2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 12)

Hon. W. Oppal

Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act, 2007

(Bill M202)

S. Fraser

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

North American Indigenous Games

D. Routley

Cancer care in northern B.C.

J. Rustad

Formosa Nursery

C. Evans

Crime prevention in Surrey

D. Hayer

B.C. Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals

S. Fraser

Women in business in Whistler area

J. McIntyre

Oral Questions

Call for public inquiry into

transportation of farmworkers

C. Puchmayr

Hon. J. Les

Employment standards for farmworkers

R. Chouhan

Hon. J. Les

A. Dix

Bioenergy strategy

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Wood bioenergy proposal call

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. Horgan

Vancouver Convention Centre expansion

costs

B. Ralston

Hon. M. de

Jong

2010 Olympics housing commitments

J. Kwan

Hon. R.

Coleman

M. Farnworth

Funding for child care resource and

referral centres

C. Trevena

Hon. L. Reid

C. Wyse

M. Karagianis

Petitions

S. Fraser

Committee of the Whole House

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2006-2007 (Bill 5)

B. Simpson

Hon. M. de

Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2006-2007 (Bill 5)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and

Lands

Hon. P. Bell

C. Evans

M. Sather

G. Gentner

D. Chudnovsky

J. Horgan

N. Simons

D. Routley

B. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour and

Citizens' Services (continued)

C. Puchmayr

Hon. O. Ilich

A. Dix

R. Chouhan

H. Lali

[ Page 5895 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: It's my honour today to introduce a number of

dedicated integrated land management bureau employees who are joining us here in

the House. These individuals are members of the Employee Advisory Forum who work

day in and day out in the integrated land management bureau to make sure that we

recruit, retain and develop new people in the ministry. They've done a fantastic

job, I must say.

In fact, the integrated land management bureau, I think, has the

second-lowest turnover rate in all of the various government departments. So

they've just done a fantastic job developing unique and flexible work

arrangements, including the ability to work from home, and recruitment and

retention strategies.

Joining us today are Valerie MacMillan, Richard Mark, Elisabeth

Eldridge, Dan Sirk, Keeva Keller, Jennifer Pollard, Julie Pinette, Roger

Vaughan, Fred Oliemans, Julie Chase, Teresa Dhillion, Gayle Pennie and their

fearless leader, assistant deputy minister par excellence — although I don't see

him right now, so he might be hiding — Dave Byng. Will the House join me in

welcoming all of these dedicated employees.

[1335]

S. Hammell: Joining us in the House today is Ian McDonald,

Deputy Principal Clerk with the House of Commons in Ottawa.

Mr. McDonald is in Victoria to meet with the Clerks and staff of

the B.C. Legislative Assembly to provide an overview of the House of Commons

experience with the Prism program, a digital assessment management initiative.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd like the House to join me this afternoon

in welcoming Mr. Larry Litke. He's come home to British Columbia from Ontario

with his wife Joan and his daughters Kelsey and Shauna. I would ask the House to

please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to make a number of

introductions today. Nadine Durante is the Oceanside SPCA animal shelter

manager. Irene Towell is with us today also. She's the manager for the Port

Alberni SPCA animal shelter. Shawn Eccles is the chief animal protection officer

for the province. Craig Naherniak is the general manager, humane education, for

the BCSPCA. Lorie Chortyk is the general manager for the communications

department of the BCSPCA. Iris Ting is the humane education supervisor for the

BCSPCA, and Vicky Renneberg is the regional director for the capital region

BCSPCA.

Last but not least, Dolores and Emma Fraser, my wife and daughter.

Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: Today I rise to ask the House to please

welcome an elementary school grade 5 and 6 class, but it's not from the district

that I represent. It's actually a school called Quilchena Elementary School. As

the members may suspect, they're actually represented by our Minister of

Economic Development. The reason I'm making this introduction today, however, is

because my cousin's ten-year-old daughter Mikaela Kroeker is amongst the group

of students from the grades 5 and 6 classes of Quilchena Elementary School in

Vancouver. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

C. Trevena: I'd like to introduce to the House a very

special young woman who's in the balcony from my constituency, Justice

Janveaux-Hoult. Justice is a grade 6 student at École des Deux Mondes in

Campbell River, where she's been collecting signatures on a petition supporting

the ban on ethylene glycol in antifreeze. Justice volunteers with the SPCA and

raised $2,125 for the annual Paws for a Cause fundraiser — 15 percent of the

total raised. Justice is here with her parents Nicole Janveaux and Adam Hoult.

The family's dogs are also in the precinct, although 12 assorted cats, guinea

pigs and other pets remained at home in Campbell River. I hope the House will

make Justice and her parents very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 12,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. This bill amends the following

statutes: Architects Act, Architects (Landscape) Act, Child Care Subsidy Act,

Coal Act, Employment and Assistance Act, Employment and Assistance for Persons

with Disabilities Act, Engineers and Geoscientists Act, Mineral Tenure Act,

Music Teachers (Registered) Act, New Relationship Trust Act, Parole Act,

Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, Police Act.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 5896 ]

PROMOTION OF SAFE

ANTIFREEZE ACT, 2007

S. Fraser presented a bill intituled Promotion of Safe Antifreeze

Act, 2007.

S. Fraser: I move that a bill entitled Promotion of Safe

Antifreeze Act, 2007, of which notice has been given in my name on the order

paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

[1340]

Motion approved.

S. Fraser: It tastes like candy, and it is deadly poison.

In 1989 a survey done by the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association showed that

1,589 dogs and cats died in British Columbia as a result of ethylene glycol

antifreeze poisoning. The actual numbers are much higher. Many companion animals

simply disappear to die alone in agony. Others never see a vet for one reason or

another and therefore are never counted in this grim statistic. That grim

statistic does not include feral cats or wildlife.

The U.S. Humane Society estimates that the actual death of

companion animals and wildlife due to ethylene glycol poisoning runs in the tens

of thousands every year. The active ingredient in antifreeze is ethylene glycol,

a fatal toxin. Animals are attracted to its sweet taste, may drink it directly

or become poisoned as they wash their soiled paws and fur. Most will die.

According to poison control centres, accidental poisonings, which

include antifreeze poisonings, are the third-largest cause of hospitalization

among Canadian children under the age of 15. Our neighbours to the south report

that ethylene glycol poisons 1,500 children per year. Leakage, improper storage

and incorrect disposal also account for the death of unsuspecting wildlife, fish

and livestock.

All of this is preventable, hon. Speaker. Propylene glycol–based

antifreeze is a safe alternative. It has a low toxicity, has an acrid, bitter

flavour and is biodegradable. This bill is non-partisan, and this bill is

apolitical. This bill is the real-life version of this government's stated

fourth great goal to lead the world in sustainable environmental management.

Let's make that so.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M202, Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act, 2007, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) NORTH AMERICAN INDIGENOUS GAMES

D. Routley: I rise today to inform the members of this

House of and to invite all British Columbians to the North American Indigenous

Games of 2008, which take place in Cowichan August 1 to 10, 2008.

It's been noted that a 3-percent increase in physical activity

will save the Canadian public health system $41 million annually. It's also been

noted in my own riding that there will be a $30 million local economic impact

from the North American Indigenous Games. There will be 5,000 junior and 1,000

senior athletes taking

part in 16 sports. There will be thousands of volunteers

congregating to support this effort. It is a great bridge-building effort

between communities.

So many of our modern sports are connected and have a deep

historical root in these aboriginal sports. What I have learned is that they

also represent the social, spiritual and environmental curriculum of a culture.

The principles of honesty, courage and respect are taught, as well as gratitude

for one's elders and for nature. Lessons that take children to adulthood are

taught in the aboriginal communities through these games.

The provincial government, the federal government and many private

enterprises are partnering to support these games. I invite all British

Columbians to visit Cowichan on August 1 to 10 and take part as viewers,

observers and maybe even participants in the North American Indigenous Games of

2008. Welcome to Cowichan.

CANCER CARE IN NORTHERN B.C.

J. Rustad: Cancer is a frightening and exhausting process

for anyone, but it can be doubly difficult if you live in a northern community

and your treatment requires you to travel hundreds of kilometres. To improve

this situation, my colleagues and I are advocating on behalf of people from the

north for the hope that comes from a full-service cancer program in northern

B.C. To date, cooperation between this government, the Northern Health

Authority, northern doctors, the University of Northern B.C. and the B.C. Cancer

Agency is producing results.

But cancer care is more than a building. It's about professionals

such as physicians and medical oncology staff providing the care needed.

Fulfilling the need of such professionals in the north is what UNBC is all

about. Clearly, this relatively new university is up to the task and has already

been able to attract some of the best and brightest in the world.

An example of this is the research undertaken by Dr. Chow Lee and

his team of student researchers that discovered a major cancer breakthrough

which could eventually change how cancer is treated, improving the lives of

millions.

[1345]

Cancer touches us all, including my family. It can be a terrifying

experience. But through modern research, cancer outcomes have improved

dramatically, especially in B.C.

Cancer can and will be beaten. I believe that northern B.C. will

play a role in that fight not only through research but also through providing

enhanced cancer care services in the north. I look forward to celebrating with

the people of the north, especially the health care professionals and

[ Page 5897 ]

the professionals at UNBC who are helping to pave the way for enhanced cancer

care in the north.

FORMOSA NURSERY

C. Evans: Thirty years ago the Wu family from Formosa

immigrated to Canada and bought a farm in Maple Ridge. They wanted to grow

blueberries, but they had no money for seedlings, so Mrs. Wu took thousands of

cuttings by hand from other farmers, nurtured them to maturity and planted them

out. The Wus' son Ting and Ting's wife Risa Lin have since taken over the

operating blueberry farm, converted it to organic and added a retail nursery.

Then a few years ago, governments decided to put a road right

through the middle of the Wus' blueberry field rather than use the road location

already owned by the Crown on the edge of the farm. A huge network of

individuals and organizations grew together in support of the Wu family and

farming and the ALR. We lost, and expropriation ensued. The roadbuilding

equipment is today, as we speak, on the border of the farm and will cut through

the blueberry field as soon as weather permits.

I thought that this story was heading for a tragic ending and that

Formosa Nursery would cease to exist. Now, however, the tragedy is turning into

a metaphor of hope and renewal. Ting and Risa have decided not to leave the farm

and will rebuild their business after the paving is finished.

Today, just as Mrs. Wu did 30 years ago, friends of Formosa

Nursery are out taking cuttings from the very plants that the roadbuilders will

destroy. On Sunday, May 18, which is Mother's Day, volunteers will join the Wus

in selling those Formosa blueberry cuttings and plants to give to our loved ones

on Mother's Day.

Mother's Day is the perfect day for this because it was Mrs. Wu,

the mom, who raised the plants for her family. All the money we raise will go to

Ting and Risa to help rebuild their farm and business on the land that is left

to them. We are all being given a gift in this process. We will have an

opportunity to take home a little bit of Ting and Risa's farm and their

incredible spirit to plant in our gardens and on our balconies.

