Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 264

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Point of Privilege

M. Bernier

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

M. Lee

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

M. Bernier

L. Larson

I. Paton

M. Hunt

T. Stone

B. Stewart

D. Clovechok

S. Gibson

D. Barnett

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

C. Oakes

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

(continued)

T. Redies

Hon. D. Eby

S. Bond

M. Morris

J. Yap

M. Lee

J. Thornthwaite

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2019

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Point of Privilege

M. Bernier: For those that were in the House yesterday, they know that I rose on a

point of order during debates. Yesterday the member for Nanaimo–North

Cowichan made some very inappropriate, unparliamentary and intemperate

comments in this House that offended me as an hon. member of this House.

From the Hansard recording that I went and checked afterwards, in the audio,

the member can be heard saying, amongst other comments: “Not a chance, you

fat….” Another “f” expletive that I’m not going to use.

I am asking that the member withdraw his comments in this

House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. I will take that under consideration.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 30,

Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I

call continued committee stage debate on Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act. And in

Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry

of Attorney General.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; J. Isaacs

in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

section 8.

J. Martin: Welcome back, everybody, as we continue on this piece of

legislation, Bill 30. I’m very happy to carry on the discussion. Right

now on

section 8, a few questions for the minister. Under what

circumstances could a trade union apply to the board for an order

declaring the collective agreement expired?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, we talked about Bill 6. It is about a raid. If members of

one union decide to join members of the other union, and if they are

successful, the incoming union…. Then it gives them the right. If that

existing collective agreement has more than two years remaining in the

term of that agreement, then that union can apply to the board to reopen

that collective agreement and start bargaining and renegotiate on the

agreement. But the board has the discretion. The board needs to be

convinced that the application has merit.

J. Martin: Thank you for that. I’m always curious in a

section such as this

how we come to arrive at a particular number, 24 months. What was the

rationale? What was the evidence that 24 months is the proper number to

attach to this section?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, this was something that was decided by the panel. Also, I

think the real intent behind this is this. If members are leaving one

particular union with a collective agreement that may be inferior to the

rest of the industry, and they wish to join a different union and bring

them in, and if there is a collective agreement that is going to last

another six, seven, eight years, then they’re stuck with that collective

agreement. They cannot make progress.

Again, it is saying that if it’s more than two years, it’s just

showing that they’re talking about…. If there is extra, I guess, time

given to the collective agreement — as I said, five, six, seven, eight

years — and the members are not happy with that, they may decide to

change unions. If the new union comes in and if more than two years are

left in that collective agreement, they can apply to the board to reopen

the collective agreement and renegotiate. I think this is something the

panel heard from stakeholders. They came back with a unanimous

recommendation on this.

J. Martin: I’m always curious, also, about the minister and the ministry —

the amount of thought that they’ve given to the impact that this may

have on financial decisions and stability for employers when they bid on

projects or make capital investments. It’s hard to imagine that this

isn’t going to be one of the variables that will have to be taken into

account.

If a new collective agreement could be struck mid-project, how

will an employer be able to properly bid on one, not having the security

of knowing what their labour costs are going to be throughout the life

of that project?

Hon. H. Bains: This is what the panel, when they were going around seeking input,

said. I’m just quoting from the panel’s report. “The panel heard

concerns that successor unions may inherit substandard collective

agreements with long durations. However, parties often negotiate

longer-term collective agreements for reasons of stability and

certainty, and employers rely on these terms to make bids or capital

investments and spending decisions — for example, project labour

agreements — which could be significantly impacted if the collective

agreement could be reopened following a successful raid.”

Then they went on to say this. “In difficult-to-organize sectors,

unions may negotiate basic agreements as a first step in those sectors.

A successor union should be able to apply to the board to have a

collective agreement reopened, and the board should have discretion to

grant such relief in extraordinary circumstances having regard to its

section 2 duties. This would permit the exercise of this discretion,

where, for example, terms of the collective agreements are clearly

inferior to the norm of the sector.”

Member, what we also need to look at…. They look at the other

jurisdictions as well. Again, we’re not reinventing the wheel. If you

look at Ontario and Quebec, their collective agreements cease to operate

following a successful raid. It ends. In Alberta and Newfoundland and

Labrador, the collective agreement can be terminated by the successor

union providing the employer with the prescribed period of notice. In

Canada, following a successful raid, the successor union may give notice

to commence bargaining. In Manitoba and New Brunswick, a collective

agreement may be terminated by the successor providing notice and with

the consent of the board.

[1:45 p.m.]

It is something that is quite normal. The panel heard these

inputs, and the information came from all stakeholders. They considered

all of that, and they came back with a recommendation they believe is

timely and is something that is needed.

J. Martin: Can the minister perhaps speculate on what impact 27.1 will have

on the community benefits agreement projects?

Hon. H. Bains: I will not speculate, but I will say that labour board has the

expertise, experience. They will hear input from both the union and from

the employer. If the employer has some concerns why the collective

agreement should not be reopened, then they’ll make a decision based on

the information received.

Employers can have their submissions. The unions will have their

submissions. It’s the normal work of the labour board. Then they will

make a decision, whether both parties provide the information and

submissions include all the information that they need to make a

decision. They will make the right decision.

M. Lee: I’m pleased to join my colleague the member for Chilliwack in this

committee stage discussion on

section 8. In view of the comments made by

the Minister of Labour, I just want to continue on with page 18 from the

panel’s report that the minister was quoting from. There is a particular

paragraph that I think is something that we understand in the

industry.

I’m looking at how contractors and construction companies and

others work with unions for stability and certainty — certainly, two

principles that the Minister of Labour has talked about, the purpose of

these labour relations code amendments, as well as the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head — recognizing that certainty and a consistency are

necessary for this code to go forward.

The statement is that a successor union should be able to apply to

the board to have a collective agreement reopened, which is the purpose

of this amendment, certainly, and the board should have the discretion

to grant such relief in extraordinary circumstances, having regard to

its

section 2 duties. So the discretion the Minister of Labour just

spoke to, certainly, would be with a view that currently under

section

27(1)(

c) of the code: “If a trade union is certified as the bargaining

agent for an appropriate bargaining unit…if a collective agreement

binding on the unit is in force at the date of certification, the

agreement remains in force.” That is under the current code.

Despite what it is in other provinces in this country, that’s what

the code says today. The proposed amendment, of course, would vary from

that, and in doing so, provides the board with this opportunity or

ability, where a successful successor has seated with a new bargaining

unit.

That needs to be met with the duties under the code, which are set

out in

section 2(

b) and (d). That is the board needs to ensure that when

they’re exercising the powers and performing the duties, under the code,

they foster “the employment of workers in economically viable

businesses,” and that in sub (d), “encourages cooperative participation

between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues,

adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and

developing a workforce and a workplace that promotes

productivity.”

[1:50 p.m.]

For these reasons, and for the reasons that the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head indicated earlier in our discussion around

section 6, in

our view — at least the view of the B.C. Liberal caucus — there should

be consideration to the panel’s report and the passage that I just read

out, which would suggest, in the panel’s view, that this discretion that

the board has to effectively reopen the collective agreement for

agreements that are two years or more remaining on that agreement only

be exercised where there are extraordinary circumstances.

With that in mind, I would like to propose an amendment to

section

8. This amendment, which has been reviewed with legislative counsel,

merely amends

section 27.1(2)(a).

SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed

section 27.1 (2)

(

a) and substituting the following:

(

a) if there are extraordinary circumstances, having

regard to the board’s duties in

section 2, make an order declaring

that the collective agreement expires 90 days after the date of the

order, or ]

On the amendment.

M. Lee: The intention of this amendment is specifically to ensure that

when boards are looking to interpret this provision of the act, keeping

in mind their duties under

section 2 of the code, that they recognize

that, in view of the panel as well…. There has been a great weight put

in the debate around this code amendment on the panel’s report. I would

say that, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head noted earlier, there are

very few departures by this government in the code amendments that they

brought forward.

Our suggestion, though, is that on this particular

section of the

bill, as it amends

section 8…. This particular review done by the panel,

which had no dissenting opinion on this set of recommendations,

recommendation No. 11…. The lead-in to that would suggest that that new

ability of the board to terminate a current collective agreement and

replace it with a new one should only be done in extraordinary

circumstances. That’s the purpose of this amendment.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m speaking against the amendment. There were very capable

members of that panel. All three of them are lawyers. One came from the

union side, another from the employer side, and there is an independent

arbitrator. They looked at all of those arguments. All those arguments

were presented to them. They listened, also, to the union side and the

workers’ side — and with their own experience.

If you look at the combined experience of that panel, it’s very

impressive. I think each one of them has over 30 years of experience in

labour law. They have practised labour law all that time. They know

exactly every wording and the meaning of what we are proposing when it

goes before the board. They’ve been to the board on a regular basis.

They made a decision based on the presentations that were

made.

I’m suggesting to this, that this language…. By adding any other

language than what they have considered I think will defeat the purpose,

and it should not be accepted.

[1:55 p.m.]

As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the leader of the Green

Party said, they are looking for an evidence-based approach, and I think

this is exactly where we are going. The panel considered evidence. They

came back and made some recommendations, in considering their own

experiences dealing with the board and the language that is being used

here.

I will go with the panel’s recommendations. I think they came back

with a very, very comprehensive but, in my view, I would say, a very,

very balanced approach. As my friend from the Greens has said, the

pendulum swings, but they avoided all that. There were a couple of areas

that we thought we needed to tweak, but I think this is one area that we

should not touch. This is something that they considered deeply. I think

we should defeat this amendment, and I will not support it.

A. Weaver: I rise to provide support to the minister with respect to his

views on this amendment. We understand where the official opposition is

coming from. On page 18 of the expert report — as the minister said, it

is a superb report — the experts state as follows: “A successor union

should be able to apply to the board to have a collective agreement

reopened, and the board should have discretion to grant such relief in

extraordinary circumstances, having regard to its

section 2 duties. This

would permit the exercise of this discretion where, for example, terms

of the collective agreements are clearly inferior to the norm in the

sector.”

The words there were contained in the

preamble leading up to the

formal recommendation. As the minister pointed out, we believe that in

fact the expert panel were, in their recommendations, very thoughtful in

terms of the exact usage of language. Were we to add the words

“extraordinary circumstances” into the recommendation, I would suggest

that this is actually going a step further, because the panel was

actually quite careful in not using the words in the actual

recommendation.

With that, I will take my place, noting that we will not support

this amendment.

M. Lee: I would just note for the record, though, that in the specific

recommendation on page 18, under recommendation 11 of the panel’s

report, the exact wording is not what is reflected in this bill. The

comment that we are making is that it’s very clear that the panel turned

its mind to the kinds of circumstances under which the board would

exercise its discretion — certainly along the lines of its regard to

section 2 duties.

