Hansard -- Monday, March 8, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 21, No. 8 (HTML)

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

Private Members' Statements		9153
	The great improvements to Burnaby's health care in the last 1,000 days
	J. Nuraney
	Hon. S. Brice
	Treaties
	G. Trumper
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Property crime
	K. Johnston
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Trial by fire
	K. Krueger
	Hon. M. de Jong

Motions on Notice		9161
	Promotion of Canadian beef (Motion 3) (continued)
	D. MacKay
	J. Wilson
	K. Stewart
	M. Hunter
	V. Roddick
	B. Kerr
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Support for volunteers (Motion 68)
	V. Anderson
	R. Nijjar

J. Nuraney: Health care is a very important aspect of our lives. The old idiom which says that health is wealth holds more truth now than ever before. Our lifestyles, dietary habits and general wellness have seen a significant change in the last two decades.

As we struggle to reinstate the quality and service of our health care system, we must keep in mind the values that we hold dear in our daily lives. Ethics, a sense of altruism and generosity — these are principles on which my wife and I have tried to bring up our family. They are principles in which my father believed and by which he led his life.

There are two principles which I know that this government also holds dear when governing this province. Thrift is essential to an accountable government and to the services that are provided. The value and the quality of those services are also of great importance and priority. Furthermore, innovation and the timely exercise of scrutinizing the practices of government in order to ensure that those services are efficient and affordable are also paramount. These values reflect our ongoing commitment to the expectations of the people of this province.

As a representative for the area of Burnaby-Willingdon, I am proud to stand up in this House today to talk to you about how these principles and commitments have improved patient care and other health services for the people in my constituency. This, however, is by no means an easy road to travel. When we assumed office just over 1,000 days ago, we saw a health care system that had no direction, was run by some 51 different regional authorities and was funded on the premise of crisis management. There was no long-term plan to train more health care workers, even though there was an acute shortage. The values that this government and I hold dear did not resound in any capacity with the previous government. Thrift and quality of service were misplaced under the masses of mismanagement that directly resulted in the situation we entered in, in 2001.

Since then, we have introduced several initiatives and innovative changes that put patients first. We are building a more sustainable health care system. The regional authorities were reduced from 51 to six. These authorities were charged with restructuring and redesigning our system in a more innovative, appropriate and efficient way. The funding method was revised to offer a three-year envelope so that better planning can be made, reducing the costs of administration and putting more money into direct patient care. We encouraged more seats in our institutes of higher learning for nursing and medicine. We created centres of excellence for services to better utilize our resources and offer more expertise.

Nevertheless, as we continue to restructure and redesign, the pressures on the system continue to mount. We performed 38,000 more surgeries as demand increases. We have invested $1.4 billion more, bringing our total budget to $10.7 billion. In spite of our increase in funding and having acquired some degree of efficiency, our challenge to reduce waiting lists remains. It is important to realize that this is not a problem typical to British Columbia. All provinces in Canada are facing these challenges.

However, throughout my community we are seeing changes that are real and positive. Burnaby Hospital continues to play a significant role in my community. Some of the positive changes that have taken place, enhancing the role of Burnaby Hospital, include the Burnaby mental health program. With the great effort from the Minister of Health, who was at that time in office, this program moved to Burnaby Hospital campus in July of last year. The program includes out-patients day programs, a 25-bed in-patient unit and a three-bed assessment unit. The new location provides close proximity to the emergency department to assist in rapid assessment and care for in-patient programs.

The addiction service and relocation upgrade project. This involves moving two community-based offices to Burnaby Hospital by April 1 of this year. It is to be co-located with mental health services, following an investment of over $100,000 in renovations to the old Cascade building. It will allow for greater integration of services plus future cost savings. Staff will see individuals of all ages from 12 years old and up, providing assessment, counselling and information as well as referrals to other areas in the addiction systems of care.

Furthermore, an early discharge and home follow-up program for substance withdrawal was recently introduced as a pilot project in Fraser north. Originating out of Maple Cottage Detox Centre, this new program will provide the opportunity for individuals to complete their withdrawal in their own homes and is available to residents of Burnaby. A nurse will go into homes to work with and support the individuals.

Picture archival and communication system, or what is called PACS, is scheduled to go live at Burnaby Hospital — a new service that is being introduced so that results can be immediately transferred by computers to various programs and health institutions throughout the province, and many other programs that are being introduced in the hospital.

As we continue to strive for a better health care system, it must be noted that the direction that the Minister of Health Services has established has become the model to be emulated by other provinces. They are watching us with interest — the courage and consequent successes that we are experiencing.

J. Nuraney: This government is following through with the people of this province, and I respect the work that is being done by the ministers of health.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services.

Hon. S. Brice: I want to thank the member for highlighting some of the reforms that are occurring in the Burnaby area of the Fraser health authority. Certainly, changes are occurring in the health care system, and significant changes are occurring in the mental health and addiction areas.

I would like to take a moment to highlight those in the member's riding. As the House knows, addiction services were external to the health care delivery system when we formed government. Most of the services were delivered by contracted agencies, and services were not available throughout the province. Nor were there enough services for particular sections of the population, such as women and youth. The system was fragmented, and despite the best efforts of the people involved, there were many barriers to care.

Our government believes addiction is an illness and a health issue. When health care restructuring occurred, we took the opportunity to bring addiction services back into health. At the same time, we recognized that over 70 percent of the clients in the community addictions system were also clients of the mental health care system. Unfortunately, the system did not meet the needs of the majority of clients with concurrent disorders. We set about to integrate these services, thus resulting in better care for clients, and it will prevent people from being excluded from the health care services simply because they have a mental illness or an addiction.

Of importance to the member and to underscore his statement, Fraser health authority is moving forward in integrating mental health services with addiction services. Some of the things they're doing there are really impressive. They have allocated a million dollars for ten concurrent-disorder specialists. They have increased access to services for concurrent disorder clients by cross-training addictions and mental health staff. They have co-located addiction services with partners like the mental health centres and the Ministry of Children and Family Development youth teams. They are partnering with primary care clinics. They are developing an integrated service delivery model for mental health and addiction services, and they are ensuring that core addiction services are provided in each service delivery area. That ensures that housing is available locally, the developing mobile and home detox supports, and they are giving priority to detox and supportive recovery. They are increasing access to addiction services with a priority of increasing withdrawal capacity and expanding youth detox beds.

As the member mentioned, just recently the Fraser health authority introduced a home withdrawal and management detox program through Maple Cottage that will provide the opportunity for individuals 19 years and older to complete the detox in their homes with the support of a nurse. The Fraser health authority is enhancing eating disorders, hiring five new FTEs, expanding their early psychosis intervention program — in fact, creating quite a wide range of services. As well as an emergency after-hours program at the Burnaby Hospital emergency department, this is truly meeting the wide range of patient needs. I would again like to thank the member for highlighting some of the health care reforms occurring in his constituency, and I have no doubt that he will continue to be a strong advocate for his community.

J. Nuraney: I thank the minister for her remarks. As we can see, our health care system is undergoing not only a restructuring and a redesigning of the systems as such, but there is a whole new concept and a whole new thought process that I think has been introduced by this government, which is so very novel and which is so very commendable. I think the difference now is that rather than just fixing people who need our help, we are now creating a complete new approach to dealing…. Rather than fixing a problem, what we are really doing is creating a sense of betterness — wellness. I think that is a new concept, a new approach that the ministers have taken in the last two years, and we are now beginning to see the difference that has made to our system. I wish the ministers continued success, and I am sure that we will, in no time, see the real results of the difference in our health care system delivery.

G. Trumper: It's my pleasure to rise today in the House to speak about treaties. Treaties are an important part of the government's relationship with first nations. They reflect an agreement between three governments: the federal government, the provincial government and the first nation. This agreement allows positive, healthy relationships to be built between the three levels.

Treaties are important because many aboriginals believe their rights can only be effected through the treaty mechanism. They maintain all of their aboriginal rights to land resource, culture, etc., unless explicitly stated in a treaty. Having a treaty can encourage trust between the governments and the first nations, as there is a standard which both sides have agreed to. Officially, a treaty is an agreement between a nation of aboriginal people and the two levels of government — the federal government and the provincial government. Treaties are intended to create obligations for both parties.

I'd like to give you a little bit of history on treaties. In 1763 there was a royal proclamation by King George III that recognized aboriginal title and rights to land. From 1850 to 1854, the colonial office directed James Douglas to purchase first nation lands, as governor of the colony. He arranged 14 purchases now known as

the Douglas treaties, mostly on southern Vancouver Island. Those were essentially our first treaties.

The Delgamuukw agreement has been a further step in the process. On December 11, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. The decision marked the first time that the Supreme Court had ruled that the concept of aboriginal title existed.

Use of oral history, for the first time, was allowed to be used to prove aboriginal title. As many of us know, who have many aboriginal people living in our communities, their history is mainly verbal.

As a government we have made some new-era promises regarding first nations and treaties. I am pleased to point out that we are well underway to achieving these goals, and we are keeping these promises. It is encouraging for me and for us to hear that many of the first nations we have been working with now talk about moving ahead. They want to get their people on the same economic base that many of us have. They want to have fairness in education and health care. Certainly, the bands that I have been dealing with of the first nations are very pleased to see some action take place.

We are committed to fast-track treaty talks to conclude fair treaties. We have three AIPs completed and two more pending. We now have AIPs with the Lheidli-T'enneh band; the Maa-nulth first nations, which are five bands on the west coast; the Sliammon Indian band; and the Tsawwassen first nation. We have others in progress.

The New Era document identifies the importance of strong, open communication. The government has funded $1.8 million for 38 treaty-related measures over two years, plus $500,000 for 17 interim measures in the government's first year.

Working towards treaty will help us to continue some of the major challenges facing first nations. Education is a primary example. Since 2001 the province has funded 85 special projects to help more than 2,000 aboriginal learners to further their education in a variety of areas of study. We need to continue to encourage aboriginal students to pursue careers in areas that they may be able to take back to their communities and help people in their communities.

The geography of many of these communities is a challenge. For instance, in my riding many of them live in isolated areas on the west coast, so the new technology that is being put in place is going to be a tremendous advantage for them. B.C. is helping to bring high-speed Internet to the Nisga'a communities for the first time, and $45 million has been dedicated to furthering educational achievement in B.C.

There are many other areas — such as advanced education, health care and social services — that are in need of funding and reform for first nations. Treaties and agreements-in-principle are important ways that we can continue to build strong relations with first nations. The stronger the relations we have, the more opportunities we will have to help provide solutions to some of these problems.

One of the issues is economic development initiatives. We recognize the importance of first nations participation in the provincial economy, and it is really important for us all. Certainly, those of us who live in the rural areas of British Columbia know that we have to partner with the first nations so that we can get our economies going. Many people wanting to invest in the province always ask us where we are with treaties in the particular areas.

We need to build those partnerships with the first nations. I can tell you that, particularly in my constituency, we have partnerships in forestry. We have a partnership in aggregate mining that is being worked on. We hope to see work commencing on that very soon, in the next year or so. Those provide employment not only to first nations but also to non–first nations people.

The economics of the treaties are very important. It's most important because the first nations understand that economic progress is a great basis for them to move forward.

I would like to speak a little longer on this, but I would be very pleased to hear the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management at this time.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, it's a pleasure to get up and respond to the member's very thoughtful and very thorough comments with respect to the treaty process. Certainly, creating treaties is one of the leading challenges that has been undertaken by our government.

One of the first things I want to do is underline what a challenge it is that we have not seen, at least until recently, the kind of successes that we would like historically in terms of treaty-making between government and first nations in this province. I know there have been a lot of resources devoted to attempting to build treaties over the past 20 years. I recollect that something close to half a billion dollars was expended in the 1990s in pursuit of treaties, without much in the way of results.

The Nisga'a treaty was concluded outside the formal treaty track, and within the track, there was not a lot of success at least until recently. Since July of 2003, as the member noted, we have been seeing some break in the logjam in terms of producing treaties. In July 2003, as the member noted, the Lheidli-T'enneh of Prince George concluded an agreement-in-principle — the first agreement-in-principle in British Columbia with the provincial government. They have since been moving toward final agreement, and we all hope that will be concluded in the relatively near future. The Maa-nulth in October of 2003, the Sliammon in December 2003 and, most recently, the Tsawwassen first nation have reached agreements-in-principle with the province.

These are great achievements primarily, I must say, led by the Attorney General, the Minister Responsible

for Treaty Negotiations. It was a great achievement on his part to do that, although I think we all believe there will be plenty to celebrate when final agreements are concluded. It's a bit premature to think a lot about the celebration until, in fact, final agreements are secured. These are difficult and complex issues to negotiate, and I know the Attorney General — the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations — is working very hard, along with his team, to try to bring some of those agreements-in-principle to the final agreement stage.

The reason why we are working so hard to conclude treaties is that they bring enormous benefits to all of the parties who come together. Among the things we achieve — and this is certainly core to my mandate as Minister of Sustainable Resource Management — is certainty on the land base. If we want to see new investment on the land base, there needs to be certainty there. The certainty produces investment, it produces economic development, and it produces jobs. One of the things first nations can build by becoming a part of the treaty process is capacity and a stake in the economy so that their people have jobs, just as non-aboriginal people have jobs in the economy.

Jobs are something that greatly strengthen the social fabric of every community, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. That strengthening of the social fabric is key to building capacity, to having the kind of empowerment I think we'll see as aboriginal people become an increasingly important part of economic and social life in this province. The Harvard study concluded very definitively that empowerment was key to stronger, healthier aboriginal communities, and building treaties is a key part of that.

I want to note that our government is trying to build stronger relationships with first nations, whether they're on the treaty track or outside of it. Up where I come from in the Shuswap, the first nations are, generally speaking, out of the treaty track. But we do need, through revenue-sharing agreements and other mechanisms, to try to strengthen those communities as well, to build their economic opportunities. Again, having people involved in the economy is the best way to build strong, healthy communities. We do look forward, particularly with those on the treaty track but also with first nations across the province, to undertaking initiatives in health, in education, in social services and in resource development that will build stronger communities.

I thank the member for her statement and look forward to her concluding remarks.

G. Trumper: I thank the minister for his words. As we work through the province and we look at all parts of the province, each first nation has very different issues whether you live in the interior or the far north or the west coast. They all have one thing that is most important to them, and that is the welfare of their communities and the people in their communities. They want a better health system; they want better education. They want better results from education for their children so that those people can get training and post-secondary education and go back to their communities and be able to provide the services there for them, for their own people. In fact, in my particular area the Nuu-chah-nulth does manage a great number of the health services in the area for the first nations.

One of the things that is happening, too, is in tourism. They're working very hard to have a basis for tourism. One of the first nations on the west coast has a long, very ancient aboriginal village right on the coast, which they are hoping will become a very well-known area to be able to study and pursue the way that they used to live, for the betterment and education of us all. What they do need, though, is a decent road to get there. Certainly I and many of us in the community and in their own community are working hard so that when you go over the Bamfield road, it is a little easier than it is at the moment, which is two hours over a very difficult, rocky logging road — which makes things a little difficult for them as they work towards improving their employment.

But what we have put in place is a $40 million economic measures fund, which was established for first nations, and many of them are participating in that. There is also the technology plan for high-speed Internet connections and development of technology and technical skills. The important thing about this is that where it used to be treaty first — and then we would put the blocks in place — now many of them are looking at putting those blocks in place for economic measures, for health and education, for their cultural needs, and then the treaty will be the icing on the cake.

I'm really pleased to have, over many years, worked with first nations in treaty. I can tell you that when I was representing local government for eight years we moved very slowly forward, but it has been very encouraging to see in the last two and a half years that we really are doing something and getting there. I urge everyone to do their part in working towards providing treaties for our first nations so that we can all live together.

Deputy Speaker: For our third private member's statement, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

K. Johnston: Today I would like to take this opportunity to talk about property crime and how it affects every single one of us and talk about some strategies to combat property crime.

All of us have been or have known of victims of property crime. I relayed a story just last week in this House about a friend of mine who had his 1979 Ford Escort, a real rusted-out piece of junk, taken. It was recovered, and three days after it was recovered it was taken again. I guess the point of that is even though many of these assets have very little or no value, they're still subject to being taken and subject to property crime.

Property crime certainly strikes fear in all citizens. Recent Ipsos-Reid polls done in the last 18 months come up with some numbers, and they're somewhat staggering: 71 percent of all British Columbia residents think courts and the justice system are too soft on lawbreakers; 32 percent of British Columbia residents say that they personally or someone in their household has been a victim of crime in the past two years. Recent reports in the media — including the Vancouver Board of Trade report on property crime, reports from ICBC and many other crime forums — are telling us that we have a problem and are striking fear in our citizens.

Crime is one of the dominant social concerns of all Canadians. It causes extensive physical, emotional and economic harm. Canadian governments spend almost $10 billion a year trying to control crime, and — something I didn't know — private security firms expend another $6 billion a year on the private side. We are told that crime is decreasing. However, the feedback I'm getting, certainly in Vancouver, and my street sense tell me I'm not sure crime is decreasing. It is not decreasing. Statistics show there is a reduction in crime because fewer crimes tend to be reported these days. Studies show that only about two-thirds of breaking-and-entering offences and half of vehicle thefts are reported to police.

There is no comfort in the fact that patterns of crime in Canada are consistent with those in the rest of the world. The only saving grace is that we have relatively low rates of violent crime as opposed to property crime. But to the individual victimized citizen violated by property crimes, the stats just don't matter.

The Vancouver Board of Trade recently reported out on property crime in Vancouver, and there were definitely some lowlights from that report. Property crime in the city of Vancouver is costing $128 million a year. Ninety percent of thefts from autos in Vancouver are committed by criminals seeking cash or property they can pawn to buy drugs. ICBC reports that insurance coverage for vehicle theft and break-in costs was $163 million in 2002.

Almost every person I know has been a victim of some sort of vehicle theft or damage to their vehicle. What are the solutions to this rising social problem? One of them would be taking aim at fenced goods. Recently, after a home break and enter, a relative of mine was told by the local police that if you want to go find your stolen things, visit the local pawnshops. In fact, she was given the address by the police of local pawnshops. She went to the pawnshop and was actually too terrified to go in because there was an obvious gang presence inside that particular establishment.

The city of Vancouver has regulations governing pawnshops, but with a reported 400,000 transactions a year, police just simply can't cope with the volumes. Police catch about one thief in ten, and even worse, police recover only about 1 percent of stolen goods. I believe more should be done to stop the pawnshop trade.

We should also do more on the punishment-of-offenders side. Recent articles have sustained that zero-tolerance policies adopted in the United States have had an effect in reducing crime. Criminologists believe tougher sentences are key factors in that success. Sentencing statistics from Stats Canada show that sentencing has not kept pace with crime increases. An article in the Vancouver Sun, dated February 2003 and written by Const. Mark Tonner, was entitled "Sentencing Judges' Attitudes Reminiscent of the Hippie Movement." He talks about the average age of a B.C. judge, putting them in their twenties during the anti-authoritarian days of the sixties. Being part of that, I tend to agree with him. He also says: "While encouragement and support are vital, the most effective form of attitude recovery follows discipline. To deny the need for discipline is to prevent growth."

We must ensure the punishment fits the crime, especially in the case of repeat offenders. We must look at increasing the rate of successful prosecutions. We must look at appealing sentences for property crime where sentences appear to be light or too lenient. We must make it more difficult for adults to involve minors in property crime. Also, we must increase the pressure on pawnshops to reduce the flow of stolen goods. There is a suggestion that by keeping offenders in custody pending their trial, this will have an extreme effect on re-offending. Property crime is a serious issue, and we need to take serious steps and support serious steps to stop this epidemic.

Hon. R. Coleman: Property crime is a serious problem in our society today. It is a significant issue. To combat crime in B.C., as the member said, there is a lot of money spent across this country and even in the private security business. Even at the provincial level the policing budget in this province — just at the provincial level — has gone up from $153 million in 2001 to $173 million in 2003-04. That doesn't include the $14.5 million that we're investing in PRIME, some of the other money we've invested in infrastructure, $6 million in small capital and $15 million more on an integrated traffic unit that goes into place on April 1.

More money for front-line policing means more police on the streets and more deterrents, but it is not the long-term solution. It's not the only solution. There is a variety of issues with regard to crime that we need to understand.

Crime has an infrastructure. That infrastructure is stolen property from the streets of Vancouver. It is turned into drug money, which buys drugs for people that are addicted or have mental problems or crime problems in Vancouver and other cities. Those drugs basically supply the infrastructure and financing of organized crime at the street level in British Columbia.

Organized crime is a significant growing problem in B.C. In addition to that, you have to be able to push back at these things and actually have some results. The important thing for us with regard to our commitment to pushing back on organized crime is to create the organized crime integrated unit, which will be the Organized Crime Agency, moving with the RCMP

The most important part of the whole aspect around street crime — I think the member touched on it — is that in Vancouver pawnshops have to enter into a system called Extract. Although this isn't formalized at a high-enough level, they actually put through Extract information and things that are received by them, and that goes down into PRIME, our real-time information management environment. They're the only jurisdiction in the province that does that, but as we move forward with PRIME, we need to get some discipline on the pawnshop side with regard to this information. We're actually going to work to see how we can formalize that and how we can make sure that information is going into PRIME.

As an example, the member talked about the results with regard to 1 percent of stolen property being recovered, etc. An example would be an investigation that took place in two jurisdictions that were actually testing PRIME. A B and E took place in a high school. A bunch of musical instruments were stolen and pawned in another city the next day. That particular city had the system where you had to enter this information into it. It went into PRIME through a portal. It flagged to the police officer that there was a B and E in another jurisdiction, and he went down and actually recovered the stolen property and executed a warrant and arrest later that afternoon.

That couldn't happen before because of the whole paper trail of crime, but as we move through to having PRIME in place in every area across the province…. Incidentally, it is already in every municipal police department on the lower Island as of about a week ago, and it is now moving to the rest of the Island in the next number of months. In the next 12 months we expect to have that system across the entire province. These types of things are all about tools — tools for our police to be able to push back on crime and tools for our police to recover property on behalf of our citizens.

When that happens, we do need some help from another area of the criminal justice side. That is our court system, particularly with regard to multiple repeat offenders who obviously do not get the message from the way the system deals with them today and who are also the people that for the most part or the majority of the stolen vehicles and stolen property…. Actually, not a large number of folks that are in society out there are repeat offenders. We cannot have a system of justice where somebody who has 14, 20 or 25 previous offences for stolen auto is released the same night that they're arrested by police so they can go steal another vehicle — as happens in this province — and be involved in a high-speed chase the same night with the police, because our system won't so much as remand them into custody.

We need to get tougher from that standpoint. We need our communities to get to work to do that. I think you can actually see a shift — as you've seen some of the Provincial Court judges and the province of British Columbia actually wanting to engage in a dialogue with communities to find out what it is they want — because of the pressure coming from people like the member opposite, members of my caucus and communities who have actually stood up and said that enough is enough.

It's time to come up with long-term solutions. I think we'll get to those long-term solutions. As we build the tools, we're going to need some help from the federal government on tougher penalties. We're going to need help from the federal government on the drug prosecution side. I think we're getting there, because communities have said: "We've had enough." I think communities have said: "We want to put a stop to property crime." I believe that we can actually push back on this as we work together for long-term solutions.

K. Johnston: I want to thank the Solicitor General for his response. I also want to thank him for his passion in carrying out his duties, because I know he is committed in terms of the provincial side to supporting the police services and putting in initiatives like PRIME and doing the things it takes to — as he says — stop people from saying: "We've had enough."

I think it's really important that we continue on that track of bringing in these initiatives. Just this morning the government has released that there will be a task force struck to tackle Vancouver street crime. That's out of the Attorney General's office. I'm delighted about that.

This task force will be reporting out in 2005 to find the root causes and address some of the issues in the criminal justice system. I also understand, certainly, the difficulties of the police in dealing with crime, even with PRIME and all the tools they have at hand. It is an extremely large problem everywhere.

I also recognize the fact that we as community members need to be more involved in assisting the police in terms of all the programs — Block Watch, patrols and those types of things. You could hire millions of police and put them on every corner, and you're still not going to stop the effects of crime.

I truly want to again thank the Solicitor General for his leadership in this area. I know that in the future we will continue to fight this problem of crime — a very serious problem.

K. Krueger: Following the release of the Gary Filmon report last month on Firestorm 2003, I thought it might be an opportune time to bring this House up to date on the many initiatives to restore the North Thompson Valley and its economy following the devastation that occurred in those wildfires.

Seven months have passed now, and there has been a tremendously heartening outpouring of goodwill and very tangible demonstrations of that goodwill from the people of British Columbia and beyond. The North Thompson Relief Fund — which was initiated by a

Nissan auto dealer, George Evans, in Kamloops with an initial $100,000 goal — actually raised $3.3 million in private contributions. The government has been so impressed with the performance of the North Thompson Relief Fund Association, which prides itself on not having spent a nickel on administration, that the government has also entrusted funds to the North Thompson Relief Fund for the economic redevelopment of the North Thompson Valley.

The homes are substantially rebuilt. The supplies for the construction were paid for by the North Thompson Relief Fund, and the labour was largely donated by organizations like the Evangelical Free Church and the Mennonite development services. It has been a tremendous tribute to the goodwill of people and their willingness to pitch in with their own muscle, their own energy and their own time to help those who have suffered great misfortune.

Now that the homes are substantially rebuilt, we have turned our attention to trying to overcome the economic harm that has befallen the North Thompson Valley. It actually started nearly a year before the fires with an announcement that one of the three major sawmills in the valley would be closing for economic reasons. That was the Weyerhaeuser sawmill at Vavenby. Weyerhaeuser made the decision that many of our licensees have to make in today's market, particularly with the rise in the Canadian dollar. They needed to consolidate to fewer mills with higher output. Unfortunately, Vavenby was the community that lost out in the business decision that had to be made by that company.

We were already reeling in the valley from the loss of 180 of the best paycheques that existed in the valley, and along came the forest fires at the end of July and burnt out the Tolko Louis Creek sawmill, the second of the three large sawmills that we had — another 189 jobs in that case. It was quite a shock for the people of the valley and quite a shock for the economy. We're working very hard to address that economic hurt.

The Premier sent the Solicitor General to me some months after the fires, as the discussions with the federal government as to how economic aid would be forthcoming had not yet yielded anything tangible. The Solicitor General asked me what could be done in a very practical way to help the people of the valley.

The result was that the Premier provided $5 million, which I was very pleased to be able to take up in cheque form, of course, in my briefcase to the people of the valley. We gave $1 million to the North Thompson Community Skills Centre in order to ensure their long-term longevity and their ability to retrain the displaced people of the valley. We put $2 million in hardship funds into the trust of the North Thompson Relief Fund, and I am told that as of close of business on Friday, half of that $1 million has been paid out. The rest is rapidly being paid out now that a very careful evaluation system of the applications has been completed — a maximum of a $10,000 grant per individual or businesses. A great many people are receiving very significant assistance from governments in a way that, as I understand it, has never been done before. And $1 million of the remaining $2 million was put in trust with the Thompson-Nicola regional district in order to fund the long-term economic development portfolio for the North Thompson Valley. We have just concluded the recruitment process for an economic development officer to be paid out of the funds.

The final $1 million of the $5 million was put in a third trust fund with the North Thompson Relief Fund to provide for economic development initiatives as opportunities might arise. A lot of good people in the valley are turning over every rock looking for those opportunities. The North Thompson Relief Fund is able to match that $1 million, so we have $2 million in that fund to provide for seed money to assist in the various expenses that arise from attracting new industry to the valley.

Some of the projects we have underway are, for starters, acquisition of the Tolko properties. Mr. Al Thorlakson of Tolko Industries has been very accommodating with his company's assets. He made it clear that they were willing to bend over backwards to help the economy be restored. We're working on a land swap for Crown land to assist.

Another major initiative, and one that I hope the Minister of Forests and the Minister for Forestry Operations will be able to assist us with, is the acquisition of a share of the pine beetle uplift. The chief forester had promised that he would do the Kamloops TSA first in reassessing annual allowable cut as a result of pine beetle infestation. Indeed, he announced an uplift of 1.67 million cubic metres a year for at least the next three years. We're hoping for a share of that in the form of a non-replaceable forest licence for the people of the North Thompson Valley.

One of the issues is that there are no incorporated communities up the valley, and a legal entity has to be responsible for an NRFL. Our proposal is that the North Thompson Relief Fund Association, which is a registered charity, could become the holder of that NRFL. They work very closely with the economic development advisory commission, which I chair and which is composed of all the elected people up the valley — the three regional district directors and Chief Nathan Matthew of the North Thompson Indian band.

If we secure the NRFL in the short term and in the longer term the valley has up to 400,000 cubic metres as a result of the forestry revitalization initiatives which will be apportioned to first nations, to community forests, to woodlots and to the small business program, we think that the NRFL might provide sufficient fibre in the short term and the others in the longer term to drive a whole new value-added industry in the valley. That's what we're looking for. We have had demonstrations of interest from log home builders and post and beam manufacturers, everything down to people who produce pellets for wood-burning stoves and a company that has a device to turn wood waste into charcoal. There's also a new cogeneration plant under construction soon to open at Weyerhaeuser in Kamloops.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for a number of things — first and foremost his comments here today about a part of the province that while beset by tragedy over the last 12 months, certainly last summer, has also revealed itself to be a rather extraordinary place for the kind of tenacity and innovation that is now flowing from the hearts and minds of the people who have reminded everyone that that is their home and that's where they intend to stay and that's where they intend to build a life for themselves.

I wanted to say this in passing, because my friend the member has graciously hosted me in the valley a number of times, most recently last week. Several months ago we actually went in and saw some of the work that was taking place on the reconstruction front. It is a rather remarkable sight to see those volunteers with agencies like the Mennonite Disaster Service on site there building new homes for people who were impacted last year — great homes, picturesque homes located in picturesque settings in a beautiful part of the province. Our collective hats in this chamber are off to the volunteers, the folks that helped organize them, and the people of Barriere and Louis Creek who came together to make all of that happen.

The larger question the member raises is to give eloquent voice to the aspirations of those who live in the North Thompson Valley, who say to all of us: "We want to build a sustainable economy. We want to be here, we want our children to be able to go to school here and grow up here, and we need to pour the foundation for an economy that can sustain our long-term residency and prosperity here." In large measure I think the member correctly identifies that that relates to the forestry resource that surrounds the people and, virtually 364 days of the year, is something they regard as their ally in pursuit of their economic dreams and that, for one or two days or a week last year, was something of an adversary when it ignited in the way it did.

How do we utilize that resource? I will confine my comments today to two things — first of all paying tribute to, firstly, the people of the valley for their ingenuity in some of the ideas they have brought forward and, secondly, to the member himself for giving voice to those ideas and pursuing them with vigour here in Victoria and actually around the province. The member has always been a rather remarkable salesperson. He has become the best possible salesperson for the people in that part of the province. As he says to private sector entrepreneurs: "This is some place you need to invest; you should invest; there is an opportunity here; there are willing partners." He mentioned Tolko insofar as the site is concerned.

There is also a role for government, and the member pointed that out. We are now in the process of exploring — more than exploring, really trying to establish — the parameters around which a community tenure could be established both in the short term and in the long term. As we pursue that, we had another series of meetings on Tuesday of last week, and I think the prospects are very sound. I say to the people in the valley, Mr. Speaker, through you and the member: come together, ensure we can be confident that the proposal we receive enjoys the support of the valley and the people who live in the valley, and also understand and craft that proposal with a recognition that beetle uplifts tend to be temporary phenomena.

With those two caveats I share the optimism the member has brought to this chamber and to our numerous meetings that not only are the people in this part of British Columbia going to survive with the requisite amount of cooperation on the part of government and the private sector, but they will prosper. They will prove to all of us that their dream of living and residing in the North Thompson Valley isn't just a dream; it is a reality, and a very positive reality.

K. Krueger: I wish to thank the minister for his gracious comments, for his cooperation and for the many times he has come up to meet with my constituents and the way he has applied his mind — as has the new Minister of State for Forestry Operations — to assisting the people of the North Thompson Valley. We do recognize full well that not only is the beetle-kill uplift a temporary thing; in the longer term the fibre available will be less than it was before because of the huge amount the beetles took out of the forest, which was constantly renewing itself.

Chief Nathan Matthew said to me at one time that the Ministry of Forests is managing the North Thompson Valley so well that there will be forest forever, and that will still be the case. The pine beetle has, in the longer term, given us a setback but in the short term has given us an opportunity that, frankly, is very much needed after the time of crisis the valley has been through.

We have heard, my colleagues and I, for many years now that the value-added industry is starved for fibre, that they really want a reliable source of fibre and the chance to bid on it. They always say they'll pay the best prices of anyone for the particular log they need. We hope that with this approach of the NRFL in the short term and the other supplies of logs in the longer term, they'll have the chance to prove that to us. They'll have the chance to get the fibre they want, and value-added industry will flourish in the valley. We're looking forward to seeing that happen.

There are a lot of complementary operations that are making their interest known, and it's really fascinating to see the ingenuity of people and what they can do. There is a company named Interact, which is already well established in Golden, manufacturing a new form of lumber product that is much stronger than conventional dimensional lumber. It is made up of trim ends from other sawmills that have already been

planed and dried and aren't that good for even wood chips because they've been through that process. Interact splices those together, finger-joints them, laminates them, glues them and makes a product of just about any width and length the customer wants. They can build truck decks. They can build floors for houses and larger buildings. They have an unlimited market because their product is very popular, even though it is much more expensive than dimensional lumber because it is also much stronger.

I think that this whole ordeal has demonstrated the pioneering spirit of my constituents in the North Thompson Valley. I have always admired them, and I've met many of them over the years. I was lobbied heavily for eight years by people who are good at salvage logging, have the equipment for it and had a hard time getting through the red tape and bureaucracy of government in order to get permits to do salvage logging.

Once again, this minister and this government have moved forward on that. They struck a committee of private members which toured the province and talked to salvage loggers and submitted a report with really strong recommendations. The minister made sure there was a budget allocation in this year's budget to address that — again, a very timely thing for my constituents in the North Thompson Valley. Out of the calamity has come opportunity, and my hat's off to the government for capitalizing on that opportunity and helping my constituents in the North Thompson Valley.

D. MacKay: Thank you for this opportunity to stand up and support Motion 3, which was introduced into this House by the member for Cariboo South, as it relates to the safety of our Canadian beef and the reopening of the borders to our beef products. Canadian beef and B.C. beef is in fact a safe and healthy food product.

Much like the water we drink in this chamber, I am not concerned when I pick up a glass to have a drink of water. My concern isn't about whether the glass and what's in it is safe to drink. I know it's safe to drink because as a society and as governments, we have protected the food and the water that we drink in this country. So when we pick it up, we know it is safe to drink and to eat.

There is no difference in the beef industry. The food that we eat, the food that we buy from our stores has, in fact, been inspected and is safe to eat. There are safeguards built in to ensure that happens.

Like the member for Cariboo South and the member for Cariboo North — they had a beef barbecue up in Quesnel or in Williams Lake to show that their beef products were safe — we did the same thing in Bulkley Valley–Stikine and in Smithers. We sold over a thousand beef patties, which were provided to us by a number of people: the Bulkley Valley Cattlemen's Association, the Lakes District Cattlemen's Association and the Pleasant Valley Cattlemen's Association. They provided the beef from different parts of the region so we could show the people of the province how safe the beef is to eat.

It was interesting. There was a large number of Americans travelling through Smithers while this beef-by-donation barbecue was taking place, and they had no idea — and I'm speaking specifically about the Americans that were travelling through — that the beef issue had developed between Canada and the United States and the rest of the world because of BSE.

It's interesting when you stop and think about it. Probably one of the most sought-after steak dinners in New York City is grass-fed beef, a steak from a cow that was raised on grass. That's one of the most sought-after dinners in New York City. That is what this province raises — grass-fed beef. It is a safe product. It's good to eat, and it is safe.

You know, when you stop and think about the interaction between the United States and Canada with our beef industry, those herds have been moving back and forth for generations. We don't have two herds. We actually have one herd in North America. That beef is so intertwined now that it is actually one herd.

I have to stop and think about the cattle industry for a few moments and the difficult times they have faced in this province. This past summer we were devastated by the fires, which destroyed grazing lands. We then had to face some drought conditions, so the growing of food for the cattle industry for the winter months was put at risk. Then we had BSE dropped on top of the cattle industry. The issue with BSE is not a food safety issue; it is rather an economic and trade issue.

I have been fortunate enough to have lived in different parts of our province. In the late seventies and early eighties, I happened to live in Alexis Creek. They raised cattle out there, and I was invited to a lot of branding parties with the ranchers and saw what they did out there. I was impressed with the care given to those cattle as they were raised on those large ranches out there. There is an interesting story about a rancher that lived out in the Alexis Creek area. The lotteries were just coming into their own at that time, and somebody asked a rancher out there what he would do if he won the 6/49 lottery. His response to the people who asked the question was: "Well, I guess I would just keep on ranching till it was all gone."

I know many ranchers today in the area that I represent. They raise cattle, but they have a unique lifestyle, because most of them in addition to raising cattle actually have a full-time job to supplement the ranching they do. They can't make it on their own by raising cattle. They actually have full-time jobs.

I have been to the Bulkley Valley fall fair in Smithers, which is the second-largest fall fair in British Columbia. I have seen the love and care those young children involved in 4-H put into the animals. They raise them from the time they are born till the time they are sold at auction. They're sold at auction for one purpose, and that is for consumption by humans. I have seen the care they put into those animals. I know the food is in fact safe. It's safe, because I have seen the care given, and I know there is a system in place to protect the meat once it's been slaughtered.

So the motion put forward by the member for Cariboo South for the reopening of our borders to our Canadian beef products and the safety of our Canadian beef is critical. It's critical to the people who rely on their livelihood from raising those animals. We all know in this country that the food we do eat is safe to eat, so I stand up in support of Motion 3 by the member.

J. Wilson: This morning it is my pleasure to speak to this motion. One way or another, I have been personally involved in the beef industry most of my life — not only from a production end of it but from a health end of it. It gives me a great deal of comfort to know that in this country we have one of the best food inspection agencies of anywhere in the world — maybe number one. That gives us a lot of confidence in the product we consume.

Last spring we had a case of BSE in Alberta. The fallout from that was staggering, but the reason that we have been able to identify it is because of the Food Inspection Agency in this country and the work they do. The diligence that they put into the job to get it done gives us, or gives me…. Actually, if you look at the statistics, 80 percent of Canadians feel that the meat they consume is safe. That is a resounding vote of confidence, and it's something we should think about.

Another case showed up in the U.S. this fall, and right now there is a lot of chaos, I'd describe it, out there. The borders are basically shut down. Our federal government is working — and they're working hard — to get those reopened. The provincial governments are all working in cooperation with the federal government. They've been holding meetings with the U.S. counterparts, and we are working very hard to get these borders reopened not only on this side of the border but also on the other side.

Our neighbours to the south do need the quality meat that we produce in Canada. Western Canada, especially, produces the best-quality beef of anywhere in the world. Until this came about, we had one of the best export markets. Once we got into the situation we're in now, we discovered something. We discovered that probably about three or four years ago, we had maxed out in our ability to process animals in Canada.

Because we were building our markets outside of our borders, any excess — and perhaps more than the excess — was exported and processed in the United States. This took off any pressure. There was no real need to go out and build more facilities to process or slaughter animals. Now, with the border being closed, we realize that we do need additional facilities here, and those are being worked on, but not on a large scale. What are being developed today in several of the provinces are smaller plants to take in regions, rather than try and do one or two provinces at a time.

We're also seeing some vertical integration developing in some of these plants. If you are going to be successful in today's market, one of the things I feel needs to happen is that vertical integration. We are working on a plant right now at Blue River, trying to get it up and running. There is a chance it will be going this spring. If we can tie that into producing the meat that we can consume in British Columbia, through vertical integration through some of our major chain stores, this is a step in the right direction.

In all of the years that I have been involved in the cattle industry — and that's well over 30 now — I have never seen a year when things all came together like they did this year. As a province, we looked at a lot of things. We had floods; we had fires; we got pine beetle. It seemed like all of this stuff came together in one year.

The beef industry in this province was really no different. We had a real crop failure in most of British Columbia, anywhere from…. In some places there was no crop; in others it was 25 percent of normal. If you were lucky, you got 50 to 60 percent of normal. There were very, very few places that had normal crop for forage production. That meant you had to buy a large portion of your winter's feed, and the cost today is really high. Most of the feed, the forage, that people are buying today is coming out of the North Peace and out of Alberta. To get it here adds enormous cost in trucking. This came along hand in hand with the year when the markets went down.

In the past we've had some bad years, but there was always an upside. If you had a crop failure or a shortage, you usually had a decent market out there. As the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine was saying, if those people that are producing beef in this province had a winning lotto ticket in their back pocket, they would just keep on ranching. You know, it is kind of an inside joke. Most of our producers in this province are not large enough to be considered sustainable, and they love the work they do. They love the lifestyle, and they're willing to work off the ranch in order to facilitate that and keep that industry alive.

A year ago at this time, if you wanted to be a viable operation in this province, you needed approximately 200 head of mother cows or an equivalent of 500 head of feeders just to be able to work on the ranch and call it a full-time job — without a firm income. With the turn of events we've faced, that number has gone up. I'm not sure where it would be, but it would be well over 300 or 400 today, so those people that were feeling rather self-sufficient are now looking for a firm income. Some had banked on a little bit of wood they can pro-

duce on their place. Unfortunately, if it's pine, they're probably lucky if they can even sell it today with the pine beetle epidemic. So, all of these things came together.

Does it mean the end of ranching in this province? No, it doesn't. Ranching will survive. These people are tough, they're resilient, and they'll find a way of getting through it. As government, we have done a considerable amount to help. The province has put in the BSE program. My understanding now is that anyone that applied there will automatically be transferred to the federal program, and that's good. That will help those people get through and will offset some of the feed costs they've been faced with this winter.

We see a real interest in developing new processing facilities in the province. That is a good thing. The safety of our beef is…. There is no question that the chances of anyone getting BSE from eating beef in Canada are about the same as being hit by a meteorite. Those are the odds — very, very, very small. Every time you cross the street, you take your life in your hands. Every time you eat a steak, you can relax because there is no problem there.

Anyway, I will conclude. I'm very, very happy with the job our government is doing to solve these problems. I have complete confidence in our food inspection from the federal government in this country. We're working hard to get that border reopened, and we will get it reopened. It is just a matter of time.

K. Stewart: I'm pleased to get up and speak about the safety of Canadian meat products and our relationships with other world markets both in North America and internationally. In one of my previous careers in my life I had the opportunity to ship meat products both into the United States and internationally — into Japan and Asia. One of the things I found always encouraging was the high standard of the Canadian meat safety and inspection division as it was perceived by the world. I had the opportunity to work with some plants that shipped into the European Common Market, which had some of the higher standards in the world, and our Canadian standards were right up there with those standards.

When shipping into the United States, we used to ship live animals across into Washington State for the USDA approval. It was a program that was very beneficial to us, allowing us to get the USDA stamp of approval, which is the United States Department of Agriculture safety inspection approval for meat products.

The Canadians were always viewed as having a very stringent, efficient and effective method of ensuring the safety of their meat products. When we were shipping into Tokyo, we would take the Canadian-inspected product, seal it into refrigerated containers, put it on to the L1011s and go right into Japan with product. It was a chilled product. It hadn't been frozen.

The standard that the Canadian government had placed on the inspection and the product allowed a very smooth transition right into those Asian markets. It was the result of not just one week's work to bring us up to that standard and the paperwork we had to go through, which may have taken seven to ten days, but the years and years of the standard that has been promoted right across the agricultural industry in Canada, right through the inspections — both provincially and federally, in the provincially inspected plants and the federally inspected plants — that allowed that type of movement.

That's been put in jeopardy in recent years because of international events. We are dealing with world commodities. We are dealing with products that are shipped around the world with ease. We're dealing not only with the end meat products but also with many live animal issues. As we see what's going on in Asia with regard to fowl and some of the difficulties they're having there, we realize more and more, as we're becoming a more cosmopolitan world, how people move very simply through borders, how products now move across the political barriers with ease.

Transportation. Can you believe where we were at 30 and 40 years ago as far as what was considered an exotic holiday by a Canadian? How many people do you know now that have travelled to Asia, to Hong Kong, to Tokyo, to Thailand? We are certainly becoming much more fluid in the traffic of individuals on their holidays plus the traffic of products of an agricultural nature, especially meat products. We're seeing a lot of the Canadian pork and beef going into the Asian countries. We're seeing a very strong resurgence in the poultry industry, in British Columbia especially.

We have these standards that need to be upheld. I just would like to say that through my personal experience I have found, in dealing with the agencies in Canada and British Columbia that deal with food safety, that we are definitely right up there — and my international exposure has shown me — with any country in the world. I'm sure that if we take a look at this current issue with the safety of Canadian beef, we'll find that with some very, very small adjustments in the process we're doing now, we'll be able to re-establish ourselves as a leader in food safety and protection in Canada and internationally, around the world.

I fully support this. Anything we can do to get our products back out there in the international markets is only going to be beneficial to the people of British Columbia.

S. Orr: Today with us we have an absolutely wonderful group of students visiting us in the buildings, sitting right above us here. They are from Quadra Elementary School. This is a French immersion class, and they're here with their teachers, Mme. Marrs and Mme. Di Biase. These are terrific kids. They do a lot of inter-

esting things, and they're all getting ready for spring break next week. I want the House to give them a really good welcome.

M. Hunter: I want to just add a few remarks to this debate this morning and to thank the member for Cariboo South for raising this issue in the House, because clearly it's a very important issue. What's happened in our beef industry over the last just-less-than 12 months is a very important reminder that British Columbia is a player in the beef industry. This is not an industry that's restricted to our neighbouring province to the east.

I think it's important from that point of view, and for me personally there is a personal angle to this. As you know, I was born elsewhere, in the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom went through a major crisis with BSE some 15 or 20 years ago. It certainly devastated that industry. For me personally, what it has meant is that because I have spent time in the United Kingdom since 1980, when BSE was an issue, and I probably consumed British beef, I now can't give blood in Canada. There's that angle for me which makes this issue particularly important, and it's particularly important that in Canada we get a grip on the issue. I want to add my voice to others that are confident that is indeed the case.

My own region of British Columbia, Vancouver Island, is not a huge factor in the beef industry, but the impact of the health of the sector and what goes on in the cattle industry generally on dairy is significant, and that sector is significant in my part of the province. Certainly, anybody who has been around this province knows that the cattle industry in its entirety defines a very large part of the British Columbia heartlands.

I am very supportive of the industry. I think that this government's response, as well as the response of the government of Canada, to the crisis that occurred and the discovery of BSE in Alberta was one of calm. It was one of determination to assist the industry to get through this issue. I think the governments' responses mirrored the public response, which was instinctively — very interestingly, it was instinctive — that people responded to assist and support the cattle industry.

I certainly saw that firsthand. I was able to join the member for Yale-Lillooet in Merritt late last July to help host a beef barbecue. There are a lot of people who are very supportive of our beef industry, and I think that's a huge strength for the industry as it moves forward. We all know, as well, that the food distribution industry in British Columbia and across Canada was supportive, with beef sales at cost or less — specials to help move product that suddenly could not be moved elsewhere.

When you look at what we have in this business in British Columbia, it's hard to escape the conclusion that what happened last year was overreaction. I want to echo what the member for Cariboo North said about the confidence that we can have as Canadians in our food inspection system. Again, I want to speak from personal experience. I was fortunate enough a few years ago, before I became elected to this place, to be an adviser on the advisory board to the minister responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I was the representative on that board for the province of British Columbia. I can tell you that there should be no question, no doubt, that Canada is in the forefront of international food safety systems.

For example, in our beef case, it is not just to be taken for granted that CFIA was able to trace the cattle that were affected by the problem last year. Our neighbours to the south, who were very quick to close their borders, did not have and do not have that kind of a system. I think Canadians can be confident that we have a system that can not only protect our food safety but, when there is a problem, can actually trace the problem back to its source. That is, as I say, not to be taken for granted but is extremely important.

Yet with the safety of our food inspection system, the safety of our product, our beef exports remain under severe limitations. It's pretty easy to say no — to ban something, close your door, close your border and say: "We're not going to take that." It's easy, as we have seen many times in many product areas over the last 20 years. As globalization advances and free trade advances, it is rather peculiar and perhaps of concern that we see these knee-jerk reactions to problems irrespective of the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture knows full well the Canadian food inspection system is at least equal to the United States system — and, I would submit, better.

We've learned a lot about BSE since the experience in the U.K. Canada has always been a leader in developing food inspection systems, but of course there is always room for improvement. You have to respond to things that happen. This incident does mean we are going to have to make some changes to the meat inspection system. As the member for Cariboo North noted, there are changes in the way the industry is starting to operate — with smaller slaughterhouses, vertically integrated, smaller businesses that are arising as a result of what happened and the inability of the Canadian processing system to deal with the issue.

I'm comfortable and confident that our Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is going to help our industry here in B.C. work through those changes. I am confident in the Canadian beef industry. I am confident in its product. I think we all should be, and as governments, working with the industry to put this industry back on its feet. We should all be helping and celebrating.

V. Roddick: Motion 3 is of great importance to our province and to our country. Food production is our number one natural resource. It has resulted in billions of dollars of exports from Canada worldwide, particularly to the United States.

Western Canada has millions of acres of grassland. Early settlers brought their herds with them to the

Prairies. In the 1830s the white-faced Herefords were imported to improve local stock. As noted in the "WestCoast" section of the Vancouver Sun last week, entitled "Staying Home on the Range," the Quilchena Cattle Company founded by Joseph Guichon in 1880 at Merritt is now run by his grandson, Guy Rose, whose two sons, Steve and Mike, are picking up the reins. The Guichons actually came from France. One brother stayed in Ladner in my riding, where the family now has three large productive farms, and one of the grandsons lives in the beautifully restored original house on River Road West.

Apart from the blizzards in the 1880s — most of you will be familiar with Russell and Remington paintings of the area — things went well. The bunch grass was converted to beef. Pat Burns followed the railway west, providing beef to the workers, and created Burns Meats. Delta's Burns Bog was named after him.

The Roddick family also followed the cattle, buying as far west as Moose Jaw and shipping live to the U.K. through Montreal and New York. Meat plants and stockyards were built across western Canada and the Great Plains. Roddicks could be found in Calgary, Winnipeg and Saskatoon. An interesting aside: Omaha, Nebraska — a huge beef centre — is the home of Andy Roddick, the tennis player.

Meat production was originally based on good grass and good grain, but gradually Canada became an urban society. We have lost touch with farming, farmers, ranchers and their herds. Now modern agriculture has advanced significantly. New technology has in many, many cases been beneficial, quality-driven and cost-effective. In Canada, for instance, the cattlemen themselves have set up an identification scheme to trace every single animal, and this has been done without government help. It's excellent and proactive.

Technology, however, has also been used to produce cheaper and cheaper food and feed. As a society we now feel it's our God-given right to have the cheapest food in the world. This has resulted in a massive rendering business, where the value of a by-product — i.e., the leftovers from butchering — has surpassed the value of the prime product sold at our meat counters. The tail is wagging the dog.

We as a society must now correct this. We can and we will. Our food is the best, the safest in the world. We must not let science be blinded by politics. We are doing the right stuff. We ask that the world reopen its borders to our cattle, and we ask that society reinvest in quality beef from Canada's rangelands. We still have to eat to live.

B. Kerr: I certainly agree with all the compelling arguments that the previous speakers have put forward before me. Absolutely, we have to assure other countries and other people that we have the best inspection system not only in Canada but maybe in the world. We have to ensure that our beef is safe, and we have to let the world know that our beef is safe so that we can export it and people can eat our beef with confidence.

Having said that, I have one concern. The concern I have is something that's coming about as a result of this desire to prove to the world that we have the best beef and the best meat inspection. That sometimes is setting up a situation where…. I'm not going to say we're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we make it a situation where one size fits all. There's a regulation coming out right now, the food inspection regulation, that's being looked at by various ministries — the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

One of the areas of my riding is a beautiful rural area called the Cowichan Valley. It's a rural area where people bring up their sheep and beef and chickens and take them to an abattoir or a few small slaughterhouses that work on custom cutting. They have concerns that if this food inspection regulation is passed in its current form, they will no longer be able to stay in business, because the regulations are designed to do the Burns Meats type of thing — the big all full-time-run companies and not the small custom-cut companies.

The regulations are very prescriptive in nature. They're not necessarily results-oriented or worrying about the outcomes. They're more worried about the way things should be done, to the point where if you have a food inspector on premises, the food inspector has to have his own office. He has to have his own locking filing cabinet. He has to have a telephone, a washroom and a place to hang up his clothes.

For these smaller places, it is difficult enough to get a food inspector to come in, and to have to have an office and everything for him with these types of things isn't necessarily going to solve the outcome. It's just a prescription that would be necessary for a larger place, where the food inspector comes in and spends several days or a month there and has a regular office there as an independent person, but not necessary for these smaller places.

On Vancouver Island we have what are called food inspection areas. For instance, Victoria here is a food inspection area. Anything that comes to Victoria must get the CFIA food inspection stamp on it, but if you are in my region, up in the Cowichan Valley, it is not a food inspection area. A lot of people take their meat and poultry to be processed at a place where they know how it is being done. They know the processor, and they know that this processor will be able to look at an atypical animal to determine whether there is a problem with it or whether it should be included in the run.

They are very happy to have the meat done at these particular processors, and it is only going to be used in that area. It is not going to be exported. It's not going to be taken outside the region. It's not even going to be sent down to Victoria. It's only going to be used in that area. Certainly, a number of my constituents have voiced this concern, and they've said they would like to see that happen. They have more confidence where they are taking their beef to a place than if it is going to

I wanted to bring that up to show the importance of getting away from one-size-fits-all to getting into a situation where we have to be worrying about the outcomes, not necessarily about the prescription of how we're doing it. We should look at smaller processors. I understand this is happening throughout B.C. I'm thinking primarily of my own region, but I understand this is a problem throughout all of B.C.

If this particular regulation is passed in its current form, some people will have to ship their products up to 1,500 kilometres. It is not worth it for small farmers or small processors.

I certainly agree with everything that's been said up to now with regard to the exporting of beef and the safety, the food inspection for beef they're exporting — even for the inspection of beef that's coming down into the regions that required it, like Victoria. I also think we really have to look at what we're doing, and we have to adjust the regulation to take into account what I might call small-scale operators — people that do a small amount — and adjust it accordingly, so they can do custom cuts, so they can know what they're doing and stay in business and keep the rural lifestyle, if I can say, for the smaller communities. I think that is absolutely important.

I just thought I would bring that up. I know a lot of people aren't thinking that way. I am hoping I can work with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and that we can change this. I know there are certain people…. We have the farmers alliance in my area, and they're submitting briefs. We've had a number of briefs submitted in the past while. I understand this regulation is now being looked at and assessed to determine how this can be effective. If we can work it that way, I'm sure that people in my riding in the beautiful Cowichan Valley will appreciate it and will maintain the high-quality standards in the processing they currently obtain.

That's all I had to say on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I see there is one other speaker following me. I will thank you very much and cede the floor.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to speak this morning on the motion by the member for Cariboo South — that is: "Be it resolved that this House supports initiatives to promote the safety of Canadian beef and to the reopening of the world's borders to our beef products."

I think this is a very timely motion. It is certainly an issue we have been working on actively as a government and as a ministry since May 20. Really, it has two parts: food safety and opening borders. I would say that those are two of the major parts we have been working on in the last six or eight months. The third one is the support of the ranching industry as it goes through this very, very difficult period of time.