Join us, everybody, in Maple Ridge on 203rd Street. Just go to the

Formosa Nursery thing on line, and it will give you a map. On May 13, from ten

to three, bring everybody you know, buy a bit of hope and resist the stupid

paving of farmland. Happy Mother's Day.

CRIME PREVENTION IN SURREY

D. Hayer: There are very few Canadians who have not been

victimized by crime, from petty theft to violent assault. In my large and

growing city of Surrey, crime and the victims it create are a huge concern, so I

want to take this opportunity to support the ambitious plan of Surrey Mayor

Dianne Watts.

This is a plan that appears to have a great chance to succeed and

is based on four principles: prevent and deter crime, apprehend and prosecute

offenders, rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders, and recognize the reality and

perception crime has on its victims. These four principles will address the root

cause of crime and, hopefully, will bring support to victims.

We must not allow our province, which is the best place to live

in, to be spoiled by criminals bent on destroying our Canadian way of life.

Surrey and our society must take a stand in support of Surrey Mayor Watts's

crime initiatives. I know that our government and the federal government support

her actions, as do I. We need to get tough on crime, and we also need to ensure

that there are appropriate recourses for victims.

As someone who was a victim of the most tragic kind — my father

was murdered — I have complete empathy with victims and understand the

heartbreak they feel when someone tears apart the fabric of their lives. I want

to offer my support to Mayor Watts and to our provincial and federal governments

for the tough stance against crime. I offer whatever I can to assist in bringing

criminals to justice, in reducing crime and in bringing help to the victims.

These are bold words, Mr. Speaker, and everybody needs to get involved and help.

[1350]

B.C. SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

S. Fraser: The BCSPCA is a non-profit organization

dedicated to protecting and enhancing the quality of life for domestic, farm and

wild animals in British Columbia. Through its 36 branches located around B.C.

and its provincial office in Vancouver, the BCSPCA provides a wide range of

services for more than 53,000 homeless, abused and abandoned animals across the

province.

The BCSPCA was created under the auspices of the provincial

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It's the only animal welfare organization

in B.C. which has the authority to enforce laws relating to animal cruelty and

to prepare cases for Crown counsel for the prosecution of individuals who

inflict suffering on animals.

I'm going to read their charter. The BCSPCA charter is the

foundation that guides the work they do.

Whereas the world is inhabited by many species sharing a

common ecosystem of air, earth and water, we recognize and value our

interconnectedness with all animals. Therefore, the B.C. Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the

quality of life for the animals of the world we share.

" We pledge our energies to inspire and mobilize

society to create a world in which all animals, who depend on humans for their

well-being, experience as a minimum five essential freedoms: freedom from hunger

and thirst; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom from distress;

freedom from discomfort; and freedom to express behaviours that promote

well-being."

WOMEN IN BUSINESS IN WHISTLER AREA

J. McIntyre: International Women's Week is a time to

recognize the progress we've made in advancing

[ Page 5898 ]

women's rights and to assess the challenges that remain. B.C.'s economy is in

overdrive, and there are more women in the workforce than ever before. As of

January 2007, well over a million women are working in B.C.

As a previous small business owner, I'm proud to say that B.C.

ranks among the top three Canadian provinces with 35 percent of all our small

businesses owned by women. Last year I had the pleasure of announcing funding

for the creation of new child care spaces throughout the Sea to Sky corridor —

$500,000 for the Pemberton Child Care Society, $350,000 for the Lil'wat Nation

in Mount Currie and $480,000 for the Howe Sound child care centre in Squamish.

These spaces will help support families and women in my riding who want to work

and raise a family.

The Whistler Chamber of Commerce is also supporting businesswomen

through the Women of Whistler, or WOW program, led by community leaders

including Sue Adams, who has just actually been nominated for a prominent

businesswoman's award. Their mission is to provide an opportunity for Whistler

businesswomen to network, gain knowledge and share ideas in a friendly relaxed

environment.

I've been to several of these events, where as many as 80 to 100

businesswomen are in attendance. These women are actively engaged in small

business in the community, and they exemplify the entrepreneurial spirit.

Whistler may be a comparatively small community, but within it exist a vibrant

business community and, increasingly, a large network of savvy businesswomen.

On April 10, I'll be attending the Women of Whistler's third

annual spring conference. One of the topics this year will be employee

retention, something that's become extremely important for businesses in

Whistler.

I'd like the House to join me in commending the Whistler chamber

for providing a terrific forum for Whistler businesswomen. It could well be a

model for other B.C. communities.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO

TRANSPORTATION OF FARMWORKERS

C. Puchmayr: This morning there was a tragic accident on

the Trans-Canada Highway around Sumas. A van carrying women farmworkers flipped

onto a median, killing three and throwing people from the vehicle. This is a

tragic accident, and it isn't the first time that this has happened recently in

British Columbia.

Will the Minister of Labour commit today to increase inspections

and to strengthen protection so that farmworkers can be safe when they are

travelling to and from work?

Hon. J. Les: Indeed, this was a very tragic accident that

occurred on the freeway this morning near Abbotsford. I know that I speak on

behalf of all members of the House when I extend to the families of the victims

— whether they are fatalities or victims in the hospital — our deepest and

sincerest sympathies, thoughts and prayers. One can only imagine the grief that

these people are going through with an occasion like this.

[1355]

What is important is to find out what happened and why. I can

advise that all of the authorities are currently investigating this very tragic

accident. We will find out what happened and why, and then deal with those

findings appropriately.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: On July 13, 2003, there was a similar

accident. Nineteen farmworkers were injured. One was killed and two seriously

injured. This government rejected calls for an inquiry in 2003.

Will the minister today commit to a full public inquiry into the

incident that happened today?

Hon. J. Les: I have already indicated that obviously this

terrible accident is under investigation not only by the police — the RCMP in

this case — but also by the Coroners Service, the Ministry of Transportation's

commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch, as well as officials from

WorkSafe B.C.

I would suggest that we allow that investigation to proceed and to

find out what happened. I would suggest, as well, that speculation as to what

happened is not productive at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Well, in 2003 the accident was investigated by

the WCB. The accident was inspected by the RCMP, and there was a coroner's

inquest, not a public inquiry. Clearly, that wasn't enough. Regulations didn't

change. Enforcement didn't increase. Contractors are still putting workers'

lives at risk.

Again, will the minister ensure that there is a full public

inquiry into the transportation of farmworkers in B.C.?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite may wish to speculate as

to what happened today. Clearly, it is inappropriate to do so. An investigation

is underway. We should allow that investigation to proceed and come to the

appropriate conclusions.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR

FARMWORKERS

R. Chouhan: In 1986 when I stepped down as the president of

the Canadian Farmworkers Union, I thought I had left behind all these tragedies

because we were able to achieve some protection for farmworkers under the

Employment Standards Act.

Instead, this government, when it came to power in 2001, gutted

employment standards for farmworkers. This government did away with an

inspection program

[ Page 5899 ]

in July 2001. It was this government that reduced field visits and basically

disbanded the interagency team also known as the agriculture compliance team.

This interagency team would conduct comprehensive field visits. During these

inspections the team could determine if the motor vehicle transporting workers

was complying with the regulations.

Can the Minister of Labour commit today to reinstate the full

agriculture compliance team so farmworkers can get the protection they deserve?

Hon. J. Les: I can only say again that a very tragic

accident occurred this morning. Our thoughts today are with the families of the

victims. It is inappropriate, in my view, to speculate as to what occurred and

why. I think we need to have the decency, frankly, to allow the investigation to

occur and come to the correct conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: This accident is not the first one that has

occurred. We have had these accidents before. We have seen deaths on the roads.

So it's important that this government take that action now. Without

comprehensive field inspections, this government has no way of knowing if

contractors are complying with vehicle regulations. This is a serious issue, and

the government must address it now.

Again, to the Minister of Labour: will she commit today to a full

field investigation by an interagency team to ensure vehicle regulations are

strictly enforced?

[1400]

Hon. J. Les: All of the questions from the members of the

opposition this afternoon so far have been based on speculation. That is

inappropriate. What is appropriate at this point is to allow the investigation

to proceed and come to the proper conclusions.

A. Dix: Well, let's not speculate. I have a question for

the Premier, and it goes to the Premier because it's about the culture of a

government that chooses to protect some citizens and not others. The Premier

oversaw an open cabinet meeting in 2001 where cabinet ministers ordered,

instructed those enforcing farm labour protection regulations to cease and

desist.

The Premier in May 2003 eliminated protections for farmworkers

that they fought a hundred years to get. He never, and his ministers never,

talked to farmworkers. The Premier undermined and cut those who are there to

enforce the law.

My question to the Premier is this. The actions of this government

— not speculation; their actions — have treated farmworkers like second-class

citizens. Will he acknowledge that there's a need to review those actions in

light of the history of the last five years and reinstate the protections that

farmworkers had before he came to office?

Hon. J. Les: Again, a very tragic accident occurred this

morning in the Fraser Valley — three people dead, many injuries. We grieve with

the families. The matter is under full investigation by all of the appropriate

authorities. That is what is appropriate at this point. What is not appropriate

is speculation as to what occurred. We will almost certainly learn that in the

days ahead.

Mr. Speaker:

Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, it's not speculation when a group of workers

who have traditionally been extraordinarily vulnerable to violations of their

human rights are systematically targeted by a government and have seen,

systematically, their rights reduced. That is a moral question. It's a moral

responsibility that the Premier has. It's his direction, and it's his failure.

I ask the Premier very clearly, because those farmworkers don't

get to see him. They don't get to hire Patrick Kinsella. It's, I think, the

definition of a Premier's job to protect the rights of people that can't get the

ear of government.

I ask the Premier…. These are fundamental rights that he has taken

away from farmworkers — rights that they fought hard for a hundred years to get.

Will he today acknowledge the need to reverse those policies? Will he reinstate

the protections for farmworkers in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite speaks of morals. I would

suggest, with respect, actually, that it is immoral to use a tragedy like this

to try to score some political points.

BIOENERGY STRATEGY

B. Simpson: Bioenergy is a major component of the recent

energy plan that was released by government. The energy plan states that that

strategy will soon be released. However, according to a November 8 internal

presentation to the Ministry of Forests leadership team, the bioenergy strategy

was actually completed in mid-October of last year. The team was told that the

strategy would be published in December of last year.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Why has this

completed strategy not been released to the public?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the construction of the energy plan,

which is the most dynamic energy plan in the history of any province in Canada,

bioenergy was determined to be one of the opportunities that….

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Bioenergy was, frankly, one of the things

that was determined to be an opportunity for government, and as we work through

this…. We've worked through it with Hydro and the Ministry of

[ Page 5900 ]

Energy and Mines — my colleague. We've worked towards the release of the

bioenergy call. You always get into some technical issues and work after your

staff is done. We've worked very cooperatively through this, and quite frankly,

you'll see that proposal call in the next few days.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

WOOD BIOENERGY PROPOSAL CALL

B. Simpson: I guess the most dynamic energy plan in

rhetoric, but not in substance. One of the substantive pieces of the plan was

supposed to be the bioenergy strategy, which they again state that they are yet

to release. That strategy, according to the minister's own staff, was completed…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …in mid-October. The minister is talking now

about a request for proposals. The same presentation indicates that Minister

Coleman "has already given….

