2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th 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, July 15, 2013
Morning Sitting
Volume 3, Number 1
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Private Members' Statements |
437 |
Growing fibre, growing value |
|
N. Macdonald |
|
D. Barnett |
|
Growing our B.C. agrifoods strategy |
|
S. Hamilton |
|
N. Simons |
|
Under-reported crime |
|
M. Elmore |
|
D. Plecas |
|
Cancer outcomes in B.C. |
|
M. Morris |
|
J. Rice |
|
Private Members' Motions |
446 |
Motion 2 — Promotion of purchasing from B.C. businesses |
|
D. Eby |
|
M. Bernier |
|
L. Popham |
|
D. Bing |
|
B. Ralston |
|
D. Barnett |
|
S. Robinson |
|
S. Sullivan |
|
R. Fleming |
|
M. Hunt |
|
L. Krog |
|
MONDAY, JULY 15, 2013
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Statements
GROWING FIBRE, GROWING VALUE
N. Macdonald: Last year a committee of seven MLAs — four Liberal, three NDP — travelled to 17 communities to hold hearings on the collapse of the timber supply in the Interior. The committee was supported ably by Hansard as well as by the Clerk's office.
[D. Horne in the chair.]
We had what I would say is a successful experience as a committee in that we had 650 presentations made by organizations, businesses, community leaders and individuals. I think it's fair to say that the public took its responsibility seriously in terms of participating in the invitation to give advice on what is a very serious issue, not only to the Interior but to all of British Columbia. The public took its responsibility seriously — as I said, 650 presentations, many in person, many taking the time to write in detail what needed to be done.
I think it's fair to say that the members of the committee took its work seriously as well. The response, I assume, will be from another committee member who currently is the Parliamentary Secretary for Forestry.
So those that participated, those that advised the committee, would agree that work was taken seriously by the committee. The government, I think it's fair to say, treated the work of the committee and the participation of the public with what I would describe as a disappointing disdain. The committee probably cost over $300,000 to put together, and I think that when there are expenditures of public funds to that extent, the public expects the work that's done to be taken seriously and to see that work reflected in government action in some way.
The time frame that the committee had was limited, but the recommendations, I think, were a pretty honest reflection of what we heard from the public. The committee said first and foremost that we needed to respect First Nations and community rights to have a say on the land. I think it's clear to anyone who is from rural B.C. that over the past 12 years the mechanisms that were there for participation by First Nations and by communities have in many ways been diminished and taken away.
What people were saying is that they wanted that say back again, that they wanted to participate. We heard again and again that we have to have up-to-date inventory so that we know not only the forest inventory; we also know the wildlife and we know the other non-timber resources that are out there. Quite frankly, right now we don't.
We also need to invest in silviculture, but instead of doing that, the government's response was to make cuts in the very areas that the people and this committee said needed to be strengthened. Just to be clear, we have 74 percent of inventory in British Columbia that's 30 years or older. What's clear is that you cannot make informed decisions on the land base where you don't have up-to-date information. We were told that again and again, and the recommendations from the committee reflect what we heard from the public, from professionals, from licensees — to invest in proper inventory.
As well, in 2002 the government removed its obligation to replant in areas that are not licensee obligations. These are areas such as the parts of the land base where there's been fire, where there's been disease, where there has been other loss of fibre. Now, I think many British Columbians assume that we would go and replant, that that's the logical thing to do, and I think many think it's happening. But the government in 2002 removed the law that required the province to replant, cut the budget by 90 percent, did practically nothing up to 2005 and then promised that we would get up to 50 million seedlings by 2012.
Well, I think it would surprise, again, many British Columbians to realize that despite that 50 million promise that was made again and again by members here in the House, we actually only planted 12 million seedlings last year. And now, when the government promises…. Maybe the member answering will tell us about how they're going to plant 50 percent more. It's 50 percent more based on the 12 million that was supposed to be 50 million. So that's B.C. Liberal government math, right?
It's all about the spin but nothing about the reality that we are depleting our most valuable asset, our public lands. It is probably worth $1 trillion, and yet again and again the government decides to cut in the very areas that we need to spend money in if we are serious about looking after the land.
We suggested and we recommended what people told us needed to happen. We made 50 recommendations, if you count the parts of the various recommendations — 50. On almost each of those areas the government either ignored completely what was recommended or made cuts in those very areas that we said needed more expenditures.
So $35 million coming out of the places that need expenditure, such as inventory, with replanting, with allowing communities to have a say on what happens on
[ Page 438 ]
their own land. This is contempt to the process.
Why do you send out committees? Many of the new members are going to be on committees. I'll tell you that my experience after eight years is that if you take your work seriously there, you're going to be disappointed, because nothing comes of it. It is an exercise, for the most part, in spin. They put you out there. Everyone participates in a serious manner, and then the results are invariably disappointing.
After the election — okay, a $35 million cut in areas where we say more expenditures need to be made. The only thing that the government lifted from the recommendations was a misrepresentation on the rollovers to TFLs.
I'll listen to the response and then finish off in just a few minutes.
D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague across the floor. I, too, was on the timber supply review committee, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I believe that the all-committee process does work. I believe we did some good work. I believe we had some issues, but together we came to a conclusion and put a public report out there for government to listen to and for government to take seriously, which we do.
There are parts of the report that are in process. Your mid-term timber supply reviews are out there. I know that in the region I come from, if you look on the website, it is well at hand. There's a public process out there right now.
I find it very disappointing that my colleague from across the floor finds everything we do in forestry and the land base negative. This is not the time in the province of British Columbia to be negative. This is a time to be positive. There are many, many good things that are happening out there, especially in Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, because that is what ministry drives the economy of this province.
I don't think that my colleague across the way has taken a good look at what a great collaboration we do have with First Nations. If you take a look at how many First Nations communities have forest-revenue-sharing agreements with this government, you will be very pleased. There are approximately 175 First Nations that we now have these agreements with.
We have been advocating for many years to diversify our markets in other countries across the world, and we have been very, very successful at that. If you come with me one day, I'd love to take you for a tour of the Cariboo-Chilcotin so you can look at the beautiful second-growth forests.
You can look at the new forests that are out there and take a look across the province of British Columbia in many regions. When you say that there's no new growth, that our silviculture programs are no good…. Our silviculture programs are good.
When you take a look at the industry now that is responsible for tree planting…. The industry is responsible, not the government. Where they log and where they do their forestry, you and I both know, that is their responsibility, which has certainly helped the province of British Columbia and the taxpayers.
You take a look at the softwood lumber agreement, the last go-round. This government did the best job that has been done in many years for this province and this country.
In 2012 there were 56,400 workers employed in the B.C. forest sector, up from 2011. My colleagues will say we have less jobs. But when we continuously hear out there in the public that forestry is in trouble, it creates nothing but negativism, not just for the forest industry but for our communities.
I have worked for the past nine years on economic development with our pine beetle coalitions in this province of British Columbia. Those coalitions have done great work. Those communities, some of them, have great successes. They are looking at diversification, but every time they hear negativism, it hurts those communities.
Forestry is different now than it was ten, 15, 20 years ago — five years ago. The pine beetle created that. You can sit there and smile across the floor. The pine beetle has created this issue out there in our forest industry. We cannot grow trees as quick as we would like to. And when you have a disease such as we have with pine beetle, expectations by communities are where they should be. Communities know the issue, and they know how hard this government is working to try and assist them.
My colleagues across the floor can say it's our fault that trees aren't growing. Trees are growing. We have done a great job. We have put dollars and cents into these communities, not just for reforestation but for other economic benefits.
You know, we take a look at the presentations that were made to our committee. They were great presentations, and they were compassionate presentations. They were from people that say they care about their communities, they care about their forests, they care about the province, and they care about collaboration. That is what we have to do. We have to continue to work together on this issue, not continue to be negative. Being negative will not help us in any manner.
N. Macdonald: Two minutes to respond. We went around with the committee. The lead-off speaker was the current Minister of Aboriginal Relations. His leadoff to each and every community was to expect between ten and 12 mill closures, right? That was the leadoff from the Liberal member. That's why the committee was set up, because we know that we face some real challenges.
They are not something that you can simply, glibly be happy about and hope that you are going to solve the
[ Page 439 ]
problem. You actually have to, as elected officials, participate in solving the problem.
This committee was supposed to have recommendations that were actually listened to. It is the committee that said there needed to be investment in inventory. This government chose to cut in that area to the tune of $35 million.
Licensees do their job in replanting. It is the province, the B.C. Liberals, that decided that the provincial obligation which is not related to harvesting but is loss to disease, the loss to fire…. There are almost two million hectares that should be replanted, which are a provincial obligation, that this government has not replanted. They, for years, argued that it didn't exist, because they also don't pay for surveying. So on the books it didn't show up.
