2010 Legislative Session: Second 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, April 19, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 14, Number 6

[ Page 4439 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

the state of forestry in b.c.

N. Macdonald: The topic that I rise to speak about today is the state of forestry. Of course, as all British Columbians know, forestry is an incredibly important topic. It has provided wealth for generations in this province. It impacts all British Columbians. I think those that live in rural communities are particularly aware of the importance of forestry and forest health issues.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The good news — and there is always good news with forestry, although it has been a very challenging period — is that prices are picking up. It looks like we're heading into a summer where prices are going to be stronger. That is one part of what we need in place if we're going to be successful.

It sounds like Interfor is going to open up at Castlegar. That's good news. I can tell you that during the election period, when you're spending a lot of time going door to door, Tembec had Canal Flats down. Anybody who has been in a community where the amount of forest activity is reduced when a mill is shut down even temporarily knows how quickly that impacts families. So any time mills reopen, it's good news.

Just touring through the Canal Flats mill not that many days ago and to have it open, to see people working, is something that's really exciting. Certainly, we always hope for improvements. We are thankful when prices pick up and the opportunities look like they're going to be slightly better.

There are major issues that need to be dealt with in the time that I have, the approximately five minutes I have left. I just want to talk about some of those challenges that are here in front of us as policy-makers.

[1005]

The first is to make sure that we get employment from the resource that we have. Traditionally, forestry has been a very strong source of employment for British Columbians. If you go back to 2001, we had about 98,600. That had fallen in 2007 to about 84,200, and that was when markets were very, very strong. So even in strong market times, you see a reduction in the workforce, and I think that that's going to be a challenge for us.

Then, of course, more recently, we have come down to where we are right now. The last figures that I've seen are from March of 2010, and it's about 52,000. So a substantial drop in people who have those good, family-supporting jobs.

Since 2001 we have also lost about 71 manufacturing facilities in forestry, and that has massive implications for the communities that we represent, many of us. To lose a mill without having transition programs in place is traumatic, not only for the families directly involved but for a wide range of other businesses and individuals that depend upon that manufacturing facility.

The other thing that we need to think about, as legislators, is some of the forest health issues and how we utilize some of the resource and how we can utilize it more effectively. Since 2003 — and this is largely driven by changes to legislation — we have seen a marked increase in the amount of waste that is left in British Columbia's forests. We have, over the past five years, left about 17.5 million cubic metres.

For those that are not aware of what a cubic metre is, it's about the size of a telephone pole. So if you took that waste — and remember, this is only the waste that is accounted for on government ledgers — and put it on logging trucks and lined those logging trucks up, that line would stretch all the way from Vancouver to Halifax and a good portion of the way back.

So a tremendous amount of waste, and this is only the waste that has been recognized by the government. There's obviously far more out there. I think any British Columbian would want us to do better in terms of utilizing this valuable resource.

Another issue we need to think about here, as legislators, is silviculture. There was a promise from the government that there would be reports on forest health. That promise was made in 2004. We had a partial report since then. These were supposed to be annual reports, and they simply have not been forthcoming.

The reality that we have to understand here, in this place, is that we have again put ourselves in a position similar to where we were back in the '80s in terms of the area in British Columbia that needs to be replanted. There is a massive area.

In fact, the figures that the government has put forward…. I just refer people, if they question this, to slide 20 of the forest practices branch report, September 2009. There are 700,000 hectares of public lands that are not satisfactorily restocked, and that is an obligation of government. This is not companies that have not done their obligatory replanting. This is public lands that through disease or through forest fires sit unplanted.

It goes back to 1980 levels, where at that time the federal government and provincial governments of the day invested huge amounts of money — up to $500 million
[ Page 4440 ]
— to get caught up, and we have again allowed ourselves to get to a place where we don't have that silviculture obligation done properly. We're simply not doing it, and again, with this budget we are not doing the work that needs to be done, and that's very shortsighted.

People are aware of the issue of raw logs. I think it ties into another shortcoming that legislators here need to think about, and that is innovation in terms of the products we produce. Even some of the good news over the weekend about Mackenzie…. We need to understand that these are very, very basic products.

I look forward to comments, and then I look forward to further discussion.

[1010]

E. Foster: I want to thank the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke for his comments on the state of the forest industry this morning. As we all know, forestry is an extremely important part of the economy in this province.

Despite the challenges that face the industry, there is room for optimism. Just last Friday the people of Mackenzie got some tremendous news that the Worthington mill, where 240 people work, has been purchased. Mackenzie is a forestry town, and it's been incredibly difficult over the past couple of years as the industry has struggled. Last Friday's news means 240 jobs in Mackenzie are there to support families. It means 240 families can count on paycheques that can be spent locally supporting other businesses and other families, so this is great news.

There's more good news up north. Conifex has moved to purchase the Abitibi saw- and paper mills in Mackenzie, and they're just waiting for permission from the Quebec courts. Their mill in Fort St. John is operational again, and in the Cariboo a new prefab home plant broke ground in 100 Mile House. As the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned, we're seeing some optimistic indications.

In Merritt, Aspen Planers just invested $20 million in some upgrades. In Grand Forks, a small mill there that employs 75 people just quietly reopened, and those jobs are up and going again.

Historically, the major part of our market for the lumber and forest products is the United States. There's no question that our friends to the south will continue to be a very big part of our market and hugely important, but there are new and emerging markets, and B.C. is working hard to develop and grow these markets.

China is the biggest of those, and since 2003, when the Dream Home Canada office was opened in China, our lumber shipments to China have grown sixfold. Softwood exports to China hit 1.63 billion board feet last year, doubling the record number from 2008. The value of these shipments to China has soared to $327 million in 2009, tripling the 2007 numbers, and there's no question that China is a rapidly growing market for world-class B.C. forest products.

After the tragic and devastating earthquakes in China, Canadian technology and wood-frame building expertise came together to reconstruct modern, safe homes. Chinese housing authorities have shown strong interest in the construction speed, safety and environmental benefits of B.C. roofing products and techniques.

We're also working with the Chinese on six-storey wood frame apartments. As this market develops, the demand for B.C. forest products will grow exponentially. Working together with the B.C. forest industry through innovations like the Working Round Table on Forestry, development of new markets for our B.C. wood is growing, and the future looks very bright.

There is no question that there's reason for optimism in the forest industry in British Columbia today, but developing new markets is only part of the story in rebuilding and renewing the forest industry. We also have to ensure that our policies support an industry that is changing. Competition is global, and companies in B.C. need support to help them compete. A key factor in staying competitive is having the latest technology and equipment to ensure that our mills are efficient.

Other jurisdictions across Canada and around the world have made changes to tax policies that will encourage that kind of investment. Here in B.C. we're proposing to make changes to our tax policy as well. Introducing the harmonized sales tax is that exact kind of tax policy that supports the forest industry's drive to modernize through investments. The HST will save the forest industry about $140 million, and it removes disincentives to investment.

Avrim Lazar, the CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada, and Rick Jeffery, president and CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association, both agree that the HST is a huge benefit to their industries. As we speak in debate about tax policy and the forest industry, I hope we all remember to pay heed to the advice of these leaders of the forest industry.

[1015]

The HST is only one of the things that is helping our forest industry to renew itself. B.C. eliminated the corporate capital tax in 2001. Getting rid of that tax on investment is a huge benefit to the forest industry, and I wholeheartedly supported it. B.C. reduced the corporate income tax rate to the second-lowest in the country — a move that helps attract new companies purchasing and relocating operations in B.C. It leaves more money in the companies' hands to be invested in technology, new market development and creating new jobs.

Here's what Mr. Lazar of the Forest Products Association has to say about how tax policies impacted….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
[ Page 4441 ]

N. Macdonald: I thank the member for Vernon-Monashee for participating. Look, many of the arguments that we would lay out here are very familiar. I mean, obviously we hope that China will start to buy some of our better wood. Right now, it's low-grade, and it's sold at a loss. Still a good thing, but it's not something to build the industry about.

I think the final point that I want to make is…. I know that the member for Vernon-Monashee is interested in this topic, and I know that he's not unique on that side. He's certainly not unique on this side. There are a number of us that come from rural communities that feel passionately about forestry, and we want forestry to succeed. We want good news. We know the difference it makes to people in our communities.

One of the frustrations with this House is that very often interest for members is stifled by the lack of ability to actually do the good work that's needed. What my predecessor as critic has called for, what I have called for repeatedly, is a forestry committee to go and do that work.

I know the member who just spoke would be interested in doing that work. I know my compatriot from the Cowichan Valley would be interested in doing that. I've heard the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and, I know, Cariboo North. I could name the full committee that would come and do good work on this crucial issue.

It is a complex issue. Its success is a key to this province's future. But for that to happen, this Legislature has to work differently than it often does. There should be a committee. The wisdom and the answers are there in our communities, and we need to find a way to take that wisdom and put them in a place so that it shows up as public policy.

I think that's the challenge for us. We all want the same end result. We know the challenges that are out there are complex and real. To find the answers, there really needs to be something done differently than what has been done over the past eight years.

