2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 5, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 3, Number 6

[ Page 867 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2009

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. I. Chong: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

FARMERS AND FARMS

N. Simons: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure to be able to stand here and talk about farms and farmers.

Let me start by thanking those who engage in agricultural production in Powell River–Sunshine Coast and, indeed, throughout the province. The fruits of your labour, literally and figuratively, nourish the people of this province. I think it's important that we recognize that, probably, there's nothing more important in the province than ensuring that we have adequate food, healthy food and food that is created and consumed by people in this province for our health and to ensure the protection of our environment.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Speaking about food safety, speaking about the importance of promoting agriculture in our province, I would consider it important for government to take special attention for…. When we consider that we have some policies in place that encourage agricultural production and others that make it difficult for farmers to actually make a living in this province doing what our communities want — and that is to be able to consume healthy, locally grown produce….

The agricultural land reserve in my constituency in the upper Sunshine Coast consists of approximately 9,500 hectares and in the lower Sunshine Coast, 4,051 hectares. For people who have trouble conceptualizing area, the size of a Canadian football field is about two-thirds of a hectare. So if you can imagine running 110 yards and then 18 more metres…. I'm going to mix up my measurements. Essentially, what we're dealing with when we talk about food production is the amount of area required for specific crops.

[1005]

Now, in Powell River–Sunshine Coast we have a lot of farmers, a lot of people raising food, but probably in my constituency the amount of food we get locally represents about 1 percent of the food. The food that's grown and consumed locally represents 1 percent.

When you're considering food safety and food systems, I think we need to contemplate the health impacts of the food system; the environmental impact; and of course, in remote communities, the safety impact of food systems. We need to actually make specific policies in order to preserve people's ability to get food in times of crisis.

If you're a ferry-dependent community and you rely on 99 percent of your food coming from away, as soon as your ferries stop running, you've got a very short period of time in which to make plans and to address the pending lack of food. On that basis alone, I believe that government's responsibility to ensure the public has access to food needs to go beyond just speaking about it and actually encouraging communities to implement programs that will provide for that security. If a disaster happens in a food-producing region of North America, people on the Sunshine Coast and people in Fort Nelson and people in Invermere are going to feel the impact of that.

In order to reduce the potential impact of disasters affecting our food supply, we need to promote local production of food. That local production of food will sustain us through difficult periods of time, and that's just one of the benefits of local production of food.

The environmental costs of bringing food from faraway lands in order to feed our appetites are also having a negative impact on our environment. The amount of carbon emissions from the transportation of food is significant, and that's the second reason why we need to make sure that we promote local production and consumption of food.

Obviously, in terms of health, we also recognize that our health benefits from fresh food, and it benefits from the ability to access that food in a manner that ensures that our nutritional values remain high. What we see from the mass consumption of heavily processed food…. We do not benefit in the same way from the nutritional values that should be present.

I'm not even going to really go into detail about the impacts of the overchemicalization of our soil. The erosion of our soil and the disappearance of the values in that soil is a result of overuse, monocrops and various other practices that tend to eliminate our ability to maximize the use of that soil. In terms of productivity it's quite clear that smaller farms and medium-sized farms actually benefit local communities not just because of the access to local food but because they tend to promote the viability of the future use of that land.

Now, in Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. Just to give an idea, Stanley Park is 400 hectares. If people can picture Stanley Park, 400 hectares, that might help in the analysis of what I'm hoping to say.

What we need to do is ensure that policies of government protect the land base, protect the right of farmers to use that land to produce food for local communities,
[ Page 868 ]
and policies need to be geared towards local food manufacture and sale. If we don't do that, we're turning our backs on the health benefits of that food, we're turning our backs on the environmental benefits of that food, and we are risking an overreliance on a supply of food that we won't be able to access in times of disaster and emergency.

[1010]

We know well that we are unable to predict what calamities may occur. Because of that, it behooves us to be better prepared.

J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to respond to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast's statement and appreciate his choice of topic today. Agriculture, and the agrifood sector, is a very important industry in British Columbia — very diverse — and there are many key elements that go into a successful agrifood industry. I just wanted to mention a few of them, starting with farmers themselves.

As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast mentioned, it's the people that really drive the industry, and we have 22,000 farms in British Columbia. A lot of those are part-time farmers. There's certainly a significant commercial agricultural sector, but a lot of part-time farmers, as such, do operate on the Sunshine Coast and Powell River area.

Farmland. The member mentioned the agricultural land reserve, a very key government policy that provides the land base over the long term for agriculture to operate on — a policy framework that establishes water supply, another key element for agriculture.

I wanted to mention the longstanding policy framework for regulated marketing in this province, which is part of a national marketing system for farm products under our B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act. These regulations and this framework cover about 40 percent of the industry, representing mainly dairy and poultry industries but also some very progressive farm programs. Federal-provincial farm programs such as the Growing Forward program, which was recently renewed by the two levels of government and all the provinces — a five-year program, $553 million over that period of time to support non-regulated industries in agriculture.

Things like crop insurance — or what was traditionally called crop insurance, now better known as production insurance under the AgriStability program — are very, very important for the ongoing viability of agriculture.

I want to mention some non-governmental ingredients such as capital. A lot of agriculture now, particularly the commercial side, is very, very capital-intensive. So the involvement of credit unions, commercial banks and Farm Credit Corp. are very integral to the success of agriculture.

The labour supply. Agriculture has specialized training needs, and I want to cite as an example the horticultural industry, which works closely with Kwantlen College to develop the training and the labour supply that they need.

Seasonal farmworker program and the temporary worker program. Both programs are partnerships between the provincial and federal government that are very important to the success of agriculture.

The member mentioned food safety. Food safety is an integral part of marketing agricultural products in the 21st century, and it's really a partnership of government, agriculture and the marketing sector. Viable processing and marketing partners are critical. I want to mention — as well as, again, the commercial partnerships in our processing plants and marketers — direct farm marketing and agritourism, both of which have expanded in recent years and I think have direct application in the member's riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast and all over British Columbia.

The agritourism sector is growing in leaps and bounds, and I think that it represents a frontier in terms of new direct marketing by farmers in combination with a tourism product that is new. It is fresh. It is differentiated as something different that has appeal for people.

Direct farm marketing statistics indicate continued growth in that sector. In the Fraser Valley, for example, where I'm from, a hundred different products and services are provided to the public, to consumers every day through our farm sector. Consumers like the idea of direct contact with the farmer and the family that is producing the product that they purchase and take home for their family.

[1015]

I want to mention a few of our government programs. The member is aware of the meat inspection regulation that was passed in September of 2004, and there's ongoing work.

N. Simons: I'd like to thank the member for Abbotsford South for his comments. I know that there are some areas on which we agree. While I would like to elaborate on those, I only get three minutes. I'd prefer to actually mention some things that we would need to just continue to do and to focus on, I think, in this province, and that is to encourage the preservation of the agricultural land reserve, the land that has been set aside.

In my riding alone, in the lower part of my riding, we've lost some 2,200 hectares since 1973, and in the upper Sunshine Coast we've actually lost 4,500 hectares since 1973. To me, that is something that needs to be stopped, I believe. This is not a question of whether we were in favour of meat regulations that harmed small farms or not. This is about what we are going to do to ensure that we have a food supply for the future.

We have over 4,000 in the lower Sunshine Coast. Technically, that would be able to sustain the population there if it were properly used. So my encouragement to
[ Page 869 ]
government at this point is to ensure that policies that are enacted are looked at through the small-farmer lens as sometimes tax policies look through the small business lens. I believe that policies around land use, around water use, around all the sectors that have a direct impact on farming need to be looked at through the eyes of the small farmer.

They struggle in our communities because the pay is not good, because the incentives are not there. We need to encourage, through possibly tax incentives, the production, the use of the land that's been set aside for agriculture use. This is not something that we really should be putting off, nor is it something that should be seen as in conflict with the agribusiness sector.

But the meat regulations had a serious negative impact on many farmers. We know that government and industry, the Food Processors Association, were instrumental in pushing that. It all had to do with world trade rules and North American free trade rules. Those don't have an impact on small farms and their desire to be able to sell farm gate to their neighbour.

It's illegal to sell a chicken to your neighbour now. That, I believe, is indicative of poor public policy. I would seriously encourage this government to take another look at finding another regulatory system for small and medium-sized farmers so that they can actually promote and benefit from policies that encourage their financial viability because, in turn, we promote environmentally sustainable regulations, economically appropriate policy and the safety of all residents.

Thank you to the member for Abbotsford South for his response, and thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity.

keeping B.C. powerful

D. McRae: During the past election the issue of B.C.'s electricity needs, both for today and in the future, came up many times. Due to the amount of misinformation and confusion that I encountered, I'm going to speak today about the importance of maintaining a secure supply of clean, reliable and sustainable electricity that provides for the needs of both residential and commercial consumers in British Columbia.