Mr. Speaker: Member.

B. Simpson: Pardon. I was reading it. Pardon my error

there. Let me quote again.

It says: "The minister has already given advance notice of a

directed call for wood bioenergy proposals." So my question to the minister is:

was an advance proposal given? If so, to whom?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, there was no advance proposal given to

anybody. My staff did a lot of work at the request of myself and coordinated

with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

What I find incredible is that the Environment critic for that

opposition over there was on Global TV on Sunday night speaking out against wood

products being used to create electricity in British Columbia.

I don't understand why the member, who is the critic from one of

the most critically attacked areas of pine beetle in the province, can't see the

opportunity of bioenergy being a very big linchpin. As we went forward, we did

the work. We worked out the details and made sure we have a bioenergy plan that

works, which we do. We have a proposal call coming out that will attract the

investment to this particular critical piece of the energy plan and build a

future for forestry and communities just like his in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: What we're concerned about on this side of the

House is that this is not another opportunity for friends of the Liberals to get

in on the ground floor of an opportunity to expend resources at the public

trough, instead of opening it up for all British Columbians.

Our question is quite simple. Will you table the proposals that

you completed in October so that all British Columbians can get in on the

opportunity, not just your friends?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's amazing. So the member is opposed

to doing an open proposal call for bioenergy in British Columbia like we're

bringing forward in the next few days? That's what you're opposed to? Nobody has

seen the proposal call. It will be issued by Hydro. It will go out for open

tender and proposals, and the fact of the matter is that's how we do business.

We actually do the work. We get the plan. We figure out where the

bioenergy is. We see if it's a real reality. Then we put together a proposal

call, and we put it out for the public to actually tender into the proposal call

rather than giving out anything to any insiders.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member for Surrey-Whalley has the

floor.

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

EXPANSION COSTS

B. Ralston: My question is to the Premier. In last year's

budget the line-item budget for the provincial contribution to the Vancouver

Convention Centre Expansion Project was $273 million. In this year's budget it's

$281 million, an increase of only $8 million.

The Premier knew, or ought to have known, that Ken Dobell was

negotiating in January 2006, some 14 months ago, to try and get relief from the

open-ended, cost-plus contracts. Will the Premier level with the House and admit

that he has completely failed to manage this project and costs are spiralling

out of control?

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question on

notice for the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

2010 OLYMPICS HOUSING COMMITMENTS

J. Kwan: "The story we want to tell the world is how

Vancouver dealt with its problems in an open, progressive way. That's the story

that's in the bid that we promised to tell." That was a quote from Linda Coady,

the Olympic organizing committee's vice-president of sustainability. The

Vancouver Olympics housing round table is asking for 3,000 housing units, 80

percent of them to be new construction for low-income residents. They need a

billion dollars to meet that commitment.

To the Premier: will he commit today to funding this Olympic

commitment?

Hon. R. Coleman: You're referring to a report that was

referred to in an

article in the Vancouver Sun today. That report is

actually in draft. It is actually being circulated to the members of the Olympic

table. It is not in final format.

[ Page 5901 ]

There is a process that is to be received — the input from every

member around that table back into the report. It will then come to a final

copy, which will go to the Vancouver organizing committee for the Olympics —

into that process. It will then be sent to government for review, for government

to actually comment on that within 90 days.

That, Madam Chair or Madam Speaker…. Sorry. I'll never live that

one down. Oh, and I could go further. No. I'm not going to.

Mr. Speaker: No, you'd better not.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's the process in and around this,

hon. Member, and that's the process that will be followed.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: It doesn't erase the fact that homelessness is

projected to triple by 2010. The IOC officials are in fact coming to Vancouver.

They're coming to British Columbia to determine how we're progressing on Olympic

commitments. Communities all across B.C., and particularly in Vancouver, are

very concerned around the homelessness crisis.

My question is to the Premier. Does it take an international

embarrassment before this government will act to ensure that the bid book

commitment, outlined in the inner-city inclusive statement, is actually being

honoured?

Hon. R. Coleman: When the International Olympic Committee

comes here to look at British Columbia, they will see the most dynamic housing

strategy in the history of any jurisdiction in Canada. They will see a

government that has put money on the table so that people with under

$28,000-a-year income can actually get subsistence and assistance of rent where

they live, so they don't have to be moved into some other form of housing.

They will see this. They will see a budget that has been tripled

since 2001 for housing in British Columbia. They'll see a government that's

building partnerships, where 765 units of supportive housing were just announced

two weeks ago.

They will also see an opposition in British Columbia that voted

against $27 million to convert 380 shelter beds to year-round beds in the

province. They will see an opposition that did not support $38 million for

another 600 units of supported housing on top of the units that we've already

announced under the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness.

They will see a government that is way ahead of the curve.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Premier. If the

government is so sure that their housing plan will meet the needs of the Olympic

requirements, will he submit that plan for the Auditor General to ensure that,

in fact, it does what they expect it to do?

Hon. R. Coleman: Housing Matters B.C. was made public in

October of last year. It's had money attached to it. It has had additional money

going into this budget cycle. It has additional tens of millions of dollars

attached to it going into the next three budget cycles. Quite frankly, I'm happy

to let anybody look at that strategy for British Columbia, because it actually

breaks the mould of people who are stuck in old ways of doing things and changes

it so we can do better for the citizens of British Columbia.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE

RESOURCE AND REFERRAL CENTRES

C. Trevena: In January the Minister of State for Childcare

wrote to child care providers saying that funding to child care resource and

referral centres, which she encouraged to expand, would be cut at the end of the

financial year and then cut again later in the year. The Minister of State for

Childcare said at the time that she would engage in a process of further

transition and develop alternative ways of providing services.

Now she has said there is going to be just one round of cuts — $5

million out. But we're three weeks away from the end of the financial year, and

despite assertions to this House earlier this week that she is in dialogue with

child care resource and referral centres, none of them have heard from her. They

say it's a wall of silence. I would like the Minister of State for Childcare to

please tell this House how many child care resource and referral centres are

going to be closed.

Hon. L. Reid: What's important here — and I'm going to

again speak very slowly for the members opposite, because they've canvassed this

issue at length — is that the federal government removed, effective March 31, $5

million that was used to enhance child care resource and referral in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: What is important here is that child care

resource and referral service in British Columbia will continue.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: It's very good to hear that child care resource

and referral centres will continue. But I would like to ask the minister of

state, who clearly seems not to know what is actually happening in her

ministry…. We are three weeks from the end of financial year. We have 45

organizations around the province who are

[ Page 5902 ]

dealing with staff layoff notices, with three weeks before the end of the

financial year, and leases which she encouraged them to sign, which they have to

deal with by the end of the financial year.

So once again I would ask the minister: how many child care

resource and referral centres will be closed?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I can only assume that the opposition must be

out of questions, because we've canvassed this many times. The discussion is

underway. The work is underway. The child care resource and referral centres in

British Columbia are more than aware that the service will be reframed within a

$9 million budget. That dollar value is in place until March 31 — $14 million,

then $9 million on a go-forward basis. That is not new information today.

C. Wyse: It's important for this House to recognize that

we're talking about the effects of these closures that are facing many of the

communities and the family members that are within those areas. The child care

referral and resource centres have not been provided with enough information on

how the restored funding will be rolled out. For example, Williams Lake was

promised a phone call yesterday or today. As of 1:30 this afternoon, they have

not received that promised phone call.

The centres in Kamloops, 100 Mile and Williams Lake say $9 million

is not enough to keep all 45 centres in B.C. open. It is estimated that at least

ten centres will be forced to close. Further, centres that remain open will have

to cut programs and begin charging for services that were once free.

My question: will the minister restore the funding to last year's

sum? If not, when will the minister advise the communities of their funding

level so that the affected families know their fee?

Hon. L. Reid: I appreciate the members' opposite interest

in this area. Certainly, I do believe they have been supportive in the past,

when we talked about producing results for 25,000 families in British Columbia

who receive subsidy under this government. Under their government, the income

threshold was $21,000. We lifted that to $38,000.

[1420]

Special needs youngsters in British Columbia who require

specialized resources and supports — a $54 million budget line today. Those

children attending child care in British Columbia will be supported by this

government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: The point that's not understood here is that

nobody in British Columbia understands what the minister means by reframing.

That is what we're trying to find out. Not only has the government undervalued

the need for child care by its mismanagement…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I can't hear the question.

Continue, Member.

C. Wyse: …but it has left families with no idea on how

child care needs will be met. Since January 5, 2007, it has left the employees

of child care resource and referral centres waiting to hear whether they have

employment.

Will the minister advise the communities of their funding level so

both the affected families and the employees will know their fate?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, to the members opposite: we have been

working with child care resource and referral centres in British Columbia to

reframe that service. They have given us their guidance, they have given us

their insight, and we certainly will continue to make sure that those services

are as responsive to vulnerable British Columbia families as possible. That work

is underway.

M. Karagianis: Is reframing actually doublespeak for pink

slips?

Hon. L. Reid: The discussion that is underway in the

province of British Columbia — complex, no question. These are about individual

families in British Columbia as we go forward. The members opposite will know

that the work has changed over the last year. We indeed have a child care

provincial line now, 1-888-338-6622. That, in fact….

Interjections.

Hon. L. Reid: They may want to listen to the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: That service today, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.,

handles 75 percent of the support for subsidy applications and does so with

access in 140 languages. So we indeed are looking at how those services are

delivered, and we will ensure that parents in British Columbia have access to

the best possible service.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: We're three weeks out. Staff are being laid

off from child care referral services all over the province, and the minister

continues to refuse to give us details on how many are closing down or what in

fact the restructuring repurposing is.

Once again to the minister. In fact, you are laying people off in

the CCRRs. Will you admit that in this House here today?

[ Page 5903 ]

Hon. L. Reid: Had the opposition been paying attention

these past number of weeks, they would have known that we have placed our

priority very firmly on vulnerable families in British Columbia. That work is

underway in British Columbia. Those dollars are in place in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: Child care resource and referral in British

Columbia have indicated that they indeed can do the work for $9 million. They

said that a year ago. They said that a week ago. I understand that is still the

case.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Fraser: I submit petitions urging government to pass

legislation to ban ethylene glycol antifreeze in British Columbia — about eight

or ten pounds of them.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call Bill 5, Ministerial

Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, committee stage debate. In Committee A, I

call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on

the estimates for the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

Committee of the Whole House

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2006-2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

B. Simpson: The part we wish to canvass is the part around

the Minister of Forests and Range estimates. For the record, what was the

estimated amount, and what will the incremental amount be?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. As

we get started, I want to introduce, from the Treasury Board, David Stewart, and

from the protection program — I saw about ten seconds ago — Peter Fuglem, who I

am sure is about to reappear momentarily.