That's the sort of management which inevitably leads you to problems down the line and where you are inevitably letting down the people of the province who own this asset. We should know that as legislators. We were told that. We were given a report. The government chooses to ignore it completely.
I think especially for new MLAs and for backbenchers, who are often asked to do this work, it is our obligation, both NDP and Liberal, to insist the work that we do is not a sham, that it actually leads somewhere and that we're not letting down the people who come out and participate.
I can tell you it will become less and less, and when that happens, we as legislators become less and less of importance or relevance. That's not something that the government does to us; it is something that we are complicit in when we allow it to happen.
I was on that committee. There were four Liberals, three NDP. We did good work. It's gone nowhere, and both sides who participate in committee have an obligation to see that that's not how it works. That's not the story that we tell classes that we go to and explain the system we are part of. When you go to a class, you say this is how it works. You then have an obligation to come to this place and make sure that that's how it works.
There is a report here. It is good work. It needs to be something that's true as we go forward, not the sham that it is so far. Thank you for the opportunity.
GROWING OUR
B.C. AGRIFOODS STRATEGY
S. Hamilton: It's my pleasure to stand up in the House today and speak about the vast agrifood industry in Delta.
Our region is home to a number of farms, some 200, the majority of which are family-owned and -operated. These farms are vital in providing British Columbians with fresh and healthy food products.
Delta's agrifood sector contributes over $169 million in gross farm receipts annually to drive the economy. While that number is impressive, our government is working with local farmers to do even more. The Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust is a non-profit organization that promotes the preservation of farmland and wildlife habitat on the lower Fraser River through cooperation, land stewardship with local farmers.
Each year Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust provides local farmers with $350,000 of cost-share funding through stewardship programs, and this funding allows farmers to invest in the long-term health of their land and soil as well as provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife, including birds that migrate along the Pacific Flyway. These stewardship programs ensure an annual average of over 500 acres of grassland set aside, 3,000 acres of winter crop covers and 12 kilometres of hedgerows and grass margins.
Delta has a rich agricultural history that started in 1868 when two brothers, Thomas and William Ladner, pre-empted and began to cultivate land in what is now Ladner town centre. Significant time, effort and capital have been invested in improving soils for agricultural production since pioneers discovered the fertile Fraser River delta, whose regions were diked, ditched and drained. Land was cleared, rocks were picked, soil was plowed and produce was grown.
By the late 1800s Ladner was developing into a hotbed of agriculture and related industries. It served markets throughout the Lower Mainland and transported products by railway and steamer by the early 1900s. In fact, some produce from the eastern Fraser Valley was shipped to Vancouver Island and Victoria through the Ladner village.
From early years on, support industries and processing facilities developed and expanded with the very productive farms in Delta. The diversity of products grown in Delta has increased over the years. Hay production and pastures were very important during the early years. They supported the livestock that needed to work the land. They were instrumental in dairy and beef production and supported livestock used in forestry operations.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s there was a fundamental change in the way farms were managed in Delta. The construction of the Deas Island Tunnel opened the land to easy access from neighbouring communities. In addition, expansion of specialty crops, advances in farming technology and expropriation of a significant area of farmland caused a shift in farm management practices. Some farms began to move from mixed farming to soil vegetable production or dairy operations.
Today the general composition of farm operations continues to change. More and more land is being converted to newer crop styles such as greenhouse-grown produce, cranberries and blueberries, just to name a few. This increase, or change, in the diversity of crops in Delta is essential for farming operations. In such a rich culture, Delta is working to make sure our agriculture industry is shared and embraced by the members of our community.
[ Page 440 ]
The Delta Farmers Institute offers great programs for the whole family, especially Day at the Farm, which is held in the fall, one of the most exciting agricultural fairs in the Lower Mainland. The event provides visitors the opportunity to connect with real farms, real farmers and real local food.
The goal is to educate our communities about the nature and importance of agriculture and the non-market environmental services that it provides. The day is filled with plenty of entertainment and activities, including hay wagon tours led by three generations of farmers from the Gordon Ellis family.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is vitally important to the Delta's economic, environmental and social stability. In Delta we're proud that our current agriculture practices reflect strong support for productive agriculture, protection of the agricultural land reserve, conservation of land for soil-based agriculture, and the integrated approach to management and the needs of agriculture, the environment and non-farming stakeholders.
Delta is a place where the business of farming can prosper while contributing vitally to the community's ecological attributes and social, cultural and economic well-being. Delta agriculture is thriving, and our local agricultural sector effectively services local and non-local markets.
Our government recently announced a new $213,000 job training program that will prepare 120 British Columbians for a career in food processing. This is a new opportunity for students to join the more than 61,000 British Columbians already working in our province's agrifood sector.
Our government continues to support agriculture in Delta with several projects, which include working with our innovative clean energy fund. SunSelect Produce Inc. developed a proprietary carbon capture system that is used in our Delta greenhouses to reduce energy costs.
The Ministry of Agriculture is also working with stakeholders to promote further innovation in greenhouse heating, technology and leading an export analysis study to identify new markets for B.C. greenhouse products. We're also working with the B.C. Cranberry Marketing Commission to conduct research to select the most promising new cranberry varieties for B.C. conditions. Much of this research will be conducted at the newly established cranberry research centre in Delta. This project will further add to the diversity of our agrifood industry.
Government and the B.C. Agriculture Council and industry leaders are working together to enhance industrywide competitiveness throughout B.C. — Agrifoods and Seafood Competitiveness Committee, the B.C. potato variety trial…. The project includes the agrifood industry and culinary arts programs using the fields of Delta to identify and evaluate a range of potato varieties, testing them for field performance as well as suitability for use in a variety of value-added products.
We're also working hard to provide B.C. farmers with the resources they need to be successful and cooperative in today's global marketplace. This spring we launched www.agrifoodbc.ca to allow producers access to industry-specific information and business risk management tools. We celebrate all of these investments and accomplishments and look forward to much more to come.
N. Simons: I'd like to thank the member for Delta South, Delta North — both Deltas — a councillor, for speaking passionately about his industry and his area. I think it's important to hear about all of the good things that are taking place in the Deltas. It's a pleasure to be able to offer a response to the member's statement on growing B.C.'s agrifoods program.
To start, I would say that it reminds me a little bit — when the government side talks about the industries that they want to talk about — that in my early days in elementary school we used to get report cards that said…. It wasn't A, B and C or anything, but it was "commendable" if you were doing well, "satisfactory" if things were just going along fine, and one, not often but occasionally, was "has difficulty." Sometimes that would be checked off on my report card. It wasn't my favourite one. I'd say that the same process and evaluation can be used, perhaps, for some of the government's policies when it comes to agriculture.
Obviously, there is nothing negative about the promotion of growing good food in our wonderful British Columbia agricultural lands, including all the berries that were spoken of, and to preserve agricultural land. That's something that I think we should encourage the government to continue to focus on. But in the area of the "has difficulties" — because that's the responsibility of the opposition, to point out where some improvements could be made — it would have to do in the area, perhaps, of addressing the issues around climate change and how that's going to impact our agricultural sector.
One thing that this government seems to be remiss or having difficulty in is to address the issues facing farmers and facing the agrifoods sector when it comes to climate change. Recent studies have indicated that not enough preparation is being put into addressing the climactic events that we are likely to see — increased flooding, increased droughts, extreme precipitation and the like, all of which will have a significant impact on agriculture.
I'd like to also point out the other area where this government may have some difficulty is in recognizing that some of the best programs, which were implemented years ago, were abandoned by this government. Specifically, I'm talking about Buy B.C., a program that was successful — one of the most successful marketing programs for British Columbia farmers and food producers that was, unfortunately, cut in 2001 in one of the first
[ Page 441 ]
acts that this government undertook.
I'm not sure if the member across would necessarily have agreed with that at the time. I wouldn't presume to make any assumptions about that, but certainly, the words he's spoken to us today seem to indicate that some of the policies need to be reversed, such as perhaps bringing back a Buy B.C. program that could actually promote the local purchasing, consumption and, obviously, growing of British Columbia food.
The B.C. agrifoods strategy itself is in a 36-page document made up mostly of pictures of ministers and actors. It is an interesting read, and it does actually address some of the issues that we need to focus on. But in the larger scheme of things, the agricultural industry needs more attention paid to it in terms of the fundamental issues, as opposed to the glossy 36 pages of photographs of delicious-looking food.