When B.C., under the leadership of visionaries like W.A.C. Bennett, made the decision to invest heavily in hydro infrastructure, like the Bennett and Mica dams, it was not without great debate and controversy. What was happening was that the government of British Columbia was planning for the future needs of this province, realizing that the status quo was not good enough. B.C. had the natural resources, and the politicians had the political will of the day to make it happen.

Today the government of British Columbia and the B.C. Liberals recognize the challenges facing the province in regards to electricity consumption, and we have the political will to ensure that our children and our grandchildren will also enjoy the same electrical advantages that we have all grown up with.

The last major electrical infrastructure that was completed in British Columbia was the construction of Mica dam in 1973. I don't want to brag, but I was three years old at the time, and the province's population was a mighty 2.3 million people.

[1020]

Let's look and see how the energy demands have changed just in my lifetime. The province's population has almost doubled. Houses that are built now are larger than ever. Remember when a 2,000-square-foot home was considered a big house?

The number of electrical devices in the home — we're not even talking about businesses — has grown exponentially. Remember when having one TV was a luxury — maybe it wasn't even colour — to say nothing of the 50-inch plasma TVs that are so popular today?

I remember our first microwave when I was 12 and the $800 VCR that my mother brought home one day and awed the neighbourhood. DVD players did not exist. Video games, excluding the mighty Pong, were just a novelty in an arcade. That's to say nothing of home computers, cell phone chargers and portable air conditioners that now so many people cannot live without.

We're plugging in more than ever, and as we left our homes today, the number of items that are glowing green or glowing red, still consuming power when we're not there, continues to rise. The point that I'm reinforcing is that our population has grown substantially, only exceeded by the amount of electricity the average person consumes.

In 2007 the B.C. energy plan was created, in consultation with environmental organizations, non-governmental groups, first nations, industry representatives — over 100 groups in all. The plan recognized that B.C. Hydro has become an energy importer for eight of the last ten years. Furthermore, with so much of B.C.'s power sources depending on traditional climate patterns, it is vital that any plan — this plan — take into account climate change and extreme weather and how it will impact this province's and B.C. Hydro's ability to supply all our residents and businesses with a secure supply of clean power.

B.C.'s electrical needs are expected to grow by 25 to 40 percent over the next 20 years, while our population is forecast to grow from 4.3 million today to 5.5 million by 2028. This growth means that B.C. does not only have an energy shortage today but will have an energy shortfall of approximately 19,000 gigawatt hours annually. That's the equivalent of ten Mica dams by the time we reach 2020. This means we must do one of two things.

Do nothing. We can continue to rely on imported electricity — often from dirty, outdated coal generating plants existing beyond B.C.'s borders. But they put the
[ Page 870 ]
environment at even greater risk to satisfy our need for electricity. Or we can embrace the comprehensive plan laid out in 2007 to ensure that we are energy self-sufficient by 2016, with 90 percent of our electricity production coming from clean, reliable B.C. sources. To deal with our inevitable energy deficit, a multifaceted approach is needed.

Demand-side management. By incorporating energy efficiencies, reducing energy demand and shifting energy usage away from peak periods, it is projected that we will save 13,000 gigawatt hours by 2020, but this will still leave the province with a shortfall of between 6,000 and 7,000 gigawatt hours.

There is the clean power call, more commonly referred to as IPPs. With the complexities of extended time frames and uncertainty of major hydroelectric infrastructure construction, IPPs will have the ability to fill the energy deficit. IPPs are of a smaller scale. They're quicker to bring on line and provide a more diverse range of energy options. However, even in a best-case scenario, we'll still have an energy shortfall of between 3,000 and 4,000 gigawatt hours.

There's bioenergy. Unfortunately, B.C. has an abundance of wood infected by the mountain pine beetle. The Stikine wood and other wood fibre sources have the potential to supply up to 14,000 gigawatt hours a year of electricity to meet our energy needs. However, we will still have an energy shortfall.

Then we still have the Mica dam. This major dam was completed in '73 and currently generates about 6,100 gigawatt hours. The dam is capable of bringing two more generators on line in the future, and its capacity will grow. A best-case scenario: we may meet our energy needs.

There is also Site C. It's just a proposal. That's all it is. It may not be completed in my lifetime. It has many hurdles to go through. If it were to be constructed, the good news is that it would provide our future generations with an electricity buffer that will last for a long, long time.

The residents and businesses of British Columbia have enjoyed some of the world's most affordable electricity rates for a generation or more. This will not continue unless the province takes the necessary steps to maintain our competitive electrical advantages.

I am proud of the steps that this government has taken in the past, and I am proud of the steps it will take in the future to make sure our energy needs are met.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise this sunny Monday morning and respond to the new member from Comox and his statement this morning on B.C.'s energy needs.

It's interesting that in the litany of data that the member provided, he didn't make reference to the B.C. Utilities Commission ruling on the long-term acquisition plan of B.C. Hydro just two months ago.

[1025]

Again, he made reference at the start of his comments about misinformation — not making any reference to any particular individuals or groups, but just the notion that the question is clouded. I think that's a fair statement.

I think we would all agree that those on that side of the House believe that turning B.C. Hydro into a clearing house for private profit is an appropriate public policy tool and that those on this side of the House believe we should try and keep our public utility strong and vital into the future, as previous governments have done — as Social Credit governments have done, as New Democrat governments have done.

What the member failed to discuss, with respect to the challenges ahead…. He made passing reference to demand-side management — or conservation, for those of us who are using normal language in our homes. Conservation has to be the key, not only to our energy future but that of our neighbours.

It's unfortunate that on the press releases that this government puts out, they make reference to demand-side management, they make reference to conservation, but they don't put any meat in that sandwich. That's certainly a challenge that we on this side of the House have advocated for some considerable period of time.

The member also spoke about independent power being the sole salvation. I am pleased, though, that he did make reference to units 5 and 6 at Revelstoke and units 5 and 6 at Mica.

He didn't touch upon the Columbia Basin public projects — the Waneta expansion, some 500 megawatts of energy and some capacity as well, not on the inventory. That would be a project that would meet our needs.

It would put people to work in the Kootenays, and it would provide benefits back to the region through the Columbia Basin Trust, a model that was established by the NDP government in the 1990s whereby the impacts of the Columbia River treaty, the devastation of the valleys and the communities in that region, were somewhat compensated by the creation of a trust so that new energy projects coming on stream would be jointly owned and jointly managed by the people of the region.

If we are to proceed with Site C…. As the member quite rightly notes, it is a proposal at this point. I think two stages of a five-stage consultation process are complete. Certainly, we on this side of the House — should the public, should the commission approve the project — would want to see a Columbia Basin–style model in the Peace so that the people in the region who will be affected by the flooding, who will be affected by the impacts, reap some of the benefits.

Another issue I want to talk about is the shift in language we hear from the members on that side of the House with respect to energy. We were told in the lead-up to the election that the lights were going to go out, that we needed to be self-sufficient. "Goodness gracious,
[ Page 871 ]
what are we possibly going to do? We need to invest rapidly in independent power production."

They now, in their throne speech after the election, are talking about export. They're talking about exporting this power, talking about keeping the air conditioners going in California at the expense of our rivers and streams. That's unacceptable to this side of the House, hon. Speaker, as you well know, and it's certainly unacceptable to most British Columbians.

Where we could start today, if this government was serious about reducing our dependence, as they call it, on imports — which, in fact, is just good economics…. What B.C. Hydro does, for those that are at home and those in the gallery…. We use our reservoirs, which are a strategic asset unparalleled in North America, to hold water when power is cheap, and we buy it on the open market.

I would have thought that the free enterprise zealots on that side of the House would catch that. They would warm to the notion of using the market to achieve social benefit. That, in most cases, is what they preach in this place, but not when it comes to dismantling our public utility, not when it comes to paying back their backers — the independent power producers, the Plutonic Powers of the world, who give $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 to that party so that they can get contracts approved and proceed from there.

I think I want to just conclude my remarks — I know I'm running out of time — going back to the long-term acquisition plan. I hope the member will go to the Utilities Commission website, and he'll read the references that are made there — not by members of the opposition, not by those who want to support public power in British Columbia, but by an independent regulatory body appointed by that government.

They said to B.C. Hydro: "We don't need the power that you're calling for in your so-called clean call. We don't need that power. Come back to us next year with a better plan. And oh, by the way, focus on conservation." That's what they should be doing, not filling the pockets of their private backers.

[1030]

D. McRae: I actually haven't done one of these statements before, but I was very heartened to hear so often the member for Juan de Fuca say that I was right about so many issues. It makes me feel kind of warm in the heart.

