2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tabling Documents

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, annual report, 2013

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

M. Farnworth

D. Donaldson

J. Darcy

D. Eby

Petitions

S. Robinson

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

V. Huntington

S. Robinson

G. Heyman

C. James

L. Popham

Petitions

Hon. D. McRae

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. N. Letnick

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014

Hon. N. Letnick

Reporting of Bills

Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Supply Act, 2014-2015

Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Supply Act, 2014-2015

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 26 — Supply Act, 2014-2015

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Supply Act, 2014-2015

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 9 — Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

Bill 10 — Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 15 — Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 17 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 18 — Water Sustainability Act

Bill 19 — Animal Health Act

Bill 20 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Act

Bill 21 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 22 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 23 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act

Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 27 — The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014

Bill Pr401 — Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2014

Bill 26 — Supply Act, 2014-2015

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

S. Hammell

J. Shin

K. Conroy

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued)

L. Krog

Hon. S. Anton

K. Corrigan

Estimates: Other Appropriations

Hon. S. Anton

[ Page 4433 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the absolute pleasure to welcome to this precinct Kathleen Scales. She and I worked together for many years around the Roots of Empathy program in British Columbia. She is joined by Michael Von Zuben. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for 2013.

Orders of the Day

Hon. S. Bond: Here in the chamber we will be continuing with second reading of Bill 24. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Health will continue; and in

Section C, the Birch Room, we'll have the estimates of the Ministry of Justice.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and resume debate on Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. We are on the amendment that was moved by my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Agriculture critic. Prior to the adjournment for lunch, I read out the amendment and why it was important.

[1335]

This is the third amendment that we have moved on this particular piece of legislation. You really begin to wonder why, after two thoroughly debated and examined amendments, that the government still has not grasped that it's time to step back and to take a second look, as W.A.C. Bennett used to famously say. Take a second look at this bad piece of public policy.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It's awkward that we have to get to this point. I mean, we have tried to…. We have talked in this House for a number of weeks now. We have talked to the government members opposite. We have badgered them. We have prodded them. We have poked them. We have implored them. We have cajoled them. We have urged them. We have nudged them. We have even hectored them to look at this bad piece of public policy, and still they refuse see the error of their ways.

Some of us have yelled at them. Some have whispered to them. Some have rallied to them to stand and come to us, to stand with us, and to go forward on a good piece of public policy by hoisting it for six months or referring it to a committee. We have pushed them to see reason. We have tried to drag them to see. We have beseeched them. We have petitioned them on numerous occasions.

We have even, in the spirit of cooperation in this House, encouraged them to see the error of their ways. Yet still that has not worked. We have tried moral suasion. We have tried good old-fashioned persuasion. We have made overtures to them, and we have advised them on the many errors in this bill, the many mistakes in this bill, and still they have not seen the error of their ways.

That's why we introduced the hoist motion. It's why we introduced to refer it to the committee: so that they could see the error of their ways. They could talk to British Columbians and find out the impact of this bill. Yet it has been to no avail. It has been to no avail even to offer them our best advice.

We have commended them to talk to experts in the field of agriculture. We have counselled them to talk with experts in the field of agriculture, to listen to the agricultural community, and still they have resisted. We have pressed them day after day. We have insisted. We have prevailed on them.

We have advocated, each and every one of us, in this chamber for this government to see reason, to listen to people in the public and communities right across this province who are saying that Bill 24 is a bad piece of legislation. We have exhorted them. We have recommended to them that they look at this bill more closely to see its mistakes. Some of us have even demanded that they do that. Some colleagues have insisted….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I see my colleague from Prince George nodding in agreement. Exactly. They have insisted that this government is wrong. They have insisted that it's time for this government to recognize the mistakes that it has made with this bill and to correct them.

Some of us have goaded them. We have goaded them by pointing out, through e-mails, just how bad this piece of legislation is.

[ Page 4434 ]

Some with a more legal background have entreated with them. Some have even prayed for them. But all of us have requested that this government understand just how bad this piece of legislation is.

Some have rhapsodized or soliloquized. Others have broached them on a private basis. Do you really…?

An Hon. Member: It's not a verb.

M. Farnworth: It can be made to be a verb. Shakespeare created words that way.

[1340]

Broached. Others have broached with them the idea that the amendment before this House is a good amendment, is a positive amendment — privately and silently, quietly, asking them to think about supporting the amendment.

Others more articulate than I have articulated clear and precise reasons, logical reasons, why this bill is a bad bill. Others have spouted their reasons as to why this is a bad bill. Others — and many, and I will include myself — have heckled this government.

Others have hounded certain ministers in this chamber on just how bad this particular piece of legislation is. Some may even say that they have tormented ministers on how bad this particular piece of legislation is. But all of it….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, the minister says, "Fair assessment." He is quite right in some ways, because the opposition feels strongly about this piece of legislation, as do people in communities right across this province, that a legacy of public policy that was created 40 years ago and stood the test of time is being dismantled in a way that is not done on the grounds of what's right for the province but is done on the basis of ideology.

That's wrong. So there will be members of this House who will continue to needle this government on the error of its ways. We will continue to invoke a sense of reason and a sense of a desire for good public policy. We importune you, hon. Member, to look at this legislation not as something that must be done but rather as a piece of legislation that needs to be examined for all its consequences. We will continue to do that.

We have solicited support from outside this House. We have solicited that support on the basis that people…. If the government doesn't want to listen to the opposition, they can at least listen to the people in the industry. Yet it continues to fall on deaf ears. We will continue to woo the government members with arguments that make sense. If we have to, we will continue to obsecrate that this….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Not obfuscate — obsecrate.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, no, no. It's o-b-s-e-c-r-a-t-e — obsecrate.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: No, I am not in a negative mood. I am in a good mood today, so I will resist the temptation to respond to that.

But I make those comments because we are at the third of the three main motions that can be moved to amend a piece of legislation in this House. It's not often that an opposition goes to the point of using all three tools that are available to us.

It doesn't matter whether you are the official opposition or the independents; all of us in this House, on this side, are concerned about the impact that this particular piece of legislation will have on agriculture in British Columbia. We do not believe that the government has studied the impacts that this piece of legislation will have. That's why we moved the amendment.

Agriculture is such an all-encompassing industry in this province — on perhaps the richest range of soils and agricultural lands in the entire country, which only make up 5 percent of British Columbia's land mass — that it's incumbent on the government to recognize that. It's incumbent to look at how the changes are going to impact not just one sector — like ranching, for example, or dairy — but the whole range of agricultural products that we currently grow in this province and also the potential for new crops that we can grow in British Columbia, the potential that we have for future agriculture and the technological changes that are taking place in agriculture.

[1345]

It's important that we fully understand the impacts of the legislation in terms of how it will relate to communities that are both agricultural and non-agricultural. In many parts of British Columbia, as I've stated earlier, community plans and regional plans have taken into account land in the agricultural land reserve and have taken into account that agriculture is an important component to those communities and that agriculture has specific needs and requirements to it.

People engaged in agricultural activities need to have surety of things such as tenure on land and the ability to farm in a way that is not going to see the creation of a subdivision next to their land because land has been removed. It all of a sudden now puts pressure on their land not just in terms of its value and the idea that a piece next door is now out and has been built on, that this puts the pressure on the neighbouring piece, but also in the fact that the increase in population so close to a farming area can have an impact.

Many people are not happy with the sounds, the activities, the timing of activities or the smells associated with many agricultural activities. That's often a source of conflict on the urban-agricultural interface.

[ Page 4435 ]

One of the things that proper community plans can take into account, when there's a surety in terms that agricultural land is being protected, is those issues can be dealt with. But when that uncertainty is put there because it's easier to take land out or because agricultural values are somehow devalued, that raises the potential for conflict and for increasing hurdles for people engaged in agriculture.

There is existing legislation in place — the Right to Farm Act, for example. I think one of the things we have yet to hear from government is how this particular piece of legislation…. How will it impact, for example, on right to farm? Is there an impact there? We don't know the answer to those questions, and it's important that we do know the answer to those questions.

It's important that we know the impact on different sectors of agricultural production, for example. There are often different demands between the tree fruit industry and fruits and vegetables and the greenhouse industry, or the dairy industry and the cattle industry. Those are all important components of agricultural production in this province that have not been adequately addressed by the government in its response to the critics of this legislation who represent all those sectors of agriculture in British Columbia.

The ministry and the minister talk about wanting to grow the size of the receipts of agriculture in this province from $11 billion, I think he said, to a $14-billion-a-year industry. Well, how does this legislation do that? How does it propose to do that? That's not specified in it. There's no plan attached with it. There's been no rationale from the government and the minister other than to sort of say: "Trust us."

Yet the problem with that is that we have seen, in terms of e-mails prior to the creation of this legislation, that that was not the driving force behind the creation of this particular bill. That's particularly disturbing. That's why it's important that the government takes this opportunity to understand the concern that is out there, to understand the need for a thorough examination of this particular piece of legislation, and to support the amendment.

To support the amendment would not be…. In fact, I know that members on this side of the House care so deeply about this particular piece of legislation that if the government were to vote in favour of this amendment, not one member of the opposition….

[1350]

I'm even looking directly — to use the words the Minister for Core Review used once before — into the eyes of the member for Saanich South. I know that if this government passes the amendment, she would not criticize the government one bit. She would in fact congratulate the government. She would congratulate the government. I think the government needs to know that — that they would be congratulated, that they would not be criticized, that they would not be attacked. They would not be hectored any longer.

They would in fact be congratulated for stepping back and doing as W.A.C. Bennett said, taking that famous second look and sending a message that — you know what? — our parliamentary system works. When people, communities and organizations raise concerns about legislation, government can listen. I think that's something that, as I've said many times in this debate, would restore public confidence and would ensure that people have faith in our institution. And it would save the government and government members from having to listen to the opposition criticize them.

I see my colleague across the way smiling, because I think he knows what I'm about to do. I will just very quickly re-enunciate all the different ways that we have talked, badgered, prodded, poked, implored, cajoled, urged, nudged, hectored, yelled, whispered, rallied, pushed, dragged, beseeched, petitioned, encouraged, and used moral suasion, persuasion, overtures, advice.

We've commended, counselled, pressed, insisted, prevailed, advocated, pleaded, exhorted, recommended, demanded, insisted, goaded, entreated, even prayed, requested, rhapsodized, soliloquized, broached, articulated, spouted, heckled, hounded — even tormented, some would say — needled, importuned, invoked, solicited, wooed and obsecrated.

My colleague across the way….

Hon. S. Bond: It's your job.