[1430]

I'm advised that the original estimate, as appeared in the blue

book last year, was $55.6 million for direct fire.

B. Simpson: What, then, is the estimated increment? Or is

that finalized for this fiscal year?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that the estimate at this

point is somewhere between $111 million and $114 million and that the reason for

the lingering uncertainty relates to some ongoing restoration, reclamation work

and the processing of some final invoices related to the fire season.

B. Simpson: The minister actually leads into my next

question. In the ministry service plan, fire is rolled into protection against

fire and pests, and there are a number of activities that occur under that. This

bill refers to direct fire. If I could get an explanation of what is actually

covered under direct fire, where the cost overruns were incurred.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is that amount that is covered by the

statutory spending authority for what is called direct fire suppression costs.

Further, I am advised that would be the expenditures associated with directly

attacking and dealing with fires during the fire season.

B. Simpson: Yet the minister indicated that the delay in

rolling up the costs and giving a definitive amount is because of rehabilitation

and restoration work and that those charges have to be brought forward. Hence,

I'm not clear, if it is only suppression, why those costs are rolled into it.

Hon. M. de Jong: A fair question. The kind of work that it

would entail would be restoring some of the guards — fire guards and water

guards. There may be fencing costs associated with either the fire or the work

that was done to try and suppress the fire. Those are a sample of the kinds of

lingering costs that are still being calculated.

B. Simpson: Rehabilitation and restoration would not be

ecosystem-based work, silviculture work — things like in the Okanagan Mountain

fire where they went in and did bank stabilization and other ecosystem- or

land-based rehabilitation and restoration work. Just so that I'm clear what's

included in this cost.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct.

B. Simpson: Is part of the delay associated with

firefighting crews from outside of our jurisdiction? Is that part of the billing

issue with any delays on this?

[1435]

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, I hope I remember what the question

was.

There are some lingering costs, I'm told, associated with some

personnel and materiel that were on loan from other jurisdictions, like Ontario.

I don't want to overemphasize that. Most of that has already been processed.

Payment would have been rendered and would be part of the figure that I've

offered initially,

[ Page 5904 ]

but there are some lingering accounts that relate to the sharing of personnel

and equipment.

B. Simpson: This is my first time dealing with this

particular kind of act, so I look to the minister to help me out if I tread into

estimates territory.

When it comes to the firefighting costs for direct fire, the

calculation of those costs…. I did canvass this in estimates and thought that we

were underfunding direct fire costs, given the fact that the ministry uses a

rolling five-year average, that there's one year in there that's significantly

below what the area is that's been impacted by fire and that over the last four

years the area of fire impact has been incrementing.

Given that this is under the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act, I'm unclear how the accountability goes to the minister and

minister's staff when they use a measure to determine financing for a certain

area — that the measure appears flawed.

Where is the accountability to the minister and the minister's

staff when it's pointed out that it might be underfunded and then the minister

ends up just coming in and putting this in and still gets his stipend? Is there

an accountability mechanism there that we're missing?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is, as the member points out, a

somewhat unique circumstance where the obligation exists to address the fire

season and to ensure the resources are there and the statutory authority to

spend is actually provided for. The responsibility is provided for statutorily,

and the authority to expend the dollars.

For budgeting purposes, the member has correctly pointed out…. I

think it's a fair question, because we're talking about

an act that goes to the

issue of expenditure. For the purpose of budgeting and including a figure in the

blue books that we get as part of the budgeting process — all members of the

House — it is a ten-year rolling average.

That can operate, based on some personal experiences, in an odd

way. In 2004, after we had just come through the worst fire season on record

where I think we had expenditures of $375 million, applying that same ten-year

rolling average would have actually seen the budget for direct fire suppression

go down in '04-05 over '03-04. There are undoubtedly limitations associated with

a funding mechanism that is built on averages when circumstances conspire, as

they did in 2003 and to a lesser extent last year, to present costs that are far

and away above what that average would be.

The logic — and I will say this pre-emptively — behind this act is

that that obligation, responsibility and authority to provide the resources

necessary to address direct fire suppression costs should not visit upon the

minister — or the ministry, in this case — personally as it relates to holdbacks

on salaries. We expect the ministry and the minister to act in accordance with

their statutory responsibility to fund and take the appropriate action to

suppress fires.

B. Simpson: The minister's comment makes sense on the

surface. However, in this case, if there's a problem with the metric used to

drive the budget and you're using an averaging that doesn't necessarily give you

an indication of a trend line…. That's where the disconnect is. You have an

average that doesn't necessarily allow you to look at the trend line, and year

over year we've seen increasing fires.

The reason I'm asking the question under the guise of

accountability and transparency is that base funding drives our inherent

capacity in British Columbia. We have crews and equipment on the ground based on

what we believe is the project-forward fire threat.

[1440]

Under climate change, under the drought conditions in our forest….

The coast, for example, this year was in fire threat for a big chunk of the

season, which is not normal on the coast. It strikes me that if we're going to

be true in terms of accountability for ministers and their staff doing that

work, that average has to be looked at.

I guess what I'm getting at is that because the metric doesn't

jive with the trend line, what is the minister's responsibility to change the

basis upon which the budget projection is done? In particular, if in this case

we're having to bring in external crews that add additional costs to the system,

where's the accountability to the minister to change the metric that's being

used?

Hon. B. Penner: Madam Chair, I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Penner: Earlier, just before question period, I

made an introduction for a school group that had not yet arrived. I see we are

now joined by a number of grade 5 and 6 students from the Quilchena Elementary

School debating club. They're very interested in what we do here. They're very

excited about their trip.

As noted earlier, my cousin's daughter Mikaela Kroeker is among

the group. On behalf of myself and the MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena and B.C.'s

Minister of Economic Development, we'd like to say hello again. Thank you very

much for coming.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there is a discussion that can be

had about the methodology used for calculating the amounts. In fact, despite the

conventional formula and the average, there have been budget increases provided

for. I certainly recall that to be the case in the aftermath of '03, and I think

that was the case in the last couple of years as well.

I'm going to suggest, though, that as appropriate as that

discussion is, it may actually be better suited to the estimates for the year

going forward. The member can then canvass with the minister directly

responsible for the method by which that direct fire cost is calculated — or the

estimates are calculated.

[ Page 5905 ]

B. Simpson: I will canvass the explicit details. What I'm

trying to understand is how the accountability mechanism works. As the minister

indicates, there's a statutory obligation here, which means you have to fund it.

You have to go and do it.

However, if the projections are not being done well and aren't

adjusted, given exigent circumstances — in this case, increasing drought,

climate change and the implications of climate change…. If that's not projected

forward, in this case in particular, the government could end up bearing

additional costs that would be unnecessary if the base funding increased.

We have to bring crews in from other locations. We don't do

preparatory work, we don't have resident crews, and we don't do the FireSmart

program. So there are lots of things in there.

What I'm asking is: how does the government rationalize the

accountability part of this process? By looking at things like this and saying:

"Are we doing it right? Are we covering off the bases? Are we budgeting forward

and having a vote on an estimate that's real?" It's more to the accountability

that I'm trying to understand.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's

question. I will offer this. There are, obviously, limitations when an

accountability framework is built up around the assumption or the primary

objective of ensuring that ministries and ministers spend within their budgeted

amounts. I won't endeavour to convince the member otherwise.

The ministerial accountability provisions that we are dealing with

here are primarily designed to impose sanction for overspending. That has

limitations when there is an extraordinary legislative spending authority, or

statutory spending authority, that says that confronted by a certain set of

circumstances, you are obligated to take action.

[1445]

We wouldn't want, in these circumstances, to have a minister say:

"Look, we're going to hold the line here because I have some personal

accountability obligations under

an act." If the member's point is that there

are limitations around a structure that is designed to prevent overspending and

applying it to a model that actually requires overspending, then I would agree

with him. There are limitations there.

B. Simpson: That's one of the things that I was trying to

understand. However, the other part that I'm trying to understand is what the

mechanism is beyond this House where, if somebody has an overage in a given

year…. Particularly the way the government is structured, the personal penalty

for overage…. Where's the accountability mechanism — outside of just bringing a

bill in, getting that overage passed and then giving the minister his paycheque?

There's another side to this, which is: how does the government

hold ministers to account when it's not a case like this, where there is an

expectation that you might go over and it's forgiven? What about circumstances

where that's not the case?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, if I understand the question

correctly, that's why we come here. It imposes an obligation on the executive

branch to come before this House and say that in any circumstance, including

one….

I appreciate that the member is trying to be fair about the unique

circumstances around fire suppression. But the bill does impose that obligation

that even in a circumstance such as this, let alone a circumstance in which

there has been a different kind of overexpenditure, the ministry and the

minister must come before this chamber and acknowledge that and, in a sense,

seek authority from this chamber to be excused from the sanction that would

otherwise be visited upon them.

That is a very purposeful decision, and it is something that I

think is on ministers' minds and requires them to conduct themselves in a

certain way. This chamber, ultimately, passes judgment on whether or not the

expenditure above and beyond what was provided in the budget was warranted.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again with thanks to the members and to

the staff assisting, I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2006-2007

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong:

I call Committee of Supply. For the

information of members, discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands.

[1450]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND LANDS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $114,062,000.

[ Page 5906 ]

Hon. P. Bell:

I'm pleased to be here for my third budget

with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. We have a very diverse ministry, and

I will take a few minutes just to talk about some of the areas of responsibility

that we have.

On the agriculture side of the ministry there has been much work

done over the past year in terms of developing new and innovative extension

programs and starting to bring better levels of service out to communities as a

result of the implementation of these programs. Currently there is about $2.4

billion in direct farm-gate sales in the province, and interestingly, farmers'

markets in British Columbia are generating about $118 million into the economy

here.

Some of the products that we produce that are very high-value

products and are a significant component of our agriculture industry include

finfish aquaculture, blueberries, cranberries, grapes, sweet cherries and

raspberries. We rank only second to Ontario in the production of products such

as floriculture, nursery products, greenhouse tomatoes, sweet peppers,

cucumbers, mushrooms and apples.

We currently have over 2,400 food processing businesses in British

Columbia doing a total of $33 billion in consumer sales. With less than three

years away from the 2010 Olympics, we think that the food industry in British

Columbia has tremendous opportunities and we're looking forward to being able to

utilize that venue to really feature B.C. products.

The throne speech, I think, also gave us a unique opportunity in

agriculture to start looking at new approaches for income into the industry for

non-agricultural goods and services. We're looking forward to developing around

the themes of the throne speech, going forward, to ensure that we maximize value

to our farming and ranching community.

Also, this year I was very pleased that my budget received a

$51-million lift over three years to continue to support the ministry. This will

be a significant lift and will help us to meet our objectives and our

obligations under the federal agreements that we have.

In June of this year we will be hosting the

federal-provincial-territorial agriculture ministers' meeting in British

Columbia. Later this year I'm expecting the MLA from Delta North and the

Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning to present her report and her

plan for agriculture into the future.