Talking about private ownership. The only time I can find any reference to privatizing B.C. Hydro was in 2000 when, I believe, it was the NDP government that contemplated selling off B.C. Hydro as an asset, one of the biggest assets this province has ever created.

So what happens is…. When the B.C. Liberals come into power, what do we do? We want to make sure we protect public ownership, so we pass legislation to ensure that, because it's important to the people of this province.

Conservation — absolutely essential. That's where 50 percent of our energy savings will come. One of the things that B.C. Hydro did, which was supported by this party, was the two-tier system where people who actually will use a lesser amount of power can make savings in their household usage. Up to 70 percent of British Columbians can actually save money on their Hydro bill because of the two-tier system, a hugely effective means to actually conserve power. The opposition did not support this motion. They voted against it.

IPPs — they're not the sole salvation. They're a piece of many, many puzzles. If one looks at how long it will take if we started Site C tomorrow as a province, it might take ten or 12 years to complete. Our energy deficit will still be there. It will get bigger. Our population will grow.

We need to have a multi-faceted approach. Mica dam is a brilliant example of B.C. Hydro picking up a huge amount of the slack. IPPs have the ability to not only generate employment — up to $6.8 billion more of an investment in this province creating thousands of jobs in this province, especially in the rural areas where they're so desperately needed — but will also allow us to meet our energy needs.

Climate change. I don't know if we've noticed this, but last summer was incredibly hot, perhaps the hottest summer of my lifetime. Climate change is making more extreme weather. B.C. Hydro has so many dams, and they rely on one commonality — water. When it rains now, it often rains harder than ever. But when we have a drought, it is often longer than ever.

We cannot rely on just one means of power. We need to make sure that we have wind. We need to have tidal. We definitely need to have the dams of British Columbia that are so important to this province. But we cannot go down just one path. Just like a good investment, you want to diversify. Just like good power, let's diversify our needs there.

We have imported power in the last eight of ten years, and we've got to remember, too, that there is power being exported that's not B.C. Hydro power.

As I stand here today in my first three-minute response, I am really proud of the moves that this government has taken over the last eight years and will take into the future. I think it's absolutely essential. The move is right.

AUTISM

M. Karagianis: I stand here in the House today to deliver a private member's statement on autism. Just for the clarification of those who do not understand what this term "autism" is, it's a developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of an infant's life. It is a neurobiological disorder that
[ Page 872 ]
affects about one out of 500 individuals. It's fair to say that, in fact, we're seeing the numbers growing among the number of young children who are diagnosed with autism in early years.

The history here in British Columbia around autism is fraught, I think, with a lot of controversy. Back in 1998 a family, the Freeman family, with four children, launched a legal action against the province of British Columbia to try and establish autism as a recognized medical condition.

Prior to that time, some of the treatments that were available were extremely costly. Many families found themselves in a state of near bankruptcy, trying to access privately the kinds of therapies that would enable their children, once diagnosed, to establish and live with a better outcome, both educationally and socially.

So a lawsuit was launched here in British Columbia and was very successful in determining that autism was a recognized medical condition. The judge in the case at the time found that "autism is a medical disability just as cancer is, and both require treatment."

[1035]

From this, a very significant shift in how autism was viewed and treated by the province of British Columbia and, certainly, by the government ensued. The most common treatment at the time, which was having extremely good success, was the Lovaas autism treatment, which was extremely costly, hence the conditions that led many families to pursue huge economic debt in order to be able to use this treatment.

It was determined, then, during this court case that early intervention programs like the Lovaas treatment, applied in the very earliest possible stages, would require a minimum of 40 hours a week of one-to-one therapy. The costs would be anywhere from $45,000 to $60,000 a year.

That was in the year 2000. Let's go back to the fact that the courts determined that this was a medical condition. It was entitled to the same kind of health care treatment and approach as any other health illness here in the province of British Columbia.

So the province undertook to fund and appropriately provide therapeutic options for families with children who had been diagnosed.

If we move forward, then, to a change in government in 2001, there was a significant shift in how the government viewed this treatment and the kinds of options that would be available to families.

In fact, prior to 2001 and the change in government there had been an intention, an initiative, in the province that more treatments and more options would be available to families rather than less. But we've actually seen a significant shift since the court case that determined in 1998 that all autistic children should be entitled to the best possible treatment and that in fact we should be pursuing expanded treatments for these families.

A court appeal was launched. Unfortunately, in 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against these programs, this kind of early intervention. This was a government-initiated appeal, and I believe that from it have stemmed many of the current circumstances that we are experiencing here in British Columbia.

It's clear to say that a court has determined that autism is a medical condition. It is deserving of funding, the same as any other medical condition. The type of early intervention and intensive treatment that has been most successful is, in fact, what families are entitled to.

This takes us, then, to a situation that occurred here a number of weeks ago, where the government has made a decision to cut the extensive and intensive intervention program known as the EIBI program here in British Columbia. I will cite, first and foremost, what government's particular rationale was for cutting this kind of treatment. The Minister for Children and Families said that "we are not seeing any appreciable improvement in the outcomes" of these children receiving the program. "Therefore, we are cutting it."

Yet the proof is documented here by many experts in the field and is extensive. We have all kinds of evidence that has been collected North America–wide and that's been available to both the government and certainly to families on the very excellent outcomes of the early intervention treatment that we were implementing here in British Columbia for families.

So I think it's easy to say that, in fact, the government's statement that there was no appreciable evidence of the outcomes, of positive outcomes, can certainly be offset by the proof, the actual details of the kind of evidence that is available here.

Then you have to say to yourself: "Why, in fact, if we have evidence of this, have we pursued a course of reducing the kind of autism treatment that not only is the right of these families as determined by a court but certainly is, I think, expected in a just, right and humane society?"

One of the things I would like to call to the government's attention is a straight business case for good early intervention of autism treatment. The estimated savings of investing in these early intensive treatments is at least $2 million per individual in childhood and adult services through the course of their life — $2 million per-individual savings. It saves millions in health care costs over the lifetime of an individual living with autism.

[1040]

Most of the rest of the North American culture — provinces across Canada, as well as states throughout the U.S. — are seeing this and moving to treatment plans that are good business investment.

S. Cadieux: In my riding of Surrey-Panorama I've spoken with a number of families of autistic children
[ Page 873 ]
about their concerns and their requirements for care for their children. They're a very mighty group.

They are actually establishing — or some of them are — a website to help share their education, to help share their knowledge and ideas with other parents, to share strategies on how to parent children with autism. I applaud them for their efforts to educate themselves and others and for their continued advocacy and commitment for the best interests of their children.

While I imagine that there may be a sense of relief in having professionals confirm your growing suspicions about your child that maybe something is different, I also imagine that finding out that your child has a developmental disability would never be easy. Just as I experienced a range of emotions upon acquiring my disability, I can only assume that parents, when finally given a diagnosis for their child, would experience a range of emotions, including fear and loss, about the future they had envisioned for their child.

But also, having a proper diagnosis allows parents and caregivers to seek out the appropriate services for their child, and that's why I'm pleased that this government has recognized the unique challenges of people with disabilities in this province over the last eight years and continues to endeavour to provide the best system of supports.

We currently provide more than 90 cross-government programs for children and youth with special needs. The government invests more than $600 million annually in services and supports for children and youth with special needs. We've more than doubled funding for children and youth with special needs, from $84 million in 2001 to $200 million in 2009. We've doubled the number of children and youth with special needs receiving services in that time. That means we recognize more and more that services are required.

We're spending more on autism services than any government in B.C.'s history. Our 2008 budget for autism was $46 million, 11 times the budget in 2001. We currently serve more than 6,000 children and youth who are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, compared to only a few hundred in 2000. We've expanded the school funding formula to provide extra funding for students during their school years, providing $16,000 per student diagnosed with ASD.

While the overall budget has increased by $1.6 million this year, the ministry is moving forward with a number of changes aimed at increasing access to services and improving equity among children and youth diagnosed with autism. I support the government's efforts to provide the most choice and the most support to the most children possible.

Every dollar in the EIBI program is going to remain in the autism program to increase funding to more than 800 children and to invest more than a million dollars in the creation of an outreach program to increase access to professional services in rural areas, because we're hearing how difficult it is for people to access the services they need, to access professionals in the area. It's important we provide equity in the program.

Demand is continuing to grow as we become better at early diagnosis. There's a balance we have to strike between budget and seeking ways to increase the amount of support to as many families as possible.

There's no argument that autism is an extremely devastating diagnosis for families. There is no argument that autism is a very difficult disability to manage, that early intervention programs are important.

[1045]

That's why we want to see the most support go to the most families possible around the province. To keep 70 children in a program that costs 10 percent of the total autism budget but serves only 1 percent of children seems hardly fair.

M. Karagianis: Thank you to the other member for the response.

I note that the member did use the term "trying to provide the best supports" for special needs individuals and admitted that the early intervention programs are important. And yet the government has cut the best early intervention program that's available here with the argument that it's about equity. But in fact there are huge cuts coming to services any way you want to try and slice this.

The reality here for the budget is that in 2007 the budget was $47 million and served 4,700 children and youth here in the province of British Columbia. The budget today is $46 million. We're serving 6,000 children, and there's an intake of at least 75 children per month on a waiting list. So no dollars have in fact increased in the budget here. If the government truly feels that the best kinds of supports and the best level of supports are what they are trying to achieve here, then I think they've got to rethink how they've done this.

This idea of equity, which is shooting for the lowest common denominator, doesn't provide the best service. If we really want to provide the best service, we have to do that in consultation with the families and with the providers of these services, and we have to look at ways to achieve the very best outcomes for children, not the lowest common denominator under the guise of equity.

In fact, real equity for these families, for children living with autism, is finding ways to make these proven therapies available to more children. That's the task that government should be putting its energies and focus on right now, not trying to reduce services for autistic children, not trying to find a way to remove the opportunities and abilities for these best and very proven early intervention programs to be made available. In fact, when you cancel them and you strip those resources away, they are no longer available.
[ Page 874 ]

What is it that families are able to find? With a very slight increase of $20,000 to $22,000, especially if you live in remote or rural communities, the kinds of services that you can find are not the very best outcomes.

If we believe that here in British Columbia it is our duty to provide the very best opportunities for children to maximize their potential, then we owe it to those families, we owe it to all families of special needs, to provide all of the very best opportunities that are available, not to actually have these systems fractured and have all of these programs watered down or reduced or in any way diminished. We need to find a way to provide the very best for these children.

It would seem to me that the government is once again full of all kinds of slogans, saying, "We are concerned about the best supports for children with special needs," while in fact doing the very opposite thing.

lifestyle choices

D. Barnett: Today I am going to speak on a topic called lifestyle choices.

The economy, the environment and our social fabric are all contributing factors that make British Columbia the best place on earth. Lifestyle choices by all of us who enjoy the great landscape we live in are ours to choose. We as individuals have a choice to contribute or not, to lead or to follow, to negotiate with others or not, to criticize constructively or destructively, to choose healthy lifestyles or not, to choose right from wrong, to forgive those who commit a wrong but admit they're wrong or not, to take care of our environment or not, to be a good neighbour or not.

Our world has changed since I was a young girl. In my early years my two brothers and I were raised on a small farm in Richmond. My father worked for a dairy, and my mother was an RN for Canada Packers.

[1050]

I learned early to live off the land, to respect my elders and teachers, to shine those shoes and have mom curl my hair with rags on a Sunday, to go to Sunday school and not complain, to walk two miles to the bus, to sit quietly and learn in the classroom with 40-plus others, and share. In my house a new pair of shoes was the best Christmas gift, and one Japanese orange. We were grateful.

I learned early in life what a person who is handicapped endured. My uncle had polio at an early age and could not walk. His wheelchair was his legs. Did he complain when he had to be carried upstairs or needed help? He was grateful for his surrounding. Two words: thank you.

My father, in his early 50s, lost both his legs at the hip. How? He worked at a mill on Knight Street. On fire duty one evening, a fire started in the hopper. Dad went to his fire station — fire out. Someone turned the power on, and dad was in the hopper. We were told he might not make it. One year later, with two prostheses, my dad walked, bowled, played 18 holes of golf, drove an automatic vehicle like you and I do and was retrained for an office position. Did he complain? No. He said thank you.

My uncle and dad taught me a lot about independence. Stand up for what is right. Listen to others. Accept constructive criticism. Respect the land and even those opinions which differ from yours. Show some tolerance.

In the '40s my uncle had the best health care possible. In the '70s my dad had the best health care possible, and they were thankful. And today in British Columbia we have the best health care possible.

Today as a society many have turned to choices of life, some by no choice of their own and others by their choice. Our land and environment have changed. Our pressures are many, but we still have lifestyle choices — to continue to support those who, by no choice of their own, need support. To those who have made choices which are a burden on society, we support; to the new babies, through their life cycle of learning, we support; to our elders who do not have means of support, we support; and to those who have means, we support.

To do this, this government has had to and will continue to make some hard decisions. Our pioneers set a stage for a society to be responsible and to, hopefully, choose lifestyle choices that will be in the best interests of all.

Today I ask that we look at our lifestyle choices. We in B.C. have a great lifestyle. Our lifestyles, for the most part, are of choice, but not for all. I am ever so grateful to have been able, through life experiences, to make some good choices — and some not. But I am grateful that I am here today, with the help of those before me and those here in this House, to make good, strong decisions for the betterment of the province and the people of British Columbia.

L. Popham: The member across from me touts the value of healthy lifestyle choices. In marketing terms, holding up a symbolic gesture in the face of our society is great for the end-game, if that end-game is nothing more than vote-getting.

I sit on this side of the House and wonder what makes my reality and the reality of the other side so different. One reason we are different is due to the silo effect. "Silo mentality" is a phrase that is popular in the business and organizational communities. It is used to describe a lack of communication and common goals between departments in an organization. It is the opposite of systems thinking.

The silo effect gets its name from the farm storage silo, probably because there could be two silos right next to each other and if people were inside of them they would not be able to communicate. Communication is impossible, so feelings of confusion and disappointment are common.
[ Page 875 ]

We see this lack of systems thinking playing out in the 39th session of the Legislative Assembly. We see a tax being brought in that will add cost onto making a healthy lifestyle choice. For almost 30 years we have made bicycles exempt from a social tax. With the HST, we will see that tax added. It is unbelievable that this exemption was not grandfathered.

[1055]

Healthy lifestyle choices are behaviours. To encourage and to promote change in behaviour there must be incentive to do so. This government has taken away that incentive.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have heard almost all I can bear from the other side about tough economic times. I hear this being used as an excuse for everything. The health care budget is enormous, a huge sinkhole for our taxes collected — yet we see the budget for children's sports programs being cut. This is a cut to a healthy lifestyle choice. We know that exercise keeps us healthy. We can avoid illness by keeping active. Active living means budgets go down in the health care system.

Type 2 diabetes is rampant among our young. This disease is avoidable, but it is caused by unhealthy lifestyle choices — food playing a huge role. It's ironic that the budget for agriculture is being hacked away at, yet our health care costs are skyrocketing. There is a correlation.

We see trans fats being banned in food service establishments, and I agree with that. But isn't it interesting that this government will ban trans fats and still continue to truck and fly in out-of-province food into our hospitals to serve sick patients? Banning trans fats is, apparently, brochure-worthy, but we continue to hide our giant carbon footprint for hospital food.

Healthy lifestyle choice is much more than holding up a shiny brochure and letting us know that healthy lifestyle choices are great for political images. A supported system of healthy lifestyle choice is imperative to the long-term well-being of British Columbia, and it's time to start connecting the dots.

D. Barnett: In response to my colleague across the floor, lifestyle choices are choices by those whose life make those choices.

I listened to my colleague across the floor say that we live in an era where government works in silos. I'm amazed at those comments. I have been around for quite a few years and been in local government for quite a few years, and I can go back to the '90s when I was in local government, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, what working in silos is all about.

This government, since 2001, has brought more agencies together with more communication and cooperation and collaboration than most of us could believe could happen. We talk about independence, and yet…. In one breath, the member from across the floor talks about independence. In the other breath, we talk about: "We must have this agency to do this for this person. This person must do this."

Independence and lifestyle choices are exactly what that word is — not created by any level of government, only by the family and the person and the community in which you live.

Children's programs are important to all of us. But children's programs start at home, and you can call the parents making programs for their lifestyle and for their children to have choices in the future. They do not need to be institutional. This is a country of independence and freedom, and let's keep it that way.

I am proud of what this government is doing and what this government has done in the past and in the future for all our citizens, and this government will continue to support independence and freedom for as long as possible.

Hon. I. Chong: I call private member's Motion 12 for debate.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 12 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 12 — ROLE OF LIBRARIES

R. Austin: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this important motion, which reads as follows.

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of public libraries and the crucial services they provide as literacy is the underpinning of all learning.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Currently in British Columbia approximately 40 percent of our population does not have the literacy skills they need to function and thrive in a modern economy. Of this one million people, approximately 400,000 are at level 1, the lowest proficiency level, and approximately 600,000 are at level 2.

In the northwest of this province the regional statistics are even worse, as a result of a multitude of factors, such as our collective history of residential schools, our remote communities and a public school system that is underfunded and has been for many years.

[1100]
[ Page 876 ]

About 60 percent of urban aboriginal people have low literacy, and aboriginal people in B.C. have lower literacy than aboriginal people in the rest of Canada.

Literacy is also a major social determinant of health, and 75 percent of those with a high rate of literacy rate themselves as being in excellent or very good health, compared to only 30 percent of those with low literacy.

It is for these reasons that the current Liberal government identified this as being a priority in a previous throne speech and made the commitment to "make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America." Many will remember this as one of the Premier's golden goals of that year.

Unfortunately, this has turned out to be just another sound bite from this government, as the actions have not followed the words. This year alone, let me outline some of the programs that have been cut, which directly affects our ability to reach this worthy goal.

Books for Babies provides parents of newborns with a bag that includes a book, a CD and information about library services. Even after Liberal MLAs touted the benefits of this program, it was eliminated by the B.C. Liberals' cuts to libraries. Let me quote what the member for Burquitlam said about this program just last year. "Research clearly shows the importance of talking, singing and reading to newborn babies. Books for Babies helps create connections between B.C. libraries and families at a very early stage."

The year before the former Minister of Education stated the following: "Madam Speaker, we have started book programs for families, Books for Babies. We are now providing books to kindergarten children, because we know that one of the most important things we can do is provide families with the opportunity to read to children."

Yet now, in the midst of the worst recession, a time when people and families with low literacy levels need the most help, this important program is being cut. Talk about saying one thing and doing another.

This government has also eliminated grants to reading centres located in many small communities. The province's reading centres get very little support from the province yet often serve vast areas that have no other public access to books. For example, when View Royal gave up its library charter to become a reading centre, the province promised to protect its access to funding. Despite that promise, the B.C. Liberals eliminated its $16,000 grant after the election.

Here is what David George said to me about his local reading centre.

"Our little reading centre based in Crawford Bay on the east shore of Kootenay Lake serves nearly 600 cardholders, and together with the Riondel reading centre, it serves a local population of more than 1,500 residents. Our nearest other libraries are Nelson, across the lake — only free to Nelson residents — and Creston, 75 kilometres down the lake.

"Our collection includes more than 10,000 items: books, books on tape and CD, videotapes and some DVDs. We need our annual grant, which last year was $1,880, to buy new books. The level of service we provide will be adversely affected by the loss of our annual grant from the province."

Such a little money, but it means so much to people who live in small, rural communities. What a shortsighted cut to programming this is, one that directly hurts all of us in B.C. as we attempt to deal with the low literacy levels that I've already noted.

The B.C. Liberals eliminated funding for 16 regional literacy coordinators who provided training to local and regional literacy providers, helped learners connect to programs in their region and ensured that agencies were working together to provide the best possible coverage of literacy services. These literacy coordinators were especially important for rural communities, many of which lack full access to local programs to combat illiteracy. These positions were created just last year in response to recommendations from the B.C. Auditor General.

The final cuts that I want to highlight are the B.C. Literacy Directory and the READ Line, but I'm sure that others in this chamber will speak about many more cuts. The B.C. Literacy Directory and the READ Line were cut just weeks after the province eliminated the province's regional literacy coordinator positions across British Columbia. Now with no regional coordination through the RLCs and funding cuts to the B.C. Literacy Directory and READ Line, British Columbians who need help finding the right program for their needs will face even more obstacles.

What a shortsighted policy this is — to cut literacy funding when we know that it is the basis for all learning. Here's what Bruce Mack, president of the Cariboo Chilcotin Partners, has to say: "Because that service is no longer available, organizations like ours have to do it themselves. My big concern with the regional literacy coordinators is that community literacy is quite literally going to die."

The research is clear, and up to now the government also has acknowledged the importance of literacy and the small amounts of direct funding that go into improving literacy. But in the recent budget we see that choices have been made — very clear choices — to not provide basic funding. We on this side of the aisle think that this is a shortsighted series of cuts that will cost all of us far more in the future and are a barrier for the weakest in it our society.

[1105]

Literacy B.C., a provincial not-for-profit organization, says that cutting funding to literacy programs is counterproductive due to the economic benefits of improving literacy. According to Literacy B.C., the report Literacy Matters, written by Craig Alexander, the deputy chief economist of the Toronto Dominion Financial Group, says that a 1 percent increase in literacy would raise productivity by 2.5 percent, adding $32 billion annually to the gross domestic product.
[ Page 877 ]

We have seen in recent weeks that this government has made many about-faces when challenged with some of the worst decisions in the budget. It is my sincere hope that they will once again look at the cuts to literacy programs and realize that there are other choices that would be better for the citizens of this province.

M. Dalton: I agree with the motion put forward by the member for Skeena: "Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of public libraries and the crucial services they provide as literacy is the underpinning of all learning." But I must admit to being disappointed. I feel that rather than look at the glass being 9/10 full, we're looking at it 1/10 empty.

This seems to be the same approach with health care, where we have one of the highest, if not the highest, levels of life expectancy for men, and I believe it's the second-highest for women. So we have a lot to celebrate as far as literacy goes, as far as education goes in this province. Yes, it's true that there have been some cutbacks, but at the same time, we're pressing forward.

The B.C. Liberal government is committed to making B.C. the best-educated and most literate place in North America. The government has put its money where its mouth is. It has invested heavily into literacy initiatives in libraries at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels. It acknowledges the importance of literacy, and that is why the government has made such significant funding since being in power.

Since 2001 we've put over $1 billion into literacy initiatives for all ages, including $180 million for this year alone. We've increased the number of staff in the libraries, and the cumulative total for the number of hours that libraries are open throughout the province is over 33,000 hours. We believe in libraries, and we believe in literacy.

For the past seven years I was a teacher-librarian in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I know firsthand the thrill it is to see students get hooked on reading — develop an appetite for literature — especially when a student is weaker academically. I can think of one first nations boy who joined a program last year, which the teacher-librarians had going in our school district for 25 years, called Book Fest.

We chose eight books, which altogether is over a thousand pages. This boy joined, as well as hundreds of other kids throughout the school district. It was just exciting to see his reading skills grow, his knowledge base grow and his excitement for learning increase. I knew that the chances for his academic success were growing significantly also.

Librarians and teachers know this, and it's one of the reasons why these professions are so rewarding. Though governments continue to invest heavily, it's true that there is trimming of funding this year, which has been necessitated by the international recession.

I appreciate the fact that most librarians are cognizant of the difficult financial situation that our government faces. I would venture to say that most were relieved when the funding cuts were kept to where they were, because we committed ourselves to maintaining funding towards health care, maintaining it towards education.

I was talking to the head librarian in my constituency, in one of the cities that I represent, on the weekend. She could appreciate the cost pressures the government is facing and the commitment to health care. When it comes to treating someone with cancer or other health needs, this has to take precedence. As most funding for libraries comes from municipalities, she felt that it would be virtually invisible to the public.

You do what you have to do in difficult times. Because we're doing the necessary belt-tightening now, it will hopefully allow us to restore funding and allow us to continue making increases.

[1110]

Early literacy is critical for student success. The B.C. Liberal government is expending great effort and treasure in this regard. It's well known that the opportune time for learning languages is during childhood.

It's the same thing for literacy. We are implementing the voluntary all-day kindergarten beginning next year. We're spending $150 million on this. It's no small venture or investment.

StrongStart programs. Our early learning centres across the province. We're hoping to have approximately 300 at the end of this year. There were a quarter of a million visits last year from over 15,000 students and children. These StrongStarts are for kids from infancy right up to five years old. They come there, and there is no cost to them. It is the hope that kids begin to develop their reading skills in literacy circles and develop an education.

I'd just like to read an article here from the Times Colonist that was on October 2. It says that B.C. is a world library leader. "More than 4,000 libraries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are catching up to British Columbia and might make the public libraries in this province a model for their next leap forward."

This week the society specifically cited our B.C. OneCard as its inspiration. This was taken as part of the Libraries Without Borders, on which we spend millions of dollars annually. The B.C. card system enables everyone with a valid public library card to check out materials and use services in libraries across the province and return materials to the library of their choice, whether in larger communities or smaller.

The cost is covered by the libraries, which get most of the funding from local governments as well as the provincial government. The B.C. OneCard is a groundbreaking way to encourage library use that put this province on the leading edge of the international library community — not for the first time.
[ Page 878 ]

The first regional libraries were in B.C. in the 1930s. It was the first jurisdiction to put the Internet into every public library. The value of our card was mentioned this week in major newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent and the Telegraph, as well as in local ones.

Here in British Columbia we might take the card for granted. We should, instead, celebrate the recognition being given to our accomplishments. We have great libraries, librarians and literacy programs in British Columbia. Yes, we are feeling a bit of a pinch, but this provincial government is committed to them for the benefit of young people and all British Columbians.