I'm certainly calling for that again. I'm passionate about participating in that process, and I think the member who spoke before me has that same passion, as do others on both sides — so, again, a call to put together that committee and allow us to tap into the wisdom that sits in our communities on this issue.

Putting Patients First

N. Letnick: We were just talking about the hockey game tonight, so pardon me for smiling before I start my speech. Priorities.

Madam Speaker, I've previously spoken in the House about wait times for surgery and how they occur, and I would like now to speak about how to reduce those wait times, so thank you for the opportunity to do that. In a system of block funding, administrators have incentives to manage budgets but not wait-lists, so moving to a patient-focused funding system is an important step in addressing those wait times.

There are many reasons why wait times exist. I spoke at length the last time. I'll just summarize a little bit here. Demographics, of course, population health, new technologies spurring new demand — all can result in long waits. It's important that we work to solve the underlying cause of the wait and not simply the symptom of the wait itself. If we want a public health care system that we can all sustain, we need to manage both the demands that lead to waits and the processes that will reduce them.

I would like to now share with you seven actions that I believe can help reduce wait times by both addressing the underlying causes and improving the processes in our hospitals.

Action 1. We need to continue to encourage healthier lifestyles, higher education and improved health care delivery quality to reduce demand downstream. For example, by instituting a Six Sigma quality improvement program at Surrey Memorial Hospital to combat surgical site infections, Fraser Health was able to realize 33 percent to 46 percent decreases in mortality, morbidity, infections and pneumonia. This improves patient outcomes and decreases average surgical length of stay.

[1020]

Action 2. Examine system delivery design to identify and eliminate service delivery bottlenecks. Some examples of those include the Richmond hip and knee reconstruction project, which reduced median wait times by 75 percent and average hospital stays for hips from five to four days, and knees from four to three days. These efficiencies were achieved through standardizing operating room practices, staggering procedures between two dedicated surgical rooms focused on hips and knees, and investing in technology.

Another example, Vancouver's Mount Saint Joseph Hospital, where investment in technology and operating room efficiencies increased ophthalmologist productivity by 50 percent without any increase in operating room time.

The third of seven actions is: use explicit guidelines to manage demand. According to the Western Canada Waiting List Project, part of the solution to reducing wait times is — in consultation with professionals and the public, of course — to set wait-time targets and create objective and explicit clinical guidelines for prioritizing elective patients on the basis of need. For example, in New Zealand patients are classified either as being booked for surgery, certain to receive treatment within six months, or as not in the queue, and referred to their physician for active care and review.

The fourth action increases productivity through combining wait-time targets with incentives and dis-
[ Page 4442 ]
incentives to encourage managers and clinicians to shorten queues, as has been done in England and Spain. Fee-for-service remuneration for specialists or contracts outlining predetermined output and waiting-time targets has been found to increase productivity.

For hospitals, partial or full activity-based funding as opposed to fixed budgets encourages managers to increase their activity. Last week's announcement of B.C.'s move to patient-focused funding in our largest hospitals is one example of a bold move in that direction.

Action 5. Create more short-stay, publicly funded specialist elective surgery centres. Identify which procedures must be performed in full-service general hospitals and which low-risk procedures can be streamed towards short-stay clinics. Purchasing services from the private sector can be the quickest way to increase capacity when compared to the decision cycle, and the typically high initial capital cost, of building new hospitals.

Action 6. Offer patients the choice of being transferred to facilities or clinicians with lower demand or shorter wait-lists. I know that's been used by members in this House. By providing patients with up-to-date provincewide waiting information, patients have the choice of waiting for the recommended specialist, switching to the first available specialist in their area or even connecting with a specialist or surgery centre of their choosing elsewhere in the province.

The last action I would like to recommend at this time is to pool referrals into a common wait-list, using proven queuing techniques applied in the private sector, and transfer accountability for active wait-list management from surgeons to hospitals, individual health authorities or a single provincial body. For example, North Vancouver's Lions Gate Hospital reduced surgical consult queues from over 11 months to fewer than four weeks by instituting a centralized booking system for pre-operative and postoperative appointments.

Those are some seven actions that I believe will help reduce wait times in the province of British Columbia. I would like to thank you for the time to speak about them and how we can better manage wait-lists, and I look forward to hearing the comments in response from the member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the time to respond to the member. The member has outlined a number of areas that he thinks would assist in terms of the health care in the region. I'd like to focus generally and then specifically in terms of my community.

One of the causes of the waits in the Fraser Health Authority is the low capital expenditure in the acute care area of funding in terms of the Fraser Health region. We in the Fraser Health region have the lowest number of acute care beds per capita, not only in British Columbia but in the country as a whole.

If the situation in Fraser Health is then forced to compete for patient-focused or for performance-based funding…. It becomes very difficult to do that in a situation where the beds are at full capacity and stressed to the extreme.

[1025]

After the cut at St. Mary's Hospital, shortly after the government came into power, the region has never recovered, because that stream of acute care beds was taken out of service for the people within the region, and that number of beds has never been returned. The stress on the community and in the region is acute, not to loiter too long on that word.

What has happened in the region is that the cuts to the supporting services that support the acute care system — and support it by keeping people out of the hospitals — has also been felt in our region. There are two examples that I can think of offhand.

One is cutting the programs around AIDS and AIDS prevention. It puts these people, who would have received service and received support in the mainstream of the acute care system, right back into the emergency ward and into the place that is extremely stressed in terms of our community.

Another place that this stress is felt is in the seniors residence programs where long-term-care beds have been closed and long-term-care beds have not been built. There was a promise years ago to build 5,000 long-term-care residence beds, and those have never been delivered. There have been a variety of other types of beds, but the type of bed that keeps the long-term-care patient out of acute care beds is having more long-term-care residential beds in the region.

In fact, what has happened at Surrey Memorial is that some of the acute care beds…. A region that is stressed and has the fewest number of acute care beds in the province has now had some of those acute care beds turned into long-term residential care beds because of the lack of a program to deal with it.

There are ways to deal with some of the problems in our health care system. Certainly, the member has mentioned a number of things that can be done, but the fundamental crux of the problem is not necessarily dealing with new systems or patient-focused or performance-based funding. It is looking at the acute care system and looking at how to enhance the services around the acute care system, to divert patients from that system to less costly systems outside of acute care public hospitals.

Hon. Speaker, we need to do a lot in health care. One of the things we need to do, as has been mentioned by the critic, is deal with some of the issues around prescription drugs and….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Hammell: Thank you very much.
[ Page 4443 ]

N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for the rebuttal. I appreciate hearing the issues in her riding. These issues are common to all the industrialized countries around the world that are looking to deal with the ever-increasing amount of aging people in our populations.

With that challenge, not only do we have the challenge of providing services because we have people who are aging and retiring, but we also have the challenge of, as we age, requiring more and more of those services that we have grown to expect from our governments.

What I have found through the research over the last few years is that simply putting more and more money towards the problem does not resolve the issue of wait times.

[1030]

What you need is a system change, a change that encourages those people who are in authority and managing the system to constantly look for new ways, new processes, new paradigms by which we can provide those health services to the people who need it the most.

Over and over again as I've been doing my research, I've seen countries around the world throw more and more money at the problem without getting the outcomes that they were looking for. Quite frankly, if you don't measure the outcomes, then for sure, you're not going to get any improvement. All we have to do is look to the States for a clear example of that, where the United States probably spends the most money per capita in the world on health care.

Until recently we had pretty close to 50 million people without health insurance and health coverage. I think it's more. It's a complicated system. Obviously, we're not going to resolve it here in three to ten minutes, but I think we have to look at the whole picture, do what we can in different areas to improve those areas. That's why I'm focusing specifically on the wait times.

Speaking of focused, B.C. leads Canada in exceeding benchmarks for all priority areas, including cancer treatment, cardiac care, sight restoration and joint replacement. B.C. has made tremendous gains improving access to surgeries, and every time we do that, we free up resources for other purposes, which I'm sure the member for Surrey–Green Timbers would agree is needed throughout the province.

A simple cause and effect — it's hard to find that in health care. We always have to work towards improving every little aspect we can to make the whole better, and looking internationally to find solutions is also part of that. But for decades governments of every political stripe have demonstrated that more money alone does not solve the problem.

I just want to end and talk about the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority in the few seconds I have and just show an example of what you can do to make things better and how that helps in-patient care. They created swing rooms to increase capacity.

It looks like my time is up. I look forward to another opportunity to talk about health care in the province of British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind all members to make sure their computers are on mute, please.

Educational Priorities

A. Dix: It's an honour to get up in private members' statements today to talk a little bit about another crucial issue in the province of British Columbia, and that's education and educational priorities.

What we're seeing today, sadly, around British Columbia is virtually every school district suffering from a fundamental financial shortfall, which I think, beyond everything else — beyond the issues and the reductions and expenditures and the loss of opportunities for students that will flow from that — is a very problematic message that is sent to young people in our province and will be sent to young people in our province about how we value education.

I'll just give you a very specific example of what I mean by that. There's a school in my community, Carleton School, which is a remarkable school. People who know the Lower Mainland will know it. It's one of the most distinctive school buildings and schools in our entire region. It was critical, in fact, to the development of all of southeast Vancouver — having a school on the site. It's at Kingsway and Joyce in my constituency. What this school has gone through in the last few years is sort of symbolic, I think, of what a lot of school communities are facing.

Carleton has been a school since 1896, as I said, in the community. In March 2008 one of the buildings at the school…. It was the kindergarten, which was the original school building at Carleton School. It was built in 1896 and continuously used from 1896 to March 1, 2008, when vandals damaged the roof of the school. As I say, a centrepiece of our history was damaged.

Now, what happens in British Columbia when a school building is damaged? Well, we have what's called self-insurance. The province doesn't want to pay for external insurance — that wouldn't make financial sense — so it offers to insure the building itself. That insurance is managed by the risk management branch in the Ministry of Finance.

After the school was damaged at Carleton, the implication was…. The preparations were made to fix the roof, and that's what ought to have happened. That's the message. I mean, that's the message we, hopefully, send in our communities. When something is vandalized, we deal with the vandalism.

Sometimes I've heard the former Solicitor General, the current Minister of Finance, talk about the government's commitment to what's called broken-windows theory.
[ Page 4444 ]
That's a little bit of that. When something is broken and damaged, we fix it because it sends a message that the public space is important to all of us.

[1035]

Well, what happened in this case? The government waited — the school building deteriorated, with tarp on the roof for eight or nine months — and then told the school community: "We're not going to fix it. The insurance you thought you had didn't exist." One of the most important historic school buildings in all of British Columbia. That's the message they sent.

So what happened? Well, the school community responded. In fact, the students of the school responded. They did a remarkable job. Students in grade 4, grade 5 and grade 6 — they all wrote to the Minister of Education and said: "We need to fix this because it's really important to our school."

The next step in what those students faced occurred in April, when a man named Michael Nestoruk was murdered on the site of the school. I talked just this past week to the mother. She and her child discovered the body on the school site. There are challenges at this school, and she said to me that she felt that their school community had been abandoned.

This was a terrible event. The students were sent home. It had a profound effect on the life of the school, but the students were not deterred. They continued to work to improve their school, not just in assisting other people in the community but in fighting with the provincial government and making their case and sending letters to the Minister of Education.

What happened? The Minister of Education responsible said: "Well, we want the school board to find alternate uses for the school, and then we'll fund them. Then we'll make the repairs. We'll finally make the repairs."

So the school board did this. They sent a proposal to the ministry for an alternate use of the site, for an early learning program, which was then, after months of waiting, summarily rejected by the government. Now, two years later, and this is where the message gets hard. Two years later — and this school serves the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview as well as the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway — the government says: "The only thing we'll fund at the school is the demolition of this historic building. We'll give you money to tear it down. We won't give you money to fix it."

Beyond the details of the issue, I think this sends the same message as the downloading of costs does to students in our school system — that these things don't matter. Except they do. The students — all of the students at that school who attended kindergarten in that building — know it matters. The community knows it matters. The school knows it matters.

We need to send another message in our community by fixing Carleton School, by fixing that roof, by the government following through on its obligation to those students and the school community and by collectively, as members of the Legislature, giving importance to educational issues and saying that the decisions and the education of young people today, on whom our economy and our future depends, is so important that even in difficult economic times we're prepared to step up because we know that our future economic security depends on it.

The message sent by the government at Carleton School — and we're very hopeful that the Minister of Education and the government will change their mind on this — to those students is: "These things don't matter. It doesn't matter — the work you do. When something is damaged in our educational system, it's not a priority for us."

Well, we think differently, and the community thinks differently. That's why this issue has become a symbol of the government's commitment in our neighbourhood to public education and a symbol for those students of how important the government and our whole society believe their school is and their school community is.

We're hopeful that the government will respond to our continuing efforts and do its job, fulfil its commitment, act on its word and fix Carleton school and send a message that schools are a priority in our community and that when something is damaged, it should be fixed.

D. McRae: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. One of the great joys of responding to the opposition members is that we never actually know what they're going to be talking about. When I saw the topic was educational priorities, a number of issues came to my mind.

I thought perhaps the member opposite would be congratulating the government for increasing educational spending for the tenth year in a row. I know the member opposite knows that the province of B.C. has seen a steady decline in student enrolment over that period of time. The government raised per-pupil funding to the highest level ever. In 2010 districts received, on average, $8,301 per student, an increase of over 33 percent since 2001. And why do we do this? Because this investment is the right thing to do.

I also know that the member opposite knows that I am by profession a teacher, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I would like to see more money spent on education. But I also recognize that the government doesn't have a bottomless chequebook.

The member opposite is also very passionate about health care. He knows that this province is spending billions and billions of dollars every year to provide quality health care and that the costs are continually rising.

[1040]

He also knows that the province is running a $1.7 billion deficit this year. This follows a $2.7 billion deficit last
[ Page 4445 ]
year, and there will be another deficit in the coming year. So while I'm sure we both agree that the system can use more funding, I wonder if the members opposite could suggest how we do this. Do we take money from other ministries? Do we run a larger deficit in the coming years? Or do we raise taxes to put more money into the system? I'm not sure what they think is the right thing to do, but I'm always curious to find out.

I also thought the member opposite might be rising to speak on the opportunities of full-day kindergarten. I'm sure he recognizes the importance of children coming into the school system with the foundation and knowledge and skills they'd need to reach their highest potential. He knows the importance of investing in a child's early years to support their lifelong learning. That's why I'm proud to say the government has invested $58 million in the 2010 school year to provide this program.

I also thought the member opposite might rise and speak on the province's efforts to establish the StrongStart neighbourhood learning programs across the province. We have invested $43 million to establish these StrongStart centres. These free drop-in early learning programs allow both preschool-age children and their parents an opportunity to socialize and acquire some skills that will enhance their children's learning experiences both today and as they enter the public education system.

There are over 310 StrongStart centres across the province and in the member opposite's community of Vancouver. The district also has the opportunity to become one of the first partners with the neighbourhoods of learning. They have three in their Vancouver school district.

I also know that the member opposite is concerned about the threat of earthquakes to our school system. That's why, in 2005, the province announced a $1.5 billion initiative to be spent over 15 years to seismically upgrade 50 B.C. schools, and he knows that we remain gladly committed to this program. Over $412 million has been invested in 37 school districts, and more is slated to be given in the future.

As a parent, I know that I'd like to see these done today, and I wish we had started this program earlier. I know the seismic upgrades are the right things to do, and they will make the schools safer.

As a high school teacher, I'm proud of the system in which I work. Those teachers gave much of themselves, both in the classroom and outside of it, all in an effort to enrich the lives and learning experiences of the students they teach. I know the system can be improved upon, and I'm pleased to offer my insight to the ministry in an effort to make a difference.

What I know to be true is that teachers in B.C. are among the best in the world. By every measure, we have some of the strongest learning outcomes in the nation, and it would be a disservice not to continually look for improvements in this system. The only disservice that is greater than this would be to use students and teachers as pawns for political leverage.

I look forward to the members opposite providing constructive criticism and feedback to the initiatives that the Ministry of Education is working on both today and in the future.

A. Dix: Speaking of using students as pawns in the political process, the member refers to the seismic upgrade program of the government. In March 2005 the government announced that program just before the election. They didn't deliver on the money, but they announced the program.

The member will be interested to know that that program was announced at Carleton School. It's a beautiful school. They used it as a movie set, and they used the very students I spoke of in a movie set that day. They said: "This is the school we're going to fix. This is the priority." They made the announcement there.

You know what's happened since then? Not a single thing. The highest-ranking school in Vancouver on priorities — it fell below some priorities in the Premier's riding. We'll let that go.

They made the announcement there, and they treated those students with such disrespect. The very announcement that the member talks about in response — they didn't follow through. After the election they did nothing.

On the issue of Carleton School, where they won't fix the roof of the kindergarten building, where they promised the seismic upgrade. They had the announcement at the school, and they used the students as a prop in that announcement and then didn't deliver. I think it's shocking that the member would even refer to those things today, actually. It is wrong — what they did at that school.

The member is correct to this extent. People in that school community have done an extraordinary job under the circumstances. They have gone through more, I think, than most school communities have. The teachers have done an extraordinary job, and the students have done an extraordinary job, and they have been let down. They have been let down by people in the Minister of Education's office who have made promises and haven't followed through on those promises. That sends a message.

That is the point of this discussion. When you send a message like that — when you go to a school and play bait and switch with the students again and again…. Now every school district in British Columbia, whether it's run by people who support the Liberal Party or the NDP on the trustee level or no party, is suffering from a significant shortfall based on the fact that the government again has played bait and switch.

[1045]
[ Page 4446 ]

They talk about money. They don't talk about the extraordinary downloaded costs that all of those school districts are facing, including the school district that the member represents. That is going to have real consequences, just like failing to deliver on seismic upgrading, just like cutting programs at Carleton School, just like reneging on the promise to fix the roof. The cuts to those programs — to many schools and to music programs — and the cuts and the layoffs of teachers across British Columbia send a message: "We don't care."