The amendment speaks to two parts — extraordinary circumstances

and that it’s done in line with regard to the board’s duties in

section

2. Both of those statements are stated in the lead-in to this

recommendation, and this is exactly what the panel turned its mind to.

Our amendment really reflects just the commentary by the panel in

respect of when this discretion would be exercised. So I do think it’s

in line with the panel’s report.

The Chair: Members, the question is the amendment on Bill 30,

section 8,

as proposed by the member for Vancouver-Langara.

[2:00 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

Section 8 approved.

[2:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Sections 9 through 27 have already passed.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:06 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete

with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 15,

Agricultural Amendment Act.

[2:10 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; J. Isaacs

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:11 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

I. Paton: As the representative of the Ag critic role…. We’re working on

section 1, as of late yesterday afternoon. I’d like to turn things over

to the member for Abbotsford West to continue his

questioning.

M. de Jong: We were talking yesterday, when we left off, about the pathway to

the creation of

section 1 and the process that the minister and the

government followed with respect to this

section and, presumably, most

of the others.

We were talking about the RFL process. I wonder if the minister

could explain in a little more detail. When I say “RFL,” referring to

the request for legislation — I think we ascertained that the minister

signed off on the RFL — what is it? I’m familiar with the document.

There was a three-column document that laid out, in a fair amount of

detail, what the policy choices were, and they were instructions —

drafting instructions, as it were — to leg. counsel. When the minister

refers to a request for legislation, is she referring to the same

thing?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

M. de Jong: So maybe the minister could explain. What are those three

columns?

Hon. L. Popham: There are three columns. One is the current state, one is the

proposed change, and one is the rationale for the change.

M. de Jong: The document is intended, I take it, to provide a comprehensive

set of instructions to leg. counsel around which they can complete the

process of drafting the bill. Is that correct?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

M. de Jong: I think we also established yesterday that the minister signed off

on the RFL that was the precursor to the bill — the drafting

instructions for this bill — sometime in July of last year. That’s what

the minister, I think, indicated. And I think the minister indicated

that she would get the date for the committee that those instructions

were signed off by her.

Hon. L. Popham: The date that I signed off on the RFL was June 15.

M. de Jong: I’m going to suggest that the chronology of events that she has

been advancing around how this legislation was created, and the manner

in which it was created, is a little different today than what we might

have been led to believe. If I misstate this, I know the minister will

correct me.

I think the minister, it is fair to say, has gone out of her way

in the past to suggest that a committee was appointed. They were sent

out to do their work. They began that work. They were struck in 2018 on

the strength of an interim report that she received. I think she

received it on the first of August, because I think the date on the

report is July 31. On the strength of that work — that interim report

and the recommendations — she set about to breathe legislative life,

statutory life, into those recommendations.

I’m having difficulty reconciling that narrative with what we have

just learned in the short time this committee has been considering

section 1, which is a detailed RFL with detailed drafting instructions

signed off by the minister a full month and a half before she even had

the interim report. I can’t reconcile what the minister has been saying

with that factual chronology. I’m interested to know how the minister

purports to reconcile that.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I’ll just run down a little bit of

information for the member’s benefit. The end date for the independent

committee’s consultations was identified as March 21, 2018. Up until

that time, there were nine regional stakeholder meetings that began on

February 5 and ended on March 22. They began on February 5 with Richmond

and ended on March 15 with Prince George. Additional meetings were

added. The ALC commissioners were March 7. The Peace River regional

district and UBCM were on March 22.

Also identified in the terms of reference was that there was

expected to be an advanced early draft report, which would come to me.

This would be a list of recommendations which would be considered for

legislative and regulatory changes. Also, what was laid out in the terms

of reference is that I was to receive a final interim report on July 31.

This report would be available for public consumption. But all the way

along, there were opportunities for contact and conversation that would

keep me up to date on any further conversations or input that was

necessary.

M. de Jong: It sounds like the minister is advising the committee that the

basis for the creation of the RFL — insofar as the committee, at least,

was concerned — was something she called “an advanced early draft

report.” I wrote down the term she used — that she received “an advanced

early draft report.” She has contrasted that with what I think she is

now referring to, the July 31 report, as the final interim report. If

I’m mistaken about that, the minister can correct me.

When did she receive the advanced early draft report, and will she

table a copy with the committee?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: From the terms of reference: “Early recommendation report on

proposed legislative amendments to be considered by the minister based

on consultations and research findings, due in April ’18.” I received

the advanced early draft report on April 24. As far as whether or not

that would be released, we consider that report part of the cabinet

process and advice to minister.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m familiar with the concept of advice to minister and

cabinet documentation to be sure. But I don’t think the minister can

have it both ways.

She can’t, on the one hand, advise the committee that “we set up a

public consultation agency in the guise of the committee that informed

our decisions around the creation of the piece of legislation and the

section before the committee” and tout that as a public process that

guided deliberations and guided their decisions and then, as she just

did a moment ago, say: “Ah, but there were reports beyond the reports

that we released, and we’re not prepared to tell you about them.” That’s

a bit cute and a bit convenient but not in keeping at all with the

narrative that the minister has laid out.

I do want to make sure I properly understand what the minister is

saying. We have now gone from this story, which is: “Committee struck at

the beginning of 2018. They do their consultations. I, as minister, get

an interim report, and that informs the creation of an RFL and the

drafting of legislation that is now before the House for the House’s

consideration.”

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Today the story is: “Committee struck. It embarks upon public

consultation.” Actually, just after that’s happening and before the

presentation of an interim report, there were other reports. “Now, we’re

not prepared to tell you what was in those other reports. We’re not

prepared to tell you whether there were different

recommendations.”

Does the minister not see a problem with her story about how this

legislation has been created and the timetable around that? This is not

information that she shared.

I’ve heard her at least twice now talk about contacts that she had

with the committee. Were there formal meetings between the minister and

the committee between March 22 and June 15?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think the timeline that I laid out and the story, as the member

puts it, are very consistent to what I’ve put forward. Also, the

timeline follows the terms of reference that were laid out, and those

are on the website. So the member can refer to that if he’s having

difficulty following the timeline. But we did follow the terms of

reference.

It’s exactly what we expected. We received an early recommendation

report. It was expected by the end of April. We received that on April

24. This included legislative and regulatory recommendations. We then

expected to receive an interim report by the end of July. That came on

July 31. That report contained the same recommendations for any

legislative or regulatory changes, but it also received background

information — what we heard. The interim report was for public

consumption.

I think the member also asked: were there formal meetings along

the way? I continued to have ongoing updates on the committee’s work.

Whether they were formal or not formal — I’m not sure how the member is

defining that. But I did receive updates along the way.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the minister. This is the first time I have heard any

reference to an advanced early draft report. But I might be mistaken. It

may be that the minister has referred publicly to an advanced early

draft report, and I missed it. If she has, can she advise the

committee?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the information has been public for quite some time. I’ll

refer the member to the terms of reference again.

[2:40 p.m.]

We put out a news release on January 4, 2018, and that was a news

release about the creation of the committee and the work that they would

do. The public engagement process began on February 5. Within both of

those announcements, there was a link to the terms of

reference.

The terms of reference that the member might be most interested

in…. This is directly from the terms of reference that have been public

since January 4, 2018: “Early recommendation report on proposed

legislative amendments to be considered by the minister, based on

consultations and research findings due in April 2018.” I have shared

with the member, at this point in time, that I did receive that report

on April 24.

M. de Jong: All very helpful, to be sure. The question, of course, is whether

or not…. Having established what she described as a public consultation

process — with a committee intended to engage in public consultation and

provide recommendations that would inform the creation of legislation

that the committee is now considering — the minister has to this point,

until we explored this further, talked about the interim report of July

31. She has now referred, on more than one occasion, to the advanced

early draft report — that’s her terminology, not mine — that apparently

guided the creation of

section 1 and the sections that will

follow.

As to that report from this body that she set up to engage in this

public consultation, I just want to be clear, the minister is saying

that that’s off-limits. The committee, she is saying, has no business

examining that advanced early draft report. Is that correct?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: So that the member understands the process, drafting of a bill is

informed by a few things, especially….

I can speak particularly to this bill. First off, it’s informed by

independent advice. That’s what we received from the independent

advisory committee. Secondly, it’s informed by expert advice from staff

working in the Ministry of Agriculture and other ministries in

government. Thirdly, it’s informed by the professional drafting

practices from the Attorney General’s office. That’s how the bill is

informed.

I can tell the member that the recommendations from the committee

for any legislative or regulatory changes are in the July 31

report.

M. de Jong: That, too, is helpful, and my thanks to the minister.

I think what I just heard is that the minister received an

advanced early draft report on April 24 that contained recommendations

for legislative change. The minister has, just a moment ago, informed

the committee that there were also recommendations for legislative

change contained in the interim report from the advisory committee dated

July 31, 2018. My question: were there differences in the

recommendations provided in the report of April 24 versus the report of

July 31?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: There are no substantive changes in what was presented in the

draft interim report and the interim report. And I think the member can

be reminded at this time that this was the committee’s report; it was

not a government report. It was an independent advisory

committee.

Some of the things that could have been different between the

interim draft and the interim report was that there would have been

background information included in the report received on July 31. There

was rationale that was given for certain recommendations. They would

have added photos and done some desktopping. But that one was

specifically to bring their recommendations forward from the draft and

to put it into a form that was for public consumption, easily read and

easily understood.

M. de Jong: And that largely cosmetic change took three months?

Hon. L. Popham: The member uses the word “cos­metic.” I said that there were

no substantial differences in the reports. I think the one that was

received on July 31 was certainly more polished. The member has asked

whether — or implied that — three months might have been a long time to

polish this report and to put it into a form that was for public

consumption. I will take this moment to remind the member that for the

people that were on this committee, this was not their full-time job. So

I considered the three months a lot of work, considering that a lot of

them had full-time jobs as well.

M. de Jong: I’m simply trying to rationalize this. What we have learned over

the course of the committee discussion is that to the extent that the

minister and the government took views from this advisory committee into

account, it could not have been the views contained in the report of

July 31, because the minister signed off on the instructions for

drafting the bill a month and a half earlier.

I hope I’m clear enough about that. It could not have been this

report that informed the preparation of the request for legislation,

because the minister has advised the committee that she signed that

document a month and a half before this interim report was finalized. So

if we’re to believe the minister, to the extent that the committee had

any input into the drafting instructions, it would have had to have been

the advanced early draft report of April 24. If I’m wrong, the minister

can tell me so, but she has also said that her position and the position

of the government is that that advanced early draft report is

off-limits.

[2:55 p.m.]

Now, it may be…. We’ll see if there’s an FOI. It apparently…. The

minister may ask why I’m pursuing this line of questioning. If the

minister is correct and it was that report that informed the preparation

of the request for legislation, it was hardly a draft. It was the

document that informed — to the extent that she took into account, and

the government took into account, the committee’s work — the preparation

of the request for legislation.

