and I didn't want to miss the opportunity to celebrate what I think has been a tremendous announcement this week by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks: the announcement around expanding the recycling program for beverage containers -- the deposit refund system.

I don't know about you, hon. Speaker, but I would hazard a guess that if I asked members in this House how many beverage containers they think we use and throw away in this province every year, they'd be astounded at the answer. The answer is two billion -- that's a "b," hon. Speaker. British Columbians throw away two billion containers a year. That's a phenomenal number.

In preparation for this morning, I thought: I wonder how many containers we throw away in this building. So I went down to the dining room and over to the kiosk, and said: "Can you give me an estimation of how many containers of fruit juices, pop, wine and bottled water, etc., are thrown away?" I didn't break it down, hon. Speaker; I'm just going to give you the aggregate number. But the number comes back -- as quickly as we could get together in the last couple of days -- at somewhere like 500 to 600 a week.

When you think of the containers we throw away at this building and throughout this province, about half of them have been under deposit since the 1970s. We've got good

return rates on those, but the other half have not. Even though we've got blue box systems in many communities in this province, most of them -- up to 80 percent -- have either ended up in landfills or ended up as litter. This has been a real problem, so that's why I personally -- as someone who has worked on recycling issues for a lot of years -- was tremendously pleased to hear government's announcement that as of April 1998, all containers except milk cartons will come under a deposit system.

As consumers, we'll also have to change our habits a little bit, because we in British Columbia have been kind of unique in returning these containers for refund to retail stores. Because it's cheaper for the producers, and for a lot of other reasons, we're going to be shifting to return depots, reverse vending machines, or little kiosks in parking lots. There are a whole variety of ways we can make sure we get these containers back. In the end, I think it's going to be more convenient, because instead of us having to think, "Now, did we buy this container here? Does this store carry this brand? No, it was the store down the street. . . ." We'll be able to put them all in a bag, take them down to a depot-type system and get our refund back. So I think that's a really good change.

The title of my private member's statement is "Recycling: Steps Toward Sustainability." I want to put this in a broader perspective, because I think the lowly issue of recycling and waste management kind of gets lost in the big picture of sustainability. But we also know that along with population growth, consumerism -- in other words, using up a lot of products and then throwing them away -- is one of the biggest causes of a lot of the ecological decline on the planet. It's not only because producing these consumer goods takes a lot of material and resources; we compound the problem by taking these resources at a quicker rate than the Earth can regenerate, and then at the other end, we kind of throw them away in greater volumes than the Earth can absorb in terms of pollution. Either way, when we look at recycling and sustainability, there is a direct connection. It's a very personal connection, because all of us -- New Democrats, even Liberals -- buy these containers, consume the products, and then we throw them away at the other end.

It's kind of interesting. When I look back on this issue, when I was first elected to Burnaby council in 1996. . . .

J. Sawicki: Eighty-six; sorry about that. Thank you very much, hon. member. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds and I sat side by side on that council at that time as well, so he'll remember this. I talked about recycling then, and we were getting into the blue box system. I remember at that time rising in council and saying: "Why doesn't the province do something about the beverage container deposit system?" Little did I know that these many years later I would be handed, personally, as parliamentary secretary, this very thick file and told: "Well, you'd like to take this on. See if we can bring some closure to it."

I want to say that having worked with the minister these last eight months in consulting on this very complex issue with all of the stakeholders -- all of the producers, all of the recyclers, the depot operators, the retailers, the unions, the consumer organizations, local governments. . . . After talking and hearing their concerns and seeing what we could do to work together to figure out how we could bring this longstanding issue to a close, I was tremendously impressed with the effort they were prepared to put into that.

So one of the things I want to do today is commend everyone who's worked on this issue for so many years and also commend the staff of the ministry, some of whom have carried these files for many, many years. I want to also commend the minister and cabinet for finally making this decision and expanding this system.

C. Clark: I was very pleased to hear the member for Burnaby-Willingdon's comments, and they're certainly well taken on this side of the House. I should point out, too, that in her statement. . . . Based on what we just heard, I cannot agree with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I don't think she sounds like an environmental radical; I think what she talks about is quite a reasonable proposal.

Recycling is a very important issue facing us and future generations in British Columbia. I don't want to live in a world -- and I don't want my kids to live in a world -- where we have more landfills than we do parks in our province. I don't want to see our natural environment continue to be sullied by a growth in the waste that we produce in one of the most wasteful societies.

The member rightfully pointed out that recycling is really about educating the public and helping the public understand how each of us bears a personal responsibility for the waste that we produce. Each of us as individuals really has a great deal of impact on our communities and our environment around us.

I'd like to also congratulate the member for getting this proposal to the stage that it is at now, because I know that this is a proposal that for many, many years has been discussed and kicked around by the members on that side of the House, without a great deal of success. I think the fact that she has gotten at least this far is something worthwhile. Certainly we know it's a steep learning curve being Minister of Environment, but parliamentary secretaries can perhaps start out on a better footing.

I would like to make a couple of points, though, in particular with regard to the proposal from the government. One of them is, of course, that while we have the basic proposal before us, we really don't have all the details that we need to really be able to determine how this might impact on businesses, individuals and households, and on the whole recycling stream overall. With legislation that can be very complex, we know that the devil is in the detail.

We can look at the Forest Practices Code, for example, which is an idea that's a good, sound one. It is a good, sound idea to ask forest companies to behave in a certain way, to preserve the environment in a certain way, to ask workers to abide by certain rules. Now, we saw from the beginning, from that good idea, what a disaster the Forest Practices Code has become. It's so onerous and cumbersome and really unworkable that it doesn't even preserve the environment, and it makes it uneconomic for businesses and jobs to exist in the province.

So I would point out that we will be keeping a very close eye on the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the government as they work out some of the details of this proposal, because as far as I understand it, that's where the important work is going to be done. I would urge the parliamentary secretary to be very cognizant of and very sensitive to the needs of industry and to the needs of all the participants in the area of recycling, so we can ensure that this isn't a good idea that becomes a very bad one in practice.

I'll leave it at that. I look forward to hearing the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on my response.

J. Sawicki: I want to thank the hon. member for her supportive comments. I have really appreciated it, because we've talked a few times in the last few months on this issue.

She does bring up some really good points. There are not a lot of details, and I want to explain why that is the case. When I went out to talk, especially to industry -- the producers -- there was a message that came back. The hon. members on that side of the House will recognize this message. They said: "Tell us what we need to achieve. Give us the framework, and let us, the private sector and industry, work out the details as to how we're going to get our containers back." In this instance, I think that was a very valid thing for them to say. That's exactly why one of the things I wanted to try and make sure we did was to say: "Yes, it's really important to get the containers back. We've got to have a system that actually has a high enough recovery rate."