I think the member across would likely be in a good position to try to influence his cabinet colleagues to consider what in fact would be in the best interests of the agriculture industry — perhaps investing in the processing sector, investing in promoting the use of agricultural land for agricultural purposes, something that we've seen diminish over the years.
I think, also, that when we consider the impact of climate change, we have to consider the fact that our growing regions are going to be shifting north. When a government is looking to the future, looking to future generations, obviously we need to prepare for these changes. I think that maybe what's missing in the agrifoods strategy is the adaptation that's required.
I appreciate the member's words on the agricultural industries in both North and south Delta. I think that more needs to be done by this government to ensure that the overall sector is looked after in the future.
S. Hamilton: I do appreciate the comments from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. He brings up some very valid concerns with regard to climate change. Those concerns have to be acknowledged and cannot be ignored.
I find, however, that the best people to talk to about that issue are the actual farmers. They, in fact, are the people that we consult with. I believe they are probably the most adaptive, most creative group in the business sector that you can find. They are the ones that have rotated their crops to accommodate changing climates.
There are very good reasons, as they go forward and produce their business plans, for them to acknowledge the fact that they have to adapt. They have to be able to change to differing circumstances as years go by.
I will bring up several of the issues with my caucus colleagues and have discussions with them. But once again, as is most important, I think it's vital that we speak to the farmers, because they know their industry best. I will continue to advocate for the agricultural community in this entire province as I have in the previous 11 years as a Delta councillor.
Promoting farm diversity is also something that I've been involved with in the last number of years on Delta council. Over the years farmers have become very creative with the way they have marketed their products. There are more farm gates and more opportunities to buy local products through farmers markets and on the farm — opportunities to actually go to the gate.
We have berry farms. The Bissett family, for example, on Westham Island, have been producing berry wines for some time. When it comes to the farming industry…. Most people don't think of wineries when they think of farms, unless you go to California and you walk around Sonoma or Napa counties. When you do come to Delta and you think farming, you take a look at the opportunities that you have not just to participate in the farming activities but to take in the natural environment. It's quite substantial.
We have almost 7,000 hectares of prime agricultural land being farmed in Delta. Of course, that plays a very important role. As we go forward it's my intention, as I said, to continue to advocate on behalf of the farming community.
I will be there to listen to whatever advice the member opposite can give. I think we share a common goal to make certain that the agricultural community and that agriculture in this province continue to thrive, prosper and go forward.
UNDER-REPORTED CRIME
M. Elmore: I am very pleased to rise in the House and speak on the topic of the under-reported crime of human trafficking, a modern form of slavery. Human trafficking involves the recruitment, movement and exploitation of individuals, often through threat of violence and coercion.
We may associate human trafficking with something that goes on in far-off countries, but that's not the case. Canada and, indeed, B.C. are not exempt from this global scourge. Canada and B.C. actually, in fact, are three — a source country; they receive transition through; and also a destination country for men, women and children who are trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and also forced labour.
In Canada and B.C., women and girls, many of whom are aboriginal, are trafficked internally — within British Columbia and also within Canada — for commercial sexual exploitation. We may ask ourselves a rhetorical question: why does this happen? Well, very simply, it's that traffickers profit. They make money.
It's estimated that every year one woman who is trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation brings in
[ Page 442 ]
$280,000 to the person who is trafficking them. It's a situation…. We must strive in British Columbia and across Canada to not only bring an end to human trafficking but to support victims and ensure that our jurisdiction here in British Columbia becomes an area that supports victims and really sends the message and delivers the reality that traffickers are not welcome, that they'll face severe punishments and that it's not worth it on their end.
In terms of the context of human trafficking, 80 percent are trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation, and 20 percent are trafficked for forced labour, typically in agriculture, sweat shops and also domestic servitude.
The context in terms of human trafficking, to appreciate…. In Canada and British Columbia we are seeing increasing numbers of temporary foreign workers, certainly a shift and distortion of the traditional trajectory of our immigration policies.
We now see increasing numbers and more individuals coming into Canada under temporary visas for temporary foreign workers — in British Columbia over 70,000 folks under temporary work visas, a shocking statistic. So we see increasing numbers, and these folks have fundamentally no access to services. Especially vulnerable are women that come under the low-skilled category.
The reality is that the temporary foreign worker program creates conditions that give rise to human trafficking, because it ties employees to their employers, has weak regulations and also weak enforcement. It's an issue that we need to address and that requires leadership by government and, also, all levels of government working together collaboratively and cooperatively, building partnerships with community organizations and service providers to ensure at all levels that the issue is identified, that victims are supported, that they have access to services and that traffickers are prosecuted.
In terms of the three general areas, prevention addresses the need to look at the root causes, which include the demand side of the industry; as well as to protect and to ensure that not only are regulations in place but also the rescue, rehabilitation, counselling and other supports that are required for victims who find themselves in this situation, which includes housing and other services; and third, to prosecute traffickers.
We've seen recently the first case of human trafficking in British Columbia. The employer of Leticia Sarmiento was found guilty on charges of human trafficking by the B.C. Supreme Court. That's the first case here in British Columbia and certainly very significant.
Also, to appreciate the difficulty and the need for a concerted, focused effort to bring an end to human trafficking and support the victims, it's often very difficult for victims to come forward to get out of their situations. Often they're isolated, subjected to threats of violence or coercion. They often have their passport held, and their movement and access to other people are restricted.
There's a need to really ensure that services and supports are in place to allow victims to transition out and have a support and safety net.
We have in British Columbia the office to combat trafficking in persons, which was established in 2007 under the current government and regarded at the time as not only a Canada-wide but internationally recognized institution leading the charge in terms of combatting human trafficking. Unfortunately, in 2011 their budget was cut in half, and they lost three-quarters of their staff positions. As well, other services and resources were cut, unfortunately, and the role of the organization was essentially eliminated.
This reality of human trafficking requires serious attention. I think there's a need and a call for stronger leadership and support at all levels to ensure that we bring an end and the strong message is sent that certainly British Columbia doesn't tolerate human trafficking, that we'll support victims and that we will bring very swift and severe penalties to traffickers for this really unimaginable crime.
In terms of what's needed, it goes beyond talk. We really need to move to action and deliver resources and deliver the needed services that victims, advocacy groups, community groups and also experts have identified are needed to bring an end to this situation.
This global problem of human trafficking is characterized as hidden in plain sight. It's a reality, and we need to take serious steps to ensure we bring an end to it in British Columbia.
D. Plecas: Thank you to the member opposite for raising this important issue, and a special thank-you for your championing of the cause.
There's no question that under-reporting of human trafficking and crime in general is a problem. It's been a problem for a long time. It's been a problem for decades. That said, it's also fair to say that for nearly as long there's been a recognition of this problem and a concerted effort on the part of police and government to take steps to encourage the reporting of crime, especially for vulnerable groups.
Evidencing this are the long-running initiatives such as Crime Stoppers, witness protection programs, sex crimes unit, all of the programs surrounding mandatory arrest policies, victim assistance with respect to domestic violence. These programs are happening here in B.C. and, in fact, all over the western world.
Further, as a matter of course, we want to remember that police and governments commonly make a point of proactively calling public attention to the importance of reporting crimes, and equally as common, police actively seek to assure victims that their safety is paramount in reporting crimes.
But if I may, Mr. Speaker, call attention to some of the very proactive initiatives undertaken by this government
[ Page 443 ]
as a way of emphasizing to victims this government's commitment being especially supportive of them. That's in terms of preventing victimization in the first place, in terms of making it easier to report victimization and in terms of respecting safety concerns when reporting.
Specifically and for example, as the member opposite has pointed out, this government in 2007 established the office to combat trafficking in persons. That office, we want to remember, is the first of its kind and the only one in Canada. That's an office to develop and coordinate all efforts to address human trafficking, working across and coordinating with various provincial ministries, federal departments, municipal governments, law enforcement agencies and community organizations.
Whilst there's some concern about the cutbacks to that office, we want to remember those cutbacks don't necessarily equate with a lesser degree of service and that that service is not also picked up to some degree in other areas. One, notably, is VictimLINK B.C., which provides confidential, multilingual, 24-7 telephone-based information referral services and immediate crisis support across the province. VictimLINK connects people to a network of community, social, health, justice and government resources, including victim services, transition houses and counselling services.
Then, of course, there is the employment standards branch agricultural compliance team, which visits farms to ensure that owners, producers and contractors are complying with employment standards legislation. In fact, in 2012 alone, for instance, the branch representative spoke directly with over 3,000 agricultural workers and performed over 100 site visits. The branch also conducts educational seminars and presentations to schools, employer associations, immigrant settlement workers and other groups of workers.