D. Thorne: It's a pleasure to rise today to speak on public libraries and literacy, a subject that I have always been very interested in and always, I might say, taken advantage of.

I've had a public library card since I was about four years old, in three different provinces in Canada. Now I actually have a fourth one here at the Legislature, which is really convenient and really wonderful, but it speaks of my own personal belief in how important libraries are and the place that they play in literacy in general.

I also have read that article from the Times Colonist, and I can understand why the British Library society has taken British Columbia and the one-card system as a model that they would like to move towards. I think many jurisdictions in the world are moving toward the one-card model. I certainly think it's wonderful, because people are allowed to go to different libraries, take out, bring back…. It's very, very convenient — something in our busy workday that we really appreciate more and more, I think.

But I have a slightly different way to finish that article. They do talk about how we take these services for granted. Well, I believe that that is true. I believe we have, over the years, taken our libraries for granted and, also, the fact that we assume that literacy levels will rise along with programs and, of course, funding to libraries from all levels of government.

[1115]

I think that we're at risk of not being able to take those things for granted anymore. I think that this year we've seen, for the first time, significant cuts to the library system and even more significant cuts to programs for literacy across British Columbia.

My colleagues have named a lot of the programs that have been cut. I just want to say that particularly significant in my riding, and I'm sure across the province, is the 22 percent cut to library funding, which has put a lot of programs in jeopardy.

I've spoken in this House about one that I feel is particularly important, the Books for Babies program. I think that in terms of raising literacy levels, that is very, very important. Sometimes I feel for the parents even moreso than for the child, because I think that a lot of the parents who take advantage of Books for Babies are themselves, perhaps, somewhere on the continuum of illiteracy.

I'm not saying they're at one end or the other, but they're somewhere on there, because people who are truly literate and well off socioeconomically probably don't go into the library and take advantage of books for their babies. They probably already have many, many books to read and are, in fact, reading to their children.

So the very people that we're trying to help, the very problem in British Columbia of illiteracy, are the very people that will be hurt when we cancel programs like Books for Babies. Some of those programs are still hanging on by a thread. They're using up supplies from last year this year, but they know that the death-knell has sounded for Books for Babies.

I think that in August or July, whenever it happened, the cancellation of the 16 regional literacy coordinators across the province — the people who coordinated, particularly in rural British Columbia, programs in towns that did not have libraries, did not, in fact, many of them, even have reading centres — was a very bad decision on the part of the government and will have long-term ramifications.

The $60,000 for Literacy B.C.'s READ Line and the B.C. Literacy Directory being cut just weeks after these literacy coordinators — these are the kinds of small savings in dollars that the financial ramifications are enormous and, really, not able to be measured until probably after our time in this Legislature. But we will see the effects down the road.

Stunning was the cancellation of the reading rooms across the province, 18 reading rooms, in little communities like Atlin, Dease Lake, Telkwa and Riondel. I mean, we're talking figures like $1,400, $1,250. These are amounts that I can hardly say.

It's almost ludicrous to think that the government would shut down a service where this is the only place where people in those tiny communities, who come in from farms and rural areas, can go. How do they get to the libraries in the towns that are close to those places — like, say, Nelson or Castlegar or something like that — in the Kootenays? They can't get there.

I think that everybody should read the September 19 Vancouver Sun editorial. I thought I might have time to read through some of the important parts about literacy. The Sun, often thought of as rather a friend of this government, is obviously having problems with some of the decisions that this government has made around library and literacy funding.

I think this government needs to reconsider this. This is one of the small amounts of money that has huge ramifications. Quite frankly, in closing, I think it makes this government look small and mean-spirited — and not at all an intelligent decision that they have made. I just hope and pray, for the sake of British Columbia, that
[ Page 879 ]
some changes will occur and that some of these small, small insignificant cuts will be reversed.

J. McIntyre: I welcome the opportunity this morning to speak on this motion and, perhaps, be able to put this topic in better perspective. We've been hearing about these things that the NDP point to, and even as the member before me mentioned, small, small and insignificant.

[1120]

Let's talk about the record. This government's record, our commitment to literacy, is unparalleled. As many well know, one of the five great goals is to be the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent, and we have made progress. Our high school completion rate has increased since 2001. Aboriginal completion rates are increasing as we speak. Record investments: since 2001 more than $1 billion and more than $180 million this year in literacy initiatives for preschool, K-to-12 and adult learners.

Library funding has been…. We have protected the core funding and some of the dollars for discretionary grants. Let's also put that in perspective. The provincial funding for public libraries is less than 10 percent of all of their total funding. So again, important to put that in perspective.

For the members who have spoken before, let me put into the record a letter from the British Columbia Library Trustees' Association. It says in the letter that they are "pleased to see the provincial government recognizes the integral role public libraries play in community development and literacy" and that they "appreciate that public libraries will still be able to continue providing most of the services traditionally funded by the province."

They recognize that these are fiscally challenging times: "We understand that temporary cuts, while difficult, are necessary." They hope to work "in cooperation with government to restore enhanced funding to libraries as the provincial economic picture improves." I think that's pretty important, again, to put a perspective on all of this.

We know that library staff — jobs, full-time-equivalents — have increased since 2001. The hours of service have actually increased over time. I think most importantly — again, for the record — we've invested $12 million over three years to strengthen libraries and communities across the province through the Libraries Without Walls strategic plan, which establishes more equitable access to public library resources for all British Columbians, regardless of where they live.

This government has developed a continuum from birth, with the $1,000 grant for education, to lifelong learning approaches. Let's go back to the very early. We've set aside almost $3 million for the Ready, Set, Learn program, which has been recognized as an excellent program that prepares our youngsters, our three-year-olds, for school.

We have StrongStart. We've been talking about this. We have now spent over $12 million for this year alone, a 50 percent increase in funding for the StrongStart centres all across this province. We're well over 200, on our way to 400.

I can speak personally about those in my riding. We have two in Squamish and two in West Van. I've been at the openings. Again, to see these youngsters as they come to play with parents and caregivers and to see the joy, really, in their faces and their eyes as they learn through play, and as we work towards making sure that virtually all of our students are prepared when they get to the door of kindergarten….

These are programs that are actually working. This is commitment from this government.

As you know, in our recent budget we've allocated $151 million for the beginning of the rollout of full-day kindergarten over the next two years. We are committed to investing in children's early development and learning, both intellectual perspective and their health. We know that it pays off in life.

Again, as part of this continuum, let's fast-forward through K-to-12 to post-secondary. We have embarked in this province on the largest expansion of post-secondary education in the province of this history. Sorry, I have to reverse that — in the history of this province.

An Hon. Member: That's literate.

J. McIntyre: I know. I'm so excited and passionate about this.

I think the record…. I won't dwell on it, but we've created seven new universities since 2001 and new medical schools in the Okanagan, Prince George and Victoria. We've hugely expanded millions of dollars into post-secondary training.

We're trying to develop this whole lifelong continuum into adult learning programs too — over $2 million for community-based adult literacy programs and $23 million for English as a second language. We've taken this whole perspective from birth to end-of-life stage. We're looking at providing all sorts of funds and grants for lifelong learning.

I'd like to take a minute or so here to look at other steps that we've taken to support learning. We've restored education as an essential service. We've enshrined class size and composition in legislation. We've removed class size from bargaining and using our students as pawns.

[1125]

We've also put accountability contracts for boards, tasked them with literacy. We've been taking all sorts of steps — things that the NDP never, never did. In fact, when they had the opportunity to do something about this, they actually reduced the percentage of total library budgets by 28 percent. This is our record; that's their record.
[ Page 880 ]

So thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to be able to get on the record this government's commitment to literacy and lifelong learning.

M. Mungall: In the past I brought up to this House that I had the opportunity to live and work in Africa. I want to start today by talking a little about what I did over there.

I worked for the YWCA office in Zambia, and I worked with women and children who were survivors of violence. This was particularly disheartening to know the type of violence that the little girls had endured in their lifetime, because in Zambia, where there's a 30 percent prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS, there's also a mythical cure for HIV/AIDS. Of course, that is having sex with a child, particularly a virgin.

Many, many girls become victims to this myth, and it's extremely sad. Many of them are poor, and they live in slums. The YWCA provides a safe house for girls who have come forward to share their story, to seek legal justice, and they go to this safe house.

In this safe house it's like they're in prison. They're never allowed to leave. They can't even go to school. They can't go to get a book to read. In Zambia, which is one of the poorest countries in the world, it's very hard for the YWCA to find books for those little girls.

You know what? The only thing they wanted was to read, because literacy and education was their ticket out. It was out of poverty, their ticket out of being vulnerable to such exploitation. It was their ticket to a better life. That's what literacy means, whether it's in Africa or even here in British Columbia.