We also have to make sure that there is consumer convenience and a system that serves not only the needs of those people who live in urban areas but the elderly, the transit-bound, the isolated communities. The former Minister of Environment said -- and, of course, I can't use my own name in this chamber: "Parliamentary Secretary, don't forget Grassy Plains." I don't know how many of you know where Grassy Plains is. But it had to be a system that would serve all British Columbians.

I also think it is really important that it be a system that is lowest-cost to producers. That's why it's important that we continue to work with the producers in working out the details and assisting them in setting up a collection system that works for them, as well. That's why part of this announcement is the appointment of a container management board that will have all of the stakeholders in this very complex, seemingly simple-sounding issue get together and work out those details.

I can assure the hon. member that she's absolutely correct. There's still a lot of work to do before we actually get this system up and running. That's why I think it's important that we have this year to work out the details, to make sure that there is a smooth transition to this expansion of this system.

I want to end with just a couple of positive comments on what I think the benefits of this system are. Remember that we're not only getting these containers out of landfills; we are transferring that responsibility to the producers of the goods and the consumers -- and I think that's correct. But we're also creating some jobs. I think it was really significant that the announcement "United We Can" was made in the downtown east side of Vancouver, where street collectors -- I see my time is up, hon. Speaker, and I will finish my sentence very quickly -- could collect these bottles and where Cubs and Scouts will be able to collect more money for worthwhile projects.

On that note, I wish I could go on much longer. But I must conclude my comments and thank the hon. member again for her supportive comments.

S. Hawkins: I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the importance of providing health care in the context of our multicultural society. The concept of multicultural health has been receiving increasing attention as health professionals, institutions and policy-makers try to find better ways to provide for and address the needs of our ethnocultural communities. On a personal level, from my own experience as a nurse, I believe that over the past ten to 15 years there have been significant developments in the study of multicultural health, and I do believe a better understanding of the issues now exists. However, I believe there is an insufficient amount of information and that more is needed.

I will admit that I have witnessed some resistance by professionals, administrators, organizers, organizations, and institutions and their boards to adjust to the diversity and multicultural reality of health care that exists today. But in my opinion, there is a growing realization of the fundamental importance and relevance of cultures to health policy, health promotion and the delivery of health care.

Now, some might argue that there is no need for multicultural health, because all people are treated equally. But I believe treating all people in the same manner in our health care system does not necessarily mean that they're being treated equally. If we're going to treat people equally, we have to acknowledge the differences and respond to them appropriately. This is the challenge of multicultural health.

So how can we develop health care that acknowledges cultural diversities and still maintains a coordinated approach to overall health care planning and services? First of all, I believe we have to identify the individual and community multicultural issues. Individual issues are those that essentially affect interactions between a patient and health professional. Community issues are those that affect programs and services for groups and people at a community level.

An example of an individual issue is language -- not only the spoken word but also body language. People of different cultures express themselves differently, and many times the perception or the impression one makes on someone else is at issue. If misinterpreted, expressions and mannerisms can lead to difficult interaction, and we know that clinical and professional judgments depend, to a large degree, on how communication takes place between patient and health care provider. So you can see how important the spoken word and body language can be as factors in giving and receiving quality health care.

An example of a community issue is the availability of culturally sensitive health information. We know there's a great need for this, because there is a lack of health care information available. Most of the information is available in either English or French. Now, consideration should be given not only to translating health information into a language that a patient can read, but I believe we have to make that information culturally sensitive, to fit the dietary and cultural norms of the communities that we're providing this information for. Simple translation without the added cultural sensitivity will, and does, severely restrict the usefulness of these educational materials. In my experience, I've found that culturally inappropriate materials or teaching can reinforce the barriers these communities have to health care.

I think we also have to be cognizant that this translated material also becomes available in places where these groups can access the information. For example, the ethnic media and immigrant-serving agencies should be engaged as conduits for this material. We need to gain an understanding of the barriers that exist which can make access to health care difficult for ethnocultural communities. We need to find better ways to break down these barriers, so that people in our communities can make full use of existing health care services.

The two top barriers that I've identified are information and knowledge barriers -- and I speak from experience.

Patients from ethnocultural communities have difficulty identifying a need that a health care provider or social worker can assist with. Even if they do acknowledge that need, they often don't know where to go for help or even if that service is available to them.

Other barriers include physical and geographic barriers. New immigrants often have problems with transportation difficulties. If they speak no English, they find public transportation overwhelming. Cold weather might discourage them from going out. There are all those kinds of things.

Cultural barriers I would identify next, and these can be varied and very, very far-reaching. For example, the relationship between the patient and the health care professional may not be completely understood by the patient, who may have differing assumptions. Oftentimes these kinds of difficulties can result in anger and frustration.

The last barrier I want to mention is the one we probably think of first, and that's language. I think communication is very vital in the delivery of health care. Oftentimes we have interpreters trained to work in health services, but they are few and far between. I believe using amateur and voluntary interpretation may cause patients to fear lack of confidentiality and, as a result, they often avoid seeking necessary care. But as I said before, I do believe that health providers are becoming better prepared in addressing these cultural differences as professional institutions place more emphasis on cultural sensitivity.

I believe it's very important to recognize the need for identifying the barriers to health care for ethnocultural communities and to find solutions to providing health care in our ever-growing multicultural society. I look forward to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Burrard on this issue.

T. Stevenson: I thank the member for Okanagan West for those very thoughtful comments this morning. They have given me, actually, more food for thought to go back and again look over with the ministry what areas we might improve.

I'd like to begin by putting multicultural health within a context, and that is, of course, the overall Ministry of Health and what this government has been doing in British Columbia in health for a number of years -- obviously, since we came into power six years ago. We have, of course, increased health spending every year, despite the fact that, as we all know, the federal government has cut back on its transfer payments to Health, and despite the fact that other provinces in this country have been severely cutting back in health care. We think, obviously, of Alberta, and then most recently of Ontario's cuts -- now almost two dozen hospitals -- which are of great concern to us. This government has taken a different route and has indeed increased spending by $300 million.

It's within that context and within that overall picture that I'd like to speak about multicultural health. In British Columbia, in the past few years since we've been in power, we have established a Ministry of Health multicultural committee. This committee's mandate has been to carry out the Multiculturalism Act of British Columbia and has in fact developed a framework for making the health care system more responsive to cultural differences. Coming from Vancouver, there is no doubt in my mind that people from other cultures indeed have a very difficult time. Often when they try to access health programs, one of the biggest barriers is language. I think of my own situation in a Third World country some time ago. I spoke English and no one else spoke English. I went into this hospital and I was quite ill. I had a very difficult time, so I can only imagine what it's like for those people here.