There's also WorkSafe B.C., which, through its call centre, offers translation in some 170 languages and which in 2012, again, brought together over 3,000 people into health and safety programs.
Finally, we should be reminded of the Employment Standards Act, which was introduced and updated in 2008 to provide tougher provisions — a concern mentioned by the member opposite — to help ensure farmworkers' safety.
In short, this is a government which has shown British Columbians, through a long history of concrete action, that it has a demonstrated and deep understanding of victimization and the problems of reporting victimization. Of course, the government is all ears on any victimization, not just with respect to human trafficking, but wanting to do more with the non-reporting of crime in general.
M. Elmore: Thank you to the member for providing the very thoughtful and, I think, quite comprehensive review in terms of a multitude of services that are provided — and also characterized by just a real dedication. You know, front-line workers and professionals in the field in our justice system, in our criminal enforcement fields, have a real dedication towards assisting victims and encouraging the reporting of crimes.
I just want to add in the context, particularly, around human trafficking…. I think the member mentioned VictimLINK is a referral service to report crimes of human trafficking. The points brought up by a number of advocates are that…. The importance of, for example, restoring staffing levels at the office to combat trafficking in persons is that often people who find themselves caught in human trafficking usually have an interface with organized crime. So that's often a concern. It provides, in terms of that confidentiality and just the difficulties of extricating from those difficult circumstances….
As well, in terms of the importance to provide support not only for reporting crimes, but once they get out, in terms of the services, access to housing and counselling often is needed, health care. Also useful is the 1-800 line, which was cut previously. That's important — as well as a website that was provided at the office.
So those are also important services to provide access right across British Columbia — folks often in isolated communities having the opportunity to access services if they are not able to go into either an urban or even a small town for help.
As well, an important aspect is for the provincial government to lobby the federal government in terms of the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that workers who come into Canada have a pathway for permanent residency. Often that's also a context where a lot of these situations of exploitation arise.
In addition, not only strengthening the Employment Standards Act, but also ensuring that resources are in place and inspectors are in place to carry out inspections…. We've seen a number of cutbacks to employment standards and certainly off the offices and inspectors and folks who are on the front line.
Just to conclude, we see, particularly around this problem of human trafficking, that it's vulnerable women and children who pay the price. We can do more, I think, to ensure they have opportunity to not only report that crime but to get out of that situation and be supported, that we see more prosecutions going forward in the court and we send a message that traffickers will be heavily punished in British Columbia, that it's unacceptable and that we bring an end to this situation.
CANCER OUTCOMES IN B.C.
M. Morris: British Columbians can be proud of the leadership our province has demonstrated in cancer prevention and treatment. The Canadian Cancer Society's 2012 Canadian Cancer Statistics report states that B.C.
[ Page 444 ]
men and women have the lowest overall mortality rate and incident rate for almost all types of cancer in Canada. The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada states that B.C. is still a leader in cancer care in Canada and the first in Canada to offer complementary and integrated care through Inspire Health and Healthy Families B.C.
In the summer of 2010 work began on the B.C. Cancer agency for the north. In October last year the centre was officially opened by our Premier. This $91½ million, 5,000-square-metre facility forms a key part of our government's $106 million northern cancer control strategy to improve cancer care throughout the north. It is the sixth B.C. cancer centre in our province.
The centre is equipped with state-of-the-art medical equipment, including two linear accelerators that provide radiation therapy for the first time in northern B.C. It offers chemotherapy treatment, patient and family counselling, nutritional support and other cancer services, serving more than 750 patients each year and working closely with the community cancer clinics across the region.
Our province also provided $2 million towards the capital cost of the Kordyban Lodge in Prince George, which opened in March of 2013. The 36-bed Kordyban Lodge provides a home away from home for cancer patients and is the fourth such lodge in the province.
Our province has also introduced the northern cancer control strategy, which includes enhancements for up to 11 Northern Health sites in communities outside of Prince George. New community cancer clinics will be opened in Quesnel and Vanderhoof.
It's not just the north that's benefiting from strong investments in better services and quality cancer care. B.C.'s cancer research is amongst the strongest in Canada, and we are leading the country in cancer outcomes. B.C. has the best overall cancer survival rates in Canada. According to 2012 estimates in the Canadian Cancer Society's Canadian Cancer Statistics report, mortality rates for all cancers combined are lowest in B.C. B.C. men and women also have the lowest overall incident rates of cancer in the country.
It takes a great deal of work and investment to reach outcomes like this. B.C.'s investment in cancer care and control has increased substantially in the last decade. The numbers spell it out. The B.C. Cancer Agency spent a total of $564 million in 2011-12. This is an increase of more than 173 percent since 2000-2001.
Overall drug costs for the B.C. Cancer Agency were $185 million in 2011-2012, compared to $37.4 million in 2000-2001. Over 30,000 patients in B.C. now receive cancer drug therapy annually.
In 2007 we began funding Caelyx, the chemotherapy drug for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in women where standard therapy has failed. Approximately 190 women in B.C. benefited from this drug last year. In 2008 we began providing HPV vaccine to girls in grade 6 and 9 to prevent seven out of ten cases of cervical cancer.
Women across the Lower Mainland are now able to visit one of four rapid-access breast cancer diagnosis pilot clinics, which quickly catch potential cases of breast cancer, thanks to a $5 million investment from the province's Lower Mainland innovation and integration fund.
We're also leading the way in research to find new and more effective ways of treating cancer. Pfizer has entered into a three-year, $9 million research collaboration with the B.C. Cancer Agency and the Vancouver Prostate Centre to find new forms of treatment for breast, ovarian and prostate cancers.
In 2007 government provided $30 million to the new Terry Fox Research Institute headquartered in Vancouver. This was in addition to the $50 million from the Terry Fox Foundation. B.C.'s groundbreaking ovarian cancer surgery can potentially reduce ovarian cancer deaths by 50 percent.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
In addition to the B.C. Cancer Agency for the north, we built and opened the new, 300-bed Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre in August of 2008. This was B.C.'s first new regional hospital in more than 30 years. It provides world-class surgical, diagnostic and cancer care to Fraser Valley residents.
As part of the Healthy Families B.C. program, three new, integrated Inspire Health cancer centres have now opened in Victoria, Vancouver and Kelowna, as well as an on-line centre. Two new centres will be opened by 2014 in Abbotsford and Prince George to serve rural and remote parts of B.C.
With investments like these, it's not surprising that B.C. is leading the country in cancer outcomes. I am proud of our province's record on cancer, and I would like to see our leadership in cancer prevention and treatment continue.
Madame Speaker: North Island.
J. Rice: I just wanted to correct that. It's North Coast.
It is indeed good news that cancer rates are down in British Columbia. Positive health decisions are being made by British Columbians every day. Whether it's exercising or eating a healthy and balanced diet or butting out, British Columbians lead the country in taking personal responsibility for their health.
While we know that healthy living can decrease our chances of getting cancer, we also know that cancer can strike at any time without warning. That makes it so frightening. Those of us who haven't struggled with cancer ourselves are likely to have been touched by this illness, having a friend, a colleague or family member with the illness.
[ Page 445 ]
We need to think about cancer rates not as numbers but as individual people fighting for their lives. When we think about cancer rates in this way, it allows us to see the young woman from a remote community forced to buy an expensive plane ticket to get treatment, asked to leave her friends and family to get the medicine she needs, asked to pay for food and lodging while she fights the disease.
Surely cancer is enough to worry about on its own, but that's the reality for cancer patients from rural and remote communities here in British Columbia. Even though they pay the same MSP premiums as patients from Vancouver or another urban centre close to treatment, getting the treatment isn't cheap. The costs of transportation and living expenses while away from home can be burdensome.
The recent opening of the new cancer centre in Prince George is, of course, a welcome addition to health services for northern British Columbians. While the expansion of cancer treatment in Prince George might at first seem like a step in the right direction to provide northerners better health services closer to home, it actually has its limitations for the people in the communities that I represent in North Coast.
The most affordable option to get to Prince George from Prince Rupert is a ten-hour ride on the Northern Health Connections bus. If the patient is from Haida Gwaii, they would have to add at least another eight hours for the ferry trip to Prince Rupert to get that bus. In addition to that is the time spent driving to the ferry, depending on where they live on Haida Gwaii. Given that there is no public transportation to get to the ferry terminal on Haida Gwaii, even that can be a hardship.
If able to afford it, direct flights to Vancouver can be a lot more attractive than the hassle of organizing driving and busing and the eight to 22 hours that it takes to get to Prince George. Considering there is no direct flight to Prince George from Prince Rupert, it makes a lot more sense to fly to Vancouver than take the bus.