Well, British Columbians care, parents care, teachers care, and I think members of the Legislature care. They deserve a better response from the government than this indifferent bait and switch that we've seen in recent weeks and recent years.

EVEN HIGHER LEARNING IN BURNABY

H. Bloy: This time of year is very special for our students as they work hard at school in preparing themselves for the end of the term. Young people are looking forward to finishing off their school year with great report cards. For many, they are working hard to get grades that will see them go into a university or college or trade school of their choice. They have spent the last 12 years of their lives preparing for this, and they are very excited about the future that lies ahead.

University is a place where young people learn the skills they need to realize their dreams. We need to make certain that these places are able to offer students every possibility and let them flourish. We want our future professionals to feel that there's nothing standing in the way of making their mark on the world. These institutions spark the imagination and inspire the creation of the next life-saving air bag or software design that will help to simplify the operations of a large office.

Universities and colleges help people realize their potential, and this is extremely valuable. In the last two years this government has established five new universities across the province, giving British Columbians more options and access to post-secondary education in the region where they live. It is at times like this, when the economy is on its way back up, that people are building on their skills and education. This new, highly educated and skilled workforce will be the key to building a stronger British Columbia.

It is also important that we offer these people assistance with the cost of tuition. We have limited the tuition increase in the province to 2 percent annually since 2005, and we are committed to holding these rates next year. We know the cost of a university education can be expensive, but we also understand the need for the opportunity to attend university. Therefore, we have taken measures to ensure that those who want to go to school are able to.

A number of years ago our province promised 25,000 new post-secondary seats, a promise which we've delivered. We've also delivered on the funding of these seats so that students now can complete a degree in four years, not in five and six years. It's not always the cost of the tuition but the living expenses that add up to the costs.

Simon Fraser University. We're building buildings up there right now. Over the last ten years we've probably added seven new buildings of learning plus a new residence. Just a few weeks ago in Burnaby I was fortunate to be at the announcement of a new building for BCIT, the gateway project. This is a LEED gold project that will create new and more comfortable learning environments that will feature the latest building styles and classroom designs.

Students from BCIT will be involved in the ongoing construction of the new wing, with the hands-on learning experience involving the brand-new micro or smart electrical grid. This new power system will allow students to monitor electrical use and work to develop strategies aimed at optimizing energy consumption.

With unique learning experiences like this, we are creating a hyperconscious generation of students who will head into the world equipped with the knowledge and practices we need to ensure the long-term sustainability of all our industries in this province.

At BCIT there are many different trades-training programs that serve the Lower Mainland. Trades training has undergone a remarkable change over the past ten years in fields such as aerospace, avionics and electrical power engineering.

[1050]

Machinists are offering some very useful and specialized career options. The number of nursing education spots has actually doubled, with more than 4,000 new seats added since 2001, and 24 new nursing programs have been created around the province so that learning is closer to home. We are an attractive option when it comes to relocating for post-secondary education, and we welcome these new students with great incentives like these.

Simon Fraser University has seen an astounding amount of change in the last ten years. With more than 20 new degree programs approved since 2001, we have increased the options for B.C. students.

Recently students from SFU were involved in a fundraising event called Spread the Net. The purpose of this event was to raise funds needed to purchase nets to protect children in areas with the threat of malaria. Rick Mercer was part of this contest that was with eight universities across Canada. The students from SFU raised the most amount of money — over $16,000 — and they had the pleasure of having Rick Mercer up there twice, who I'm sure is a friend of many in this House.

These students have gone beyond their usual studies in order to make life better for people in faraway places, and this bodes well for the future of Canada. You know, I am always amazed by the students in our universities
[ Page 4447 ]
and their outlook on their community, the country and the world.

That being said, we can be sure that the future outlook of the entire province looks very promising, as we'll have a new generation of highly skilled and trained people with the most innovative ideas. Not only are our public institutions across the province providing specialized education and trade schools; we have many private colleges and trade schools and universities in this province also providing an opportunity to train the future generation of this province.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm going to talk in response about post-secondary education, particularly in my community. I'm going to focus on one institution particularly. I'm very thrilled to talk about Simon Fraser University, which of course is located on top of Burnaby Mountain.

Although it isn't my alma mater, I did attend Simon Fraser University for one wonderful summer semester, and two of my children are alumni. Well, one is, and one I hope soon will be. It's taking a long time.

While the largest and most well-established campus is in Burnaby, it also has diversified itself and reinvigorated itself, I think, with campuses in Surrey and downtown Vancouver.

Although those of us who live in Burnaby or who have attended SFU know that it's a wonderful university, you don't have to take our word for it, because for the past two years Simon Fraser University has been rated Canada's best comprehensive university in Maclean's magazine's annual rankings of the country's top 48 universities.

The magazine notes: "Once again, an outstanding showing in winning student and faculty awards, as well as research grants, contributed to a top-notch score. In addition, Simon Fraser scored highly on library spending, particularly in spending on acquisitions."

Or as the SFU president, Michael Stevenson, said: "The current ranking is a great tribute to the strength, energy and imagination of our faculty, staff and students." Speaking of Michael Stevenson, I would like to thank him for his years of leadership as president of SFU. Michael is retiring, and he'll be missed. This recognition of SFU is certainly a fitting legacy of his leadership.

I want to congratulate the university for choosing Andrew Petter as his successor. The institution continues to show its progressive leadership in this choice as incoming president, and I know that our community will continue to benefit and thrive with Mr. Petter at the helm.

It's interesting that SFU has been named the top comprehensive university in Canada, while in the same year the same magazine, Maclean's, named the city of Burnaby as the best-run city in Canada. It called it "lean, debt-free and offering great public services." It said that "Burnaby is a model for the country."

I mention this recognition not only because I'm very proud of this achievement but also because one of the reasons that Burnaby functions so well, I believe, is the exceptional level of cooperation between the city; school board; business, as represented by the Burnaby Board of Trade; and post-secondary institutions like SFU and the B.C. Institute of Technology.

That was certainly true when I was on the school board, and perhaps a great recent example was the cooperation between the university, the city, the school board and the provincial government with the building of the new elementary school at SFU with funding and resources from all the different parties.

[1055]

There continues to be a lot of cooperation between SFU and the school district, particularly with the faculty of education. Preservice and degreed teachers spend many hours in our classrooms and schools.

Simon Fraser is deserving of its rating as Canada's top university, but it is critical that the university remain accessible to all students, including those that are not wealthy. Tuition fees cannot continue to rise and be a bar to access. We must make a greater public investment into this and other post-secondary education institutions.

In this province post-secondary per-student funding dropped from $9,400 in 2007-2008 to $8,850 in 2008-09, and we're going to have another decline again, even before accounting for inflation. I also find it appalling that debt for students has risen from $18,000 per student to $27,000 per student, the second highest in the country.

I also just can't help but mention that post-secondary tuition fees, sadly, provide more revenue for the provincial government than corporate taxes. I actually find that quite appalling and would leave with one last comment. It was no less than the present Premier of this province that said, prior to getting elected in the year 2000: "The last place you should go to raise resources for education is tuition. It creates a hurdle."

In conclusion, Simon Fraser is a top-notch university, but we must ensure that that excellence is not risked by failing to invest in this fine institution and in other post-secondary institutions. We cannot fail to have it continue to be accessible to all students, no matter what their background is.

H. Bloy: I would like to thank the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for her remarks. I agree with her wholeheartedly that SFU is the best university, I say, in all of Canada, but there's some debate in the House about this.

I want to thank the member in her position as chair of the Burnaby school board. We worked together cooperatively to get the funding for a public-private partnership to build the new school at Simon Fraser University, which everyone is excited about at the university.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 4448 ]

But to answer some of the questions, since 2001 we have undertaken the largest post-secondary expansion in history, spending approximately $2 billion in capital funding for over 900 projects on campuses throughout British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University has been a big benefactor of that.

Universities and colleges across B.C. are currently some of the best in the country and attract people from all other provinces, so we need to ensure that we can accommodate them. All these students come from all over B.C., the rest of Canada and around the world. We have been working with the federal government in order to build on and expand our current post-secondary institutions.

In 2009 this government, along with the federal government, announced over $497 million for upgrades to post-secondary campuses, buildings and renewing campus infrastructure. The total investment of these projects is $519 million when you include contributions from the universities. Operating funding for post-secondary institutions has increased by 53 percent since 2001 to nearly $2 billion today.

We are committed to providing the best in post-secondary to all British Columbians. We also realize the cost of a post-secondary education. We don't want this to prevent people from accessing our college and universities, which is why this government pays 100 percent of interest on all student loans for up to ten years while the students are enrolled full-time at university or college.

In fact, 40 percent of B.C. students who graduate have no debt at all, and 85 percent of the students that graduate with some debt are up to date in all their payments. In 2001 we established the B.C. student loan forgiveness program, which forgives 100 percent of their loan for over a three-year period for students in medical, nursing and certain other programs if they work in underserved communities.