If I’ve got any of that wrong, then the minister should explain

that to me. The idea that it was the interim report of July 31, 2018,

that influenced the preparation of the request for legislation around

Bill 15 is clearly not the case, because she signed off on that document

a month and a half earlier. The only report that we are aware of, unless

there’s another report that we don’t know about…. Well, the minister is

shaking her head. Imagine our surprise when we were hearing about

reports that informed the creation of the RFL. If I’ve got some of that

wrong, now is the time to correct me.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I will read for the member again so that the member

understands that everything was laid out very clearly in the terms of

reference. I have read out the terms of reference, which…. Well, I’m

going to read it again.

“Early recommendation report on proposed legislative amendments to

be considered by the minister, based on consultation and research

findings, due in April 2018.” I received that report on April 24. Just

so that I’m clear: “Early recommendation report on proposed legislative

amendments to be considered by the minister, based on consultation and

research findings, due in April.”

[3:00 p.m.]

This was in the terms of reference that were public. If the member

or the official opposition is shocked or surprised to learn that there

is a report like this, then I would suggest that the opposition hasn’t

done their homework, because it was out there for public

consumption.

Now, when I talk about the public report that was received on July

31, that’s exactly what it is. It’s a report that was worked on for

public consumption. I don’t know if the member has perused that report

or not, but he will see that it’s very polished. It’s exactly what you

could expect from a report that is being presented to the

public.

M. de Jong: The minister, referring back to the terms of reference, makes the

point, I think accurately, that what I have been referring to, utilizing

the minister’s earlier terminology, “the advanced early draft report,”

is more properly referred to as the “early recommendation report.” So

maybe I’ll just stop there.

I do want the terminology to be correct. The report that the

minister received on April 24 is the early recommendation report. Is

that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: That is the language from the public terms of

reference.

M. de Jong: Okay. But I’m going to press for an answer. Is the report that the

minister received on April 24 the early recommendation

report?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

M. de Jong: So that’s not a draft report. That is, as the minister has

indicated, a report containing early recommendations. Is it the

minister’s advice, once again, to the committee that she and the

government are not prepared to release that report, although it is

clearly now subject to release by FOI, it not being a draft?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: We considered that report as advice to minister. But I can tell

the member that the recommendations that are found in the July 31 report

are substantially the same recommendations.

I’d also like to remind the member that this report and the list

of recommendations were just one of many sources that were used when

putting together the RFL.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister’s advice to the committee about the

myriad of sources of information that go into the creation of a request

for legislation. But I do want to be clear and ensure that I am not

misstating.

Insofar as the Minister of Agriculture’s advisory committee that

was established to provide advice…. I take it that all of what that

committee produced was advice to the cabinet, advice to the minister. I

presume that’s why she struck it — to solicit advice.

Her position for this committee and this piece of legislation is

that, with respect to the early recommendation report, she would prefer

that this committee not have an opportunity to compare the

recommendations contained within that report with the legislation that

is now before us. Is that her position?

Hon. L. Popham: I’m going to refer back to the terms of reference again. “Early

recommendation report on proposed legislative amendments to be

considered by the minister based on consultation and research findings.”

That was advice to minister, and I can assure the member those

recommendations made their way into the interim report of July

M. de Jong: Well, I’ve been here long enough to sense when a minister has dug

in on a position and not to expend a lot of energy trying to change

someone’s mind.

I am merely trying to confirm that it is the minister’s position

that the early recommendation report, which is the only source of

information from the advisory committee that could have been used in

drafting the RFL, will not be released. It won’t be released to this

committee, won’t be released to the public.

[3:10 p.m.]

The minister’s position is that no one is entitled to see that,

and if the opposition wishes to compare the recommendations contained in

that report with the final legislative product that we are considering,

we will have to submit an FOI request. Is that the minister’s

position?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think I have stated quite clearly that the recommendations that

were received on April 24 are substantially the same as the

recommendations that the member can find in the public report that was

released on July 31. It is just one piece of input that was used in

drafting this legislation. I think that it’s very important to

understand that the terms of reference have been laid out since January

M. de Jong: I’m not quarrelling with the minister at all about the terms of

reference and what she’s…. I agree with her. That wasn’t the

question.

The minister has labelled this “the early recommendation report.”

Those are her words, not mine — the early recommendation report. She has

further advised the committee that it is substantially the same as the

July 31 interim report — again, her description.

The minister is refusing, I think, to release the report. I guess

the obvious question is: why? What’s in the report that she doesn’t want

anyone to see? That, I guess, is a silly question to ask. She obviously

doesn’t want people to see it. So she isn’t going to tell the committee

what’s in the report that she doesn’t want them to see. But I don’t

understand.

If it’s the early recommendation report that influenced somehow

the RFL, unless the minister is going to say it didn’t influence it at

all, I don’t quarrel with her description that it was one piece of the

puzzle. But she’s called it the early recommendation report. She said to

the committee just now that it’s substantially the same as the July…. So

what’s in it?

I guess I come back to that. Why is she so hesitant to release it?

We’ll FOI it, and I guess we’ll get it. We’ll get it in due course. But

I don’t understand the hesitation. Maybe we’re creating an issue here

for nothing. If the minister’s description of it is accurate, I don’t

understand the hesitancy.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: As I said to the member, we had considered this report that was

released in April as advice to the minister and advice to the

government. The recommendations in that report made their way into the

report that was released on July 31 for public consumption.

The member does seem to be very persistent. So let us go back and

do a harms assessment on that report. If it’s consistent with the FOIPPA

Act, we would release that.

M. de Jong: Okay, thanks to the minister. By definition, it was all advice to

the minister. It was the minister’s advisory committee. So I’m hopeful.

Thank you to the minister for undertaking to conduct that

review.

It is obviously more meaningful if we are able to quickly peruse

the report while the committee is still doing its work, which will last

at least for a few more days and, perhaps, into the fall. So the sooner

we’re able to….

To cut to the chase, there’s obviously an interest in comparing —

as there always would be for an opposition — the recommendations with

the legislative product that the committee is reviewing. So no secret to

what the opposition’s interest would be.

[3:25 p.m.]

The minister has talked and referred in our discussion around the

genesis and the creation of Bill 15,

section 1 and the other sections,

around the legislative review committee process, the LRC process. A

series of questions. Is there a legislative review committee for the

government? I think there is. Is the minister a member of that

committee? And was Bill 15 presented to that committee for

consideration?

I have a few more questions, but I’ll try to present them in

blocks of three.

Hon. L. Popham: Yes, there is an LRC. I have been a member of LRC, but I am no

longer. I’ve been moved to Treasury Board. I did present to

LRC.

M. de Jong: Is the membership on the LRC restricted to members of the

executive council, or are there private members that sit on LRC as

well?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The LRC does include members of cabinet and private

members.

M. de Jong: Can the minister describe the process that a piece of legislation

— well, in this case, Bill 15 — would have undergone in terms of the

review process? Is it a section-by-section analysis that LRC

undertakes?

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. L. Popham: The mandate of that committee is to review a draft bill against

the policy direction of government, but the conversations and

deliberations of that committee are confidential.

M. de Jong: The minister will note I have not asked her — nor will I — to

disclose the conversations that take place during the course of that

committee’s deliberations. But her answer is helpful.

My recollection and understanding — but I seek only to confirm

what the practice is with the minister and her government — is that

during the course of an LRC examination of a bill, the committee would,

as the minister has indicated, compare the language, the drafting, in

the draft bill with the policy direction given by the minister and the

government. That entails very close scrutiny of the drafting language

itself. Part and parcel of the work — and it is not easy work — is to

consider, line by line and sometimes word by word, the language that the

draftspeople have employed to breathe life into the policy direction

given by government in the request for legislation.

Is that all essentially correct?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the job of LRC is to review the draft bill in its

entirety.

M. de Jong: We might be rushing to agreement here. I merely wanted to confirm

that in discharging that responsibility, members of the committee would

engage in a section-by-section — sometimes line-by-line, sometimes

word-by-word — analysis of the legislation. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

M. de Jong: Who are the…? Forgive me, the minister does not need to provide

the names here, but I think the names of the membership of the LRC are

public somewhere. But perhaps, at some point through the afternoon,

someone could obtain or confirm the names of the present membership.

Sometimes the websites are out of date. We can discern who the

membership was at the time Bill 15 was considered.

The minister has indicated that she presented Bill 15 to the LRC.

And she did that personally?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The membership of LRC is made public. It’s on the website. It’s

right up to date. We looked, and I think it’s up to date as of May 22.

So the member can look that information up if he wishes. I did present

to LRC.

M. de Jong: All right. Thanks to the minister. Lest there be some, dare I say,

interest in the nature of the question, we’re obviously going to get to

a point in this conversation where the opposition has very pointed

questions about the nature of the language chosen and deployed in the

bill. So not to be coy about this. It was important, I thought, to

ascertain in clear terms how the minister and the government went about

settling on that language, who was involved, and the processes that were

undertaken.

I don’t know if we’ll…. Hopefully we’ll get to that over the

course of the next few days. If not, the fall session, but these are….

There will, obviously, be tremendous amount of interest in the choice of

language and, I suspect, the difference of opinion that exists between

the minister, the government and the opposition about the wisdom of the

choices made around that language. But that lies in the

future.

I thank the minister for indulging me with respect to some of

these preliminary matters. I think there are some other questions with

respect to

section 1, and I will make way for other members of the

opposition.

M. Bernier: I want to thank my colleague for really setting the stage

originally and as we’re moving forward on the bill and also for

acknowledging the fact that there are going to be important points

within this bill — certain words that are chosen as mentioned, certain

things that have been added or removed — that, obviously, are going to

require some detailed discussions, some questions and, presumably and

hopefully, some explanation and answers from the minister.

We still are on

section 1, obviously, and it’s one that we want to

make sure, as we’re going through, the questions are asked that kind of

set the stage for how this bill was designed and for some of the

formulations that were put into it and decisions that were being

made.

[3:45 p.m.]

A question I have, I guess, right from the get-go — it will be a

very specific one to the bill in

section 1: can the minister explain why

they are striking out 30.1 under

definitions around the exclusion

applications?

Hon. L. Popham: To the member’s question, under the current act, exclusion

applications can be made under

section 29 by local government, a First

Nation government or the commission on its own initiative, or under

section 30 by a landowner. As we will discuss later, this bill

consolidates exclusion applications into just

section 29. Landowners who

are neither a local government, First Nations government, nor the Crown,

will no longer be able to apply directly to the commission to exclude

their land. As such, this change to the definition is a necessary

housekeeping amendment that reflects the new approach to exclusion

applications.

M. Bernier: To be clear, though, when the minister said this is a housekeeping

change, it’s only a housekeeping change that comes into effect due to

the new wording that’s later on within the bill, changes that this

minister is imposing through this act. That’s correct?