No one wants to sit on a bus for ten hours on the way to cancer treatment. Even for a patient in Prince Rupert, where the cost of the Northern Health Connections bus is significantly less than flying to Vancouver, the mental, physical and emotional cost of a ten-hour bus ride needs to be factored in, not to mention the treacherous winter-driving conditions along Highway 16.
While investments in Prince George of course are welcome, they don't generally meet the needs of the northwest or coastal British Columbians. We are not yet succeeding in keeping people close to home and close to their loved ones for their health care.
Whether they go to Vancouver or Prince George, people from rural and remote communities who have cancer also have to worry about how they're going to pay the bills associated with their treatment. For example, even if there is space in a subsidized Cancer Society lodge, the daily accommodation costs add up, especially since the patient won't be working during that time. This is particularly true for the working poor, middle class and the self-employed who do not have an extended health plan.
When space is available, spouses and family supporters can stay the lodge for an additional cost, but it still adds up. It's heartbreaking to think of my constituents needing to choose whether to be alone while they fight cancer or whether they can afford for their loved ones to be nearby.
Half of British Columbians make less than $29,000 a year. It's hard to imagine a worker making that kind of wage having the savings to cover four to eight weeks of lost wages plus the costs of travel and meals and out-of-town living expenses. But that is what this government asks of cancer patients from northern communities.
Similar challenges face the constituents of other rural and remote communities. Even as this government banks on paying off the debt using LNG, presumably by the sweat of northern workers, northerners are asked to pay out-of-pocket to get their medical treatment. We are asked to pay extra if we want to have our partner or another family member present while we're going through chemotherapy.
We need people to live in remote and rural communities. It's how we generate our wealth, from the natural resources found in these parts of the province. In particular, if this government's LNG hopes come to fruition, it will be thousands of workers living in the north that generate this wealth for the provincial coffers. So why are we creating barriers to those living in these communities and working in these industries to get medical treatment?
There are good reasons for centralizing cancer treatment, but we shouldn't penalize people for living in the communities far away from cancer treatment centres. Much wealth is collected from resource communities that I represent, but when it comes to getting services, we in the rural and remote, hence resource, communities are often the last on the list. Considering that we have higher than the provincial average cancer rates, I think there's more that we can do.
Madame Speaker: Hon. Member. And I apologize to the hon. member, the previous speaker, for misquoting your riding.
We will have Prince George–Mackenzie.
M. Morris: This government recognizes the geography that we have in this province and the remoteness of some of the many locations that we have in this beautiful province of ours. We're doing everything that we can in order to provide those rural residents with the same level of service that we have in the larger urban centres. It's a fiscal challenge for anybody. The development of the northern cancer strategy that we have in Prince George is
[ Page 446 ]
certainly a step in the right direction, and we hope to enhance that over the number of years that we have to come.
But I have to remind the member opposite that the NDP voted against every budget increase to fund increased mammography screening programs and pay for chemotherapy drugs, like Caelyx and Herceptin for ovarian and breast cancer. They've had opportunities to become engaged in the process over the previous years. This is not what I call leadership, Madame Speaker.
Cancer affects many families across the province. We need to make sure that we're giving cancer patients the best possible chance to lead long, healthy lives. This is why our province has invested in cancer research, in vaccines to prevent cancer, in drugs and therapies to treat cancer and in facilities where British Columbians have access to the best treatment options for cancer. B.C. is a leader in this country when it comes to cancer outcomes. With the types of investments we have been making, I am confident we're going to remain a leader in the future.
Hon. T. Stone: I move Motion 2.
Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 2 without disturbing the priority of the motions preceding it on the order paper.
Leave granted.
Private Members' Motions
MOTION 2 — PROMOTION OF
PURCHASING FROM B.C. BUSINESSES
D. Eby: I move:
[Be it resolved that this House encourages the government to pursue policies that promote purchasing from British Columbia businesses.]
I'll begin by presenting to this House the rather commonsense notion that this province will benefit the more that our government and British Columbians buy local products. On the government's side, according to the 2013 estimates, this government spends $1 billion on things like vehicles, materials and services across the province. This doesn't even count the many investments in similar products made by universities, colleges and hospitals every year.
With the potential to link this funding to skills development and training, environmental goals, capacity-building for local businesses and early-stage entrepreneurs, as well as economically challenged regions across this province, one would think that there would be a carefully thought-out plan about how to target this huge amount of government spending to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, we're not there yet.
In the provincial Purchasing Handbook — this is the handbook given to provincial government employees about how to spend taxpayer dollars — the word "local" is mentioned just twice and neither time to direct employees to consider the implications of purchasing locally. A great amount of time and attention in the handbook is spent scaring provincial employees that if they don't treat all vendors "fairly," no matter where the firm is located and no matter how they operate, the province could be sued.
Well, certainly we have legal obligations to treat people who are quoting on B.C. contracts fairly — no question. But these agreements that we're subject to, trade agreements and other laws, also have principled exceptions for economic development programs. They also allow this province to consider the true financial cost of everything that we're buying with taxpayer dollars.
A B.C.-based firm would be paying any profits that it made from a government contract…. It would be paying corporate taxes in British Columbia. Workers who worked on those contracts would pay their income taxes to the province of B.C. Carbon taxes generated in the manufacturing or service process would be paid to B.C.
If you compare that to, for example, an Ontario firm, an Ontario firm is paying its taxes on its profits to the government of Ontario. Payroll taxes in Ontario — paid to the government of Ontario. So in short, B.C. receives some portion of every government contract awarded in this province back directly through taxes paid to this government. It seems to me that it makes basic sense to consider that in doing the math about how much a contract actually costs this province in awarding it. This issue is not discussed at all in the purchasing handbook.
I think that it's critically important as well that we don't just look at the government spending side but we also look at the consumer spending side in B.C. How do we encourage British Columbians, like the people in the gallery and the House today, to buy more British Columbia goods? I'm not just talking about agricultural goods but all kind of goods across our province.
This government, though, and it should be recognized, has proposed spending of $2 million to promote the purchase of local agricultural goods in British Columbia. This is a wonderful initiative. But it's important to recognize that the value, the $2 million value of this promotional initiative, is less than 1/10 of what this government spent promoting India's film industry. That really puts into perspective the priority that this government places on promoting local products and the room for growth in promoting what could be a huge boon for our agricultural industry.
I think it is also important to recognize that British Columbians…. When they invest $1 in a B.C. business, that returns 67 cents back to the provincial economy. But if they invest $1 in a large, chain-based business that's based outside B.C., just 43 cents comes back to the prov-
[ Page 447 ]
incial economy. A lot of British Columbians don't know that, and I think that it's critical that we do more to encourage British Columbians to understand the importance of how, when they invest their dollar in a business, it affects their local economy and how we can minimize the number of vacant storefronts in business areas across this province.
The benefits of promoting local purchasing in government as well as at home, for B.C. residents, are considerable. The required investment is very small. Less than 1/10 of what this government spent, for example, promoting itself through the B.C. budget is what's proposed to be spent. But I do think that we can do much more, and I hope that I'm supported in that by the other side of the House.
M. Bernier: Thanks to the member for bringing this forward for us. I'm happy to hear, actually, that the member agrees with us in what this government is doing in promoting B.C. businesses and how that's going to build our economy and our province.
Our government recognizes that allowing the opportunities and creating a positive investment climate for business in B.C. is what's going to create jobs that are supporting the families. Small business plays a major role in our province, which is why we're streamlining government procurement processes that will generate more bid activity for small businesses.
As most people have heard, and to the hon. member, our government is committed to establishing a minimum 20 percent increase in small business procurement going forward. We're going to continue lowering taxes and cutting red tape so that we can create more opportunities for businesses in B.C. so they can thrive.
Our government is committed to helping B.C. farmers and food processors as well, to promote their local foods by supporting industry-led marketing campaigns through the Buy Local programs. We recognize that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all program, which could create restrictions or barriers for some companies, which is why these companies need the freedom to promote their products, their goods as they see best without restrictions and programs in place which could create complications for them.
Government needs to let business run their business, but we can do better in helping promote those businesses.
The issue of buying local is one that I can relate to. My goal in my riding has always been to promote our province, to promote my riding, to drive investments into the regions to ensure that we can create more opportunities. Living in a border community, my job has always been to make sure that we have those opportunities so people can stay in B.C., can invest their money in B.C. and can spend their hard-earned money in B.C.
This is why I'm happy to support the Buy Local program. This program offers successful applicants matching funds of up to $100,000 to launch or expand local food marketing campaigns. Building the local market for B.C. foods is a key commitment of our government for our agrifoods strategy, which is a key component of our B.C. jobs plan, which will lead agrifoods sector growth into a $14-billion-a-year industry by 2017.