This government is indeed trying to create a situation where people from other cultures feel more at home and are welcome within whatever hospital or whatever facility is needed. In fact, the new regional health boards and community health councils have taken great pains to make sure that there is cultural diversity within those boards and within those councils, and to be aware of the multicultural aspects within those communities. Some of the hospitals have taken very progressive leads in this area, including St. Joseph's hospital. This particular hospital has not only set up a whole project around interpretation but has had annual conferences for the last two years on cultural sensitivity and has taken the lead in British Columbia. I know that other hospitals are also looking at their example.

There are now translations in many languages in the hospitals, and there are more being done. At the present time, even at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, we have 20 different languages that people are able to access, both in writing and from staff who speak two languages. Here in Victoria, I'm told, there is a list of 60 employees who have skills in 26 different languages. Now, that's not to say that everything is at a point where we'd like it to be; indeed, it's not.

I think much of what you've said today is very important. We have been listening, and we'll certainly be discussing this with the Minister of Health, who is also listening this morning. Because this is a multicultural society -- and it is a gift that our province is a multicultural society -- we must continue to do what we can to have the people of this province able to have access in whatever language they speak.

S. Hawkins: I must say that I appreciate the comments from the member opposite and his responsiveness to looking for solutions. I think we do need to look for solutions, and I think communication is the key. I have listed four things that could be provided so that ethnocultural patients and families could better access health care services, and I think we need to do these more.

The first one I mention is language services. I know the member mentioned that there are publications out there. I have reviewed some of them. Unfortunately, some of them just translate straight from the English copy into the ethnocultural language copy, but they're not culturally sensitive. They don't provide for the dietary diversity or the cultural norms of those communities. So we need to look for that and do more in that regard. I feel that this translation and information should be appropriate and should be provided for at all institutions and at service and community organizations. We should be translating with the consultation and assistance of the multicultural groups, to ensure that cultural relevance and sensitivity is there.

Secondly, education is very, very important. Education about the various ethnocultural groups that access their services should be made available to health care providers. This should include the cultural and religious beliefs of those who utilize the services. The various cultural groups themselves should be educated in terms of values about health and wellness for themselves, for their families and for their caregivers.

I believe awareness of cultural differences needs to be increased. There must be a willingness to offer culturally sensitive health care and an understanding of the fact that the needs of ethnic communities are different from those of English-speaking health care consumers.

Lastly -- and these are probably the hardest to change, and I hope we're progressing down this road -- attitude changes are necessary on the part of many who service multicultural people, especially those who are ill. As I said, this is probably the most challenging step, and this is the step we need to make before all the others can fall into place.

So again I thank the member for his comments, and I look forward to working with him, if he's available, on implementing some of these steps.

W. Hartley: I rise today to recognize the important contributions made by members of our society that volunteer their time and energy to make British Columbia a better place to work, to live in and to recreate in. Tommy Douglas said: "We believe that the measure of any community is the amount of social and economic security that it provides for even its humblest citizens." We who dedicate ourselves to bringing this about through government do well to express our gratitude to our partners who work towards this goal without pay and often without recognition.

Volunteerism has changed greatly since Confederation. Most services which were then provided by the volunteer sector would today be considered part of our publicly funded and administered social safety net. Volunteerism remained a central force behind the provision of public services for the first third of the century.

In the 1930s the Great Depression illustrated dramatically the need for governments to expand their roles in the provision of public services. The affluence afforded by industrial activity after World War II allowed governments to expand their roles in the public welfare system. Now governments are facing more fiscal constraints, yet those in need must still be provided for. Volunteers fill this gap.

In October 1987, Statistics Canada conducted the most far-reaching survey of volunteer activity ever undertaken in Canada. The data from this seminal work are still used as the basis for our understanding of the value of voluntary work. At that time, it was estimated that there were 661,000 British Columbians performing volunteer work. They each worked an estimated 205 hours a year, for a total of 135.166 million hours.

Volunteerism is a two-way street. This same Statistics Canada survey found that 93 percent of volunteers felt that their volunteer work was an important or very important part of their lives. The primary motivation for volunteers is reaching out and helping their community. For that they reap benefits. Meeting people and companionship were important for 73 percent of the respondents. Two-thirds of volunteers considered learning new skills important, and the survey showed that voluntary organizations are doing a good job of training for their purposes.

A shining example of an organization that both serves the community and uses volunteers well is in my own constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. This is the Friends in Need Food Bank. The seven-year-old Friends in Need Food Bank is operated entirely by volunteers. In 1996 these volunteers put in 13,344 hours. Eight of their volunteers are children from the ages of four to 18 years. Last year they distributed $255,000 worth of food; this year they expect it to be much more. The volunteers at this food bank are busy. They have 1,084 families registered. As well, there is the Phantom program. In this program, food is supplied to women and children who are escaping abusive relationships and need anonymity, so there is no registration. They also distribute packs for the homeless. These are small packages containing such things as a Tetra-Pac of juice; beans and sardines, both with pull-tab tops; plastic cutlery; cookies; and prepackaged cheese and crackers -- all things that are easy to eat on the spot. In all, the client base of the Friends in Need Food Bank has tripled over the last year.

This year, Friends in Need has chosen to honour Ralph Barton as their outstanding volunteer. A three-year volunteer at the food bank, Mr. Barton participates in the Night Owl-Early Bird program. Here he takes food, blankets, clothing, health kits and cardboard to homeless people. He also advises them on where to get help from various agencies in the community.

Government and volunteer organizations must be partners in poverty reduction. For that reason I am proud to be part of this government, which has introduced the Food Donor Encouragement Act, 1997. This legislation, which will increase the donation of good food and save it from the landfill, has long been sought by food banks across the province. I am happy that we in government may now have the opportunity to grant that wish. I would also like to thank the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill for keeping our caucus mindful of the need for such legislation. I understand that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head had that responsibility for her caucus, as well.

We've come a long way from the Victorian notion that all social services must come from a generous patron. Citizens expect more from their government than that. Still, we must live within our means. Government cannot do it all. We must work hand in hand with the voluntary sector. This will lead us to a better British Columbia for everybody.

Hon. Speaker, as next week is national Hunger Awareness Week, the Food Donor Encouragement Act, 1997, is timely. As national Volunteer Appreciation Week approaches, I will take a little time following the member for Vancouver-Langara's response to highlight the work of just one group out of many volunteers in my constituency.

