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)

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M214 — Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014

H. Bains

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

C. James

R. Chouhan

M. Karagianis

S. Hammell

D. Routley

G. Holman

G. Heyman

J. Shin

K. Conroy

J. Kwan

J. Rice

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

K. Corrigan

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

J. Rice

R. Austin

G. Holman

D. Donaldson

J. Kwan

D. Eby

M. Karagianis

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. S. Anton

A. Weaver

K. Conroy

L. Krog

K. Corrigan

C. James

M. Karagianis

J. Kwan

S. Simpson

[ Page 4219 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M214 — MANUFACTURED HOME PARK

TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

H. Bains presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014.

H. Bains: I move that the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, of which notice has been given under my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

H. Bains: The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, amends sections 42 and 44 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.

This bill will accomplish the following: (1) require that the park owner provide 12 months' notice of eviction when redeveloping land under any form of tenancy agreement; (2) require that the park owner at the time of eviction pays a tenant's relocation expenses up to $25,000; and (3) require a park owner to pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their manufactured homes because of local building standards or because their home failed to meet the transportation safety standards, an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as compensation.

It provides protection to one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society: the owners of mobile homes. Currently tenants renting a pad or land in home parks have little protection against eviction for the purposes of development.

This group of people faces unique obstacles and barriers when they face an eviction. Their homes are, in most instances, permanent structures and not movable. If they can be moved, the costs are prohibitive for moving a manufactured home, if you could find another location at all.

Manufactured home owners are frequently older British Columbians who have chosen this as their retirement option. They have worked hard all their lives. They pay their rent, and they keep their homes and surroundings in good repair. They look out for each other.

[1335]

These British Columbians believed they had an arrangement that would allow them some longer-term security for their latter years. The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, will help to ensure that this is the case and, when it is not, will guarantee that they are at least treated with some fairness in terms of their costs and the protection of their assets.

I move that this bill be placed on the order paper of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M214, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate of Bill 24; in Committee A, the continued estimates for the Ministry of Health; and in Committee C, continued estimates for the Ministry of Justice.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

C. James: I am pleased to continue on from my discussion this morning on the motion to refer Bill 24. As we were wrapping up the debate this morning, I was talking about the opportunity that this motion to refer really provided to government — an opportunity, from my perspective, to make a better decision; an opportunity to give the public a chance to have their voices heard.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I was saying, as well, that I really couldn't understand why government was afraid to open up the opportunity for public dialogue and public discussion. It's not only government who has a monopoly on good ideas.

In fact, the public and those impacted by the bill that's coming forward — I'm certain from the letters and the responses that I've been receiving and that I know all members of this House have been receiving and, I'm certain, that the minister has been receiving as well — have lots of good ideas around how to strengthen agriculture in British Columbia, about how to ensure that we build support.

The opportunity to refer really gives the government an opportunity to strengthen the bill, not to weaken the bill. It's not a sign of weakness to

[ Page 4220 ]

have an opportunity to hear from the public. It's not a sign of weakness to give experts the chance to be able to weigh in. And who knows? The government could learn something in that dialogue and discussion.

Certainly, the public having an opportunity to have a say really is a basic tenet of democracy. It's pretty straightforward that you would give the people who elected you a chance to weigh in around major public policy.

That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about major public policy that has survived governments of different political stripes, that has broad public support. Yet here we are having to debate an opportunity for the public to have a say on something so fundamental to British Columbia, to our past, to our present, and certainly, to our future.

I also think that it's important that the government recognize that agricultural land and the issue of agricultural land isn't simply important to people in the region that the agricultural land is in. I think sometimes we see the government writing it off, saying: "You shouldn't have an opportunity to be able to speak on this." Well, in fact, agricultural land is important to all of us.

It's important to the entire province. Everyone deserves an opportunity to be heard, which is why we're here debating the issue of referral.

It matters to people in rural communities — no question — and probably, agriculture is closer in many respects in some rural communities for those people who are on the land, working the land, who have the opportunity to connect. But I think one of the wonderful things that's occurred over the last 20 years is that the importance of agricultural land has grown so that everyone recognizes the importance of agricultural land. It's not simply a rural importance. It's important to urban settings as well.

I'm reminded — as I did this Saturday, as I did the previous Saturday — when I visit my local market in my own community, actually right across the street from this legislative building. There's a market held on the grass at the end of the parking lot, a wonderful farmers market that is not certainly unique to my community — that is common across communities — where people have an opportunity to go and buy local produce from farmers close by in the region.

[1340]

It's interesting to take a look at the expansion that has happened of local markets. There was a study prepared for the University of Northern British Columbia, which showed that market sales from farmers markets rose 147 percent between 2006 and 2012. I mean, that's extraordinary.

If you think of that kind of success in almost anything else, that kind of expansion, government normally would be saying: "Isn't this a wonderful thing? Isn't this a great economic opportunity? Isn't this a great social opportunity?" Yet here we have a government that says: "No, actually, you don't even deserve to be heard on the issue."

Well, I believe that people who work in those local markets, who run those local markets, and people like myself and my family who shop at those local markets deserve to have a voice on a major change on agriculture.

Markets have expanded as well. I think it's interesting to take a look at those markets. It's not simply a couple of stands with vegetables, but you now see the value-added. We talk often in this province about value-added when it comes to something like forestry and how we can expand value-added in forestry — not simply shipping away our raw logs but in fact building and manufacturing and keeping that here.

Well, you see that in agriculture. It's been an extraordinary success story when you look at value-added, everything from jams to breads to granola to baked goods. I mean, you name it. The agriculture industry is a value-added industry. It is an industry that has shown that kind of success, which has been able to keep that kind of economic growth and those kinds of jobs right here in British Columbia.

You see it again in my riding in the opening up of the Hudson market. Again, it's a great success story where an old building that used to be retail now has become living units above, so actual downtown residents, and a local market on the bottom where people are shopping on a regular basis. What a great success story. What a wonderful opportunity.

I believe those individuals should have the opportunity to be able to speak to this bill, to weigh in around changes to agriculture — which is why, again, we're talking about referring the bill to give the opportunity for those people to be able to weigh in.

The expansion of local grocers. It's not simply a market once a week that people can go to. You're also seeing local grocers, grocery stores, the old corner stores from when I was a kid growing up.

There's one right in this neighbourhood — again, around the corner — Niagara Grocery, which was a corner store when I was a kid growing up in this community and now has become a place that sells local produce that is extraordinary. It's a wonderful place where I get my Christmas turkey every year because they bring it in local from the farmers. It's a great place, a great opportunity to be able to show the produce that we have right here on Vancouver Island and to show the strength for it.

Then, of course, there's the whole area of home delivery — all of the places now that deliver a home produce box right to your door. We have the Good Food Box. We have spud.ca here in Victoria where, again, you can order local produce right to your door.

For those who think the issue of agriculture matters simply to farmers or for those who think agriculture simply matters to people who work in the business, I think the government really needs to think again about the number of people who should have the opportunity for a voice on this bill. It certainly has more of an impact than

[ Page 4221 ]

only people who work directly in the industry.

We wouldn't have all of those kinds of wonderful parts of our community that I just talked about, everything from the grocers to the markets to the home delivery, if it wasn't for the protection of farmland. None of that would be part of our community; none of that would be part of the joy and the life and the economic activity that goes on in our community. It's another reason that the issue of agriculture is so important to everyone and why everyone deserves an opportunity to be able to weigh in.

I haven't even talked about the issue of climate change and global warming, which of course impacts agriculture, impacts crops, impacts food production and impacts prices — which, again, is why the issue of agriculture is so important to everyone. It will impact all of us, and those are the kinds of things that need to be discussed before you look at any changes to a bill on agriculture. You need to have those big-picture discussions.

[1345]

This needs not to be a short-term "let's make a decision now, and oh, we'll worry about it later." We'll have a discussion with people later about climate change and how it'll change the prices of produce coming in and things that we're able to produce right here in British Columbia. I mean, wouldn't it be wonderful if in this House we'd spent the last couple of weeks talking about how to improve agriculture and how we could actually strengthen agriculture in this province, instead of having to fight simply to get the public voice to be able to be heard. That's really what we're talking about. It's that straightforward.

I think most people would be shocked to find out that's what the fight is about. The fight is just to give people a voice, just to be able to be heard on something that is so critical.

We're so fortunate in British Columbia. We're so fortunate compared to other areas when it comes to agricultural land. We have a very high proportion of family-owned and independent farms. That's unique to our province. We have a more diverse basket of foods than any other province. Again, that's something unique to British Columbia. We do that in our province with a very small percentage of our land put aside for agricultural land.

I believe that's a critical thing for us to look at before you make changes to an agriculture bill. I believe it's pretty critical for us to weigh that, to take a look at that, to look at how we can strengthen that. Those things don't happen by themselves. You don't see that kind of strength, you don't see the strength of what we're able to produce, and you don't see the strength of family-owned farms without good policy in place. It doesn't happen by itself.

You just need to look at other places and other jurisdictions across this country or around this world to know that protecting agricultural land needs good policy, good regulations and good protections in place. When we have that in British Columbia, why would we change that kind of protection and policy? More importantly, why would we change it without any discussion from the public, without any opportunity for the public voice to be heard?

Now, it doesn't mean that the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land reserve are perfect. It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some changes, that there aren't areas that we can strengthen, that there aren't protections that should be put in place. I believe, for example, that we don't recognize agriculture as a key part of our economy enough here in our province.

We have an opportunity to look at it as a key part of our economy, strengthen support for agriculture and work with the industry to be able to recognize that it is part of a diverse economy in British Columbia that we should be building towards. Yet we don't have that opportunity. Again, we don't have that opportunity because there isn't a chance for the kind of consultation that needs to occur.

It's interesting to take a look at the Auditor General's report from a number of years ago, which pointed out that the government had not been supporting agriculture. In fact, the report in 2010 said: "The commission is challenged to effectively preserve agricultural land and encourage farming in British Columbia." That report also showed cuts to the Agricultural Land Commission, cuts of 28 percent since 2002.

Well, just imagine. If this motion to refer is approved, if this motion passes, we have the opportunity through the Finance Committee to be able to actually hear from the Auditor General, to bring that report forward. Perhaps the government disagrees with that. Perhaps the government would have a different opinion around that Auditor General's report. Well, that's the reason that we're looking at referral, because then you do have the chance for that dialogue. You have a chance to put everything on the table, a chance for all those voices to be heard, a chance for all of that experience to be heard.

Now, there are different kinds of structures in place for the opportunity for consultation. One of them, of course, was the fixed legislative calendar that was brought in by this government. The idea of the fixed legislative calendar…. I'll be honest. There aren't a lot of things I would praise that I've seen the other side bring forward, but certainly the legislative calendar, from my perspective, was a good idea.

[1350]

The premise was that legislation would be introduced in this session, in the spring session that we've just had from February that goes to the end of this week, and that that legislation would be tabled but not necessarily voted on.

If there were opportunities for further dialogue, if people raised concerns about the legislation that was brought forward, if there were opportunities to be able to actually have a discussion and a dialogue and to bring that legislation back in the fall…. It's a chance to say to

[ Page 4222 ]

the public: "Here's the legislation. Go out and have a conversation, have a discussion. Take your opportunity, your democratic right to speak on something, and then we'll bring it back in the fall, and we'll make a final decision."

That, unfortunately, hasn't happened in this case — in fact, just the opposite. The government, when there was an opportunity for consultation — the election campaign — said that they weren't going to make any changes to the Agricultural Land Commission.

So here we are. Here we are in the Legislature fighting for the opportunity for the public to have a say on something. I think it's pretty shocking today that that's the kind of state we're in, where you actually have to fight for the public to have a voice. We were all democratically elected by the public, and they have a right to have a say. That's not happening on this bill. That's not happening at all.

In fact, the minister even said: "We'll do some consultation after the bill has passed." Well, talk about cynical. Why do voters get cynical? They get cynical because they believe that the government has already made a decision, and what's the point of getting involved? The minister basically said that. "We'll make the decision, we'll pass the bill, and then we'll give you an opportunity to be heard."

Well, that's not democracy. Democracy is saying: "We brought this forward. We're going to stand up for this bill and give the public an opportunity to have their say."

I will be voting in favour of the referral motion. I believe it is the opportunity to be able to give the public a voice.

Hon. S. Thomson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Thomson: I would like to introduce and welcome the Okanagan Adventist Academy to the Legislature. These are 30 grade 12 students from Kelowna. They're here with their teacher Kevin Littlechilds. I had the opportunity of welcoming them to the Legislature, along with my colleague the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. I'd ask the House to make them welcome and hope that they enjoy their tour and their stay here in Victoria.

Debate Continued

R. Chouhan: Last week I rose in this House expressing my opposition to Bill 24. Since then, many of our colleagues have spoken on that Bill 24, and also since then, my colleague has moved a motion to refer this Bill 24 to a committee for consultations with the public.

In a democratic system like ours, it's important that we engage the public in our deliberations. The only way we can strengthen democracy is if the public is part of it. Otherwise, we would be no different than other countries, Third World countries, where people are not allowed to say what they should be saying.

Here is something so fundamental, so basic, that we have been used to, for the last 40 years, the agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission, which have provided plenty of opportunities for us to save the land which produces food for everyone, even though we know that all our land which we have under the ALR is only 5 percent of the B.C. land mass. Therefore, it's even more important that whatever little we have, we preserve it, not weaken it, when we have something like Bill 24, which threatens the existence of that four decades of work to protect our land, to produce food for everybody.

[1355]

People have contacted in the thousands. They have written letters, they have sent e-mails, they have made phone calls to the Minister of Agriculture and other MLAs, but unfortunately, their voices are not being heard.

Since Thursday I have received 39 letters in my office, and you won't believe how many people have sent their e-mails regarding this issue. Each and every one of them is concerned that if Bill 24 passes, we will not have the same ability and same opportunity for what we were able to do for the last 40 years.

People are desperate. They're desperate to engage themselves to provide their input, to give their feedback to the government, but they're being denied that opportunity. They're begging for an opportunity to just have a two-minute meeting with their MLA or a committee member or their minister, but it's not happening.

On Saturday I was at the farmers market in Burnaby. There were about 25 or 30 stalls and a minimum of 100 to 150 people who were there, either growers or people who were buying the produce from them. I went there and met with each and every one of them. Each and every single person who was at the farmers market told me how angry they were. They told me that they were trying to contact the minister's office. Some of them even called, but their calls were not accepted. They sent letters, and there was no reply to the e-mails or letters — nothing so far.

Today I'm standing here to express my support for this motion, but I'm also going to read a number of the letters that those members of the public have sent to the minister. They were not recognized, so I'm going to read those letters. At least they will be on the record, so their voices at least will be recorded in history — that they expressed their opposition, hoping for the government to listen to their views.

As we know, many of the stakeholders have also written letters to the government very strongly condemning the government's action on this — like the B.C. Agriculture Council, which we all know is the province's umbrella farm association. They have expressed their concerns,

[ Page 4223 ]

because farmers are concerned that the two-zone system will allow farmland in B.C.'s north to be more easily used for natural resource projects like liquefied natural gas. That's what Mr. Vander Waal has said, the new chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council.

Vander Waal said: "I think we are genuinely afraid that the changes" brought by Bill 24 "will trump the well-being of agriculture and agricultural land." That's what he said.

There are also worries that the current system of using regional panels to approve or reject changes to agricultural land leaves commissioners more easily influenced by local advocates to make decisions not in the best interest of protecting agriculture, said Vander Waal.

These are very genuine concerns that they are expressing. They want to be heard. They want sincere public consultation.

The B.C. Agriculture Council met with the Minister of Agriculture on April 24 to try to convince him to delay and change the legislation. The BCAC want more time to consult and ensure changes to the act do not compromise farmland.

That's, again, what we are doing here when we moved this motion — to provide that opportunity not only to BCAC but also to the public so that they can all be engaged in that consultation process.

[1400]

After the meeting the Minister of Agriculture said: "The opportunity is everything from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill. I haven't landed on any particular recommendation yet because I'm not finished my consultation process." The question is: what kind of consultation process is the Minister of Agriculture awaiting?

Just reading these e-mails is not consultation. The real consultation can only be when people are having that opportunity face to face, meeting with the minister or the committee members so they can express their views and those views would be recorded.

Again, there's another organization, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. We know that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association are not always against the government's position; in the past we have seen. But even they are against the government's stand on this, on the ALR.

General manager Kevin Boon of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association estimated that the majority of the BCCA members are against the province on Bill 24, which allows the minister to appoint panel members. And half of BCCA members are against the bill entirely. Even they are saying that this is not acceptable, that they should have that opportunity to engage in this public consultation system.

Kevin Boon, the general manager, said: "Farmers have long sought greater flexibility in land use decisions, including, possibly, oil and gas development, but we can't do it at the cost of agriculture." He further says: "Overall, we need to look at the importance of food security not only for our province but as an economic driver down the road."

Then we have the B.C. Food Systems Network, and they have expressed their concerns as well. They are saying that they believe the bill, "although presented as a way to support agriculture, is actually framed to support non-farm use of agricultural lands." That's their view. So they would like to meet with the minister to sit face to face to hear that that's not true. That can only happen when that meeting, that consultation process, takes place.

They also are concerned that Bill 24 "has potential to undermine the integrity of the agricultural land reserve and its regulator, the Agricultural Land Commission, making it easier for ALC decision-makers to favour development over agriculture in most of B.C."

The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, Mr. Richard Bullock, also has expressed his views, and I'm going to quote it. He said: "I'm not sure if any of our people should be treated different in one part of the province than they are in the other. I thought equal treatment is how we operated as a society, but we will see." So they really are not sure what would be the impact of Bill 24 if it passes.

Some of the people who have contacted my office and who've contacted me in person — I'm going to just read some of their letters and e-mails that they have sent. But before I read those individual letters, let me read the letter which I was given at the farmers market by one of those people there. That letter was sent to the Minister of Agriculture.

"I am writing to you on behalf of the British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets to convey our concerns regarding the lack of public consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24 and the resulting impacts on B.C.'s agricultural land reserve.

"British Columbians are stakeholders in this decision, and our opinion and concerns regarding food, farmers and farmland must not be underestimated or overlooked in this consultation process. We urge you to seriously consider the points we have outlined below.

[1405]

"As an organization representing 125 farmers markets and 1,000 small-scale farmers selling at markets across B.C., we are concerned that our provincial representatives have not considered our members' views and opposition to Bill 24.

"B.C.'s farmers markets work tirelessly in all corners of the province to strengthen local economies and provide British Columbians with fresh, healthy, local agriculture products. Our ability to continue to deliver these benefits into the future, however, is tied directly to the availability of agriculture land throughout the province. As one of our members stated, 'Protecting the ALR is central to protecting and enhancing what our local farmers markets exist to support — healthy and strong communities and food systems.'

"Our members' farmers markets in the north and the Interior specifically have expressed concern that Bill 24 would directly threaten their regionally focused agriculture initiatives and thereby threaten the very viability farmers markets in their area.

"B.C. farmers markets are a rapidly growing sector that contributed $113 million in direct sales to the B.C. economy in 2012, a 147 percent increase from $46 million in 2006. The proposed changes

[ Page 4224 ]

in Bill 24 not only threaten the viability of farmers markets; they threaten the economic and social benefits markets deliver to the communities they support.

"The BCAFM is opposed to giving regional panellists the authority to make initial decisions on ALR applications as proposed in Bill 24, since this governance structure was used from 2002 to 2010 and was considered less effective than the current centralized administration and vetting of all ALR applications by the ALC, which ensures strong and consistent centralized authority.

"British Columbians voted for a Liberal government. A campaign promise included: 'Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC.' The party also said that it would increase funding to the Agricultural Land Commission and would work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land. We regret that these promises have not been followed through.

"In an era of climate change, significant urban expansion and concerns about the local food supply, food safety and sustainability, the B.C. government and the Agricultural Land Commission must look at ways to encourage farming. Permitting non-agricultural, industrial activities on ALR land will only fragment and degrade the remaining viable land, leading to greater challenges for farmers in accessing agricultural land. That being said, we support changes that will help farm and ranch operations to be financially successful."

This letter is signed by Jon Bell, president, on behalf of the BCAFM board of directors.

At the same farmers market I also met with a rancher — it's called Redl farm; I forget the exact name — from 150 Mile House. He was there, and he told me that they are so worried. He came all the way to Burnaby so he could talk to some of his relatives and friends so that they could also express their opposition to Bill 24.

[1410]

The letters that I have received from…. I'm going to read the names of each and every one of them, but I won't read all the letters. I'll only read a few. Elizabeth Zinder; Patricia Beldrama; Zoran Todorovic; David Wasabati; Linda Bennett; Penny Oyama; Christine Lidden, MD; Wayne Lerotz; Cindy Grey; Eleanor Lennon; Megan Christianson; Jerry Penner; Julie Michaud; Anne Golpenberg; Paul Browning; Barry Carlson; Lindsay Marsh; Tanis Hopkinson; Robert Miller; Kathy Freeberry; Maureen Mendoza; Mark Rose; Suraj Mari; Carolyn Willmore; Jim Miller; Ken B. Bell; Christina Marchit; Miroslava Mijeska; Penny Swanson; Daniel O'Leary; Jen Hogg; and Leona Skoligard.

These are the names that I have just read — the letters we received from people who have contacted my office expressing their views against Bill 24. They all have said that since we have moved this motion to refer this to a committee, they are hoping that the Minister of Agriculture will listen to and will agree with the motion, so they can all be able to participate in that process.

This letter is from Carolyn King. It was written to the Premier.

"I'm deeply opposed to Bill 24. I ask that your government not pass this bill. How can a government justify opening up our prime agricultural land to development? The ALR is one of the strongest, most historic pieces of legislation in B.C.'s history and must not be dismantled.

"B.C.'s food security depends on it. Industrial activities like fracking and others are not compatible in any way with food production.

"On behalf of people of British Columbia, I urge your government to listen to the people of B.C. and defeat Bill 24."

This letter is from Jay Stevenson.

"I'm not a farmer, but like everyone else, I depend on farmers for my daily bread, for the sustenance and pleasures of food. Here on Saltspring it is clear how much the protection of the ALR and ALC has helped us hold on to our most productive land and keep it safe for a new generation of farmers to increase local food production.

"This kind of protection is so important across our province, wherever our soils can support farming. It is especially important now in light of the terrible impacts climate change is already having on some of the big food-producing areas of the continent like California. We are going to need more agriculture capacity in B.C. going forward, not less.

"We can't eat oil, nor the profits from selling it, so please stand firm on the withdrawal of Bill 24, and if not, at least have public consultation.

"Jay Stevenson."

Also, another letter came from Galiano Island. I'm sure the minister also got a copy of it. I believe, as he said, he was reading all of these letters. I hope he will read them and pay attention, too.

"My husband and I have a small farm on Galiano Island. We would like to express our rejection of the proposed division of ALR lands in the province into two sectors. We understand that the northern sector would be redesigned to open the possibility or probability to other uses, ie, resource extraction.

"We are extremely opposed to any tampering with the ALR land in British Columbia. As our climate changes, our very small acreage of farmland in B.C. will become absolutely essential to providing food for our population.

"California may no longer be able to supply our citizens with cheap produce. Drought conditions there may make their farmland no longer viable."

That's signed by Elizabeth and Doug Latta.

[1415]

Just a couple more letters. This is a very long letter, four pages long. I won't read that one.

This is from Surrey–White Rock.

"Our names are Dorothy Randall and Patricia Randall, and we are mother and daughter to each other. We are each shareholders in a cooperatively owned organic farm in the Fraser Valley. The farmers to whom we lease the farm grow a variety of vegetables and fruits which they sell at venues throughout the Lower Mainland.

"We are writing to you out of our concern about the state of agriculture in British Columbia, and more specifically, the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve.

"One of the reasons we bought shares in a farm is to help protect this beautiful land for farmers, allowing them the opportunity to access high-quality land at an affordable price. We also want to preserve this land for future generations.

"We would like to see this vision held more broadly in our society, and your government could help. Only 5 percent of B.C.'s land base is arable, and this land base is under constant pressure. But we absolutely cannot forgo our food production security for the sake of residential or industrial development.

"Future generations of British Columbians rely on today's government to protect their interests and survival. If any change is to be made to the ALC or the ALR, it should be that the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve be enlarged and strengthened. No more land should be removed from the ALR.

"We have had 40 years to meddle with the boundaries. It is time to stop wasting money and energy with that approach and to now dedicate our efforts to saving farmland and getting more land into

[ Page 4225 ]

production. This should be the focus of the Agricultural Land Commission, along with enforcement of the current legislation that protects farmland from soil dumping and contamination.

"Furthermore, legislation should prohibit the extraction of oil, gas and minerals from ALR-designated lands as such activities would destroy its agricultural capacity and contaminate it, preventing its safe return to food production.

"The increasing seriousness of drought and the desertification in California, from where British Columbia imports significant amounts of our food, is a clarion call for action to ensure that our own food production capacity remains sustainable and uncompromised.

"There are some practical initiatives your government could take to improve the viability of the agriculture sector in B.C. We need to invest in agriculture innovation and provide support for our food growers. Extension agents and apprenticeship programs would be valuable measures. Currently B.C. has one of the lowest levels of government spending in the agricultural sector in Canada. British Columbia's farmers not only need better support in growing our food and preserving and improving our food security but deserve better support from their government.

"In 2006 the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture published B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance report, stating that in order to produce a healthy diet for British Columbians, we need just over two million hectares of land in production, which would have to increase to 2.8 million by 2025. As of 2011 we are 200,000 acres short of this 2025 target.

"We request that you take strong, clear action to preserve and strengthen the agricultural land reserve and, in turn, the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure agricultural lands are adequately protected for all future generations of British Columbians.

"Dorothy Randall and Patricia Randall."

[1420]

That's why the motion proposed by the opposition is so fundamental. It's so important that we take it to a committee for public consultation so that people like Patricia can go and engage themselves and express their views, hoping that the Minister of Agriculture will listen and do the right thing and withdraw Bill 24.

M. Karagianis: I'm quite happy to take my place here and speak in favour of the motion that we've put forward from the opposition, the motion to refer. I'm going to outline, shortly, my reasons for supporting it.

One of the things that happens in here while we're debating bills, especially Bill 24, is that we often hope the information we bring forward and the language we use is compelling enough and convincing enough that we can produce enough of a counterpoint to the government's position so that we can actually change the government's mind — have them reconsider, have a sober second thought on issues that we think the citizens of British Columbia are concerned about and anxious about.

This is a very good moment for us to reflect on that. It's my hope that I can lay out enough arguments here that are convincing so that the government will in fact reconsider the current actions around Bill 24.

This motion to refer Bill 24 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is such a moment in this debate. We are now triggering a pause for government that I think is both legitimate…. In fact, there's enough evidence produced here that it would be a wise consideration for government to take these steps. I want to talk a little bit more about that.

I mean, one of the purposes of referring something to a committee is so that this particular bill can in fact go through a process of opinion or observations and consultation by the public. I think it's fair to say there is overwhelming evidence that there has not been adequate consultation on Bill 24 and that pushing the button at this point to say "refer this to a committee" is the most prudent action government could take right now.

This kind of motion is not used often, but I think it's highly supportable in this particular circumstance. I think that even some of the government's own actions and language and behaviour lends itself to supporting this motion to refer this to a committee. Certainly, I think, first of all, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is the perfect place to lodge this, because there is a process in place that has already been created, a process that has been historic.

Each and every year this committee does go out and make a very determined effort to consult with British Columbians right across the province. It travels from area to area, from town to town and city to city. It convenes day-long consultation opportunities with the public on a whole variety of input by the public. I've sat on that committee, and I know how very beneficial it is to have this consultation process with the public.

The Finance Committee goes out and basically opens the doors to the public and says, "We're actually seeking your opinion on how you'd like to see government spend money and what kind of decisions you'd like government to make on your behalf. What kinds of policies do you think are important? What kinds of things do you think government needs to change? Where have they erred? Where have they gone wrong? Where have they disappointed you? Where have they failed to follow through on promises that were made to you?" This is a great and extremely relevant democratic tool and process that is undertaken by the finance and governance committee.

[1425]

Where else to put this kind of process and take the discussions here around Bill 24 and the implications of that out to the public, open the doors and say: "Do you know what? We're going to seek your input, because this is such an enormous shift in a 40-year-old piece of legislation that's been embedded in the culture of British Columbia, and we think it's appropriate to go out and speak face-to-face with British Columbians."

That, I think, in itself is evidence enough to say that Bill 24 should and must go to be referred to the Select

[ Page 4226 ]

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for this kind of consultation process. Among all of the many failings of Bill 24, I think the one that first and foremost pops up and is so self-evident is the lack of consultation, despite the fact that the government has made a couple of fatal flaws in their process around how they brought this bill forward. Disappointingly now, we see today that they're even going to invoke closure on it. I'll talk about that as well.

The thing about a referral motion that I think, in this case, should give the government some comfort is that we're not removing Bill 24 from the books. We're not, in fact, asking for this bill to be ripped up. I personally, given the debate we've had earlier on the bill itself, think there are lots of compelling reasons for us to get rid of this bill. I think it's bad legislation, but in this case, we give the government its due. It put the legislation forward.

This motion to refer is a particularly effective tool because it doesn't remove the bill from the order paper. What it says is to put the process on pause. Take Bill 24, give it to the Finance Committee, and go out and consult with British Columbians on this. It will stay on the order paper. It's not to be tampered with. It will stay there, simply suspended for a time, until such time as the Finance Committee has had a chance to go out and consult with British Columbians. Then we'll come back and resume the discussion here, after British Columbians have had a chance to have their say on this bill.

I think this is a really effective tool for the government at this point, because there is certainly enough anxiety raised right across all sectors of British Columbia about this. This is a really effective way for the government to pause the process — not to throw it out the window, but to pause it. Go and have this consultation process that's been missing — which the public is asking for, industry is asking for and the agricultural sector is asking for — and then resume this in the fall.

We've got lots of time to do that. What better time to go out and consult with people about agriculture than in the prime agriculture season, which is during the summer and early fall? That in itself should be enough of an opportunity for government to seize upon. Yet sadly, I don't get the sense that government is doing that because we have seen no dialogue back and forth here in the chamber on this for some time. It seems to me that government perhaps is not going to seize upon this great opportunity.

One of the other very compelling reasons that we might want to see this referral passed is because this opportunity to go out and gather stakeholder input is a better opportunity now to understand the full effects and ramifications of Bill 24. Frankly, it's been my experience with government that often they put in place legislation that ends up having both intended and unintended consequences. I think this is an opportunity, by referring this bill to the Finance Committee to go out and consult, where we can actually explore all of the aspects of the unintended consequences as well and maybe the detrimental effects that this bill is going to put in place.

Also, this is an opportunity to alleviate a lot of anxiety. Whenever this issue of the agricultural land reserve and our concerns about it are voiced in this chamber, I see the government members shaking their heads and getting all anxious about this. "You're misleading everyone with what you're saying on the opposition side." You know what? Let's take the opportunity to refer this to the Finance Committee and let the government go out and have their say. Let them explain to the public what this is about. Let the public have an opportunity to question and to examine this and to in fact alleviate the anxiety on both sides of the House around this.

[1430]

I believe we are correct in our evaluation of the consequences and the end game with Bill 24, but I think the government can go out and hear from the public and not just from the opposition on this. What a great opportunity to do that. You're out on the barbecue circuit for the summer anyway, and into the fall. Why not go out and consult with the people of the province and ask them how they feel about this and what their thoughts are and whether or not they actually support these changes and both the intended and unintended consequences of Bill 24.

When I spoke against Bill 24, I talked about some other things that are happening elsewhere in the world, right on our borders in some cases, that I think have a huge impact on this. I think that the shortsighted thinking in Bill 24 is particularly alarming in view of things that are happening elsewhere and the information that's come to us from elsewhere.

I'll talk about other stakeholders' views of this as well, but I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that are taking place outside our borders and what the consequences will be to us and what it is that we're putting in motion with Bill 24 that I think is going to get us into bigger trouble and is going to lead us down a path that I think is very destructive for British Columbians.

I quoted in my remarks on Bill 24…. In my opposition to Bill 24, I talked about Dr. Lenore Newman and her very compelling evidence that has been presented around these issues of tampering with the agricultural land reserve at a very time in history that it suffers the most fragility, ever, since it was created back in the 1970s.

Now, Dr. Newman is the Canadian research chair in food security at the University of the Fraser Valley. She has laid out several really compelling articles and is a great speaker, a very compelling speaker. I have no doubt that if she were in here and able to mount a debate, we would hear and perhaps be able to influence government in a much more inspiring way, even, than we are able to here in the opposition seats.

She has talked about the long-term view here of what is happening with Bill 24 and what is likely to happen with

[ Page 4227 ]

Bill 24 and has talked about the consequences of that in view of what's happening south of the border.

Dr. Newman talks about how any erosion of the agricultural land reserve, which is an automatic likelihood…. You don't have to be any kind of genius to understand that as soon as you split up the agricultural land reserve and now make it sort of subject to local concerns and interests and self-interests and pressures, there will be changes, tampering with the agricultural land reserve, that could have impacts over time, not just in the short-term — it seems to me that much of the thinking here by the government side is very much short-term thinking — but in the long term.

What are the long-term consequences of what we are doing here? It seems to me that the long-term concerns about this lead, again…. It's absolutely focused like a laser beam on this issue of pressing the halt button and going out and consulting with the public on this and having some second thoughts on this.

It is inevitable that any time you begin to tinker with the land reserve, you are going to see loss of farmland to urban sprawl and industrial development. That has been historic practice. That has happened even when there has been a concerted and focused devotion to the land reserve and to protecting the land reserve. We've still seen the kind of erosion that I think we'll continue to see in the future.

It's no secret that there is a drought in California. This government has not once responded in any way to the implications of that and how that affects Bill 24 — not heard one syllable from the government side on what the implications are there. Yet we are seeing drought of unprecedented size and scope that's affecting production in California and other states that we depend on for food. Some 800,000 acres of farmland are currently out of production of food; 800,000 acres are not producing food in California right now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What is our observation about that? Well, apparently nothing. Apparently, we're indifferent to the implications of that. The government said not one word about what the implications are of that.

[1435]

Let's also talk about the fact that this is not just a singular little blip in the California desert and California drought situation. This is the third year of a drought. Other states are beginning to experience drought and loss of food production. It is anticipated that with climate change, this is the beginning of a long-term drought.

Food producers, growers in California have been told to chop down their almond trees because there will be no water for planting because there is not enough water to drink. The implications of that are not short-term. And yet, when we look at the legislation before us, it in no way demonstrates a long-term view — a studied, evidence-based, scientifically sound, prudent, thoughtful and responsible long-term view of British Columbia's needs and the implications.

If we continue to see drought south of the border and massive loss of food-producing lands while communities in the U.S. grapple with food versus drinking water, what are the long-term implications here? This is not going away tomorrow. You're not going to have one rainfall in California and suddenly, oh, it's all gone. This is huge.

We have farmlands that are being turned into desert. As we have already seen in southern British Columbia, we have lands that used to be farmlands being turned into desert as well.

Now, at no point have I heard the government in any of their discussion around the agricultural land reserve even allude in the remotest way to what this means for us. Well, I think that Dr. Newman talks very directly about that and talks about food security for all of us.

When you talk food security, the government seems to just turn a deaf ear, or somehow food security is something that happens elsewhere and has nothing to do with decisions we make here in the Legislature. Well, I say that is wrong.

The decisions we are making here about the agricultural land reserve today have implications on our food security forever. So it would seem to me that there is enough push-back right now, across this province, from concerned citizens and stakeholder groups that the government needs to stop in their tracks, take a breather and go out and consult with people.

Refer this to a committee. Take it on the road and ask people that are much more knowledgable than the members sitting in this House about what they want done around the long-term future of the agricultural land reserve. The government has refused to do that.

I think the twist in this is that this has a huge political backlash coming in it, and the government, again, seems oblivious of that. So I can't understand what the single-minded purpose behind this is. It makes no sense to me whatsoever or to anyone that you talk to — any experts in the field, any stakeholders, farmers, ranchers. Nobody understands what it is that the government is trying to achieve with this.

It seems to me that at a time when we should be making every effort to be more protective of our farmland and food-producing lands in this province, we are going in the wrong direction. We are doing the very opposite. We are offering less protections. Now we are threatening the very land reserve that has allowed us a modicum of food security.

I say "modicum" because we are still reliant on almost half of our food from a state that is currently going through an unprecedented drought and will not be producing food on 800,000 acres of land and maybe more in the future. What will that look like next year and the

[ Page 4228 ]

year after that, as they grapple with water shortage and climate change?

What are we doing here in British Columbia? We have a land reserve that has served us very well for 40 years, and we are now going to dismantle it. We are going to pretend that somehow that's good for the land reserve when every bit of evidence in the world shows you that it is not.

We have always had that agricultural land threatened by urban sprawl and industrial development, and now we are going to open the gates and say: "Have at it. Land developers, have at it. If you've got a legitimate reason to come into the Interior and begin to take apart the land reserve, just talk to your local board and convince them of it."

[1440]

You know what? I guess we'll — what? — get that land back another time. No, we won't. We will never recapture that land. We have lost hundreds and hundreds of food-producing acres now to urban sprawl in the Delta area.

Now, I talked, when I debated on Bill 24, about us being the only creatures that destroy our habitat and the area around us that produces food and sustains us. We are the only creatures on the planet that go out and wilfully destroy our food-producing environment.

This motion to refer is an opportunity for government to put the brakes on this. You know what? If they have nothing to fear, if they feel that this legislation is so sound and so evidence-based and such good, strong legislation, well, refer it to a committee, take it on the road, take it out with the Finance Committee and give it a test run.

This idea of bringing it through, in a few weeks ramming it through in this sitting of the Legislature…. Despite all kinds of evidence and concerns and opposition coming to them, not just from the opposition seats here but from all across the province from stakeholders, the government continues to just barrel ahead. So what is the agenda here? You have to ask: what is this agenda that they cannot take time to halt, stop and take this out to the public? That truly is the question.

It's very interesting because, of course, we went through an election here only a year ago, and this was not on the platform of the B.C. Liberals at the time when they were out talking about getting re-elected.

They did not say one word about: "Our mandate is that when we get elected, we're going to start taking apart the agricultural land reserve. Forty years it's been in place here and has protected food-producing lands and farms in this province, but you know what? We are not going to say one word about it during an election campaign. We're going to sneak up on people and do this after the fact."

In fact, there was a questionnaire that was put out to the Liberals during the election campaign. "Are you anticipating doing anything with the land reserve?" And what did they say? No. "No, we're not going to tamper with the agricultural land reserve." Yet here we are one year later, and what are we doing? We're getting ready to take apart the agricultural land reserve.

It would seem to me…. I talked about political backlash a moment ago. Now, here's the ultimate political backlash, and did the government learn anything from the last time they tried this trick? Does everybody remember what that trick was? Oh, wait — the HST.

The last time the government said one thing before an election and did another after the election, the people in this province rose up and threw the idea out in a historic referendum where the people of the province said: "We are not taking that. You did not tell us about it before the election, and we're not going to swallow it after the election."

It's sad, unfortunately, that this piece of legislation, Bill 24, taking apart the land reserve, is again kind of coming in under the radar. Talk about slipping something in stealthily here and ramming it through, with a couple of weeks here in the Legislature, promising consultation but never really delivering on consultation.

You know, I heard the minister responsible talk about, "I'm going to consult with people," and that just means reading his letters. Well, we're all reading the same letters, because we're cc'd on every letter that's sent to the government. I hardly consider that consultation in any way.

You want to consult, then support this motion to refer this to the Finance Committee, take it on the road, look British Columbians in the eye and explain to them why you didn't tell them last May that you were going to take apart the agricultural land reserve, that you were going to do it in a sneaky, sneaky way and that you weren't going to listen to British Columbians while you did it.

It's interesting how very much like the HST debacle this is. Whether or not people will have the capacity to mount the same kind of opposition that they did to the HST is probably unlikely. The government is busy saying, "Oh, don't you worry your little heads about this. Just a little innocent bill to split up the agricultural land reserve into a couple of zones. Nobody's going to get affected or hurt by this," which of course is nonsense.

[1445]

The minute you break up the land reserve, the minute you begin to downzone it, you send out responsibility into regional areas where the local pressures will be enormous. I doubt not for one moment that the B.C. Liberals will appoint specific individuals to run the local agricultural land boards that will make these decisions.

All of it leads irrevocably to decisions that are shortsighted and irresponsible at a time when, in the face of what's happening south of the border and climate change and issues around water security and food security, we need to be thinking 30, 40, 50 years into the future — which is what happened in the 1970s when the then NDP government put in place the agricultural land reserve. Was it, for them, for the moment, for the next six months, for the next electoral cycle? No.

[ Page 4229 ]

It has stood the test of time for 40 years. It had enough foresight that for 40 years it has protected — not as well as it should have — agricultural land. Are we in this Legislature now going to be just as responsible to the future generations, and are we thinking 40 years in advance around the legislation we're passing here in Bill 24? No, we are not. We are not at all. We can't even be bothered to take this to a committee for 40 days and go out on the road with it, let alone 40 years into the future.

How much confidence does the government have in their legislation? I would say very little. Otherwise, you would take the opportunity to go out and consult with British Columbians, refer this to the Finance Committee and go out and see what British Columbians think of this.

I will say that at one point it looked like, for just a moment, the government was going to consider doing this. The Minister Responsible for Core Review said back in September of 2013: "The public will have an opportunity to provide input to the core review as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultations."

Now, that was the Finance Committee that was going out around the province, doing the usual fall circuit of consultation with British Columbians on the B.C. Liberal budget. The Minister for Core Review…. And this agricultural land reserve bill is under the core review. It's under the guise of the core review that Bill 24 is being put forward. It looked like for just a moment in time the Core Review Minister thought that the Finance Committee would do this.

However, the member for Penticton, who chairs this committee, had no idea that this was one of the expectations of the committee, so that was not done. For just a small window of time, it looked like an opportunity was there to use the Finance Committee, and its process of touring the province, to actually consult with British Columbians. But no, sadly, that wasn't the mandate of the committee, and they didn't undertake that work. They should have.

So here's the opportunity. We are presenting the opportunity to the government now, to say: "You know what? You can go back. For that brief moment of time when you had the opportunity to consult with British Columbians, you can do it now. You can have a little do-over." Because we are saying: "Refer this bill, Bill 24, to the Finance Committee, and let them go out and do the consultation."

I think that the government has undertaken not only this stealthy act of Bill 24 and a refusal to go out and consult…. They're reading a handful of letters that have come in. They have not listened to the opposition from experts and stakeholders that are deeply involved and deeply knowledgable about the land reserve.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association have written to the minister saying that they don't agree with this bill. The agricultural industry has unanimously called on the government to stop this concept of splitting the agricultural land reserve into two areas. The B.C. Agriculture Council…. I know that the members on the other side like to talk about the B.C. Agriculture Council and how they're supporting this, but I don't think they are supporting it. I've spoken with them, and I did not hear one word of support from those members.

If the very experts in the field are opposing this, the thousands of letters that they're getting…. We're cc'd on those. We know exactly the volume of opposition there is to that. Has the government taken any opportunity to listen to any of that? No.

[1450]

They have continued with blinkers on to just push ahead on this and push through Bill 24, regardless of all evidence to the contrary — all warnings, all science, all pleas for them to think more long-term on this. They have not only refused at this point to debate the motion to refer, to speak against it or for it or take this opportunity, but in fact we've seen a closure motion being brought in.

The debate on this will be arbitrarily halted at a certain time on Thursday. That is unfair and irresponsible, and I am opposed to that with every core of my being.

S. Hammell: I am pleased to support the MLA for Nelson-Creston's motion: "That Bill (No. 24)" — the Agricultural Land Commission Act — "not be read a second time now but that the subject…be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

In other words, what the member for Nelson-Creston is suggesting is that we take a sober second thought. That's a very famous position that W.A.C. Bennett used to do many, many times in the past, and I think he coined that phrase, "a sober second thought." When things would come in there'd be a bit of blowback, and he, being reflective of the community that he lived in, would then think twice about what it was that was being presented. It's like a time-out. It's time to let the community have its say, to let the community find its voice in participation and to be consulted by its government.

In this debate it's interesting because we have a position by the government. The official opposition disagrees fundamentally with that position and uses its opportunity to debate and to outline the differences so that the community or the public listening can hear the arguments and then themselves make up their minds as they listen to the debate.

When I spoke on Bill 24, on the principle of the bill, I described the farm activity on Sea Island, where I grew up. I mentioned some of those very large farms and described how every single one of them has disappeared and has been replaced by the expansion of the Vancouver

[ Page 4230 ]

International Airport and its associated industrial activities — hangars, huge commercial and industrial staging centres for parcels and whatever else needs to fly, parking lots and roads as well as runways.

All of those structures require that the rich soil of the farmland brought forward by the Fraser delta be transformed by sand and gravel so that the land could be compacted and hold stable those large buildings, runways, parking lots and roads. I just don't think this is the future we are looking forward to when we think of our current stock of agricultural land, and this airport enterprise very clearly demonstrates what happens when you alienate farmland and set it aside for another use.

I do think that pausing now and not reading this bill for a second time now — but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and that they go out and consult the community — is just smart politics. It would take the tension out of the bill. It would allow the people of British Columbia to have a say.

[1455]

Wise government always knows that power is not central and held only by a few. Everyone has power, and a wise government will include people that they represent in that decision-making. So not only is the decision that is made supported, but perhaps the decision is even refined and made better by consultation through the community that it represents.

We know very, very clearly what happens when you alienate farmland and what can happen without the strong oversight of a body like the Agricultural Land Commission and the supporting agricultural land reserve. Much of the land that I keep referring to was expropriated — this agricultural land on Sea Island — in the late '60s and early '70s by the federal government.

The federal government is not restricted by the laws of the province, so development has gone unrestricted through the '70s, '80s and '90s and through the last 13 years. We have a very close example of what happens when you do alienate the farmland. If you go on to that island, you will see today the mounds of sand and gravel covering the land, mixing and compacting the soil, so that more can be built. We all know that that land is then alienated forever.

In fact, when I spoke before on the principle of the bill…. Not on the motion that is now here before us where we just pause, put aside this bill, have it referred to a committee. When I spoke before, basically on the principle of the bill, I quoted the then Liberal leader, David Anderson, from the 1972s when he spoke on the issue. Again, he said that once it's gone, it's gone for good. "God gave up making farmland a long time ago."

One might extrapolate from that comment that perhaps he or she expects us on this land to preserve what farmland we've got. There is just something so fundamental about saving 5 percent of the land base that's arable in this whole beautiful province. You think you've got 100 percent of a province, and 5 percent of it is arable. You are not going to make sure that that land is protected not only for yourself, your children and your grandchildren but for generations into the future?

This land, this province of ours, is rugged — beautiful, but rugged. A province of mountains, fjords, streams, rivers and a bit of a desert. We only have 5 percent that is arable. That is so clear when you fly over this land. You fly over the Rockies. You fly over the coastal mountains. You just fly from one end of this province to another, and you see in front of you mountains after mountains.

So 5 percent is river delta and land that is arable up in the Peace. In the Peace, or the northern region of this land, 90 percent is in the zone 2 that is open for development. There is something that is just not logical about this. You have to look for another reason. You have to try to understand why a government would put at risk the land that it needs its community, its people, to have to produce food.

Again, once it's gone, it is gone. We know that from not only the Fraser Valley, but we know from the Okanagan and we know from other areas. In 1972 the government of the day understood that once it was gone it was gone and acted in the public interest and stopped the housing stampede onto the floodplain of the Fraser.

[1500]

To quote again from an editorial in the paper of the day, "The government of that day in the early '70s showed great courage," referring to the acts that gave life to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. The courage that allowed the government to introduce the ALR in the '70s is lacking now. This is the first major, major assault on the agricultural land reserve since. This is redefining the rules of the agricultural land reserve, and that just begs that we go out and check with the community that they believe that that is the thing we should do.

The courage of the government in the '70s halted the destruction of farmland on Lulu Island, the sister island to Sea Island, also found at the mouth of the Fraser River delta. These two islands make up the city of Richmond. Before the ALR the farmland on Lulu Island was being gobbled up by development and housing for subdivisions at an astonishing speed. Even now, if you go to Richmond, the division is very, very visible between the land that was pre-ALR — which is now housing, retail, commercial and industrial activity — and that of post-ALR, land which largely — not completely but largely — remains farmland.

If you went out and consulted and you talked to the people of Richmond who understood what happened to their island and you talked to the people in the Peace River and you talked to the people in the Kootenays, you would find in this province, I believe — I could be wrong, and I'm prepared to take that risk, through a consultative

[ Page 4231 ]

process — that people want the farmland to remain. They want that land. They want it to stay where they know it is doing the very best it can. The land is being treated and farmed in a way that is good not only for the land but for the people of the province.

Many of the blueberry farms that covered Lulu Island are long gone, long gone. Places where students earned a little money during the summer by picking berries — those are gone. Those lost farmlands on the Fraser River delta, on those two islands, were real examples of the 4,000 to 6,000 hectares of arable B.C. soil that were lost yearly to non-farming purposes before the introduction of the ALR.

What is amazing also is this act and the preservation of it through the last number of decades — in fact, 42 or 43 years — has been replicated in other parts of the country. If you go to other countries, you also see very, very strong preservation of farmland and of green space.

The Quebec government installed a body similar to the B.C. commission in the late 1970s called the Commission de protection du territoire agricole de Québec. Quebec officials contacted B.C. during the commission's early days for advice, and they were invited out east to consult. The relevant B.C. legislation, regulations and forms were even translated into French.

Most recently the Ontario government passed its greenbelt legislation, which protects designated land in the greater golden horseshoe region from further urban growth. The greater golden horseshoe area circles up from the Niagara region in the south and includes several regional municipalities and counties and cities such as Toronto, Hamilton and Peterborough. Under the rules, using land designated as prime agriculture areas or specifically crop areas for non-agriculture purposes is restricted.

[1505]

Even in Alberta they have done some restriction and put some reserves out — it was done by a group of Albertan ranchers — that hold conservation easements on ranchland.

This is not brain science, right? This is just common sense. What you do is you protect the land that feeds you. On farmland there's…. I watched a TV program from Kansas where this farmer talked about having oil wells on his land versus a wind farm. He was moving his farmland, his ranch land, where he had wind farms, where he could also raise his cattle. He also pointed to the ground where there had been an oil spill from an oil well that was also on his land, and he explained very clearly that once that land was damaged, it was done. Nothing would bring that land back.

Agricultural land is a very, very precious commodity. If you do other activities on that land, you put at risk the land that feeds you. It is unbelievable that after the years and years of work around the Agricultural Land Commission, we would put at risk that land without consulting the community that we live in. I do think that that is misguided.

I can beg to differ with the members opposite, but what I have a right to expect is that when you bring major legislation into this House, you will have the will, the political will, to consult the people that the legislation affects. That has not been done in this case.

Over and over again, members from the other side have made it absolutely clear they are not interested in consulting. They did not consult prior to bringing this bill in. They did not have this bill up for debate during the last election. In fact, when asked during the election, they denied doing exactly what we're doing now.

It just makes sense that you take a bill like this that has been brought in without consultation…. It has sort of been brought in without forewarning, without any discussion with the people of British Columbia — let alone the opposition, just the people of British Columbia — with no consultation with the farmers, no consultation with the people this affects. You bring it in, and you haven't got the political moxie to say: "Hold it. We will consult with the people."

In fact, the province belongs to the people. It's only governed by you, and you need to have the people that you're governing at least agree in part with what you're doing. I am amazed.

It is a time in our history where food is much more a topic of conversation, especially as we understand now how directly food affects ourselves and our health. We have debates now, and there is more information now, around the negative impact of processed food. What do we do? We take the land where you could directly grow food, and we give it all kinds of other uses. You have to ask why.

You have to say at some point: "Why are you doing this? Why are you bringing in a bill that you've not consulted anybody on, bringing it in at the end of the legislative term here, refusing to put it over to be consulted on, to be taken around by the Finance Committee? Why are you doing it?" You only can come back to: "You must have some reason for alienating the land and having another use."

[1510]

I've never been a member directly of a municipal government, but I do understand the whole process around zoning. When you start going upzoning, you increase the value of the land. You may have a piece of land that here…. Farming is generally the least expensive of land. You have farming, and if all of a sudden you can do something else on the land, and it is upzoned, somebody makes a lot of money. It doesn't matter where you are on that continuum. If you continue to upzone, you increase the value of the land.

What never happens — I can't remember a case that I know of, but maybe there are people who have seen this — is where you downzone, where you take something valu-

[ Page 4232 ]

able and make it less valuable by governments. I think we don't see that because that would cost the government money or the person taking action to downzone or make something less valuable. It's much easier to upzone, so what we have is land that, once it's out of the agricultural land reserve, becomes more valuable because there can be more uses to that land.

It absolutely astonishes me because never, ever have we known more about the need for good food to feed our kids and our grandchildren and the people in our province. We know much more about food than we did 40 years ago.

We know that we eat too much sugar. We know that we take in too much salt. We know that deep frying is not necessarily good for food intake. We know that what we need to get back to is having food from the farmland as directly as we can. That's why we have a lot of farmers markets and why people are now so much more interested in agricultural land and farmers markets and anything than they ever have been before.

Like many in this House, I have gotten quite a number of letters that have supported the notion that we stop, that we either remove this bill or we put it aside so that we can think about it and we can have a sober second thought. We could give this bill to the committee and ask them to take it out to consult with the community and to see whether we can actually take the advice or hear the advice of the people of the province that this bill affects.

I'd like to read into the record a couple of them from my part of town. I'll read to you a letter from Loretta Bogert-O’Brien. She says, "Dear Mr. Letnick," and I'm sure the minister has read this because he tells us….

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names to be used.

S. Hammell: Sorry?

Deputy Speaker: No names to be used. Just refer to the minister as the minister.

S. Hammell: I'm sorry.

I have a letter to the minister.

Thank you very much. Of course, I see what I did.

"I wrote when I first heard of the possibility of a change to the Agricultural Land Commission. I am deeply, deeply concerned with this possibility. I would like you as the new Minister of Agriculture to also know my concerns.

"Here's what I wrote: I'm concerned that there is a move to change the legislation regarding the agricultural land reserve and commission. This is a very important set of laws which protects high-value agricultural land in B.C. from being raped, all the topsoil removed and sold for development. There is no returning from that kind of development to being able to use the land to feed our citizens.

"I implore you and your government to cease and desist from changing these very important laws. They were visionary when they were implemented, and, sadly, it would be extremely shortsighted now to change them.

[1515]

"It is not good enough just to put lower-quality land in the reserve to replace high-quality land. Indeed, instead of being regressive, we should be looking forward and supporting those who want to have a farm to be able to have a decent living doing it."

That was from Loretta Bogert-O'Brien. She also made some comments on transparency, and she did want the government to allow the public to understand this issue.

I also have another letter. This was to the Premier. This person is Gwen Mass, and she says:

"I am gravely concerned by Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. This bill fundamentally changes the ALR, and that could result in the permanent loss of protected B.C. farmland.

"B.C.'s farmers, ranchers and fruit growers have made it clear that they oppose this bill because it is not in their interests. It is being pushed through with no public consultation with the agricultural community, the Agricultural Commission or the people of British Columbia.

"Thanks to the ALR, British Columbia has maintained a steady number of farms while the rest of Canada has lost about one-third of the farms over recent decades. I call on you to defend B.C.'s farmland and reject this dangerous bill."

Again, it goes back to the notion that consultation is pretty important. I guess my major thrust around that and my major argument around that position is that we actually, I don't think, as a government have the right to shove a piece of legislation down the people of British Columbia's throat.

I think that as a responsible act, what we should do is stand back and say: "There's a lot of controversy about this. There has been no consultation, and therefore it is up to us to be sure that we do consult so that we know that we have the support of the people of British Columbia when we go forward with this bill."

You see, to me, there is no compelling reason why we need to move quickly. I don't believe that the government has made the case for this bill. They have not made the case. They have not told us why they're doing it. Their attitude is: "We won. We get to be government. We can tell the people what they can do. We can tell the opposition. We don't have to consult, and there we go. We don't even have to give good reasons why we're doing this."

Interjection.

S. Hammell: I have been. You know what? Just because you're called, just because you hit the nail on the nose does not mean you then have to start heckling back and forth.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let's focus.

S. Hammell: We've heard letters from all over this province. To stand there and say, "Have you ever been to Cranbrook?" as some ridiculous reason why we should not consult the people of British Columbia over a bill that you did not even talk about during an election — in fact, that you said you were not going to do during election…. You do it, and then you come in here and you….

[ Page 4233 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let's have order, please.

Member, continue.

S. Hammell: Well, I actually just think it's shocking and shameful.

[1520]

The tragedy of Bill 24 is that after 42 years of protection, we in this House cannot see clearly into the future as those who have gone before us. And the members opposite have not made the case. They have not brought forward to this House compelling arguments for why we should be doing this. No one has made that case. You just sit there and say it's good for whatever reason. We need a time-out to consider. We need a time-out to think through. We need to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance and have those people go out and consult, like you should have done before the bill was brought in.

We need time to consider the gifts from those who went before us, the value that consultation will afford and the impact on the future.

D. Routley: I rise to speak to support the motion to refer this bill, Bill 24, to a committee for further reflection and consultation with the people of B.C. It's to the notion of consultation and consideration that I'd like to direct my comments.

There has been much said about the controversy that has been created by this bill. There has been much said by different interests in the province, through e-mails, letters and web postings, both to the members of the opposition and members of the government, pointing out shortfalls and shortcomings of Bill 24 and potential negative consequences, intended or otherwise, if we were to pass this bill at this time.

I think there's been no shortage of reasons given to the government as to why it should take a moment, at this time, to pause and carefully consider what it's about to do with this legislation and then, commensurately, what it would be doing to the precious agricultural land reserve of British Columbia.

You know, the government is, in my experience in nine years in this House, not ever hesitant or shy to impose closure and speed the debate at the end of a session. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you and I have been in this House for the same number of years. I believe that you and I have never seen a session of this parliament end without closure, without the government limiting debate and without the government taking these last moments of the session and ramming through significant legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we both know weeks, if not months, in advance that this will be the outcome of the session, based on its progress. But when it happens, I know most of us share the feeling of collectively having been kicked in the gut — that democracy has really taken another blow, that this government has chosen this method of debate, which is really not debate, to push through some of the most significant legislation the House has ever had to deal with.

Not only does haste make waste, in that the legislation is often found to be faulty, is often found to be unconstitutional and overturned by courts, to the great shock and cost to the public purse and public confidence; but it is an affront to the notion of a civil democracy.

I'd like to talk a little bit about that, about the notions of democracy. We come to this place. It's a place where its primary purpose is the resolution of differing points of view. Democracy has, as its core, its base, the notion that the majority rules. But this whole process and the habits of this government bring to question what democracy really should be — what it is, what it has become and what it ought to be.

[1525]

Is democracy simply the right to absolute power? When the government won the election in May, it won a mandate. What does it mean? What is a mandate? What is a mandate to a government that has come to power in a province where the participation rate has sunk to a dismal 50 to 55 percent, where so many people have been so disengaged by the process that they don't even choose to vote anymore and when so many of those people who choose not to vote point to the fact that they feel voiceless and powerless and that it will make no difference?

In that circumstance, in that context, for government to bring forward legislation and then force it without debate is only contributing to that sense of disengagement and cynicism that is the most toxic element to democratic participation and health and good government. That's what we're doing here.

Government exists only with the confidence of the people. If this government were to bring forward significant legislation and a majority of members of this House voted against it, the government would fall because it would fail the test of having the confidence of the people — not the people who sit here but the people who are the citizens of British Columbia.

When we speak to each other in this House — you reminded the last speaker not to use the name of the minister when she accidentally read the name from a letter — we speak to each other as constituencies. I am Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I am not going by my name, which I'd like to say, but of course I can't. Why? Because we are representing people — not ourselves, not our own party, not our own government or our own opposition view. Essentially, we are representing the people of British Columbia, and if the government fails the test, it falls.

We speak to each other in a parliamentary tone. We don't use words that are considered unparliamentary, like…. Well, I can't use it. If the government is dishonest, if the government says something that isn't true, there's

[ Page 4234 ]

a very short word that defines that, and I can't use that word, for good reason. I may feel that the minister himself has deceived the people I represent, but I can't use that word because I would be calling every one of his constituents that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, be careful.

D. Routley: I am being careful, Mr. Speaker, but I think it's a very important point. It's an important point because this is the respect we give to each other. It's not because we necessarily like each other. I think there's enough evidence here that people on either side aren't particularly fond of each other in many cases. I mean, there are many members on the other side who I consider to be close friends after these nine years here, and I have respect for all of the members.

But that is why. If I were to use that word or another unparliamentary word in referring to the behaviour of the government or a minister or another member of this House, I would not be insulting that member but the people they represent.

That's the essence of what we are here. It's the essence of what we do here. Democratic government is absolutely based upon the principle of majority rule. But in this context, where 50 percent of the people vote and the government is elected by 41 percent of that 50 percent and the official opposition represents 37 percent of that 50 percent — a narrow 4 percent difference — it behooves the government to listen. In fact, it's the duty of government to listen.

When they were elected in May, they weren't elected with a blank cheque. But I have the very distinct feeling, through this type of behaviour, that that's exactly how the government interprets it — that modern politics has become about pure, unabridged power, that it doesn't matter what the people we represent think, that it doesn't matter that the ministers on the other side have so little respect for this process that they are willing, as a government, to ram through legislation that is contentious, that is dividing the province.

[1530]

We see clear evidence that even people who declared themselves as supporters of the government are disturbed and alarmed by this legislation. But the government, by its definition of its mandate, is taking that to mean it has the unadulterated right to jam and ram through whatever ideas it has, regardless of what the people of the province think. I do not think that is responsible government. I do not think that is responsive government.

I think that people can be brought back into the system to consider their own participation, to become authentic participants — not just to vote but also to participate in the way our communities are managed — if they saw from their government a willingness to be authentic, to consult, to listen and to be responsive to what the people are telling them, but this government does not see it that way.

Although democratic government is based on the absolute principle that majority rules, it also depends on a number of other significant elements. Majority rule requires that the minority abide by the will of the majority. The willingness of the minority to abide by the will of the majority is, in turn, based upon the willingness of the majority to permit the minority to have their say before any final action is taken. In Greek mythology Themistocles said to Eurybiades: "Strike, but hear me." Okay? "You have the power to do what you want to do, but hear me."

The chief purpose of what we do here in parliament, the chief purpose of the process that we are engaged in, is not simply to enable majority rule, mob rule. It is to ensure that the minority views are protected and heard. That's the primary function of this place. Maybe that's why the government doesn't call this place to sit very often — because, in fact, its

interpretation of democracy is something very different. "We won. We don't have to hear you. We're doing what we want."

This place is meant to temper that. This place has many mechanisms in place, processes to ensure that the minority is heard, that the minority's rights are protected and that the minority's views are considered. The majority can almost always simply take care of itself. This place is meant to do something else, and that's why we need to refer this bill for consultation.

Good government is reflected not only by process in law but by its habit in dealing with its citizens and their interests — its habit. The habit of this government is not to consult. The habit of this government is not to be, frankly, honest about its intentions during election campaigns.

I'll give you a few examples of the deceit that we've seen displayed, and that deceit contributes to the lack of confidence that people have in government process and democracy. I mean, they're well-known examples, but I'll recite them in any case.

Mr. Speaker will be familiar with the example of the Hospital Employees Union, the HEU. Back in 2001, before election, then Gordon Campbell, about to become Premier, promised the Hospital Employees Union workers and others that he would not tear up their contracts. But what did he do? What did he do, Mr. Speaker? He did exactly that, and the tearing up of the HEU contracts led to the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history.

Now, wasn't that

an act of government, a government elected by a very narrow margin, another example where sober second thought and consultation should have occurred? In the end, the HEU….

[1535]

Bills 27, 28 and 29, the bills which affected the rights of workers in this province, were overturned by the Supreme Court and were shown to be trampling on the civil rights of British Columbians. That cost tens of mil-

[ Page 4235 ]

lions of dollars to the public purse in order to remedy it. Teachers were affected, and they still are affected. Right now we have the teachers of this province on a strike action, and the government in a lockout position, and students and teachers further suffering. After 13 long years of chaos, we have more of the same because the government fails to consult, and because the government fails to recognize the views outside of its own cabinet room.

We were promised as a province that our railway, B.C. Rail, wouldn't be sold. It was. Before the 2009 election we were promised by the government that there would not be a harmonized sales tax. There was.

The government has this habit of ignoring its own word, of ignoring the words of British Columbians, of ignoring minority views and even ignoring majority views, if it has the power to do so. I would suggest, based on the kind of polling that indicates support for the ALR in this province, that a very clear majority, much larger than the narrow margin of victory of this government, are in support of the ALR, are alarmed by this bill and would be further shocked, appalled and dismayed at the state of British Columbia's democracy if this bill were to pass without further consultation.

Those are really very good reasons for the government to pull back, to refer this bill to committee for consultation and for further consideration.

As I've said, good government is reflected not only in process and law but by its habit — by its habits of how it deals with citizens; by its habits of how it campaigns and then governs; by its habits of dealing with citizens and their interests.

The habit of good government is giving one's best thoughts and efforts for the general welfare but at the same time being willing to consider the thoughts and efforts of others — if need be, or if the people's best interests indicate, compromising with or submitting to the thoughts and efforts of the majority or even minority of their fellow citizens, our fellow citizens.

How will they know? Even the people who are so directly affected from the agricultural sectors are calling out for the government to stop, to consult, to consider. Will the government hear them?

Well, the habit of listening, the habit of hearing, the habit of being responsive and reflective of what a government hears from its people is like any other habit. It's acquired through practice. The habit of ignoring people, of not telling people what you're going to do, or doing exactly the opposite of what you told people you will do — that habit is also acquired by practice.

This government has had plenty of practice in letting down the people of B.C. when it comes to their word, of springing upon the people of B.C. significant legislative change that was not even given mere mention in their platform.

That, I believe, requires mandate. That, I believe, requires that the government go back, speak to the people of the province, formally hear them. The definition of consultation is the action or process of formally consulting or discussing. Synonyms of consultation — discussion, dialogue, discourse, debate, negotiation, deliberation. It is a meeting in order to seek advice. It is to talk. It is discussion. It is interview, audience. It is hearing.

[1540]

These are the

definitions, and these are the synonyms of consultation. The government is deaf to these. Wake up. You were elected not to have a simple handle on raw power. You were elected by a narrow margin. You were elected in the context of a province that has less than 55 percent participation. You were elected in a democracy that is torn and scorned by cynicism and disengagement.

In that context, this government fails to hear by habit. This government needs to develop better habits. This government needs to commit itself to authenticity. This government needs to commit itself to responsibility.

Being responsible as a government means operating within the confidence of the people, not simply winning votes, not simply winning elections. In order to give people confidence, we need to be better than we are. That government needs to be better than it is.

This government, and any government in a democracy, stands only with the confidence of the people, and that is not a simple vote in the House. That is much more than that.

As I said, I represent Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I don't stand here by name. I don't call the minister by name. I call him by his constituency for a very good reason: out of respect for the people who elected us, out of a sense of duty to reflect the views of the people who elected us. This government has forgotten that, and I'm begging them.

I've been here for nine years, right? It's three years till the next election. If the last election taught us anything, it taught us that it won't really matter too much if you stand back and say: "Look, we might have made a mistake here. We might have gone forward without really adequate consideration."

Maybe, without losing face, without losing any political capital whatsoever, the government could step back and actually consider the views of British Columbians and maybe, then, would begin to develop a habit. It would begin to develop a habit of hearing and a habit of listening.

The people of this province have developed another habit, born out of cynicism — a habit of not voting. People tell me that the reason they don't vote is they think it doesn't matter. They think they can't make any difference. They think they won't be heard.

What is this government telling them with Bill 24? What is this government telling them with closure? After nine years, every single time I've sat in this House — every single time you, Mr. Speaker, and I have sat in this House — sessions have ended with closure and limit on

[ Page 4236 ]

debate. That's the bottom line. That's what people see. It almost leaves a politician speechless.

Significant change requires extraordinary process and attention. It's the same in this place as it is in labour negotiations, in contract law. If you are going to make a significant change in the workplace, you must engage a special process to consult. If you want to make a significant change to any contract, you have to have support to do that.

This government is making a significant change in the contract it has with the people of British Columbia, and it owes the people of British Columbia a hearing. It owes the people of British Columbia consideration.

We have heard about issues of food security, how important the ALR is to future generations. We have heard people talk eloquently about climate change and the implications that climate change has for the production of food, not only in British Columbia but around the globe and, particularly, in markets from which we source our food, such as California.

[1545]

We've heard from people about the consequences. We've heard about the notions of land speculation, that already there are lineups at the doors of real estate offices as people speculate on the future of agricultural land in British Columbia — which brings me to another element of responsibility.

As an analogous circumstance or process around budgets from governments, around declarations from the directors of central banks, around economic choices such as interest rates, the fine

definitions of every word used by a finance minister or the director of a central bank is dissected by the marketplace. It directs the marketplace, because it encourages speculation or discourages speculation. The actions of this government are encouraging speculation on the agricultural lands of this province — particularly of the Minister for Core Review.

The farmers in our constituencies are speaking to us loudly and clearly. The buzz in the farmers markets in our constituencies is about this bill. People are noticing. This is about more than the ALR. This is about democracy. This is an opportunity for this government to acquire a new habit. This is an opportunity.

I know that no one could have predicted the outcome of the election in May. I know that there's an unfortunate aspect to it from the point of view of the health of democracy. Any government that's been in power for a long time and has been shown to have taken less-than-forthright actions, has been mired in scandal, has been floundering in the outcomes and consequences of deceit — that government….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I know you are very passionate about this issue, but you should be very careful about the language you use. A word like "deceit" is not advisable.

D. Routley: Thank you.

I know that a government that found itself in that status before an election and then engaged in state-of-the-art negative campaigning and fear-based campaigning and wound up winning an upset can congratulate itself, can assume a certain mandate. But there are limitations to any mandate. The limitations are defined by the campaign and by the tolerance of the people.

The government has taken that to be simply a blank cheque. It has taken it as a message of distemperance — that there is no limit, that there is no governor on the throttle of this government, that it can do as it pleases, when it pleases and in whatever fashion it pleases. That's the message they seem to have taken.

It has further encouraged the government to wallow in these negative habits of not listening, of not being responsible, of not being reflective, of not being willing to compromise. But this is yet one more opportunity for this government to change its course.

[1550]

Far be it from me to offer them advice that I think could lead them to further victory, but really, the interests of the province demand that I say to this government: "What are you missing? Why not refer this bill for consultation? Do you not realize" — to every member of the government side — "that the people of B.C. would congratulate you for having such a responsible and reflective habit? Do you not see that raw power is not worth the consequence of losing the confidence of the people and of damaging democracy with further cynical disengagement?"

To every member on the other side: do you not feel a responsibility to hear, to listen, to dialogue, to negotiate and to compromise with the minority and even majority views of this province that are outside your cabinet offices?

G. Holman: I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of the amendment, which is to refer Bill 24 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and that "the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

I completely support this amendment for a number of reasons. I would point out that it is somewhat ironic that this amendment is a referral to the Finance Committee, because it was the Minister for Core Review who initially publicly stated that the Finance Committee was exactly where the public should go to talk about potential changes to the agricultural land reserve and the land commission. At the time there were just rumours of e-mails, leaked e-mails and that kind of thing, but the Minister for Core Review did initially identify the Finance Committee.

This amendment is completely appropriate for three basic reasons that I wanted to talk to today. As has been stated, there is certainly no electoral mandate to make

[ Page 4237 ]

these changes to the land reserve, to the Agricultural Land Commission. There's been no public consultation whatsoever despite explicit promises, again, to the contrary. Again, there's no answer to the key policy questions here. The key questions are: what's the problem that we're trying to address, and what's the best approach to try to address a problem that has been identified? For all three of those reasons, Bill 24 needs to be referred to the Finance Committee for consultation and to take input from the public and the stakeholders.

With respect to the electoral mandate…. The members opposite do like to remind us from time to time about their electoral mandate: "We won, you lost, so we're going to do this. We have a mandate to do this." Clearly, with respect to Bill 24, that doesn't exist. It simply doesn't exist.

Not only were major changes to the ALR and the land commission not raised with voters; the changes were explicitly denied in writing. It was not just a question of not mentioning plans to change these institutions — which, by the way, have been supported by all parties, by all political persuasions for 40 years and no mention of these changes — but over and above that, such changes were explicitly denied in a question from Country Life in B.C. magazine. The B.C.

Liberal Party was asked if it would work with the ALC to ensure that agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not be used for "port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development." The Liberal Party's written response? Essentially, yes.

[1555]

Not only wasn't it mentioned; when asked specifically about potential changes to the ALR, it was explicitly denied, in writing, so clearly there is no electoral mandate here.

It has been mentioned that this is reminiscent of the HST debacle, where, once again, there was an explicit denial that any such changes were being planned. Then after the election all of a sudden our financial…. You know, whatever the reason. In fact, the HST was implemented, resulting in that fiasco.

Unlike the HST…. At least in that instance government did consult with the public after the fact. Even when they denied it in the election, at least after the election they went out and tried to engage the public, explain their position, explain their rationale and, of course, ultimately were forced to take it to a referendum, where it was ultimately defeated. This is not happening in this case, so it's even worse than the HST debacle, in that sense. At least with the HST there was an attempt to engage the public and explain government's rationale.

The Minister for Core Review, again, stated very publicly…. This was when the issue first was raised with the Finance Committee. I was a member of that committee. All of a sudden we were being presented with delegations concerned about these potential changes that they were hearing about, and the committee was quite confused about why we'd be the audience. Then we discovered that, in fact, the Minister for Core Review had put on his website that "the public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services…budget consultations."

It was right there in black and white on the website, and that's why people were coming to us. The committee, of course, was quite surprised, including the committee Chair, who happens to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review. He had no idea that this was coming. But there it was in black and white on the website: the Minister for Core Review identifying the Finance Committee as the place to go if you had concerns about rumoured changes, which is what they were at the time, to the ALR and the ALC.

Later, of course, the minister in an interview stated: "I know we could have done a better job of consultation, and I take my mea culpa." There's a clear admission on the minister's part that the public hasn't been consulted at all, despite very clear promises to the contrary.

The Chair of the Finance Committee, after a few days of toing and froing, I expect, with the Minister for Core Review, ultimately spoke and, in deliberations with the Finance Committee, ultimately had a response for people coming to us with these questions, which was essentially: "We will take your comments. This is not the appropriate forum, but you will have plenty of opportunity for input into this legislation."

Another promise by another member opposite, the Chair of the Finance Committee. Again, very clearly an explicit promise that there would be plenty of opportunity for meaningful and effective consultation with the public and the stakeholders, and that, of course, has not come to pass at all.

There's a whole range of opponents who oppose this legislation and are urging government to slow down and reconsider its options. I would agree with my colleague who just stated that in fact — and I'm not being facetious about this — the best thing that government could do with respect to this bill is to take it out to the public. Demonstrate that you're willing to listen, follow through on the commitments, the explicit commitments made by your ministers. That would be the best political advice that I could give them on this particular issue. They will not lose face. In fact, they will gain credibility, absolutely.

[1600]

That is, in all sincerity, the best political advice I could give to this government on this issue. Live up to your promises and take it out to the public. Take it out to stakeholders. What's the rush here?

The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets is one of those key stakeholder groups who have objected to this legislation. I want to just read very briefly from some correspondence from them to the minister. Just to describe who they are, B.C. farmers markets are a rapidly growing sector contributing $113 million in direct sales

[ Page 4238 ]

to B.C.'s economy in 2012, up 147 percent from $46 million in 2006.

"The proposed changes in Bill 24 not only threaten the viability of farmers markets. They threaten the economic and social benefits such markets deliver to the communities they support."

They write further to the Minister of Agriculture:

"I am writing to you on behalf of BCAFM" — I'm paraphrasing here somewhat — "to convey our concern regarding the lack of public consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24 and the resulting impacts on B.C.'s agricultural land reserve. British Columbians are stakeholders in this decision, and our opinions and concerns regarding food, farmers and farmland must not be underestimated or overlooked in this consultation process. We urge you to seriously consider the points that we've outlined below."

So a very important stakeholder in these discussions. They're being essentially completely ignored.

Another group, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — it's been mentioned before that they're not exactly necessarily friends of the official opposition — have also written the minister urging the minister to slow these changes down.

"The B.C. Cattlemen's Association has been monitoring the progression of Bill 24. Our biggest questions about the amendments you presented in the Legislature this week are: what will Bill 24 mean for ranching? What changes will it bring? Where will it leave our industry in the future? 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."

By the way, it's my understanding — and they do indicate here in their letter — that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association own and manage the majority of lands within the agricultural land reserve. I would suspect the majority of lands held by members of the association are located in zone 2. I don't know that for a fact, but I would suspect strongly that is the case.

The Cattlemen's Association goes on to ask the minister:

"We encourage you to take a slow approach with the drafting and the passing of Bill 24. Ranchers have lived with the reserve for 40 years, and waiting a little while longer to ensure that the proper changes are made seems reasonable to our directors."

It sure seems reasonable to us on this side of the House.

The letter goes on further to say: "It is difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be from Bill 24 and the amendments you introduced this week." So this is the largest owner of ALR land in the province urging the minister to slow down, questioning the benefits, the so-called benefits, that this legislation is supposed to bring and indicating that they've lived with it for 40 years and that waiting a while longer to make sure they get the changes right seems very reasonable.

[1605]

Another organization that has made its views known on the issue is IntegrityBC, who also have written the minister and copied the members of this House.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

They state in their letter that this is what the Liberal Party indicated: "'We will renew the Agricultural Land Commission and protect the agricultural land reserve to ensure we have farmland and food grown in B.C. for generations to come.' If party platforms are to mean anything, surely its words must be honoured by those who run and are elected by it."

They go on to say, "Consider who is opposed to Bill 24 or believes there needs to be further consultation," and they indicate it's not a short list. Farmers, ranchers, academics, scientists, B.C. Liberal Party members, local and regional governments and agricultural associations have all have spoken out against the bill or called on the government to slow down and involve British Columbians in the process through genuine consultation.

Finally, IntegrityBC states: "Consider for a moment why you got into politics. Isn't this one of the reasons — because you were fed up with politicians in Victoria or Ottawa who always thought they knew better and rammed legislation through without listening to constituents?"

There has been a whole range of local governments that have either opposed the legislation or requested government to slow down, including, by the way, in the northeast, the Peace River regional district.

In my area, the Islands Trust has asked exactly that and is reminding government of the reviews that have already and just recently been undertaken by the Agricultural Land Commission and by the Auditor General. The Islands Trust states that these reviews have happened twice in the past three years and that we surely don't need a third until implementation of the previous recommendations bears fruit.

"The agricultural land reserve is an important asset in the Islands Trust area, helping to sustain the character of our islands and the health of our communities." So they also are asking this government, the minister, to please include the recommendations from previous reviews and to please include a meaningful consultation process with local governments and communities.

The list goes on and on — individual farmers. My understanding is that the minister has received quite literally thousands of letters and e-mails and has indicated he's going to read them all, but it's not clear that it's really going to have an effect.

I'll read just quickly a letter that I got from a farmer in my constituency in Central Saanich — a Mr. Maxwell, a farmer, retired soil surveyor:

"To the hon. Premier and Mr. Bennett: please leave the ALR and ALC as is. It's a flexible system. It now has a worthy, established code of practice most people understand and want to continue. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians want local food, local agricultural production and growth and increased sustainability for the future. We don't have the right to compromise the choices of our children. They will make their own wise decisions, but they need the land base intact."

Even the B.C. Agriculture Council, which the government appears to be hanging its hat on as supporting this legislation…. I think that's an overstatement, to put it

[ Page 4239 ]

mildly. Even the B.C. Agriculture Council has stated in a letter to the minister just recently that it remains firmly opposed to fracturing the ALR into two zones.

Now, this is the largest agricultural group in British Columbia, representing literally billions of dollars' worth of production in British Columbia. Cattlemen's Association are the largest landowners; this is the largest group in terms of revenue.

They go on to state that they firmly oppose the fracturing of the ALR into two zones. "Farmers and ranchers have raised a number of questions, including how the other factors for consideration in zone 2 will benefit agriculture."

[1610]

Again, there's a fundamental question here about what the problem is exactly. Again, the need for consultation here — aside from the fact that there's zero electoral mandate and aside from the fact that the rationale for the bill has yet to be explained by government — is that these institutions have been supported for 40 years, four decades, by governments of all political stripes. When you're dealing with institutions like that, I think there's an even higher standard of consultation with the public and with stakeholders that government should meet.

It should not be playing with legislation like this out of some whim or the whim of a particular cabinet minister. In this case there's even more of a rationale, a stronger rationale, for public consultation.

An explanation of the reasons why we're doing it here — why we're proposing changes to this bill. You know, Mr. Speaker, there have been some good examples here in this House of legislation that has gone through that process. The Water Sustainability Act is an example of that. The elections legislation is another example, where both of those pieces of legislation were supported unanimously by members of this House. In part that was because of the extensive public consultation process that it went through.

I guess the final and most fundamental question is: what is the problem here? It's been demonstrated very clearly that data shows that the vast majority of applications for non-farm use or non-farm exemptions have been approved by the system. The system works. This is the issue that I have in particular with this legislation — that it's a solution looking for a problem. They have not demonstrated the rationale, and this is another reason why we need to take this bill out to the public and consult with stakeholders about their rationale, about what the issues are and what's the best way to approach