We are also adding $2 million to the Buy Local campaign, which will go on top of the original $2 million which we made a commitment of last year. This will encourage consumers to think about where their food comes from and to continue promoting the 1,500-mile diet for British Columbians.
Buy Local helps grow family businesses. A perfect example for myself in my riding is a place called Lawrence's Meats. It's in Dawson Creek. It's been around for decades because of their superior service and products. They started local, were supported local, and now they have hundreds of employees serving all of western Canada. I know we have opportunities like this all around B.C., and we're going to continue promoting this.
We established the Small Business Roundtable to engage in dialogue with small business. We developed the small business accord and began an unprecedented process of consultation with small business owners in the fall of 2012. In 2013, in March, we announced the creation of the accord — a document that outlines the commitment to B.C.'s small business owners to make B.C. the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada.
I must say that when you're spending tax dollars, you must always be looking at the best way and the most cost-effective way of spending those tax dollars, which is why this March we announced that we're looking into appointing a senior official, who will be examining current government procurement practices, to help us work towards our commitment of the minimum 20 percent increase in small business procurement from government.
I would say that we're on the right track. We are seeing amazing growth in our province, in business, and amazing partnerships have been created that are seeing investment in every corner of this great province. This investment is creating further opportunity and diversifying our markets and giving us the opportunity to create good-paying jobs, which will, in turn, support thriving communities and give us the opportunity for people to continue to buy local.
L. Popham: We've often been told that we have a lot of power as consumers. Collectively choosing products to purchase that represent what we believe in can send a significant message and can shape the marketplace. Putting in place policies that require procurement by our provincial government would help our regional economy, our provincial economy.
This is not a new idea, and it bothers me that the cur-
[ Page 448 ]
rent government — who will, at the end of this term, be in power for 16 years — is just catching on to this. This is something that's being practised in other jurisdictions.
Our provincial hospital system is an obvious example of how this could work. The Fraser Valley has some of the best agricultural land in B.C. It's home to one of the province's largest health authorities, serving a patient population of about 1.6 million and growing. The hospitals within the southwestern bioregion spend about $50 million on meal purchases per year.
On this side of the House we proposed that local procurement for hospitals should be moved to 30 percent to encourage stable purchasing patterns that would help our agricultural sector but would also encourage our processing sector to grow.
In Ontario and down in the United States this is something that's happening. Harvard University is coming out with studies showing that every dollar spent locally, especially in the agricultural sector, stays in the economy. The cost of doing something like this is about 1 percent to 2 percent more, but the multiplier effect is enormous.
Fresh produce, fruit and meat grown and purchased locally also render a lower carbon footprint. Purchasing local is part of a resiliency plan for climate change. I often feel that the other side of the House thinks that that is just, you know, a feel-good idea, but it's something that we don't have any choice in anymore. It's something that we have to do in order to survive.
We're going down a road where we may not be able to source and access some of the products that we're buying globally. We have to have a foundation of local growing, a stable local growing market right here in B.C. It's something that many experts, many scientists, are talking about, and it's something that you don't have to be a climate change believer to support. You could just be somebody who believes in our local economies.
Elsewhere, 33 states and provinces are already putting policies in place for government-funded bodies to do this. I think that having somebody appointed at this point to study it is sort of a waste of time, because the studies are out there if you're listening.
What's the best way of creating jobs and building a stronger economy in British Columbia? Well, many economic development experts and political figures focus on attracting big business to set up shops through tax breaks and subsidies, even though the verdict of economists is that most of these jobs vanish quickly when another region or jurisdiction across the world offers more attractive incentives.
The better way to boost the economy, one that is entirely in our control, lies within our own wallets and purchasing patterns. That's been the philosophy behind CUPE BC's Ten Percent Shift campaign, which encourages consumers to shift 10 percent of their spending to locally owned businesses and services. Studies all over North America have demonstrated how much additional economic activity is generated by making this simple shift in spending habits.
The Shift campaign has been partnering with chambers of commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, among others, to show business owners and consumers alike how important purchasing decisions are to local economies. For every $100 spent in a non-locally owned business, $57 leaves the economy quite soon. If you spend $100 in a local business, $68 stays within our communities. I think that's significant enough for us to be pushing as a policy within government.
One of the ideas that we pushed during the election was an actual three-point plan for agriculture. The idea of Buy B.C. was a provincial marketing program. This is a program that was extremely successful. If you know anything about marketing, you will know that to have a successful marketing program everybody has to be on the same page. It has been very interesting to watch the current government go through every type of inventive idea to try and replace Buy B.C., except for calling it Buy B.C.
Madame Speaker: Member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Is the member speaking from his seat?
D. Bing: Sorry, Madame Speaker.
Madame Speaker: Thank you.
D. Bing: The member opposite suggested that we didn't have a carefully thought-out plan. I'd like to assure him we are streamlining the government procurement process, and we will generate more bid activity for small business.
We have implemented the small business accord to guide government interaction with small business. We are committed to establishing a minimum 20 percent increase in small business procurement from government. Through the new action plan for small business, 2013-2016, we will manage and track government activities supporting small business in this province.
In addition to lowering taxes and cutting red tape, our government is committing to helping B.C. farmers and food producers promote local foods by supporting industry-led marketing campaigns via the Buy Local program. Through the Buy Local program, B.C.'s diverse food processors are given the freedom to promote their products as they see fit, without the restrictions of a one-size-fits-all Buy-B.C.-type program.
We encourage B.C. producers to contact the purchasing departments of B.C. Ferries and other large institutions and promote our products. In all health authorities the contracted food providers do their best to support the local economy and capitalize on fresh-food options. Health authorities already source their food locally whenever possible, and that includes dairy, baked goods,
[ Page 449 ]
meats, fruit and vegetables when in season.
The B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional program. The B.C. Ministries of Agriculture, Education and Health selected the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation to implement a pilot program here in B.C. Through the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional program, many students are now learning to make fruits and vegetables a part of their regular diet both at school and at home. They are learning that eating fresh local products supports our farmers and the economies of rural regions. They're also learning firsthand about the health benefits of eating fresh fruit and vegetables, while finding out how great they taste.
The member opposite suggested that the word "local" is not used many times by this government. I'd like to assure the member opposite that we do have a policy of promoting local products.
The Buy Local program offers successful applicants matching funds up to $100,000 to launch or expand local food marketing campaigns. The provincial government's Buy Local program is administered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation. Building the local market for B.C. foods is a key commitment of the government's agrifoods strategy and is a component of the B.C. jobs plan. It leads the agrifood sector into a $14-billion-a-year industry by 2017.
We are also adding $2 million to the Buy Local campaign, building on the original $2 million commitment in August 2012. This will encourage consumers to think about where their food comes from and promote the 50- and 100-mile diets for British Columbians.
The Buy Local program is helping family businesses like the Hopcott farms in my riding of Pitt Meadows to get beef from their third-generation family farm to the tables of British Columbians. They also are receiving a total of $16,831. This funding is used for several projects with the goal of increasing awareness and sales of local beef in the Lower Mainland.
The Buy Local funds will assist in hosting a Meet the Rancher day at the retail store, a presence at the upcoming Eat Vancouver trade show, beef education events and various agriculture-agritourism activities to be held at the Hopcott farms. This will be a local beef promotion through print and radio advertising.
Our government is also supporting local whole industries in B.C. awareness to buy local. In our area we also have branding. We now have what we call the True North Fraser brand. It is a colourful image of farmers' fields with mountains in the background. It's a collaborative effort of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission.
The B.C. Shellfish Growers Association is receiving $35,000 to develop promotional materials to be used at trade shows and for website development, including social media tools and a mobile application.
To quote the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association executive director Roberta Stevenson: "The contribution from the Buy Local program will give the shellfish farmers of British Columbia an opportunity to market their sustainably grown products locally to retailers, consumers and B.C. chefs."
The Okanagan Plant Improvement Corporation, PICO, received $25,000 to assist in building consumer awareness for the "Born in B.C. Raised in the Okanagan" brand, and two apples were launched in 2012.
B. Ralston: The late and great urbanist Jane Jacobs wrote a book called The Economy of Cities, where she said that the first principle for a thriving urban economy was import substitution. It may not seem like a great revelation, but I think it was a considered and thoughtful view of how economies, particularly urban economies, develop. I think that general principle is applicable to the province as a whole.