V. Anderson: I wish to congratulate and thank the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows for bringing this forward. Fortunately, it comes forward from one side of the House or other each year. That's an indication that on some things we do work and think very much alike in our community activities.

I want to affirm with him that the volunteers are the vitality of our communities, because without volunteers -- from the day I was born until the present day, which is quite a few years -- many of the aspects of my life would not have taken place. I probably would not have survived. I know I wouldn't have survived even in the last election without all the volunteers that took part, and I think that's true of all of us.

But the volunteers who help their neighbours, the volunteers who get overlooked, are the ones who take up cherry pie to a new person in the community or look after the children of their neighbours on the block. There are volunteers who go out early in the morning with persons to do sports and recreation and all of the other activities. There are the volunteers who work with seniors and older persons in our community. There are the volunteers who work with the disabled and with people who have handicaps. There are the volunteers who work for the people in crisis and the people who just need friends. There are volunteers of every account in all of our communities.

Just one point I might dispute the member on. I know he was using Statistics Canada, and it always depends on your frame of reference. I understood him to say there are 60,000 volunteers in B.C. Probably that refers to 60,000 registered, official volunteers, because I'm sure that in British Columbia there are five times that many at least.

Almost every person in British Columbia -- every child -- is a volunteer. They volunteer to help their classmates on the playing field; they volunteer to do studies with each other; they volunteer their lunches and lunch breaks. Sometimes they are glad to volunteer it because they like the other person's lunch better than their own. But it's that kind of sharing with other people, whatever strength or gift or ability we have, which is the essence of the vitality of the community in which we live.

He mentions the food banks. We'll be talking about that more when we come to the donations-to-food-banks bill. I had the privilege of chairing the food bank in 1981 when it was set up in the city of Vancouver, one of the first of the formal food banks, although, as the member has mentioned, food banks have been part of our communities as long as our communities have existed -- from the very beginning of time, no doubt -- as one family shared with another, as one person shared with another their food and their resources. It's only lately that we've formalized that in food bank societies and food bank programs. So I commend the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows for bringing this forward, because we need to be reminded that the vitality of the community is in our volunteers.

I have one final comment. Many young people and older people are now discovering that if they want a reference for job placement, one of the best places to get it is by volunteering, because many employers will seek a volunteer reference over and above one for paid employment. In paid employment you're doing what you have to do and what you're getting paid for. In volunteering you're doing it voluntarily, you're doing it out of a need, and you're offering yourself in a way that you get nothing back in a material sense -- although certainly you get far more back in a spiritual sense than you're ever able to share. So I commend our member for sharing this and highlighting it at this very important time in our community.

W. Hartley: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara. I appreciate his years of dedication to this subject. He's indeed right: if I did say 60,000, the correct number is 661,000 volunteers in B.C. -- and that was ten years ago, so it's probably many more now -- according to Statistics Canada.

Continuing on the subject of success in volunteerism, 1997 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of recycling in Maple Ridge. In 1972 David and Julie Koehn moved their garden shed onto the municipal landfill site in Maple Ridge and began the first paper recycling depot. Human chain gangs of volunteers bundled newspapers and later worked with cardboard, tin and glass.

In 1980 these dedicated volunteers formed the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society. Today more than 70 volunteers help to keep the residents of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows involved in recycling. The society's master recycler-composter program trains volunteers in all aspects of waste reduction and encourages them to spread the three Rs message. These volunteers lead the country in recycling efforts and are making a great difference in protecting our environment. These same 70 volunteers also collect food for the local food bank. Their Christmas curbside food drive has collected more than 7,000 kilograms of food for needy families.

Hon. Speaker, more and more people are combining environmental vision with a commitment to human service ideals. I'm very proud of the achievements of the Friends in Need Food Bank. I'm proud of the very worthwhile efforts of Ridge Meadows Recycling Society and will be joining these volunteers this week to celebrate their success and to honour their members for the truly outstanding contribution they have made in my constituency.

I've talked in this House before today about the other ways in which thousands of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows residents, and residents across B.C., volunteer many hours of their time and labour. All these good people truly define the measure of our community -- often without recognition. I trust all members will take some time in the coming week to show volunteers that they are appreciated. Thank them for the good work they do.

L. Stephens: This morning in the House are 40 music students from Langley Secondary School in Langley, and joining them are Mr. Vince Rahn, Mr. Steve Thompson and Mr. David Mills, their music teachers. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: I would like to introduce to the House Mabel Jean Rawlins-Brennan, who is from the greater Victoria Community Social Planning Council and has played a significant facilitating role with the Food Distribution Network in greater Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 10, Food Donor Encouragement Act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be read a second time now, hon. Speaker.

I wish to provide an overview of the important features of this bill. I know there are several speakers from both sides of the House, and it's encouraging to note that there is unanimity in this House on this issue. I won't speak very long, so that other speakers have time to say what they wish to say.

In principle, the bill is intended to reduce liability for those who donate and distribute donated food, in order to encourage food donations. I would like to make it clear that the act does not eliminate liability; rather, it limits the circumstances in which a person or corporation could be held liable.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that this bill does not affect current food handling standards imposed under the Health Act. Those who eat donated food will still be protected

by regulations. Health inspectors will continue to enforce those standards and to provide a balance between safety and the need to feed the hungry.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the bill is essentially comprised of two sections. Both sections establish the same threshold of liability, but for different groups. Section 1 provides that a food donor or distributor is only liable if two tests are satisfied: first, the donated food must have been adulterated or spoiled; and second, the donor must have acted with reckless disregard or intent to injure those who consumed the food. The precise application of these terms in an individual case will be interpreted by the courts.

Section 2 applies the same tests but to a different group of people: volunteers, agents, directors and employees. This section is intended to ensure that the legislation covers all those individuals and organizations, corporations and societies involved in food donation and distribution.

Section 3 clarifies that this is a good Samaritan bill which is not intended to protect those who distribute food for profit.

I have received a tremendous amount of support for this bill from the individuals and organizations providing food and shelter to the needy, municipalities, regional districts and numerous other groups. I know that members from both the government side and from the opposition side had intended to introduce this bill earlier on, and I'm delighted to be able to do this on behalf of all of us.

The Food Donor Encouragement Act strikes an appropriate balance between lowering liability to encourage food donations and leaving adequate protections in place for those who eat donated food. This bill will enable more good food to be saved for those who need it.

G. Brewin: It's indeed a pleasure to rise to support the Food Donor Encouragement Act at second reading. We've talked already about the purpose of it, which is to encourage the donation to food banks of safe fresh and packaged food to those who need it. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk. It's a pleasure but it's serious at the same time.