M. Farnworth: She says it's our job. It is our job, but it's also the government's job to listen — to listen to what people have to say.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The minister says: "We're going to amend it." The problem, as noble as that may sound, is that if you are going to do that, it means you must have a proper process of consultation so that people can feel they have had their input listened to.

It's not a question of a minister saying one day, "We intend that every option is on the table, that we can amend the bill. We can leave the bill as it is, or we can scrap the bill altogether," and then, in less than 24 hours, a fellow minister saying, "Well, actually, we're going to pass the bill, and we're not going to change it, or we're not really open to changing the fundamentals of the bill," and then to say a few days later: "Oh, by the way, we are going to do a couple of quick amendments."

The reality is that they have not been done on the basis of consultation. They have not been done on the basis of people being able to go and talk to a committee, as we proposed in a previous amendment, nor, for example — as we had also proposed in a subsequent amendment — to hoist the bill for six months so that we would have the

[ Page 4436 ]

summer. The government could have brought the legislation back in the fall, and they could have then said: "Hey, we took the summer, and we heard what people have to say. We have made the subsequent changes and amendments, and that's what we've decided to do."

Those would be legitimate reasons to say, "Guess what. We've amended the bill. We've heard you, and we've listened, and here's why. Here's the rationale," and people would be able to say: "Yes, they listened to us." None of those have happened.

[1355]

It's fine to say that we've got amendments, but the reality is that's really not what is happening. So that's why we are trying this third option, which is what is called a reasoned amendment. The reasoned amendment says, as I said earlier, that we need to determine the possible impacts of the changes of this bill on agriculture in our province. I don't think I have too much time left. I'm told I have about five minutes, and I'm quite sure there are some in this House who are quite glad of that.

Within the five minutes that I have left remaining in my time to speak to this particular bill….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Actually, my colleague wants me to read the list. But I will read a different list, because the key part of the particular motion is "the possible impacts of those changes on agriculture in our province."

As I've stated earlier, agriculture is amazingly diverse. The agriculture industry is amazingly diverse in this province. As I've said earlier, I remember listening to Bill Barlee, the former Agriculture Minister, who once said that we make 74 value-added products from hazelnuts in British Columbia that are grown up the valley in the Agassiz-Kent-Harrison area. Amazing — right? — that we have that kind of diversity amongst a single crop in terms of the products that can be produced.

In British Columbia we grow carrots, beets, gai lan , parsnips and cabbages. We grow turnips, lettuce, radishes and cucumbers — greenhouse and field. We grow tomatoes — hothouse and field. We grow peppers. We grow a range of vegetables. We grow broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi and kale. Let's not forget kale. It never goes stale.

We grow blueberries, apples, pears, peaches, apricots, grapes, strawberries and raspberries. We grow tayberries, loganberries and gooseberries. We grow currants — black, red and white. We grow plums — Italian, damson and Japanese.

We grow flowers. We grow roses.

R. Fleming: Brussels sprouts.

M. Farnworth: Oh, Brussels sprouts. Everybody's favourite vegetable we grow.

We grow grapes — eating grapes and wine grapes. We have the most diverse and important wine industry in the country, and that's something we agree on.

We grow all kinds of apples. We grow Delicious apples — Red and Golden. We grow Ambrosia apples. We grow cherries — sweet cherries and pie cherries. We grow pumpkins and squash.

The diversity of crops in this province is unparalleled anywhere else in the country. So when there is a piece of legislation it behooves us…. And I have not even talked about the four-legged agriculture: beef cattle, dairy cattle, llamas — which my friend from Smithers in Stikine has — chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese and squab pigeons. You name it.

All are agriculture products produced here in British Columbia. One would think that in order to understand the implication of legislation on all of those industries and all of those producers and all of those crops and all of that livestock, the government would have taken the opportunity to talk to those different sectors. Unfortunately, they didn't.

Whether it's corn producers or those who grow silage or sheep or pigs, they look at this particular piece of legislation, and they go: "It's not good. It is a bad bill. It is bad public policy, and it needs to stop."

[1400]

It needs to take the time that's required to ensure that we've got good public policy. It's time to take one final opportunity to say no to Bill 24 and to say yes to this amendment that will allow the government a face-saving way to see the error of its ways.

With that, I can see by the light, and it's about to change…. I have, I think, spouted off enough. I have heckled enough. I have hounded enough. I have articulated enough. I have broached the topic enough. I have needled. I have importuned. I have invoked. And therefore, I think it is time that other colleagues of mine take the floor.

With that, I thank the hon. members for listening to my comments.

D. Donaldson: I can't say I'm happy to take my spot, but I am going to speak to this amendment put forward by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, an amendment to the original motion that we were considering in second reading. The motion I'm speaking to today says:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 24) intituled Agricultural Land Commission (Amendment) Act be amended by deleting all the words following the word 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is not in the best interest of agriculture, food producers, the public, nor those of future generations of British Columbians for the government to change the legislated protection that exists over land in the Agricultural Land Reserve without first determining the possible impacts of those changes to agriculture in our Province.'"

As you will know, this is what is called a reasoned amendment, in the parliamentary procedures book. It's not only a reasoned amendment; it's very reasonable. The reason I say that — I can't say I'm overjoyed to be standing up

[ Page 4437 ]

and speaking to this amendment — is that I am very, very concerned that the government will not vote in favour of this amendment and that the legislation as proposed will be passed using the government's majority.

I'd like to talk a little bit about what we're doing here. This is a reasoned amendment that would make a very valuable contribution to the bill. Earlier we had an amendment where we proposed that the bill be referred to a committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, for further consideration. That was not supported by the members on the government side.

As it turns out, at the end of the speaking I will do to this amendment I will have spoken about an hour and a half on this topic. In my five years in the Legislature I don't believe there has been another topic that I have spoken that thoroughly to, another bill, in such a short time.

We did have the paramedics legislation, and we spoke at length on that one as well, but I believe an hour and a half on this particular bill that I will have undertaken, between the refer-to-committee motion and this reasoned amendment motion, is the longest. It shows how important, from the official opposition side, we believe it is to amend Bill 24 with this reasoned amendment.

What is at the essence, I would say, of this amendment and why we're taking this time in the Legislature to talk about it and talk about Bill 24 overall…. I think what it comes down to and what this reasoned amendment boils down to is that it's a matter of trust.

The original bill was not brought before the public — it's kind of intent — before the election. It wasn't brought before the public. Since the election in May, there has virtually been no consultation done before it was introduced in the Legislature. Now we are presenting this reasoned amendment in order to give a chance for some of that consultation to occur. Again, it comes back to trust, and the government is saying: "Don't worry. This bill is in the best interests of agriculture and of farmers in this province."

[1405]

They are asking the public and they're asking members on this side of the House to trust them on this. Yet there are examples of why one would have some skepticism about trusting the government on this and some history, in the last few months, of government behaviour — why trust might not be at the forefront of anybody's words when it comes to the government's behaviours.

In relation to this amendment, and trust, we had the parks act, Bill 4, introduced by this government, again, just like Bill 24, without any inkling that this was on the government agenda before the election.

Bill 4 gave sole discretion to the Minister of Environment to approve activities in a park, feasibility studies and other industrial activities. That was under the sole jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment, without bringing it to the Legislature. So there was an issue of trust there.

There was the issue of trust around the orders-in-council that was revealed just last month, when it came to legislation — laws made behind closed doors exempting natural gas production facilities from an environmental assessment review process in B.C., with no consultation, again, with First Nations or otherwise.

That was withdrawn, subsequently, because of the uproar, but again, there was a broken trust. This is what this amendment is talking to. It's providing the ability to take a step back so the trust can be regained.

Now we have Bill 24. I want to talk a little bit about why there is, perhaps, a lack of trust and some skepticism when it comes to the government words around: "Don't worry. This is going to be good for farmers." That's why, as I said, we need this amendment to pass, because then it will give the ability to step back and try to regain some of the trust that has been lost.

The main architect…. There are a couple of main architects of the bill, as far as we can determine, and that was the former Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Core Review.

When it comes to trust, I think you have to look at the record and the facts. The facts and the record are that, just recently, post the last election, in midsummer, late summer and then the fall of 2013, a development occurred up in the former Minister of Agriculture's constituency in Peace River North that he was directly advocating for. It was a removal of land from the agricultural land reserve to build rodeo grounds.

It was supported by the former minister, the member for Peace River North, and then after he became Minister of Agriculture, it was still supported, even though the provincial Agricultural Land Commission rejected the application as unacceptable use of valuable farmland.

Subsequently, even though it was rejected, the proponent went ahead and built the rodeo grounds on that piece of valuable farmland — all along supported by the member for Peace River North, the former Minister of Agriculture. In fact, the ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, admonished the former Minister of Agriculture for making what they called inappropriate representations to the Agricultural Land Commission on behalf of the proponent.

This, again, goes back to the amendment, because the government is asking us and the public to trust them on Bill 24 — that it is for the good of agriculture in the province and good for farmers. Yet, we see this kind of behaviour by one of the main proponents of the bill, so that undermines trust, and it points out the real need for endorsing the amendment that's before us, and that is to withdraw this bill until we can get some determination of the impacts it will have to agriculture in our province.

[1410]

The other thing that's concerning and that relates to

[ Page 4438 ]

trust, the trust factor, is that when asked, again, in the fall, around the potential plans for the Agricultural Land Commission…. We were hearing last fall that there were some leaked cabinet documents indicating that the then Minister of Agriculture was proposing to make some changes. Again, if those changes were going to happen and it was on the books last fall, being discussed around the cabinet table, then why wouldn't the government have taken it out to the public and to stakeholders, concerned groups like the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, at that point? They didn't.

The cabinet decision

summary sheet that was reported in the media from the former Minister of Agriculture said: "The Agricultural Land Commission legislative mandate is too narrow to allow decisions that align with the priority for economic development." So this was the then Minister of Agriculture, who is supposed to be the prime proponent of protecting farmland and encouraging farming, and he's advocating, through a cabinet decision

summary sheet, that the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate needs to be changed so that other types of economic development can occur, not agriculture.

Again, this goes back to trust. This is why the amendment before us, the fine amendment from my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, needs to be passed. Then, this motion — or, at least this bill, this idea that the government has around weakening agricultural protection — can be taken to people and really improved, if that's what people in agriculture want to see happen.

Again, going back to trust. The comment, again from last fall, from the Minister for Core Review, who was also advocating quite strongly for changes at that point to the Agricultural Land Commission…. He was quoted in the media as saying: "There is nothing that we would contemplate that would reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve, which is the protection of farmland and the sustainability of farming."