[1100]

This ensures not only that our students can afford the education and training, they hope, but that our rural and northern communities are also benefiting from the access of these types.

Hon. B. Bennett: I call Motion 7 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

Motion 7 — FOOD SECURITY
AND PRODUCTION PLAN FOR B.C.

L. Popham: I move:

[Be it resolved that this House debate and discuss a made in BC food security and production plan.]

What is a food security plan? A food security plan refers to the availability of food, one's access to it and a comprehensive plan to make sure these things are addressed. The necessity of having such a plan is becoming more crucial year by year, as we understand the effects of climate change on agricultural capacity around the world.

In B.C. we have been neglecting our food security plan because we have had easy access to imported food. As a result, up to this point we have almost abandoned our potential for self-sufficiency. We are becoming more and more reliant on imports.

The places we are importing from are regions that will be first affected by the devastating impacts of climate change. In fact, we see this happening already. We see California facing water shortages, the salinity issue. We see Florida wrestling with temperature fluctuations that destroy their crops. In other areas of the world we are seeing extreme weather as well.

B.C. is not immune to climate change effects, but we have resilience, given our diverse topographies. This doesn't mean, however, that we have the luxury of sitting back and doing nothing. We should be taking the time to develop a made-in-B.C. food security and production plan.

The government released a study in 2006 called B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance. The goal of this study was to get a perspective on total food production and on food self-reliance using farm-gate production values. There was an interesting disclaimer at the beginning of this report which states that this "report is an information piece and does not necessarily represent current or future policy direction."

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It continues to establish that "the statistical data in the report is factual and will be used to develop benchmarks for further research and study." This disclaimer is relevant to my motion, because there is information in this report that leads me to question why the B.C. government is not fully committed to making sure that B.C. has a food security plan in place.

Sustainable B.C. is a vision of our province. As B.C. politicians we need to be dedicated to building a sustainable society that nurtures us, and food security is a large part of that vision. Healthful food for consumers and increased local and provincial food self-sufficiency are essential for a sustainable society. This requires a protected agricultural land base, environmentally sustainable farm practices and economic viability for B.C. food producers.

To produce a healthy diet for the projected B.C. population in 2025, B.C. farmers will need to have 2.78 million hectares in production, of which 281,000 will need access to irrigation. This means that to produce a healthy
[ Page 4449 ]
diet for B.C. in 2025, given existing production technology, the farmland with access to irrigation will have to increase by 92,000 hectares, or 49 percent, over the 2005 levels. That's one of the undisputed facts from the report that this government released.

Where should we look for leadership, and what ministry should we work with in order to make a food security plan a reality here in B.C.? We could look at our communities, we could look at our grass-roots organizations, and we could look at our consumers for leadership. They are demanding that more priority be put on local food production.

It seems we cannot look at the current government. This government fails to make food production a priority, even though they commissioned a study to prove it was critical for British Columbia. The budget for agriculture in B.C. has dropped year after year, and it's at a level now that I believe makes the Ministry of Agriculture ineffective.

When we look at a massive decision in our province that we are facing right now — all decisions — we need to continually visit our food security situation as a province. A decision to take away most fertile land, at a time when the facts tell us we need to add to our land base, works against the idea of food security.

When will food security be a priority? Sadly, food security around the world becomes important when food supplies are not secure and access to food is threatened. The B.C. government has an opportunity to plan for our future, and this should be a future where food security is not in doubt. We need a made-in-B.C. food security plan right now.

[1105]

J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to speak today to Motion 7, a made-in-B.C. food security and food production plan. I submit that British Columbia has such a plan.

It's called the B.C. agriculture plan. It was spearheaded by the former member for Delta South, and it is a plan that focuses on improving and developing agricultural viability and sustainability as we move into the future. This plan is designed to the benefit not only of consumers but also of the farmers who deliver locally produced, quality food products every day to British Columbians.

The agriculture plan is organized under five key themes with 23 specific strategies. I'm going to talk a little bit about the five key themes.

First of all, producing local food in a changing world. Our government, through the B.C. ag plan, has continued to maintain leading-edge, modern policies such as the Canada-B.C. growing together agreement that helps foster the right kinds of actions and development under food safety, in the environmental area, and in our farm production and safety-net programs.

Good public policy requires that we not only maintain the agricultural land base but we also maintain agriculture in a viable way. The plan also includes the mention of supply management–regulated marketing, which by definition focuses on local B.C. production. The ag plan calls for further innovation, further market development, servicing niche markets to augment the mainstream production that is provided in many communities throughout British Columbia for local consumption.

The second theme under the ag plan is meeting environmental and climate challenges. This is an important area that requires lots of proactive public policy development. I'm going to mention one particular aspect as very important.

In addition to having the land base, farmers need good drainage, good drainage infrastructure and irrigation. The member for Boundary-Similkameen is currently involved with the Minister of Environment in developing new policy in that area, but I submit that along with the land base provided through the agricultural land reserve, agriculture needs good drainage and irrigation structures.

Thirdly, building innovative and profitable family farm businesses is the third theme in the ag plan. This is a very broad area, but I'm pleased to see that over the last ten years we've seen tremendous development in the areas of agritourism, direct farm marketing, farmers' markets, circle farm tours — all of which have built a greater connection between farmers, between agriculture, and their urban clients. In many cases it has completely eliminated the middle man between farmers and their ultimate customers, which I regard as a very good thing.

We've seen the positive impact of the proposed elimination of the provincial sales tax, which is something that the B.C. Agriculture Council and other farm organizations have been pushing for, for a long time. In the words of Garnet Etsell, the chair of the B.C. Ag Council, this will be a $15 million to $23 million annuity to agriculture which will further sustain farm families, making farming more viable.

The fourth theme is building First Nations in agriculture capacity. First Nations people do have significant agricultural land base, and we've really seen the example of Chief Clarence Louie who, by fostering partnership with Vincor, has developed a leading-edge winery and vineyard operation that is a great tourism attraction in the Okanagan and provides viable jobs for First Nations people. In the ag plan there is significant effort developed towards enhancing agricultural opportunities for First Nations.

[1110]

Finally, bridging the urban and agriculture divide is a very, very important interface, where I believe we see a direct correlation between preservation of agricultural land and building densification in urban areas. It's building the transit to support those densified urban areas and really preserving agricultural land for local
[ Page 4450 ]
food production and, I think, a tremendous viewscape — as we have in my community in Abbotsford — for the community.

I look at programs such as the B.C. fruit and veggie program in our schools, which not only provides healthy food for kids but also provides a rural-urban interface for children coming from urban communities and provides local food for their consumption.

Those are some of the elements in the B.C. agriculture plan that I believe contribute to B.C. food security and that provide a food production plan for the benefit of both farmers and consumers in British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: I am rising in support of this motion.

When we're looking at the B.C. Liberal government plan for food production and the safety of our food, no matter which way you look at it…. Actually, you know, if you talk to anyone in B.C., it's not a plan. No matter how you analyze it, there's no substance to this plan, because what we have seen….

The NDP government in the '90s introduced the Buy B.C. program. The Liberals stopped it in July 2001. Introduced in 1993, the Buy B.C. program was the most successful food and beverage marketing initiative ever jointly undertaken by the provincial government and the private industry.

But the B.C. Liberal government saw that because that program was introduced by the New Democrats, therefore, it has to be bad, and it has to be stopped. As a result, we have lost one of the best initiatives that we ever had introduced jointly by the government and the private industry.

By 2000 the logo awareness of Buy B.C. had reached 76 percent of consumers. When that awareness was increased as a result of continuous advertisement and through other programs, people started thinking that it was important that we should think about and buy the produce which is produced in B.C., so as such, the farmers in B.C. were getting more help. That plan worked, but we stopped it. The help the agriculture sector was getting as a result of that initiative just was thrown out.

The B.C. Liberals plan that they announced in 2008 — again, if you look at it really in a very constructive way, you will find that it has done nothing new to invigorate the food production in B.C. We are seeing the lowest proportional spending and support for agriculture in Canada. The budget has gone down, as my colleague said earlier, by several ways that they stopped supporting their own initiatives.

The plan that we hoped in 2008 would reinstate the Buy B.C. program again did not do that. The government is actually treating the agricultural land reserve as a land bank for property developers, and that's what we have seen. More and more land that we have earmarked for agriculture is taken out and given to these developers.

The previous speaker from the government side talked about land preservation. Well, look at this.

[1115]

The data are that the establishment of the agricultural land reserve in 1973 and the subsequent Agricultural Land Commission Act are without a doubt the two most significant actions of any modern government in support of food producers.

The Liberals think that the ALR, as I mentioned, is a land bank. In 2002 the Liberal government disbanded the provincial ALC and replaced it with six regional panels of three commissioners each. This has resulted in inconsistencies, concerns over conflicts of interest and, most detrimentally, no attention paid to broader public interest.

The Liberals, when we look at their actions, are actually very consistently chipping away at our precious farmland by an amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission. The budget for the ALC has dropped by 6.5 percent.

In closing, I would like to say that we really need a B.C. plan which will stand up for our growers, for our food producers, and we have to do it now.

J. Slater: B.C. does have an agriculture plan. This past summer, under Growing Forward, we announced three programs: $3 million for the food safety systems implementation, $3.23 million for environmental farm plans, $6.7 million for beneficial management practices.

The province also announced several initiatives in the past few months that will benefit the agriculture industry and farmers: $5.5 million to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association to deliver different range-fencing programs, $1.5 million for pilot projects to protect B.C.'s commercial livestock sector from wildlife predators, $3.5 million for cross-ministry management of invasive plants. The $14 million containment level 3 laboratory is now fully commissioned and operating to provide better health protection from foreign animal disease outbreaks.

The agriculture industry has asked for a simplified tax exemption for our farmers. The HST accomplishes that. The B.C. Agriculture Council estimates that the HST could save B.C.'s agriculture industry over $15 million a year.

We also promote B.C. produce and eating locally in a number of ways: helping with the development of the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets by offering ministry staff support; engaging with the B.C. AgriTourism Alliance, which promotes local agriculture and food; and supporting the Eat and Drink B.C. program in the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

Today there are eight commodity boards that are administrating eight marketing schemes: the Broiler Hatching Egg Commission, the Chicken Marketing Board, the Cranberry Marketing Commission, the Egg Marketing Board, the Hog Marketing Commission, the
[ Page 4451 ]
Milk Marketing Board, the Turkey Marketing Board and the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission.

These commissions are all administered under the B.C. Farm Industry Review Board, and they meet regularly with commodity boards to discuss existing and emerging issues in the administration and marketing schemes. Again, I use the word "marketing." These organizations do all the marketing in British Columbia for these boards.

The 2010 Winter Olympics was a great opportunity for industry to showcase its food, wine and agrifood products to the media and business interests from all around the world: First Nations Agricultural Association events, the Canadian Food and Wine Affair event and the three berry associations — with blueberries, strawberries and raspberries — which are coming up huge in our marketplace.

A Canada AM broadcast from Robson Square that featured a culinary day aired in four segments that featured blueberries, mushrooms, greenhouse vegetables, beef and apples. The Association of B.C. Farmers Markets has built significant capacity throughout. You can't get any more Buy Local than most farmers' markets, and they're cropping up all over the province.

[1120]

In closing, I'm involved in agriculture. I have been for the last 20 years, and I think we certainly have their rights and intentions to carry on. As the member from Abbotsford said, we're looking at providing water to all our agriculture communities. There's lots of arable land in the province that's not currently irrigated, and we need to do a better job of maintaining and calculating our water resources in British Columbia.

M. Mungall: Every Sunday night from nine to 11 in the evening I have a guilty pleasure, and it's Celebrity Apprentice. After Cyndi Lauper, I'm rooting for celebrity chef Curtis Stone. It's not because he's just a really good-looking guy but because, as his bio says, when it comes to cooking, his philosophy is to cook as Mother Nature intended: buy locally produced seasonal and organic ingredients, keep recipes simple and allow the food to speak for itself. He's talking about food security, and that's one of the reasons I like him so much.

Food security brings up the idea of having enough healthy food, whether that's food banks and soup kitchens, organic and natural foods, the 100-mile diet or the Canada food guide. Food security is so critical to the well-being of any society, and part of that is agricultural production.

That's what brings us to this motion today. We really need to do — we really need to — what this motion is asking us to do, which is to look at a made-in-B.C. food security plan and also for production. The reason is that we are losing food security in B.C. because of B.C. Liberal policies and choices over the last eight years.

Just to give you an example, hon. Speaker: between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2005, the Agricultural Land Commission approved the exclusion of 70.5 percent of the hectares of ALR land that were proposed for exclusion. In the Kootenays, my constituency and the region in which I live, 83.6 percent of the land that was asked to be excluded was approved. We are losing land that we need to grow good, healthy food on so that we can feed ourselves. We have less ability to produce local food.

Another issue, of course, is the amount of funding that we are putting towards agriculture in this province. We are the worst in Canada — the worst. That is absolutely nothing to be proud of, and it is on par with having the highest rate of child poverty in the country as well. We are not able to feed children and we are not able to feed ourselves if we do not have better funding going into our agriculture.

Another issue that is near and dear to the hearts of people in my constituency, in the Creston Valley, is the Buy B.C. program. We have several value-added producers in my area, and it was just a few weeks ago that I sat down with about 50 of those farmers to talk about what they want to see in B.C. policy, what they want to see for agriculture in this province.

One of the key things that they want to see is that Buy B.C. program, because it was so incredibly successful. After just eight years, over 5,000 Buy B.C. products were identified at major grocery retailers throughout the province — 5,000 products. Think of what that is doing for the benefit of our farmers and our agricultural producers.

It's just like what Curtis Stone is saying. Buy organic; buy seasonal; buy local. This is our opportunity, through a Buy B.C. program, to ensure that we're giving British Columbians the opportunity to buy local, to do that 100-mile diet that has become so popular throughout not just B.C., not just Canada but North America. We talk about the five-mile diet in the Creston Valley and how much the Buy B.C. program would be supporting our local farmers, and they want to see that reinstated. Without a doubt, that's what they want to see.

[1125]

With that, let me say that we need to develop a food security and production plan in this province for this province so that we have long-term sustainability when it comes to our food production.

R. Cantelon: Members opposite have mentioned several times — and various speakers — that it's a flaw that we have the lowest proportional spending on agriculture by a provincial government, on the agricultural industry. They point to this as a shortcoming. I would say that philosophically, only the NDP would say that not spending enough money, not spending enough on support programs and not providing enough subsidies would be a flaw.
[ Page 4452 ]

We see it quite differently. We think we need to encourage them, to provide incentives to make them more productive and more efficient. That is why the HST is being welcomed right across the agriculture industry.

There were exemptions, it's true, for provincial sales tax that were available. But it was a byzantine mess of qualification, so much so that this was…. For example, this one item would be included; another wasn't that you'd think logically would be. That's all simplified. It's all wiped away. What was happening often in the agriculture industry is that nobody would bother to apply because it was simply too complex, too tough to get the credits back.

Now it's all simplified and streamlined, and the farmers are responding. There are many initiatives we see, examples of entrepreneurship conquering the big companies and conquering the big suppliers of food substances.

I think some of the most notable examples, and one of the ones that come to food security, is a good friend of mine, Eric Boulton on Gabriola Island. Eric installed his own meat processing plant in order to accommodate, so that he could sell his high-quality, grass-fed beef through the local retailers, principally Piper's market. When any of Eric's product hits Piper's shelves, marked local, it is gone within a couple of days. He can't supply it enough.

Eric takes a very kindly approach to his animals. For example, when it came time to prepare them and put them down for slaughter, Eric would take a bag of grain and lead the animal out of the corral and up to a grassy knoll, where he would very quickly put the animal down with a simple shot so that the animal wasn't stressed, as opposed to some of the other systems that really get the poor animal so stressed that the blood gets up and destroys and discolours the beef. His beef, when it hits the shelves, is the most popular product that Piper's sells.

This is one way that the food security system — introduced through the B.C. government, through the new meat regulations — has enhanced and improved the production of products for the meat shelf.

Another good example of an entrepreneurship that has been very, very successful in the Qualicum Beach area is the Little Qualicum cheese factory. This is a completely self-contained, wholesome, not strictly organic, but a very close to the earth kind of food production. They raise cows. The cows produce milk, and the milk is used for cheese made right on the premises and then marketed.

They also now have wine production as well, berry wines, and it's one of the most attractive facilities on Vancouver Island for agritourism. You can go out there, buy a wide array of wonderful cheeses, and they are absolutely the best. There's also wine available. You can take your children there and get the whole understanding of the procedure of what a farm is all about — from feeding the cattle to milking the cows to creating cheese from the milk from those cows.

It's a wonderful, complete cycle of agriculture production that's been very popular. The cheeses now are sold throughout Vancouver Island and elsewhere, right at grocery stores. They're some of the best and most popular products that are sold.

One of the other big examples is Qualicum Beach's Farmers Market. Every morning from ten o'clock — well, even starting earlier — up till noon on Saturday morning, they have an outstanding market. It has proven to be just a magnet for people wanting fresh produce, local produce, which people prefer.

It tastes good, it's good for you, and the farmers support the market tremendously, so much so that usually you have to get there fairly early. If you go at 11:30 and expect to get choice vegetables…. The vegetables and the products are fabulous. You have to get there earlier in order to get the best pick, because it goes quickly.

[1130]

It's an outstanding example of the community, and I compliment the council of Qualicum Beach for providing the street closures that facilitate the market. The products sell right out. By 11 o'clock or 11:30, the products are pretty well picked through. It's a great example of the community supporting local farmers.

Madam Speaker, I would think it's safe to say that agriculture is alive and well. There's no question that the farmers are embracing the simplicity of HST. The Byzantine rules around PST were archaic and needed to be changed. Now the complete removal of that tax will make their farming less expensive. The cost of their food goes down. The cost of their production goes down, and they'll be able to produce more wonderful products for the consumers. This is one of the many ways that we have supported it.

I come back to the fact that the farmers in British Columbia are… It's a very diverse group and a very wide-ranging group of products that they produce. I think that's one of the outstanding aspects of British Columbia. That's certainly, again, a corollary reason why we don't need to subsidize.

Products, for example, from Alberta — where cattle are one of the primary agriculture products — have unfortunately become basically commoditized. They become price-takers in the market, and therefore the government needs to respond to help them with subsidies. Whereas in B.C. what we've seen — with examples that I've just given, with Eric Boulton's farm and Little Qualicum cheese factory — is that entrepreneurship has shown that they can lead the way and get excellent products to the consumers' shelves.

Certainly, the HST removal, the simplicity — and I have to say that I don't think farmers…. Well, maybe many of us aren't fond of paperwork. This enables them to do what they do best, which is to raise and produce wonderful food products for our tables.
[ Page 4453 ]

I think there's progress being made. People do like to buy local. They do enjoy the food that they get in these local markets, and those markets are expanding and growing in great popularity.

I think food security is important, and I would endorse some of the moves that we've made and will continue to make as this industry, the local industry, continues to thrive and develop.

D. Donaldson: I rise in support of this motion that this House debates and discusses: a made-in-B.C. food security and production plan. I believe that we are at a critical point in food production in the province, perhaps more so than at any point in our history.

Of all food consumed in the province, only 48 percent is produced by B.C. farmers. If you consider the diet recommended in the Canadian food guide to healthy living, which means consuming more fruits and vegetables than most of us consume, that self-reliance number drops to 34 percent. So it's not only a market opportunity, local food production, but a climate action opportunity.

Unfortunately, the response of this government to local food production has been bleak and dismal. There was no mention of agriculture in the throne speech — unbelievable. One of the most important industries that have helped build this province — no mention of agriculture. It shows that there's no vision around where the future goes with agriculture in this province. And not only that, we have in this province the lowest proportional spending by a provincial government in support of agriculture in Canada. Can you believe that?

How does local food production relate to climate action? Well, there has been no consideration of local food systems in the climate action plan by this government and of how local food producers can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

I mentioned those figures about the consumption of food produced in B.C. being at only 48 percent and perhaps 34 percent. Where does that food come from to make up the gap? It comes from faraway places. That involves transportation; it involves burning of fossil fuels that generate the greenhouse gas emissions.

There was a study done in the Smithers farmers' market on food miles associated with the food sold there. Garlic was a prime example. The local grocery store is only a couple of blocks away. The study looked at the food miles associated with garlic at the farmers' market compared to garlic in the local grocery store — a big chain grocery store.

[1135]

The garlic in the local grocery stores, in case members aren't familiar with that, is often brought from places like Indonesia and China. So 230 times the food miles — the garlic at the local grocery store compared to what was available at the farmers market. Can you imagine that — 230 times the food miles? The greenhouse gas emissions from that alone are significant.

Again, no mention of agriculture in this government's climate action plan. The lack of support by this government for local food systems is a long, long list. I'll just touch on a few.

Again, farmers' markets, where producers and consumers come together and generate an economic return for local businesses. Funding is cut for farmers' markets with this government. Support for farmers' markets is down.

Farm-gate sales, especially in regards to beef and in local areas like Stikine, where it's an economic driver as well as a way to procure local healthy food. Farm-gate sales were made illegal by this government — made illegal with no empirical evidence. They cited health reasons. I've questioned the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. She could come up with no reasons from empirical studies to show that farm-gate-sale beef is less healthy than beef produced in feedlots and through large production mechanisms. So again, cutting away at local food system production.

The Northwest Premium Meat Co-op is a co-op that was established in my area as a result of these new laws around farm-gate sales. They are on the critical list. The president of the board has written to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport asking for help, for support. I asked the Minister of Agriculture last week in budget estimates about this situation, about the letter they sent, and he said: "I can say that we are aware of the situation, and staff continue to work with the co-op."

Well, that's interesting, very interesting, because yesterday the president of the board wrote me and said: "We haven't seen an official from either ministry in quite some time, so if they are working with us, it must be telepathically." Telepathically — that's the only way this government is supporting agriculture. Not through policy, not through rules, no other way — just telepathically.

Again, Buy B.C., an incredible program, stopped by this government in 2001. In the six years that Buy B.C. was in place, logo recognition went from 27 percent to 76 percent. Any of those members on the other side who have been involved in small business know that in logo recognition, those kinds of numbers are unbelievable — 76 percent. Cut by this government.

To conclude, the lack of focus by this government on agriculture has put local food production in peril. It's put B.C. agriculture in peril. It's put in peril the health of our population that depends on eating locally produced, healthy food. Finally, with climate change, the lack of focus by this government on agriculture puts future generations in peril.

D. McRae: The future of agriculture is bright indeed in this province. When it comes to B.C. food production and security, I encourage members opposite — heck,
[ Page 4454 ]
I encourage all members — to visit the Comox Valley. The Comox Valley is a role model of intensive small and some not so small agriculture.

For example, I'd argue that our farmers' market is, if not the best, one of the best agricultural farmers' markets in the province. On Saturday mornings you can stroll by there, but let’s not forget that we can also go Wednesday mornings. You stroll through the market and buy a huge range of goods. Just in the last year — things I've bought there…. I bought plants for my garden. I bought jams. My daughter buys honey. The baked goods are phenomenal. Let's not forget about the beef, the bison and the locally grown chicken. The eggs and the berries are absolutely fantastic.

They can all be obtained here, plus while you're shopping, you get the opportunity to enjoy local bands play music and to wander around, socialize and see your friends. It is not only social; it is the right thing to do.

Food production is also reliant upon local support. This is part of culture. You have to create the culture of supporting your local food production. As long as I can remember, my family has visited many farms. One that comes to mind is the Seifert farm out in Lazo. They seasonally provide produce enjoyed by Comox Valley residents. For $20 you can swing by during the day in the right time of year, and you can buy your cucumbers and peppers, and you can buy your garlic and your eggs. You can buy flowers for the table. It is an absolute joy to go to this farm. It grows and grows.

[1140]

We also have a local restaurant that's kind of unique. It's called Locals. What a name. The chef is fantastic. His name is Ronald St. Pierre. They offer exquisite cuisine, and the food and wine they serve is sourced locally — locally Comox Valley, locally Vancouver Island and British Columbia. The place is an absolute poster child for how you sell agriculture in the modern world.

We also have in the Comox Valley — and I'm sure many members have shopped there — a local market called Brambles. This market is the first in B.C. to sell only B.C. products. You can buy B.C. produce. Last Thanksgiving I had the honour and distinction of buying the last yellow pepper of the season that they had for sale. They sell locally grown beef, pork and chicken.

As members and the audience probably do not know, I happen to suffer from a disease called celiac disease. They have a local baker who brings in wheat-free, gluten-free products, and I love shopping there. This is an example of how communities grow agriculture.

Another example in the Comox Valley is Natures Way Farm. This five-acre berry farm is owned by George Ehrler and his partner, Marla Limousin, who not only produce excellent berries but also turn these berries into very fine berry wines. They have a winery called Blue Moon Estate Winery.

They have also recently added something called the Tria Culinary Studio. This concept brings together farm, food and wine in one beautiful place, and the able chef, Kathy Jerritt, who produces fantastic food, offers cooking classes, culinary workshops and custom dining events in a truly unique environment.

I don't know if I need to talk any more about the Comox Valley, but you know what? I will. What about the Shelter Point Distillery? The Shelter Point Distillery will come into operation in the near future. They've just received their still that they bought from Germany. It's been brought over to the Comox Valley after a long process to get it here. And you know what? We're going to see the first whiskey distillery, basically, west of Cape Breton Island. If you know where Cape Breton Island, it's about as far east in Canada as you can go.

This will be a great example of value-added agriculture and tourism potential of British Columbia. Why? It's the right thing to do, and we can continue to grow agriculture in this province, and the agriculture industry. [Applause.] Why, thank you.

We talk about growing agriculture in British Columbia, and I'd be remiss not to mention the HST. I'm not an expert on agriculture at all. But you know what? I think I know someone who is, and it's Garnet Etsell, chair of the B.C. Agricultural Council. I don't want to put words in his mouth, so I'll just take his quote word for word. He says that harmonization "will have a significant and positive impact on agriculture overall, and is consistent with what our members have been calling for."

It will not only make farm operations more profitable, but it will encourage farmers to invest more in equipment. That in turn will make them more productive, and that in turn will make them even more profitable. They're saying it's the right thing to do. Why? Because they've been asking for it year after year, and this government listened.

You know, in the province of British Columbia we have 60,000 people employed in the primary agriculture and processing sectors in the province. The farm-gate sales alone total $2.3 billion, and food processing accounts for another $6.6 billion of this province's economy. We need to grow this even more because it is the right thing to do today and into the future.

Now lastly, agriculture in the Comox Valley — because I love the Comox Valley — is flourishing, and moves by this government both through the Ministry of Finance in terms of creating a positive economic environment…. We've done that. We have done it in the last eight years through reducing things like the corporate tax, the small business tax, and we've given more dollars to people in terms of reducing the personal income tax in the province, because that allows them to have more dollars to go shopping locally.

You know, what makes me even more proud is that we have a Minister of Agriculture — whose name remains unsaid, because you cannot say names — who brings a wealth of experience in massive areas of agriculture in
[ Page 4455 ]
this province to this ministry. He is a gentleman who is knowledgable. He is wise and he listens, and we are so lucky to have him as the Minister of Agriculture in this province.

This province is committed to growing agriculture in British Columbia. It's committed to growing it today and into the future, and I think we will prove this province right because it is the right thing to do for B.C. It is the right thing to do for local residents, and I am proud to be speaking on this issue in this assembly today.

[1145]

N. Simons: Well, I've never seen — and no disrespect intended — a more wasted five minutes of this House's time than his elitist advertorial for wine pairings. We're talking about food security. We're talking about the need to protect our food system so that people throughout this province have access to healthy and affordable nutritious food. We're not talking about where your favourite winery is or your most favourite unpasteurized cheese.

I know kids in my constituency….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will direct your remarks through the Chair.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, through you to the member who spoke previously, there are people in his constituency, in the Comox Valley, who are making decisions today about affordability of rent or affordability of food. If that member isn't recognizing that fact in this House today, he's not doing his job.

Food security is more than just about your favourite taste buds or what makes you feel good at the end of a day. There are children in this province who that member knows are living in poverty, and that member knows the welfare rates aren't adequate to support a family.

Children are not being properly fed. Children are not doing as well in school. Communities are not succeeding and being the vibrant places they can be because of poverty in this province, and that is what this issue is about.

The resolution reads, for those interested: "Be it resolved that this House debate and discuss a made-in-B.C. food security and production plan." We're not talking about wine pairings, yet the giggling from the other side of this House makes it seem like this is just fun and frivolity. We have work to do as legislators in this province, and their abject disregard for the important issue before us is a shame on this House.

In my riding alone, in the last 20 years, we've lost over 3,000 hectares of agricultural land reserve in one part of the coast alone and 2,000 in the other. We need to do more to protect our land. We need to do what we have to do looking forward, as the government likes to say. We need to figure out how we are going to feed our communities when the food systems that this government tries to promote and support fail.

We've seen evidence of them failing in the past. We don't see problems with E. coli from buying a side of beef from a neighbour. We see it from the plants like Maple Leaf Foods. We see it from the huge industrial farming complexes where meat gets mixed with all sorts of things, and we don't know what we're buying.

I prefer to live in a province where we have the option of buying healthy, local food. This government is doing everything it can to make that impossible, from the meat regulations, from new regulations on farming, on weekend farmers' markets…. What they say and what they do is completely unrelated to the needs of this province. I would say to help them go back into their lulled state of denial that really, what we need to be doing is making sure that all families in this province have access to healthy food.

It's not a very complicated thing. We need to be promoting a well-thought-out plan for disaster, for the uncertainties of the future. It's the responsibility of government to look to that future and make sure that the citizens of this province are adequately protected for whatever eventuality. Instead, we hear about cheese and wine.

It's too bad. I'd like to see that government side put some thought into intellectual policy, intellectual thought into some policies that will work for the people of this province instead of just self-promotion and advertorials for a few selected, hand-picked constituents.

This is about food security for children in this province, and I find that the government side is failing woefully in this regard, unfortunately. In order for food security to be higher on this list, the government needs to recognize that it's a problem. Perhaps they need to recognize what it actually is. Once they do that, perhaps they'll think to the future and plan for the future and ensure that children and families in this province have access to healthy, local, sustainably produced food for British Columbians.

D. Horne: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to talk about food security and its importance in our province and to the citizens of British Columbia. It's one of these issues that we talk about — the safety of the food supply, the security of our food supply.

[1150]

It's one of these issues that really doesn't come to the forefront of many people's minds until there's a shortage. Several years ago in Asia there was a crop failure in rice, and you saw how quickly people closed the borders, how quickly people shut down the supply of rice, how quickly what was seen as a plentiful crop that was very easy to come by became in very short demand very, very quickly. Panic really engulfed the marketplace very, very quickly.

You take a look at British Columbia, and you take a look at our farmers, our agricultural sector. One of the things that became very, very clear to me when I was in Vernon about two weeks ago…. You take a look at our
[ Page 4456 ]
production and the production of others, of our neighbours and things, in a very simple crop — apples.

The production in British Columbia is about four million bushels. If you take a look at Washington, a state very close to ourselves and someone that you'd think would probably have similar production to British Columbia, Washington produces about 100 million bushels a year of apples or slightly over 100 million bushels a year of apples.

So if you take a look at British Columbia's production, it really comes down to a rounding error compared to Washington's. As such, the future of our agriculture, of our apple industry, comes into question because, of course, as Washington continues to build its industry and ours becomes insignificant in the sense of how many apples we produce, it obviously becomes a concern.

This motion has to do with security of food supply, with the security of making sure that we produce the foods for our citizens, that we produce enough food, that we produce the required amount. It's a very interesting argument and something that we all have to, I think, spend more attention and more time on, because from a sheer market system, it can obviously become very, very difficult.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We need to support our farmers. We need to support our agricultural sector to ensure that in difficult times — should borders and supply and crop failure occur — the food will be there for our citizens and that we basically have the food we need.

Right now, as it stands, British Columbia produces approximately 50 percent of the food for our needs. We need to make certain that in producing only 50 percent of our food, we do not deteriorate that further, that we make sure we are producing enough food to ensure the security of British Columbians.

One of the things that many of my colleagues have spoken to, as well, is making sure that in order to support our farmers, we support the sector economically and make sure that we put a framework in place to make it as viable as possible and as easy as possible for those who engage in this industry to do business and produce the food we need.

As is said many times, obviously, the HST is a very strong step forward in order to ensure that. It's something that is supported strongly by the agricultural sector and something that I think will be very welcome by them.

J. Kwan: From the way the last speaker, the member from Burke Mountain was talking, you would think he's actually in support of the motion. No wonder, because what does the motion call for? It calls for a made-in-B.C. food security and production plan.

We heard earlier from some Liberal MLAs that they have a plan — a fabulous plan, they say — from this government. Well, let's just review for a moment what the government has done, what they call a made-in-B.C. food security and production plan.

[1155]

The Agricultural Land Commission. Let's just look at that issue. B.C. is home to a rich but limited resource of highly fertile soils. A very small portion — less than 5 percent — of the B.C. land base is suitable for agriculture, and only 1 percent is considered prime agricultural land capability of classes 1, 2 and 3.

We should also note, though, that within that class we have other capability classes producing high-value food products as well. But this land base under this government is being threatened by loss to development as urbanization spreads and land prices rise.

We also note that the government has consistently been chipping away at our precious farmlands. What they did when they came into office was amend the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which allows for the Agricultural Land Commission to grant exclusions from the agricultural land reserve for subdivisions and for non-farmland use or what is called community use.

The Agricultural Land Commission approved the exclusion of 70.5 percent of the hectares of agricultural land that were proposed for exclusion in the years 2002 and 2005. Then in 2006 the alignment for the South Fraser perimeter road was chosen, and guess what happened there. The southern route was chosen, which cuts through the Burns Bog and eliminates 310 acres of agricultural farmland.

There could have been an alternative route that the Transportation Ministry could have chosen, but no, that wasn't good enough. What the government allowed to happen was see that agricultural land lose its priority in this province. In other words, road development trumped the preservation of agricultural land. That's this government's record in terms of that issue.

There are many other examples which we don't have time to go into on the agricultural land reserve, but suffice it to say this government has allowed for the erosion of agricultural land under their leadership.

On a second issue — and some members touched on it already — Buy B.C., a hugely successful program that promoted British Columbia products, and the branding was recognized by some 76 percent of the consumers. You can't buy branding like that, but that was something that was built up in partnership with government and industry.

What did the government do? They cancelled that program when they came into office — so much for promoting and supporting food production in British Columbia. That's part of this government's record on the food security and production plan.

Then what happened? The other thing that happened with respect to this government…. The farmers market. I heard some members talk about the farmers market.
[ Page 4457 ]
Well, there was a successful farmers market voucher program that supported low-income people, people from my riding and other ridings, to access farmers market products, fresh produce in their own communities. Guess what happened to that program. Cancelled by this government. So that's the government's record with respect to that.

The last thing I'm going to touch on before I run out of time completely is the aquaculture plan that the government talked about. In the throne speech they made a big deal of it, and in 2005 the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture was talked about.

A committee was formed, and it was actually led by our member, the current critic for Education. Recommendations were proposed to actually ensure that we protect our wild stock, salmon, which is at risk with fish farms and so on. What happened to those recommendations? Nothing. That set of recommendations sat on a shelf and gathered dust.

Back in 2005 the government made the recommendation to have this committee struck, and they did nothing with all the work that was done by the committee in their recommendations. That's the track record of this government. So much for a plan. Time to get to work. Time to make sure that we have a made-in-B.C. food security and production plan for British Columbia.

J. Kwan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ 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 © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175