Starting off with the kind of community support that exists for a measure like this, the support has been there for a long time. I want to acknowledge that in the greater Victoria area, the Food Distribution Network, the greater Victoria community council and many others from city council have been very involved in wanting this to happen.

I also want to acknowledge very strongly the role that has been played in this by members from the opposition -- from Oak Bay-Gordon Head, who introduced a private member's bill last year, and the year before that, from Vancouver-Langara. I know that my other colleague from this neck of the woods in British Columbia, from Saanich North and the Islands, has in his previous life been very involved in community issues of this sort in greater Victoria. So I want to acknowledge their role in doing this and say that this is one of the wonderful and significant moments about this particular bill: that it has support from both sides of the House, and both sides not just tagged along with the other but in fact have taken leadership roles in this.

I know the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I have been at the Food Forum that has been in Victoria. At upcoming ones, she will be there. We will be there together at that, continuing to work with the community groups in greater Victoria, this part of British Columbia, to try to do our best to facilitate resolution, if you like, and to support those in our community who are having a very tough time with food, housing and other issues in these difficult times. This is a very important time.

While we're acknowledging what's happened and those in this House who've been involved, the community -- the people -- is the entity, if you like, that really knows about this, that has been working so hard for this. I know that Vancouver-Langara has been working with them, as he has described it, and will again tell us about his longtime experience in the greater Vancouver area. This is very significant, and it's helped us put this together.

I'd just like to take a couple of brief minutes -- if minutes can be brief, which they aren't always -- to read into the record some of the facts about food banks in our communities all across Canada. Over three million Canadians turn to food banks each year. Over 40 percent of those using food banks are under the age of 18. There are food banks in 465 communities in Canada, and within B.C. there are over 100 food banks. Canadian food banks will distribute over 100 million pounds of food within the next 12 months.

In B.C., nearly 600,000 people used food banks in 1995. In the past year there has been a 20 percent increase in those needing food assistance. Each week, I gather, some 7,000 people use the Greater Vancouver Food Bank. Seventy percent of the support for food banks comes from public donations; 85 percent of the people who use food banks are income assistance recipients.

Increased demand and decreased donations of food force many food banks to curtail their services. Food banks were originally intended as emergency relief to the hunger crisis but have now become a permanent fixture in today's society. As more and more people are forced to turn to them for assistance each day, many institutions, such as schools and colleges and universities and community centres, are establishing food banks for their members

Food banks, we know, must adhere to health regulations for storage, collection, distribution -- particularly of perishables. In provinces where this kind of legislation is in place -- and it's in place in five others across this country -- donations of food have increased by up to 40 percent. Now, as part of the serious part of this, all of us would wish that this were not necessary, that our communities could manage and our people were able to manage. But we are in difficult economic times, and it seems this is part of it. What we are doing with this bill is facilitating the movement of safe and good food. This is not a solution to all the poverty issues in this country or in our society. We must all -- and I commit myself every day to continuing -- work on other programs that will deal with those kinds of very difficult issues for our communities. But in the meantime, a short-term solution: we're facilitating this to happen so that more people will receive good safe food and there will be less hunger.

In conclusion, I want to again say thank you to this House for the work it has done, to my colleagues on this side of the House who have supported this and are supporting it, and to those on the other side for their work in this regard, as well -- and very much, and more significantly, to the community that needs this and the community leaders who have responded to this need.

V. Anderson: It's a pleasure, and one a long time coming, to have the opportunity to stand up and share in the support for the Food Donor Encouragement Act. As has already been

indicated, we introduced it in '95 and again in '96, because we had been pressured by our Vancouver community, by the Victoria community and by persons around the province. The need has grown radically over the years, unfortunately.

I was involved in 1981 when the first food distribution was done by the then Food Bank Society. One interesting comment from those early days, hon. Speaker: we take the name "food bank" for granted these days, but back when we applied for a society registration under the name "Food Bank," they said no. That sounded too much like a commercial bank, and they turned us down. So with the help and assistance of the community Legal Services Society, they went back, and we were able to get affirmation for the term "food bank," which describes exactly what it is: the banking and storing of food that's available for people in time of need -- and urgent need, hon. Speaker.

One of the realities when we began in 1981 in Vancouver. . . . It was the last Wednesday before Christmas. Some 225 persons lined up at the church basement -- and it was not warm weather -- because that's the facility we were using at that time for that first distribution. As I returned by the office where the food was being collected at 11 o'clock at night, the whole frame of the double door was piled up with food -- at 11 o'clock on Christmas Eve -- that had been donated by merchants and bakers and others who, on their way home, had left this food outside the door. Fortunately, I had a lot of good neighbours, because at 11 and 12 o'clock on Christmas Eve, when they were still up, I was filling their deep-freezes with the food from the food bank so it would be preserved until after the holiday season and distributed to the people then.

Perhaps, unless we know the individual cases, we don't fully understand. One of the volunteers, a lady in her early thirties, came to the food bank on a regular basis. I talked to her one day. Particularly in those days, this was the brown bag of food. There wasn't a great deal in it as far as really dealing with starvation, and you only got it once a week. I asked her, as she came and received her food and then stayed as a volunteer to help out with the distribution for others, what difference it made to her. I happened to say: "Well, I also wanted to say you're looking better than you were awhile ago." She said: "Yes, because of this food I'm much better." And I looked at her, kind of amazed, and said: "How could this little food make you that much better?" Her simple, honest reply was: "Well, if you're not eating, this amount of food makes a great deal of difference." The reality was that what little money she had was going into rent and heat and light to maintain a place in which she could live. Only then, after these had been met, was she able to find what she could for food. So it made a tremendous difference. I believe that 15 years later that person is still volunteering at the food bank.

Another person who was there regularly -- I was with it directly for a number of years and then went back to visit a little time later -- was another lady who came on crutches. She stood on crutches in the line every week and moved her way up. Others would have let her go ahead, but no, she would take her own place and would not take advantage of anyone else.

People used to say -- and probably still do, because we have no requirements and there were no stipulations when people came for food: "Well, they're taking advantage of you. You've got to have some stipulations." I said: "My experience is that if you arrive at 6 o'clock in the morning for food that's going to be distributed at 10 o'clock in the morning, and you stand in a lineup which is three and four blocks -- a thousand people in a lineup -- for that length of time in the pouring rain, you have met all the stipulations and all the requirements to receive that one simple little bag of food."

You need to know those kinds of people. That person on crutches that I mentioned was there. She was there four years and five years later, because nothing had happened outside of that lineup to make her life better. This was a significant opportunity for her, and one for which she was extremely thankful.

