Hansard -- Monday, October 17, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 5 (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		747
	Agriculture business
	V. Roddick
	B. Ralston
	Public safety
	J. Brar
	L. Mayencourt
	Small Business Week
	K. Whittred
	C. Evans
	Healthy food
	M. Karagianis
	I. Black

Motions on Notice		755
	Environmental sustainability of government actions (Motion 25)
	S. Simpson
	J. Yap
	L. Krog

V. Roddick: Agriculture and small business are the foundation and future of our province. Plant a seed, nurture it correctly with the right care, the right attention, the right nutrition, and it grows. Business is the seed which grows and blossoms into communities.

October 16 to 22 is Small Business Week in our super, natural province, and the small business round table will be launched, a first which will tour communities to get their input to enable your government to serve and encourage the growth of small businesses throughout the province.

The innovative round table will help us all achieve one of our major goals for the decade ahead, which everyone can agree with: create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada. B.C. is first in job creation, first in growth of housing starts, first in small business confidence, first in investment growth, first for investor immigrants.

B.C. is working. Over two million people are working. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years. We have the lowest youth unemployment since 1990. We have targeted every sector with enthusiasm and dedication.

Our foundation is education. The Industry Training Authority increased apprenticeship by 29 percent in 2004, and 25,000 new post-secondary seats across the province will be available by 2010. New universities in Kamloops and Kelowna, a new SFU campus in Surrey, a new medical school in Prince George and an expansion in Victoria have been created, as well as college expansions across the province.

Our B.C. small businesses make up 98 percent of overall B.C. provincial businesses. Agriculture is a key component. Through the production of food, the agriculture industry touches every man, woman and child in British Columbia every single day. Agriculture and aquaculture are essential components of the British Columbia economy and society and define the unique qualities that make up this exceptional province.

Agriculture is as diverse as the B.C. landscape. From the wheat fields of the mighty Peace, the vast cattle ranches in the interior, the orchards and vineyards of the Okanagan, the fertile fields of the Fraser Valley and the seafood enterprises of Vancouver Island come a wide variety of food products unmatched anywhere else in Canada.

British Columbia farmers, ranchers and aquaculturists grow, raise and produce over 225 different agricultural products, generating farm-gate value of more than $3 billion annually and employing more than 33,000. When these products enter the food-processing, food-wholesaling and food-retail sectors, the food service industry and the export market, the overall contribution to our economy amounts to more than $15 billion annually and sustains over 280,000 jobs.

As agriculture looks to the future, many opportunities and challenges appear on the horizon. With population growth, there will be a need for additional food production, but conversely, there will be greater competition for land and water resources. With increased globalization, export markets will expand, although some imports may harm production of certain domestic agricultural products. With technological advances, new competitive products will provide economic opportunity, but public perception and education will have to be addressed.

Beyond British Columbia's borders great opportunities exist for B.C. food products — wine, berries and greenhouse products — in the rapidly expanding Asian economy. B.C. agriculture needs to position itself better to take advantage of this enormous market before other production areas, such as Alberta and the U.S.A., grab it. We are well placed in the business community, both large and small.

B.C. produces a greater variety of agricultural products, as I've said, over a wide range of geographical and climactic conditions than any other place in Canada. Our VQA wine sales alone increased 22.5 percent over last year, contributing to the success of nearly 5,000 small business exporters in B.C. and representing almost three-quarters of all exporters in the province. Continued growth within the small business sector is vital to build the best system of support in our province.

Small business is the backbone of this system that funds new measures supporting people truly in need. Challenges confront our overall business sector, but agriculture, with all its strength and diversity, is well positioned to meet these challenges and move forward in a sustainable manner.

B. Ralston: It's my privilege to respond to the statement made by the member opposite at this time.

Everyone recognizes that there are a number of challenges facing B.C. agriculture, including access to capital, access to land, a research component that needs to be strengthened, particularly in the agrifood business, and issues of rural and urban conflict.

What I particularly want to talk about at this time is an issue that concerns access to land. On Saturday last, just a couple of days ago, I attended a seminar which was dealing with the issue of the future of the agricul-

tural land reserve in this province. It took place in the Port Kells community hall in Surrey, and understandably, it focused on the Fraser Valley. What was brought to the attention of those people there — and I think there's general agreement about this — is in the long term, there are a number of challenges facing agriculture in this province as a result of changing global conditions both economically and environmentally.

The speaker there talked about the requirement to take a long-term view of agricultural production, particularly in the Fraser Valley. He gave examples of places in other parts of the world where land, particularly historically…. The delta of the Nile had been farmed for 10,000 years. Agriculture in this part of the world is a relatively new experience, although human settlements are based on agriculture over many generations.

When we talk about agriculture and access to land, it's important to talk about the agricultural land reserve, particularly in the Fraser Valley. Now the Fraser Valley is particularly suited to agricultural production. There is good soil and good climate. There is a good water source, and that combination of elements doesn't always occur in every part of the province. It has the longest growing season in the province — over 200 frost-free days. It has mild winters, warm summers, and much of the land is on the fertile floodplain, which makes the soils very good.

This particular part of British Columbia — along with the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island, but particularly in the Fraser Valley — is the largest producer in B.C. of many of the crops that go to market. It's the number one producer in Canada of raspberries, greenhouse peppers and cranberries. The blueberry crop is a projected 85 million pounds for 2006, which would be a record over the 63 million pounds that were produced in 2004.

This is a fertile area for agricultural production of a diverse number of commodities. Indeed, for those who eat the Japanese food sushi, an example was given that in the Fraser Valley they're now producing wasabi, which is a condiment that is used when you eat sushi. Those who are familiar with sushi will know that. That area of the province in the agricultural area has diversified and has expanded in response to markets both here and abroad.

What has happened since 2002, when amendments were introduced to the Agricultural Land Commission and its operation — its budget has been brought before the House in various budgets since 2002 — is that the staff capability at the Agricultural Land Commission has been substantially reduced. For example, dumping on agricultural land has increased, and one commissioner in particular has complained that the commission is not able to respond to the issue of dumping on agricultural land. Given a booming construction industry in the lower mainland and the requirement to deposit fill, this is an issue of real concern throughout the region.

In addition to staff cuts at the commission, therefore reducing its capability to respond to concerns like that, the operation of the commission was restructured. In 2002 a series of six regional panels was created, and each panel has three members. What we were told was…. The members opposite will say: "Well, this is because they're more responsive to regional concerns."

The mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is provincial, and if you're thinking about long-term protection and enhancement of farmland and farming practice in the province, that has to be a provincial concern. As gas prices go up, as farmland is lost — and it's being lost at a very rapid rate in the United States, upon which we depend for many food imports…. Once that land is gone, it becomes increasingly important to be self-sufficient here in British Columbia. What has become….

V. Roddick: The meeting on the weekend was held by the FarmFolk/CityFolk, etc., and was well represented by the Ministry of Agriculture. Our ALR is now within the confines of the Ministry of Agriculture, which is a really important move. Just like the NDP set up the regional panels in the previous government, we have expanded on that. We are extremely concerned with how we deal in this province with our agricultural land. That is why we as a government have set up to have a provincial agricultural plan tied in with the ALR. My riding alone has 22,000 acres of intensive farming.

Our land, food, and community are core values that tie directly into our vision for a golden decade. Local businesses, along with our local food sources, are being challenged by global trade issues and market pressures, urban growth and demands, advancement in transportation technologies and technological innovations. The health, economic prosperity, environmental quality and lifestyle opportunities of British Columbians are directly tied to farming and food production.

The need to develop and optimize the benefits of these linkages for British Columbians can be of a traditional nature, or they can be unique and fun. For instance, student R&D at UBC is looking into biodiesel for cars and to fry your french fries. I can't quite see the connection there, but they insist there is one.

California Vogue article April '05: Alice Waters, a wonderful restaurateur in Berkeley, California, is now attaching herself to the public school system there and involving students in food from seed to plate, and is hungry for more.