I would say that whatever success we have enjoyed since May 20 in terms of having support of the consumer has been very, very critical to the ultimate rebuilding of the beef industry in Canada and in North America since December 23. We have in Canada, without question, one of the best food safety systems in the world. Our Canadian Food Inspection Agency is very well respected around the world, and they did take immediate action on May 20 to both deal with the issue and disclose the situation in a full and open dialogue with the public. That in itself was a statement of the integrity and quality of the organization, and it really set the stage for very strong consumer support in Canada for both our food safety system and the industry. We certainly saw in the immediate months following — July, August and September — some very significant increases in support by the consumer for our Canadian industry.

One of the principles that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency follows very closely is that they look at the best possible science and work on the basis of the best possible science in making their decisions and in doing their reviews. In that, they are also now very closely dialoguing with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in the United States, because in fact our North American market is a very integrated market. We are very interdependent in terms of movement of cattle — movement of live cattle, movement of beef products. There is a very common goal there of having harmonized regulations based on good science.

We've seen a tremendous amount of activity since May 20 over the past eight or nine months in terms of the food safety aspect. We did have a meeting. A number of provinces went to Washington, D.C., about three weeks ago to meet with our counterparts as provincial ministers, to meet with the state directors of agriculture that work on these issues. We did have the opportunity to dialogue with senior staff in the U.S. agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Last week the USDA announced the reopening of the comment period for the proposed rules that they tabled last November, and hopefully we can move through that relatively expeditiously. The comment period will close April 7, but certainly their indications to us were that they will be viewing all of the comments on the principle of good science. We consider that very important.

I think it is important to note that both the May 20 BSE cow and the December 23 BSE cow in Washington State…. Both those situations have been fully investigated by the respective agencies with a lot of collaboration between Canada and the United States. Both those situations have been fully reviewed by an OIE panel. This is the international standards-setting body for BSE.

Canada and the U.S. are in the same category as being a minimal-risk country. Certainly on the basis of the facts of the case and the performance of our respective agencies, our situation in North America is quite different than in other countries such as Japan or in Europe. We will continue to work closely with the United States to reopen the Canadian and U.S. border

and, in fact, the U.S.–Mexico border and Canada-Mexico trade. That is really the absolute clear priority. We're not in any position, we believe, to reopen borders with countries like Japan and Korea until we have Canada and the United States on the same page.

We as a province, through our Animal Health Centre in Abbotsford, cooperate very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in our ongoing monitoring and surveillance efforts. We cooperate very closely at the political level between provincial ministers and our federal minister and, in turn, our counterparts in the United States to move forward expeditiously on the border-opening process.

As I said, I think the public understands and recognizes that they can be assured of a quality, science-based food safety system, and we want to acknowledge their ongoing support for our industry. The beef industry is in a very tough time. Any further reopening of the borders can't come soon enough in terms of rectifying the very difficult conditions that we're in, in terms of markets.

We as a province continue to support the federal government in not issuing any new supplementary import permits. We think it is very critical that the federal government refrain from issuing any new permits. But we also think it is important for the industry — the cattle industry, the packing industry — to respond to market needs with Canadian product. We're talking about the needs of further processors and marketers for specialized beef products. We have a very active beef industry round table that involves all aspects of the industry and involves governments and government agencies — really focused on the dual goal of food safety and ongoing protection of the public and the public interest in that regard, and in a coordinated, cooperative forward-looking effort on opening borders.

I want to thank the member very much for bringing this timely motion to the floor of the Legislature. I want to assure all beef producers in British Columbia, all ranchers and their support industries, because there have been very significant impacts on a lot of suppliers and service providers to the beef industry. There has been a lot of impact, sometimes in places that might not have been foreseen, so we will continue to work diligently with the industry on opening borders.

With that, I understand I'm the last speaker on this motion. I move that we adjourn debate on this motion.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to standing orders, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 68 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

V. Anderson: It's my privilege to present Motion 68 and to move it in this House.

Hon. Speaker, our society has a long heritage of volunteers. Right from the beginning of our communities people have worked together to help each other in their communities where they lived, whatever the case might be.

Volunteering is a lifelong avocation. It is an avocation we encourage in our children — that they volunteer to help to set the table, that they volunteer help to bring in the wood, that they volunteer to take the cake next door for someone who is sick, that they volunteer to help their fellow playmates in school — so that they grow up with the idea that it's part of our culture and of our lifestyle to share with others our time, our efforts and our talents. This is an avocation, in our culture in Canada, of which we are very proud.

It is an avocation in which, as young people grow up, they take the opportunity…. Many of our young people have gone around the world as volunteers with CUSO or other international organizations to share their talents. Some of our high school students have taken trips to other countries around the world and volunteered their time and paid their own way and their own expenses so that they could help other countries and young people around the world who are not so fortunate.

Many of our young people have grown up volunteering in the hospital, volunteering in community centres and volunteering on the sports field. Those same young people who grew up volunteering, when they became adults, spent time volunteering to be coaches of Cubs and Scouts and Brownies and sports of all kinds. Without this volunteer effort, our young people would not have had the opportunity to grow into the kind of wholesome adults they have become.

Then the adults have a family of their own. They are volunteer drivers. They are volunteer coaches. They are volunteer fundraisers. They are volunteer cheerleaders. They're out in the community bringing together people of all backgrounds and of all cultures, sharing with each other their attitudes, their gifts and their interests.

We're discovering, as we become a senior community, that volunteers from seniors are extremely important. What many seniors have done is become mentors. They have become mentors of new immigrants and mentors of young people, taking their lifelong skills and using them for the benefit of other people and finding in the process a whole new opportunity and enjoyment of life.

It is a privilege to speak out here in favour of the volunteers of our community. The social services of our communities are privately undertaken and run by vol-

unteers, so I would want us to have the opportunity to commend them, to support them and to encourage them.

Many communities have organized volunteer bureaus in order to give special skills in operation, organization and skill development for their communities. A coalition of volunteers has been formed in British Columbia to bring together the volunteer organizations — of which there are hundreds, with people across the province of every kind — so they might come together and share with each other their skills and their interests and work with government in many programs.

Many of the programs of government depend upon volunteers. They may hire an executive director or a coordinator, but the boards of these organizations are volunteers. As these volunteers come together, they bring their expert opinions and business experience together and share with one another. They bring their family experience. They bring together their own volunteer experience.

This is a very important motion, in my mind, that we celebrate the volunteers of our province — that we celebrate them as we come together and discover in our programming, in our planning as a Legislature, how we can undertake to support the volunteers around us in the community.

Mr. Speaker, recognizing the time, I would move that we adjourn debate on this topic.

R. Nijjar: I researched some of our B.C. stats in regard to donation of time and money when it comes to volunteerism. Sadly, British Columbia has the lowest donor rate in Canada in financial donations.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, member. We will have to vote on the motion put forward, and if you want to continue debating, we have to defeat it.

R. Nijjar: British Columbians have the lowest donor rate in Canada in financial donations to social service and charity organizations. We have the third-lowest volunteer participation rate in Canada. Those are very sad numbers. Clearly, as British Columbians we need to participate more. Of course, when a government official says that, the question becomes: what is government doing to solve our social problems?

Obviously, government has a role to play in addressing issues. Too much in British Columbia, the mentality is: "Well, I have a problem in my community," or "I have a problem in my family. Government, what are you going to do to solve it?" That's a notion that's prevalent in British Columbia, probably more so than in other provinces — at least, that's my view.

It comes all part in parcel with the notion of entitlement that seems to be prevalent in British Columbia, more so than in other provinces. The fact that we have such a low volunteerism rate and that we have one of the lowest donor rates is reflective, I believe, of those lines of thinking.

We need to collectively work in partnerships and in collaborative manners. If you look at any of the work that's been done across this world where successful models have been put into place to deal with social issues, every single one of them has one thing in common — the collaborative measures between levels of government, social service organizations, community groups and individuals in communities working together at the community level. That's why the Ministry of Children and Family Development is moving towards those community-level systems.

I wanted British Columbians to be aware of those stats to see if we can work towards being more of a participatory society within British Columbia, resolving our issues collectively as partners.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.