The Agricultural Land Commission has also received a budgetary

uplift this year of $258,000. Its budget is now set at about $2.4 million, for a

10-percent lift.

In addition, last year we received a budget uplift of $14.5

million of capital for the development of a level 3 containment facility for our

lab in Abbotsford. That's now under construction, and we're looking forward to

having that open later in the year.

[1455]

One of the successes in '06-07 was the blueberry-cranberry

industry. It's been a significant player for us in British Columbia, generating

some of the most profitable crops that we have.

In addition, the wine industry has been a tremendous highlight for

us in British Columbia, despite a short crop in the '04 crop year. It still is

continuing to show significant growth, and we think there is big potential

there.

I was also very pleased last year to provide a lift to the B.C.

Association of Agricultural Fairs and Exhibitions. We had run a provincial fair

contest throughout the province, and there were three provincial fairs that were

awarded that status, along with additional funds. All of the fairs, in fact — I

think there are 48 fairs and exhibitions around the province — will be able to

have bigger and better fairs and feature agricultural products in a more

significant way than they have in the past.

Youth in agriculture is also very important from the ministry's

perspective. We were able to add a significant amount of money last year for the

4-H council, almost double the budget up to $170,000, and that's starting to

demonstrate results in terms of the types of activities that 4-H is able to

participate in around the province.

Challenges that we have in the agricultural industry…. There's no

question that the tree fruit industry in British Columbia, particularly the

apple industry, has been hard hit over the last couple of years. They've

produced a strategic plan that we're currently working through and looking for

funding opportunities — how we can support that. I'm also working with the

federal Agriculture Minister. I think that between the federal Agriculture

Ministry and our ministry here in British Columbia and working with the tree

fruit industry, we're going to have a solid plan that we can implement. The

exciting part for me is that the tree fruit industry has really taken ownership

of this plan, and I am confident that we're going see that region move forward.

The Peace River had a severe drought last year, and perhaps this

is really an extension of about a four-year drought. We've been able to provide

funding up in the Peace River region to the tune of about $5½ million through

the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program and our production

insurance. We're also working with the cattle industry up in the Peace. There's

a strategic plan we help fund that we're expecting to see in about a month. We

think that there will be good opportunities for us there to move that industry

forward as well.

In addition, we've provided a total of $10 million of funding to

the cattle industry in order to develop abattoirs around the province and deal

with specified-risk-material disposal. I am reasonably confident that we may

discuss that at some length, although I may be incorrect when I say that.

Moving on to the integrated land management bureau, which is

another significant part of the ministry, we've had very real success over the

past year. The FrontCounter B.C. offices are now up and running in nine

different communities. As well, services are available on the Web. We are

so 12

[ Page 5907 ]

languages altogether. It is already been the recipient of several awards,

including the Premier's Innovation and Excellence awards in cross-government

integration. It has been a real leader in terms of developing services to small

and medium-sized businesses.

I had the opportunity to introduce some individuals earlier on

today who work at the integrated land management bureau. As I said in my opening

remarks in that introduction, the ILMB as well as the Ministry of Agriculture

and Lands has, I believe, the second-lowest turnover in government right now and

has just done a fabulous job through the deputy and associate deputy in terms of

developing retention programs.

The integrated land management bureau also won the Solid Ground

Award from the West Coast Soaring Club for helping them to get licences of

occupation for four different hang-gliding and paragliding flying sites, which

represents about half of all the hang-gliding and paragliding flying sites in

B.C.

We also helped coordinate the Surrey–Green Timbers property

transfer to the Ministry of Health. We arranged a land exchange in Golden so

that the new visitors centre could be built adjacent to the highway. We helped

with the city of Vancouver acquire the Murrin Parkade in Chinatown by securing

an environmental indemnity and a provincial loan repayment.

In addition, we've done much work in the land use planning area

over the past year, including key work on the north and central coast, signing

agreements with the KNT First Nations, the Turning Point and the Kitkatla First

Nations.

[1500]

In addition, I believe it was on January 21 this year, we were

able to announce the $120 million conservation and incentive investments

initiative. This is a significant initiative that brings together $30 million of

provincial money with $30 million of federal money and $60 million from

different foundations around the world to help support and implement the land

use plan on the north and central coast, providing for ecosystem restoration

opportunities, planning opportunities and also economic development

opportunities, which are very, very real.

We're working through the process, as well, of developing the key

objectives for ecosystem-based management. We have those out for consultation

right now, and we expect to be legalizing those objectives as we move through

the year. We've also done a significant amount of work on Haida Gwaii with the

Haida First Nation, and we're very excited about the opportunities in there.

As well, we are in the process of developing a new approach to

strategic land and resource planning around the province, to reflect the fact

that we're living in a changing environment and understanding that perhaps

events like the mountain pine beetle were not taken into account when the

original land use plans were developed.

The species-at-risk office has been working hard on a number of

species-recovery strategies. We've now activated the five-year, $3.4 million

spotted owl recovery plan, and that seems to be showing early results. We've

just completed the consultation phase of the mountain caribou recovery plan

after a tremendous amount of work. We'll move forward with even more strategies

around caribou recovery. Although much has been done already, we know that much

more needs to be done, and we'll be implementing that. In addition, we expect to

be bringing forward the marbled murrelet recovery plan in 2008.

In addition to that, the Crown contaminated sites branch has done

some very, very good work. Members will likely be aware of the Britannia Beach

project, which is removing a significant amount of heavy metals from Howe Sound

— 450 kilograms per day — and really improving that fishery.

Having grown up in Vancouver, I remember the historic comments

about the salmon in Howe Sound and the fishing at the Hole in the Wall and all

the other fishing sites. My guess is that we're not far away from seeing that

area recovered as well, along with other projects that we're working on: the

Malakwa old landfill site, the Pitt River site, Yankee Girl former minesite,

Cork-Province mine tailings near Kaslo and Pacific Place. So the Crown

contaminated sites branch has been very busy over the past year.

I am joined now by my deputy minister Larry Pedersen, who is the

deputy of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands; ADM Daphne Stancil; and ADM

Harvey Sasaki. We may be moving back and forth with different members, but

certainly these three individuals are key players in the ministry, particularly

on the agriculture side, and have done a tremendous job, I think, working on

behalf of all members of this chamber over the past year.

With that, I'm happy to entertain questions.

C. Evans: I'm honoured to get to stand here and participate

in the estimates process for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. For the

benefit of people for whom this might be an arcane process and not

understandable, I'll explain to people at home in case there are nine of you

watching. The estimates process, I think, is a wonderful thing. In some moments

I actually think it's the best part of what we do.

The estimates process requires that every dollar that the

government spends is brought here for debate. The word "estimate" reflects the

fact that the minister is bringing forward a budget for the coming year and it

is his estimate. I as the critic — or anyone else in the opposition, or actually

anyone in the government side — am allowed to get up and ask questions about

where that money will be spent.

From a policy point of view, that allows the opposition,

representing citizens, to ask all kinds of questions which in other parts of the

year would not fit in here. But the part that I like best about it is that I

think the estimates process is what guarantees that people don't steal. I've

been here for a long, long time, and I've never seen anybody on either side who

stole the money that they were charged with administering, and that includes

ministers and MLAs and officials of the public

[ Page 5908 ]

service. That isn't the norm in lots of countries. People get elected and

they assume that stealing from the public purse is part of their purview.

It is the estimates process that allows us to ask every question

of the minister, to follow every dollar. This process is supposed to be taken

seriously by all the members on both sides. When we're finished it is supposed

to assure that the public funds are spent in a way that people want, and in an

honest way. So I like this part of the year.

In terms of what will happen here, we are going to try to organize

our questions to fit within your ability to bring your staff to the room. For

the interest of the people at home, this is the only time of the year when staff

sit in the room, because we ask specific, technical questions. Staff are not

allowed to speak into the microphones, but help the minister to answer the

questions.

Minister, it is our expectation to speak on Agriculture until

approximately 5:30 today, asking questions back and forth. We would like to have

the Lands staff come from 5:30 to 6:30. I do not know if we will finish Lands

questions by the close of business today. If not, then we'll start with Lands

again in the morning, and then run with Agriculture until the end of the day. I

see the minister nodding, so I think that will work out. Members on our side who

wish to ask Lands questions, please try and be here by 5:30 and we'll try to fit

it in.

Now, in terms of my own comments about agriculture, just for the

benefit of people watching, the way this works is the minister gets to stand up,

and he has 30 minutes — actually, maybe forever, but usually 30 minutes — to say

what he thinks. Then a critic gets up, and they get 30 minutes to say what they

think. Then, after that, it falls into questions.

I want to start by saying that I'm honoured to be the critic for

Agriculture. As others have in the past, I asked for this job as opposed to….

There are lots of parts of government that are way more sexy, and the press

gallery likes to report on them.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Yeah. But being the Minister of Agriculture or

the critic for Agriculture is the best job on either side of the House.

The reason is, if you are the Minister of Health, God help you,

your job is with huge institutions. You know, a half-million dollar hospital

complex, huge unions, huge associations, doctors and nurses and hospital

workers. It tends to be an urban job.

Being the Minister of Agriculture or the critic of Agriculture

means that you're past all of those huge institutional negotiations and you

actually deal with human beings and dirt and land and water. You get to do it in

the Peace. You get to do it in Prince George. You get to do it in Haida Gwaii.

You get to do it in the Kootenays. Where else would anybody ever want to be? You

get to do it on Vancouver Island. You get to do it in the communities all over

the province where people grow food.

[1505]

I think it's the best job, and it is the best job in the best

province. I want to talk about that a little bit.

I have said this before. I will belabour the point. British

Columbia has more ecosystems, microclimates, than all of the other provinces in

Canada combined. The example of that is that in its natural state, before

civilization, there are more plants and animals — different species and

varieties — in British Columbia than in all of Canada. What that means for

agriculture is, of course, that we can grow more stuff. We naturally have the

ability to grow more different products than all the other provinces of Canada

combined.

Then we're constrained by mountains and lakes and oceans, and so

that wonderful variety of weather and soil and climate is broken up into small,

little areas that create commodity groups, like ginseng in Kamloops or grapes in

the Okanagan or apples in Kelowna or cherries in Creston or the cattle country

of the Cariboo.

We have this wonderful variety, both of farm type and commodity

group, and also of investment, so that people can farm here — from tiny little

growers with a stand on the side of the road to giant companies employing

hundreds of workers. There is no place in Canada where agriculture is so vibrant

as here in British Columbia.

[1510]

The downside, I guess, is that only 3 percent of the province is

arable, and it's broken into all these tiny little pieces. In order to celebrate

agriculture in all those various places, we have had to lead Canada on farm

marketing, agritourism, niche marketing and organics.

I guess I want to put on the record, because I know he's retiring

this year, what a wonderful thing it was for us in British Columbia that Brent

Warner worked here developing the on-farm marketing initiatives which then grew

across Canada and down to the United States. We actually created, because of

this wonderful guy, the on-farm marketing association for all of North America.

When we get to questions, we'll talk about what we're going to do about it next.