Now, many people this morning have spoken about agriculture and local purchasing in agriculture. But I do want to cite a study which was referenced in the newspaper Business in Vancouver and which spoke about a study conducted by someone at UBC's Sauder School of Business. I'm just going to quote briefly from it:
"The study compared office supply companies and found that local company Mills Basic recirculates 30 percent of its revenue to other B.C. businesses and residents. Large office supply chains put between 17 and 19 percent of their revenue back into the local economy, according to the study.
"Authors of the study say local governments and school districts should consider putting local buying policies in place instead of focusing solely on price."
Now, obviously, there are some restrictions, whether the internal trade agreement nationally…. There are international trade agreements which limit, unfortunately, the degree to which local municipalities can make those kinds of decisions. But certainly, the idea that purchasing locally has a dynamic effect on local economies is a powerful one.
Perhaps a little counterintuitively, the last president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Barry O'Neill, triumphed what he called the 10 percent solution. It's if every consumer within a given city or town were to increase their purchases from local business, as opposed to international or national chains…. I understand they employ people, too, and spend money on the economy, too, but not to the same degree, according to this study at UBC's Sauder School of Business.
The 10 percent solution would have a really powerful stimulative effect on local economies both in the short term and the long term. It creates more jobs locally just by virtue of the revenue being circulated locally. Also, as my colleague from Saanich South has pointed out, it has other effects in terms of reducing the supply chain. Often many national and international businesses source globally through international supply chains, which is expensive and burns fuel and has all the detrimental effects
[ Page 450 ]
upon the atmosphere that we speak about so frequently.
The 10 percent solution, applied across British Columbia, I think would have a really powerful effect. That has been taken up by local chambers of commerce — not surprisingly; they represent local business — and even by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I've attended events where the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently triumphed — again local purchasing at local restaurants, which obviously makes sense — again driving the economic argument that this is beneficial for the economy.
It's good to see that the government is, somewhat belatedly, coming to this realization. Obviously, there was some unwillingness to continue the Buy B.C. program back some time ago. It has been reimplemented in some ways, although the name has not been taken up — I suppose probably for purely and crassly political reasons. But I support the resolution. I think the government would be wise, and I think this would — and does — have broad public support as an important principle within the British Columbia economy that local economies, local purchasing, can drive economic growth and prosperity.
D. Barnett: What a great topic. I thank my colleague from across the floor for putting this forward this morning.
This means different things to different people, to different levels of government. How we classify what is local is quite a big topic for all of us.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
I come from local government. I come from small business. We talk about purchasing local, and we would all love to see that happen. But we have this entity called a consumer, and a consumer will choose where they purchase what they buy.
I've heard my colleagues from across the floor talk about the government of the day spending money outside of British Columbia. Spending money outside British Columbia promotes trade, promotes international markets, which then creates jobs in local communities, which then gives the consumer the dollars and cents to buy product. The consumer will buy local products if the consumer chooses. We encourage that.
There is one way that we can create small business and keep small business in British Columbia, and that is by creating larger business. When you open resource industries, you create mining. You have LNG and other resource-industry-based jobs. You then create the small business which sells the product to the other business.
You will find in rural British Columbia communities that have mines, forestry companies — which are, yes, the big business…. They buy as much local as they can from small business, because they have what we call a partnership in local communities. In many places in rural British Columbia, because of the weather, there are a lot of things we can't buy local. What we do is try to buy from other regions.
There is also competitiveness. You know, from time to time our consumers have to buy what they can afford to pay for. All the policies of government will not change how consumers spend their dollars.
Interjection.
D. Barnett: I would hate to think that government is going to try to tell the ordinary citizen how to spend his dollars.
My colleague across the floor yelled at me: "What about meat regulations?" She knows my passion for meat regulations. I have worked very hard, and I will continue to work hard to have local….
Interjection.
D. Barnett: You betcha we're lucky we got four more years. Thank goodness we got four more years.
As a local consumer, as a member of this government with passion for local communities, I know that this government will do what we can do to help local communities survive and to buy British Columbia products, remembering where the dollars and cents come from for this province to be a vibrant, economic country that will be here for a long, long time and will do the best it can for our consumers and our citizens.
S. Robinson: In my professional career as an individual, couple and family therapist, there are a couple of guiding principles that we use in working with people. This first principle, very sophisticated — did many years of university in order to get this one — is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The second principle is: "If it works, do more of it."
Here we had in this province a Buy B.C. program that was one of those programs that wasn't broke. It worked, and it was axed by the government in 2001. The logo awareness had reached 76 percent of consumers, and 1,200 companies and associations used the Buy B.C. logo — over 5,000 Buy B.C. products identified at major grocery retailers throughout the province.
Somehow, at the time, the government thought it needed to be changed. They eliminated the program and completely changed it, to the point where the uptake on the sublicence sales has been abysmal, with a high of 18 sales in 2003. Then in 2011 there were only four. All told, there are 66 licence sales.
Agriculture is a substantial contributor to our economy, generating close to $40 billion annually and providing more than 315,000 jobs. This industry is worthy
[ Page 451 ]
of government's commitment to re-establish the once-successful Buy B.C. marketing program and to require that taxpayer-funded bodies like hospitals buy locally grown food whenever possible.
In the guiding principle of "If it works, do more of the same," there are a number of provinces and 33 American states, including Washington, that use their taxpayer dollars to buy local. This government ought to do more of what works.
The crazy-making of going out and promoting our province and our tourism and our agriculture, going out of our local region and convincing others to purchase our products — our hard-earned dollars — and taking those dollars and then spending them out doesn't make any sense. If we believe in the value of the workers here, then we will buy local. You can't continue this crazy-making of: "We don't pay any attention to what our activities are here." So I think that this government ought to be paying attention to buying local.
If we're going to go out of this region and tell others to buy our products, and we're not buying them, why should they buy our products then? If we don't believe in it, how can they commit to buying our products as a province?
I think you need to put your money where your mouth is. I think we ought to be buying local, particularly for our publicly funded institutions. Those are taxpayer dollars that will stay in our communities and help our communities grow and do the things that we think they need to do at a local level.
S. Sullivan: There are several aspects of this motion that I find laudable. Certainly, anything that encourages our sense of community, our mutual support, our bonds of affection as British Columbians is very positive and very supportable. Also, another aspect is being conscious of our purchasing. Every consumer should be conscious of where their products come from. Consumers have a lot of power in influencing responsible behaviour.
Where I have some concerns is where this impulse veers into outright protectionism. Now, there's a large body of opinion among economists that protectionism can ultimately lead to lower quality of life, less competitive businesses and international tensions — ultimately, war.
Globalization of trade has done much to lift people around the world out of poverty. It's done much to increase our quality of life, our prosperity. British Columbia is highly dependent on trade. It's also noted that highly integrated economies are unlikely to go to war. This is all something we should keep in mind as we make our policies.
I note that our Buy Local program is very popular. It is, I believe, highly subscribed. It's something that I believe we should support.
I think the best thing we can do to encourage local purchasing is to make sure we create such a supportive, friendly environment for businesses that our businesses provide the best products at the best prices, competing in the world market. That's how we can encourage local purchasing.
R. Fleming: Thank you to the mover of the motion for the opportunity to debate how we can strengthen our economy by supporting small and medium-sized business in B.C. This is part of a growing movement around our province through chambers of commerce, through local business and through local government to coordinate support and boost the marketing of local business and entrepreneurs, the suppliers and contractors who live and work in our communities, who are our neighbours.
The reason for this is that local government has realized that broadening the regional tax base and ensuring that the economic benefits in a region are as diverse as possible are furthered by keeping as much money in the local economy as possible. That's how you enhance downtown main street and make your community livable. That's how you ensure there's commercial vitality. That's how you attract new people to come into your area, settle down, raise a family there and bring their skills and knowledge with them.
In a lot of communities what this movement talks about is maximizing the marketing power of local business to compete with big-box retailers. It's not because everybody is against big-box retailers or that they don't have their place. It is to support downtown vitality, to support local businesses and to support the enormous economic benefits, the leveraging effect that comes with helping small and medium-sized businesses and allowing them to compete on an equal footing for government business.
There's a new marketing group in my community called shopvictoria.ca, and that's an excellent example of how businesses are coming together to try and improve the consumer experience in downtown Victoria and to support people who live and work in our community. This isn't just about reaching individual consumers, although it's important, I think, to give consumers information about what it means to support local business, how they benefit and how their community benefits by doing so. Government has a role to play.
I think this morning, really — many speakers have touched upon it — we're talking about how reforming procurement practices and giving small and medium-sized businesses a chance to compete for government purchasing of services and supplies could have a positive economic effect in this province, worth billions of dollars annually.