A lot of people will say to me: "God, we are so lucky to be in B.C. and not to be one of those little girls in Zambia." But it's not luck, because luck would mean that it was up to the Fates that we have public education that's accessible to all children. Luck would mean that it was up to the Fates that we are able to access libraries. That's not luck. It's not up to the Fates.

We've made a conscious decision in this province to prioritize public education and literacy and libraries. We have chosen to acknowledge the relationship between education and libraries. Our historical support of the two shows this. So it's not luck that we have these opportunities in British Columbia. It's intention. Unfortunately, it's the intention of this government to undermine this societal choice to give people their tickets out of poverty, the societal choice for literacy.

This year the government has cut 22 percent from libraries, and you know what? The libraries thought that this was a win, because over the summer they were ready to start a campaign. They were gearing up because they were faced with a possible 100 percent cut. They were so worried. So when they were only given 22 percent, they thought that they had won.

But I'm going to ask you: is this a win? Is it a win to put books for babies in jeopardy? Is it a win to eliminate the grant for reading centres, affecting 18 reading rooms, including the one in my constituency, Riondel, and another one on the east shore? Is it a win to eliminate $1.6 million of funding for 16 regional literacy coordinators that improve literacy in rural areas that, of course, are the most hit by this economic downturn?

[1130]

Is it a win to take away $60,000 for Literacy B.C.'s READ Line and the B.C. Literacy Directory? It's not a win. It's not a win, and it's not a win for British Columbians. If it were, we would do everything we can in an economic downturn to ensure that literacy was going to be accessible to all people, including the 40 percent of British Columbians who do not have the skills that they need to function in a modern economy.

This is imperative to the labour market. This is imperative so that people can get out of poverty, move forward, contribute to this province and make it the best province it can possibly be. If this government cared at all about literacy and doing what's right for British Columbians, they would reinstate the funding cuts that they've put forward in this year's budget.

They would show with their actions — not their words and not some golden goal — to British Columbians that literacy is indeed a priority. I urge them to consider this motion very seriously and vote in favour of it.

D. Barnett: Well, as I said earlier in my speech about lifestyle choices…. I think I'll start by going back to that.

From the era I come from, a library was one of the most important things you had, and it was in a church. How we learn to read is not by all the dollars that are spent. How we learn to read is by how your life is driven from the day of your birth to the day you leave this world.

This government has recognized more than anybody the need for lifelong learning. We've got schools. We've got kindergartens. We've got libraries. We've got programs. We've got universities. We've got open learning. This government has put more money into educating people from birth till the end than I have seen in my many years of life in the province of British Columbia.

We talk about rural B.C., which I come from. I have communities of 2,000 people, 10,000 people and 150 people. We have a library system in the Cariboo region that is called the Cariboo Regional Library. It is basically funded by local governments, and those local governments are local taxpayers. There is a subsidy given each year by government. This year it was cut back. It represents a small portion of the budget of the Cariboo Regional Library system.

That library system is very well managed by a board, and it has a surplus, which they put in place because
[ Page 881 ]
they understand also. Local governments understand that there are times when you need surpluses to offset times that other governments cannot give you what they have been giving you in the past. It represents less than 7 percent of the budget of the province of British Columbia — the cutbacks.

Books for Babies, as my colleague across the table has talked about…. I was very pleased to be involved when this government brought in the program Books for Babies. I worked with my local mothers and my local community, and when that funding was put in place we knew that it was not a long-term program. We knew that we had to get on our feet to continually provide books for babies.

Some communities have done that. Unfortunately, when times are a little tough, we have to take cutbacks. But when we get our grants, we know — because I have been there — that these are not long-term programs, and we must stand on our own two feet.

I keep hearing about: "Government, government, government. Provide, provide, provide." You can only provide the dollars that are there that are created by good, strong economies. If we don't have good, strong economies, what do we have?

[1135]

Coming down here in my car yesterday, I was listening to the radio. It was very interesting that there was a topic on there about communities and citizens and about reading and about learning. It was interesting to listen to an expert on a talk show talk about this same particular subject, how what has happened is that too many young people have what they call computer games. Instead of reading, instead of going to their computer and reading — because computers are part of learning too — they are playing games, hand-held games, other games.

That is not government's responsibility. That is what you call a lifestyle choice, and children must be taught from birth where their education comes from.

You get tired of hearing excuses, but this government makes no excuse. This government stands proud of their record, and they will continue to support lifelong learning both in schools and in libraries and in homes across the province of British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: I rise to speak in support of this motion, and I'm happy to do so on behalf of all my constituents, just the way all the members on this side speak on behalf of all their constituents. It's wrong for the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky to imply that we only speak on behalf of the NDP, just the same as I expect the members on the other side to speak on behalf of all their constituents and not just the Liberal's supporters.

I support the motion because public libraries are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fostering adult literacy in communities. Community adult literacy is all about understanding the world around you. It's about participation and engagement in community. In fact, the B.C. ministry's own measurements for achievement in community literacy, one of its own benchmarks for measuring success, is participation in community life.

Let me give you a couple of examples of how adult literacy leads to that participation. I just attended Literacy B.C.'s annual general meeting and was able to have a lengthy chat with one of its board members, Steve Mattice. Steve is from Williams Lake, and his story is an inspiration.

He's a very tough guy. In fact, he was a successful bull rider on the rodeo circuit. He travelled all around North America and was living quite a life — he told me about it — until one ride went wrong, and he ended up severely injured by the bull he was riding. As well as the broken bones and titanium rods he is still dealing with, Steve also has a brain injury, where he has electronic leads implanted into his brain that allow him to control his speech and movements. Steve has overcome immense challenges physically. Like I said, he's one tough guy.

But he told me that one of the scariest and challenging moments in his life was when he went for adult literacy help. His son came home from school and asked for homework assistance. Steve couldn't provide it, so he went to his adult literacy organization. But he couldn't go in. He paced the hall. He broke out in sweat. This was a bull rider; I'm telling you. Finally, a worker encountered him in the hallway and managed to convince him to come inside. The rest is history.

Recently, Steve told me, he went to a bank for a loan. He filled out all the forms on his own, made the appointment and went to see the banker. He didn't need the loan. In fact, he didn't really care if he got the loan approved or not. He just wanted to participate, to access a service that many others in the community find routine.

Now Steve is on the board of Literacy B.C. He is a fully engaged citizen. In fact, he is incensed about the cuts made by this government. He is reaching his potential and contributing to the community life because of adult literacy assistance he received. Steve is making an impact in Williams Lake. Because of that impact, the community is becoming more resilient. Its ability to weather storms like the global recession is dependent upon the participation and engagement of its citizens.

Adult literacy creates producers and not just consumers of services and products. It leads people to see themselves as part of the glue that holds the community together, as influencers.

[1140]

In my community the Good Food Box is a great example of this. A group of young adults who were not so engaged but as part of a community literacy program started a Good Food Box service…. That's a box that provides fresh fruit and vegetables at an affordable price in the community. That program, that service they began, is still running today.
[ Page 882 ]

These young adults saw a need, were helped to act on that need and created a service. Now that service is embedded in the community. They have become part of the glue, part of increased resilience. They are participating in community.

These are the real stories in our communities — real stories of humans overcoming personal obstacles to contribute to community. Community adult literacy helped them overcome those obstacles, and public libraries and the services they provide in a welcoming, safe location are an integral part of building adult literacy skills.

Meanwhile, this government has chosen to attack that foundation. In my constituency's reading centres in Atlin, Dease Lake and Telkwa, the funding there was eliminated by the ministry. I've been to these reading centres.

In Dease Lake they have 10,000 books crammed in a small basement area run by volunteers. Their grant was a measly $1,400. It's not like people in that community can go to Atlin or somewhere else. The nearest public library for Dease Lake and Atlin is in the Yukon — in the Yukon, hours away by driving.

Then, just last month, funding was cut for two new programs run by Literacy B.C. The B.C. Literacy Directory and the READ Line cost only $60,000 to operate. These are important programs, especially for adult literacy in small communities, where you can't just go down the street or perhaps to another agency, organization or institution that can help.

Then there was the elimination of the regional literacy coordinators by this government — the elimination of the funding. These regional literacy coordinators provided expert help on adult literacy to volunteers and communities.

These cutbacks demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding on this government's behalf. As experts in the field have said, literacy is the velcro to which all other knowledge sticks, and the resilience of a community, its ability to absorb and prosper in challenging social and economic times, is measured by these experts in terms of the literacy of its population. So it makes no sense, no sense at all, to attack the foundation of community adult literacy like this government has done — no sense whatsoever.

That is why I fully endorse the motion on the floor today because, by doing so, we support stronger communities that will make B.C. a better place for all those living in this wonderful province.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity you give me to speak on this motion.

Let me say right from the beginning that I support this motion, and members from both sides support this motion because it is very important. It is an extremely positive approach that we have taken in this government: to give more funding to libraries, more funding to education. We are the one government that has given more funding to education, either in kindergartens or high schools or universities or wherever you take a look at it.

Madam Speaker, let me say that just last week we announced a huge new addition to the opportunity of literacy in Surrey, with $30 million of infrastructure spending to build, with equal cost-sharing from the federal government and the city of Surrey, a wonderful new library in Surrey City Centre.

Also, this government — right from the beginning, when we were first elected in 2001 — has been committed to making British Columbia the best-educated, most literate place in North America. We have never wavered from that course.

We have expanded and greatly increased the number of universities across the province. We have developed and enhanced literacy programs at the high schools and at the elementary level, and in this fall's throne speech, we committed to all-day kindergarten for five-year-olds, beginning next year.

Our government is driven to increase the literacy level. We have put the money where our mouth is. We have invested more than $1 billion in literacy and the literacy initiative since first forming the government in 2001.

[1145]

This year alone we are investing more than $180 million in literacy initiatives to support preschool-age children, students from kindergarten to grade 12 and adult learners.

We are providing $13.7 million to protect core funding for libraries, which is a 60 percent increase over what was provided by the NDP when they were in government before 2001. In fact, the record of the NDP during the 1990s until now, when this government took office, was extremely bad on educational funding when it came to funding for special literacy programs.

That is why we made literacy one of the great golden goals when voters of British Columbia decided to elect us to form government. Let me make it very clear about the different approach our government has taken to literacy and the importance of the libraries we have in the education and future of British Columbia.

Between '91 and 2000, under the NDP, there was a 28 percent reduction in the percentage of provincial operating grants for the libraries. That is a record of the NDP. But it was not just the NDP in the 1990s that gave short shrift to education. Even today, under the leadership of the opposition, they have voted against every budget that supported education and capped the program for funding since 2001.

In the 1990s the NDP froze tuition fees but failed to provide universities with the funding to make up that lost revenue. That resulted in fewer classes and longer wait-lists and a high GPA needed for a student to get
[ Page 883 ]
admission into universities and post-secondary schools. Also, access to technology, library counselling and other educational and core supportive service providers was restricted under the NDP.

Our government, on the other hand, has created seven new universities since 2001 and new medical schools in the Okanagan, Prince George and Victoria. We created the University of the Fraser Valley, Surrey's own Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Vancouver Island University, Capilano University, Emily Carr University of Art and Design, Thompson Rivers University and UBC Okanagan.

On top of all that, we built the world-class, first-class trade and technology centre in Surrey-Cloverdale. This government has invested more than $2 billion toward helping students overcome financial barriers to post-secondary education. We are paying 100 percent of the interest on student loans for up to ten years while they are enrolled in full-time studies.

Despite the lessons of the 1990s, the NDP wants to roll the clocks back and not learn from the problems of 1990s and create those problems all over again. The NDP in the 1980s failed to create a regional university, causing students to move further away from home and adding additional costs of living for them.

We changed all that. We have made education and learning and literacy enhancement easier, closer to home and more accessible. We have a great record. We recognize the importance of education and the role that libraries play in enhancing literacy. We understand what it takes to make British Columbia the most literate in North America, and we have acted on that understanding.

That is why I support our government, the role it has taken and the action it has taken to making sure education is protected and our students right from kindergarten to universities to high schools and also from a five-year-old so they can have full-time kindergarten school….

That is what enhancing the literacy level is all about — working together. We are doing that, and we are supporting that. We have a much better record than the NDP did when they were in government.

I also want to say that we have a letter here from the British Columbia Library Trustees Association. They also support the British Columbia government, the actions of our government.

I have run out of time, so I'll have more to say later on. I say again that I fully support this motion, and my colleagues from the government side fully support this motion because it's important for us to put more funding in education, as our government has done — largest investment in the history of British Columbia.

D. Black: I'm pleased to rise today to also support this motion. Like the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, visits to the library were a part of my upbringing in my family. It was a family outing every week to travel to the library near our home and pick up a selection of books to take home for all of us. It's a tradition that, I'm very happy to say, my children and my grandchildren are continuing with today.

[1150]

Another reason I'm delighted to acknowledge the importance of libraries in British Columbia is because the library in New Westminster is actually the home of the first public library in British Columbia. This year the New Westminster Public Library is 144 years old, and it continues to be a treasured resource in our city.

In fact, if you're in New Westminster at nine o'clock in the morning, you'll see a lineup of folks waiting for the library doors to open so that they can go in and access the services there.

In its mission statement the New Westminster library states: "It gathers, organizes, integrates and disseminates past and present ideas, facts and creative insights to enable individuals, regardless of their age, background or position, to meet the requirements of a changing society." This is a description, I think, that could be applied to all libraries in the province.

For over 90 years the province of B.C. has been supporting public libraries through grants. So it's natural that after so many years, the libraries have come to depend on this funding.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Among the most important services provided in the library are programs which promote literacy. In November of 2004, as was just referred to in the House, the Premier announced a goal to make British Columbia the most literate place in North America by 2010. In fact, the member for Surrey-Tynehead just repeated that promise a couple of moments ago in the House.

At that time the Premier said: "We know there are direct links between literacy and employment, income and health, so making sure B.C. is number one in literacy is critical to helping people succeed at work, at home and in their communities."

Well, we all agree with that statement. However, it now appears that this was yet another of this government and the Premier's short-lived projects, a goal that soon lost his attention and the support of his government, even though the Liberals repeated this commitment as recently as the last provincial election, just a few months ago.

In 2008 B.C. libraries received a total of only $20 million in direct provincial grants. It's a very tiny amount in a $39 billion provincial budget, but this year that funding has been cut to $13.7 million, a 22 percent decrease — 22 percent.

The New Westminster Public Library will be negatively affected by the impact of this drastic cut, as will all libraries in the province. How the Premier can square
[ Page 884 ]
his professed desire to promote literacy with damaging funding cuts is puzzling to many folks.

Strong and well-functioning libraries are essential in the fight against illiteracy. Cutting funding means fewer ESL classes for newcomers, fewer new books bought and less staff to help citizens find the information they're seeking.

It's critical that babies and young children are provided early in life with the tools needed to learn to read and to appreciate the world around them. Funding cuts to early childhood literacy programs, such as the B.C. summer reading club and Books for B.C. Babies, are simply unacceptable. These programs were very successful in reaching out to children and encouraging a love of reading and education.

Research shows that in times of economic slowdown there's an increased activity in our libraries. Right now the New Westminster library and many others in the province are definitely seeing an increased need for information and service, especially in areas related to employment and starting a small business.

Public libraries are such a valuable resource, particularly in a time of economic downturn. While libraries are experiencing a significant increase in the use of on-line and in-person reference services, programs such as AskAway — a popular on-line, provincewide reference service — will have its funding totally eliminated next year.

These kinds of cuts to literacy programs and to library services are very shortsighted and backward-thinking. They belie a kind of negative interest in education and funding for children.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission said that these cuts will be invisible. Well, I want him and the government to know that reading clubs, Books for Babies, AskAway programs will be missed. They are valuable services to the people of British Columbia, and they will not be invisible cuts.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Chilliwack — and noting the hour.

[1155]

J. Les: No worries. I intend to be very brief.

I did want to put on the record, though, that contrary to the sentiments that we hear from members opposite, when it comes to library funding and the provision of library services in British Columbia, the sky is not falling.

As a matter of fact, I have here a letter from the president of the B.C. Library Trustees Association.

"We are pleased to see that the provincial government recognizes the integral role that public libraries play in community development and literacy and is, therefore, avoiding deep cuts to library funding. We…appreciate that public libraries will be able to continue providing most of the services traditionally funded by the province.

"We thank you for taking our concerns into account and maintaining the lion's share of provincial funding to B.C.'s libraries."

That from the B.C. Library Trustees Association.

For eight years I was a member of the board of trustees of the Fraser Valley Regional Library. I chaired that organization for four years. I have, I think, a deep appreciation for literacy. I am an incorrigible consumer of books myself, and I understand completely that literacy very much helps people broaden their horizons and their perspectives.

That is why our government has put in place programs like StrongStart and why we have been very active in increasing high-speed Internet access across the province. These are key tools to give people the ability to improve their literacy.

We have seen in a recent survey that was done of 40 jurisdictions around the world, including five Canadian provinces, that B.C. now stands at No. 5 in the first time that we entered into that assessment. So while we're not yet at the top of the heap, we are doing rather well.

Significant resources have been put in place, and contrary to what some members opposite might have been suggesting, the funding situation remains very strong for literacy and library access across British Columbia.

With that said and noting the hour, I move that we now adjourn debate.

J. Les moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank everyone for their participation this morning. I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175