Hon. L. Popham: That’s correct.

M. Bernier: Obviously the reason why…. Of course, the minister knows it’s no

secret. She’s heard us talk about this — that we’re going to be bringing

this up in more detail when we get to that section. Obviously, right at

the beginning, in

definitions, within the first page of the

definitions,

basically, of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, it does beg the

question when the minister has repeatedly said, and critiqued members of

this House when we’ve said, that landowners under this act, if it is to

pass, will no longer be able to apply for exclusion applications

directly to the commission.

The minister has heckled us, said that’s not true, said they will

be able to. But right…. What the minister just said is she’s doing

housekeeping to remove 30.1, and 30.1 is the actual wording that allows

a landowner to apply.

If I understood the minister correctly, what she just said was

that is being removed. She read out something that said, basically, it

will be local governments, First Nations, the Crown — that landowners

will no longer be able to apply directly to the commission. So am I

accurate in what I just said, in repeating, somewhat paraphrasing, what

the minister said? It does go against what she’s accused us of saying in

the House.

R. Leonard: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I just wanted to introduce…. Up in the gallery, we have grade 11

students from Mark Isfeld in Courtenay. I wanted to particularly

congratulate their teacher Heidi Zirkl, who has been here with a number of

students over the time that I’ve been here, introducing them to our

provincial democracy. I’m so pleased that they’re here, and I hope that the

House will welcome them.

[3:50 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. L. Popham: Just to clarify, private landowners could apply to the ALC, but

they’ve always had to go through local government.

M. Bernier: That took a long time to get an answer that wasn’t quite to the

question. Can the minister maybe try again? What I’m asking is why are

we removing 30(1)? I’ll read it into Hansard . So 30(1),

exclusion application by owner, says: “An owner of land may apply to the

commission to have their land excluded from the agricultural land

reserve.” That’s the wording in the act right now.

The minister has put forward an amendment to the act to remove

that section. We’ve all talked about this in second reading. The

minister was pretty vocal that we were not accurate in how we were

referencing our comments around 30(1) coming out. So I’ll ask the

minister again.

I just read into the record what 30(1) is. A landowner can apply.

In this, under an exclusion application, the minister is removing — or

wanting to, if this passes — the wording that I just read in. So can the

minister explain why she is removing that wording?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, to be clear, this bill consolidates exclusion applications

into just

section 29. Landowners who are neither a local government,

First Nations government nor the Crown will no longer be able to apply

directly to the commission to exclude their land.

[3:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. It would have been a lot easier for the

minister to just say: “People, landowners, will no longer be able to

apply directly to the commission.” That’s basically what the minister

just said by reading out something else.

Obviously, as we know…. This is something that we’ve talked about.

We’re going to get to this later on in the bill, if we have time today

or tomorrow, or this fall, because obviously there are going to be a lot

of questions to take on in this bill.

It’s interesting that through all of second reading, the minister

said, “That’s not true,” numerous times. Now she just said that

actually, it is true, that it’s being consolidated. So I think that’s

important to acknowledge. We’ve had many people out there who are

concerned, who are voicing concerns about what their rights will be,

which is why we’re asking these questions of the minister. It’s so much

easier to have her just acknowledge it than to not be on the record when

she’s voicing her opinions during second reading.

One other question I have is…. We’ll get, I know, into a lot

further detail on that one afterwards. Yesterday the minister, when we

were talking about consolidating the panels, said that this was going to

be something that would be a cost savings. One of the comments was

made…. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong. When I went back and

read through Hansard …. One of the cost savings would be around

travel.

Is the minister saying — this is already a problem for most areas

that are zone 2 — that we’re actually going to have even less travel,

less people coming up to physically inspect any application process

that’s put forward, if this passes, only by a regional district or local

government or First Nation?

Hon. L. Popham: I’m not quite sure how this is relevant to

section 1, but I’ll

certainly answer it for the member. I did see that there was potentially

a cost savings. The member may know that the Agricultural Land

Commission did put out a report under the previous government that

showed a comparison between regional panel systems and a single

commission, and it looked like there could be, potentially, some savings

by having a single commission. But the one thing that I think is

important is that the ALC, under a new model, will have more flexibility

to manage their budget with regards to travel and application

reviewing.

Section 1 approved on division.

section 2.

[4:00 p.m.]

L. Larson: Again, it’s just a changing of wording, obviously — a change of

administration with substituting administrative regions versus panel

regions. I questioned this previously, and I’m going to raise this

again.

I would like to know what issues had arisen under the old

administrative way of doing business with the panels, etc., that would

cause the minister to feel obligated to change the system? In other

words, were there specific incidents that occurred with the other system

or some reason to make this type of a change? I would like to know what

prompted the minister to feel that this whole process, administratively,

had to be changed?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I can tell the member that there are many reasons why this

was considered. One of the reasons, as far as a concrete reason that we

heard feedback about from the ALC, was that when you had six regional

panels, sometimes it was difficult to get quorum on those panels. People

would be missing, so you lost your ability to make decisions.

The system that we’re discussing today would be a change, and it

would allow the commission to be more flexible. There will still have to

be regional representation from the geographic regions that are

identified. That hasn’t changed.

There will always be regional representation, but the commission

would be able to have its independence and flexibility. It may be based

on a topic that’s in a certain region. Perhaps they need an expert on a

certain subject matter. But it gives the ability for the commission to

maintain its independence while remaining flexible.

[4:05 p.m.]

L. Larson: Thank you, Minister. I still am looking for something a little

more concrete. In other words, were there statistically a number of

times when the panels were not able to get together and, therefore,

things were held up?

According to all of the documentation that I’ve read and to the

reports that I’ve read, the system seemed to be functioning quite

fluently. In the last six months or so, it seems to have backed up

considerably, but it was moving very fluently with the panels. I did not

see any documentation that said there were six incidents of panels not

being able to get together in a timely manner and therefore applications

being delayed and causing farmers, etc., some sort of duress.

Does the minister actually have numbers of times when the panels

were not able to get together and therefore that was part of the process

that the minister has gone through in order to create a whole new

system?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I’m just going to give the member a

bit of a flavour from the independent advisory report, specifically on

the panel system.

“Many stakeholders expressed frustration to the committee over the

current process for panel decisions and delays resulting from chair

oversight and review by the executive committee. Other stakeholders were

concerned about the integrity of the ALR, given the inherent potential

for disparate views and approaches to decision-making in the ALR by six

separate three-member panels.” That’s some of the feedback that the

independent committee received. We of course heard that sometimes it was

difficult to find a quorum.

[4:10 p.m.]

There were actions that were recommended by the independent

advisory committee, and No. 1 was to: “Adopt a flexible, locally

informed and regionally representative ALC structure that allows the ALC

to determine how to best to deploy its government-appointed

commissioners to meet the commission’s operational and legislative

requirements.” Again, it speaks to flexibility, and it speaks to having

assurances that the commission is as independent as possible.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

I. Paton: In

section 3, we’re going to get into commission members. There

are currently 13 members on the Agricultural Land Commission. Could you

tell us, at this point, who the members are and what regions they are

from?

Hon. L. Popham: We currently have 13 commissioners plus the chair. Of course, the

chair is Jennifer Dyson. I’ll go through the different regions for the

commissioners.

On the Interior panel, currently we have Richard Mumford and

Robert Haywood-Farmer. On the Island panel, we have Linda Gayle Michaluk

and Honey Forbes. On the Kootenay panel, we have Dave Zehnder, Ian

Knudsen, and Jerry Thibeault. On the north panel, we have Janice Tapp,

James Garnet Berge, Ross Kent Ravelli and Andrew Adams. On the Okanagan

panel, we have Gerald Zimmermann and James Johnson. On the south coast

panel, we have Ione Smith, Susan Gimse and Satwinder Bains.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. Of the 13 commissioners and the chair, how

many are actually left over from June of 2017? How many commissioners

still remain that were on the commission in June of 2017?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: First off, I need to make a correction. I gave the right names for

commissioners, but I gave the wrong number. We actually have 16

commissioners plus the chair. I think I said 13; we have 16.

As far as commissioners who have carried forward since June 2017,

we believe there are either nine or ten, but we can confirm that. There

are definitely nine, but there might be ten.

I. Paton: Thank you for that clarification. I’m very curious about how the

commissioners are selected. Could you give me an idea of the process,

the qualifications, the credentials that are needed to be a

commissioner? Do you actually sit in on an interview process with new

commissioners that are being hired?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The member may know that it’s a merit-based process. It goes

through CABRO, and the appointments are to select “individuals who are

knowledgeable in matters relating to agriculture, land use planning,

local government or first nation government.”

I. Paton: Of course, that is in subsection (c). Appointments must be made,

as you just said, by a merit-based process, and individuals are

knowledgeable in matters relating to agriculture. Again, I’m just

wondering: what sort of credentials of agricultural background would we

need to become a commissioner on the Agricultural Land

Commission?

And would local areas, the regions of the province that are very

affected that want people on the commission, be involved at all? The

local chamber of commerce, the local Rotary club, the local government,

perhaps — would they be asked for opinions on the quality of persons

that might be applying to be on the commission? It might be a good

avenue to go, to check with local governments or associations in the

towns for recommendations for good people for the commission.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Just to get back to the member regarding who was appointed as of

June 2017 to the commission and who is still there. I’ve had

confirmation that ten commissioners were appointed pre June 2017, and

since our government came into power, there have been six new

commissioners appointed. The previous ten are still in place, and of

course, we have a new chair.

As far as who is on the commission, and maybe their credentials,

it’s not just someone who is a farmer that may be a good addition to the

commission. In fact, we’re looking for people who are knowledgeable in

matters relating to agriculture. Obviously, land use planning would be

an asset, and local government or First Nations government knowledge is

also an asset.

As far as how we source people, it’s a merit-based process, and

they go through CABRO. CABRO is looking for applicants all the time. In

the example that the member gave, could a chamber of commerce put

forward a name? They can encourage people to put their application in to

CABRO specifically around interest in the commission, but it’s a

merit-based process.

I. Paton: I’m told now that there are 16 total commissioners, and a chair

would make 17. So if this bill were to pass, how would we relieve five

of the commissioners to take it down to 11, which is what is wanted in

the bill?

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. L. Popham: What the member may want to know is that it’s a minimum commission

size. So 11 is the minimum amount of commissioners that need to be in

place. There is a requirement for three members from each administrative

region. For example, in the Peace area, there are currently four. But

there are provisions in the legislation to make sure that there is a

transition that happens in a way that would be respectful of the

appointment of one of the four or, perhaps, a new person to be

appointed. But there is only a minimum of 11.

I. Paton: At this time, I’d like to bring forward a proposed amendment to

Bill 15, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act,

SECTION 3, by adding the underlined text as shown in

this section:

Commission members

(1) The commission consists of at

least 11 members appointed under this

section as follows:

(

a) the Lieutenant Governor in Council must appoint the

chair;

(

b) the minister must appoint the other members after

consulting with the chair and each affected local

government;

(

c) appointments must be made using a merit-based process

to select individuals who are knowledgeable in matters relating to

agriculture, land use planning, local government or first nation

government;

(

d) members must be residents of administrative regions,

with at least one but no more than 3 members, other than the chair,

representing each region;

(

e) if more than one member represents the same

administrative region, each member must be a resident of a different

regional district incorporated under the Local Government

Act .

(2) The chair may appoint one or more vice chairs from the

persons appointed under subsection (1) (b).

(3) If a member, other than the chair, ceases to be a

resident of the administrative region in which the member was a resident

at the time of appointment, the member’s appointment expires on the date

on which the member’s residency ceases.

(4) If there is no member, other than the chair, who is a

resident of a particular administrative region, the minister must within

90 days appoint a resident of that administrative region as a member in

accordance with subsection (1).

(5) The members are the board of directors of the

commission.]

[4:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, would you like to speak to your proposed

amendment?

I. Paton: I would.

The Chair: Proceed, Member.

On the amendment.

I. Paton: The amendment that we’re bringing forward in

section 3 will be

regarding adding local government discussions with the appointment of

commission members.

I have always said, for the two years that I’ve been in this House

now, that the history of the Agricultural Land Commission, based on past

expertise and past success, was with zone 1 and zone 2. It also was with

the panel system of the regions of the province. I honestly believe that

the people that sat on these panels throughout the province had

expertise in the areas of those areas. All three people that sat on the

panels for certain regions of the province had expertise in making

decisions on applications coming from those parts of the

province.

I think it was important, having spoken, and I’ll name names. Mr.

Zylmans is a good friend of mine and always said to me that he thought

that he was on the Agricultural Land Commission…. He always felt that

the panels were an excellent idea. He was making decisions on areas of

the Sunshine Coast and the Fraser Valley.

He always said: “I don’t know a whole lot about the East Kootenays

or the northern part of B.C. I feel that I’m a bit of an expert on where

I live in the Fraser Valley, but why would I be making decisions on

applications and non-farm uses and different things from the north?” So

he said that it was best off to be left to experts from those regions.

That’s why the regional panels worked very, very well, according to my

friend Mr. Zylmans.

I’m going to be very brief, hon. Chair. I have colleagues with me

that would like to get up and speak about the changes to this land

commission act. But first, I think it’s important that I bring forward

some information. This was provided to us by the Abbotsford Chamber of

Commerce. It kind of goes like this. I’d like to take a bit of time to

read this out from the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce and another letter

from the Coombs Farmers Institute. I’ll start by saying:

“The ALR was established in 1973 to protect land with prime

agricultural conditions for farming and ranching. The ALR is

administered by the Agricultural Land Commission, an independent

tribunal. On March 7, legislation — Bill 15, the Agricultural Land

Commission Amendment Act, 2019 — was introduced to the B.C. Legislature

to strengthen the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission, ALC,

so that it can better fulfil its mandate for preserving the agricultural

land reserve while encouraging farming and ranching in British

Columbia.

“The importance of the ALC’s role in protecting our ALR and farming

use is recognized as is both enabling land use planning ability for

government and the value of agriculture businesses to B.C.’s economy.

Taking rights away from farmers and ranchers for matters on their

property, however, and moreover, denying them recognition under the law

as legal persons, is not democratic, and there are alternative

approaches to consider.

“Farmers are in the business of farming, and rights are being taken

away from business owners in the proposed legislation of Bill 15. In

addition, more barriers and red tape are being put up against

individuals and families dealing with government on ALR operations, for

example, to address legitimate needs for industrial agricultural use and

related activities.

“The proposed new governance model and administrative structures

centralizes decision-making power and authority that undermines local,

regional administration and the rights of an individual owner of ALR

land. Key changes of Bill 15 would result in one centralized commission

with regional representatives and eliminating the previous six

administrative regions. New decision-making criteria and panels, more

compliance and enforcement capacity, but most controversially, requiring

that exclusions be submitted to the ALC only by local governments, First

Nations or the province. The right to apply as an individual is taken

away. Farmers are excluded from the definition as independent persons,

qualified to apply for exclusion under this law. A person is only

recognized and qualified to apply for exclusion if an owner is also

either a provincial, municipal or First Nations government.

[4:40 p.m.]

“In the new rules, an individual would be dependent on the capacity

and willingness of the province, city or First Nation to submit, on

behalf of the individual, to the ALC. The right to apply directly to the

ALC as an individual is taken away. With no additional funding or staff

capacity to process applications, there is an administrative burden and

a disincentive for government bodies to initiate the

applications.

“Not only is an individual not recognized under the law and the

power to apply is being shifted from the property owner to government,

but there is no appeal process mentioned in place should a request to

submit an application be turned down before it has even been considered

by the ALC.

“There is no justification for taking away the rights of farmers and

ranchers or to impede industrial farming operations and business. There,

moreover, is a questionable evidence basis for the claim that the

legislative changes as proposed are needed to prevent the undermining of

a defensible ALR — an overly burdensome administrative volume of

applications.”

I think we all know the burdensome volume of applications was a

grand total of 39 last year.

I also just want to conclude by reading out a great little letter.

It was addressed to the hon. minister from the Coombs Farmers Institute.

It says:

“We, as members of the Coombs Farmers Institute, have never felt the

need to write letters to the Minister of Agriculture in as many days.

This, if nothing else, should indicate our level of concern.

“The recent tabling of Bill 15 caught us rather off guard. Those

most impacted by a significant change of legislation…”

The Chair: Member, are you speaking on the amendment?

I. Paton: Of course. I’m getting to that line right away.

“…should expect to be alerted to this existence and given a

reasonable time frame in which to respond. There are mutually recognized

and well-established channels of communication between the ministry and

our agricultural organization. We learned of this bill from a Facebook

post.

“We have waited to express our growing concern about the possible

negative impacts of Bill 15, believing that our interests were

inclusively and fairly represented by the ALR-ALC revitalization

committee and the ALC commission. The ALR-ALC revitalization committee

and/or the ALC commission is being increasingly viewed as secretive,

autocratic and biased.

“There are very strong feelings against the centralization of

governments.” — and that’s what we’re talking about right here today.

“The regional panels provided invaluable local knowledge. The suggestion

that a centralized commission with regional representation will result

in a higher percentage of equitable, unpressured application verdicts is

very debatable.

“Farmers, both tenured and new entrants, are giving up on the hope

of making a living in agriculture in B.C. The collective weight of

bureaucracy, legislation, regulation and policy from various branches of

government, not to mention insurance, has become increasingly impossible

to bear.”

Those are just a couple of letters that people really wanted me to

bring forward in the House today, one from the Chamber of Commerce in

Abbotsford. We thank them for that. We have several letters in

opposition to Bill 15 from farmers institutes and farmers societies from

all over British Columbia.

At this time, I would like to turn the debate over to the hon.

member from Surrey.

M. Hunt: Speaking to the amendment to Bill 15. The challenge, of course,

with speaking to the amendment on Bill 15 is that we’re talking about

the appointing of the commissioners and the local government input that

we’re suggesting needs to be there on those individuals. Unfortunately,

that stretches across everything that’s involved in this bill. I will do

my best to keep very focused on the amendment, although I may stray to

try and bring the whole picture together.

The reality is that farming and agriculture is what has built

British Columbia. Farming families, ranches, agricultural operations

have all built the livelihood of families. They support communities,

large and small.

When you look at what we’re doing on our agricultural land today,

we are growing products here, and we’re exporting them, literally, to

the rest of the world. If we look at my riding in Surrey-Cloverdale, the

two major products we’re producing are certainly blueberries and milk.

Blueberries are grown on many small pieces of land that are scattered

throughout the ALR in Surrey.

Now, the reality is that we need the local governments and the

local farmers, with their local knowledge, to help make decisions in our

community.

[4:45 p.m.]

I just give you a really simple example. We have a farmer who has

owned farmland for…. I think it’s at least ten years he’s owned the

land. He’s been working at growing blueberries on the land, but he has a

problem. He has no legal road access to his land, to his farm. He wants

to build a house. But guess what. He can’t, because somebody off in

Burnaby, with members of the committee from all over this province,

doesn’t know the local challenge of getting access to his

farm.

Now, there is a road access right there. The city of Surrey owns

the road right-of-way. It’s called 52nd Avenue. It’s been there for

years — on the map. But now the gravel is there. It all looks like a

road. It acts like a road. It talks like a road. It responds like a

road. But no. The ALC says: “That road is not to be opened.” Why? This

guy is trying to access his farm. He can’t build a house on his property

in order to access his farm. He’s got a problem with his blueberries.

He’s pumping water in order to keep his blueberries alive. And because

he doesn’t live there, all of his equipment is a mile away. He has to

bring his equipment back and forth and back and forth.

By the way, since he’s not there all night, guess what. Twice now

he’s had his pump equipment stolen in the middle of the night, because

he can’t get access to his farm to be able to have a road, to be able to

have a house. We have these members of the ALC that don’t come and look

at his property, don’t come and walk through his property, don’t come

and see what’s actually happening and don’t have the local

knowledge.

As a matter of fact, on that piece, there are three other

properties that are not farmed. Now, it’s great that we keep this land

in the agricultural land reserve, but nobody is farming it. Local

knowledge. Local farmers. Local people who understand the reality of

what’s happening in their community.

Obviously, dairy, as I said, needs a large property. That is also

a product that we have in Surrey-Cloverdale. We need large properties.

We need the grasses. We need the silage for the cows to eat. We’ve got

lots of corn being grown. But again, it’s multigenerational families who

live and work on their farms, who want to teach their children how to

farm. They want to get that inculcated into them, because they have done

it from their parents and grandparents, multigenerational.

We have a problem with road access. We have a problem with getting

there. Many times these are new immigrants. Many times they’re direct

descendants of those who recently immigrated. They’re all challenges,

but they need the element of local knowledge, local understanding. That

is why, to me, having the input of local governments on actually saying,

“Yeah, these are good people that would understand farming,” and that

sort of stuff….

Again, the critic from Delta South mentioned a particular name, a

friend of his. In Surrey, we have Mike Bose, who is a farmer that’s well

known in our community, well supported. He served as chair on the ALC

for a period of time. But again, local knowledge with local people. That

was, again, recommendations from local government, who are trying to

make sure that we have these things happening.

Unfortunately, today, because of the high price of land, because

of the reality of the Lower Mainland costs, most farmers and most

farming families have second jobs. Now, you can say which way around you

want it to be, whether their first job is farming and they have another

job to support. But the reality is that they need money from outside and

off the farm in order to keep the farm going.

Those who are working on the farm are getting really creative.

I’ll give you another really simple example. Heppell’s Potato Corp.

Whether it was potatoes, squash, beets or carrots, for years they were

known on the label as “Valley fresh produce.” And you knew that’s what

you were buying at the market, because you were getting it from

Heppell’s.

[4:50 p.m.]

Well, today we have Hardbite chips, we have Fraser Valley Biogas,

we have field services, which is a maintenance operation that they have

for not only their equipment but other farming machinery.

Again, this is the challenge of farming in the Lower Mainland. Are

these individuals…? We can list off this wonderful list of criteria.

They have to be planners. They have to be First Nations. They have to be

this, that and the other thing. But do they know anything about farming?

All the merit and all that wonderful stuff really sounds good in theory.

But do they know anything about the practicality of real farming? I

would suggest that’s why it would be wise to have the recommendations of

local governments and that.

Now, Mr. Chair, I know you’re not going to let me talk about the

subdivision process. I will come back to that when we get down to

section 19, and I’m glad to do that. But while we’re talking about the

changes that are being made here, let’s just remember that we’re not

dealing with thousands of applications, thousands of problems, thousands

of situations. We’re not even talking about hundreds or dozens. On the

subdivision piece, we’re talking about all of 39.

Why do we think local government is important? Well, I think it’s

important to look across even those 39 applications that went through in

the year 2018 and where they all came from. But in the midst of that,

there were 22 indivi­duals who made applications — 15 of them

rejected. We had a total removal of 25 acres in 2018. If we do the math

on that, we only have 4.7 million hectares in the reserve. So it’s only

going to take 190,000 years until there’s no more ALR. We have an

emergency. We have a disaster on our hands. We need to act. Therefore,

we have these amendments that are before us.

Before, we had two zones. We had the one zone where…. Yes, we

recognize that there’s a challenge in the Lower Mainland. There’s a

challenge in the Okanagan for land development, population pressures,

the high cost of land — those sorts of things.

The ALC was originally set on the basis of preserving agricultural

lands, first and foremost. Nobody is arguing with that. But we need the

people that are in charge of making decisions about the ALR to be those

who have good, solid, local knowledge about agriculture and what’s

happening. That’s why there was the split into two zones. There was a

recognition that in the two areas of this province, there were two very

different growing seasons, two very different crops being

produced.

I saw the statistics the other day. I can’t remember what it is,

but it’s something like the classic…. Most things sort of go 80-20. You

know, 80 percent of the money is made by 20 percent of the land. I

forget exactly what the numbers are, but it’s massive and huge. The

receipts are coming from what was called zone 1 previously — the Lower

Mainland, the Okanagan. The differences of reality — that, again, is why

local government involvement is important. Because if we end up

with….

Now, I know the minister is going to say I’m about to get into

fearmongering, but we’ll talk about that in a second here.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: I know there’s not a chance, but it could be I’m accused of

that.

You see, the reality is that those members who become members of

the Agricultural Land Commission could be all those who have a wonderful

ideology that lines up with a certain government and a certain

perspective on things and who really don’t understand the differences of

this beautiful province of ours, don’t really understand the challenges

that we have throughout this province.

Right now we’ve had six regional panels, again, to bring that

local knowledge. That was an emphasis of the previous government — to

make sure that local knowledge and local experience inform the decisions

that were there.

[4:55 p.m.]

The idea was simple. The idea was strong — to make sure the

decisions are made closest to where the impact of those decisions is

going to be felt. But unfortunately, we have a potential here. We have a

potential that could actually aim at silencing those local voices, and

that’s what I’m concerned about.

Now, again, I’ve been accused of fearmongering before. I remember

that in the last session, we had Bill 52 and the first part, in my

opinion, of the minister’s assault on B.C. farmers. Bill 52 started with

restricting house size, which we’re all familiar with.

Multigenerational farmers. We were told that they could simply

apply and they could get the larger home. Well, as a matter of fact, the

member for Surrey-Fleetwood told a group of hundreds, literally

hundreds, of farmers…. This was not hearsay. I know the minister accused

me of hearsay the other day on this, but we can go and get the TV

reports of it all, because they recorded all this.

He said that the farmers could build whatever they wanted to,

under the new bill, if they were farmers for some number of years. Now,

he couldn’t say what that number of years was, and he was right. He

couldn’t. They’d be grandfathered. All they needed to do was apply, and

they could get an answer back in 90 days, guaranteed. As a matter of

fact, if they had preloaded the land — if the preload was down — they’d

be grandfathered, period. The people could build even without applying

to the ALC.

Well, how is that one working? It’s not. I wasn’t fearmongering. I

was talking about the bill. Some of these other members of the House

were talking about something else. I don’t know what. But again, we’ll

talk about that more in

section 19.

I notice that my light has gone green, and I’m running out of

time.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, I know. I’d love to give you more, but we’ll have to wait

till we get to

section 19. We’ll talk some more about that.

What we’re concerned about — what I’m concerned about — are local

knowledge, local information and local decisions that make

sense.

We have another example just over the border into Langley, in a

wonderful place called Milner, where we have a greenhouse that is trying

to attract the urbanites to come in and see what is happening in farming

so that they can sell their produce, their flowers and what they’re

producing in the greenhouse. Guess what. We have members of the ALC that

say: “Oh no, no, no. You can’t do that. It’s too big.”

What is appropriate in the urban areas? I think that’s the

challenge. That’s why I am absolutely convinced that local government

needs to be involved with helping the minister choose who is going to be

on these boards so that we, in fact, have local knowledge.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. The Chair really appreciates introducing a

new concept — a talking road. I have heard of a narrow road, a wide

road and a rural road, but a talking road is a good one. I would

like to visit that road.

Interjection.

T. Stone: Okay. I’m not sure where to start there.

The member for Surrey-Cloverdale is always a tough act to follow.

I will do my best, however, to express the perspective of my

constituents from Kamloops–South Thompson with respect to this proposed

amendment to

section 3, which is very simple and

straightforward.

It would add in — it looks like — five words, the words being:

“and each affected local government.” The context for adding these words

in is that the amendment would require that the minister must appoint

other members of the commission after consulting with the chair and each

affected local government.

[5:00 p.m.]

This particular amendment…. While the specific aspect of it is

very simple, it does speak to a much larger theme that gravely concerns

us in the official opposition and gravely concerns many British

Columbians — lots of my constituents — and that is this theme of really

watering down the number of voices that are heard at the Agricultural

Land Commission. That really waters down the role of different parties

when it comes to the processes of the Agricultural Land Commission in

its management of the ALR.

As my colleague, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, very eloquently

hammered home over and over and over, it is critical, in our view, that

local voices, local knowledge, local people, local farmers, local

government officials have as strong a voice as possible in the

operations, the decision-making and the processes that are wrapped

around the Agricultural Land Commission. Unfortunately, this bill in its

entirety, through a wide range of the amendments that are proposed —

beyond just this one here or the

section that this amendment applies to

— really serves the purpose of watering down those local

voices.

Like everyone in this House, I have tremendous respect for the

agricultural land reserve. I think everyone in this House has tremendous

respect for farming, for ranching. I think we all support ranchers and

farmers, whether they’re large or they’re small, whether they are in the

Interior, the north, on Vancouver Island or in the Lower Mainland. These

are the people, the men and women, that work so hard to create the food

that we eat and to create good-quality food that is exported around the

world.

It is important, through this discussion of the Agricultural Land

Commission and the ALR, that we always remind ourselves of just how vast

this province really is, just how different the regions really are. You

know, it’s far too often in the Lower Mainland, I believe, that there is

this misunderstanding or this lack of awareness of the greatly different

seasonal nature of farming and ranching in the Interior and the north.

Winter in Kamloops, let alone Dawson Creek, is very, very different than

it is in Delta or in Abbotsford.

As a result, that has huge implications — a much shorter growing

season, lower crop values and significant added pressures through the

year — on farming families to make sure they’re doing everything that

they can to keep that farm, that ranch viable for the long term, to do

what they can to make sure that that ranch, that that farm can be passed

on to the next generation of that family, if they so choose.

This is why it is so fundamental, in our view, in our perspective,

that local voices be respected, that local voices be fully incorporated

in these processes. It is why this amendment that the member for Delta

South has moved is so important, in our mind. It would require local

governments, local voices to be considered in the appointment process of

commission members.

That is one way that we would hope that these vast regional

differences — the weather, the geography, the differences that I have

spoken about that make farming and ranching so much different in the

north and the Interior versus the Lower Mainland or Vancouver Island….

Having those local voices more formalized in this mix is really, really

critical to ensure that those local perspectives help inform those

decisions.

Now, we will get an opportunity to talk more fully about other

sections of this bill —

section 19, in particular, which will be coming

up later, that takes away the private property rights of private

landowners. Obviously, that is something that we have spoken a great

deal about, and we will have more to say about that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Even that follows on this trend that I’ve talked about, which is

woven throughout this bill, which is, again, to constrain the number of

voices and the number of individuals, the number of parties that play a

role in the Agricultural Land Commission processes across this province.

We’re very concerned.

Why, again, we think that this amendment is reasonable, why this

amendment is important to enshrine local government consultation as part

of the commissioner selection process…. This is important because we see

so many changes through this bill which so dramatically impact local

communities, that so dramatically impact farmers and farming

families.

These legislative changes impact the Agricultural Land

Commission’s authority with respect to land use applications in a really

big way. They impact local governments in how they review and

potentially refer their residents’ applications that are located in the

ALR to the ALC.

There are a growing number of municipalities and regional

districts around the province that have said: “Look, we weren’t

consulted about these changes. We weren’t asked what our perspective was

before this legislation was drafted and tabled in the

Legislature.”

We’ve got municipalities like the township of Spallumcheen, one of

many that have passed resolutions and will be bringing them forward to

the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in Vancouver in September,

saying: “Government, please put a moratorium or a pause on this

legislation so you can talk to us about what it really means, what the

impacts really are.”

Why? Because local voices, local knowledge, are absolutely

critical to these processes. Local governments, local farming families,

communities are concerned. They’re concerned about the ability to

maintain successful farming operations well into the future. Local

governments are concerned about the implications of this bill, the

potential implications, on building permits that have been impacted due

to the proposed changes.

The Agricultural Land Commission changes and expectations on the

local governments are actually quite unclear, and the impacts are not

well understood. That’s not me saying that. That’s local government

saying that. That’s the UBCM saying that on behalf of local government,

that these impacts are not well understood.

We do know the significant change that will take place in terms of

the process related to exclusions. We know that the old rules involved

applications to the ALR and could proceed with or without local

government support of an application to the ALC with no legal

requirement for the local government to approve an

application.