Right in our own area, Bishop's Restaurant on 4th in Vancouver…. John Bishop and Gary King of Hazelmere Organic Farms are going around the province filming food production and are going to put all of this on a DVD and produce a cookbook.

So we are doing our bit to make sure we are self-sufficient in food. It isn't just going to be a bit with our provincial plan. Civilization…. Our economy began to

flourish when agriculture began to produce a surplus of food. As Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University's Earth Institute said earlier this month at SFU….

J. Brar: I rise to make my first private member statement today. An issue I want to address is a very important issue of public safety. I'm not here to focus my statement on pointing fingers on this side of the House or on the other side. This is something which I have experienced myself, and I want to share that information with all the members of this House.

In a day when statistics on crime tell us that we are safer than we have been in decades, there are still communities and individuals who live in fear. If we are to believe the statisticians, I live in the place most likely in North America to have your car stolen. In the last month we have learned that 10 percent of grade eight students in Surrey schools have tried crystal meth — a startling number, to be sure.

Even when balanced against other statistics that show we are safe in our homes, people are still justifiably concerned about how to make their community, families and lives safer. The challenge that we as legislators share is how to address these very real concerns in the context of overall dropping rates of crime. When a community such as mine rises up in horror at the brutal murder of two seniors in Bear Creek Park, we are obliged to respond. When meth labs are established and, hopefully, busted by the authorities in our communities, we must address the root cause of those problems. When a gang of four young men gets drunk and takes a drive into Vancouver's Stanley Park and murders a gay man, we ask ourselves: where have we failed our youth, and why have we failed to instil tolerance and compassion in our children? The question is: how do we focus our work in this House without creating more fear in the people and the community that we were elected to represent?

I would like to cite a specific example of how communities can come together and address issues of crime and safety. This is a housing co-op in my constituency known as Valley Village Housing Co-op. For over 20 years Valley Village has been a safe place to live and raise your family. In the past year residents of the Valley Village Co-op have noticed an upswing in the incidence of crime. First, they noticed graffiti on their fences, and then they saw a lot more youth hanging out very late at night. From there, a normally quiet community had panhandling problems and theft occurring in their co-op.

They asked themselves and each other as concerned neighbours: what is happening here in our backyard? Is our community safe? What can or should we do to address this? They did what many others have done before them. They organized themselves. First, they started talking to each other with regard to their shared concerns, and then they contacted their local elected representative for help and guidance. They are good, hard-working people who didn't want to live in fear behind locked doors. They wanted peace in their homes.

I received about 80 letters in a very short time from the people of Valley Village. I would like to share with this House today how we as a community were able to respond to those issues. A couple of weeks ago on a Friday night the residents of Valley Village filled a meeting room at the Newton Library. This was not an angry meeting. This was a group of neighbours concerned about their safety but fully determined to find workable solutions to a complex and vexing problem.

They gathered with bylaw enforcement officers, local RCMP, the co-op executive, Block Watch representatives, several city councillors and their MLA from Surrey–Panorama Ridge. They shared their individual stories with us and with each other. Similarly, professionals provided the information regarding available resources and help to address those issues. They learned that they were not alone. They spoke up. They indicated that it seemed like things were getting worse than they used to be, and they expressed their resolve to take back their community.

In that meeting the residents of Valley Village Co-Op learned that calling the police or bylaw enforcement when they noticed something wrong was only part of the answer. The bigger answer lay in taking responsibility for making their homes and community safer — to watch out for suspicious activities, to write down and report criminal activities, to work together to form an active Block Watch program. They realized that this set of activities not only offers some effective responses to crime, but it also opened up opportunities for them to become active partners in the safety of their own homes.

They are now participating in a safety audit of the co-op building by the bylaw enforcement officer from the city of Surrey, as well as safety audits of their own homes with the help of Surrey RCMP. Will it solve the problem? Perhaps not. But what it seems to have done is bring the community closer through collective efforts. Their organizing has allowed them, with tools and resources, to respond to this very pressing and important community safety issue. It has let them know they weren't alone in addressing the public safety issue and returned some power in a situation where they had previously felt powerless.

I call on each member in this House to continue to use some of the other tools we have, in addition to the legislation, to respond to community issues. In this building we are called together to debate and to deal with the laws. Perhaps more laws are not always the answer at the community level. Perhaps, as elected representatives, in addition to debating and creating bills, we must continue to serve as the problem-solvers

and facilitators to helping communities use existing resources to address public concerns.

L. Mayencourt: First, I'd like to thank the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge for bringing up a subject that is very, very important to all British Columbians, that of community safety. This is an issue that has been really near and dear to my heart because of the community I live in, which is downtown Vancouver. I suppose, really, that the only other city in British Columbia that comes close in terms of population density and crime levels is probably the city of Surrey, so it's appropriate that both of us are talking about this issue.

It's also timely because in the last week we had a report that was put forward by the Justice Review Task Force — specifically, a subgroup of that called the street crime working group. What we have discovered in downtown Vancouver is that we have a lot of crime and have a lot of disorderly conduct. We have a lot of things that are affecting the quality of people's lives in our communities.

It is something that is really important to my community, and I know that in Surrey-Whalley, Surrey–Panorama Ridge and Surrey–Green Timbers, etc. there are very real issues that people are trying to deal with. Now, the member mentioned — I believe he was referring to the gay-bashing of Aaron Webster, a gay man who was murdered in my community.

He also talked a little bit about the incidence of crystal meth in our communities. I'm really glad the Surrey school board did a very comprehensive survey of their students that included asking them about their drug use. It is surprising and shocking, and it gives us cause to get into action when you know that one out of ten students in Surrey school district have tried crystal meth.

When the member was talking, he wanted to ensure that we do not talk in ways that are fearmongering, and I completely agree with him. Sometimes when we bring up individual cases, it can be seen as, you know…. This is something we are focused on, and therefore, it becomes far more emotional. But I think our job as legislators is to come into this House and to talk about the issues that people are concerned with, and in our communities, both Surrey and Vancouver, people are concerned about crime.

This street crime working group decided it would take a look at crime in downtown Vancouver, and I think that the study done by those people — those very capable people — applies to other communities around British Columbia. In Vancouver we have the highest rate of property crime in Canada. Theft from auto is the number one reported crime, and that means there are 17,000 reports of that, but police believe that 75 percent — three-quarters — of the auto thefts are not reported. When we follow it, we see that's true of other forms of crime as well.

It brings us to something that is very important, and as the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge mentioned, it is to bring together the community and to bring together — I want to underline this — every partner in the community. That's what we're seeking to do with the Justice Review Task Force. We have brought together police, Crown counsel, judges and community. We've brought in social and health experts, as well, because we know there are root causes of crime and that those have to be addressed

We're trying to bring together three levels of government — federal government, provincial government and local government — as well as the community to find better solutions for dealing with repeat offenders.

Sixty-five percent of the crime that happens in Vancouver is created by 600 individuals. Imagine if we could reach into the lives of those 600 people and find a way to break the cycle of crime. Imagine if we could find some way of getting to the bottom of what their crime is all about, to deal with some of the issues they face — whether that's addictions, mental health or poverty. The tack that this government is taking is to move forward and bring those agencies all together, bring those partners all together, look at what the problems are and identify them. Then let's do a hard target on those chronic offenders and see if we can make an impact, see if we can make our communities safer, see if we can make our communities restore the quality of life in our communities.

I applaud what the member is bringing up. I think it's very important. I applaud his method of bringing together the community to do an analysis and also to come up with new ways to ensure that crime is dealt with. With that, I'd like to hear more from the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge. I thank him and this House for taking the time to discuss this very important issue.

J. Brar: I appreciate the comments from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I will be frank that comments by the member were very fair and largely without any political flavour.

I'm talking about here how we, as the elected representatives, have a very specific role in this House, tending the lives of the people in a positive way by debating and coming up and introducing new laws, which could also change and provide much better safety to the people. But there is the other part of this whole story, and that is that we do have lots and lots of resources available in the community. In many of the situations changing the law, or fixing the law, or introducing a new law, or changing a new policy and putting together three different levels of government may not be the answer.

The answer in those situations is to provide real leadership to those communities other than writing a simple letter: "We received your letter, and we know about that." Provide real leadership. Put together professionals with those communities, debate the issue,

discuss the issues, and come up with an action plan so that all people start working together, start taking responsibility, start feeling powerful rather than powerless, as the people of Valley Village have done.

I would like to conclude by saying that the answer to many of the problems we have at the grass roots does not lay exclusively on this side of the House or that side of the House, but rather, the solution lies in our combined efforts as elected representatives, public employees and, indeed, all British Columbians to listen respectfully to one another, to use our resources as effectively as possible and reorganize together as compassionate people to work towards finding solutions for those basic problems.

K. Whittred: It is my pleasure to rise in the House this morning to celebrate Small Business Week. Small business is something that I am, personally, very familiar with, having been raised in a household where the income was provided by small business. My husband and son have been involved in small business for many years, and my son continues to operate a small business in North Vancouver.

The last four years have been good for small business in British Columbia, and this is good for all British Columbians, because small business is in fact the heartbeat, the pump, that drives the economy. It is where jobs are created and where people can recognize their dreams and opportunities.

Currently there are 355,000-plus small businesses operating in British Columbia — 6 percent more than in 2001. We all know very well, according to Statistics Canada, that British Columbia has led all provinces in job growth since the end of 2001. In fact, over 240,000 jobs have been created in B.C., the overwhelming majority of which are full-time, and more than 68,000 of these new jobs were created by small business, making small business the key player in a very strong British Columbia economy.

My riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale is a community of small businesses. It is a community where we have a number of niche markets. I'm told by my chamber of commerce that there have been over 99 new members join the chamber in the last year. This represents a significant growth. I'm also told by my local chamber that over 80 percent of that membership is, in fact, representative of small business.

Some of the areas in my community that are, I think, really very unique to the community of North Vancouver–Lonsdale are industries such as the movie industry, built around Lions Gate Studios, and industries which are built around the marine industry. We, of course, are a port in North Vancouver, and we have many, many small businesses that are an adjunct to the major port aspect of the community. Mountain biking, and the spinoff of that particular activity, is becoming very big in my community, with not only many, many bike shops but repair shops and businesses to promote mountain biking. Other forms of ecotourism are springing up all over the place.

I'm also pleased to say that I'm told that North Vancouver has one of the highest proportions of home-based businesses anywhere in the province, and I think that many of those are actually involved with computers and various aspects of that industry. Also, of course, along Lonsdale you will find a very, very active Persian community, and this is reflected in the small businesses, with many restaurants and businesses, art galleries and so on that add flavour — not only to North Vancouver but to the entire lower mainland.

In terms of the economy, small business contributes almost 30 percent of British Columbia's gross national product, and this is, in fact, the highest in Canada, with 47 percent of all British Columbians employed in small business. That is a really very significant number.

Small business is important to the provincial government. We know that running a business is not easy, and we've taken steps to try to make it easier and to make it a more attractive option for young people who want to operate and practise their entrepreneurial skills. Only when small businesses succeed can B.C. hope to provide the jobs, health care and education that will make this the best province in all of Canada.

To try to reach this goal, B.C. has cut red tape by 40 percent. We have done away with 150,000 regulations that will help businesses to operate free of government interference and, therefore, to be able to devote less time and effort to dealing with regulations and more to building and growing their businesses. We have doubled the small business tax threshold to $400,000 so that more businesses are taxed at the lower small business rate. We have lowered corporate taxes, which benefits businesses above the small business tax threshold. These measures taken by government have helped our economy grow, allowing people to find the work they need to provide for their families and allowing the province to generate enough taxes to pay for the high-quality health care that we all want.

The success of British Columbia's small businesses has allowed the government to make strategic investments in both health care and education. We have invested $1.7 billion more for education and advanced education. The government has invested $3.1 billion more for health care.

All of this means that we've seen the unemployment numbers drop. They are the lowest they have been in 24 years. B.C. has created 1,600 net jobs last month, sending the province to a new high for the number of people employed. British Columbia is first in job creation: 102,000 British Columbians left the income assistance rolls to find meaningful and productive work.

Thirty-six percent of all small businesses are owned by women. This is, by the way, the largest in Canada. More and more women across British Columbia are finding financial independence in our small business economy. Small businesses provide 57 percent of all private sector jobs in B.C., jobs which pay the taxes for

our health and education system. The strength of small businesses has contributed greatly….

C. Evans: Firstly, I'd like to applaud the member for her presentation and to thank her for sharing it with me. I'd like to applaud the small business community and the government for the celebration of Small Business Week.

I think, maybe, I was given the job of responding to this presentation because, essentially, that's the work that brought me here. For 15 years, before I was an MLA, I was a contract logger — first as a faller and then as a gippo logger — in that kind of sector which is the sort of non-union little outfit that feeds the industry in British Columbia.

In my analysis, at least from rural British Columbia, it's the small business community that catches all the fish, drills all the wells, falls all the trees, prospects every single bit of ore that's ever been found, hauls every bit of goods that the corporate industry processes, and farms all the food that we produce. So essentially, every single bit of the wealth that British Columbia produces starts and is ultimately delivered by small business.

The corporate class, the smelters of the world and the sawmills have in the last 20 years essentially shed the workers that used to bring the resources to town. That's true from fishing to logging to farming. They just process, and it's the small business community who's picked up all the slack. I want to applaud the federal government, because in that picking up of the slack, they created the Community Futures program and other programs that train those of us who were not born to this work how to do it, so we don't go broke.

As the hon. member knows, 70 percent of small business goes broke in the first year. Our job, I think, as government — and certainly, the federal government has stepped up here — is to attempt to put on courses and train those of us who were trained to be fallers, and not small business people, to be the business people that drive the province.

The way politics in British Columbia has always been organized is that the friends opposite sort of are supported by the corporate class, and the people on my team are sort of supported by the labour community. It is the small business community who, then, has a difficult time to find a way in to talk to government. I think both parties are challenged now that the economy of Canada is changing, now that the industrial community is moving towards smaller and smaller workforces — unorganized workforces, people without a voice — to figure out how to talk to these people and to organize government so it works to support them. When one of those businesses goes broke, in Ymir or Nakusp or Fort St. John, it affects the whole community. It is not like a business going broke in a city of a million people. It has a negative effect on families and individuals but, certainly, also on communities.

So I think we ought to work together — the hon. member and her government and our team — to support those people who are actually now driving the economy.

I haven't seen a job created, a net increase of a job in my constituency, by the corporate sector in 20 years. It has all been shedding workers to small business, and those are the people that we now need to respond to.

K. Whittred: I thank the member for his remarks. I'm very pleased to see that we do agree that, in fact, small business is the lifeblood of our economy. It is certainly incumbent on all members of this House to recognize that small businesses are very, very essential to all of our communities.

One of the commitments that the government made during the election campaign was to create a permanent small business round table. This is, in fact, a step in the direction to which I think the member opposite was speaking. I'm very pleased to see that the first stages of this are underway. I would note that Linda Larson, who is a former mayor and retailer from Oliver — so a person not that far from the member opposite's community — and Kevin Evans of the western Canada Retail Council are going to be co-chairing this particular endeavour.

B.C. businesses are among the most confident in the country, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. According to them, 60 percent of British Columbia members of the CFIB expect a stronger year next year, slightly behind Alberta, which records a 61-percent confidence rate.

I want to note that each year since I have been elected in my community, one of the things I do is an annual walkabout to the small businesses, and as I pointed out before, I have many of them in my riding. I would say that this was certainly true last year. The businesses were expressing confidence. Many of them were in the process of hiring new people. Many were in the process of expanding, wanting to take on new property and so on. There was a real sense of optimism in the community.

I'm told that, across the province, 39 percent of businesses expect to hire more full-time workers compared with only 26 nationally. This was actually what I found when I did my little informal walkabout in my own community. So we must be doing something right, because B.C. is doing so much better than the rest of Canada. Perhaps next year B.C. should have a small business month to recognize how well business is doing in British Columbia, and we should recognize every day of the year how important small businesses are to every region of this province.

M. Karagianis: My statement today actually ties together several of the statements we've already heard this morning. We've heard some statements on agricul-

ture. We've heard a statement on small business. In fact, my statement encompasses both of those.

I'm sure everyone in the chamber today will remember the very successful Buy BC program that ran in this province for so many years and actually promoted agriculture and fresh produce and buying products that were B.C.–grown. In fact, I remember going to the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference and seeing the first laser promotion on a piece of fruit which said, "Buy BC," on a beautiful apple that was given out to all of us who attended that conference.

It was an enormously successful program that really highlighted for consumers that a faithful consumer — purchasing your own products in your own province — will help promote agriculture and keep it alive in British Columbia. Unfortunately, this program was abandoned when this government took office. I think that the agricultural industry is the lesser for that.

But as with anything, a good idea never goes away. So there is a new initiative that has emerged recently that is called Buy B.C. Wild. Buy B.C. Wild is a program to promote and market non-timber forest products in British Columbia and beyond our borders. For anyone who's not familiar with what non-timber forest products are, in fact, those products can be mushrooms, salal, birch bark, berries. They can be any number of things that grow and live within the forest that are not actually trees.

These products can be used for anything from jam to baskets to gourmet food products, home decorating items, crafts and, as well, herbal medicines. Elders in the first nations communities have for a long time known of these products and, in fact, passed on the traditions to their own people for collecting herbal medicines and for sustaining these products within the forest. Based on historic first nations culture, many of these products now have become the new entrepreneurialism and the new small business initiatives for many communities across British Columbia.

First nations, of course, are a leading driver in this. They have for many generations known that managing and harvesting these products for sustainability are at the heart of maintaining an abundance for future users. Currently a number of first nations and non–first nations individuals and entrepreneurs are attempting to revitalize and re-establish the traditional, as well as new, management and harvesting of these products.

Recent years have seen the importance of these products to small communities that have been affected by the downturn in the lumber industry. Raw log exports and the softwood lumber debate have hit many communities very much in the pocketbook, hit economies of small communities across British Columbia. The commercial endeavour to develop this new non-timber forest products industry has evolved and been, I guess, a saving grace for many small communities.

Lest we actually diminish these and think that these are all just little craft businesses or salal picking or mushroom picking of a really minor economic impact, last year the floral market in this country processed $50 million in salal that was picked from forests around British Columbia. The wild mushroom business has become a gourmet market business for restaurants all over the province. In fact, I will draw your attention today to an article in the Globe and Mail": "Cash Crops from the Forest Floor." This article goes on to talk about the very lucrative mushroom business as being an extraordinary economic factor in communities all across British Columbia.

There is a citing here of the chanterelle business in North Vancouver. We're not even talking about small communities out in rural British Columbia; we're talking about an economic factor on the periphery of urban communities. This chanterelle industry is quoted as having 100 pickers currently out picking chanterelles in the market in North Vancouver. A Mr. Winder, one of the company owners that has this mushroom business, says here: "I'm not sure what the dollar value is equivalent to, but it's roughly equivalent to running a small mill." The bottom line is that it's an important sector in the non-timber forest products industry, and we are famous here for it.

In a recent symposium that was held at Royal Roads, these non-timber forest products were all brought together, and the slogan Buy B.C. Wild was actually coined. The symposium was held under this Buy B.C. Wild workshop. A marketplace that was held there during the three- and four-day symposium showcased mushrooms, honey, berry products, salal and many of the bark products that have come out of small communities.

I think that the participants in that were quite shocked to see all of their products sold out in such a speedy manner that they were unable to kind of sustain it over the entire couple of days of the symposium. The mushrooms that were brought in, wild mushrooms from around British Columbia, were bought in the first few hours by every restaurant here in the regional district. Many of those producers and small business owners have now got city contracts with restaurants here in the region and across British Columbia for these products.

I talk about it today because one of the things that Buy B.C. Wild is looking for is support from government, acknowledgment of this potential growth sector for the economy. They are looking for some support and acknowledgment by government. So far, there has been some participation to help get the initial symposium going, but over all, this industry needs our help. It needs promotion, it needs development, it needs seed funding, and it needs to actually be seen as having a role within the Ministry of Economic Development here in British Columbia.

I. Black: I would like to start by thanking my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin for raising this very important topic. I do so with a very slight tongue in cheek, because food is something that I enjoy very

much. I'm well known for my four square meals a day, so this is something I love getting up to talk about.

I know, however, that I'm not alone on either side of the House in acknowledging the importance of healthy food and eating. I'm really encouraged by a lot of the comments I've heard this morning, because they contribute a great deal, and they coincide with one of the five great goals: healthy living and physical fitness.

Our province is home to an abundance of healthy food, from the fertile soil in the Fraser Valley to the fruit baskets in the Okanagan, from cattle country in the Peace and Kootenay regions to the farms and harbours here on Vancouver Island. British Columbia produces some of the most nutritious foods in the world. It is important we support this very important industry that provides employment to hundreds of thousands and pumps literally millions into our economy.

Learning about the Buy B.C. Wild program this morning, it sounds to me like an excellent initiative, and I think it adds to this great industry. The involvement of the first nations people is excellent, as well, because it gives yet another opportunity for them to take leadership in an industry, which is fantastic.

Now, there is room, of course, when you get into such topics of food, to debate about what constitutes healthy food. Some might argue that genetically modified food should not be considered healthy, but the science behind that is quite new and in many ways highly questionable. I think what's more important is for people to eat healthy foods, regardless of whether it's your normal run-of-the-mill groceries or the growing organic industry or, indeed, those products that would come under the Buy B.C. Wild program.

By promoting healthy foods, we are promoting healthy eating. I think it's important to add that it's important we teach and encourage our province's children at a very young age the benefits of good eating habits and get healthy eating to become part of a lifelong routine.

I'd like to say that the B.C. Liberal government is doing its part to promote healthy foods. Just to remind everybody here, during the recent election campaign we did pledge to eliminate junk foods in British Columbia schools within four years of winning the election, and we will expand the fruit and vegetables program to provide a free serving of provincially grown produce to all students by the year 2010.

We've also introduced the ActNow B.C. program to lead the way in healthy living and physical fitness with one of the most comprehensive programs of its kind in North America. On top of that, there's the 2010 Challenge, designed to make our province the healthiest jurisdiction ever to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games. One aspect of the program is the healthy eating component, whose goal is to increase by 20 percent B.C.'s population who eat recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables.

Now, in terms of encouraging our youth to practise healthy diets, our government has initiated a couple of things worth noting. First is Action Schools B.C., a best-practices physical activity and healthy eating model designed to assist schools in promoting healthy living, and there's the school fruits and vegetables program, which is a pilot study, providing a serving of fruits or vegetables two times a week during the school year for elementary school children.

Now, of course, Halloween is fast approaching, and I'm pretty sure none of those products will fall under the Buy B.C. Wild program. As MLAs, we could lead by example at this sweet time of year to preach and perhaps practise some significant moderation. I'd also recommend that everyone check out the province's B.C. HealthGuide website at www.bchealthguide.org for tips and suggestions as to how we could all eat more healthily.

While it's acceptable to treat ourselves once in a while, I think moderation is indeed the key. Our health care system is seeing the increased cases of illness and disease stemming from obesity. As most of you know, obesity is fast becoming the number-one killer in our country. This is a very preventable illness, and the best way to stop it is to look after our bodies to make sure we are eating those magical five servings of fruits and vegetables every day and, indeed, getting regular exercise.

Clearly, our food producers for whom the member is advocating will greatly aid in this goal. I would thank her for bringing them to light for this House as to their importance and their growing success in our province.

M. Karagianis: The purpose of my statement today was to really draw attention to the Buy B.C. Wild program. I appreciate that the previous speaker talked about eating healthily and living a healthy lifestyle, but in fact, the underpinnings of Buy B.C. Wild are about healthy community economics.

For many small communities across British Columbia, this represents a new opportunity for dollars into their community. What I would like to encourage today is for the government to really take a serious second look at the Buy B.C. Wild program and to offer some kind of support. I again go back to this article in the Globe and Mail today. One of the comments that was made by a Mr. Winder, who is involved with the mushroom-picking industry in North Vancouver, is that the B.C. government has been asked repeatedly for funds to determine how many wild mushroom dollars and how much lost tax revenue are being sliced out of our forests. It's an unresolved issue.

I would like to talk today about the fact that this kind of entrepreneurialism actually represents some alternatives for small communities across British Columbia. I recently returned from the Finance Committee tour, where I saw firsthand the devastating effects of the pine beetle on the pine forests of northern British Columbia. In fact, coming away from that, one of the thoughts I had is: what are we going to do after the devastation is over? Once these trees are dead and they've been removed from the land, what are we go-

ing to do in small communities to either replace the forests or to address this after the fact?

In fact, some of these alternatives for small communities are a very real alternative. I actually think this needs to be part of the long-term planning for the forest management practices: to look at non-forest timber products. I think it is important for this government to recognize this on a whole number of levels: (l) because it is healthy eating, (2) because it's healthy economic development and (3) because this is a government that supports small business and entrepreneurs, and this is the new entrepreneurism for the forests and for forest- and small communities–based industries.

I would actually say that I want to encourage everybody to think about buying B.C. Wild products. Think about the honey. Think about the jams. Think about the crafts. Think about all those products that come out of that. Every time you order a bouquet for your mother or your daughter or your friend, think about the salal that goes into that as being part of Buy B.C. Wild.

I would encourage this government to take a strong look at supporting this industry, supporting this promotional initiative. It is built on a very successful model, which was Buy B.C. I want everybody to think Buy B.C. Wild when you see it out there in the marketplace.

S. Simpson: I'm very, very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to this motion. I think it's a motion the principle of which I know both sides of this House would be very supportive of and have been supportive of previously. I'll speak to that in a bit.

As I said, this is, I believe, a very timely and a very critical position that we should as a Legislature be supporting as we head further into this decade. This is particularly important when we think about the positions of the government itself. I'm sure the members on the other side don't need any reminding, but we do know that there have been the five great goals set by the government. One of those goals, as people will know, is to "lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management, bar none." That's an excellent goal, and it's one that I'm sure everybody in this House is very supportive of.

The challenge that we have is: how do we actually accomplish that goal? What do we need to do as a province in order to accomplish that? What do we need to be able to do as legislators to ensure that we accomplish that? What information do we require to ensure that we're doing our job, and what tools or resources would be critical to us to make sure we do that job properly?

It's my belief, and it's the belief of members — certainly on this side of the House — that the establishment of a commissioner for sustainability would go a long way to helping us to be able, in tangible terms, to set in place some tools and a vehicle to help us accomplish the great goals of the government — and, more importantly, to accomplish the objective of the people of British Columbia, which is to have a sustainable province in economic, ecological and social terms.

Before talking about this commissioner a little bit more, though, I'd like to talk a little bit about what sustainability is. As everybody in this House certainly knows, and I'm sure we've all seen it, sustainability has become quite a buzzword over the last number of years. It's been embraced by all sorts of folks who now believe that this terminology…. I think that because it's ingrained in the public psyche, and because the public wants a sustainable province, business interests, government interests, the non-profit sector, the media, everybody talks to this question of sustainability these days and talks about what that is. Unfortunately, some would say that the term "sustainability" has now been co-opted by a number of interests, and how they reflect sustainability is not necessarily how I believe — and, I think, most people in British Columbia believe — sustainability should be seen.

What I'd like to do first is lay out a definition that I know has been spoken about in this House previously. That definition, I think, is not a bad one. The definition is: sustainability is the integration of environmental, social and economic considerations to ensure that the use, development and protection of the environment enables people to meet current needs while ensuring that future generations can also meet their needs. I think that's not a bad definition of where we need to go.

When we talk about sustainability, we often hear talk about the three-legged stool. It is one of the terms that's used — economic, environmental and social considerations and how we need all of those in balance in order to be able to accomplish sustainability. We know that we thrive by having a successful economy. We know that in this province having a successful economy certainly means that we exploit the resource sector. It's what we need to do, and we will continue to do that. It's obviously very important. It's important to jobs; it's important to families; it's important to communities.

We want to make sure that we can continue to do that — and to do it in a way, though, that is sustainable. That means we need to take a measured approach to that. It means we need to consider on an ongoing basis what it is that we're trying to accomplish. It means that when we look at our bottom line, our bottom line can't simply be an economic bottom line. We need a bottom line that's more complete and more holistic than that, that looks at the other factors — the other legs of the stool, as it's often called — and that includes environmental considerations.

We need to look at the environment and consider how we protect the integrity of the environment. When we're talking about the environment, what we're really talking about here is not taking an absolute conservationist approach that says you'll touch nothing. We're talking about saying that we need to consider how the environment works. Our ecology, our environment, is very different in different places around different areas of resource and different issues. We need to think those things through in a complete and a pretty thoughtful way when we're making decisions about economic development, when we're making decisions about other opportunities. What we need to do is really make the environment much more of a consideration than I believe it presently is with government decisions.

Also, the third leg of that stool is the social sustainability. Increasingly, we're hearing about that, and we're hearing about the pressures. We've talked a lot about the pressures in our communities, and we will hear more about them.

We've heard about homelessness. We've heard about problems around health care. Obviously, education is on top of people's minds these days. All of those are social considerations, and when we talk about sustainability, we need to consider those factors as well. We need to look at our sustainability in a way that keeps us whole and that includes social considerations.

Really, the issue there is finding that true balance of how to measure these three particular areas. How do we do that? How do we find the balance in a way that ensures we create opportunities for our communities, our families, our children and people today? How do we ensure that those opportunities will be available in the future as well?

It's a big challenge. It's not easy, by any means. It's not something that's black and white. It's measured, and it's often shades of grey. We need to think through how we accomplish that. Because of that, I tend to add a fourth component to the economic, environmental and social considerations when I think about sustainability. That fourth component is engagement, and I think it's absolutely critical. I think the success of a sustainable model, if we're serious about it, is about how we engage people in that discussion about sustainability.

How do we talk to communities about what's important to them? How do we communicate the choices that people have, and how do we develop public ownership of the issue of sustainability? That's a challenge, and it's not an easy one. I do believe, though, that people in British Columbia…. In my previous work before being elected here, I worked for an organization called Smart Growth B.C. as their director of policy and communications. It's an organization that worked a lot with local governments, with academics and with the provincial government, among others, looking at urban growth management.

We provided advice and assistance on how communities grow, whether it be around housing and transportation, about water and waste management or about urban planning. That was our work, and we did a lot of work around the province, particularly in the high-growth areas. The thing we understood as we went through all of that was that the education of the public was really the critical piece.

You can write every regulation under the sun, but if the people of British Columbia don't take ownership of it and understand why this is a good thing for them and why they may be being asked to do something that for them might seem like a bit of an inconvenience today but from which there's significant value down the road for their kids, their grandkids or their community…. When people understand that and understand it in a way where they're a part of a meaningful discussion — where they're not being patronized or being talked down to but are part of a discussion about how and why those choices are made and what, in fact, we should be doing to accomplish that long-term sustainable view — I think people embrace that.

The reason I think that is the one thing I learned through my time in my previous work is that the people of British Columbia get it. Inherently, they get it. They may not understand all the buzzwords, all the jargon and the lingo. They might not understand the academics when they spin it out, but people in British Columbia get it: there is a balance here, we need to have economic opportunity, we need to protect the environment, and we need to take care of people to make sure everybody's needs are met in social terms. If we do that, this will be a better place.

They understand that, but it's then getting them past the gut understanding of that to saying: "Okay, how do we actually accomplish that, and what does it mean for people's lives on a day-to-day basis?" That's a big piece of what this is, and a critical role around that is, of course, the role of education. It's our need to educate ourselves and clearly, as we educate ourselves, to be educating all the people of British Columbia and

It will mean very different things in different places. Sustainability in downtown Vancouver and sustainability in Golden are two different things, and they need to be dealt with at a local level. It's very much a local or community strategy that needs to be adopted.

To do that, I think, we need to engage the public in that discussion. So I'm hoping that we can have some agreement on what sustainability is and, certainly, some agreement on the importance of advancing the notions of sustainability.

Part of the question, I guess, is: why do we need a commissioner? Why would we want and why would we need a commissioner of sustainability in British Columbia? Why do we need another person on the payroll, so to speak? Well, the first thing, I think, is to operationalize that great goal of government. When we have these great goals, sometimes you need to put some effort into making them more than rhetoric, and I'm sure that the government wants to make their great goals more than rhetoric. I think they need to apply some resources.

At present we're not seeing those resources being applied to accomplishing that great goal, so having a commissioner would help us down the road, because we would have somebody who could provide us some insight, oversight and guidance on how we operationalize that great goal. You know, Mr. Speaker, somebody said to me one time when we were talking about sustainability…. It was somebody who has spent a lot of time working on this issue. They said: "Sustainability is a journey; it's not a destination. It's a road that you continue down." I think that a commissioner would provide us a bit of a guide for our journey, and we certainly are in need of a guide on the question of sustainability. That's clear as we see the movement in this province and as we move forward, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in the future.

One of the things that we need to do, and this is where a commissioner could be very helpful, is to move the question of sustainability — of environmental integrity of those issues — across the government and across ministries. Currently, and I had the opportunity…. I was in the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development earlier this session. We had some discussion during the minister's estimates about how the ministry…. When it's looking at investment and the economic strategy of British Columbia, how, in fact, does the question of sustainability and environmental integrity play into that economic strategy?

As the minister said at that time: "Well, you know, we seek advice from the Ministry of Environment on those questions when we're putting that together. And when investors come in, the Ministry of Environment tells those investors what their expectations are in terms of meeting environmental objectives."

Well, that's a good thing, and I'm glad that that occurs, but the reality is we need to do more if we're serious about sustainability. I believe that it's time for every ministry to look at sustainability as one of the considerations in the development of service plans. Every ministry develops a service plan that looks out over three years or so. The Crowns have service plans. All of them should have measurable plans for sustainability within the context of those service plans. That should be a piece of what they do.

If we had a commissioner responsible for that and responsible to this House, that commissioner could work with every ministry and with those Crowns to ensure that those plans were in place. That minister would be in a place to comment on those plans if and when they deemed it appropriate to do that. We can't view sustainability as something that the Ministry of Environment does and nobody else deals with — that we'll talk to the Ministry of Environment when we have a sustainability question. It needs to be something that we ingrain in the psyche of all the ministries and that becomes part of the plan for all the ministries.

We need an independent voice. We need an independent voice that will tell us how we're doing, will tell us when we're not doing very well and will acknowledge when we're doing well. We need somebody, a commissioner's office, a person who has the expertise and the standing to be able to provide advice — whether it be advice to ministers, to ministries or to Crowns — on how we can do better and on the kinds of approaches and steps we can take to improve our efforts in the area of sustainability, because, as we know, the pressures on government to create economic opportunity and development are great. There's no doubt about that.

An example here is…. Clearly, the government has a very large focus on oil and gas matters at the moment, and that's because there's significant economic opportunity there. We're realizing that, and I understand that, and I think there's certainly logic in that. But, you know, when we look at oil and gas, as when we look at the exploitation of any of our resources, it requires an accountable and empowered steward whose job is to ensure that government is meeting sustainability objectives as they meet those economic objectives. It requires somebody who has the standing and the responsibility to call us all to task when it's appropriate to do that, to say we can do better or to say we're not considering all of the implications of decisions we're making and should consider them in a more thoughtful way. We are in challenging times, and we do need that independent, empowered voice that will look at issues.

As we know, there is no shortage of issues today where sustainability is a critical matter. I'd just like to touch on a few of the things that sit on our table today. There will be many, many more into the future.

First of all, we have the question of climate change. We know that climate change is an issue that goes across the government. Every ministry, I believe, is affected by climate change in the decisions they make. We know that for many years we always believed….

We look at the pine beetle. Well, we know that it was believed the beetle would manage itself. If we had the proper weather and if had our cold spells periodically, the beetle would manage itself. But we went through seven or eight years without getting the cold spells that we needed to do that, and we know the situation that we're in today. That's a climate change question.

There is the issue with the sockeye salmon and the issue now, potentially, with the pinks. We're starting to see real questions about the returns on those salmon and why those returns are lower. Well, we have people from the federal government, from Fisheries and Oceans and marine biologists who are telling us that, among a number of considerations, the warming of oceans is a significant issue around the return of those salmon and the numbers. The warming of those oceans relates again to climate change.

We have communities like Invermere. We have communities where they are having concerns now about things like the snowpack and about the effects on fresh water, because the snowpack is not what they had anticipated it to be. Again, they're questions around climate change.

This is an issue that we will be dealing with for a very long time. Clearly, British Columbia can't resolve the climate change issue on our own, but we need to make determinations about what things we can do in our own house in British Columbia to meet our responsibilities, to do our part. Frankly, I'm not confident that we're doing that, and I'm not confident it is the priority that it should be.

We have responsibilities. We have issues coming up like the coastal forest agreement, which we know is percolating out there. At some time in the weeks or months in front of us we will see an agreement, presumably, if the government can resolve the matters with first nations, with the industry and with the environmental interests and bring together this coastal forest agreement, which will be groundbreaking if it reflects the discussions that have gone on to date.

We're going to see things like what's called this ecosystem-based management of our forests, which is a very innovative and very interesting idea. But as we start to measure those things, it would be very helpful to have a commissioner of sustainability in this province who could look at those things and say that they are accomplishing what they were expected to accomplish or that they're not accomplishing it — an independent voice, independent from the Ministry of Forests, independent from the Ministry of Environment, independent from government.

In aquaculture we know that a committee will be struck here sometime in the coming days or weeks around the question of aquaculture and sustainable aquaculture. That committee will go out and do its work. We know that the pressures are on today. We have pressures around the Broughton Archipelago and whether we should be fallowing the Broughton right now in terms of the fishery for the next period of time. There are challenges around whether the science is right. Do sea lice create the problems that we believe, or not? This committee is going to do work on this. But again, it would be a good thing to have an independent voice who had some responsibility to look at the sustainability of our fishery, to think about the wild stocks, to think about these impacts and to provide some advice.

It would be good to have an independent voice who could tell us whether the 30-percent cut in the Ministry of Environment, in terms of staffing…. Much of it that was conservation officers, scientists, scientific technical officers and biologists. What has the impact of that cut been, and how should we address that? It's somebody that could provide advice to the government about, maybe, whether we should be restoring some of those 300 positions that were eliminated.

The pine beetle recovery. That issue will be before us for the next number of years. Clearly, there are questions about the resource, but how do we meet that challenge? How do we replant? What do we replant? How do we respond to the habitat that's being affected by the beetle kill? All of these are questions that a number of ministries are engaged in and having discussion around. Again, it's a place where an independent voice would be welcomed, I believe, and would be of value.

Of course, we know that oil and gas expansion is happening across the province. I know from comments that the Minister of Energy has made previously that he will be enthusiastically promoting that. As we move down that road, the question really has to be: as we do that, what kinds of sustainability measures or screens should be put in place, as we expand that industry, to ensure that we are protecting the integrity of the environment; to be sure we are looking down the road at those issues that will be before us; to make sure that we are, in fact, accomplishing what we need to accomplish?

The same thing in coal exploration. It holds true, as well, in other areas — with our Crowns. We know, for example, that very soon the expectation is, if reports in the media are correct, that B.C. Hydro will be coming back to talk about Site C. What is the future of Site C, and what are the trade-offs? Are there options to Site C? Is Site C the best option? It may be. Are there other options? What are the things that need to be considered in the assessment of Site C? What's the discussion that needs to happen? Are there independent voices that we should be listening to? Could a commissioner of sustainability play a role in that dialogue around Site C? I believe they could.

It's not just resource issues. Those issues are all critical, but there are critical issues in our urban areas. I look in my community. There's a very heated discussion in the lower mainland, as we know, over questions around the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and around the highway. That's a very engaged debate with some very strong views on both sides of that question, as there are on both sides of the river.

It would be very helpful, frankly, to have an independent and thoughtful voice that could look and say: "You know what? The Minister of Transportation did

consider all the options, and information does suggest that that's all been looked at in a thoughtful way." Or to be able to say: "You know what? There are significant gaps." The commissioner may say there are significant gaps that need to be filled before we can determine whether or not this is the right option to meet transportation needs in the lower mainland. But that discussion isn't going to happen in the way that it could if we had an officer who had those responsibilities.

Of course, there always is the environmental integrity of investments. Whether it's the increasing opportunities and challenges of China…. As we look at our opportunities to increase investment and trade with China, what are the environmental and the sustainability questions related to that?

There are always the challenges with our friends in the United States, and we have issues I've raised in this House. We've talked about things like the Terasen Gas sale and the environmental record of the suitor for Terasen Gas, Kinder Morgan. We have raised, on this side of the House, a number of issues around the environmental record of that company and whether we should be more cautious than we are being today about this sale. It might be helpful to have an independent voice who could help guide us through some of that discussion. These are only a few of the issues that we're facing, and we will see more every day.

A commissioner would also have the ability to talk about innovative new ways of approaching things. For example, we use the gross domestic product today as the way that we measure progress. The gross domestic product is a valuable measurement, and it's a valuable tool, but it was never meant to really determine what our quality of life is. There are better models being advanced now, whether things like the genuine progress index or other models like that, that measure a much broader sense of things, including environmental and social considerations. If we had a commissioner of sustainability, they may have the possibility of being able to explore that question more completely and talk to us as legislators about whether we wanted to have a broader view of how we measure progress rather than simply through the GDP — which is a good measurement, but it's an incomplete measurement.

The other thing I'd point out is that, you know, this idea is not a new idea. There may be some members here who sat on this side of the House back in 2001 and who may remember that they would have voted for a motion at that time for a bill called the Environment and Sustainability Statutes Amendment Act, 2001. That was an act that established just this kind of position.

It was a position that was supported by the members of the government when they were then sitting in opposition. I know that at the time, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who was then the Environment critic, said in second reading debate: "As I said, we'll be supporting the bill…. I think everyone in this House supports the necessity for environmental auditing for sustainability." He went on, and he had some administrative questions about the function of the bill, but he was very clear when he said that the then opposition would be supporting the bill. In fact, I believe they did vote for the bill.

There was some concern raised, though, by the members on the other side when they sat in opposition on this. I think they were valid concerns, and they're concerns that I would have shared. The bill that was proposed and adopted in 2001, the act that was passed then, created this sustainability commissioner as an officer of the Auditor General's office. They were placed in that office as a member there, and they reported to the Environment Committee of the Legislature. That was the intention of where they reported.

It's interesting that at the time there was concern raised, and it was raised by a past House Leader on the government side. It was then Mr. Farrell-Collins, who was then the member for Vancouver-Fairview. He raised concern because he wasn't sure about the accountability of that position, being that it was in the Auditor General's office. Mr. Farrell-Collins said at the time, and I believe this was from committee stage:

Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, I think that was good advice. As you may reflect, this is the advice we've been giving the government over a children's commissioner — that we should be doing that.

Certainly, if the government were to embrace, as they did in 2001 when they sat in the opposition benches…. I'd be happy for them to embrace the idea of this commissioner now and bring it forward and make them an officer of the Legislature. I think that would be an excellent idea. Much in the same way as we have with the Auditor General, the freedom-of-information commissioner and the Ombudsman, at some point when wisdom will prevail on that side of the House, we may have an independent children's commissioner again too.

We face many complex challenges in our economy with our ecology and with the social infrastructure of this province. On both sides of this House I think we all do what we believe to be best in order to meet those challenges and to try and meet them as best we can. However, I guess the reality is that it is a big challenge, and we don't always — I don't believe today, from my

limited experience here — have the kind of resources available to us to make the best decisions we can. I do believe we need to have more independent, thoughtful, knowledgable support for the work we do as legislators. The question of sustainability is such a fundamental one that weaves its way through everything we will do over the next however-many decades. It says to me that it is as critical an issue as an Auditor General.

It is as critical an issue as freedom of information. It is as critical as an Ombudsman — that we have somebody here who speaks for that issue, who thinks those things through, who can provide advice, who could provide annual reports to this House on how we're doing, who can help us measure how we're meeting the challenges. We all know that we're doing the best we can. I believe on both sides we will do the best we can to meet those challenges, but it would be very helpful for us all to have somebody here who was, in fact, saying when we're doing a good job and when we're not doing such a good job. That's the kind of role this position could play.

The other thing this position could do is provide an excellent vehicle for education in our province. As we continue to talk to the people of British Columbia about sustainability and about what that means in practical and tangible terms, we should be starting to think about how we do this in the schools. The question of sustainability, of how we measure things, should be a bigger issue in the schools. Potentially this position, somebody with this responsibility, could play an important role in getting us there.

You know, I think about kids in school these days, and there are many of them. I mean, they don't understand getting out of the minivan. It's into the minivan, out of the minivan to sports and back into the minivan. There are other ways to do these things. Maybe we need to talk about that a little bit more. Maybe somebody who had this responsibility and the respect of a position like this in an office like this could help our schools and help our young people to better understand the importance of sustainability, how we begin to get at that and what the practical challenges are of getting there.

You know the people of B.C. want accountability. They want transparency, and they want independent advice and oversight on critical public policy issues. The government has told us many, many times that they are one of the most accountable and transparent governments in this country, and apparently for all time immemorial.

S. Simpson: I'm glad to see that at least one member on that side believes it.

I really think the issue here is that if that is the objective of the government…. I certainly take them at their word that they want to be as accountable and transparent as possible. We know that through the work this side did when we were government and then advances on that by the government, our budgeting now is as transparent as any in this country and more so than most.

We can do the same thing on questions of sustainability and environmental integrity. But we need to put the building blocks in place to make that happen, and the first of those building blocks, I believe, is the creation of this kind of a position as an independent officer of this Legislature who can speak to us, speak to these issues and report in a public way on how we're doing. This side would be very pleased to work with the government to develop the framework and the mandate for a commissioner of sustainability. We would embrace that opportunity if the government felt that they wanted to follow through on what they said yes to in 2001.

The question is: will government work? Will the government really take up the challenge of its great goal on the environment? Will the government truly say: "We meant it when we wrote it, and we're going to put the pieces in place to accomplish that goal in a way that we can all be proud of"? My hope is that we will see from the government sometime over the next while that there was more than rhetoric to the great goals and that they're prepared to invest in British Columbia, in our environment and in the integrity of our province, and create this position.

J. Yap: It's an honour and a privilege for me to respond, to speak on this motion. I appreciate this opportunity. The member for Vancouver-Hastings said it right. This is an issue which all of us — all British Columbians and all members of this House on both sides — take very seriously, and that is the environment and the importance, the need, for us as stewards of the environment to ensure that we're doing all we can and that we're getting the results to sustain our environment.

I will be speaking against this motion, not because we don't share the same goal, as has been pointed out. This is one of our great goals. Our government has set a sustainable environment — a great fisheries and water management system — as one of our great goals. What I would like to share with you in the time that I have is a little bit of discussion going back into a bit of history. Let's talk about the NDP record, which — the member talked about rhetoric — is actually long on rhetoric but short on results. The NDP are mostly talk and very little action. Our government has delivered results, and at the end of the day, I believe that that is what matters to British Columbians.

First, the history lesson. Let's go back in history. The member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned that in 2001 this proposition of introducing a commissioner was debated here in the House. He's correct about that, but actually, if we go back further in history, this started back in 1995, when there was a press release by the NDP government about the urgent priority of implementing a sustainability act. That was a press release, and there was probably a great communications

program, but the act was never enacted. In fact, in December 1997 the NDP Environment Minister of the day, Cathy McGregor, admitted that the sustainability act, which was what was announced, was no longer part of the government's plan. That was on the record.

It is true that in March of 2001, on the eve of the election of that year, NDP Environment Minister Ian Waddell introduced the Environment and Sustainability Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, which would establish a commissioner. And yes, the official opposition of the day did not oppose the bill. But following the election of that year, in 2001, the Finance Minister made this statement:

As the member indicated, the Auditor General has the full latitude as an independent officer of this House to undertake any and all reviews, including environmental sustainability reviews. In fact, during the second reading of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the Minister of Finance stated: "The government believes that the Auditor General is in a very good position to undertake environmental auditing without the need for a commissioner…."

In 2002 the Auditor General released his initial report and had the following conclusions. There were three fundamental conclusions that required follow-up, and these were, very quickly, as follows. "First, the foundation needed for a sound program is lacking." These are the words of the Auditor General. "Second, there are significant gaps in the information ministries and agencies need to develop management plans and to make resource allocation decisions. …And third, without a clear, coordinated program for guiding contaminated site management activities, ministries and agencies are unable to account in a meaningful way on their progress." These are the words of the Auditor General.

In December 2004 the Auditor General did a follow-up report: "I am pleased that management has accepted our recommendations and has taken action to implement them." So in fact, we do already have an officer of the Legislature who has the ability, has the latitude and can be directed by this House to undertake reviews and to undertake the studies and analyses and provide the kind of information that the hon. member has said is important — and that we agree is important, and that can and is taking place.

Interestingly, if the office of a commissioner of the environment is so important, why was this not part of the 2005 NDP platform? A perusal of this platform would indicate this was not included. In fact, the NDP platform called for a 25-percent reduction in funding for management of contaminated sites, which goes counter to the image our colleagues on this side of the House like to portray, that of being very concerned with the environment and sustainability.

Another example of NDP action versus rhetoric I'd like to bring up, going back in history again, is Burns Bog in Delta, which is a jewel of an ecosystem in the lower mainland, five times the size of Stanley Park. Curiously, under the previous NDP government, there were actually proposals for covering Burns Bog with concrete, turning it into industrial sites, a high-tech park, and even relocating the PNE to Burns Bog, that jewel of an ecosystem in the lower mainland.

As a further point of interest and curiosity, the current member for Vancouver-Hastings was on the board of directors of the PNE at the time, and there's no record anywhere of the member ever speaking up against this potential travesty to our environment.

J. Yap: As I said earlier, results are what counts, results rather than rhetoric, and in the last four years the B.C. Liberal government has established 286 wildlife habitat areas comprising over 650,000 hectares and 26 ungulate winter ranges totalling over 2.2 million hectares. In contrast, under the NDP, only four wildlife habitat areas were established comprising 80 hectares, and zero ungulate winter ranges were established.

In summary, our government has done much and will continue to take very seriously — as we've said, we've enshrined it as one of the great goals — our environment. This will continue to be a priority. We'll continue to get results, and we believe — this is a word I've learned today — that we are already operationalizing this priority through the efforts of government.

We will continue to meet these challenges of sustaining our environment. We are already doing it. There is no need to increase the size of government or, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings said, to increase the payroll in a day and age when we have to find ways to more effectively deliver the kinds of services that British Columbians expect, including sustaining the environment.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise to speak to this motion this morning. I could not overlook the comments of the member just prior.

I would remind this House, of course, that under the NDP the percentage of this province in protected status literally doubled in that decade. It was the previous NDP government that brought in the Forest Prac-

tices Code, which disappeared after this government was elected in 2001. It was the NDP government that made the Ministry of Environment one of the most important ministries in its government. It had a long, long history recognized around the world. Indeed, it was the actions of this government that led to the former Premier, Mike Harcourt, being awarded an international award for the work of the previous government around the issue of the Tatshenshini wilderness.

I don't want to debate too much this morning. I do want to offer my compliments to the member for Vancouver-Hastings for his very comprehensive, thoughtful presentation to this House. The establishment of a commissioner for the environment would be a firm statement by the province and its people, through the voices in this Legislature, of the importance that we place on environmental issues. We have in the past in this House created an Auditor General, a children's commissioner, a freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. We have in very direct ways said to society and to British Columbia at large that these are important — that these considerations, areas and topics are worthy of having an independent person available to the people of British Columbia to ensure that the people's business is being conducted appropriately in those areas.

What we are really talking about this morning is the issue of trust. George Schultz, when he spoke at the Iran-Contra hearings, said it was the coin of the realm — trust. Ultimately, what we do in this House when we fail to support a motion of this nature is, essentially, say to the public: "Trust us; trust us." But the public doesn't trust us. The polling tells us that the public doesn't trust us. The voter turnout tells us repeatedly that we are not trusted. What we can do in this House by supporting this motion is say to the public of British Columbia that what has become a buzzword and yet has worked its way into the language and into the consciousness of the public is important — that is, sustainability.

It is even more important now that we in this House face an election every four years. The former system, when elections could be called at any time, was, if you will, an escape hatch for controversy. The public could make clear to government that it would be appropriate for the government to go back to the people to seek a mandate for its continued policy and programs. By limiting it to a four-year term — which, frankly, has brought this House many benefits — it nevertheless, I think, in the public mind removes that opportunity for the kind of criticism or contribution that is important.

Therefore, the appointment of a commissioner in this area helps restore public trust in the whole process. It's a forward-looking concept. It would put British Columbia where British Columbia historically has always wanted to be and often has been — and that is on the cutting edge.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings put it so well this morning: surely, in this House, we all appreciate now the importance of climate change and that everything we do — the way we have structured our society, the communities we have developed, particularly in this country in a northern climate, all of that — has related back to the environment. We cannot now, in a province that is so dependent on resource extraction, that is enjoying the economic benefit of high commodity prices…. Surely it is time for us, in a period of relative prosperity, to consider the issues of the environment while we have the economic opportunity, if you will, to do so. We have a $1.3 billion surplus. The members opposite have bragged about it in many of their remarks so far this session. And surely the government of British Columbia is in a position now to appoint a commissioner for the environment. Surely, now, that opportunity is available to us.

Everything we do to supply our society is either extracted or grown and, thereafter, a combination. We extract things from the earth that we use to fertilize in our growing. Everything relates back to that concept. China has grown crops on land literally for thousands of years — thousands of years. All great civilizations are based on agriculture, whether it's the Indus River Valley, the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates or the Nile. If we are to continue as a species to survive on a finite planet, then surely we should be talking about the environment. Is it too much to ask that this government in this day and age be prepared to have one of its great goals, if you will, audited by someone who is independent of political whim, someone who is independent of influence, someone who is independent of the contributions that are still made under our present electoral system by either unions, individuals or corporations?

It surprises me that the members opposite could be opposed to such a forward-thinking, correct and appropriate motion as is before the House today. Surely it is appropriate for us in this time to make decisions based not just on our present needs, but on the needs of those that will come after us. I can go on at length talking about all the great quotes that have filled the mouths of various speakers over time about how much we owe to the next generation, to our grandchildren. I don't think I have to talk about that today. My suspicion is that all of the hon. members of this House understand it.

All that this side of the House is asking through this motion today is that this government support an independent person to examine what we are doing as government in our society to assess those things that will have an impact for generations.

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