It's long past due that this House and the provincial government examine in total their spending choices, whether that's for universities and colleges, hospitals or
[ Page 452 ]
Crown agencies and corporations. A procurement reform agenda could help B.C.'s economy to the positive by billions of dollars of economic activity annually and tens of thousands of jobs. That's why we need to take it seriously. That's why other jurisdictions are, including 33 U.S. states to the south of us. That's a country, by the way, that we have a free trade agreement with, and they're doing it down there.
My colleague from Surrey-Whalley earlier mentioned research, by the UBC Sauder School of Business, which has already looked at some of the enormous benefits that flow from local government coordinating and enhancing its procurement agreements with locally based businesses. Another study by Civic Economics reaches essentially the same conclusion. In fact, it actually says that there's a greater economic benefit than the Sauder study. It demonstrates that in the end, by advantaging local suppliers, by helping small and medium-sized enterprises in your community, two to four times more money recirculates in the regional economy.
The reason for that economic knock-on effect is that those companies that are able to win business with local government — and this could easily be a provincial government, if we wish to have a reformed procurement agenda — are likely, in turn, to buy local products and services from other small and medium-sized businesses. On and on it goes.
I think people understand, and certainly the chamber of commerce in my community understands, that local businesses based here in greater Victoria spend, on average, 350 percent more in donations to charities, community sports organizations — all of those things that come from being community-based businesses that are rooted here in Victoria and an active part of the community. At 350 percent, they're 3½ times more likely than the big-box retailers and the out-of-province businesses.
That's a significant contribution, and I think one where the provincial government ought to look at that benefit, as well, especially given how much downloading there has been to the non-profit sector and local charitable efforts to fund sports and all kinds of things. We should be supporting local businesses.
Now, local business in Canada and in British Columbia is fairly healthy, but the trend line is not good. We have less than half the market share based in independent businesses, and it's falling. It has fallen 15 percent in the last few years.
The reform agenda should go on. We should have legislation just like Ontario does, to have a local food act in this House. I look forward to that in the next sitting.
M. Hunt: I, too, want to join with everyone and thank the member for this question that he's brought forward today. I think it's a very good question, and I think it's something that we very clearly need to be looking at: government promoting the purchasing from B.C. businesses. I think it's a great idea. We call it Buy Local.
As a matter of fact, on my way here this morning I passed city hall. And as I was passing city hall here, written in chalk on the sidewalk was "Buy Local," a big heart around it and lots of flowers. The message is getting out. That's the exciting thing. The message is getting out that it's a great program we have here in British Columbia — particularly on the agricultural side of things, where we know the people. They know the soils. We know the methods that they're using in order to raise their produce.
I had the awesome privilege a couple of weeks ago to be at Lord Tweedsmuir high school in my city of Surrey. Matt Stowe, who is Canada's current top chef, made a three-course delicious dinner for us. In creating that lunch for us, he went to Surrey's Hazelmere Organic Farms. Hazelmere Organic Farms was created by Naty King and her late husband, Gary. They created this organic farm, and it's a wonderful farm. You see their methods. You see how they work with the soils. It's well known within our community. I discovered, from the organic farm, that beets don't have to be red. It was a wonderful meal that we had.
The problem with local procurement is that it's a two-edged sword. I would bring to your remembrance that wonderful project that was called fast ferries, where we had a very good program, a very good idea to buy locally, a very good idea to be modernizing business.
According to the Auditor General, it was introduced as a $210 million project. The business plan was $230 million. In fact, the Auditor General said it was $462.6 million, that project. And then when it was sold for scrap, it was sold for less than $20 million. That is a $450 million subsidy to one business, one local business here in the province of British Columbia. The B.C. Ferries passengers — every day, every trip — are continuing to pay for that failed policy by the members opposite.
I think we need to recognize the reality of two-edged swords. We have to recognize it can go both ways.
I would love to bring to your attention the fact that when we deal with green economy and the whole green side of greening this province, we have wonderful industries. For example, in the city of Surrey we have Endurance Wind Power, which is a great company that is manufacturing wind turbines for the entire world and shipping them around the world. This is not a business that…. The city of Surrey cannot, in fact, buy and purchase those wind turbines, because we do not have sufficient wind in the city of Surrey to be able to do that.
We also have very inexpensive electric power here in the province of British Columbia — again, because of previous governments' wise decisions on how they were going to grow this economy.
The challenge is that….
Interjections.
[ Page 453 ]
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Carry on.
M. Hunt: The simple reality is that what we need to be doing is creating the environment for business to thrive, and that's what we're doing in the province of British Columbia. We're lowering taxes and keeping business taxes low. This government is working at cutting red tape for businesses so that small businesses can get their products and not be hassled through all sorts of crazy regulations that stop them from doing the job that they're doing — in fact, to be competing in a global economy.
You see, I am proud to be a part of a government that is creating a positive environment for business, that is recognizing that we are in a global economy and creating businesses that are competitive on the global scale. I'm proud to be a part, for one, of a government that is growing the economy in B.C., not growing the government in B.C.
L. Krog: I've been delighted to listen to the newly elected member for Surrey-Panorama talk so much about his pride. Of course, I do recall that there is that biblical injunction about "Pride goeth before the fall." But, you know, this government has four more years to deliver on its promises.
I'm always fascinated when the opposition presents a motion, as the member for Vancouver–Point Grey did, which is fairly straightforward — it says, "Be it resolved that this House encourages the government to pursue policies that promote purchasing from British Columbia businesses" — that it becomes such a motivator for so much passionate rhetoric from the other side. I mean, it's like they've forgotten their political forebears, for heaven's sake.
Now, I know the name Rick Thorpe has great meaning on the opposite benches. I believe he's been co-chair of Liberal campaigns. He's an insider of insiders, if I can describe him that way.
I just want to read a quote from him. He was the Minister of Small Business. Fort Nelson News — now, there's rural British Columbia for you — 2006: "When you buy from sellers outside British Columbia, you just help retailers elsewhere to keep their stores well stocked at the expense of local businesses. Shopping at home also supports local hospitals, schools and important public services."
I want to say congratulations. Congratulations to Rick Thorpe, who understood what it was to stand up and speak for small businesses in British Columbia, who understood how important it was to buy local to ensure you're promoting local employment.
I heard the member going after the FastCats once again. Goodness, those FastCats have been brought up so often by the opposition that they've had more lives than the average cat, which is nine. Did it ever occur to the members opposite that it might have been wiser, if British Columbia Ferries was operating properly, to actually build ferries in British Columbia? I mean, Germany….
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Just consider it for a moment. I want to address my remarks particularly to the member for Surrey-Panorama, who talked about small businesses locally. I've got to tell you that when we were building FastCats in British Columbia, there were shipyard workers in Nanaimo — shipyards earning money in my community — who were paying taxes here in British Columbia, who were buying at local businesses, who were promoting the local economy. They weren't buying it in Berlin. I can tell you that much.
Let's talk about this rationally and get past the rhetoric. Barry O'Neill — a strong promoter, through CUPE, of the 10 percent shift. Now, part of that 10 percent shift could be aided significantly if this government would just finally admit what a horrendous mistake it made, for the most ridiculous of partisan purposes, when it abandoned the Buy B.C. program.
You know, just because it comes from an NDP government doesn't mean it's all bad. This government could actually show incredible maturity. We've still got a few days left in this session, and the minister could announce: "You know what? The Buy B.C. program was good public policy, and we're prepared to support it and bring it back and ensure that British Columbia farmers make money, that British Columbians eat good, locally grown food, that we reduce our carbon footprint, that we enhance British Columbia's economy and, indeed, generate greater tax revenue for the province of British Columbia."
What is wrong with that concept? Would it be so hard for this government just to admit for once that maybe there are some things that happen on the opposition side, that are generated by the opposition benches, that actually make sense?
You know, hon. Speaker, I've got to tell you…. I hate to bring up W.A.C. Bennett. I seem to have had to bring him up a lot lately to remind the government benches of their political forebears. W.A.C. Bennett would never have built a ferry overseas. He wouldn't have understood that concept. When it came to government projects, he built them through project agreements to ensure that local union members got good jobs and paid their taxes right here in British Columbia and built this incredible province.
I realize this government isn't anxious to be reminded of the legacy of W.A.C. Bennett. I mean, they gave us the beauty of socialized hydro, socialized B.C. Electric, stole another opposition idea.
Bob Strachan campaigned in favour of nationalizing B.C. Electric; W.A.C. Bennett campaigned against it. The
[ Page 454 ]
ink hadn't dried on the election writ, and my god, W.A.C. Bennett was nationalizing B.C. Electric, and then we had B.C. Hydro.
I only regret there's not much time left, but noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.
L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada