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)

Monday, May 12, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Nursing Week and contributions of nurses

J. Tegart

J. Darcy

Britannia Shipyard National Historic Site

J. Yap

Marine conservation area for southern Gulf Islands

G. Holman

Cleveland Elementary School lands

R. Sultan

Mining Week

S. Fraser

Oral Questions

Site C power project review panel report and energy alternatives

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Bennett

Site C power project review and role of B.C. Utilities Commission

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Bennett

S. Simpson

First Nations consultation on Site C power project

D. Donaldson

Hon. B. Bennett

Government action on domestic violence

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Cadieux

Access to legal aid by victims of domestic violence

L. Krog

Hon. S. Anton

Implementation of Missing Women Inquiry recommendations and bus service on Highway 16

J. Rice

Hon. S. Anton

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

M. Elmore

S. Robinson

V. Huntington

S. Simpson

K. Conroy

S. Fraser

C. James

S. Hammell

M. Karagianis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training (continued)

D. Routley

Hon. S. Bond

G. Heyman

L. Popham

Hon. N. Yamamoto

A. Weaver

B. Ralston

[ Page 3775 ]

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I have five guests in the gallery today. They're here for their first visit. These are members of the Global Federation of Chinese Business Women Association of B.C. Shirley Chung, Tiffany Wang, Henry Jong, Julie Chang and Susan Wu are here. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

[1335]

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome this entire gallery of nurses who are here today. They are here representing various professions within nursing: licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses and nurse practitioners. They come from various parts of British Columbia.

I know they met with the minister as well today. I had a wonderful meeting with them. They do so much on the front lines of health care every day, and their voices at the table are so welcome.

Will the House please join me in welcoming this wonderful gallery of nurses today.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member for New Westminster mentioned, we were privileged to meet with nurses from across British Columbia today in recognition of National Nursing Week.

We have 22 nursing representatives from across the province, including the following individuals, with whom I met earlier today: Julie Fraser, president of the Association of Registered Nurses of B.C.; Stan Marchuk, president of the British Columbia Nurse Practitioner Association; Teresa McFadyen, president of the Licensed Practical Nurses Association of B.C.; and David Axon, director of the board of the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C.

We all know that nurses are very important and highly skilled members of our health care team. I would just like the House to again join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

Hon. A. Virk: I rise today to introduce and recognize the representatives from Let's Talk Science, an organization dedicated to engaging children, youth and educators in science, technology, engineering and math. Joining them are their supporters Amgen Canada, who also operate a leading-edge research facility in Burnaby. Let's Talk Science and Amgen are here to inform members of their landmark Spotlight on Science Learning report. The report reminds us of the critical importance of science and learning to Canada's future economy.

Would the House please make welcome Dr. Bonnie Schmidt and Cailin Clarke from Let's Talk Science and Amgen's Jim Favaro.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to have two guests in the gallery today, Cassidy Shuvera and her boyfriend, David Anderson. They are aspiring political science students attending the fantastic University of Northern British Columbia. They are here to observe question period and to see our cordial behaviour during that democratic exercise. We hope it encourages them to get involved in further political engagements. Please join me in welcoming them and wishing them the best in their future studies.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to introduce a group of students from my constituency of Surrey-Fleetwood and their teacher, Ms. Tessa Hansen, from Cornerstone Montessori School. I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming them.

M. Dalton: I have special guests in the gallery today: the love of my life, my wife, Marlene, and my darling daughter Hannah. Hannah came down for Mother's Day from Tofino, where she's working and learning how to surf. She is here taking some time off SFU, and she's here with her friend Bella, who is her roommate and works up there also. Bella means beautiful, and she's that too. We're glad they could all come here. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NURSING WEEK AND

CONTRIBUTIONS OF NURSES

J. Tegart: I rise in the House today during National Nursing Week to recognize the vital role of nurses to health care throughout British Columbia. I'd like to acknowledge the over 20 nursing representatives in the gallery today and thank all B.C. nurses for the outstanding, compassionate care they provide to patients and their families every day.

Government recognizes the important work nurses do for British Columbians and acknowledges the vital role of all nurses working in health care teams across our province. Since 2001 we have more than doubled the number of nursing training spaces and invested over $200 million in the B.C. nursing strategy to educate, recruit and retain nurses.

[1340]

Nurse practitioners, registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses play key roles in two new assertive

[ Page 3776 ]

community treatment teams which provide community treatment and rehabilitation supports to clients in Vancouver. Licensed practical nurses continue to be integral to community and residential care, including dialysis and operating room procedures.

Since 2012 our government's nurse practitioners for B.C. program has added 87 new positions for nurse practitioners across our province. By 2015 this total will increase to 135 new positions for B.C. nurse practitioners.

The theme of this year's National Nursing Week is "Nursing: a leading force for change." I'd like to recognize today the innovative and collaborative leadership of nurses in continuing excellent care for patients across our province. May 12 to 18 is National Nursing Week, and I would like the House to join me in acknowledging all nurses for their dedication to British Columbians.

J. Darcy: I am pleased to join my colleague opposite and rise today on National Nursing Week to honour nurses across British Columbia and, especially, again to acknowledge the registered nurses, the licensed practical nurses, the registered psychiatric nurses and the nurse practitioners who have joined us in the House today.

Let me begin by saying that I think we should be honouring our nursing team members every single day of the year, not just in nursing week. Nurses work in every corner of this province and in every conceivable aspect of health care, from the operating room to community clinics to First Nations health care, from caring for seniors at home to caring for them in care homes, from prenatal care to end-of-life care and all points in between.

Nurses also carry out critical work in mental health and addictions programs, and they have a huge role to play in primary care too, an area where their potential has not yet been realized in this province. But that day will come, because having everyone work to their full scope of practice is essential to high-quality health care. It's also essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our public health care system.

The holistic care that nurses provide means that they're in a unique position to see how a person's health is affected by everything: from the environment to child poverty; from access to healthy, nutritious food to safe working and living conditions, to access to safe, clean water. Nurses are uniquely placed to practise health promotion and prevention and to advocate to improve public health care, and indeed they do.

Every day our nurses and other members of the health care team absorb the enormous pressures and strains of our health care system, often at great cost to their own physical and emotional health. But they keep on going and keep on giving because of their passion and their dedication to caring for us.

On National Nursing Week let's tell our nurses how much we value them, and let's also do it every single day of the year.

BRITANNIA SHIPYARD

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

J. Yap: I rise today to recognize the rich maritime history of the Britannia Shipyard National Historic Site in my community of Steveston. The Britannia Shipyard is home to some of the oldest shipyard buildings in B.C. First constructed in 1885 on the south arm of the Fraser River, the shipyards have been home to canneries, boatyards, homes and businesses. The shipyards have also been home to many of B.C.'s diverse cultures, with thousands of Chinese, European and Japanese immigrants, as well as First Nations people, coming to the area to fish and find work.

In 1992 Britannia Shipyard was designated a national historic site and today continues as a boat restoration and repair hub, with local shipwrights preserving and showcasing heritage vessels. The recreational waterfront, with its historic pilings, boardwalks and structures, are home to interpretive exhibits and boat-building demonstrations. This August the shipyards will host the 11th annual Richmond Maritime Festival, where many will see firsthand the community's rich maritime legacy.

[1345]

I would acknowledge the dedication of the many volunteers — in particular, the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society chair, Loren Slye — and the staff for revitalizing the shipyards, including the efforts of community partners such as the Steveston Folk Guild, the Vancouver Wooden Boat Society, the SS Master Society and the city of Richmond.

The Britannia Shipyard National Historic Site in Steveston is a major asset to west coast maritime history, and I invite all members of this House and indeed all British Columbians to come and visit.

MARINE CONSERVATION AREA

FOR SOUTHERN GULF ISLANDS

G. Holman: I want to remind the House today about the proposed marine conservation area for the southern Gulf Islands, which is supported in principle by both senior governments. But the process for this proposal has dragged on for 20 years, since Canada and B.C. first agreed to study it.

Conservation area is a misnomer. It is simply zoning that ensures commercial activity is managed sustainably while recognizing First Nations rights, but protects areas of high ecological importance. The south Salish Sea is one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world, home to more than 3,000 species including large populations of herring, salmon, birds, seals, sea lions, dolphins and whales.

Today Parks Canada calls this area one of the most at-risk natural environments in Canada, including our southern resident orcas, due to high contamination from

[ Page 3777 ]

toxins, noise pollution and diminished food supplies. Every year this area generates millions of dollars in commercial and food fishery harvests and draws thousands of visitors who recognize it as a world-class destination for marine recreation.

The Islands Trust states that provincial and federal management for the area is fragmented and ineffective, resulting in continued oil spills, sewage discharges, derelict vessels and declining fish stocks. I urge this House to get to yes and designate the NMCA for the southern Gulf Islands and begin community-based and stakeholder planning for this precious marine environment as soon as possible, if for no other reason than it will be good for business.

CLEVELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LANDS

R. Sultan: Thanks to superintendent John Lewis, parent Lea Carpenter and the Free the Trees team, Cleveland Elementary School board lands destined for real estate development have been preserved as teaching and recreation space in North Vancouver.

We all recognize the pressure to realign surplus assets from time to time. North Vancouver schools have played their part with unused property, generating significant capital for new schools and seismic upgrades. However, when it came to liquidating Cleveland School's private little forest, parents and Cleveland's 325 students drew the line. The school board listened, and the adjacent land remains intact.

Students, teachers and neighbourhood volunteers helped remove invasive plant species, plant native trees and bushes, and establish two outdoor classrooms. One consists of a teacher's rock and three rows of large boulders, and the other is a large circle in an open space. The most recent neighbourhood day involved removing invasive lamium, spreading about 12 yards of manure and consuming about 450 hot dogs.

Lea Carpenter explained: "Restoring the wooded area has helped students learn about the habitat surrounding the school and its place in the larger ecosystem."

Congratulations, Cleveland Elementary. Congratulations, school district 44.

MINING WEEK

S. Fraser: It's B.C. Mining Week also, and right after Mother's Day too. What are the odds of that? The parallels are pretty clear between Mining Week and Mother's Day. There's no better way of saying "I love you, Mom" or "Thank you, Mom" than gold or platinum or silver or copper or zinc. How about coal?

Well, maybe not for Mother's Day, hon. Speaker. But all of these resources and other minerals help build the economy and sustain the economy of this great province.

Mining is one of B.C.'s largest and oldest industries, and B.C. Mining Week is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the importance of modern industry in British Columbia. Activities are planned for Vancouver and communities all over the province.

[1350]

Getting to production for any mine is really tough. The bedrock of the industry, if you will, is the small claims holders, the prospectors, the placer miners, the hard-rock miners — many working with small budgets but with very big challenges in remote and rugged territory. If assays look really promising, they might just have the opportunity to sell a claim to a junior exploration company.

Capital is very tight, so many of those companies are facing their own challenges. But they persevere and embark on the more advanced exploration processes. If a multitude of moons all line up, maybe — just maybe — the project will actually move forward up the ladder towards actual development of a mine.

Those larger companies that have the resources to actually open a mine have their own challenges. Ever-changing international commodity markets — international price changes that they, and we, have absolutely no control of — can derail even the best-laid project.

So when we think of a gold locket for Mom on Mother's Day, maybe just remember where it came from and the women and men in the B.C. mining industry that, against all odds, made it possible.

Oral Questions

SITE C POWER PROJECT REVIEW PANEL

REPORT AND ENERGY ALTERNATIVES

J. Horgan: Last week the joint review panel on the Site C project issued its report — 400-plus pages. I know the minister spent his weekend boning up on the material, and I want to just highlight a couple of those points for him, if I may.

Over the past ten years B.C. Hydro has spent $300 million studying, reviewing, putting together documents for the Site C project and almost zero on alternatives, to the point where the joint review panel said…. It's not surprising, then, that the panel said they cannot be confident that alternatives are "accurately valued." After the report was tabled, the review by the media was conducted, and the minister said that we weren't going to look at alternatives, that we're going to forge ahead.

Can I ask the minister how it is possibly in the public interest to disregard the joint review panel's recommendation that we look, somehow, at alternatives before we spend $8 billion on power that we don't need today?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think, first of all, I should just remind the member and the House where the Site C project is in government's process. The first stage of an environmental assessment has been completed. That is

[ Page 3778 ]

the joint panel process.

The report has been presented to both the federal government and the provincial government. That report now resides in the provincial environmental assessment office and in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, where it will be reviewed and where potential conditions to an eventual certificate, should it be granted, will be mulled over, over the next several months.

Early in the fall the provincial EAO and the federal agency will decide whether or not the project should get an environmental certificate, and subsequent to that the provincial government will have to make a final investment decision as to whether to proceed with the project. That's the process.

I would respond specifically to the question by also referring to what the joint panel said, because they were very clear in saying that when — not if — the province needs this new electricity, the very best place to get it is from the Site C project. I've got lots of quotations I'd be happy to read into the record, but that is, in fact, what they said.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The minister conveniently neglects the point that I made in the quotation that I read out, which was that absent any alternatives, it's difficult to come to a conclusion one way or the other on what the next best least-cost option is. Unless, of course, when you're articulating what the process is, perhaps you could have articulated, Minister, what the process should have been, and that is to have the B.C. Utilities Commission — the independent, arm's-length B.C. Utilities Commission — review the assumptions that are being made.

[1355]

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I'm sorry. Am I interrupting your conversation, Minister? Oh good. Carry on. It's only $8 billion. It's Monopoly money on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

SITE C POWER PROJECT REVIEW AND

ROLE OF B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

J. Horgan: We have 28 percent rate increases coming forward over the next five years, and now this government wants to add another $8 billion onto that. The joint review panel said we don't need the energy today. Quite clearly and categorically: we don't need the energy today.

A prudent, reasonable government would take the opportunity of this additional time to have a genuine process that put forward genuine alternatives and a genuine costing formula in front of an independent body, the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Before we spend $8 billion, will you have the good sense to put this before the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. B. Bennett: If the hon. Leader of the Opposition finds that this particular job doesn't work out, I would suggest he can easily find a position as a contortionist, because he has twisted around so many times on this project and on this file.

The words did not pass the hon. member's lips, but I've read what he has said in the media. He talks about geothermal, and he talks about wind, and he talks about renewables. For the past ten years that member has referred to that kind of power as "junk power." That's fine. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has clearly changed his mind on this topic suddenly, and fair enough.

Here, in fact, are a few things that the panel did say about alternatives. Number one, they said that….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: I was just trying to add to the suspense.

What they did say — this is from the panel — was: "By comparison, projects such as wind power were noted to have a lower operating life."

This hydroelectric project, should it get approved, will last for over 100 years. "By comparison, projects such as wind power were noted to have a lower operating life than the project and would require replacement and significant rehabilitation after 30 years." The panel went on to say: "The panel agrees with B.C. Hydro on the importance of predictable delivery."

I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition gets this stuff. I know he understands firm power. The panel is talking about the "importance of predictable delivery and, hence, storage over periods from hourly to annual. Weather-dependent renewables alone are not the answer. The sun does not always shine or the wind blow."

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: And talk about predictable delivery. I mean, holy cow.

Now, this is complicated stuff, and absent a third party, we've had Liberals asking Liberals what they think about what the Liberals should do. What I'm hopeful we will see from the mature and responsible government coming on to its first year is that they will do the right thing. [Applause.]

I note the first one to clap was the last guy that cancelled the rate hearing at the B.C. Utilities Commission,

[ Page 3779 ]

before an election, so that he could tell the voters after the election they were going to pay 28 percent more for their power.

[1400]

If I could go back to the minister in this decade that we're living in, the joint review panel said: "B.C. Hydro's outlook is that market prices it would achieve through the forecast period would average $35 a megawatt hour" — radically less than the marginal cost of supply of Site C, $94 a megawatt hour. B.C. Hydro expects to lose "$800 million in the first four years of operation."

So let me just get this right — it's not the NDP saying this; it's the joint review panel — $800 million of ratepayers' money that you're going to blow because you want to build this before it's time.

My question: will the minister please do the right thing for ratepayers? Put this to the commission. Let's get real answers to real questions, not fiction like the stuff that comes from the minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, first of all, the BCUC has never conducted a review of a major hydroelectric dam in B.C. in the history of British Columbia. That's a fact.

I think that to propagate the impression that there has been no good work done on this project after 35 years of poking and prodding and analyzing and looking at it, particularly since 2010, is a fiction, frankly. There has been an enormous amount of work done on this project by B.C. Hydro. That's true. We do put some confidence in the public utility. That side of the House used to put confidence in the public utility. They don't seem to anymore.

The technology that is proposed for this project is mature. B.C. Hydro understands it, probably as well as any organization in the world. The standards that have been used to monitor and assess costs are to the highest international standards available.

You will find that within the $8 billion budget there is a very, very large contingency, a very large inflation account and a very large account for interest. If you total up the cost of interest over the eight-year period to build this project, should it get permitted, and you add the contingency fund and you add inflation, you've got $3 billion out of the $8 billion there as a cushion. So in fact, we think that B.C. Hydro has done its work.

In addition, and finally, I would like to mention that they hired KPMG to assess the costs of the project. Frankly, if this ever did go to the BCUC, they do not have the capacity to look a large project like this. It would take at least two years, and they would have to hire an agency like KPMG.

S. Simpson: The joint review panel concluded that it could not confirm the accuracy of the project cost estimates because it doesn't have the information, time or resources. They also concluded that there is much uncertainty in the long-term forecast put forward by B.C. Hydro. On both of these question and others the panel recommends sending the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

As the minister for both Hydro and the core review, which is supposed to concern itself with best practices for government, how does the minister justify proceeding without proper due diligence and the independent assessment that the Utilities Commission would provide?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, as I said, the BCUC has in fact never reviewed a large hydroelectric project like this. Here, in fact, is what the panel did say.

The panel said that "there is little doubt about the competence of B.C. Hydro to build and operate the project efficiently." There is nothing in this report that would indicate the panel lacked confidence in B.C. Hydro's capacity, abilities or skills to engineer this project and to build it on time and on budget. What the panel did say was that they did not have the resources to look at the kinds of things that the opposition is asking about.

This side of the House responds to that by saying that there has been a huge amount of due diligence done already by B.C. Hydro. We could study it further for another few years. It has been 35 years under the microscope today.

[1405]

What the panel did say is that when British Columbia needs this new electricity, Site C is the best, lowest-cost place to get it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The B.C. Utilities Commission's biggest problem is they've been under assault by this government for a decade because the government doesn't want independent assessments.

The panel questioned the credibility of basing a $7.9 billion project on a 20-year-demand forecast without an explicit scenario for long-term pricing, and they concluded that the proponent has not fully demonstrated the need for the project on the timeline set forth. That's what the panel said. Again, on these fundamental questions, they said: "Send it to the B.C. Utilities Commission."

We know this minister has ideological blinkers concerning the Utilities Commission and with the political manipulation of B.C. Hydro that's been going on with this government for years and years.

I quote the minister. In his letter concerning the core review he stated to ministers: "The overall goal of the core review process is to ensure the best possible use of government resources and respect for the interests of taxpayers."

How can the minister have any credibility on either of his files when he ignores the panel's advice to ensure due diligence is done by sending this project to the Utilities

[ Page 3780 ]

Commission for a full assessment?

Hon. B. Bennett: Even with my ideological blinkers that the member claims I have on — these are just reading glasses — the panel also suggested in November, and again I quote: "The Minister of Energy announced a series of reforms that should put B.C. Hydro into a more sustainable position over the next ten years."

These include paying down regulatory accounts. They include the elimination of the special tier 3 water rentals. They include the reduction of dividends until B.C. Hydro reaches a debt-to-equity ratio of 60-40. The NDP, when they were in government, set the debt-to-equity ratio at 70-30. We think it should be at 60-40.

They also go on and say that, in fact, we are allowing B.C. Hydro, encouraging B.C. Hydro to invest in capital expenditures before Site C to the tune of $1.7 billion a year.

If you look at what the NDP spent on capital on making sure that our dams and our transmission lines were in good shape and were able to provide the kind of reliable electricity that our people have become accustomed to, you will find that when they had their opportunity for ten years, they invested almost nothing.

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

ON SITE C POWER PROJECT

D. Donaldson: The review panel was clear when it said that Site C will have significant adverse effects on First Nations traditional use that cannot be mitigated. This is a big issue.

The Minister of Aboriginal Relations said that government's consultation was adequate and that First Nations would be part of the solution, but the panel maintains the province has yet to enter a discussion with First Nations on "the harmonious accommodation of all interests."

Why does it take a review panel to tell the B.C. Liberals to act honourably? Why should any First Nation trust this government on promises about Site C or any other major projects?

Hon. B. Bennett: Every once in a while you find yourself at least partly in agreement with the opposition.

I do want to make it very clear that this side of the House is well aware that there is significant engagement with Treaty 8 First Nations that will be required over the next six months to a year. That is already happening. There has been significant engagement already. There needs to be a lot more respectful engagement with First Nations around this project. We will do that. All of us on this side of the House will work hard at that.

[1410]

I'm sure that over a period of time, or at least I hope over a period of time, we can work enough with First Nations that we will find, together, some benefits to First Nations, should government decide to proceed after an environmental certificate.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

M. Karagianis: Very sadly, over the weekend we saw another domestic violence death here in British Columbia, the death of a young Vancouver woman at the hands of her ex-husband. It's just the latest in a long string of these kinds of tragedies that have occurred here in the province. All of these cases very vividly confirm that vulnerable women and their children are not being effectively protected by the government. This urgently needs to change.

My question is to the Minister of Justice. What is she going to do differently to ensure that these tragedies will not happen again?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We can all agree in this House, and I believe that the vast majority of British Columbians would agree wholeheartedly, that protecting vulnerable women and children in this province is a priority. Domestic violence is a despicable act, and no one condones it. That's why this government has been making efforts over the last number of years to see what programs and services we can add to that will make women and children safer in the province.

That's why, after extensive consultation with our partners in the field of domestic violence, we introduced a three-year domestic violence plan that will invest an additional $5.5 million to add to domestic violence units in the province, which we know are an effective way to support women in abusive relationships; to add to programs for aboriginal families in the province, where we know services are lacking; to add services for perpetrators to assist in the changing of behaviours; and to provide improved access to housing and transportation in rural and remote communities.

We know that although the government does provide over $70 million a year in services to women and children, there's more that can be done, and we will continue.

M. Karagianis: Well, I don't know how anyone in this province can have confidence in any of these programs when the minister responsible won't even stand up and defend them. If this government wants to prevent violence, then we need to see a substantial plan, not — and I quote the children's representative — an "empty shell" of a plan.

Instead of taking action, so far this government has refused to implement nearly all of the recommendations from the Missing Women Inquiry. They have failed to install domestic violence courts in the province. They have set up an office of domestic violence that actually has no scope to provide any kind of services or help to families,

[ Page 3781 ]

and the domestic violence plan will have no money and won't even begin until 2015.

Again to the minister responsible for these programs, the Minister of Justice: what is this government going to do differently now in order to tackle this growing epidemic of domestic violence deaths here in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The provincial office of domestic violence was formed to help to coordinate the services and supports across government and to ensure that programs directed at violence against women and the services to women affected by violence were coordinated across government and working in the best way they could. While societal attitudes are often difficult to change, we believe that these efforts within government and with our partners will help to shift the attitudes that perpetuate domestic violence and help us collectively, as a society, to achieve our goal.

[1415]

The three-year plan that the provincial office of domestic violence put forward in response to the consultations and efforts underway has been very well received by the community. Would we like to do more? Absolutely. Will we continue to do more? Absolutely. This government is committed to working to prevent domestic violence and to support the women and children who unfortunately have been affected.

ACCESS TO LEGAL AID

BY VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

L. Krog: It's a pretty strange way to recognize your commitment. The children's representative said it perfectly: this government's plan is short on funding and short on detail. I hope the Attorney General is listening, because that is who I'm directing my question to.

Rather than expand justice services for victims of domestic violence, over the last ten years the B.C. Liberals have cut legal aid funding by $23 million, shut down legal aid offices and cancelled support services like the Law Line phone service. So how does the Minister of Justice expect women to access justice in British Columbia when they've cut these very services left, right and centre?

Hon. S. Anton: There is a substantial investment in helping a violence-free British Columbia and helping families and helping victims. We spend $70 million a year in annual funding. But we always have to remember the terrible situations which we are facing right now, the tragedies that have happened in British Columbia in the last few weeks.

Let me set out the things that we are doing. We spend, as I said, $70 million in annual funding. That includes $32 million for spaces in transition homes. It includes $16 million for violence against women counselling and outreach programs. Those programs, by the way, reached 34,000 people last year. We spend $12 million for victim services programs and $12 million for crime victim assistance programs. For families and for children we have victim help lines.

There are many services offered by government, but is there more that can be done? That's why we have a provincial office for domestic violence to be the coordinating unit for domestic violence. That's why we have this broader suite of programs across government so that our families and our communities can be safe and that people in British Columbia can be safe from violence.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Would that the words matched some kind of actual action. Since 2002, 85 percent of legal aid offices in B.C. have been closed by the B.C. Liberals, and in rural communities, where services are even more challenging to access, we've seen this government make cuts that closed all rural community law offices.

Does the Minister of Justice think it's fair that vulnerable women in rural B.C. face increased barriers to services because of their shameful cuts to justice services for people in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: We have, in fact, increased the budget to legal aid this year by $2 million. That is to create innovative programs in family law and criminal law. That is to help families all around British Columbia.

We spend about $74 million on legal aid every year, and at the same time, we spend another $30 million on our justice access centres, one of which is in the member's own riding of Nanaimo, and family mediation centres around British Columbia. This is to give ready access to citizens to justice services.

Legal aid offers help in remote ways through its telephone programs. There is help for people around British Columbia because it is important that everything we do in justice services is accessible around British Columbia. People need help around British Columbia. That's what we are ensuring through legal services and the other programs we offer.

[1420]

IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSING WOMEN

INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS AND

BUS SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

J. Rice: It's been a year and a half since the Missing Women Inquiry called for urgent action to bring in a shuttle bus along the Highway of Tears. When we asked why no action is being taken to bring in the bus, the Transportation Minister insisted that "there have been a tremendous number of discussions and meetings that

[ Page 3782 ]

have been held." Yet mayors and First Nations leaders in the region say that the province has not met with them.

Can the Justice Minister tell this House who is correct: mayors and First Nations leaders or the Transportation Minister?

Hon. S. Anton: The piece of this that we need to remember is that the overarching conclusion for northern highways from Commissioner Oppal was that northern highways have to be safe. That safety is achieved through transportation: through the bus that runs along the highway, through the local transportation services, through the Health Bus, through the train. There is transportation.

It is also achieved through other ways of making the highway safe, because they have to be safe at all times. That's why there's increased cell phone service. That's why there's improved policing. That's why there's a hitchhiking study underway. That's why we've given money to the Carrier-Sekani to do public safety workshops along Highway 16 — because those highways need to be safe 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly here we'll continue second reading of Bill 24 and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room the continued estimates of Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

[1425]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

M. Elmore: I'm pleased to rise and join in the debate on second reading for Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. I rise to speak opposed to this bill, and I want to start by talking about the historical context of the agricultural land reserve, how it came into being here in British Columbia, and then outline my views and concerns with some of the main contentions of the bill.

The agricultural land reserve — now over 41 years here in British Columbia — was an issue that was discussed, hotly debated during the 1972 provincial election. The issue of the agricultural land reserve — agricultural land and industrial development — was a very hot topic.

When the government of the day, the first NDP government, was elected, they made the decision to strike and create the agricultural land reserve for the purpose of recognizing the importance of agricultural land and to support farmers and also provide a process for developers and local governments to make land use decisions where arable land was set aside and agricultural work was promoted and prioritized, while non-farming uses were restricted.

That was the establishment of the agricultural land reserve throughout British Columbia, and the Agricultural Land Commission Act was adopted as the independent body to administer the agricultural land reserve. At the time that it was established, it was estimated that between 4,000 and 6,000 hectares of arable land in B.C. — 4,000 to 6,000 hectares of soil — were lost annually before 1972 to non-farming purposes. The purpose to establish the ALR was to preserve farmland and to regulate how rural and agricultural land could be used.

Certainly, when it came in, it was hotly contested. It was very intensely debated, and there was a lot of opposition at the time. Understandably, individuals who had plans to develop their land that was to be zoned in agriculture tried to have it exempted, so there was a process to establish that.

Now, our agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission that we have in place in B.C. is regarded and held up as a model of public policy in terms of leading, with respect to the management of agriculture, recognizing the central importance of maintaining arable land and the provision of local food for local needs.

Although, initially, the reaction was fierce, it came over the last four decades to be recognized in B.C. and, I think, across Canada and internationally as an ideal model for managing our agricultural land, our farmland.

My first opposition to Bill 24 is that it puts the successful functioning of the agricultural land reserve, one of the main principles and proponents, under attack and undermines the integrity of the ALR.

I think probably the most controversial change is promoted to divide land in B.C. Currently, under the agricultural land reserve, it's now recognized as one zone. The main problem with Bill 24 is that it proposes to establish two zones — zone 1, which is Vancouver Island, the South Coast and the Okanagan, and zone 2, which is the remainder of the province. Zone 2 covers 90 percent of the total land in the agricultural land reserve.

[1430]

The problem is that it undermines the ability to preserve agricultural land. Currently, land that's held in the ALR…. The priority for decisions, in terms of land use decisions for removing or placing land into the ALR — the primary consideration is to serve agriculture and farming concerns. But with the creation of zone 2, these lands will be exempted from that requirement, and the decisions will be based not primarily on the agricultural use but other uses as well — economic, cultural and other regional planning objectives. These changes mean that land exclusion applications outside of the Island, south

[ Page 3783 ]

coast and Okanagan will be much more likely to succeed.

One of the problems, one of the many problems, with Bill 24, in addition to the creation of two zones and the ease to remove farmland from protection, is the removal of a central, provincial, independent body making those decisions to proposed regional subcommittees that will be responsible for making decisions about removing land from the ALR.

Currently we have the structure of the Agricultural Land Commission, which oversees the ALR. When it was set up, one of the priorities was that it should be independent and that it should function in an independent fashion. It was set up as an independent tribunal with the expectation that it avoid political interference.

The changes, however, proposed in Bill 24 will severely impact the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. With the decentralization of the ALC — there's the recommendation to create six regional panels — the problem is that…. One of the main pressures, certainly, for land exemption from the ALR has to do with local projects or developments. With the decisions now resting in the regional bodies, there will be much more local pressure, in terms of trying to meet local land issues.

In addition, the problem, in terms of the establishing of the regional panels, is it undermines the central authority of a provincial body, but it also undermines the independence because cabinet now will be given more power to handpick members of the Agricultural Land Commission. Currently the chair is appointed, but with Bill 24 the cabinet will now be able to appoint the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission as well as six vice-chairs of the regional panels. This will further subject the Agricultural Land Commission to the pressure of local land issues.

It was previously an independent Crown agency with the mission to preserve agricultural land and encourage and enable farm businesses throughout B.C., while it was also working towards a provincial agricultural land reserve system that fostered economic, environmental and social sustainability. It operates as a provincial zone where farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are controlled, covering about 4.7 million hectares in B.C.

With the creation of the proposal to break up the agricultural land reserve into two zones, and also to undermine the ability of an independent provincial body, into six politically appointed regional subcommittees to make decisions….

[1435]

This is really, in my view and also talking to many constituents, businesses and folks who are interested and concerned about food security and who support our B.C.-based farming, B.C. farmers, and recognize the importance of needing to expand the ability of B.C. to grow and expand our fruits and vegetables and goods that we consume here in British Columbia…. These are moves that will undermine the ability of British Columbia to adequately support our farmers and for our farmers to be successful — allowing more land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve.

In addition to the specific problems with Bill 24, to add insult to injury is the fact that while at different times positions have been brought forward by the government, by the Liberals, in terms of the ALR and the Agricultural Land Commission, we didn't hear anything in the platform before the election. These proposed changes were not discussed or put to the people of British Columbia last year before the election.

Now the bill is being introduced without a mandate, because British Columbians weren't advised of that, and without an adequate consultation period for individuals and many people who are concerned about this issue, who gain their livelihood from farming. The many businesses that have sprung up out of our agricultural industry have not had an opportunity to give input and feedback with respect to the bill.

We've heard some claims from the Minister of Agriculture that he's accepting e-mails and personal letters, that he's open to those suggestions, but I think it falls short, certainly, from expectations of bringing such significant changes to our long-held agricultural land reserve and our practice of administering it through the Agricultural Land Commission. There's really no mandate.

I was sitting on our Finance Committee when we were undertaking tours across the province, listening to presentations and recommendations from individuals and organizations for their recommendations to the budget. We were surprised to hear that presenters would come, and they wanted to make a presentation to the committee on having input to the possible changes happening to the agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission.

The members of the Finance Committee — our initial response was: "This is not the appropriate body for these reviews." It was only later that it was revealed that there had been a press release. A government press release had been sent out on October 24 that indicated that public input into the core review process, which would include concerns with respect to the Agricultural Land Commission, could be made to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, which was already underway. We were already well into our hearings, and we had individuals who were concerned about possible changes and wanted to come to our body to raise these concerns.

It created, I think, surprise. I was surprised on the committee. Our committee members were surprised. It was a surprise to us and, I think, our Chair, who wasn't advised of this. It was only after the fact that, indeed, we were able to hunt down and find the press release that had been issued by the Minister Responsible for Core Review​. It ended after a short couple of weeks as well.

[ Page 3784 ]

[1440]

In terms of input, consultation into significant substantive changes, certainly the public was not informed, was not advised prior to the election. During the course, individuals attempted to come and make presentations to the Finance Committee, which was not given…. We had not been mandated with that when there were promises to bring, to hold consultations. I think that assurances from the minister that he's accepting e-mails and letters do not meet the standard, certainly, unless it's an incredibly low standard with respect to public consultations.

These are some fundamental problems with this bill, with Bill 24, undermining our agricultural sector in B.C. and, I think, really undermining public confidence in our system and disrespecting citizens in British Columbia in terms of the opportunity to have input and to have concerns brought forward and to really engage in a discussion on this topic.

I visited the Trout Lake Farmers Market in Vancouver on the weekend and was distributing information about the bill. One thing I found very surprising is that there is actually a high level of engagement. Individuals were knowledgable about the bill. For a specific piece of legislation, I was taken by surprise.

Certainly, the reaction from folks that I talked to was that they were, I think, very concerned and upset about the proposed changes and frustrated with the manner, as well, in which it had been implemented — a very heavy-handed manner by the government. My message to them was and continues to be to raise concerns, to communicate their concerns to the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for Core Review, the Premier.

We need to put a halt to this bill. We need to hit pause, and we need to ensure that British Columbians are able to participate in and bring their concerns forward on this very important issue. When we talk about…. If you go to any farmers market, you'll see, I think, another dynamic that's very unique to British Columbia and reflects the success of the agricultural land reserve. That is that we have, number one, the success of farmers markets themselves.

They have grown substantially and become very popular right across the province in all communities. When you go through all the farmers markets, you'll be amazed by just the breadth of products. It's really a credit to the entrepreneurship of local producers and local business people to have developed just an incredible range of products — everything from homemade jams to, of course, your produce to locally made chocolates.

Of course, we have just a wide range of products that are very popular. It is really a very dynamic business system.

I also wanted to mention that, in reference to that, we are seeing British Columbia also leading — I would contend — in Canada and really making a statement worldwide in terms of the recognition and the vibrancy of our local agriculture sector. Nearly 48 percent of food that we consume in British Columbia is produced here, which is quite an impressive statistic.

We also see growth in and a real support for locally grown food, for families wanting to feed themselves and their children healthy food. They want to know where the food comes from. There's growth and a real expansion in terms of restaurants and the farm-to-plate business model as well as, I think, for supporting locally grown food and the importance of that. When we look at what's happening….

[1445]

Now, when the agricultural land reserve was brought in, in 1973, I think you can really characterize that as, certainly, a very visionary step and a very bold public policy statement to put into place. The fact that it has been sustained over 40 years — today I think we can appreciate that.

When we look at the challenges around food security, when we look at what's happening in California now with their record worst drought…. They've had to declare a state of emergency. They're expecting, as California produces a good majority of fruits and vegetables for the rest of the United States, that food prices will be rising because of the hardship on the local farmers.

The impact here in British Columbia…. We must move towards the direction of having the ability to grow more of our food in British Columbia. We have to support our local farmers and protect our existing farmland for a long-term view, in terms of ensuring we have adequate food security.

I think there's a growing awareness, as well, about the importance of food security and environmental sustainability, in a global context of climate change, global warming and the impact that that has, not only on food prices, with food prices increasing — we've seen prices increasing for cattle and beef and now anticipate prices being on the rise for fruits and vegetables, with the drought in California — but also in terms of pressures on transportation, rising costs.

Here in British Columbia we've seen the growth and the popularization of the 100-mile diet — that's a local phenomenon as well — as well as many successful business models, in terms of taking locally produced food and delivering it either to restaurants or to local businesses or to individuals.

These are really popularizing and promoting awareness around the importance of food security. I think it's also what is informing the concern coming forward not only from B.C. farmers and producers — and, really, the multiple businesses that depend on locally grown and locally produced and raised agricultural goods for their businesses — but also individuals.

In terms of our view moving forward, we have to continue to recognize the importance of B.C. farmland, to preserve that and to ensure that there's always pressure

[ Page 3785 ]

and there's always tension, in terms of removing land from the agricultural land reserve for other purposes.

The challenge to maintain it, certainly, is a central concern. It's something that we have to ensure that for our existing land, we protect it, and that existing land remains a permanent legacy for generations to come.

As well, there's an excellent

article in B.C. Business, the November 2013 magazine, that talks about and lays out really how dynamic and fast-growing our local food sector is, not just in terms of how fast it's growing with respect to the popularity of farmers markets but the rise of — we see them opening every day — local restaurants that exclusively market that their foods are grown in B.C., and also the distribution systems that are set up to support those businesses.

Certainly, it's a growing sector. It's a sector that we have to continue to support and ensure that it's strengthened. Bill 24 goes in the wrong direction and undermines those efforts.

So that's Bill 24. I want to also talk about the history, in terms of when the agricultural land reserve was brought into being, but also some of the context and thinking behind that.

[1450]

Bill 24 will undermine not only the integrity of the agricultural land reserve but also threaten our farmland. That also has to be taken into context of, I think, the poor record of this government with respect to supporting our agricultural sector in B.C.

While B.C. enjoys a very fertile and productive agricultural sector, we have the least amount of support for agriculture here in B.C., the least amount compared to any province in Canada. In B.C. we only invest 5 percent in terms of supporting our agricultural sector, compared to other provinces spending an average of 14 percent.

As well, the Liberals eliminated the buy-B.C. marketing initiative in 2001, which was very successful in promoting B.C. products and encouraging not only British Columbians to buy and support those products but in terms of marketing it outside of British Columbia and around the world.

We have also seen a report from the Auditor General in 2010, recommending that we need to protect B.C.'s farmland, and also a recommendation that the Agricultural Land Commission needs to have support in order to fulfil its mandate and that there was a lack of compliance and enforcement and a lack of knowledge about agricultural land reserve boundaries.

The agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission were established not just to protect agriculture but also to support and really encourage farmers and the agricultural sector in British Columbia. Bill 24 undermines that. In addition, in the context of how agriculture has really fallen very low in terms of a political priority, we're seeing a need to support our agricultural sector, and Bill 24 goes, certainly, in the wrong direction.

We've seen cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands budget in 2009, and these have been undermining our food security and also concerns around sustainability.

In Vancouver farmers markets are very popular, and it's recognized…. The Vancouver city council is also bringing forward concerns about Bill 24 and passed a motion in council. The Vancouver food charter, which was adopted in 2007, encourages personal, business and government food practices that foster local production and protect natural and human resources.

The Vancouver food strategy also has been promoted in terms of encouraging local communities to develop local food networks around growing and utilizing B.C.-grown food and encouraging that. It's been a very successful program that has been taken up. I think the recognition by folks that I talk to, neighbours, in programs that are run out of the neighbourhood houses — South Vancouver Neighbourhood House as well as Cedar Cottage…. These are the programs that Vancouverites recognize the importance of and, I think, have led to an increased awareness.

The motion that was passed at the Vancouver council meeting on October 8, 2013, calls on the government to support the preservation of farmland in our agricultural land reserve, and that if the ALC and ALR are to be modified, that there be an adequate period for input, for consultation, for concerns to be brought forward, and that this is a huge concern.

[1455]

These are important issues, not only in terms of dry public policy. You can argue it affects our fundamentals of life, and certainly, these changes proposed in Bill 24 undermine our food security.

S. Robinson: I rise in the House today in complete and total opposition to this government's intention to incrementally destroy the agricultural land reserve with Bill 24.

I wanted to say how grateful I am that previous governments had this idea and this commitment to take our agricultural land and to put a proverbial fence around it, recognizing that future generations would need to have access to these lands so that we can have a sustainable agricultural sector, one that's capable of feeding our communities, feeding our children and feeding our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

This system of putting aside arable land where agricultural activity can be promoted and prioritized, while non-farming uses are restricted, is a policy of vision. It's a policy that took tremendous courage and a great recognition that if these lands weren't protected, they would eventually disappear. These arable lands, a small portion of our land base, were at serious risk of becoming housing or commercial or industrial zones, thereby losing these lands to grow food forever.

Perhaps I can remind this House of life before the ALR.

[ Page 3786 ]

I myself was actually a small child. That's how old it is. It's a little bit older than me. I've had to do a bit of research, because I was living in Montreal during the time and really had no sense of what activity was going on here. In doing my research, I learned that between 4,000 and 6,000 hectares of arable land in British Columbia were lost each year prior to the agricultural land reserve.

It was Dave Barrett's government and the leadership of Harold Steves, who's now serving the community as a well-loved Richmond councillor, who helped to push and make the agricultural land reserve an election issue. When they won the election, they made it a reality.

It really wasn't without its challenges, and I know the previous speaker spoke to this. There really was tremendous opposition. Farmers who had put their life investment into their land and recognized that at some point they would sell the land were completely outraged.

As I was reading up on the history, what dawned on me was, when you read about our public health system, that once upon a time doctors were outraged when socialized medicine came into being.

While I recognize that these changes are really very difficult, when there's vision attached to it for the long term and for the benefit of future generations, I think we can all appreciate that. We certainly feel that way about our socialized medicine, and there are many around this province that feel that way about the agricultural land reserve.

There was at the time a frenzy of rezonings that were going in — applications so that these developments could get done before the ALR actually came into being. The Agriculture Minister of the day introduced a farmland freeze, an order-in-council to halt these subdivisions, and finally the Land Commission Act was introduced on February 22, 1973. Now, with all of these angry people, it took tremendous courage and tremendous foresight to stick to the legislation, knowing that future generations like our generation would recognize and value this legislation that was put in place.

The Provincial Land Commission was charged with designating ALR sites around the province, and the same body, even back then, would be responsible for hearing proposals to remove lands from the ALR for non-farming purposes. This really caught my attention. It was built right into the legislation that the body responsible, this neutral body, would be able to tweak the agricultural land reserve as needed. There has always been recourse and opportunity to tweak these boundaries, and it has been done throughout the history of the agricultural land reserve. Through all these 40 years there has been opportunity to tweak boundaries as needed.

The Agricultural Land Commission certainly developed excellent relationships through its work with local governments, the bodies responsible for land use. That's what local governments do. This commission has always considered economic, social and cultural uses of land when making their determination. This body has been paying very close attention for 40 years. They're very experienced in working with local bodies that have local knowledge and making sure that they consider all factors when tweaking these boundaries.

[1500]

Now, in 1975 the Socreds came into power. Although they were a vociferous voice against the agricultural land reserve, they recognized that there was widespread public acceptance of a land reserve. In 1978 the federal lands directorate report found that 80 percent of 800 B.C. landowners interviewed saw the ALR system quite favourably. They knew and appreciated and saw the value of protecting our agricultural land. Any tweaks that that Socred government made to the ALR legislation really only related to the appeals processes and public hearings.

They recognized — even the Socreds recognized — the value of protecting these lands, and they recognized the widespread public support of this policy.

Under the NDP government of the '90s there were additional tweaks to the agricultural lands, most of which were actually shutting down the holes, created by the Socreds, that permitted the development of golf courses on arable land. I still can't quite wrap my head around decisions to chase a white ball all over a perfectly manicured green lawn where we should be growing food, and it's rather embarrassing. But the protections were put back in place, just as they should have been.

An additional adjustment to the legislation included eliminating direct appeals to cabinet of decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission — direct appeals. The government of the day received tremendous heat from media, landowners, advocacy bodies and the general public over the ability to override and even undermine the work of the Agricultural Land Commission. The government saw fit to eliminate political interference in the process and to let the commission do its job as it was meant to: unhindered and unencumbered from political interference.

A '97 opinion survey noted that over 80 percent of British Columbians considered it unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable, to remove land from the agricultural land reserve. It's certainly very telling when you can get 80 percent of the people of this province to agree on anything. What it says to me is that the agricultural land reserve is valued by the British Columbian electorate.

When the Liberals came to power in 2001, they engaged in a core review process. They really like these core review processes. They took a look at the Land Reserve Commission, and they brought forward the Agricultural Land Commission Act, with the idea of making the agricultural land reserve "more efficient, effective and regionally responsive by providing for regional commission panels and expanding delegation."

Interestingly enough, they proposed to bring in six regional panels made up of commissioners who live in

[ Page 3787 ]

the region, under the guise that local decision-makers understood local issues. Funny that. I come from local government, and I thought that was the role of local government. I thought mayors, councillors and regional directors had that role.

This act was also supposed to delegate increased responsibility to local regional governments, but the commission noted in their 2003-2004 annual service plan report that only 14 — only 14 — of 136 local governments were even interested in discussing delegation with the commission. Local governments recognized that the independence of the role of the commission should stand on its own.

So where are we now? Well, we have a government that is proposing to further erode the power and the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. They want to appoint their own handpicked vice-chairs to these panels, and their rationale for Bill 24 is that there is no real viable agricultural land in zone 2, which comprises about 90 percent of the agricultural land in the ALR.

I find it fascinating because the farmers I talk to say that you can grow plenty of stuff in the north and in the Kootenays and that it all depends on what you want to grow. What's really interesting is…. I was talking to my husband about this over the weekend, and he just looked at me sort of incredulously and said: "But if there's green stuff on it, it grows stuff." I mean, that's just a general….

Interjections.

S. Robinson: But different kinds of things need to be grown. It's only where you are up in tundra that you can't grow stuff. So really, when it comes down to it, it depends on what it is you want to grow in which part of the province. I'll get to that a little bit later, as we actually talk to some scientists and we hear what they have to say. If this government had taken the time to consult — and consulting doesn't mean reading e-mails; that's not consulting — they would learn a whole bunch of things.

[1505]

In the world that I come from, consulting means bringing together the stakeholders and hearing from them. It means understanding what the challenges are and what the concerns are. In my world consulting means hearing about what the farmers are growing in the Kootenays instead of telling British Columbians that nothing but hay grows in those regions.

In my world consulting means getting all the facts and making policy based on these facts, rather than listening to a few people who have perhaps had their proposals rejected by the Agricultural Land Commission and deciding that you're just going to do something about it and make up the facts along way to support your decision. What we have here before us is a piece of legislation that is decision-based evidence-making instead of evidence-based decision-making.

Let's get back to this process of this bill and how British Columbians even heard about it. Never once, never once during this last election, did we hear anything about dismantling the agricultural land reserve or the Agricultural Land Commission. Before the 2013 election there were two reviews of the ALC — one by the Auditor General in 2010 and a second order by government.

These reviews resulted in the Liberals claiming to recognize…. At the time, they claimed to recognize the need for the ALC to do their job. So they actually gave them a $4 million lift, saying: "You need more resources to do this fine job that you're doing." They liked it. They liked what they were doing. They gave them more money, specifically. It was specifically to adjust the boundaries, because that's what the Auditor General suggested.

In fact, in October 2011 the then Agriculture Minister, who is representing Comox, said: "I'm looking forward in the next month or so to actually release that report, but not just release the report; actually have some mitigation factors that actually just reinforce the fact that this province and this government find the ALR and the ALC a great entity that actually promotes farming, protects and preserves quality farmland in this province…." Their own Agriculture Minister spoke to the ALR — protecting and preserving quality farmland in the province.

It's reminiscent that during the election, we don't hear anything about this, and it's reminiscent of the HST. It's a style of communicating to the electorate after you get elected, not before. "Why would we tell people before what we're going to do? We'll just tell them after the election."

After the election, what do we hear from this Liberal government? We hear that after two reviews and a financial lift that will assist the ALC to do its job, the ALC will be part of another core review process. They just had two reviews. I don't understand. On October 4, 2013, the Liberal government ordered the ALC to stop boundary review work that the Auditor General recommended it conduct, because they're going to be doing a core review.

Now, if a core review is about looking for efficiencies, how can this government say that creating two zones and handpicking vice-chairs is going to be more efficient and more cost-effective? In fact, it would seem to me that it would actually be less efficient and perhaps even more costly.

A month later, after the ALC stopped their boundary review — in November, five months after the election — the Globe and Mail revealed that the Liberals actually had drafted a secret plan to dismantle the ALR and the ALC as part of their core review. The plan was drafted in the days and weeks following the then Agriculture Minister being reprimanded by the ALC for contravening rules against political interference in the commission's decisions — something about a rodeo. I don't know — agricultural land.

This was really about political interference, political

[ Page 3788 ]

interference in a decision made by an independent body, an independent body whose role it is to prevent the British Columbia public waking up one day and asking: "What happened to our agricultural land?" Once caught, the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Peace River North, noted that he was only advocating as an MLA in the days before he was given the Agriculture portfolio.

He then went on to say that the ALC "makes independent decisions about land use in British Columbia, and I fully respect their decision." That was the case on November 10, 2013. If that's the case, how is it that the Agriculture Minister and his cabinet respect the work of the agricultural commission and then say: "But it needs to be different"?

[1510]

The Premier has chosen to not only defend her minister, who engaged in political interference and broke the rules about the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission…. She actually said that the proposal to redefine the ALC has merit, claiming that there may be some lands in the ALR that ought not to be protected given its "limited farming value."

How does she know this? It's sort of like: "So how do you know that?" Does she now have a degree in agriculture? They certainly haven't consulted. Had she checked with the farmers? Has she even read what the soil scientists are telling us?

I'd like to read into the record a little bit about what I learned from the soil scientists. These are the people who have lots of degrees after their names. They've written a letter about their concerns, serious concerns, about Bill 24. They write:

"As a group of experienced soil scientists who have worked throughout British Columbia for many years, we have serious concerns over the substantial change in direction embodied in Bill 24, presented to the provincial Legislature on March 27, 2014.

"For the past four decades preservation of agricultural lands has been a provincewide priority aimed at protecting existing farmlands and lands that have the potential for future agricultural use."

Potential. Imagine that, protecting farmland that has potential.

"Some of those future agricultural lands are now forested, and until such time as they are needed and developed for agriculture, they will continue to contribute to wood and fibre production and thereby to the provincial economy."

So where you have stuff growing right now, that has value now and into the future, in all likelihood — and possibly for agricultural land, should we need it.

"For such lands not currently farmed, the objective is to keep the option open for future agriculture."

These soil scientists admire the vision of the future and recognize that these lands will possibly serve some purpose for us and for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. These soil scientists "consider this to be a prudent course of action in the face of an uncertain future."

They go on to describe the bill, and they note:

"We question whether this is sound policy and direction in a province with a very limited land base capable of food production.

"In areas designated as ALR, decisions regarding subdivision, exclusion and uses of land for purposes other than agriculture are currently considered from a food production perspective. That is, protecting the inherent quality of land for food production is, by law, the primary consideration. Other considerations, such as socioeconomic conditions, are secondary" — just as they should be. "This approach has been proven to keep future options available."

This is how the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission have been operating. This government wants to change that. They give this great example. It was really very helpful, because I am not a scientist and I am not a farmer. I'm a city mouse, so I don't have a great sense of agricultural lands, but this was very helpful. They note:

"If the poor economic performance of tree fruit production in the Okanagan Valley of the '70s had taken precedence over the inherent capability of many Okanagan Valley soils to produce both tree fruits and grapes, and had such lands not been protected in the ALR, the vibrant wine industry" — I will make note, too, that I do know something about that industry; I quite like Okanagan wines — "and the associated agritourism business that we have today would not have been possible, or at the very least, it would have been diminished."

The fact that we have had a fabulous policy in place for 40 years tells us that this current generation has benefited from it. I have serious concerns that Bill 24 will rip off future generations of the same possibilities.

What they do go on to note is that agricultural land use decisions should not be tailored to regional conditions. As far as they are aware, the Agricultural Land Commission decision-making has been incredibly sensitive to regional and community differences, both in the type of agriculture and differences in other land and resource uses. These soil scientists, who come from all over the province — this is their profession. They study these decisions, and they recognize that the Agricultural Land Commission as it stands today has done a fabulous job.

They note that the commission has worked for many years with local and regional governments to support community and regional planning. This already happens.

Now, this goes on to talk about the concerns about the different quality of soils, but they note that a class 3 soil in the Fraser Valley is, of course, different from a class 3 soil in the Peace.

[1515]

They note: "Capability, based on the range of crops, needs to be considered along with the suitability and productivity of individual crops on specific soils in specific local climates."

They go on to note that at different times, a different class of lands will grow different kinds of things. They note that some class 6 lands are important components of livestock production, notably the natural grasslands of the southern Interior. These provide the often limited early spring and fall grazing that reduces both labour and feed costs of ranchers.

If these things aren't respected, there will be a tremen-

[ Page 3789 ]

dous undue cost that come to these farmers. That cost will be then, of course, borne by the rest of us — those of us who like to eat.

One of the things I do want to point out…. I'd like to read into the record the conclusions that these soil scientists make, because I think that's really important.

They note that they completely agree with the words of the late Gary Runka, who was the former chair of the B.C. land commission. They note that the key elements of effective farmland preservation are as follows:

"A provincewide zone administered by a provincial commission operating in the overall public interest of present and future generations; a zone firmly based on science that objectively assesses the inherent biophysical ability of lands to grow crops; a permanent zone from which urban expansion and other non-compatible uses are redirected, not merely a zone that rations food-producing lands to other uses over time; a zone within which British Columbians are committed to supporting, where necessary, those who farm the land and produce the food upon which we rely."

Then they sign it. When they sign it…. It's amazing.

We've got Terence Lewis, PhD in soil science; Art Bomke, PhD, professor emeritus at UBC faculty of land and food systems; Mike Fenger, BSF — lots of initials — soils and land use consultant; Niels Holbek, bachelor of science in agriculture; John Jungen, bachelor of science in agriculture; Evert Kenk, BSF; Bob Louie, BSF; Paul Sanborn, PhD, associate professor, ecosystem science and management, University of Northern British Columbia; Margaret Schmidt, PhD, associate professor of soil science at SFU; Scott Smith, PAg — professional agriculturalist, I guess — soil scientist; Jace Standish, master of science, RPF, PAg, terrestrial ecology and soils at BCIT; Udo Wittneben, bachelor of science in agriculture; and Eveline Wolterson, master of science, PAg.

Here we have some amazing professionals who've taken the time to let us know what they know. I quite trust scientists in helping us to make policy decisions. Clearly, Bill 24 has not taken that into consideration.

Not only is this policy redundant, because we already know that local considerations are taken into consideration as well as social and economic forces…. What that does for me is it makes me a little suspicious about: why are you doing this, and what's this about? If the real issue is tweaking boundaries and an independent body is already addressing that issue, why would you propose a plan that would break up a system that's already doing it? Why would you upset the millions of British Columbians who have been very protective of this for 40 years?

It certainly seems to me that there was a plan all along to just make it easier to pull lands out of the ALR so that pipelines and gas plants can be built. Government for over 40 years…. There have been different governments, but every single government recognized the value, the importance, of protecting our agricultural land for future generations.

In the first week of November 2013 the Premier denied that her Liberal government was going to split the agricultural land reserve into two sections, with different rules governing each of these sections. But just a week later on Kelowna radio, she actually said that this idea had some merit. So clearly, either something happened in that week, or she wasn't actually quite forthright with what the plans were.

[1520]

In fact, the radio announcer summarized it and said: "The Premier says marginal agricultural land in northern B.C. is getting in the way of developing the liquid natural gas industry." So clearly, this is not about tweaking boundaries.

This is really about saying the agricultural land reserve is getting in the way of our latest project, our latest eye candy, our latest little shiny thing that we're going to show to all of British Columbia that we're capable of doing — rather than recognizing that you need to balance these.

There is no balance in this at all, and that is so disrespectful to every single farmer across this province and to everybody who likes to eat local foods.

Here we are just months after an election where there was not a word to the electorate that the B.C. Liberals were considering a major shift in policy and that we're going to be changing our stewardship of agricultural land for this province. It becomes clear that the motivation for doing this has absolutely nothing to do with agriculture. It has everything to do with their singular focus on LNG.

This government wants to charge full steam ahead, do whatever it wants to do without being honest with us about why it's destroying a 40-year legacy that has been intended to protect farming opportunities for generations to come.

Several weeks ago this city mouse went to Creston. I was there as a critic to attend the AKBLG, which is local governments' association up there. There was actually some substantial concern from mayors, councillors and directors about the proposed changes.

Many were quite worried about how the dismantling of the ALR and the ALC is going to affect their constituents. They noted that there hasn't even been any consultation with the farmers. So this group of local politicians, who represent the local electorate, put together an emergency resolution asking the UBCM and this provincial government to go out and properly consult with farmers in all areas of the province in order to properly identify just how these proposed changes will impact the future of agriculture in our province.

On this side of the House we value consultation — real consultation. Certainly, the local government officials that I've talked to value real consultation. They haven't even been properly consulted — the farming community — about the implications of this bill. Really, I can't imagine, as somebody who comes from local government, ever doing sweeping land use changes without consulting with the group that is going to be most impacted by the proposed changes.

When I was in Creston, I spent the afternoon touring

[ Page 3790 ]

three different farms, had conversations with these farmers to hear what they had to say, did my own, I guess, little mini-consultation, because I really wanted to understand what this bill would do to farmers and to farmland.

See, in my community some people might think that their food just comes from Save-On-Foods or Thrifty Foods, and I wanted to make sure that I as their representative understood exactly, because in suburbia we don't have a lot of farms. We might have our own gardens, but we don't have a lot of farms. I wanted to make sure that I was able to impress upon my constituents what this would mean.

What I learned from these farmers was that they have serious concerns about how their operations will be put at risk by parcelling up the ALR. They're worried that there will be an increase in land prices. Inappropriate development will mean losing these lands forever, and their ability to use the land through the entire supply chain will increase their costs — which, of course, will then increase food costs, continuing to make life more expensive for all British Columbians.

More recently with the…. We have a new Minister of Agriculture, and he's saying that he's in the process of consulting. I remember hearing him here in the House. When pressed about what that means, what that looks like, he said he's reading e-mails from British Columbians.

I've certainly been telling my constituents who have concerns to send letters to the Premier, to send letters to the Minister of Agriculture. At least he's reading them, which is great, but to him that's consultation, and that's not consultation.

Then, we have the Minister of Agriculture saying he's open. "I'm going to read all these e-mails. I'm going to consult. I may just change the legislation that's being proposed. I'm open to amending it. I'm open to removing it."

Good on him, because that's his job. His job is to hear from constituents all across this province. I actually sat on this side of the House going: "Okay, this is pretty good. We have a minister who is open to hearing what people have to say. I'm going to get the people that I know are worried and say: 'He's a minister who's open to hearing what you have to say. Get right on it. You send him e-mails.'"

Then, five days later the Minister Responsible for Core Review was saying: "We're just going to keep on going through with this legislation."

[1525]

One minister says one thing; the other says the exact opposite. Now in my world, before I had gone into local government and I was a family therapist, we'd call this crazy-making, when one parent says one thing and the other parent says another. It's really not good for the children. Certainly, in this case we have one minister saying one thing and another minister saying the other thing, and it's not good for the electorate.

V. Huntington: How does one begin to speak about a piece of legislation that is so confounding in its intent that I find myself looking at the faces across the aisle with curiosity, wondering whether they've lost their way entirely?

I'm puzzled how I could have assumed we live in the same part of this great country and see the same bounty — the unique, startling, stunning beauty and bounty of British Columbia. I thought we shared a similar desire to see government done well, a desire to protect our hard-won, imperfect democratic heritage by ensuring the essential public interest, by protecting the ability of our descendants to have the same opportunities for security, success and a dignified life.

That deep-seated need for security is one of the most fundamental reasons for government. There's almost no other purpose for government. Over time, in most representative democracies, security has come to mean a multitude of necessities — protective services, education, health. In Canada the body politic recognizes that it has a responsibility to ensure the vulnerable are afforded as much dignity as is possible.

Security in the future and modern world is also going to take on new meaning, one which the relatively wealthy and content industrialized world, certainly Canada, has yet to recognize. Security is also going to mean protecting the most valuable resources that we have as a nation, resources fundamental to the needs of our very humanity. That is our water and our agriculturally productive land.

One day in the not-too-distant future British Columbia could well become the envy of the world. In a world that becomes even one or two degrees warmer we could well be the richest nation of all — rich at least in our ability to survive a startling new reality of drought, vicious weather, changing land use and the resultant damage to food production and access to water; rich because the billions of people in this world who will suffer drought and starvation will want what we have, will need what we have and could well come to get what we have.

Indeed, nations who understand what drought and starvation mean are already making plans to protect their own citizens, and those plans involve buying our land and shipping our production overseas to protect their own people, their own livestock and their own future. That is a security issue we must come to grips with: how to protect our own citizens in a drastically different world. That is a security issue this provincial government is slow to recognize, slow to plan for and slow to believe is coming.

Our own government is making decisions about essential resources with no forward-thinking policy plan in place, with no foresight, without a sense of the demands the future will place on every piece of agriculturally productive land in this province.

It is forcing those plans to take into account critical policy decisions that are being made in the absence of

[ Page 3791 ]

science, in the absence of common sense, in the absence of statistics and the absence of an understanding that the changing climate is real and that the agriculturally productive lands of this province will be absolutely essential to our own survival and essential to the security of our province and of our nation.

Even worse, it seems the government is only now attempting to come up with a food security policy, which, if this bill is adopted, will be policy-making after the fact, after the horse has left the barn, after it introduces a piece of legislation that is so shortsighted in its goal and so blatantly against the long-term public interest that it could well jeopardize the future food security of British Columbia.

It is also a piece of legislation that treats farmers in different parts of this province quite differently, and it is a piece of legislation that will make it even harder for farmers in zone 1 to work the land, acquire land for future generations and see a bright future for their chosen profession.

[1530]

What are those lands that could well become the most essential and important lands in this province — or could become essential if this ridiculous piece of legislation dies the ignoble death it so deserves? Why, they are the very lands the Minister for Core Review is so anxious to turn into blacktop or little boxes or resorts — the very zone 2 lands that he has somehow decided are the least productive and that represent little in the way of adding to the GDP of the province.

How insulting to the men and women of this province who take pride in the profession of farming, who feed and nourish us, who have chosen to live on the land and to coax it to its potential. How insulting to be told their labour and life's work is so undervalued that the government of the day wants to change the uses on that precious land.

That's what's going to happen if this bill is accepted by this House. The uses on B.C.'s agricultural soil will change.

Yes, there are issues the farmers need to have addressed. Complementary businesses should be considered. Homes for the next generation should be considered a possibility that could be added to the farm home plate. Poor land should be removed from the reserve. All of these issues could have been solved by the ALC through consultation with farmers, local governments and associations.

Consultation isn't what this bill is about. This government has lost the ability to trust the people enough to consult with them. Why? Because it might not get the answer it wants. That's why.

The people of B.C. believe they have the right to participate in major policy shifts that were not part of an election campaign platform, but it's quite obvious that the Minister for Core Review took his very own definition of "consultation" from the Devil's Dictionary . That well-known visionary Ambrose Bierce was obviously thinking of the minister when he defined consultation as "seeking another's approval of a course already decided upon," because that is exactly what the Minister for Core Review did. He recited support that wasn't there and that didn't back him up.

Actually, if the truth were known, Ambrose's Devil's Dictionary was the new title for the Cynic's Word Book, and that's what this minister and his government have created throughout this province: cynicism, a cynicism so deep that people are turning away from government, from voting and from participation. That is the fault of a government that cares not one whit for what the people think, who have underwritten the voters' mantra: "Why should we bother? It doesn't make any difference."

Here we are debating a bill that the sitting government has no mandate to introduce. The fundamental changes to the Agricultural Land Commission that are proposed in Bill 24 were not called for by the people, were not tested in the crucible of the last election, nor are they required to meet any emergent circumstance that has occurred since the last election. In a representative democracy, substantial changes to important public policy, legislation or taxes ought to be proposed during election. That is the only way a government can rightfully claim it has a mandate to make fundamental changes to provincial policy that has been relied upon for years.

How can members on the opposite side support such a massive alteration to four decades of public policy without one word uttered during the election? The introduction of massive policy change without one hint, one word of debate during the election. They have obviously learned nothing from the HST scandal. It was deceitful then, and it is deceitful now.

Deputy Speaker: I think the member needs to watch her use of words.

V. Huntington: I beg your pardon?

Deputy Speaker: I said the member needs to watch her use of words.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is also no information the government can share which would show that this was a reasoned decision or even a plan for an emergent circumstance that warrants the amendments. On the contrary, the government has refused to provide the public and this Legislature with any rationale whatsoever for these proposed changes.

Simply put, very few representatives of this chamber and even fewer members of the public actually know what the government's real agenda is with this bill. It claims Bill 24 is intended to improve the ALC and protect agricultural land in B.C.

[ Page 3792 ]

Interjections.

V. Huntington: Perhaps the members should read the bill, because it does the opposite of what they purport.

Because it has no coherent, fact-based and public argument to show how Bill 24 will do this, we can only assess its potential impact by analyzing both the content of the bill and the informed public feedback on the proposed legislation, feedback which has been universally and overwhelmingly negative and which the government refuses to listen to. Taken at face value, Bill 24 would reverse the mandate of the ALC in the north, the Interior and the Kootenays by allowing economic and other considerations to trump agricultural use.

[1535]

It doesn't matter that the minister's amendments try to suggest that agriculture will continue to be the primary consideration. The fact is that government is formally and legally requiring what is supposedly the independent Agricultural Land Commission to determine whether non-agricultural uses should be permitted on some of B.C.'s best soils. Slowly but surely, this will open up 90 percent of the good soil in this province to non-agricultural uses, threatening our food security and driving up the speculative cost of land until our farmers are driven off it. That is what this government is doing.

Bill 24 corrupts the appointment process to the Land Commission by entrenching the requirements that members of regional panels be resident in the region. It is hard, almost impossible, to say no to your neighbour, friend, acquaintance or supplier, and saying yes will become the order of the day.

The government says resident appointments will ensure that the panel knows the area, but that isn't what happens, is it? We know that the number of exclusions jumped when the government tried this before, and it wasn't until the panels went back to membership from outside the panel area that exclusion approvals levelled off again. Corruption of a system comes in many forms, and influence and proximity are among them.

The bill also adds regulatory and monitoring requirements that, because we have no idea what they will be, could be used to require that the commission give greater consideration to non-agricultural uses in all of B.C. Too much is left open to regulation, especially the

section enabling other prescribed considerations for excluding lands in zone 2. Deciding, behind closed doors, that the B.C. Agriculture Council will be consulted on the development of the regulations is simply not good enough.

This policy shift, and its regulations that will define its operation, is of paramount interest to all the people of B.C., and all of us deserve to know what is being regulated and how. By opening the door to developers to bid on agricultural land for non-farm uses, this government is participating in the destruction of the ability of farming families to afford the very land that it's saying it is trying to protect. Look at the pressure on Delta's lands, where pioneer farming families are actually moving out of Delta because they can no longer afford the land for their next generation to farm. Even the government is selling the land at market value in Delta — hypocrisy of the highest order.

The zone 2 land changes make a mockery of the original mandate of the commission, which was to preserve agricultural land. It was to support farming on agricultural land and to ensure that municipalities and regional governments accommodated farms and agricultural uses of land. If this bill passes, any of the previously protected farmland in northern B.C., the Interior and the Kootenays — a full 90 percent of the land reserve and now suddenly christened zone 2 — will slowly disappear under the weight of undefined economic, cultural and social values, regional government OCPs and other prescribed considerations.

How do you define cultural or social values, and at what point do they overrule agricultural needs? Who measures the need — the speculator, the developer, the regional government that wants a new park? How much economic value does a project have to provide before good farmland is taken out of the reserve? If the government has any idea at all of what "other prescribed consideration" means, it sure isn't telling the people of B.C. or the members of this House, who have to vote on this piece of nonsense.

Obviously in the north, oil and gas development has been trumping agricultural land for some time. Thousands and thousands of wellsites, pipeline corridors, transmission corridors, resource roads, water pits, refinery sites and campsites swarm the landscape. Given that the industry is the cornerstone of this government's economic agenda, they can expect that nothing will stop the industry's growth.

The ALC already has a strong working relationship with the Oil and Gas Commission, so what is the bill responding to? Is it because rodeos don't fit into subsoil rights of the oil and gas industry; because someone said no, and some of the government members didn't like no, a word that this government no longer seems to tolerate in its growing sense of noblesse oblige?

It must be rodeos, because the issue of resident panelists having all the right knowledge could so easily have been solved by appointing a member of the ALC to the Oil and Gas Commission, if that was even a problem. Rodeos trump agriculture, and the secret is out.

When the government says Bill 24 represents flexibility for farmers, one just has to laugh. As I said earlier, the issues that need modernizing could so easily have been dealt with by a good process of consultation. The farming community wants the option of building complementary businesses that assist their revenues. They want the option of using their land to provide homes for their children.

[ Page 3793 ]

[1540]

These important issues could be dealt with by consultation and by simple amendments to the regulations and bylaws of local governments. We don't need to open up land in only one zone for industrial, commercial and recreational uses beyond the needs of legitimate farming families.

Despite what government wants us to believe, the land that's being threatened is good land. The northern region alone has 72 percent of our class 1 to class 4 farmland — 72 percent, for heaven's sake. It's some of the best soil in the province.

Telling us that there is a lot of protected land that shouldn't be in the reserve is disingenuous at best, or at worst is simply ignorant. The government knows as well as we do that the ALC was conducting a very thorough, scientifically based review of the ALR boundaries to determine what lands should come out of the land reserve. We don't need sweeping changes that will open zone 2 lands to other uses. The work was already underway, and the government knew it.

If the government is going to use farm-gate receipts to defend its ridiculous machinations, then it should get the numbers right. The areas set out in the Stats Can census data are not the same as the zones in Bill 24, and if the government is going to use numbers to justify its policy decisions, I would think they'd want to get those numbers right.

How can you make policy decisions that are justifiable if you don't use statistics properly? Neither the jobs data nor the farm-gate receipts information is correct, and it is fairly obvious that the lands in zone 2 are worth more agriculturally than the government is letting on and are worthy of dedicated and continued protection as farmland.

The admonitions that Bill 24 supports the independence of the Land Commission are also disingenuous or, more likely, a deliberate doublespeak that hides the true intention of government. Bill 24 purports to protect the appointment process by ensuring that the minister can now make appointments independent of consultations with the chair of the ALC. Or as the Minister for Core Review would say, the bill leaves "no more room for the chair to monkey with the process" — an unbelievable statement for a sitting minister to make, especially when the comment bears no relation to reality.

While

section 3(

c) of Bill 24 implies that appointments will no longer be made in consultation with the chair, the legal reality is that the existing act is bound by

section 3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which requires that appointments be made following "a merit based process and consultation with the chair." The minister doesn't know whereof he speaks, because this bill does nothing to change the legal requirement of process and consultation.

Moreover, and even worse, is the hypocrisy of the entire section. Since the appointment of the current chair of the ALC, the chair has never, not once, been consulted on any appointment to the commission. The government has already compromised the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission in a substantive and an objectionable manner and has probably compromised that independence illegally, if the Administrative Tribunals Act has any standing whatsoever.

The problems with Bill 24 are so numerous that it's difficult to keep enumerating them. Perhaps one of the most troubling is the quiet little reference to efficiencies found in

section 6, those undefined performance metrics that add unknown reporting requirements which seem to be tied to the government's desire for core review.

Will the reporting requirements let the government keep tabs how quickly the ALC processes approvals? Will they require applications be processed within certain time limits? Will they place emphasis on certain types of applications?

It is interesting that the government is invoking all these new performance standards without a hint as to how it might support them. Will the government further increase the ALC funding to help it meet any new standards, or will it use new benchmarks that will be impossible to meet, in subsequent efforts to undermine the work of the ALC? Given the government's attitude to the ALC, we can only believe that it will be the latter.

There is so much that can be said about the meaning of this bill, its impact on the agriculture in British Columbia and the government's attitude towards one of the finest public policy decisions ever made in this province. The introduction of the agricultural land reserve, though difficult and heartbreaking at the time, is now lauded and supported by everyone in B.C. — everyone, that is, except the Minister for Core Review and his colleagues and the developers whom he is no doubt backing.

Bill 24 is a bad piece of legislation. It should never see committee. It should never have seen second reading, for that matter. I've been surprised that members opposite have actually stood to defend the bill.

[1545]

Rather, I had thought that they would have fought hard and long in their caucus room to demand that cabinet hoist the legislation and demand that ministers go back to the drawing board, consult with the farming community and with the public, and bring back legislation that is meaningful and supported and that truly strengthens the Agricultural Land Commission, the agricultural land reserve and the farming community that supports both.

Instead, they have spoken for a bill that divides this province, creates two tiers of farmers and two tiers of farming, opens farmland to speculation, puts pressure on the price of land and undermines food security as we go forward. The government did not obtain an electoral mandate to make these policy changes, nor has it made a public case for why they are necessary.

As a consequence, the government must, in accord-

[ Page 3794 ]

ance with the very basic principle of representative democracy, remove this bill from the order paper and ask the people if the changes are necessary or even wanted. That would be the right thing to do, the democratic thing to do, and in my mind, it is the only thing to do.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. This piece of legislation that has been introduced does a number of things, but it really, primarily, has two particularly key critical and fundamentally flawed aspects.

The first is to break the agricultural land reserve, essentially, into two zones in the province, the first zone being zone 1: Vancouver Island, the south coast and the Okanagan, where the commission largely, in that zone, continues to prioritize the preservation of agricultural land in its decision-making.

It creates zone 2, and what zone 2 does…. That contains about 90 percent of the land that's under ALR coverage today, and there the commission will be compelled to give equal weight to economic, cultural and social values, regional planning objectives, and any other prescribed considerations.

What you have here is you say that for that zone 2 — 90 percent of the land in the ALR — it's wide open now. It's wide open now. What you have here is a situation that does that.

The other thing that this bill does is it changes the decision-making structure of the commission. The commission, and we'll talk a little about this in a while…. The Liberal government, back a number of years ago, took what was a provincial commission and attempted to break it up into regional panels — didn't make that compulsory. That system did not work effectively, and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission essentially drew it all back into a single commission and a single decision-making body.

What this does now is say that that changes. It says that we will go to regional panels, and these panels will be, essentially, Liberal political appointees in six regional panels. They will become the decision-makers throughout this province. This is fundamentally flawed. It's a system that undermines the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve in the most fundamental of ways.

What you have is a situation where we now have these two different zones. Why is this important? Why is it important, this question? Why has this piece of legislation caused such concern across the province — concern with the agricultural community, concern with the farming community, concern with local government? How come that's been the case? How come this piece of legislation, maybe more so than anything we've dealt with in this particular session, has raised the fears and concerns of British Columbians and of people in our communities across the province?

Well, to understand that, you have to go back to the decision that was made back when the Agricultural Land Commission Act in 1973 was adopted. That was adopted at the time by the Dave Barrett government. It was adopted at a time, in fact, when decisions were made that we needed to protect the integrity of our farmland, the integrity of our agricultural properties. The agricultural industry had to be protected, and food security was a compelling and growing concern. That's what made it so important at that time. As a result of that, more than 40 years of this.

[1550]

For all of the back-and-forth — and we've seen lots of laws come and go in this province over 40 years — this particular piece of legislation, the agricultural land reserve, the land commission that facilitates that reserve…. The integrity of that has, in large part, been sustained for 40 years. It's been sustained because it is one of the most enduring pieces of legislation and law in the history of the province.

It is one of the laws that makes British Columbia the great place it is. It's a law that has fundamentally sustained this province, and when we talk about sustainability and climate and environment, food security becomes a compelling issue.

Increasingly, as a province that relies on California for food, relies on other places, we know that that reliance can't necessarily be sustained. We know about the situation in California, with increasing droughts. We know about problems elsewhere caused by climate, caused by other issues.

We know it becomes even more important that we protect the integrity of food security in this province. And you cannot protect the integrity of food security in this province if you do not protect the agricultural land and if you do not support the farming communities and industries in this province.

Bill 24 does not do that. Bill 24 takes us in the other direction. That's the reality of what we face with Bill 24.

As we look at this, we have to look at how this bill came about. We know that this piece of fundamental legislation was brought in with almost no consultation with stakeholders, with people in the community — almost no consultation at all. That's why the member for Delta South, who spoke before me, quite wisely said that even if you don't want to kill this bill, which is what we should do, there is no sense in bringing this forward now.

There should at least be some desire to have a discussion with British Columbians before you even contemplate a piece of legislation like this. I suspect the problem the government has is that they know if they open that box and start to travel this province and start to talk with British Columbians, people in local communities, people who work in the industry, they will hear time after time that Bill 24 is bad legislation.

[ Page 3795 ]

It's a bad law, and it belongs in the scrap heap. That's what they'll hear. They don't want to do that because they know what the result of that will be.

What do we know about the people who have talked about this piece of legislation? We know that the B.C. Agriculture Council…. Interestingly, when the bill first was introduced, the chair at that moment embraced the bill. As was said by people on the Agriculture Council, they embraced it until they read the bill. Then, after they read it, they rejected it.

The chair said: "I think we're genuinely afraid that the changes will trump the well-being of agriculture and agricultural land." That's what we heard from the Agriculture Council. They are concerned. They are not supportive. They do not feel they were consulted.

The minister did talk to them. The minister had a day-long meeting or something close to that with them — the new Minister of Agriculture. We'll talk a little bit about that consultation process in a minute. But that's what we heard from those folks.

We also know that you can travel across this province and look at regional governments and local governments. Local governments across this province and regional associations of local governments across this province have been adopting resolutions and taking positions that say: "Stop. Stop Bill 24. Stop what you're doing. At least talk to us if you're not prepared to just throw the bill away, which is what you should do."

But they're not being spoken to. They're not having their issues addressed, and that's a significant concern. We have them saying this, and of course, they're not alone in this at all. We have soil scientists across the province who have raised their concerns.

Dr. Art Bomke, the professor emeritus in the UBC faculty of land and food systems — pretty smart guy — understands this issue. What did the professor say?

[1555]

"With Bill 24, we will not only lose ground in the literal sense but also in the public policy sense. The ALR was established because local and regional authorities could not be relied upon to protect our scarce and irreplaceable farmland from non-farm development. The six-panel system contained within Bill 24 potentially takes us right back to the 1973 situation that gave rise to the establishment of the provincial ALR and the Provincial Land Commission in the first place."

There is concern across this province about this piece of legislation. There is concern about where this legislation takes us and about what it does and doesn't achieve.

It receives little support from people in the community who work in this field. As I said, the B.C. Agriculture Council has raised concerns. We've heard from soil scientists. Members here will know, because some of them, I'm sure, have seen the letter that was sent to the Premier that's critical of Bill 24, a letter signed by 100 academics — biologists, naturalists and other academics.

What does that letter say about Bill 24? It says: "The bill reduces the ability for science to inform land use decisions, will increase pressure to remove land from the reserve at a cost to the general good. Agricultural lands produce not just crops but contain wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, woodlands, hedgerows and uncultivated grasslands that are either adjacent to or integral to farm operations."

We know that, and what the letter tells us is these areas are instrumental in protecting functioning, healthy ecosystems, and in many cases these diverse services help boost agricultural production.

The letter from the 100 academics goes on to say: "Allowing more non-agricultural uses on ALR land and the release of more lands from reserves will have the unintended consequence of threatening many important ecosystems and, by extension, many valuable species, including species at risk." So the litany of concerns just continues to grow. That's the reality of what Bill 24 brings us. That's the reality of this piece of legislation.

We continue, also, to see other comments in relation to this. The British Columbia Cattlemen's Association in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture on May 7 says: "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."

The letter from the president of the cattlemen's association goes on 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. Without more information about what the benefits to agriculture will be or what the changes will mean to our industry, it is very difficult for our directors to support the bill even with your changes."

They haven't asked…. The cattlemen's association says: "We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community."

They are asking to talk about the bill. They're not getting that opportunity. They're not getting that opportunity at all. What do we see instead? Well, we can go back. Some will recall that the minister, as he was meeting with the Agriculture Council…. When the minister was first appointed, he stepped out immediately after his appointment and told us all what we thought we wanted to hear.

What did the Minister of Agriculture tell us? He 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." That's what the minister said.

So we all said: "Good. Maybe the minister is going to go out and talk to folks. Maybe he's going to put some kind of meaningful process in place. Maybe there's going to be a conversation with people who are concerned about agriculture, who are concerned about this land, who are concerned about these issues." We all were pretty

[ Page 3796 ]

hopeful.

Of course, the day the minister says that, it's not a day later the Minister for Core Review comes out and kind of slaps his colleague down and says: "Am I open to changes to the legislation? That's really up to cabinet and caucus, but I can tell you that government is not interested in fundamentally changing or delaying the bill. The bill will pass." That's what the Minister for Core Review says the next day.

[1600]

So then we all wonder: who is the Minister for Agriculture, really? Is it the minister who carries the title, or is it the Minister for Core Review? Well, we immediately hear the next day when we come into this House and ask questions, that all of a sudden that extensive consultation that we were all offered, that consultation that was going to be broad and inclusive…. It was going to leave all of the options on the table so that people could comfortably feel that their input would be meaningful. They would have the opportunity for the input, and it would be meaningful.

Well, that ended up being the Minister of Agriculture then essentially saying: "I'm reading my e-mail, and other than that, we're not going to really change much. But I am reading my e-mail." That's essentially what the Minister of Agriculture said. It creates a huge, huge challenge here for what we have heard.

Now, it's not just those folks who are engaged in this. We also know that the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, Mr. Bullock, raised his