Well, I would put to this House that that's simply not true. The bill before us compromises the protection that we have now for farmland in B.C. It creates two zones: zone 1 and zone 2. As we know, about 8 percent of the land in B.C. is suitable for food production. About 5 percent of that, or four million hectares, is covered under the agricultural land reserve.

A proposal is creating two zones. Zone 2 — which is primarily the rest of the province outside the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and some parts of the Okanagan, and would contain 90 percent of the ALR — will have less protection, and farming will be less of a priority on those ALR lands if this legislation passes. To say, as the Minister for Core Review did, that "nothing we would contemplate would reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve…." The bill defies that statement.

We also know in Bill 24…. This amendment I'm speaking to today would require Bill 24 to be put off until we can determine the possible impacts of the changes to agriculture in our province, again, because there were a couple of other aspects of Bill 24 that really fly in the face of the comments of the Minister for Core Review, and that is the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission.

It's supposed to be an independent tribunal. It is right now. Yet the bill contemplates establishing, by the government, performance indicators by regulation, and we don't know what those performance indicators are. It's meddling in an independent body. That, again, could weaken the ALC and flies in the face….

I'm going back to the trust issue here again. The last part of the trust issue when it comes to the Minister for Core Review's statement has to do with appointments to panels. Under Bill 24, there's more ability for the government to directly appoint people to the Agricultural Land Commission board and regional boards.

[1415]

This, again, flies in the face of the Minister of Core Review's statements in the fall that nothing would "reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve" as stated.

So trust. This is what the amendment is all about. The amendment is about delaying Bill 24, putting it off until we can actually go back out to the people — which was not done by this government — and the stakeholders and see what they have to contribute, what farming organizations have to contribute, in order to rebuild the trust.

Again, we're asked by the government to trust them, that they have the best interests of agriculture at heart with this Bill 24. Yet we note that the former Minister of Agriculture, before he became Minister of Agriculture, used very strong wording regarding the Agricultural Land Commission. We can see where his thoughts are.

This was recently reported in the media: "All we have seen from the Agricultural Land Commission is a complete stall." "Every time I try to contact Mr. Bullock I'm told that he is an arm's-length body and for me to get the hell out of his hair. Who the hell is running our province, anyway?" This is the former Minister of Agriculture.

Subsequent to these comments he was appointed Minister of Agriculture. So we know, when we're asked to trust the government, that the Premier appointed to cabinet a Minister of Agriculture who was hostile towards the Agricultural Land Commission before he even became the minister. I think that these kinds of snippets, these kinds of glimpses into the inner workings of the cabinet and the strategy of the Premier, are really revealing.

I'll go on to quote from the former Minister of Agriculture: "Here's an opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team, but instead, we will ignore it and go out and find some way to give the Indians more money, which doesn't get me one vote. I am getting very

[ Page 4439 ]

tired of this kind of nonsense."

Those are glimpses into the attitude — these are the facts — of the MLA for Peace River North who then became the Minister of Agriculture. The Premier knew, I'm sure — I hope she did, anyway — the attitude of this member before appointing him to cabinet. Yet we're being asked by the government: "Don't worry. Trust us on Bill 24. It's good for agriculture."

I think when we see that kind of evidence, we can understand why there is some skepticism. I mean, it's only natural. A way to counter that skepticism is to endorse and have the government side join us in voting for the amendment that's on the floor. It'll give a chance to determine the possible impacts of the changes that are being contemplated, something that wasn't done thoroughly before the bill was introduced.

Again on the trust factor, we have…. I think it was approximately two years ago that the government arrived at a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission so that when people applied for exemptions of farmland in certain circumstances, they didn't have to go to the Agricultural Land Commission. That authority was delegated to the Oil and Gas Commission through legislation, and that has enabled those farmlands to be exempted and used for industrial purposes.

For instance, a site of up to 20 hectares in the northeast, particularly, can now be used for well site development for natural gas, without going to the Agricultural Land Commission. Yet, again, we are being asked by the government to trust them on Bill 24, and this is the evidence of how they behaved in the past.

I think any reasonable person, when they are willing to give people a second chance…. The government has apologized on numerous occasions for their behaviour. They apologized — three different ministers apologized — for the order-in-council that exempted natural gas plants from the environmental assessment process.

[1420]

The Minister of Environment apologized in this House. I witnessed the Minister of Natural Gas Development apologizing in Moricetown. We know that the former Minister of Agriculture apologized for the comments that he made around First Nations people yesterday. So I know that the government apologizes, and I recognize that.

It's fine to apologize. But again, any reasonable person who looks at actions…. They look at actions. They take apologies, but apologies can only go so far, and actions need to change.

When it comes to trust…. Again, this amendment is about trust. We're offering, through this amendment, the ability for this government to regain trust with those who are concerned about agriculture in this province. I think that it would be a good move on the government side to vote with us and approve this amendment, because it's about building trust.

I'll touch on one final aspect. I know the evidence I've given so far is fairly substantial, and some of the members on the other side don't like that. It's fairly substantial in demonstrating why a person of reasonable mind would not put a lot of trust in the words of the government.

The final piece of evidence I'll talk about today is from May of 2013, when a survey was posed in Country Life in B.C. magazine before the election. The question to each of the parties was: "Will it work with the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not get used for port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development?"

The answer from the Liberal Party that was published is, "Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC" — the Agricultural Land Commission. "Excellent relationship." Well, I just read some quotes from the former Minister of Agriculture and some of the impacts that the government's agenda has had on the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land. I don't think it was necessarily an excellent relationship.

Again, this is a survey that went out. It shows again why there is a lack of trust when the government says: "Don't worry. Bill 24 is about improving agriculture in this province, and it's not about anything else but that."

We're offering this amendment to the motion in order that the possible impacts to the changes in agriculture that Bill 24 would create are able to be discussed further, taken out to stakeholders, taken out to organizations like the B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets — those kinds of bodies.

Finally, I think the body of evidence I was talking about was up to two years until the bill was introduced — the period since 2012 till now. Then we had just the recent example, since the bill has been introduced, which some of my colleagues have referenced, of two ministers, the current Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Core Review, being quoted in the media — and in the House here, in fact — with different stories about what they see as the way Bill 24 would proceed.

One minister said everything could be considered, including removing the bill or withdrawing the bill, and the other minister said that that's never going to happen.

When you have cabinet ministers contradicting themselves publicly, what does that mean about trust? It means they can't get their story straight. It destroys trust. This amendment that we're considering today is a way to improve trust, and we're offering the government a valuable tool to do that with.

We've had a lot of letters from different associations read into the record and presented as we've been debating this bill and trying to get the government to change its mind about driving it through with their majority.

[ Page 4440 ]

But I think today…. It's B.C. Beef Day, as we all know. We enjoyed a barbecue out back with that, and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association was an important part of that event.

Just on May 7 they wrote to the Agriculture Minister. I'll quote from a little bit of their letter, because it is B.C. Beef Day. What better time to quote from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association?

[1425]

They said:

"We fear that these changes will make ranching more vulnerable to other industries and non-farming activities that aren't complementary or reversible to agriculture. We encourage you to take a slow approach with drafting and passing Bill 24."

That's exactly what this amendment is doing. It's offering a slow approach.

"It is difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be from Bill 24 and the amendments you introduced this week. Without more information about what the benefits to agriculture will be or what the changes will mean to our industry, it is very difficult for our directors to support the bill, even with your changes….

"It is our view that much of the uncertainty around the bill could have been avoided by including the agricultural organizations from the early crafting stages."

For instance, last fall when the then Agriculture Minister was taking this to cabinet.

He says:

"At the very least, we should have had information available to share with them.

"We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and the consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community."

Well, this is exactly what the amendment that's on the floor today and that I'm speaking to would do. It would allow further consultation. It wouldn't be the rush job that B.C. Cattlemen's Association is referring to here.

I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, who has many members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association in his constituency — it's next-door to mine; I do as well — referenced to me that they were all in favour of Bill 24 in his constituency. Well, here's a letter from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association directly contradicting that. Again, it goes back to the issue of trust.

We have recently, May 26 — that was just this week — received a letter from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets. This is a very important part of the agriculture sector. They point out that farmers markets are a rapidly growing sector that contributed $113 million in direct sales to B.C.'s economy in 2012, a 147 percent increase from $46 million in 2006.

This government claims they're concerned about economic development and concerned about jobs. They seem to have a sole focus on one sector. Here's a sector that has shown 147 percent increase from 2006, a sector that means jobs in communities like Smithers and Hazelton and other rural communities, a sector that is real and has benefits right now.

They're writing to the Minister of Agriculture, saying that the government should not vote to enact Bill 24 and its amendment, and that changes to the ALR take place in consultation with the agriculture community as a whole.

Pretty strange behaviour, again, if you're saying: "Trust us on Bill 24. Trust us. We're concerned about the economy, and we're concerned about jobs. But in this sector that's grown 147 percent, the farmers market sector in B.C., we don't know what the impacts of Bill 24 will be on that sector."

Why would you not vote for the amendment that we've put in front of the House here today and say: "Let's take a break. Let's take it a little easy. If we're really concerned about the economy and jobs, let's take a step back and actually do some analysis on what Bill 24 will mean to a sector like the B.C. Farmers Markets Association"?

They've got incredible growth, and they're incredibly important in small communities, in small rural communities. I know people, during the farmers market season in the north, the area where….

The Minister for Core Review claims that nobody on this side of the House from zone 2 is speaking against this bill. Well, that's an absolute misleading statement. I am from zone 2, the proposed zone 2, and I am speaking against this bill.

I'm telling you that I know people in the farmers markets in Hazelton and Smithers who, during the short season where they can sell their vegetables and their produce in the farmers market setting, make their entire livelihood for the rest of the year. That's how productive zone 2 can be. This government does not know the impacts of Bill 24 and what they're going to be on the B.C. farmers market sector.

[1430]

This amendment will allow us to step back, will allow the government to step back, and consult with organizations such as that in order to really, really figure out what the eventuality will be if this legislation passes or if we need to amend the legislation.

I want to conclude my comments today by saying: what is the government afraid of? I mean, what are they afraid of? They've got a bill that's getting soundly opposed from all sorts of stakeholder sectors everywhere in the province — north, south, east, west, urban, rural, everywhere. Is it a matter of losing face? We pledge we will not berate the government if they vote for this amendment. We'll say: "Good on ya." We know that you really now want to go out and consult. Vote for this amendment.

What could they be afraid of, and what is the rush? After this debate is over and if the government decides to pursue this agenda with Bill 24, I'm going to be going home. I'm going to be growing my own vegetables. I'm going to be growing my own protein. But others in this province might not be as fortunate, and that is why we are putting this amendment forward to make Bill 24 better.