In order to make farming work here, we need land, of course. We

need public education to help people learn how to farm. We need the

predictability of weather. We need a system of risk management, because of

course all farming is hedging against weather. We need a way to hedge capital

against disaster.

We need a system of intergenerational transfer. One of the

problems we've got right now is that people of my generation who have developed

the farms are having to figure out how to pass them on to the next generation.

We need markets, we need research capability, and we need labour.

Speaking of land, here in British Columbia, because we only have 3 percent

arable land…. Prior to 1972, as Saanich and Delta and the Fraser Valley were

filling up with houses, people who farmed became concerned that we were going to

wreck the farmland by building subdivisions on it.

Prior to the election of 1972 every single political party that

ran in the election — Conservatives, Socreds,

[ Page 5909 ]

Liberals, New Democrats; those are the ones that I can remember — had some

kind of platform in their policy book to protect farmland. It really didn't

matter who got elected in that election. Somebody was going to have to do

something.

New Democrats won, and in 1973 we had the agricultural land

reserve, which was a monumental trauma at the time. I was an owner of farmland.

I've got three kids, and when we created the agricultural land reserve, I lost

the ability to give a chunk of land to my kids, and all of my neighbours did. We

didn't understand it, and it created trauma and debate and all kinds of

problems. It also created a system that assured for all time that we could farm

here.

In the 1980s I was a regional district director in the Kootenays.

I learned at that place to respect the agricultural land reserve and the

Agricultural Land Commission. I got the job. I was pretty redneck. I kind of

thought a bunch of bureaucracies was a pain in the neck and we should be allowed

to do anything we wanted. And then all of my neighbours would come to me and

say: "Help me get my land out of the agricultural and land reserve."

I realized that if we all give our land — four acres and three

kids — to all of our kids, then we're going to have no farmable-sized lots left.

But I couldn't say no to my neighbours, because I lived there. They'd see me at

the store, and they'd phone me at home, and they'd see me at work, and they'd

stop me on the street, and they'd say: "Help me."

We referred those issues to the Agricultural Land Commission in

Burnaby. I learned in that job that part of my redneck thinking was actually

haywire. Having the Land Commission in Burnaby protected us as local politicians

from having to say no. The place where I live 30 years later is still full of

agricultural land, and they still like their regional directors, and all the

hard questions are still referred to Burnaby.

I learned through that process to respect the Agricultural Land

Commission. Then for a little while when I was minister, I came to hugely

understand how British Columbia is protected in ways that other countries are

not. I just made a short list that I could remember.

[1515]

We were visited in the '90s by farmers from Texas, New Mexico, two

countries in Europe, Tennessee, Alberta and Ontario — that I can remember. They

all came here on their own ticket — paid their own way — and brought a little

group of people and said: "Could you explain to us how you created this

agricultural land reserve? Because where we live we are being swamped by

subdivisions and big-box stores."

It was the tobacco growers in Tennessee who couldn't grow tobacco

anymore. Because of changing ethics around smoking, it didn't have any value,

and as their land was devalued, people would come buy it up and subdivide it.

They came to British Columbia to find out how we kept that from happening.

People on the outskirts of Calgary who wanted to protect farming

as Calgary grows came to British Columbia to see what we did. Indigenous people

from New Mexico who had historically grown peaches, whose farms were now being

bought up by rich people from New York and San Francisco for recreation

activities, came here to find out how we protect farmland. I learned in that

process how unique we are and what a beacon we are for the rest of the world,

because of the accident of what happened here in 1972.

Everything isn't wonderful in the farming world. Since the 1970s….

When we created the ALR, we had a social contract. We said to the farm

community, who were demonstrating on the lawn outside: "Okay, we're going to

freeze your land, and you're not going to be able to sell it to retire and have

a good retirement." That was itself the social contract prior to 1970s — wasn't

it? That's how your grandparents grew up. Everybody said: "Okay, I'll work real

hard in my youth. I'll accumulate this land, and then when I get old, I'll sell

it. I'll get enough money to have a good retirement."

The agricultural land reserve said no to that. So a social

contract was put in place that said to the farm community: "We're going to make

you guys a deal. What you grow will have a value so that you can earn your

wealth while you're working, just like all of the rest of us do in any job that

we do."

Then, since the 1970s, the social contract tended to erode, the

largest step of which was a thing called the GATT. I won't go into that. But the

two countries that decided to remove support for farming faster than anybody

else in the world were Australia and Canada. If the minister wants, he can turn

round and check with his staff to see if there is anything wrong about that, but

I think Australia and Canada moved faster than anybody else — and maybe New

Zealand.

Then the supports for farming were removed, the social contract

began to fall apart, various governments no longer wanted to live up to the

terms, and support for farming in British Columbia began to erode. Here in

British Columbia, of course, we blamed the GATT. Successive governments — New

Democrat, Social Credit, probably Liberal — all said that we can't have those

supports because international controls say we can't do it anymore, but other

provinces…. Even though Canada cut controls faster than anybody else except

Australia, other provinces kept figuring out a way to support farmers in a way

that wasn't GATT-able.

The question is: why? Why has that happened here in British

Columbia and not in Quebec, say, or Ontario? Why have we reduced support for

agriculture, and other provinces, not? I'm not attacking the minister. I think

all governments since about, say, 1980 have been engaged in reducing, cutting

little bit by little bit, the supports that were put in place to support

agriculture.

In terms of why, I'm going to be sort of blunt because it's on

television. It's on the record. I've long thought that farmers, politicians and

political parties are equally at fault. I have heard New Democrats say: "Why

should we support farmers? They all vote Liberal." I have heard Liberals say:

"Why do we have to support farmers? They're going to vote for us anyway."

We have this weird situation in British Columbia where I think

that in the public's mind, the people watching, the

[ Page 5910 ]

capital of farming tends to be concentrated in the Fraser Valley, Kelowna and

the Peace. Then there are small farms elsewhere: Merritt, Creston, Vancouver

Island. But the Fraser Valley, Kelowna and parts of the Okanagan and the Peace

tend to be what we think of as the largest investments in agriculture, and they

tend to vote in one way.

That removes the dynamic where political parties appeal to a group

of people, trying to win their votes. Neither political party puts much trouble

into it. So we are at fault for removing politically from the public discourse

the debate of how to support farming.

I think farmers are also a bit at fault. Prior to the 1990s we had

a thing in B.C. called the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and we had fairly

strong institutions called the Women's Institute and the Farmers Institute.

[1520]

In all three of these organizations, all the farmers from the

province would come together and essentially create a negotiating body.

Then through the 1990s and into this century for, I think,

business reasons, we smashed those institutions so that they exist today only in

remnant form. We began to negotiate with farmers in commodity groups. We call

them fruit growers. We call them turkey producers. We call them grape growers.

We call them grain growers. The idea of farmers talking to farmers went away,

and commodity groups now bargained in a business sort of relationship with the

government according to what it is that they grow.

I submit that politically what that did is break the relationship

of farmers to one another and to farm communities and, in some way, take the

subject of the land ethic off the table of public argument and political

discussion, removing the obligation for 70-some-odd people sitting in this room

to care at all because it isn't going to get here.

I think we stand at a crossroads. The good news is that the public

is really starting to care. I go places now, and people who never would have

raised those issues before talk to me about food security and local food. I

think everybody just talked about price 15 years ago. They wanted the cheapest

possible tomato and the cheapest possible quart of milk. Now they're starting to

talk about what's in the tomato and where the quart of milk comes from.

I remember once I was talking to the Minister of Agriculture in

Japan, who is quite into business. He said to me: "You know what the biggest

enemy of agriculture in Japan is?" I said: "No, what is it?" He said: "It's the

housewife." I said: "The housewife?" He said: "Yeah, she's starting to want to

know what's in the food."

I think that's growing all over the world. There's a wonderful

resurgence of interest in farming, food production and the quality of food, and

that works in our favour.

Unfortunately, at the very same time, land prices are going nuts.

The value of the land to a farmer is now so different than the value of the land

to a developer for almost any purpose — put a railroad there, put a highway

there, a highrise, a factory — that it is becoming almost impossible to sustain

the relationship of farming in the urban interface.

I think that the political pressure of that huge demand for land

is putting pressure on provincial politicians on both sides, on governments of

all kinds, on municipalities and on the Land Commission themselves that is too

great to withstand in the present system. We need a big rethink if we wish to

save agricultural land and production in our communities.

I was told once — I do not know if it's true, and I won't name the

community — about a community quite close to where we are right now where the

majority of the agricultural land in the community was said to be owned by

numbered companies. I asked: why is that true? I was told that the land in that

community would become so valuable someday when it got out of the agricultural

land reserve that the difference between its value as farmland and released land

was the greatest investment in legal activity that you could make in the world,

if you were willing to wait decades for return on investment.

I don't know if it's true, but as a story, I think it provides

metaphorically a signpost of where we are today. We are in a situation where

everybody has an interest in getting land out of the reserve that is now so

great that I don't think the traditional systems can withstand it. Part of these

estimates and everything that we do in this building ought now to be aimed at

creating a new system to preserve farmland in British Columbia.

I want to say what I think, and I do not wish for anyone to

misconstrue what I say as meaning the New Democratic Party or somebody's policy.

My own opinion is that this House and the political parties that work here ought

to enter into some process to invent a new social contract with people who grow

food or produce food or live on agricultural land, to make it profitable for

them to do the work of food production.

[1525]

Secondly, I think we should be done now with the 30-some years of

fiddling with the borders of the agricultural land reserve. All the land where I

live, which ought to be removed because it was inappropriately put in…. It was

actually gravel. They took a picture from an airplane and said it was good soil,

and it turned out it was gravel. It's all been removed — 30 years of removals.

The only way I can see that we're going to make this thing work now that the

price difference is so radical is to say: "Okay, there's a hard edge. Nothing

comes out in future."

It's happened lots of places in the world. When you do that, you

say of course that someday the government has got to build a hospital or

something. There are reasons why land has to come out. But you put in place a

recapture tax that takes away 100 percent of the profit of getting it out, and

then nobody has any interest in removing it unless it's necessary for the

greater good of society.

To not have that debate in some form in both political parties in

this House and in the province at large at this

[ Page 5911 ]

time, I submit, will make — if we carry down the road that we're going — the

agricultural land reserve redundant in five years' time. So I guess what I'm

saying is: I think the time has come for a new kind of politics around farming.

The historical one, where the political parties make promises to farmers and

they vote one or the other — I don't think it works anymore. I think there now

needs to be a new social contract. There needs to be a dialogue that leads to

that social contract, and there needs to be an all-party rethink.

I don't know how that will happen. I will get later to questions

for the minister about how it comes to pass that instead of an all-party

committee investigating agriculture, we have a Liberal Party committee. Now that

we do, how do I get past that to get this side of the House involved in the

dialogue? And how do we get farm groups and communities into the dialogue? And

then, where's the place where we come forward with a big new idea — one that

says that farming will be profitable in British Columbia and that we'll protect

farmland?

If we just carry on with the usual dialogue — I attack the

minister; the minister gives answers back; we try to look good on TV — that

won't help farming at all. That will lead to the continued erosion, which is not

happening anymore as trickle, trickle, trickle. It's now starting to look like a

wave. It's coming down the Fraser River in springtime and washing it away.

I will wrap up this introduction now, and we'll move to questions.

I would like to ask the minister, as we continue through questions asked by

whomever, to keep these comments in mind. I'm not just trying to hear myself

think; I actually think this dialogue has to happen now, or you having that job

and me having this job will have been a waste of a crucial moment, and we will

leave this work worse than we found it.

So my first question for the minister, having introduced the

subject. We have fairly outrageous, some would say — but certainly everyone

would agree large — pressures on the agricultural land in lower mainland — say,

Tsawwassen back to Chilliwack. I would like to know: has the minister met with

the Agricultural Land Commission to develop a strategy of how to manage the

pressure for growth, industrial development and transportation activities being

experienced from Chilliwack to Tsawwassen?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, the member may know that we've been

working on this for some time. Last year there was a report done by the Suzuki

Foundation called Forever Farmland: Reshaping the Agricultural Land Reserve

for the 21st Century . We met with the foundation, reviewed the report they

had, and worked with the Agricultural Land Commission to work with the

foundation as well.

They've been developing some interesting work, particularly around

the community need piece, and I'm pleased to tell the member that 2006 was

actually the year of lowest activity ever in the agricultural land reserve in

terms of exclusions.

[1530]

There was a total of 505 hectares excluded from the land reserve

in 2006. There were actually 977 hectares added to the agricultural land

reserve, for a net increase in the agricultural land reserve of 471 hectares. I

believe that the number of 505 for the actual removals was the lowest in the

history of the Agricultural Land Commission.

But I share with the member his concerns in terms of how 20, 25

years ago the agricultural land reserve was established in very broad brush

strokes. I do take very seriously the responsibility that we have to protect

farmland.

There were a couple of key decisions made last year by the

Agricultural Land Commission that are noteworthy, those being the Barnston

Island decision and the Garden City lands decision, in Richmond. Both of those

decisions were to not exclude those two particular parcels of land. But in that

process, the Agricultural Land Commission established some very firm criteria

around community need, which I think will be useful in terms of guiding

decisions going forward into the future.

Many of the comments that the member made up to this point I

actually concur with. I think we need to be very, very cautious in how we manage

the agricultural land in the province. It is valuable. It is a heritage for our

children and a responsibility that we take very seriously.

C. Evans: I appreciate the good news that the minister

brings in terms of Barnston Island and in terms of fewer withdrawals. I'd like

to get at this question of whether or not the minister has a way of having a

dialogue with the Land Commission about developing a plan.

I'll ask it a little differently. Does the minister feel that it

is inappropriate or appropriate for him or his representative to meet with the

Land Commission to develop a plan of how to deal with the pressures that they

experience?

Hon. P. Bell: Sorry. I thought I was clear with my

explanation of that. I do meet from time to time with, particularly, the chair

of the Agricultural Land Commission and occasionally with some of the senior

staff. I actually have a senior staff member outside. If we get into the topic

of the Agricultural Land Commission in any depth, we'll bring that particular

individual inside, as well, to review some of the details.

I did meet with the Agricultural Land Commission last year. I

expressed my concern about how we were managing the reserve and that we needed

to be judicious and careful and cautious about the decisions that were being

made and the exclusions. I asked them to review the Suzuki Foundation report in

detail, to work with the Suzuki Foundation and to come back to me and establish

some criteria around decisions under which community need was utilized for

removals of land from the land reserve.

That has traditionally been the contentious issue. How do you

define community need? What are the

[ Page 5912 ]

principles that must be fulfilled in order for community need to be utilized

as an exclusionary reason? So that work has been ongoing. I don't think it's

completed yet. I think we have more work to do in that area. I continue to meet

with them.

But to be clear, my responsibility is in establishing policy in an

open and transparent manner around the way decisions are made. It's not to

interfere with individual decisions. It's to work generally with the broad brush

strokes of how decisions are made. That's where any policy direction or any

input that I would have as minister responsible for the Agricultural Land

Commission would be at the very high-level policy decision–making process.

C. Evans: So the minister is saying to us that he is

engaged in a dialogue about the definition of community need. Is it the

minister's belief that the Land Commission's ability to do its job is enhanced

by asking them to consider community need? Might it not be a better solution if

we simply remove the words "community need" from the instructions to the Land

Commission?

Hon. P. Bell: The member will know that community need was

added as a criterion to the decision-making process a few years ago.

[1535]

I support that, because I think if community need is not included

in the decision-making process, then the process reverts simply to: is the

farmland suitable for farming, or is it capable of being usable farmland?

Certainly, when you look at a parcel of land, if it is farmable

land, then it would not qualify under those criteria. So if there is a very high

priority use for that particular piece of land, if there was a reason to have

that particular piece of land excluded, then the commission would not be able to

make an exclusionary decision and it would revert to either a non-exclusion or

government would be required to interfere in that decision-making process.

I don't support that. I know the member is actually on record in

the past as saying that he doesn't support…. I believe that's correct, that he

doesn't support that process any longer — the notion of government or

politicians kind of interfering with those decisions — and I respect that. I

think he's on the record as saying that at some point in time.

I think the notion of establishing some criteria around community

need is a worthwhile exercise, and this is actually something that was

articulated very clearly in the Suzuki Foundation report as well. So it's not

just government speaking.

There are some credible organizations that are indicating that

community need is a justifiable reason for exclusion, but it's got to be under a

very, very specific set of criteria. I'll read into the record the four criteria

that we're currently working with. I want to make sure the member understands

that I don't think this work is complete. We may need to do more work in terms

of establishing the criteria around community need, but certainly I think that

the Agricultural Land Commission did a good job with these four criteria as a

starting point.

The first one is: identify the need and the expected community

benefits or values to be achieved. The second point is: identify and assess the

impact or risks to the community if the proposal does not proceed or is delayed.

The third criterion is: determine whether there are reasonable alternative means

of meeting the community need. That's an important one. The fourth and final one

is: identify and assess the impacts of meeting community need on agriculture and

non-agriculture uses of the land and the avoidance, mitigation, or management of

these impacts.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

That was the first approach that the Agricultural Land Commission

had at identifying community needs. The Suzuki Foundation has actually been

doing some work with the commission on the development of that set of criteria.

Certainly that's an area that more work could be done on, but I think it's a

good first start.

C. Evans: The other organization besides the Land

Commission, I think, that struggles with these issues is the GVRD, and

specifically its agriculture committee. Has the minister or minister's

representative met with the GVRD agriculture committee or the GVRD itself to

talk about how to develop a plan to manage growth and sustain and enhance

agriculture at the same time?

Hon. P. Bell: We actually have not met with a GVRD Ag

Advisory Committee. We do have staff meet on a regular basis with individual ag

advisory committees in communities.

It's interesting the member asked the question, because I haven't

been approached in over a year and a half by a GVRD Ag Advisory Committee. It's

not a group that has looked to us, but we do meet regularly with different ag

advisory committees around the province.

Actually, I just want to jump back to the member's opening

comments because I thought there were some useful things and some areas where,

again, we have a similar approach or coincide. I think it's very important that

we have strong institutes and associations. The member mentioned that there were

at one point in time very strong farmers institutes and women's institutes

around the province. I actually continue to meet with many of those institutes

on an ongoing basis, and one of the objectives or goals that I've asked my

ministry to participate in is seeing how we can strengthen those associations

and institutes around the province so we can get a better level of dialogue

coordinated back within the ministry.

[1540]

I know when the member was the previous Minister of Agriculture,

he had a similar view: it was important that you have a unified voice speaking

to the Agriculture

[ Page 5913 ]

Ministry so that we could execute and deliver on the needs within the

ministry. That's something we continue to endeavour to participate in, and

certainly the B.C. Ag Council has taken on that role. We are working with the

B.C. Ag Council to help them develop the capacity necessary to have that

dialogue on an ongoing basis.

In the province are 200 different commodity groups. It's very

challenging to meet with all those different associations on an ongoing basis.

If you have one final point or one group that you can meet with and receive

feedback from, it's very useful. I think the member would probably agree with

that, given his previous experience.

C. Evans: I'll ask the question differently. The minister

advises that the GVRD has not asked to meet with him. When you're dating, either

person in the couple can ask the other guy to dance. So will the minister ask

the GVRD if they would please consider entering into a dialogue with him so that

they might manage growth, transportation needs and farmland together, instead of

in different silos?

Hon. P. Bell: Now I am confused. In the first question, I

thought the member was asking me if I had met with the GVRD Agricultural

Advisory Committee. Now I think I hear him asking me if I've met with the GVRD,

so I would appreciate just some clarity in the question I'm trying to answer

here.

C. Evans: I meant the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee,

although far be it from me if you ask them for a meeting to tell them who would

meet with you. But the GVRD has an agricultural committee, which supposedly

provides advice to them and, also, to TransLink on the development of farmland.

I believe that they are the appropriate people to work with the ministry and the

various municipalities to come up with a plan to manage growth so that it

doesn't eat the farmland from Tsawwassen to Chilliwack.

I did not mean to confuse the minister. I am suggesting that he

ask the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee to enter into a dialogue with the

Ministry of Agriculture or the minister to come up with a plan to manage growth.

Is that okay?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm joined now by Colin Fry, who's one of the

senior executives with the Agricultural Land Commission. I'm advised by Mr. Fry

that in fact the Agricultural Land Commission does meet with the group referred

to by the member opposite on a regular basis and talks to them about planning

initiatives and strategies around the protection of land. Certainly, now that

I'm advised of this group, they'll be receiving a letter from me inviting them

in so that we can have a chat and I can better understand their objectives.

C. Evans: That's great. I appreciate the answer.

Now, moving from the general to the specific, I want a dialogue to

happen about how we're going to manage farmland, because I see a crisis

happening. I'm trying to encourage the minister and the minister's staff to be

part of or to lead that dialogue.

[1545]

Moving to the specifics, I'll ask a couple of questions about

Formosa Nursery — which, as the minister knows, is something I talked about

earlier today in the two-minute statements. It provides, I think, some

illustrative examples of how development can go badly if people don't

participate in the dialogue.

For anybody who doesn't know, Formosa Nursery is a piece of land,

RP5113, on the border of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows — the formal name is

Formosa Nursery Co. Ltd. — presently bisected by a road being built by

TransLink. On the federal-provincial environmental assessment that happened in

2002 and 2003 to decide the advisability of putting a road across the Formosa

nursery, did the ministry participate?

Hon. P. Bell: This file actually goes back a considerable

amount of time, as I think the member probably is aware. He's very knowledgable

on the file. It actually goes back to 1987, originally, when the ALC was first

made aware of the plans and the proposals that were on the table at the time. In

2002 the ALC was provided with information about the Fraser River crossing and

the associated road networks, including Abernethy Way, and then in 2004

TransLink wrote to each of the affected owners. It's been a very long, involved

process, and I'm sure we'll have some time to talk about it in more detail.

C. Evans: I take that as a no, I assume, that the minister

is saying. I thank him for his information, but he didn't answer the question,

so I'll take that as a no. The minister's office did not participate in the

federal-provincial environmental assessment considering the advisability of the

location of the Abernethy connector.

My next question is: did the minister or the minister's office or

minister's representatives participate with Trans Link in the discussions about

the location of the road?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member said that I answered the

question as, "No, we weren't involved," and I think I answered the question:

"Yes, we were involved." Maybe a misconnection there.

The member asked to what degree, I believe, that the ministry —

and I'm extending that to say the Agricultural Land Commission as well — was

involved in the planning process around that. To give the member some more

information that I think he has — but I may be incorrect — on January 6, 2005,

the ALC conditionally approved the application with respect to Formosa Nursery.

The ALC required several mitigating measures to be agreed upon between the

proponent, the landowner and the ALC.

The ALC acknowledged that it would be clearly in the best interest

of agriculture to take the route that's as close as possible to the south

boundary of Formosa Nursery, but Formosa Nursery did not provide input directly

to the ALC. The ALC relied on its understanding from the comments made by the

owner at the public

[ Page 5914 ]

meeting that the first choice would be to have the road as close as possible

to the south boundary, and the second choice being the opportunity to dispose of

any small remnant of land. The ALC asked staff to work closely with the

engineers in designing the exact location of the final route.

I hope the member takes that to be a yes.

[1550]

C. Evans: No, the member doesn't take that to be a yes.

I think that we have here a basic misunderstanding, and maybe the

minister can help me clear it up. I kind of think that the Minister of

Agriculture is the one person in the entire province who is the advocate for

farmers when they get in a conflict with whomever. The Ministry of Agriculture

is the group that works for the minister to help advocate for farmers.

The Agricultural Land Commission is in charge of looking after

land. I appreciate what they do, but it's the minister who sits at cabinet, and

when a mistake is being made or some activity that impacts on farmers, he raises

his hand and says, "Hey, wait a second. I'm speaking up for the farmers," and

puts forward the farmers' argument.

So when I'm saying at what point does the ministry get involved —

does the ministry help with the federal-provincial environmental assessment, or

does the ministry help with the TransLink location of the road? — I mean as

advocates. At what point does the Ministry of Agriculture advocate for farmers?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is not entirely correct in that

the Agricultural Land Commission actually has as its second goal to encourage

and enable farming of land in the ALR. So not only do I have responsibility as

the minister to advocate for and promote farming in British Columbia, but the

ALC also carries that responsibility. I'd refer the member to page 10 of the

2007-08 to 2009-10 service plan, goal 2, where it says:

" Encourage and enable farming of the land in the ALR. The

land use framework for agriculture includes the Agricultural Land Commission

Act, local government land use plans and bylaws and the legislation plans and

policies of other ministries and agencies that affect the agricultural land use.

"The ALR is the working agricultural land

base. The utilization of the ALR for agriculture production contributes to the economy and

stabilizes rural communities and is the foundation of a safe and secure food

system. The commission shares the responsibility for encouraging farming use of

agricultural lands with its key partners. These include over 130 local

governments, the agricultural sector and its professional organizations, the

Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, other ministries and agencies, Agriculture

Canada and other federal agencies and first nations."

So the Agricultural Land Commission also carries that

responsibility, as do I, and we work together to ensure we fulfil that mandate.

C. Evans: Yes, I appreciate that the Agricultural Land

Commission shares that job, but I do not accept the information of the Land

Commission that the farmer did not comment. I think, actually, that information

exists, some of which I have supplied to your office — that the farmer did

comment. The farmer commented…. There was a breakdown in language skills. The

Land Commission didn't understand the comment and later recanted the fact that

they didn't understand.

But I don't care about any of that. This is not a court of law.

That can be sorted out somewhere else. I want to know how come the ministry and

the minister don't stand up for farmers when they get in a jam.

I wrote last October to the minister, came and met the minister,

and there was no politics. I sat quietly in an office with nobody around except

the MLA. And we promised the minister, or the staff, a tour with no press, no

politics, no demonstrations — nobody there. I want to show you what's going on.

Did the minister come or send staff?

Hon. P. Bell: I just encourage the member in his enthusiasm to

be somewhat cautious of the member for Nanaimo. He was somewhat ducking the

various hand gestures. I was fearful for his life for a moment there. Especially

if he has a pen in his hand…. That would be very concerning.

To answer the member's question, no, I did not attend that. I

didn't think it was appropriate. I have made it very clear to this member in the

past that I don't believe that it is appropriate for me to interfere with

individual decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1555]

I think there is a very dangerous line that could be crossed, and

actually the member is on record, I think a year ago, as agreeing with that

position, if I'm not mistaken. I'd have to go back in Hansard to review

it, but I recall an instance in the past where the member commented specifically

that there had been a decision made a number of years ago where a previous

minister had interfered, and he didn't think it was appropriate upon review of

that.

I think when the Agricultural Land Commission is involved, it's

important that we respect the quasi-judicial nature of the commission, that we

allow them to do the work that they need to do. If decisions are being made that

don't represent the values of British Columbians…. We ensure that the policy

structure under which the commission makes decisions — that being the actual

legislation and regulatory body that the commission must follow — should

therefore be changed if it was inappropriate.

That's the level at which I think the minister should engage. He

should not be involved in individual decisions.

C. Evans: To suggest that I am suggesting that the minister

interfere is stretching the point beyond credibility. I don't want the minister

to interfere.

He's completely right in what I think. I presented the minister a

map; I'm going to hold it up. We sat here

[ Page 5915 ]

for three days in November. The minister said I shouldn't interfere. I showed

him a map of what the Land Commission had okayed, which was a corridor. The

minister said: "Oh, I see." I said: "They have okayed the corridor. We want you

to help TransLink move the road to the southern edge of the corridor, in keeping

with what the Land Commission has decided."

Now, my questions all have to do with: is the minister the

advocate for farmers? Would he send his deputy or go himself across the water

and say to TransLink: "You are paving a farm that the Land Commission has said

to you: 'Please use the southern border'"? That's not interference; that's

acting as an advocate.

My question is: when the minister understood that the Agricultural

Land Commission had given a corridor which included an acceptable road, why did

the minister or his staff not intervene to go and advocate for farmers?

Hon. P. Bell: Something that the member said does concern

me a little bit. He, I think, suggested that I indicated to him it was

inappropriate that he advocate on behalf of Formosa, and I did not do that and

would not do that. I think as a duly elected member of this House — a member of

the opposition certainly — that is within his scope of responsibility.

The member is assuming that there were not various negotiations

going on with Formosa Nursery by other components of government. There was

detailed work being done with Formosa Nursery. I was receiving updates through

the period of those negotiations.

As I understand it, Formosa has been compensated appropriately.

I'm told that Formosa may easily have the same quantum and the same quality of

land under production that they had previously.

Again, the ALC was actively engaged in the file, looked at the

file after the member brought it up again and had another look at it to see if

any errors had been made, felt that the appropriate processes had been followed.

I do understand, Mr. Chair, that the member disagrees with me on

this, and I accept that. That's what this House is all about — being able to

have constructive discussions. We're not always going to agree at the end of

those discussions, but certainly the process was followed.

The Formosa Nursery, I think, has been adequately compensated. The

owners are reasonably happy with the package that was offered to them. I think

farming has been protected in British Columbia as a result of the decision and

the work that's gone on.

[1600]

C. Evans: I only have one more question. As I tried to

explain, my questions about Formosa Nursery are not so much concerned with that

particular problem as the example that it sets for how we operate.

My question is fairly general. At what point does the minister

feel that it is his job at cabinet to intervene on behalf of farmers when some

other ministry of government or some other government like GVRD or TransLink is

acting in a way that might impact negatively on farmers?

Hon. P. Bell: The member, being a previous member of

cabinet and previous Agriculture Minister, will know that we take that

responsibility, and any Agriculture minister would take that responsibility,

very seriously in any discussions that go on at any level within government —

whether it be at a cabinet level or other level. He would also know that it is

impossible to answer the question that he just asked. There is no definitive

line at which point any Agriculture minister would automatically engage because

of the variety of issues that we deal with on an ongoing basis.

Certainly, it is appropriate — the member is eager to stand back

up — for ministers to engage and advocate on behalf of farming, and I do that

all the time.

C. Evans: I'll finish this line of questioning by saying

that the simplest way to keep the issue out of here is, when an MLA from either

side writes to the minister and says, "Help me solve this problem on behalf of

this farmer," for the minister or his staff to go — and not have it be a

political debate, not have it in the newspapers, not have demonstrations — and

solve the problem. That is the kind of advocacy we're looking for. Then we don't

wind up six months later asking a bunch of questions after the fact.

I would like to give my assurance to the minister. If I write him

a letter and say, "Come help me solve this problem while it's not news…." The

assurance of the absence of press and politics…. And support of farming will be

intact, and we can avoid this in future. Now I'm going to turn it over to other

questions.

M. Sather: My constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is

the subject of the discussion that the member for Nelson-Creston has just been

having with the minister. As the member made reference to, the issue — and also

the issue that I want to talk to the minister about — is not specifically about

Formosa Nursery. But Formosa Nursery is kind of a microcosm of what's happening

in my constituency, which is on the border of the massive amount of growth

that's happening in the lower mainland. We still have agricultural land, such as

in Pitt Meadows and in Maple Ridge, and we have this wave of development that's

hitting us.

One comment I do need to make, though, to correct the minister

with regard to the Formosa Nursery situation. The farm has definitely not been

made whole as a result of this transaction. I know the minister didn't go and

hasn't seen the farm, but the roadway, the Abernethy connector to the Golden

Ears bridge will go dead-centre through the middle of their blueberry operation.

Those plants, which are mature plants…. The farmer, Mr. Wu, was

advised by a farm expert who TransLink sent out that it would not be advisable

to try to move those plants — that they wouldn't survive. So there is no way

that that farm has been made whole. As the member has referred to earlier today

in this House, they're trying to pick up the pieces bravely and carry on.

I want to invite the minister to assist me and to assist farmers

in my community with another problem

[ Page 5916 ]

that's very much related to the one at Formosa Nursery. Again, it has to do

with this interplay of land use, agriculture and transportation. There is a

second road now that's being contemplated through agricultural land, through

Formosa Nursery, and it has to do with access to the new Pitt River Bridge.

[1605]

This is very problematic. That there would be even consideration

of another road, another assault on Formosa Nursery, just defies the

imagination. But that's true. That's where it would have to go, unless it went

through the golf course, which it's not going to.

I'm not asking the minister to interfere in any decision by the

Agricultural Land Commission, and there is an application to remove two pieces

of agricultural land. Currently it has gone to the municipality. I don't believe

it's yet been forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission. This removal is

where the road is proposed to go through. The whole purpose of it — it's been

stated by staff at the city of Pitt Meadows — is that it's to facili