British Columbia Hansard — 28 May 2019, p.m., Issue 264 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20190528pm-Hansard-n264

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 28, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 264 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fourth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz Acting Sergeant-at-Arms......................................................................................................................................... Randall Ennis, MMM, CD

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ....................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 28, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Point of Privilege ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9675 M. Bernier Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9675 Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019(continued) J. Martin Hon. H. Bains M. Lee A.

Weaver Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 9678 Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9678 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............................................................................................................................................ 9700 Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019(continued) J. Rustad Hon. D. Donaldson C. Oakes Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 9719 Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General(continued) T. Redies Hon. D. Eby S. Bond M. Morris J. Y ap 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. Y esterday the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan made some very inappropriate, unparliamentary and intemperate comments in this House that offended me as an hon. mem- ber 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. On

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 agree- ment 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 uni- on…. 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 discre- tion. 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 uni- on comes in and if more than two years are left in that col- lective agreement, they can apply to the board to reopen the collective agreement and renegotiate. I think this is some- thing 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 sta- bility for employers when they bid on projects or make capit- al 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 uni- ons may inherit substandard collective agreements with long durations. However, parties often negotiate longer-term col- lective agreements for reasons of stability and certainty, and employers rely on these terms to make bids or capital invest- ments and spending decisions — for example, project labour 9675

agreements — which could be significantly impacted if the collective agreement could be reopened following a success- ful 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 reinvent- ing the wheel. If you look at Ontario and Quebec, their collective agreements cease to operate following a suc- cessful raid. It ends. In Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, the collective agreement can be terminated by the successor union providing the employer with the pre- scribed 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 partic- ular paragraph that I think is something that we understand in the industry.

I’m looking at how contractors and construction com- panies and others work with unions for stability and cer- tainty — 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 bar- gaining agent for an appropriate bargaining unit…if a col- lective 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 pan- el’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 agree- ments that are two years or more remaining on that agree- ment only be exercised where there are extraordinary cir- cumstances. 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 sub- stituting the following: (

a) if there are extraordinary circumstances, having regard to the board’s duties in

section 2, make an order declaring that the col- lective agreement expires 90 days after the date of the order, or] On the amendment. M. Lee:The intention of this amendment is specifically to 9676 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

ensure that when boards are looking to interpret this provi- sion of the act, keeping in mind their duties under

section 2 of the code, that they recognize that, in view of the pan- el 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 extraordin- ary 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 arbit- rator.

They looked at all of those arguments. All those argu- ments 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 sup- port this amendment. M.

Lee: I would just note for the record, though, that in the specific recommendation on page 18, under recom- mendation 11 of the panel’s report, the exact wording is not what is reflected in this bill. The comment that we are mak- ing is that it’s very clear that the panel turned its mind to the kinds of circumstances under which the board would exer- cise its discretion — certainly along the lines of its regard to

section 2 duties. The amendment speaks to two parts — extraordinary cir- cumstances 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 Vancou- ver-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 Y ap Martin Davies Kyllo Sullivan Reid Morris Stilwell Ross Oakes Johal Redies Rustad Milobar Sturdy Clovechok Shypitka Hunt Throness Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9677

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 Ma 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, 2019 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. On

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 pro- cess 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:Y es.

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:Y es.

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 9678 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

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 legisla- tion 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 recom- mendations — she set about to breathe legislative life, stat- utory 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 Feb- ruary 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 amend- ments to be considered by the minister based on consulta- tions 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 cre- ation 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 pre- pared 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 oth- er 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.] Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9679

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 ref- erence that were laid out, and those are on the website. So the member can refer to that if he’s having difficulty follow- ing the timeline. But we did follow the terms of reference. It’s exactly what we expected. We received an early recom- mendation report. It was expected by the end of April. We received that on April 24. This included legislative and reg- ulatory 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 legisla- tive 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 meet- ings 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 ref- erence 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 recom- mendation 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 com- mittee intended to engage in public consultation and provide recommendations that would inform the creation of legisla- tion 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 min- ister 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, espe- cially…. 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 Agri- culture 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 recom- mendations 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 inter- im report. And I think the member can be reminded at this time that this was the committee’s report; it was not a gov- ernment 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 “cos- metic. ” 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 9680 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

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 draft- ing 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 appar- ently…. 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 hear- ing 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 con- sultation and research findings, due in April 2018. ” I received that report on April 24. Just so that I’m clear: “Early recom- mendation 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 mem- ber 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 termin- ology, “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 recommenda- tion 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:Y es. M. de Jong:So that’s not a draft report. That is, as the min- ister has indicated, a report containing early recommenda- tions. 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 recommenda- tions 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 com- mittee 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 commit- tee that was established to provide advice…. I take it that all Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9681

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 legis- lation 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 pro- posed 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 31. 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 pos- ition 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 recom- mendations 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 2018. 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 recom- mendation 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 ques- tion 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 con- sidered this report that was released in April as advice to the minister and advice to the government. The recommenda- tions 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 con- sistent 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 com- paring — as there always would be for an opposition — the recommendations with the legislative product that the com- mittee 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 commit- tee 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: Y es, 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 mem- bers that sit on LRC as well? [3:30 p.m.] 9682 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Hon. L. Popham:The LRC does include members of cab- inet 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 gov- ernment — 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 respons- ibility, 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:Y es. 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 per- haps, 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 differ- ence of opinion that exists between the minister, the govern- ment 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 minis- ter 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 sec- tion 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. Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9683

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 impos- ing 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 begin- ning, 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 com- mission. 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 minis- ter 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 gal- lery, we have grade 11 students from Mark Isfeld in Cour- tenay. 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 intoHansard. So 30(1), exclusion application by own- er, 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 remov- ing 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 some- thing 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 min- ister 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 con- cerns about what their rights will be, which is why we’re ask- ing 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. Y esterday the min- ister, 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 9684 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

did see that there was potentially a cost savings. The mem- ber 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. On

section 2. [4:00 p.m.] L. Larson:Again, it’s just a changing of wording, obvi- ously — a change of administration with substituting admin- istrative regions versus panel regions. I questioned this pre- viously, 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 reas- ons, 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 geo- graphic regions that are identified. That hasn’t changed. There will always be regional representation, but the com- mission would be able to have its independence and flexib- ility. 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 inde- pendence 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 func- tioning quite fluently. In the last six months or so, it seems to have backed up considerably, but it was moving very flu- ently 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 inde- pendent advisory report, specifically on the panel system. “Many stakeholders expressed frustration to the commit- tee 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 dispar- ate views and approaches to decision-making in the ALR by six separate three-member panels. ” That’s some of the feed- back 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 inde- pendent 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 assur- ances that the commission is as independent as possible.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. I. Paton:In

section 3, we’re going to get into commission members. There are currently 13 members on the Agricul- tural 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 Mum- ford and Robert Haywood-Farmer. On the Island panel, we have Linda Gayle Michaluk and Honey Forbes. On the Koo- tenay 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? Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9685

[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 appoint- ments are to select “individuals who are knowledgeable in matters relating to agriculture, land use planning, local gov- ernment or first nation government. ” I. Paton:Of course, that is in subsection (c). Appoint- ments 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 aven- ue 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 regard- ing who was appointed as of June 2017 to the commission and who is still there. I’ve had confirmation that ten com- missioners were appointed pre June 2017, and since our gov- ernment came into power, there have been six new commis- sioners 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 agri- culture. 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 applic- ants 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 spe- cifically around interest in the commission, but it’s a merit- based process. I. Paton:I’m told now that there are 16 total commission- ers, 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 min- imum 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 hap- pens in a way that would be respectful of the appointment of one of the four or, perhaps, a new person to be appoin- ted. 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, 2019. [SECTION 3, by adding the underlined text as shown in this section: Commission members 5

(1) The commission consists of at least 11 members appointed un- der 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 ag- riculture, land use planning, local government or first nation gov- ernment; (

d) members must be residents of administrative regions, with at least one but no more than 3 members, other than the chair, rep- resenting each region; (

e) if more than one member represents the same administrative region, each member must be a resident of a different regional dis- trict incorporated under theLocal 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 ac- cordance with subsection (1).

(5) The members are the board of directors of the commission.] [4:35 p.m.] 9686 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

The Chair:Member, would you like to speak to your pro- posed 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 discus- sions 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 Com- mission, 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 expert- ise 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 excel- lent 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 ad- ministered 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 pre- serving 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 eco- nomy.

Taking rights away from farmers and ranchers for matters on their property, however, and moreover, denying them recognition un- der the law as legal persons, is not democratic, and there are alternat- ive 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 indi- viduals 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 struc- tures centralizes decision-making power and authority that under- mines local, regional administration and the rights of an individual owner of ALR land. Key changes of Bill 15 would result in one cent- ralized 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 capa- city 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 bur- den and a disincentive for government bodies to initiate the applica- tions. “Not only is an individual not recognized under the law and the power to apply is being shifted from the property owner to govern- ment, 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 under- mining of a defensible ALR — an overly burdensome administrative volume of applications. ” I think we all know the burdensome volume of applica- tions was a grand total of 39 last year. I also just want to conclude by reading out a great little let- ter. 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 amend- ment? I. Paton:Of course. I’m getting to that line right away. “ …should expect to be alerted to this existence and given a reason- able time frame in which to respond. There are mutually recognized and well-established channels of communication between the min- istry and our agricultural organization.

We learned of this bill from a Facebook post. “We have waited to express our growing concern about the pos- sible negative impacts of Bill 15, believing that our interests were in- clusively and fairly represented by the ALR-ALC revitalization com- Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9687

mittee and the ALC commission. The ALR-ALC revitalization com- mittee and/or the ALC commission is being increasingly viewed as secretive, autocratic and biased. “There are very strong feelings against the centralization of gov- ernments. ” — and that’s what we’re talking about right here today. “The regional panels provided invaluable local knowledge.

The sug- gestion that a centralized commission with regional representation will result in a higher percentage of equitable, unpressured applica- tion 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 chal- lenge, of course, with speaking to the amendment on Bill 15 is that we’re talking about the appointing of the commis- sioners and the local government input that we’re suggest- ing 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, agricul- tural 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 export- ing 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 blueber- ries 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, multigen- erational. 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 ele- ment of local knowledge, local understanding. That is why, to me, having the input of local governments on actually saying, “Y eah, 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 suppor- ted. 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 sup- port. 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 cre- ative.

I’ll give you another really simple example. Heppell’s Potato Corp. Whether it was potatoes, squash, beets or car- 9688 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

rots, 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 oper- ation that they have for not only their equipment but other farming machinery. Again, this is the challenge of farming in the Lower Main- land. 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 recom- mendations 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 situ- ations. 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 applica- tions that went through in the year 2018 and where they all came from. But in the midst of that, there were 22 indivi- duals 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…. Y es, we recognize that there’s a challenge in the Lower Main- land. There’s a challenge in the Okanagan for land develop- ment, population pressures, the high cost of land — those sorts of things.

The ALC was originally set on the basis of preserving agri- cultural 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. Y ou 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.

Y ou 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 actu- ally 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. farm- ers. 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 fear- mongering. I was talking about the bill.

Some of these oth- er 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. Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9689

I notice that my light has gone green, and I’m running out of time. Interjection. M. Hunt:Y eah, 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 Lang- ley, 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. Y ou 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 appre- ciates 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 per- spective of my constituents from Kamloops–South Thomp- son 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 com- mission after consulting with the chair and each affected loc- al 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 constitu- ents — 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 Agri- cultural 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 water- ing 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 dif- ferent the regions really are. Y ou know, it’s far too often in the Lower Mainland, I believe, that there is this misunderstand- ing 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 per- spective, that local voices be respected, that local voices be fully incorporated in these processes.

It is why this amend- ment 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 region- al 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, 9690 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

which is woven throughout this bill, which is, again, to con- strain 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 govern- ment consultation as part of the commissioner selection pro- cess…. This is important because we see so many changes through this bill which so dramatically impact local com- munities, 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 region- al 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 Spallum- cheen, one of many that have passed resolutions and will be bringing them forward to the Union of B.C. Municipalit- ies convention in Vancouver in September, saying: “Govern- ment, 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 abso- lutely critical to these processes.

Local governments, local farming families, communities are concerned. They’re con- cerned about the ability to maintain successful farming operations well into the future. Local governments are con- cerned 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 expect- ations on the local governments are actually quite unclear, and the impacts are not well understood. That’s not me say- ing 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 pro- ceed with or without local government support of an applic- ation to the ALC with no legal requirement for the local gov- ernment 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 will- ingness 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 govern- ments 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 com- munities, 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 opposi- tion. 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 Commis- sion, 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 multi- generational family farm and a ranch in the Knutsford area just south of Kamloops. This particular ranch was home- steaded in 1906 by Doug’s grandfather Henry.

It was origin- ally 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 pro- duction in the mid-1970s. This particular operation, again, has been passed down through the family, that same family, since 1906. 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 Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9691

about the fact that there’s no input on the selection of com- missioners? “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 know- ledge, local communities.

Local governments are a big part of that, which is why I wholeheartedly support the amend- ment that has been moved by my good friend and ve

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20190528pm-Hansard-n264
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20190528pm Hansard n264
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4c88b02328fd96c84e50e33bdd8b884989bac115

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).