[ Page 4441 ]

J. Darcy: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this reasoned amendment, because the essence of this amendment from the Member for Surrey-Whalley is to delay passage of this bill so that British Columbians can really be fully consulted. My constituents certainly feel very, very strongly about this. I've been hearing from them from the very beginning, when this bill was first introduced into the Legislature, and I continue to hear from them until this day.

In fact, I've received more e-mails and messages and letters on this issue than on any other issue since I was elected, and the essence of all of them is that this is too important an issue, too critical to our future as a province and to future generations to rush it. Please slow down.

I want to share some of my constituents' comments on this, because they speak very much to the spirit of this amendment. The member who spoke just before me quoted a letter from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets, and I want to begin by referencing a letter that came from the president of our Royal City Farmers Market.

L. Larson: I seek leave just to make an introduction and a thank-you, if that's all right.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Larson: On behalf of the government caucus, I'd like the House to recognize the legislative interns who have been with us this session — Beaudin Bennett, Sarah Griffiths, Simran Lehal, Renae Sinclair and Adam Walter. They've all done great work with the communications and research departments, and we wish them well in their future endeavours.

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: I'm very happy to have allowed those introductions. The interns do a remarkable job for whomever they work for in this Legislature.

I want to go back to…. The first letter I want to read from is from the president of the Royal City Farmers Market. He says:

"We are one of 125 farmers markets in British Columbia. We work with 14 of the 1,000 small-scale farmers who sell at markets all across the province, ensuring that British Columbians will have access to fresh, healthy and local produce and agricultural products. Over 40 years ago the ALR was created to protect our incredibly valuable farmland and ensure that land use decisions for that land were made without political influence or short-term gains."

Again, it's about the future. It's about the big picture. It's about slowing down. He ended his letter with what I found to be a really remarkable statement.

"As British Columbians, we are all connected to the land. Our provincial motto on our coat of arms is splendour without diminishment," he says. "Let's not continue with this recent trend of destroying our lands for short-term gains but, rather, encourage the sustainability of a strong agrarian society, a society that prioritizes feeding its citizens and leaves the valuable ALR land intact for generations to come."

That's from Kevin McConnell, the president of the Royal City Farmers Market.

[1435]

Again, speaking directly to the issue of needing more time, needing to look at the long term, and needing to look at the big picture, Ginny Ayers from the New West Environmental Partners reminds us: "Less than 5 percent of the province's land base is suitable agricultural land, and much less is considered prime agricultural land." She says: "We were reminded in 2010 of this by the Auditor General of British Columbia in his audit of the Agricultural Land Commission." She says: "As we face a fragile future, development of farmland for other uses is unethical." Strong words, but I think she's absolutely right.

She points out, again long term, big picture, encouraging us to think in those ways: "We are already in climate change. The unknown conditions ahead mean that no one today is able to plan accurately how we will adapt, but we can start by making local food security imperative." Then she also reminds us, "Over two-thirds of class 1 to 4 land reserves are in the Peace River region. Agricultural land in the Interior, the north and the Kootenays may become even more crucial to our food security as we experience more changes in the climate and ecosystems."

Then she concludes in the same spirit as this amendment that I'm speaking in favour of: "We ask you to vote against Bill 24 but in particular to provide for more thorough consultation with British Columbians about how to support the Agricultural Land Commission."

Kathleen Somerville from the New West Environmental Partners and the Community Gardening Society says: "Food security is a very important issue. We need to keep the land in the agricultural land reserve saved for growing food and agricultural purposes. Our farmland is a resource that is priceless. Please send a strong message to the Legislature that New Westminster residents oppose the proposed changes." On her behalf and on behalf of other constituents, I'm doing my best to send that message.

Again, a message from someone who says: "Slow down. Put the brakes on. Take a step back." Lesley writes: "It costs money to transport food. People forget that truckers have to buy fuel, and when the price of fuel goes up, so does the price of transporting food and, consequently, the end price to the consumer. Oil is a non-renewable resource which will only increase in price in the future with the potential eventuality of increasing the price of non-local food and increasing everyday living costs for ordinary people."

Again, she says to us: "Imported food is a luxury. The ability to grow food locally is a matter of vital economic security. Take the time to reconsider this." That's the message over and over again.

[ Page 4442 ]

Mr. Laurie Watt writes in that same spirit. "Yes, it's critical to maintain a fully independent Agricultural Land Commission. The Liberal government is, I'm afraid, following the ill-conceived lead of the Harper government in their attempt to remove essential protections from the land, air and water resources that all of us require to survive."

Again, in that same spirit, Ben Birovchak writes: "Unless we Canadians want to depend entirely on foreign food to eat in the future, we have to protect our agricultural land resources."

All of them are talking about long-range perspectives on this issue. I want to so strongly encourage members on the government side to take that step back and do what this writer urges, which is to have a really long-term perspective on the issue. Doreen Kostiniak writes: "I believe that we need to adamantly protect our farmland, especially in the light of continued climate change and global warming. Growing food locally is crucial since we're already seeing price increases for imported food. We need to engage in some long-range seeing."

Jim Cowan writes, same message, "No telling the effects of our food supply when climate change hits California or Mexico or Florida. Our population level is going to continue to rise, yet we're going to sacrifice our farmland? It seems like some kind of madness to me," he concludes.

Antigone Dixon-Warren says, again: "Think about the future. As this amendment proposes, preserving farmland throughout the province for sustainable food production and future generations should be a priority, given the impacts of globalization and climate change."

[1440]

These letters and e-mails came from such a wide array of my constituents, and I really believe they reflect the opinions right across the province saying, as this amendment does: "Slow down. Look at the big picture. Look at the long-range perspective."

Diane Butler from the Downtown Residents Association in New Westminster says: "We should be developing our farmland, and not only that, we need to encourage our education system to teach our young who are not IT bound to learn about feeding the people and the necessity of having farming to feed the world."

Colin Dover writes: "As climate change continues to push viable agriculture north, our already tiny amount of good farmland will be vital to our children and beyond generationally."

The New West Food Policy Council, Maureen Johnson, says: "The population of the Lower Mainland is increasing, and we're all becoming more aware of the health, social and economic benefits of growing and eating locally. Once land, any land, has been removed from the ALR, it can never be replaced. It is our responsibility to preserve this farmland for future generations of British Columbians." Again, looking at the long term and saying: "Slow down. Look at the big picture, as this amendment proposes."

Robert Stevens writes: "Canada, along with many, many of the world's countries, will very soon run out of basic foodstuffs. To feed the present and future populations is already a problem. What will happen if we lose more ability to farm our lands?"

The last message I want to read from my constituents is from Bill Zander, outspoken on many issues, including this one. This is not all the messages that I have received, but all of them underline what my colleagues have said before me and what I know to be the opinions of people right across this province. Bill Zander says: "They are not making any more land, and it's an outrage and a disgrace not to continue to protect our limited farmland for our needs and those of future generations." He's the last of the people who wrote us as individuals or representing particular organizations locally.

I want to finish with this message that came from a constituent who also works for the B.C. Dairy Association and who has very, very strong feelings. His organization, the Dairy Association, is, of course, part of the B.C. Agriculture Council. We've heard many of my colleagues speak to their concerns about this legislation and how they're asking the government to slow down and do the proper consultation. He says:

"In the hasty consultations of past days, the Liberals have refused to relent on the B.C. Agriculture Council's request for maintaining a single zone for the ALR. The B.C. Agriculture Council perspective is that if the proposed factors for zone 2 are not applicable for the entire province, they are not worthy of implementation."

This is from someone who is a director of the Dairy Association, part of the B.C. Agriculture Council.

"If the proposed factors for zone 2 are not applicable for the entire province, they are not worthy of implementation. For this reason, the B.C. Agriculture Council remains firmly opposed to fracturing the ALR into two zones as proposed within Bill 24.

"The B.C. Agriculture Council acknowledges that communities and B.C. farmers and ranchers have unique needs that require individual consultation, and while these needs require unique review, the B.C. Agriculture Council does not support considering those needs above the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate and responsibility to protect and encourage farming of agricultural land.

"The BCAC supports the introduction of new factors for consideration regarding applications, however, but requires the mandate of the ALC as stated in

section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act that it remain the commission's sole priority when considering both the short- and the long-term implications of any application made to the commission."

Finally, he says:

"The B.C. Agriculture Council does not support the removal of agricultural land from the ALR or the development of this land for non-agricultural purposes."

Again, precisely in the spirit of this amendment, this reasoned amendment, to put the brakes on, he says:

[1445]

"The B.C. Agriculture Council is extremely disappointed with the lack of consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24."

I speak to this amendment today — and perhaps it's having some hope beyond hope, but I do so with hope — on behalf of my constituents and many other people

[ Page 4443 ]

who have spoken out across this province, including our farmers. I want to urge the government to seize this opportunity that has been created by this amendment by the member for Surrey-Whalley to slow down, to put the brakes on and to consult with farmers.

But Bill 24 does nothing of the sort. It does not support those farmers. They've said that loudly and clearly. This issue is far too important to move forward with quickly. Let's support this reasoned amendment, put the brakes on and take the time to consult with farmers right across B.C. as we should have done in the first place. Let's take the time to consult with communities right across British Columbia.

D. Eby: I'm glad to see there's a good crowd in the gallery for this debate. This is a very important discussion about the future of farmland in our province, about where we're going to get our food from in the future and making sure that we have food security.

I'm sure that everybody in the gallery knows we're looking at climate change. In California there are very serious droughts threatening food security. Food prices are going up. The price of meat is going up. The price of fish is going up. The price of vegetables is going up. We're all seeing that at the grocery store, and what we're seeing is the impact of a loss of farmland and of climate change that is threatening crops.

That's what our debate is about here today. That's the context that we're working in. But it's also a political issue. Obviously, we're here in the Legislature.

Today was the birthday, actually, of a guy named Harold Steves, who not everybody will know. He's a very important figure in terms of the people who got together and said: "We need to have protections in place to make sure that farmland is available for generations to come in our province."

Harold Steves came from Richmond. He was a cattle farmer. His family were cattle farmers. When he was in this Legislature, he was a strong advocate for farmland and helped put together this agricultural land reserve, which is just what it sounds like. It's a reserve for agricultural land that says that this land is held to make sure it's here for future generations.

Why are we having this discussion about changing the agricultural land reserve? Why are you hearing all of these speeches from this side of the Legislature? This side of the Legislature is the opposition — right? — and that side of the Legislature is the government. Why is nobody on the government side standing up to defend these proposals? Why are you only hearing from the opposition?

It's because the government don't see any point in discussing this. They haven't consulted about these proposals. They haven't gone out into the community to talk about it. They're just putting it through, and they won't even stand up to defend what they're doing here in terms of the agricultural land reserve. So all you're going to hear today is one side of the debate, unfortunately.

Fortunately, we have communications from the government that set out why they're doing this. The official reason…. The member for Kootenay East — we have to refer to people by where they're from rather than using their name in the Legislature — sent an e-mail to the agricultural land reserve expressing his concern about the fact that there are people in his constituency who would like to take land out of the agricultural land reserve, lands that are not suitable for agriculture. In this e-mail he talks about the importance of redefining the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve.

He says in this e-mail, which is a very formal e-mail: "No one up here is trying to undercut the ALR. We just want what we were promised when the ALR was first created — a boundary review to ensure land within the reserve is actually worth 'protecting' for agriculture."

Well, that sounds eminently reasonable. If there are lands that aren't appropriate for agriculture, then why would they be in the agricultural land reserve?

[1450]

The head of the Agricultural Land Commission wrote a report and sent it to the government and responded to this very concern. He said: "I have previously written to you in detail" about the boundary review process. "In the Elk Valley alone we're proposing to exclude approximately 1,400 hectares from the ALR, based on our findings that the identified lands are unsuitable for agricultural pursuits."

Now, those lands are exactly in the constituency of the member for Kootenay East. So that's 1,400 hectares already taken out of the agricultural land reserve.

"The Agricultural Land Commission plans to continue targeted ALR boundary reviews in the Kootenay, Interior and north regions to ensure that only those lands that are both capable and suitable for agriculture are in the ALR."

Well, that's under the existing law. Currently the commission is reviewing. They're looking at this land. They're saying that if it's not suitable for agriculture, then we're going to pull it out. It's happening exactly what the now Minister for Core Review asked for.

What this is really about is not a boundary review. This is about making it easier to use agricultural land for development purposes that are not growing food — to take land out of the reserve and use it for other purposes.

The reason why we know that is because we have an e-mail from the former Minister of Agriculture, the member for Peace River North, who wrote back. I guess he

[ Page 4444 ]

didn't understand who he was writing to when he wrote back his very frank feelings about what this was actually all about. He says, and he's clearly frustrated:

"All we have seen from the ALC is a complete stall. They are not even considering meeting with our board until September or later. Every time I try to contact Mr. Bullock" — that's the head of the Agricultural Land Commission — "I am told that he is an arm's-length body and for me to get the hell out of his hair. Who the hell is running our province anyways?

"Here is an opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team. But instead, we will ignore it and go out and find some way to give the Indians more money, which doesn't get me one vote. I am getting very tired of this kind of nonsense."

Well, speaking of nonsense — speaking of racist nonsense.

What this e-mail tells us is that the former Minister of Agriculture, the member for Peace River North, is not concerned about the boundaries. He's just concerned that he isn't the guy that gets to say: "Okay, pull this land out of the agricultural land reserve. Pull this land out of the agricultural land reserve. I'd like to be the guy. I'm tired of this arm's-length commission telling me to stay out of their hair. I'm sick of that. Who the hell is running this province? I'm running the province. I got elected."

Well, the reason why the commission exists is to avoid this kind of political interference and — something really important — to have an arm's-length commission that looks at the province as a whole and makes decisions about where the land is going to go.

It's very useful to have this e-mail and to have this context for what this is really all about. It's not about boundaries. We get it now.

If there was one person in the province that you would think would be the expert on whether the proposals put forward by the government to change this law that protects agricultural land were going to work, were going to be effective or not, it would be the head of the Agricultural Land Commission.

In fact, in December the head of the Agricultural Land Commission wrote to the government and said: "Hey, thanks for letting me know about your proposals to change the law. Here are my thoughts about what you're suggesting to put forward."

It's a very polite letter. It says: "Thanks. These are challenges that we face. We recognize the challenges that we face. But I have some concerns about what you're putting forward in this proposal." First of all, this change to the law proposes putting in place six different regional panels, instead of one central provincial panel, which is the way the commission's been operating.

So first of all, he says: "If you're going to be running this way, it's going to be very expensive." If you're going to run all of these separate regional panels that are going to make these decisions, it's going to be very inefficient. He says that one of the reasons why the commission works well is that he's able to send people out across the province to visit sites, and he doesn't have to maintain people and salaries in each region of the province. He can send them out as they're needed, as a task force.

In addition, the benefit that he sets out of having a central provincial commission, rather than six separate regional ones, is that decisions can be made in the best interest of the province.

[1455]

He says here, on his concern about regional panels:

"I realize there are some who would take the view that the Agricultural Land Commission" — this is the body that makes decisions about whether or not land can come out of the commission — "would make better decisions if fully regionalized panels made the decision for a particular region. The difficulty I have found with those taking this view, which in my experience is a small but vocal minority, is that they usually equate better decision-making with decisions removing land from the ALR. I have not yet heard it argued that regional panels are necessary to better preserve agricultural land.

"Critics rarely mention the substantial number of applications" — to pull land out of the reserve — "that have been approved. These successful applicants obviously do not complain, although it is noted that the Agricultural Land Commission is often criticized on the other side for granting these very approvals.

"This is the 'turf' on which an independent administrative tribunal must necessarily operate. We can rarely make everybody happy. Given that reality, an honest question has to arise as to whether institutionalizing regional decision-making will actually improve things."

Here's someone who has actually worked with regional panels. He has had regional panels before, and he has reduced the costs of operating this administrative tribunal by centralizing that and also, he says, delivered good decisions, provincial decisions, about what's best for agriculture. Yet this government knows better. This government says: "No. We're going to go to the regional panels anyway. We're not too interested in your feedback on that."

He also goes into detail about…. This is the most important part. The government's proposal will split the province into two separate sections — zone 1 and zone 2 — and the protections for agricultural land will be different for the two different zones.

Here again, the expert…. This is the guy who sees applications every day from people who want to take land out of the agricultural land reserve and use the land for other purposes. Now, the government will tell you: "Well, zone 2 — the land's not as good in zone 2. That's why we have fewer protections in zone 2. The land's not as good. Zone 1 is the really good agricultural land, and zone 2 is not as good, so it doesn't need as many protections."

Here's what the expert says:

"I have heard the view expressed by some that ALR land in what you describe as zone 2 is of lesser agricultural importance…. It is not always appreciated that each and every region of B.C. has prime agricultural land based on agricultural capability classifications and agriculturally suitable lands for specialty crops, forage, extensive agricultural uses and non-soil-bound agricultural endeavours."

He says that "the best policy is based on reality," not on rhetoric that zone 1 is the good land and that zone 2 is the bad land. The best policy is based on reality.

He crunches the numbers, and he says:

[ Page 4445 ]

"This data shows it is not correct to suggest that the Kootenays, the north and the Interior possess, as regions, lesser agricultural lands. In reality, the large majority of good agricultural lands in B.C. are in these regions."

Here's the expert saying that the large majority of good agricultural lands in B.C. are in the exact regions where the government is proposing to reduce the protections for agricultural land.

He also notes the obvious trends that we all see — that land is getting more expensive in the south, that more people are living in the Metro Vancouver area, in zone 1 areas, and that the price of land is going up. There's increased speculation, and there's increased pressure on the agricultural land reserve to pull land out for things like subdivisions, for various uses.

Because the cost of land is going up, if you want to get into farming, it makes sense that people are going to start looking north. He's saying that what the agricultural land reserve has been doing is a good job of protecting land in the north where land is a little bit cheaper. If you want to get into farming, you're going to be able to get into it.

It isn't something that they've just made up. They've thought very carefully about the future of the province and the future of agricultural land. He says:

"It is understood that the majority of B.C.'s population growth will continue in the southwest. Pressures to convert agricultural land to accommodate urban growth will continue, as will the pressures on farmers to change or stop certain agricultural practices."

[1500]

I took an agricultural law course in my undergrad, and the prof at the front of the room asked: "Are there any farmers in the room?" A couple of people put up their hands. He said: "What is the worst kind of neighbour for a farmer to have?" They said: "Easy. City people." Right?

That was a shock to me as a city person, because I thought I'd be a pretty good neighbour. But the issue is that a lot of farm practices are loud, smelly and noisy, so when you have a residential population living beside a farm, there's a lot of pressure on farmers to change their practices. So they stop doing things that bother people in the homes that live right next to the agricultural lands. As urban growth continues, there will be more and more pressure on farmers.

He says, "I envision that appropriately transferable agricultural enterprises may look northward," but they will only do that if the opportunity exists — that is, if the land is there. "Now is the time to consider the potential future agricultural role of northeast B.C. Also, it is timely to consider the potential economic opportunities for agriculture in the years ahead, given this huge land base and its proximity to northern transportation routes to Asia."

You might think to yourself: "Gosh, Asia. That seems really far away. Why would we be exporting food? It seems like we import a lot of food from Asia right now." But there's a larger global context that's taking place right now around food as well. There's something which those in the gallery and those watching at home and the members opposite may not have heard of. There's a global phenomenon taking place right now. It's something called land grabbing.

What that is, is large investment companies buying up large amounts of agricultural land around the world in order to grow crops on it, especially for biofuels. It's driving up the cost of the land, and the land is being used not to grow food but to grow fuel.

There's a professor at UNBC in Prince George that has done a lot of work on this. He e-mailed me when I asked him for some details. He said: "There's between 150 million and 200 million hectares of land around the world acquired by corporations, institutional investors and governments or their sovereign wealth funds since 2006." Those figures come from the World Bank and Oxfam.

World food prices during the global food crisis of 2007-2008 — wheat prices doubled, and rice prices tripled. When you're looking at a global context like that, where people are grabbing up land as investments because they recognize the huge future value of these lands, why is B.C., at that exact moment, weakening our protections for agricultural land and weakening what the head of the Agricultural Land Commission has identified as a potential opportunity for export to countries in Asia, to respond to that crisis, especially in light of climate change?

Now, there's another reason that the head of the Agricultural Land Commission sets out to say: "Please don't divide the province into two different zones. Please don't do this." The other reason is that it creates a division, and an unnecessary division, between farmers. It says:

"It's not difficult to anticipate the equity arguments that will be made by those in the have-not region, who feel they were excluded from the 'rights' given to others whose land is not qualitatively different.

"This is another reason for dealing with 'unsuitable' agricultural land directly by way of boundary reviews throughout the province. To balkanize the land reserve is unlikely to create more harmony among farmers and ranchers."

What he's saying here is this is going to create a race to the bottom. If you reduce the protections in zone 2 and zone 1 has higher protections, and I'm a farmer in zone 1 who would like to sell my land to someone but I can't because the people who want to buy it want to use it for development, they say: "Well, why are you treating me differently than the guys in zone 2? This isn't fair."

So the government will be under a great deal of pressure to change the rules for zone 1, as well, so that they match, so it's fair treatment for all farmers across the province. Then you'll have the discussion again with zone 2. They'll say: "Well, I thought that our land was less valuable, so if those are the protections in zone 1, we need slightly lesser protections." Before you know it, we're in a race to the bottom. This bill is going to take us a long way there.

The last piece that the head of the Agricultural Land

[ Page 4446 ]

Commission expresses concern about…. There's a set of conditions that the Agricultural Land Commission must consider in deciding whether or not land comes out of the reserve or stays in the reserve. These are the rules that'll be different between zone 1 and zone 2.

[1505]

He says that the reduced restrictions in zone 2 that'll make it easier to pull the land out are problematic, and here's why.

"I expect you would agree that at this very important moment in time the Agricultural Land Commission should be encouraged in its efforts to strive for decision-making that is more consistent, more predictable and more transparent. However, if these new factors are added to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, I anticipate, over and above concerns related to the preservation of agricultural land, allegations of inconsistent decision-making will be magnified, particularly if combined with the regional panel structure.

"It is easy to foresee critics arguing that while regional panel decision-making may properly take regional differences into account, decision-making should be consistent across the province on matters where regional differences are irrelevant."

He says that you've got these new factors that require

interpretation. You're dividing the province up into six parts. Each of these six parts of the province are going to be making different decisions, so it's just a matter of time before, on the cover of the Province or on the cover of the Vancouver Sun , you see one farm that gets approval to be removed from the Agricultural Land Commission and right beside it another farm that looks identical — the exact same kind of land, the same kind of operation — doesn't get approval. It will discredit the Agricultural Land Commission.

More than that, it will cause speculation. If I'm a developer and I'd like to build a rodeo or an RV park — or whatever the proposal is; you've probably heard all kinds of them in the media — maybe I'll take a chance on buying agricultural reserve land. Maybe I'll be able to make the case now, under these new reduced rules, that I'll be able to take that land out of the agricultural land reserve.

This speculation drives up the cost of farmland, making it more and more difficult for young farmers to get into this industry. Every young farmer needs just one thing to get started, and that's land.

I think probably, though, the most important part of the letter from the Agricultural Land Commission head, whose name is Richard Bullock, is his conclusion. The reason the conclusion is so important is because he says: "Look, there are probably ways…." No, he says that there are definitely ways that we can improve the legislation, but the only way that that can happen is with in-depth consultation and discussion with stakeholders.

The people in the gallery may not know this, but this government does know how to do consultation. On the Water Act reforms, the government spent two years going across the province. They set up a website where people could file submissions. They made amendments and changes. They had discussion papers. They had industry and environmental groups and community members coming together and sharing their feedback.

At the end of the day, it wasn't perfect legislation, but everybody in this Legislature stood to support that bill. We all voted together in favour of that bill, and that was because of the consultation that was done.

When it came to the apology that we made just the other day to the Chinese community for the head tax, for the racist laws that were passed in this Legislature, the government went out, the opposition went out, and we met with groups, and we talked with people. "What will make a meaningful apology? What exactly should be in this apology? What are the pieces that you're going to be looking for in order to be satisfied?" Everybody worked together in this House to make that happen.

These things can happen, and they do happen.

Here you have the agricultural land reserve, which has been around for 40 years, all parties. I mean, this has survived parties — Social Credit, B.C. Liberal, NDP — who have all supported the agricultural land reserve, and now the government would like to change it. Surely, surely there is time, after 40 years, to take the necessary time to consult. But that is not happening.

Mr. Bullock had just one final point. I'm going to read from his letter because it's really important to know what the head of the commission right now says will work best.

"I will make just one final point, which is about the importance of in-depth consultation and discussion with stakeholders. As you know, recent media reports have revealed serious concern with regard to the consultation issue. I know from my own experience that consultation is critical to ensuring change is both well informed and accepted.

[1510]

"To this end, my experience is that key stakeholders include local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association" — who were here today in the Legislature — "the B.C. Fruit Growers Association and the B.C. Food Systems Network, to name a few.

"As you reflect on this letter, and in your own thinking regarding these issues, we also invite you to consult with the Agricultural Land Commission, as we do have considerable experience, expertise and data which we believe can only assist in the policy process."

This man sat down and wrote a thoughtful 11-page letter about the government's proposal, concluding: please go out and consult. Yet when we had a motion here on consultation, the government voted against it.

Not only that, at the end of the day today they have already passed a motion that invokes something called closure, which is the end of debate on this. They're going to shut it down no matter where we are in the process, and they're going to pass everything at once. If you stick around, you'll see it. But I don't blame you if you don't, because it will be a sad moment.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

When you look at the suggestion from the Agricultural Land Commission about who should be consulted, the Union of B.C. Municipalities said they've reviewed the

[ Page 4447 ]

legislative amendments. They said they're looking for future consultation with the province on this matter. It hasn't happened.

I don't see much point in going through the whole list, but there is a whole list of organizations that have been seeking consultation with the government because they have suggestions and feedback on how to improve this law, and the government is not going to do that consultation. So I won't waste anybody's time with that.

Hon. Speaker, I'll say to you and to the members opposite and to the people in the gallery, as MLAs we get letters and e-mails from people. It is an unusual situation to get, as an opposition MLA, 267 e-mails on an issue, but I got 267 e-mails on this agricultural land reserve issue. So 267 people took time out of their day to pay attention to a relatively obscure…. I see the Minister of Agriculture. I'm sure he has received many, many times that number of e-mails. They took time out of their day to express concern about these proposals.

"I'm gravely concerned by Bill 24. This bill proposes fundamental changes to the ALR that could result in the permanent loss of protected B.C. farmland" — Steven Phillips.

"Dear Mr. Eby:

"I recently received an e-mail regarding Bill 24. Coincidentally, the very day I read this e-mail, I'd been on a transit bus from the Tsawwassen ferry heading home to Vancouver from a weekend on the Gulf Islands. In passing, I looked at the fields and guessed as to what they might be growing and realized what a privilege it was to live in a city that had farmlands not too far away and that at least some of our food could be locally produced.

"From what I understand, Bill 24 would allow the destruction of farmlands in a different area of our province to allow for construction. That seems so wrong.

"Linda Campbell

"P.S. My reluctance in the past to write to any Member of Parliament or politician has been the feeling that it would fall on deaf ears. Hopefully, with the hopeful addition of many other people also concerned, this may be of some good."

One of the biggest concerns and one of the biggest reasons why I'm standing to support this amendment is the growth in the local food industry across the province and the threat to that new industry that is growing up in British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, I don't know about you and the members opposite and the people in the gallery, if you've been to a farmers' market lately, but if you have, you wouldn't be alone.

There are startling statistics about the growth of farmers markets. In Vancouver alone, total vendor sales are $7.1 million, and the total economic benefit to the economy is $14 million. But it's not just Vancouver; it's across the province — 33 markets across the province. I went to an amazing farmers market in Terrace, B.C.

In this

article in the Vancouver Sun which came out in July, they did a survey of almost 10,000 people at 33 farmers markets across the province. The manager of the Squamish market talks about the explosion of interest in local food and how many people are seeking out food that's grown in their community by local farmers on B.C. agricultural land. "I started managing this market six years ago when it was very small and simple, maybe 12 vendors. Now we're full, with 62 vendors, and we have a waiting list. There's a lot more quality and a lot more local support for independent business ventures."

[1515]

Now, this survey said that across B.C., the economic benefits of all farmers markets in B.C. in 2012 — that was two years ago — was greater than $170 million. That's a 147 percent increase from a similar study done just six years before that.

There's been a 62 percent increase in the number of farmers markets across the province. The Squamish market is responsible for $1.8 million in economic activity in that community. The growth has been huge. In this survey of 9,800 people, 20 percent said it was their first time going to a farmers market.

Just to finish this thought off, the one threat that was identified, the single threat to this remarkable growth in this industry in British Columbia has been the fear of a lack of farmers and a lack of vendors. The author of the study said: "As demand for local food increases, it places more importance on the protection of the agricultural land base."

Yet at this exact moment when there's more importance on the protection of the agricultural land base, that is the moment we are choosing to reduce the protections for the agricultural land base in British Columbia.

I see the green light, which means that I've got just a minute or so left.

Deputy Speaker: Actually, zero seconds.

D. Eby: I've got zero seconds left. I have so much to say about this.

I thank you very much for listening.

S. Robinson: I seek leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

S. Robinson: I have a petition in my hands here with 6,600 signatures.

"As parents and grandparents of children in the B.C. public education system, we want you to know that we are standing alongside our teachers in this difficult time. As parents and as a collective, we believe in supporting teachers as they fight for workable class size and composition, safe working conditions for teachers and students, support for kids with special needs, fair pay for teachers, a government that prioritizes quality education, bargaining rights for teachers, the right to do their jobs and to enjoy them so that our kids learn and thrive in an environment that supports them."

[ Page 4448 ]

Debate Continued

V. Huntington: I'd like to say that I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to the reasoned amendment. However, I have to say I'm pained to have to speak to any aspect of Bill 24, reasoned amendment or not, because I believe that Bill 24 will have real and long-reaching impacts on agriculture in this province.

Why the government would consider such a change to such longstanding policy is difficult to understand, especially since they've not canvassed the farming community or the public or local government on what we can expect over the long term. That's why this amendment is so important.

I live in a region that is under constant pressure from other forms of development on agricultural land. I'd like to tell the House what they can expect and what the other regions and communities in this province can expect as other forms of development begin to occur on the agricultural land in their areas.

Let's talk about what happens when agricultural land is opened up to other developments and why this amendment becomes so important to our future and to the future of the land in this province.

When other uses begin to attack the agricultural land or are permitted on agricultural land, the first thing that starts to happen is that the hard edge of the ALR boundary starts to melt away. People become confused about where that boundary is. They become confused about what that boundary really means. They begin to think that the boundary becomes flexible, that it's not important, that it is something that can be toyed with at whim.

I'll tell you something else. The developers start to redefine what the edge of that boundary ought to be to suit their own needs. I'll give the House a perfect example. The Emerson group has optioned 260 hectares — no, it's optioned way more than that — in Delta. It's off one farmer alone, who has been offered $66 million for his land — all of this to promote industrial development next to the port.

[1520]

What did that developer tell me about the development and how it would impact the ALR? He said: "It would create a perfect hard edge. We'll develop between Deltaport Way and Highway 17, and those are perfect hard edges for industrial development within the region. It won't impact the ALR at all. We'll just redefine those boundaries." Well, if that isn't self-interest and money talking and nothing else, I don't know what is.

The second thing that starts to happen is that edge planning becomes incredibly difficult. You might ask what edge planning is. Well, it's that little strip of land that separates the farmer from the residential or the commercial or the industrial uses of the land. It's that hedgerow. It's that laneway. It's the buffer zone between the two uses.

But when you start to introduce new uses onto that land, who's expected to create the edge planning? Who's expected to provide the land to create the edge? That's the problem we have. All the regional districts, all the municipalities and the ministry itself have agricultural plans that speak to edge planning. Well, you can't edge-plan after the fact because nobody wants to give up their land.

In the case of a local government that's looking for a rezoning, you can rezone the land and get that edge from a developer, but in this case when you're excluding land from the ALR, you don't have to rezone it. You're not required to give up land for an edge planning. The Agricultural Land Commission can give you some requirements, some expectations, but the argument about who is responsible for creating that edge is what is always before the planner.

Another thing that starts to happen in most of the agricultural communities that practice hunting…. I will say that I've chaired the hunting advisory committee in Delta for many years. It's not well known. We don't think about the sport of hunting or hunting to control predators or to control waterfowl population.

It's critical on agricultural lands. The province has even stepped in on the Lower Mainland with municipalities that have tried to ban the discharge of firearms. The Minister of Agriculture and FLNRO step in, and they say, "No, we need to have the ability to regulate the population of waterfowl. We will not let you stop the discharge of firearms," in our municipalities. But what starts to happen is, as residential development and as commercial and industrial development move in, all of a sudden hunting becomes incredibly fractured and difficult.

People complain about the killing. Well, most people would. The reality is that it's a necessity on some of these lands, but you can't then discharge your firearm 150 metres from a home or a building or a commercial operation. You can't fire from the dike. You can't do this. You can't do that. So all of a sudden that very important element of sporting — which I don't agree with but which I will defend, particularly in a community like Delta because of the necessity to control that waterfowl population — hunting and the inability to hunt suddenly become very, very important. Why? Because it's an impact of non-farm use on agricultural lands.

Another thing that starts to happen is that the pressure on the land increases, and the cost of land starts to rise. The farmers, as a source of income, start to sell off the smaller parcels, and all of a sudden you're starting to see large homes all over what used to be pristine agricultural land.

So you suddenly have a landscape that is becoming chopped up, and it's impossible, then, for large-scale agriculture to continue. It impedes the industrial development of agriculture, and it doesn't assist in the environmental needs and qualities of the land, particularly in areas like Delta South, where the agricultural capacity, the productive capacity of agricultural land is absolutely critical to the survival of an international migratory

[ Page 4449 ]

flyway.

As these pressures start to mount on the land, all of these environmental qualities start to disappear. Where you once had the environment and agriculture struggling to live in balance, all of a sudden the balance is starting to tip.

[1525]

It tips not in favour of agriculture, and it tips not in favour of the environment. It starts to tip in favour of the non-farm uses, and you see the productive uses of that land starting to crumble around us. The smaller parcels start to develop as hobby lands, and then the tax base becomes affected within the municipality. Again, large-scale production becomes almost impossible on the land.

What I fear, as you start to create more and more development, is that on the land in zone 1 on the Lower Mainland you'll start to see the farm-gate receipts go down, and all of a sudden the province will start to say: "Well, it's not a productive area of the land. That isn't the best soil in the world other than the Nile Valley."

This province should be taking a look at the lands on the delta of the Fraser River. That land is the best soil in the world, subject only to the Nile Valley. We should be honouring, preserving that land for agricultural production. We should not be making it possible and easier for non-farm uses to develop on that land.

What happens is you start getting residential development, commercial and industrial development in proximity to farmland. You start to get the complaints. "We don't like the smells." "We don't like the noise." "We don't want the dust." "We don't like the greenhouse lights." "We don't want the blueberry cannons." Now, these are all legitimate farm practices, but farmers are then forced to consider compromises. Although often the province will step in and say: "No, that's a right to farm. That's a use that falls under the Right to Farm Act, and they don't have to compromise."

The very land that has been taken out of the ALR or has developed around an agricultural function becomes a nuisance not only to the people now moving in against that farmland; it becomes a problem for the farmer himself.

When you speak about noise, a farmer who has a pea crop times the harvest of that crop down to the minute, and if that crop is ready to harvest at 2:30 in the morning, that's when that equipment goes in, and that's when the noise starts. In a community like Delta neither the municipal government nor my office will support complaints from the residences along the farmland areas.

But sometimes there comes a point where you literally have to step in and say, "Look, we have a problem with blueberry cannons. You have to help us to deal with this," because there is no compromise coming from the farmer who feels, legitimately, that he doesn't have to compromise.

Proximity becomes an incredibly important thing, and here we are with a bill allowing this proximity, these intrusions into agricultural uses, to take place legally. We're opening up farmland for intrusions from non-farm uses, and it's going to result in nothing over time but difficulty for the farmer and for the individuals using the land for non-farm uses.

Legitimate farmers begin to resent the intrusions far more than they would have initially thought. In my riding alone, since I've been on council — what? — in the last 15 or 20 years, two new highways have gone in south Delta alone. Can you imagine what that does to large-scale agricultural production? Can you imagine what that does to the soul of a farming family who sees their land being taken?

You can develop all of the irrigation mitigation that you want. The government is fond of saying that it's the finest mitigation project ever undertaken. The fact is that there was no choice, and it was what the province had to do in order to keep the farming community alive and well, especially in east Delta.

Farmers start to experience theft from their crops, something that doesn't happen when you're living solely in an agricultural community.

The movement of farm equipment is compromised, and suddenly you see new small roads going up through farmland so that they can move their equipment off the highways. Washington State requires and allows farm equipment to run on their highways, and they require traffic to respect it. Does British Columbia? No. So the municipalities have to find some other way and mode for that farm equipment to move through the land and to not be compromised by frustrated motorists who haven't the patience to wait for the equipment.

[1530]

One of the most important issues that arises in proximity, that concerns the legitimate farmer by intrusion into agricultural areas, is the contamination of crops. Why doesn't the Trans Canada Trail go through Delta? Why doesn't the Trans Canada Trail follow the Boundary Bay linear parkway dike system? Because Delta refused to allow it to go there.

Why? Because the farmers were so concerned about an invitation that brought strangers into a farming community, who could potentially contaminate their crops which lie right up against that trail, that they fought long and hard to forbid the Boundary Bay dike system from becoming the Trans Canada Trail. Instead of going through the Boundary Bay and out to Tsawwassen, that trail now goes out, somehow, through to Horseshoe Bay.

So this amendment is critically important.

The last thing I would like to talk about is the pressure on the land as you allow development for non-farm uses to start to occur. The costs of that land are driven up. They're driven up high enough that the costs of the land are higher than the productive value of the land. That's when you start to see agriculture collapse in the region,

[ Page 4450 ]

and that's happening in south Delta today.

It's happening with the help of the province, which is selling land in south Delta right now at market value when it knows that the farmers can't afford to purchase it. They're just letting it rest there until some developer can come along and hold it for speculative value.

I have written both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources to tell them of this problem and to suggest that, in the case of Delta South and the 11 parcels that are being sold there right now by the Crown, they have to make an exception. They have to look at this problem.

The pioneer farming families that are trying to buy that land have been unable to purchase it. We thought we had a purchase in the making, but an error had occurred on the offer and they couldn't go through with it. That farming family is one of the very few in Delta that has a second generation — well, no, it's a fifth generation — coming along to farm that very land. They are a pioneering farming family, and they have told me now that they are going to have to look at Vancouver Island and Sumas.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: I don't know what's so funny, Mr. Speaker, but I'm finding it disconcerting.

If I can do anything right now, with the two ministers sitting in this House, it's to have them look at whether or not the policy to sell provincial land at market value can be flexible enough to permit them to sell the agricultural land in Delta, in south Delta, to farming families who want to buy it and who cannot afford it at market value.

The values are around $160,000 an acre. They can afford up to $35,000 or $40,000 an acre, if that — a legitimate farming family and not somebody who has farms all over the province. These are people that haven't had their land optioned. These are people that want to stay on the land. These are people that want to farm their land and want to continue the tradition of their pioneers that built the dikes in Delta.

I just suggest to the ministers that I really hope that they look at this issue. It's incredibly important. Yes, sell land elsewhere at market value. I understand that. But to sell it at market value in south Delta is a travesty, and it's making it impossible for the legitimate farming community to enter into the offer.

With that, I will say that I believe this amendment is terribly important. The impacts that will result over time on the intrusions of non-farm uses into the agricultural zones will be real, they will be lasting, and they will be impossible to fix after the fact. So I encourage the government to consider adopting this amendment.

S. Robinson: I am taking my place in this debate on this amendment because I think it's just plain bad policy to make a decision without consulting and without fully understanding the implications of our decision.

[1535]

The actual amendment asks that we consider substituting words after the word "that" with "it is not in the best interests of agriculture, food producers, the public, nor those future generations of British Columbians for the government to change the legislated protection that exists over land in the Agricultural Land Reserve without first determining the possible impacts of those changes to agriculture in our Province."

It's those last few words that really catch my attention, because we need to understand what the full implications are of any decision that gets made in this House. I don't think that this government or any of us in this House understand the full implications.

I also think that understanding the context is part of what's really important. We have a long history of protecting agricultural land in this province, and 80 percent of British Columbians value the ALR. We know that climate change is a reality, and we need to be prepared for the future.

There has been no consultation whatsoever on this policy with the people whose lives it will most impact, British Columbians all over. I heard my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey speaking to the number of e-mails that he's received, and I, too, have been surprised at the volume of e-mails I'm receiving. I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture has been inundated.

There's been no proper consultation, so people are trying to find ways to let us know how they feel about this major policy change. Of course, the development of the proposed legislation — it comes out now, this week, that it was done in an underhanded, backroom kind of way.

When you have those kinds of policies that come forward in this way, no wonder the electorate is sort of jaded and not participating in democracy. We wring our hands about it all the time, but when we do this kind of decision-making that doesn't respect the electorate, why would voting matter?

I think we need to go back. I think we need to recognize that the 40-year history of this piece of legislation has real value. I am very thankful that previous governments recognized the long-term vision. I think it took tremendous courage for that government to do what it needed to do.

I heard the member for Vancouver–Point Grey acknowledge, in particular, the work of Harold Steves back in the '70s. I have tremendous gratitude and respect for this gentleman, who currently sits on Richmond council. He was one of the driving forces behind the ALR.

Well, today happens to be his birthday, so happy birthday, Harold. I am so sorry that this is what we are debating on your birthday.

I know, for him, this is breaking his heart, as it is for many other people who've certainly worked to bring this vision to fruition, only to see it, 40 years later, start to disintegrate before their eyes.

[ Page 4451 ]

I have a number of questions that I do want to get on the record. I think, if this amendment were to be supported, these are the kinds of questions that government would need to be looking at.

I want to acknowledge Joan Sawicki. She sent some questions on, and I thought: "I want to get these into the record because they're questions I have as well." If members of the House aren't familiar with who she is, she worked at the Land Commission during its inception, from 1973 to 1981. She's a former MLA; Speaker; and Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. She's currently a land use consultant living in Stuie, in the Bella Coola Valley.

Some of the questions that she raised that I'm really very interested in…. If we are going to really act on changing this piece of legislation, if we're going to enact Bill 24, we need to really understand what the impacts are, and we need to understand what the context is for why we're even bringing these changes around in the first place.

The first question I have, because I know this came from the Minister for Core Review: where is the core review analysis that supports that the ALR and the ALC need changing? There hasn't been a really cogent argument made for why we're even doing this. The provisions of Bill 24 will fix what? That's not even clear. What's perceived to be broken? What did the core review look at it? What are the results, and is there a report? I would love to see the report that the core review did that said: "This is where this falls apart."

Now, what about if the government can point out where the ALC has not been responsive to its directives? I'd like to see some evidence that says: "This is where the ALC screwed up. This is why we need to do all this. The ALC had these opportunities, and they didn't act the way they were supposed to."

[1540]

I don't know if there have been any attempts made to discuss any misunderstanding about the directives. I want to know if they can point out any of the chair's recommendations that are in Bill 24. I'd really like to understand that. I haven't heard anything, certainly, from that side of the House. It would be really lovely to hear some of that information here.

Other questions have come to mind about this. When it comes to the boundary fine-tuning issues that have been raised, I really would like to know. I'd like to ask: what are the remaining problems? Over the years there have been challenges, and they have been addressed one at a time, one after the other. So where are the remaining problems? Are they going to provide funding for the ALC to review these boundaries? Is it a funding issue? And what provisions of Bill 24 will help encourage young farmers and how?

If anything, this piece of proposed legislation just invites a whole lot of questions, questions that I think certainly everyone in this House should know what the answers are before we actually vote. Before there's actually a decision to enact it, we should understand the full implications. This amendment is just that. What are the implications of this piece of legislation so that we are fully informed?

I know there's been talk of flexibility and farm-related businesses. Again, where is the evidence that the ALC has not been responsive to this? There's certainly some comment being made from the government side of the House that the ALC is somehow failing, but they haven't presented any evidence to this. I would like to find out from the ALC, and I'd like to find out exactly what the challenges have been. I think government needs to provide some more information that makes it more tangible, helps us to understand exactly what the issues are.

I do recognize that when you create a system from 40 years ago, it might need a bit of tweaking. I fully appreciate that. Anything that is 40 years old needs a bit of tweaking, just like the rest of us. I can understand that. But I want to know exactly what the issue has been for this government that hasn't been working. What is it exactly?

When I think about the fact that 80 percent of British Columbians consider it unacceptable to remove land from the ALR, I think, okay. How am I going to check in with people from the suburbs? I come from the suburbs. Most people from the suburbs get their food from Thrifty Foods, Safeway, Save-On-Foods, their own little garden plot maybe. So I thought that I will speak with some of my constituents.

I had an opportunity to go to the farmers market the last two Sundays. It's a well-loved asset in my community now. I think it's been going on nine years, nine or ten years. I got to set up a little booth. I thought: "Okay, I'm going to have to do a lot of work explaining the ALR and the ALC for city folk." I was blown away. I didn't get a chance to go to the bathroom for four hours on each of those Sundays, because people were coming one after the other to sign a petition.

They knew exactly what was going on. They knew that their farmland throughout the province was put at risk. They like to eat local. They don't want imported strawberries from Chile that are this big and mostly red, that when you bite into them are hollow and taste like nothing. They want those tiny, sweet juicy little strawberries. They know that those are local strawberries. They are worried for their children and their grandchildren and their children's grandchildren, that they won't know what those taste like if this legislation goes through. That is what they are worried about.

My experience, when I was at this farmers market…. I had people coming to me and saying, "This is unacceptable. Where do I sign?" — people that I didn't think would have one idea about the agricultural land reserve.

Then I thought: "Okay, some of these new Canadians

[ Page 4452 ]

might not have any idea about it." I mean, some of these older folks remember when it came into being, and they've been around a long time. I thought: "Okay, maybe some of these new immigrants won't understand." But they got it. To them it was really basic. Of course you want to protect farmland. How are we going to eat?

[1545]

Then I thought: "Well, maybe our young people — they won't really have an appreciation, because they are just really here to go to the baking table. They're really not interested in the fruits and vegetables." But they certainly had lots to say.

Needless to say, I was able to collect hundreds of signatures in a very short period of time, and what I learned was that I completely underestimated my own constituents around their connection to the land and to the ability to grow our own food.

It's for that reason that I'd like to just put on the record an opinion piece that was written by Joan Sawicki, and I think she's done such a fabulous job of capturing why we ought to be supporting this amendment.

"Since the introduction of Bill 24, it has become clear that government either does not understand the potential negative impact of its actions upon agricultural land preservation, farms and farming communities or knows exactly what it's doing but isn't being upfront about it.

"The rationale for Bill 24 keeps changing, likely a direct result of the effectiveness with which British Columbians and the legislative opposition have discredited its every aspect.

"First, government said it was about shorter growing seasons in northern British Columbia and too much marginal land in the ALR, much of it forested. It took a substantive letter from a group of soil scientists and professional agrologists to explain that northern lands can be highly productive for specific crops and that the land's ability to support agriculture has nothing do with the present land use."

Her letter goes on, but I'm just going to jump ahead to a couple of little comments that she makes here. She says:

"Over the decades the ALR has proven to be a valuable land use planning tool. There are many instances where the ALC and local government have worked together to contain urban sprawl and ensure a positive environment for farming within the ALR.

"It is noteworthy that three of the five local government associations in B.C. and more than 15 individual municipalities or regional districts have either passed resolutions or submitted letters expressing concern at the lack of consultation or expressing outright opposition to Bill 24.

"I cannot think of another piece of legislation that has been so thoroughly thrashed from every angle as Bill 24. Not only has government not made its case on why these changes are needed or how they will fix what is perceived to be broken, but each rationale the government has offered has been discredited as effectively as the previous rationale.

"With the legislative and public debates of past weeks, Bill 24 has been left without a leg to stand on. Time to put it out of its misery. Either let Bill 24 die on the order paper or pass the opposition amendment to either send it to the Finance Committee for review or, alternatively, support the current amendment that we're debating right now.

"Then let's get back on track and do what government says it is committed to doing: helping today's farmers and safeguarding agricultural land for future generations."

Hon. M. Polak: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: I'd like to introduce members of the Vancouver Foundation and the Fresh Voices Youth Advisory Team. They were here today to meet with the Minister of Education and discuss issues related to immigrant youth and some of the challenges they face.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

G. Heyman: I rise today to speak to the amendment, in favour of the amendment, and when I rose earlier to speak on the motion to refer, I said it was an honour to speak to this issue, because the issue of food security in the agricultural land reserve is so critically important to the future of British Columbians and the future of children, grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.

It saddens me as we discuss, in the final stages, this very important issue and this bill that is only so important because of what it proposes to do — to destroy 40 years of protection of British Columbia's agricultural land, 40 years that is the envy of other jurisdictions around Canada and North America, 40 years of preservation that is unparalleled in many parts of the world that wish they had had the foresight that the NDP government of the 1972-75 period had.

[1550]

I stand to speak about this important issue with so few people in this House to address this issue, to listen to the debate, to take it seriously, to display for the people in the gallery who have come here today to see democracy in action and that anyone actually cares on the government side what is said on the opposition side — any of the evidence that's entered, any of the letters from constituents, any of the studies, any of the history, any of the facts, anything that might make a difference to the food security of the people in the gallery, the people 50 years from now, the people 100 years from now.

Hon. Speaker, I am frustrated today. I am not honoured. I am frustrated. I am disgusted. I am speaking to a motion that says that "it is not in the best interest of agriculture, food producers, the public, nor those of future generations of British Columbians for the government to change the legislated protection that exists over land in the agricultural land reserve without first determining the possible impacts of those changes to agriculture in our province," without first doing the studies, reviewing the studies, commissioning the studies, asking for the studies that would say what the future looks like.

It's not what today looks like, not what the past looks

[ Page 4453 ]

like, but what the future may look like in this era of climate change, in this era of drought down south, in this era of droughts in the southern hemisphere where people are starving. They're fleeing their homes in droves. They're looking for places that they will be able to move to, to have some security in their lives, and that security includes food.

This bill has been brought forward simply because a couple of members on the opposite side — who now, unfortunately, hold influential positions in cabinet — were frustrated because the Agricultural Land Commission didn't move quite quickly enough for them in considering exclusions that in all likelihood were ill-advised in the first place.

The Agricultural Land Commission, in fact, has approved removal of land that was not suitable for agriculture and perhaps was suitable for other uses. But it seems from the exchange of e-mails that was exposed in the Globe and Mail just the other day that for some members, the independent Agricultural Land Commission was too much to stomach, because they don't believe in independent tribunals that look out for the interests of British Columbians. They believe they were elected, and everyone else should jump when they snap their fingers or whistle.

That's not a service to young people. It's not a service to British Columbians. And 100 years from now, when people are trying to figure out how to feed themselves in an era made worse because of so many other decisions we are making — not just in British Columbia but in Canada and in other jurisdictions — that fail to address the issues of climate change, today when we have a chance, people will wonder what we in this chamber in 2014 were thinking of.

They will wonder how we managed to so cloud our brains. As they look back over the record — perhaps they will pick up Hansard — they will listen and pay attention, as so many members of this House are failing to do and so many members opposite are failing to do.

They will read the letters from all of our constituents. They will read the opinions of scientists. They will read the opinions of experts in agriculture. They will read the opinions of people involved in agriculture — whether they are farmers, fruit growers, people who raise cattle — and wonder why the government was so convinced that there was an urgency to change the entire structure that has served British Columbia for 40 years.

[1555]