We know that under the new rules proposed by this bill, an

individual will be dependent on the capacity and the willingness of the

province or a local government or a First Nation to submit, on behalf of

the individual, to the ALC that exclusion application. We know that

these changes mean that the right to apply directly to the Agricultural

Land Commission as an individual is taken away. That’s part of the

reason that we think that this amendment is important — to at least try

and carve out just a little bit of a toehold still of some local input,

local knowledge, in this process.

Local governments are very concerned, as are farming families,

that these changes mean that there’s essentially no appeal process. At

least, it’s not mentioned. Local governments no longer are able to enter

into delegation agreements, and apparently, current agreements will be

terminated upon this act coming into force.

These are all concerns that local governments, local communities,

local farming families are expressing. Insofar as local governments go,

a number of these items that I have rattled off here represent another

way that the provincial government is removing local decision-making

authority. Again, it’s why we believe this amendment…. It puts back in,

as a requirement, for local governments to be consulted on commission

members.

[5:10 p.m.]

Now, again, I’ve mentioned a few local governments. I’ve

mentioned, obviously, the perspective of the official opposition. I’ve

talked to a number of constituents, as well, on their perspective of

local governments not being involved, as far as the current legislation

is concerned and written, in the commission process.

These folks are very concerned, by the way. Everything that I’ve

just talked about…. They’re concerned that the six regional panels are

going the way of the Dodo bird and that there’s a significant

centralization of power and authority being vested in the chair of the

Agricultural Land Commission, here in the Lower Mainland, at the expense

of local voices, local input and local knowledge that has existed to

this point through the regional panels.

Folks like Doug Haughton and his family. This is a

multigenerational family farm and a ranch in the Knutsford area just

south of Kamloops. This particular ranch was home­steaded in 1906

by Doug’s grandfather Henry. It was originally a grain farm of 160

acres. Crop production was, in fact, a requirement for homesteading in

the area at the time. Doug’s father, Ernie, would later transform the

farm to beef production in the mid-1970s. This particular operation,

again, has been passed down through the family, that same family, since

When asked: how do you feel about the fact that your rights are

being taken away…? We’ll talk about that more in

section 19 when it

comes up. “Not very happy about it,” says Doug Haughton. How do you feel

about the panels being disbanded and local input and local voices being

weakened? “Not very happy about it,” says Doug Haughton. How do you feel

about the fact that there’s no local input in the selection of these

commissioners? Doug Haughton says: “Not very happy about it.”

The same goes for Fred Pain, a rancher also in the Knutsford area.

I had the pleasure of presenting him with a Century Farm Award a couple

years ago, over 100 years in ranching. How do you feel about the

disbanding of regional panels? Fred Pain says: “Not happy about it.” How

do you feel about the fact that there’s no input on the selection of

commissioners? “Not very happy about it,” says Fred Pain. How do you

feel about the fact that you’re not considered a person anymore, as per

this legislation, and you don’t have a right to seek an exclusion? “Not

very happy about it,” says rancher Fred Pain.

I could go on and on. I suspect that I will have more to say in

subsequent sections of this bill as we work our way through

it.

Let me just say this. At the end of the day, we believe that the

best decisions are made with local people, local knowledge, local

communities. Local governments are a big part of that, which is why I

wholeheartedly support the amendment that has been moved by my good

friend and very able colleague from Delta South.

The Chair: Before the Chair recognizes the next speaker, the House will

be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:13 p.m. to 5:23 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to rise on this particular amendment,

the amendment to Bill 15, which I know has been talked about at great

length here in this chamber. I know that it’s something that is of

concern to this side of the House. I really raise concerns in terms of

how these changes are really going to impact local government and

farmers as well.

Now, having served in local government myself, as a member of the

land advisory committee, in terms of changes to land use within the

committee, I know about the great amount of work that already burdens

local government with the changes that they’re faced with, with just

development applications.

[5:25 p.m.]

I go back to the government’s assertion that they want to make

housing more affordable. Of course, one of the things that burdens local

development is the fact that the speed and the process of what is in

front of local government is slowed down by the amount of workload.

We’ve seen that in the rapid buildup and rise of development, not only

in my community but….

I think that one of the things that we really do need to consider

in this particular piece of legislation, and what this amendment is

really trying to address, is the fact that local governments are being

asked to take on the burden that is, you know, part of what is going to

be required for any type of application to move ahead through the

system. Later in the piece of legislation, it goes on to speak to the

fact that people — or persons, as it’s been defined — have been removed.

That’s something else that we’ll talk about later on.

I think that what is important in this particular amendment….

There have been questions about how the commission members are

appointed, how they’re chosen. One of the things that is a very key

component of this is the fact that it’s not only the skill sets. It’s

about the fact that local government, which is having to face the

increased costs of making recommendations to the ALC, is going to be

excluded. This amendment speaks directly to including local government

and that they at least be added or considered.

Now, I think that it is a task, and I haven’t done…. I tried to

figure out the mathematics of how many different, with 11 members on the

commission…. We actually have six regions, of which…. Maybe they are set

to be changed. I don’t know. But within that, there are so many other

subsets of that. I do think that it’s really important that there is

local government sitting at the commission and being able to at least be

considered in terms of being consulted, in terms of who the members are

that should be on that.

Now, maybe that is something that the minister already considers,

but the reality is that we think that it’s important that if local

government is going to take on ownership of the cost and the burden of

what it is that is going to be expected of them in terms of the

applications, they deserve to have a seat, or at least be consulted

with.

One of the things that I think about…. You know, except for

serving in government here, I have farmed virtually every day of my

life. My father has farmed almost every day of his life, as well as my

grandfather. We have been farming continuously in the Okanagan for

almost 110 years. What I can tell you is that we do know a lot about the

local conditions there.

Having sat, as I said, on the land use advisory panel for the

Central Okanagan, I can tell you that there were many instances where

the land use planners in communities were uninformed or relatively….

Even agrologists are not necessarily the best people to help to make the

decisions in terms of land use. It does deeply concern me that we’re

getting further away from the people that really work the land,

understand it, and know exactly what the capabilities of that land

are.

I couldn’t help but think about the commission’s founding and some

of the principles that, when this was brought in back on April 18 of

1973…. I think that it’s important to remember that there were certain

guarantees about that. I know how the land commission was set up

initially, but I’m going to read into the record that: “The ALR boundary

was based on biophysical information related to the natural

characteristics of the land, its climate. The intention was to set

boundaries on objective technical characteristics rather than on the

variables of the market and other socioeconomic conditions.”

[5:30 p.m.]

It also said: “Regional governments submitted agricultural land

reserve plans to the commission based on ALC guidelines and on maps,

provided by the B.C. Department of Agriculture, which identified lands

that have the soil and climate combination to support agriculture and

that were not already urbanized or otherwise irreversibly alienated.”

That was based on what they were thinking in 1973.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. One of the

things that local government and farmers have learnt is that there’s an

awful lot of information that’s out there that we didn’t have

available.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

My daughter is out today with her Girl Guide troop looking at the

instruments that I used for recording weather data, rainfall, on the

farm that we have — which is where I live, at about 125 acres. We now

have monitoring stations that are real time, which we have around the

farm as well as on neighbouring farms that we farm, and that data is

real time. It tells us the difference between that. It’s the type of

technology that’s moving to improve what is capable and not

capable.

I know the ministry has a climate and soil atlas that has been

heavily relied on, in terms of exclusions and ability to farm. I think

that those boundaries are changing all the time, as we’re seeing

increased development in non-ALR lands that are moving out of areas that

were thought to be the prime agricultural land.

I want to go back to the fact that…. We were talking about the

commission, when it was set up and the government’s intention. It was

said: “A new commission, appointed by the provincial government and

working in partnership with local governments, established a special

land use…to protect B.C.’s dwindling supply of agricultural

land.”

Well, I know that in our farming situation, and the way that my

grandfather planted things and the way…. The spacing on the trees, if

you can imagine, was 40 feet between each tree when my grandfather

planted. Then my dad moved to 20 by 20. Then they called it a fifth

spot, and they increased the densification from 108 trees per acre to

216 trees per acre.

In our vineyard plantings, we started at roughly around 500 vines

per acres. Today we farm intensively, and only limited by equipment, at

over 2,000 vines per acre. That’s part of what is creating increased

utilization of a very valuable component of farming.

The important part about this is…. The fact is that local

government is seeing the value in agricultural land. In this particular

piece of legislation, without this amendment, they’re being excluded

from having a voice in terms of who’s sitting at the table.

It doesn’t do anybody any good with people sitting in Burnaby, or

maybe Richmond even, where there’s a little bit of agricultural land…. I

say a little bit, compared to when this act came in. I’ve seen the

aerial photos. I’ve been the minister. I know what was sitting down at

the ALC, in terms of the mapping, etc. Clearly, they’ve kind of drawn

some demarcation around the areas that are now farmed, whether it’s

cranberries or other things.

I know that Bill 52 speaks to some of the problems that have been

created by having agricultural land in a highly urban area. What I don’t

understand, as somebody that’s farmed my entire life — I’m really a

multigenerational farmer — is: how is it that people that are sitting,

that are not connected with the real land base…? I mean, if I was

talking to a farmer that was a rancher, let’s say, in the Cariboo, they

need literally thousands of acres to be able to do what they’re

doing.

What we really need to do to support agriculture is not make it so

that people that have no clue about the agricultural capability —

whether it’s the Cariboo, the Peace, the Okanagan or the Kootenays, for

that matter — where these people are not necessarily associated with…. I

think that local government helps bring an element of localness into

this whole process.

I think that this is a serious flaw in this particular piece of

legislation, and that’s why I’m supporting the amendment that’s been put

forward by the member for Delta South.

I think the other thing that…. In the history that’s on the ALC’s

website, it talks about the primary objective of the local Land

Commission Act was “to preserve agricultural land and encourage the

establishment and maintenance of farms. Secondary objectives were to

create parks, acquire greenbelts and assemble land for urban and

industrial uses.” Well, that doesn’t sound like agriculture — parks,

industrial uses. I mean, these are some of the things….

[5:35 p.m.]

It sounds to me like this is kind of social engineering rather

than really about farming. I’m not really getting the sense that this is

all about agriculture — increasing productivity, increasing the ability

for farmers to be able to make a living, raising their family, having

multigenerational farms, with the higher costs and the pressures that

have been brought to bear because agricultural land has now become

almost a commodity in some of the urban settings. The bottom line is

that this isn’t helping lower the cost or making farming better. As a

matter of fact, it’s doing everything but that. It’s removing the

decision-making further afield.

Tell me what…. In terms of being able to have what I would

consider to be people that are knowledgable, I think that land use

planners have a good component to play in the rural or agricultural

urban interface. The fact is that most of those people are working,

principally, in local government. That’s where local government fits

into this particular amendment that we are proposing here.

There have been a number of reviews, and I’m sure the minister is

well aware, as well as the commission, about ALR reviews during periods

using new maps, better soil information. In the early ’80s, eastern

Vancouver Island received special attention because of its unique and

varied topography. I think that that’s something that’s

important.

I don’t think that anybody in the Lower Mainland knows what the

topography is like over in the Comox Valley and places around the

Cowichan Valley and some of the other areas, where there’s newly

established farming that’s going on, a higher value. But the reality is

that the local people have a much better idea of what’s going on than a

bunch of commission members that are picked out of…. Maybe they have

some skill sets that relate to that, but we need real people that

understand local issues when it comes to farming.

The commission found these reviews to be more effective than

adjudicating individual applications. They also demonstrated the

importance of a comprehensive land use approach. I think that that’s one

of the things that the commission…. When you are trying to work with the

commission, they want land use plans in communities — like, where I

represent, the West Kelowna areas. They want the local government to be

able to fit land use plans into the way that they’re using the city —

planning out the urbanization or the urban pressures, if you want to

call it.

I really think that it’s unfortunate that in this particular bill,

Bill 15, it has been left out. The local government is not really

consulted in terms of who would be the right people to make certain that

they’re giving advice to both the minister and the ALC about who should

be on those panels so that they can remain objective about what it

is.

I go back to that word, social-economic engineering. I think of

the fact that if we have this viewpoint, if we’re living in the Lower

Mainland — and I’d say specifically in urban Vancouver or Burnaby and

other places like that — we believe that there’s this disappearance of

farmland. Have you been to the Peace River? There are over two million

hectares up there of land in the ALR. There’s land that is surrounding

communities that is underutilized, and our goal should be to increase

the opportunities for farmers so that we can increase the utilization of

that land.

This nonsense that the land is just being vaporized because of the

fact that all we’re doing is…. Application after application is going

forward. Look, the stats…. The member from Abbotsford cited specific

exclusion documents, and I think that the numbers speak for themselves.

There is not a herd instinct running on this.

I look forward to being able to support this amendment.

D. Clovechok: Certainly, it’s a pleasure and honour to stand here today to talk

to these amendments. As amendments go…. We all know they’re needed

because sometimes a bill is flawed. And it’s my not so humble opinion

that the amendment that we’re dealing with here will strengthen this

bill. I say that with all due respect to the minister, and hopefully,

she’ll understand that.

[5:40 p.m.]

In order to build a case, if you will, for the amendment, I want

to push the history channel a little bit and put some things into

context in terms of the entire Bill 15 and how it associates itself, in

my humble opinion, to the amendment.

I want to read it into the record. I’ve showed, other times, that

I fundamentally believe in conserving agricultural land in this

province. I’ve risen in this House before to agree with the minister

that we need to have a no-tolerance approach to dumping refuse on

agricultural lands and that we need restrictions to remove soil and

fill. I believe that good usable ag land — and the key focus for me is

usable ag land; that’s the key on that — should be protected for the use

of agriculture alone. To this, I stand firm — but usable

land.

I need to stress that the issues of Bill 15, which has

subsequently created the need for this amendment, represent, I believe,

nothing more than an ideological fight for the NDP. The current Minister

of Agriculture and, really, the rest of her party are so, I think,

fanatically devoted to Dave Barrett’s legacy that they insist on

doubling down on a policy from almost a half century ago.

The changes that they make are in the original bill passed in

1973, which is to say that the government, not property owners — I

really want to underscore that: not property owners — knows what’s best

with regards to the use of farmland. Thus the need, I think, for this

amendment.

If British Columbians disagree in relation to this bill or even

the amendment itself that we’re talking about here, I think the message

that we’re hearing is that it’s clearly too bad — from this government.

The bottom line is that the changes that are being made overall to the

ALR will not make things easier or more efficient in any way for farmers

where I come from. Thus the need, again, for this amendment.

I want to remind the minister that even back in the 1970s, British

Columbians were not completely sold on this whole entire ALR concept.

The NDP government of the day passed the original bill and ended up as a

one-term wonder, if you look at the history — not necessarily because of

the ALR as it exists in theory but because, in order to implement it,

the Barrett government sterilized private non-arable land for use.

Sterilized it.

Like the NDP of today, they were so focused on the ideology that

they seemingly forgot that their job was to make the lives of British

Columbians better. Guess what? Voters made them pay for it. As history

often does, if learning has not occurred, the outcome of their

historical failures foreshadows their future in this

province.

The changes that will be made in Bill 15 were made with strategic

advice from a handpicked advisory council. And before we go any further,

I want to put out some serious issues with the committee itself. I point

out that none of that advisory committee are from the Kootenays — none

of them — where I live. Not one person is from the Kootenays. To me,

this seems like the minister just wasn’t interested in the input from

the Kootenays. We’ve got a lot of input. We’ve got a lot to

share.

Boundary and the Okanagan are also excluded. This is a serious

problem when you exclude a group of people from such an important

process. To quote my colleague from Delta South: “The committee didn’t

represent many facets of agriculture in British Columbia — the people

that really knew the hard work, the toil and the hardships of

agriculture.”

Well, people in the Kootenays aren’t impressed. This conclusion is

clearly evident, in my opinion: the policy directions that the minister

has taken are flawed. It creates major problems for farmers in the vast

parts of this province who feel like this government is not interested

in, really, the challenges that they face. Apparently and tragically, I

think they’re right.

The participation of the Kootenays in any changes to the ALR is

important because there has been from the very beginning…. I know the

minister knows this. It’s been a very troubling past relationship with

folks from the Kootenays.

[5:45 p.m.]

The original mapping of the ALR in the Kootenays was because of….

We didn’t have GPS back in those days. It was a really tight budget.

They ran out of money, and they drew an imaginary line that included

lands in the Kootenays that should never in this world have been in the

ALR. But they drew the line. Now that line stands, and that’s a huge

problem. That’s a huge problem.

That the minister is now pushing ahead with changes and once

again, I think, neglecting the geographical issues of my region is very

troubling to me and to the people I represent. To me and many of my

constituents, it’s an indication of worse things to come. Some of these

changes, unfortunately, have already been pushed through, such as the

removal of the zone 2 from the ALR.

The zoning introduced by the B.C. Liberals meant that non-fertile

land — and again, I go back to what I said before: usable, arable land —

lumped into the ALR could be used for other purposes. That’s what we

decided was a good idea in certain parts of the province, mostly in the

north, but also in the Kootenays.

When you put a shovel in the ground where I live, you get rock.

That’s how that works. I live in the mountains, and mountains are made

of rock. That’s how that works. But the NDP did away with that because

they couldn’t stand to imagine, I think, that the land located in one of

their ideological crown jewels would change in any way. It doesn’t make

any sense. No matter what the senseless and deeply unfair to parts of

this province that do not fall within the very specific purview of

farmland…. That would really only apply to Vancouver Island and the

Lower Mainland. It doesn’t apply to where I live. It doesn’t.

If there is going to be one ALC that is supposed to regulate ALR

lands for this whole province — which is the gist of what this bill is

and, thus, the need for the amendment — then it is deeply troubling that

the minister does not seem to understand the diversity of B.C.’s

agricultural lands, because they are diverse. I truly believe the

minister understands that. I do. I’m surprised by what I’m seeing here

today.

Centralizing the governance of the ALR will only make things hard

for farmers and ranchers outside of the Lower Mainland, and it’s sad

that the minister isn’t taking these concerns seriously. This is my

understanding of the minister’s actions with regard to the archaic

single, what I think…. One-zone ALC. This is a fair concern, I think,

especially for the minister, who doesn’t see this happening with

farmland in her own area of Saanich. It’s completely different where the

minister lives compared to where I live. But as I’ve said before, this

is not happening where I live. I guess no one is planning to squander

the little arable land that we have.

I would say again, because I’ve actually raised this with the

minister before…. People in rural British Columbia that I know, that I

work for when I get to cowboy for them on the weekends, when I’m at

home, sitting on a horse, doing the things I love to do and helping them

out…. They’re tired, and they would really appreciate it if the minister

would quit preaching to them about the irresponsible use of their

farmland.

In Columbia River–Revelstoke — for all the Kootenays, for that

matter — we all know how to take care of our own land. We don’t have to

be directed to do that. I understand that the idea that individual

people can manage the land they live on is a complete affront to

everything the NDP might want to believe in and the socialist principles

that are quite often put forward, and it’s a shame. Pretty radical idea,

though — that if land within the ALR can’t be used for agriculture, why

not use it for some other way? I don’t get that. It’s a reasonable

expectation. Reasonable expectation.

Small businesses — Beeland, as an example — have to go through…. I

don’t know if the minister has been down that way and visited Beeland, a

tiny little business. They’ve got a bunch of bees. They’ve got some

honey going on. It’s fantastic. They’ve got local meats in there. But

because of these new regulations, they’re going to have to jump through

all this red tape and all these hoops, and they’re not happy about it.

They don’t get it.

In any event, all because some ideologues 46 years ago in Victoria

felt that they, and they alone, knew the best for the B.C. agriculture

industry, and they were making those decisions, here we are. Same thing,

decades later. I can’t, sometimes, even try to hear the minister out on

this because, in my opinion, it’s so amazingly abhorrent — the terms of

farmers’ property rights. It seems lately that it’s almost like the

people’s republic of British Columbia.

This is private land, individual farmers’ land that they’ve either

purchased or had passed down for years from grandparents and

great-grandparents. Private property is private property, and the

government should absolutely not be trying to encroach on individuals’

private property or personal rights.

[5:50 p.m.]

That’s wrong. That is completely and totally wrong. I really want

to drive that home, because the impacts of this, I think, would be a

disaster and a really terrible precedent.

Then there’s the change to the ALR rules, which I think is

generally kind of atrocious when you think about it overall. We’ll talk

about this a little later on, but when you don’t classify people as

people, I don’t get that. This is, I think, where the crux of this

amendment comes in, to some extent.

When you think about…. You can no longer apply to the Agricultural

Land Commission to have a property excluded as a private landowner. I

don’t get that. We’ll have to apply to a local government or a First

Nations government — local governments who have not been consulted on

this, First Nations who may not understand the family dynamics of these

lands.

The bottom line is that when you download responsibility without

consultation, things get confused, and that’s the biggest concern that I

have with this. Things get confused. It’s local government saying: “I

don’t have time to do this.” First Nations governments say: “We don’t

know that guy down the road. Why are you downloading this onto us? We

don’t know that farmer. We don’t know that situation.”

I think that when you look at this overall bill and this

amendment…. I’m going to support this amendment simply because of the

fact that I believe — strongly, strongly believe — that farmers,

ranchers have the right to apply to the ALC so that they can exclude

some of their property.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: It has to do with the amendment. When you’re downloading

responsibility onto government, it has to do with that. You bet it

does.

I’m going to support this amendment. I think it’s really important

that we underscore…. Again, I want to be very honest with this minister.

I completely agree with protecting agricultural land. I think it’s

critical for this province, and it’s critical for the future of this

province. I think it’s really, really importa