I'll preface this by saying that, imo, these sorts of views are the complete wrong type of mindset to have for governing a region that is known for it's diverse and beautiful natural features and ecosystems.
“What are we going to do if we have 30 per cent less food production?
This is a pretty weak argument considering that food production accounts for a very small portion of B.C.'s total land — specifically 4.9% of B.C. is within the ALR [source], so to say that 30% of that is going to be taken away seems like quite a stretch. On top of that, most food production in B.C. is in a relatively compact portion of B.C.'s southern regions [source].
What are we going to do if we’re going to have 30 per cent less forestry production?
Less than 0.3% of B.C.'s land is actively logged at any given time [source], on top of that, only 26% of B.C. land (42% of forests) is available for logging [source], so, again, to assume that it would cause B.C. to loose 30% of it's logging production is a stretch.