It has been mentioned by our colleague here, in her presentation, which I appreciated. . . . I won't go over the figures, because I could go and add similar figures to hers, except to recount that of the 7,000 a week that are lining up or coming to the food bank to receive food in Vancouver alone, 2,500 are children. Some 2,500 of those coming into the food bank line and being supported by that are children: 31 percent. These are not adults. So if you take the children and count them, if you take those with disabilities and handicaps and sicknesses that come to the line, if you take those who are working or are looking daily for work and have not been able to find it, there are very few who take advantage of this program except on an occasional basis.

One of the realities of this particular donation-of-food act is that it enables restaurants, hotels, caf�s, bakeries -- all of those who have food which deteriorates over time -- to donate. At the present time, because of the Food Runners program which was instituted in Vancouver a few years ago, almost 50 percent of the food they receive now comes through that program. That program operates seven days a week, evenings and weekends, because it's after a banquet that the hotel or the restaurant will phone the Food Runners and say: "Come and pick up this food." There are six trucks on the road that are helping to do this with volunteers. There are only 14 staff doing all of this work; the rest are all volunteers. This Food Runners program, I think, is unique in the province, but I hope that now, with this new legislation, others will be able to undertake it in their communities.

All of those who handle this particular kind of food are trained by the health department in how to handle and assess the quality of the food. It's all handled by refrigeration and cartons. When the food is available from the restaurant or hotel, it goes to aluminum containers provided by Alcan. Then it's transported. It's kept in refrigerated conditions, and it's delivered directly to the people who are in need. Hon. Speaker, sometimes we only think of people coming to the food bank when they're coming to a location to get that bag of food. One of the things about the Food Runners program is that it can go directly from the hotel to an agency which is daily providing food for people at a mealtime: evening, breakfast or night.

So there are some 45 agencies in Vancouver which are now, on a daily basis, receiving this extra food from the food bank, enabling them to feed the people who come to their doors. There are some 70 agencies at the moment in Vancouver who donate this extra amount of food to the Food Runners. Their expectation is that it will at least double. The need is there for this opportunity with the Food Runners program and for being able to use the donation-of-food act, because this food is good food. It's food that other people are paying high prices for, but when it's left over, it can be used. One of the comments from the food bank people about this food is that a lot of it is very high-protein -- pastas and other things that then can go to the people who have great need of it.

Hon. Speaker, there are many things I'd like to say. But in deference to others who also have things that they would like

to say as they encourage this act. . . . I highly commend all the members of this House for their interest and concern and for bringing it forward. Make sure it's implemented and in practice so the people can use it as quickly as possible.

C. Clark: We're joined today, in the gallery, by two friends of mine from Burnaby, two very hard-working and prominent members of our community, Deborah and Michael Christie. I hope the House will make them welcome.

D. Symons: I'd like to add just a few words of support for Bill 10 and endorse the statements made by the previous two speakers.

Hon. Speaker, you know, people would consider Richmond to be an affluent community, I would believe. But beneath the surface of our community, and that of many other communities that seem to have that veneer about them, there are people in need. Richmond indeed does have a food bank, and its needs are growing. I have the concern that people sometimes think communities like Richmond don't have these problems. There are a great number of single moms, single parents, unemployed and underemployed people that really depend upon the food bank, as the previous speaker said, to meet their dietary needs, so they don't get into very serious health problems, eventually being a cost on the health system. So it's very important that this bill is bringing forth the opportunity for businesses and individuals that might have had concerns about liability in the event that the food might be contaminated in some way -- or just the fear of liability even if it's not -- to donate that food to the food bank. I think this bill covers that concern they may have had. As long as there's no intent, their donations of food can be accepted by the food bank and can be distributed to those in need.

One thing that I notice in this bill -- and I really appreciate the fact that it's come forward -- is that it has been before the House a couple of times as private members' bills. I think it's very significant that this bill has now come in today as a government bill on a Friday, because that's private members' day. I'd like to suggest at this time that maybe on Fridays we could form a habit of taking a look at those members' bills that are in the bill kit there, and asking that those bills come forward each Friday. It would save waiting until the government gets around to doing it.

What we're finding today is that there's unanimity in the House. We're finding that both sides are agreeing with this, and it gets through rather quickly, I suppose. If we could form a habit every Friday -- maybe after private members' statements -- of bringing one of those bills forward, maybe on a lottery system, we could have a lot more of these things brought before the House, and a lot more consensus and agreement in the House. That would be a good thing.

B. Goodacre: I also rise to support Bill 10, the Food Donor Encouragement Act. When I reflect on the reasons we're doing it and the need that's out there in the community, it leads me to recognize how grateful I am to have been one of those fortunate British Columbians who grew up in a small community. One of my grandparents came to Smithers with her family in 1919, and my other grandparent came with his family in 1915. I have had the benefit of an extended family. I realize that so many people who move to Canada -- to British Columbia -- do not have a support group, which I took for granted as I grew up. It falls to society to fill the role of an extended family when people are in need.

I'm really pleased to be part of the debate today, encouraging a step forward in allowing society to do a little bit better job of looking after people in our community who are in dire need. Politics is about community service, and that's what has drawn us to it. We always want to think that we're guided by love and compassion, and it's times like this that reassure our faith that, indeed, we can rise to a little bit of a higher plane from time to time.

I would like to pay tribute at this time to the members for Victoria-Beacon Hill and Oak Bay-Gordon Head for having the perseverance to prod this House to come forward with this legislation and, as I've written down here, to do the right thing for the people of this province. In closing, I would like to extend my thanks to these individuals and to everybody in this House for having taken this action today.

R. Neufeld: I know there are a number of members who want to speak to Bill 10, so I'm going to be very brief. But I do want to put on the record that both my colleague from Peace River South and myself support this bill wholeheartedly. It's unfortunate, as has been said, that in this day and age society is still depending as much on food banks as it did when they were first instituted. I don't know if it's a sign of the times or something that we can really try to deal with in some rational way -- both sides of the House, collectively -- to see if we can eradicate that part of what happens in society.

It has been noted by many speakers previous to me that this may only happen in the southern part of the province. I want to tell you that it doesn't. It happens all over rural B.C., and it specifically happens in the communities that I represent. I often think of the community of Fort Nelson and Father Poullet, who spent some 50 to 60 years there. Had it not been for him doing Christmas hampers and food bank coordination with some other volunteers in the community, we wouldn't have been as fortunate as we have been.

I am also reminded of recently attending -- in fact, in the past week -- a chamber of commerce awards dinner in Fort St. John, where the chamber of commerce citizen of the year was an RCMP officer who spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with food banks and with society as a whole in Fort St. John. In fact, he was very moved -- he is a member who is being moved out of the community -- and was brought to tears by the things that people said concerning what he did.

It also reminds me of the many times the Guides and the Scouts and the Salvation Army -- those kinds of people -- put their time into this. They are represented in almost every community in British Columbia. It was also fitting for the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, in his statement earlier, to talk about volunteering. It's also good to see that you can stand in this House and talk about something that's as important to each one of us as this issue is, and there is absolutely no heckling from either side or from anyone against what anyone else is talking about.

I would just like to put on the record and say to the minister that this gives a great opportunity in rural B.C., specifically in my constituency, for guides and outfitters to be able to donate wild meat. I think that all too often those kinds of things are forgotten because they don't happen in the lower mainland, but there are many parts of rural B.C. where it happens. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine will have

much the same experience as I, and there are members from the Kootenays who will experience the same thing -- where hunters are required to bring the trophy meat out and take it home with them. In many cases, by the time it gets to wherever -- Arizona or Mexico or over to Europe -- it could be spoiled. So this is a good way to use that meat. It's good meat. For many people in the north, that's all they eat; they will eat nothing else. It's a way to utilize something that goes to waste, not by intention but more by chance. I think we can utilize that very much more in the future. I just want to say that I do support the bill, the member for Peace River South supports the bill, and we look forward to early passage.

E. Walsh: I rise in support of Bill 10, the Food Donor Encouragement Act. I'd like to thank the hon. members for Victoria-Beacon Hill and Oak Bay-Gordon Head for bringing this forward. I believe that this bill is wanted and needed by many groups, organizations and individuals from all over British Columbia. The many advocates of this legislation include local governments, the B.C. Food Banks Association and our local food banks.

This bill is intended to feed hungry people today. I think that's extremely important, especially in light of today's problems and today's movement. The Kootenay constituency is located on the border of B.C. and Alberta, as well as the United States. We are the landing point for many people from other provinces of Canada seeking jobs, and for many people coming up from the States looking for jobs. By the time they come to the Kootenays or even to the northern border communities, these people are not only jobless but they are hungry. There are families, single people and youth. I think what's very important is that these people do need to be looked after; they do need to have something to fall back on. Instead of this food -- which could go to these hungry people -- going into a landfill site or going to waste, I believe that through the kitchens, buffets and the many various areas these donations can come from, they can go to feed these hungry people and families.

This food won't go to waste, but will, I believe, alleviate a lot of the pressures that food banks in communities like ours in the Kootenays -- and, I do believe, up in the northern communities -- experience right now because of these extra people that come into our province. Though it may alleviate some of these problems with the food banks, the number of people who are hungry steadily increases.

In Fort Steele, a small community just outside of Cranbrook, there is a group of people called the Friends of Fort Steele. Every year they harvest potatoes and fresh vegetables, and they donate this food to the local food bank. Unfortunately, the growing season in the Kootenays is very short -- approximately four months. So for eight months out of the year, people that are hungry have to literally eat out of a can. I don't believe that anybody can argue the important value of the nutrients and protein in fresh fruit and what they provide for the people. Where restaurants couldn't donate cash or buy food for those people that were hungry or less fortunate, this will enable them to have the opportunity to donate food to those people.

Though Vancouver isn't in my riding, I think it really is important to note, as the hon. member for Victoria-Beacon Hill said earlier, that the Vancouver Food Bank does provide food for over 7,000 people per week in the area. Another important factor is that one-third of these people are children. The Food Runner program feeds approximately another 3,000 people a day.

I believe that this bill will encourage the gift of the one sustenance of life and for life, and that's food. I would like to see this bill moved to committee stage as soon as possible so that we can continue on with the business of getting this bill in place for the people who really need it.

I. Chong: About two and a half weeks ago, on March 26, 1997, I advised the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill of my intentions of reintroducing my private member's bill that was introduced last July 22. A donation-of-food act is, in fact, needed. I was really concerned that any further undue delays to all those organizations dealing with individuals and families in need of emergency food would create unnecessary anxiety for those people. Without any certainty or assurances from government as to their intentions this session, I then placed notice of my bill on the order paper.

I also advised the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill that I would not table my bill if the government were able to proceed with the introduction and passage of a food donation act this session. On April 9, 1997 -- this week -- the Attorney General introduced Bill 10, the Food Donor Encouragement Act. So I would like to acknowledge my appreciation and my thanks to the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, for I believe it is her efforts that encouraged and convinced her caucus that this matter had to be brought forward sooner rather than later. I would also add my thanks to the Attorney General for his sponsoring of this government bill, because it was certainly long overdue.

The history and beginnings of this legislation are significant, and it does warrant comment, even though some have been made today. July 10, 1995, was the first time a food donation act was introduced in this House by the member for Vancouver-Langara. By way of his professional background and his work with the Vancouver Food Bank, it was quite evident that something had to be done. To that end, the member consulted with those most affected by this legislation and obtained the endorsement of the Food Distribution Network. This legislation evolved from the community; it was very much the voice of the people of the community. All too often legislation is imposed, sometimes does not have substantial support and is sometimes controversial. That is not the case in this instance.

I was pleased to reintroduce the Donation of Food Act last July, and it was at the urging of local municipal governments, community leaders and social planning organizations that I did so. I applaud all of them for their efforts. At this time, I would like to specifically thank a number of organizations in Victoria: the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria, the Greater Victoria Food Distribution Network, the Mustard Seed Food Bank, the Victoria Youth Empowerment Society, the Salvation Army and the Upper Room Society. That's just to name a few. When the House adjourned last August without the passage of this bill, I did not conceal my feelings of disappointment. And while out of session, my community office received constant support, as I'm sure all the members received in their communities, to not allow this issue to take a back seat to other pieces of legislation. I have collected two files of data to support this legislation: news clippings, letters from individuals, petitions and copies of legislation from six other provinces in Canada, as well as from a number of states south of our border. I could find few who would argue or offer criticism on this issue.

This bill means that hotels, restaurants, fast-food chains and private caterers may donate good-quality surplus food to food banks and agencies without fear of liability -- good-quality food that would otherwise have been slated for the landfill.

Having heard the earlier comments by members from both sides of the House and the unanimous support, I am encouraged that cooperation in other subject areas may be possible this session. Since the thrust, the spirit and the intent of this legislation is similar to the two other private members' bills that were previously introduced, and since this government bill is essentially identical -- verbatim -- I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the people in this province and to support Bill 10. This is a good bill, and it is the right thing to do.

The Speaker: I now recognize the Attorney General, whose comments will conclude second reading debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I see a good friend of mine in the gallery: Peter Norris, a good trade unionist. Would the House please make him welcome.

Much has been said. I want to thank the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill and the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, as well as the member for Vancouver-Langara, for their significant contribution to the development of this bill, in their ways. It's important that we recognize that. With those remarks, I conclude my remarks on the bill, and I move second reading of the bill.

Bill 10, Food Donor Encouragement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

M. de Jong: When the debate began, the Attorney General wisely pointed out that this is not a bill to be construed as providing for substandard food passing to individuals who are availing themselves of food bank services. But I wonder if he could take this opportunity to explain in a little more detail to the House, to those who are donating food and to the recipients of food, how this provision does change the liability constraints and therefore the standard that is expected of people who are donating food. I don't want to get into a big products-liability debate, but. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just say briefly what the common law is on these issues, and then take it from there. Currently, under common law the plaintiff is required to show that the defendant -- or the donors, in this case -- did not meet an accepted standard of care, and that the injury resulted from the breach of that duty. Under the proposed legislation, the burden on the plaintiff is much higher. So in fact, if you're injured as a result of consuming this food, the onus is higher than the onus is under ordinary circumstances.

Essentially, one would have to pass the two-pronged test. The food would have to be adulterated, rotten or otherwise unfit for human consumption, which is not the same standard of care, a breach of which is actionable under ordinary circumstances. And then, of course, you have to prove, as well, that the person intended to injure or cause the death of any person who consumed the food. This would still. . . . This doesn't cover situations where individuals might be allergic, or otherwise. . . .

So the common-law standard of care, which is much higher, a breach of which is actionable, has been lowered a bit, of course, so that it's made easier for the donors to donate food, and those who work in the industry of food banks -- unfortunately, it is now a huge undertaking across the province -- are also protected. There is a higher onus to be able to successfully sue.

M. de Jong: Thank you. I think that's helpful for the people who will be trying to understand what their obligations are pursuant to this legislation.

I wonder if we can just take a practical example as a means of demonstrating how this might work. A lot of the goods that are donated to food banks are often canned goods. I wonder if the Attorney General could indicate how, if a donor inadvertently donated a canned good to a food bank that was later determined to be rotten -- if that's the word -- this legislation protects that donor. Does it remove that liability that might otherwise extend to a distributor of food of the sort contemplated in section 3 of the act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The distributor of the. . . . The source of the food. . . . Let's say someone purchases a can from the store, and we don't know what the state of the food is inside the can, and shortly thereafter the can ends up, through the consumer who purchased the can, at the food bank. If it's determined at the end of the day that the food was rotten, unfit for human consumption, with my knowledge of the law -- and I'm sure with yours -- the original seller of goods would be liable for that, because there has been no negligence, no reckless disregard or intent to injure on the behalf of the purchaser, the donor or the distributor.

That's, in essence, in a very simple way, my understanding of how it would work.

M. de Jong: Lastly on this point, the distinction that I hear from the Attorney General -- and it is one I am inclined to agree with -- is that there continues to be a standard imposed on all of us not to act -- I think the word in the explanatory note is -- "recklessly," or negligently. We continue to have that duty, but it is a slightly altered or reduced standard of care that applies in the case of one who is donating for charitable purposes.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is a slightly reduced standard of care for individuals who donate or for those who distribute that donated food. It would have to be, so that donors of food feel comfortable enough that they are not responsible for the mistakes of those who handle food. But the donors would still be responsible if they donate food that's unfit for human consumption, if they are reckless about providing that food or if there is intent to injure.

I. Chong: I realize the time is closely approaching noon, but I would like to introduce Brother Conti, an instructor from

Vancouver College, and visitors from the school: 35 grade 5 students are joining us in the gallery today. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: There is a great deal of excitement, and people will be wanting to put this act into effect yesterday -- as soon as it's available. One of the things I'm wondering is: will the minister be sending out information and guidelines to food banks across the province and to others who will be very anxious -- most of whom are volunteers -- that will guide them in implementing this? Like the Food Runners in Vancouver. . . . It's food that's opened which will be the primary concern at the moment, because that's largely the newest quantity of food that will be used. So that there are guidelines and some directions to help them to do this well and safely, for everybody's benefit. . . . I would just hate to see this go out, and say that tomorrow everybody could go ahead, without the kind of protection and resources that are in the Food Runners program, for instance. So will the minister undertake to make sure that that kind of information and those guidelines are available as quickly as possible?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. What we will do, once the bill becomes an act, and maybe even before royal assent is given. . . . One shouldn't presume that it would be, but if one can, in a good cause, assume that that would happen, then I would undertake, as the minister responsible for this, to have my ministry avail itself of copies that it would need of the legislation -- of the bill, in fact -- with an explanatory note prepared by the ministry, and forward it to all of the facilities that currently provide donated food to consumers across the province.

R. Neufeld: Just to add to that a bit, during second reading debate I spoke about wild game -- although those groups of people probably don't donate now, so they may not know about the bill. I ask the minister to include in that list of mailouts such groups as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the big-game guide-outfitters' association and those that deal with the fishing and guiding business in the province -- I'm not sure who that would be -- because I'm sure there is food available from those organizations also.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could explain. In the model that they've taken word for word, from other acts across Canada. . . . There is a difference in this one; two sections were left out from the other one. I'm wondering if the minister could explain why they were left out and what difference it makes. The ones I refer to are under section 2(b).

In the other acts that they took the model from, there is a section that says: in donating the food or distributing the food, (1) that they did not act in good faith -- which is not included specifically in this one -- and (2) that they acted within the scope of his or her role as director, agent, employee or volunteer -- and that also has been taken out. So I presume the lawyers have indicated that those have been covered, but I specifically want the reasoning, just to clarify why those have been removed from acts which are in place in other provinces.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The term "good faith" really has no meaning in the context of the law on negligence, and therefore it was superfluous and we didn't include it. I'm not clear as to why other provinces included the concept of acting within the scope of one's duties, since an employee may be found liable whether or not they are acting within the scope of their duties. So we didn't feel that it was important to include that.

M. de Jong: Just a quick question; I probably should know the answer to this. Does the reference in section 2 to a corporation in B.C. include societies incorporated under the Society Act?

V. Anderson: I would just like an explanation. Normally, there is a commencement clause -- for instance: "This act shall come in force by regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." Normally, that's in most of the acts that come before us, one way or the other. It's not in this act. Could you explain why it's not there, and whether it's left out by mistake or by design?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The bill, once it becomes an act, would come into effect upon royal assent.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 10, Food Donor Encouragement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Official Report of DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY