2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

D. Donaldson

J. Martin

L. Krog

M. Morris

B. Routley

S. Gibson

A. Weaver

D. Plecas

G. Holman

Hon. P. Fassbender

G. Heyman

M. Bernier

J. Darcy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

V. Huntington

Hon. S. Bond

L. Popham

C. Trevena

Hon. N. Yamamoto

S. Chandra Herbert

H. Bains

D. Donaldson

D. Routley

[ Page 3691 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a third group of grade 11 students from Burnaby-Edmonds, Byrne Creek School. Today these 43 students are visiting the Legislature along with their teachers, Mr. Greg Neumann, Ms. Marty Graham, Ms. Jean Davy, Ms. Lisa Moxon and Ms. Liz Wilson.

Byrne Creek Secondary has won the 2012 ASCD Whole Child Award, the first Canadian school to receive that honour ever. Please join me in welcoming these students to the Legislature.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate of Bill 24, and in Committee A, continuation of the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to resume my second debate response to Bill 24. Before we broke for an adjournment, or at least a bit of an adjournment, I was outlining the evidence around lack of trust in the B.C. Liberal government's approach to agriculture and farmers.

[1335]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

They say they're doing this for farmers. We have the lowest financial support, in terms of percentage of the agrifood GDP put towards support of agriculture, of any province in Canada. They've eliminated the Buy B.C. program and facilitated removal of the agricultural land reserve land in the northeast through expanding delegation agreements.

On top of it all, the Minister of Energy, who's is a big proponent of this bill, said that people in the northeast and in the Peace have tremendous support of this bill. But we have the Peace River regional district saying they want this bill withdrawn. On top of all that, it was never discussed before or after the election or brought to committees or other means through this Legislature where we could have had a fulsome debate before the legislation was introduced.

That's a bit of a review of the trust factor and why there could be healthy skepticism about Bill 24 being in the best interests of agriculture in the province, based on the track record of this government.

It brings us to the two zones in the bill, and 4.7 million acres of land in the province is in the agricultural land reserve. That's about 5 percent of the arable land. Out of 8 percent of arable land in the province, about 5 percent of that is in the agricultural land reserve.

What this bill puts before us is to put 90 percent of that in zone 2, where agriculture will not be the primacy in criteria around use of the land. In other words, 4.5 percent of the 5 percent of land that's in the agricultural land reserve would now have less protection than it does now.

That brings up the fact that living in the north, on zone 2 land, we are not second-class citizens when it comes to agriculture. We deserve the same protection of our farmland as the rest of the province. It brings up the issue of equality.

Richard Bullock, chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, has said, after this legislation came out: "I'm not sure if any of our people should be treated differently in one part of the province than they are in another. I thought equal treatment is how we operate as a society, but we'll see."

What we see is an inequality, being treated as second-class citizens and the primacy of agriculture gone when it comes to zone 2, but — and this is an important point — the mechanism exists to exclude land from the Agricultural Land Commission right now in existing legislation. So it brings up the question of why the government is introducing Bill 24 at this point. The mechanism does exist; people can apply for exemption and exclusions.

A note on that, though, is that there are 900 exclusion requests in front of the Agricultural Land Commission right now, and 90 percent of those were applied for within one month of the property owner buying the property. So you can see the trend. People buy property with the intent of excluding it from the agricultural land reserve. That's a sign of things to come if this legislation is pushed through by the B.C. Liberals.

It's not the end of it. Another provision of the bill is that although the Agricultural Land Commission is supposed to be an independent tribunal, provisions in the bill, in

section 6, allow the minister to establish performance indicators by regulation and generally set the performance of the commission. So you're saying, on one hand: "Oh, you're independent. Oh, by the way, now we're going to set performance standards."

Of course, when there's no trust that this bill is for the best wishes and the good of the farmers and agricultural land, we can see that people would think: "Well, perhaps

[ Page 3692 ]

those performance measures would be to get rid of the backlog, process exemptions as fast as you can."

Those are the kinds of things that we don't have in front of us. If this government really wants to support farmers and gain trust, then put those kinds of things on the table so that we can have a good look at them before we get into passing this legislation — or the government passing this legislation.

That's not the end of it either. This legislation also allows the cabinet to handpick members of the Agricultural Land Commission and appoint vice-chairs of the various regional committees. So again: "Oh, you're independent. Now we're going to appoint who's on the panels and who are the vice-chairs."

[1340]

Again, based on the track record of trust around agriculture and around the best intent towards farmers, there's a grave, grave amount of skepticism from the people in this province about the effects of being able to appoint certain people to the board from the cabinet.

It's the wrong time for this legislation — wrong time. We look a little bit beyond our borders, around agriculture. California is in a three-year drought. The California government has said there is zero water for farmers in California's Central Valley. Right now they're picking which farms are going to survive and which aren't.

We import in Canada $1.4 billion worth of food from California. Go to the grocery stores. You'll see on the stickers…. You used to see Buy B.C. on the stickers. Now this government has eliminated that program. What you see on the stickers now is "Product of the U.S.A." and "Product of Mexico."

These are areas that are going to see further drought under climate action models. We're not getting any better at producing food in those areas. Now is the bad time to attack farmland and farmers in this province, when we look at the amount of produce and food coming from outside our borders.

There's an

article in the Vancouver Sun today, with the headline "Meat's Rising Price Tag Fuelled by Growing Farming Costs." What we need is more of an emphasis on food production in B.C. — local food production, opportunities for people to grow their own food, for farmers to flourish, opportunities in grain in the northeast part of this province. There's only 13 percent, 14 percent, of our grain needs being grown in this province. The northeast has tremendous land for that. That leaves an 86 percent opportunity for growing grain. The same applies for many other of our foodstuffs.

When we, overall, look at this legislation and the damage it could do because we haven't had a chance to fully engage the public on it, because we haven't had a chance to fully decide what kind of negative impacts are going to arise out of the implications of this legislation, then we say it's time to withdraw this legislation.

The pattern of this government has been distrust on legislation. They had Bill 4 in front of us that allows for the discretion of the Minister of the Environment to remove land from parks for industrial purposes. We had a secretive order-in-council to exempt from the environmental assessment process new natural gas plants, and now we have this amendment to the agricultural act that was never brought before the people, never tested in front of the people, never consulted with people before it was introduced to this Legislature.

It's a pattern, and I'll quote from one of the proponents on the other side, the Minister of Energy and Mines. "There is nothing that we would contemplate that would reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve, which is the protection of farmland and the sustainability of farming." That is not the truth, according to what we have seen in this bill. I say withdraw this bill. Believe in democracy, and withdraw this bill.

J. Martin: It's with great pleasure I stand today to debate Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, especially considering that my constituents in Chilliwack rely on agriculture for much of their livelihood. I represent one of the most productive agricultural areas in the province.

It's a lot more than corn. A lot of people talk about their Chilliwack corn, and it's great. We've got the best corn anywhere. But it's also prime dairy country. We've got the old-time traditional dairy farms and some of the most modernized high-tech robotic milking parlours in the country.

I've even got some hazelnut activity in my riding. Hazelnuts only actually can be grown in a few areas. It's really endless. We've got poultry. I've got a fabulous duck supply in my riding. It's a great place. We take agriculture extremely seriously. Along with small business and maybe some light industrial area, it's primarily agriculture that drives the economy in my riding. So this is a huge issue for us.

We all know that our capacity to produce food to feed ourselves for generations is paramount. Contrary to what some of the members opposite choose to believe, Bill 24, in fact, will enhance the capacity for future generations of farming.

As a government, we're fully conscious that the supply of farmland in this province is not infinite. Even in a province as rich, as large as ours, productive farmland is a precious resource, and we must protect it. Bill 24 maintains that protection.

I can, in complete confidence, assure the agricultural community in my riding that nothing is going to change in Chilliwack as a result of this legislation.

[1345]

Furthermore, the Agricultural Land Commission, the agency responsible for the land contained in the agricultural land reserve, remains fully independent.

The amendments contained in this bill are designed to

[ Page 3693 ]

modernize something that was introduced 40 years ago.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are talking about the main bill, not the amendment. We are not speaking on the amendment yet.

J. Martin: Okay, thank you.

This legislation before us is designed to address something from 40 years ago. So if I can indulge just for not even 60 seconds, in some context about 40 years ago, 1973. Where were we?

Well, George Steinbrenner bought the New York Yankees for $12 million. A young up-and-coming heavyweight named George Foreman knocked out Joe Frazier. Dr. Hook topped the charts with "Cover of the 'Rolling Stone.'" American Graffiti was released in movie theatres. Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in the battle of the sexes. And Paul McCartney was in a new band called Wings.

I was a student in junior high school. I was in a social studies class. We did a field trip to Victoria, and we toured the Legislature. That was the first and last time I'd ever set foot in this chamber until last May, when I was fortunate to be elected as part of a majority B.C. Liberal government.

Well, the world has changed since 1973. It's incumbent upon members of this Legislature to conduct a responsible review of a piece of legislation from 40 years ago, because that's what people elected us to do. Let's begin, as the Minister of Education might say, by looking at some facts.

The agricultural land reserve covers some 47,000 square kilometres of agricultural land that falls into seven soil classes. Class 1 represents the best soil, where a wide range of crops can be grown without difficulty. Class 7 represents that which is unsuitable for soil-based agriculture or even sustained grazing. So soil quality is not evenly distributed across the province.

Naturally, any farmer will tell you that soil is only one factor in producing a successful crop. One has to have a minimum growing season too, and that varies in different parts of the province. For example, the growing season in the Lower Mainland is in excess of 170 days. That is significantly longer than the area surrounding Prince George, for example, which is typically less than 140 days. So while a difference of 30 days may not sound like much, it represents part of the calculated risk that farmers take when they choose which crops are most likely to survive the growing season.

Let's take a look at what happened in the Lower Mainland this past weekend. Some parts received more than 80 millimetres of rain in less than 48 hours. It devastated some local crops. But because the growing season in the southern part of the province is somewhat longer, this provides farmers with a window of opportunity to rebound and plant another crop. This might not be the case for farmers up north, who have a much shorter growing season.

It therefore makes sense to consider the province in two different, distinct, separate zones for the purposes of agriculture to match the suitability of land use contained within the ALR. The fact is that 10 percent of the land in the ALR produces 85 percent of the farm cash receipts in British Columbia, and just 3 percent of the land in the south coast region produces two-thirds of all cash receipts.

That leaves us with the stark reality that in the north region, which comprises 50 percent of the agricultural land reserve, only 8 percent of the province's farm cash receipts are produced. Farmers, and us, would like to see that grow. This translates into the fact that it is much harder to make a living as a farmer in the north. In fact, most farmers have to seek a living off the farm in order to make ends meet.

In 2010, for example, over 52 percent of all B.C. farm operators had an off-the-farm job or business. Further, more than 25 percent of farm operators report working off the farm for more than 40 hours a week. I wonder how adamant members of the opposition would be that we maintain the status quo forever and a day if MLAs had to hold down a second job to make ends meet. I think we'd be hearing something a lot different than what we are right now — that no change should ever be considered.

Bill 24 contains provisions that would make it possible to increase opportunities for farmers to earn a living and continue farming on their land. The agricultural land reserve will continue to make final decisions on specific land uses, but this legislation would give consideration to new, limited value-added farming activities such as food processing, agritourism or maybe animal boarding facilities.

[1350]

I've heard members opposite refer to this as disgusting and horrible. To me, it just makes common sense. These possible changes are only designed to help farmers stay on their land and make a decent living. They're entitled to that. Yet the opposition appears to be opposing this bill for no substantial reason that I'm able to ascertain.

Well, this government is not in the business of maintaining political parties' legacies. I understand that might be a fairly thin legacy, given the brief time the opposition has had in government. I mean, fast ferries. I guess the ALR. That's part of the legacy. Well, the fact is, that is probably the most honest and probably the most can-

[ Page 3694 ]

did summation of the NDP position on this legislation.

We're not here to immortalize a past piece of legislation introduced by a different government in a different era. We're here to do what's right for British Columbians. So in the absence of any other reasoned thought or rational argument, it seems the last resort of the opposition is to feign outrage and sometimes outright hysteria that really isn't serving anyone's benefit.

As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Saanich South conceded that her reaction was to yell to the Minister Responsible for Core Review and, for that matter, boasted about yelling at any MLA who stood in this chamber proclaiming their love for agriculture.

This is even more baffling — willingness to preach high on the mount in defence of the status quo, seemingly to defend the principle of preserving precious farmland to the death, unless, of course, that farmland lies within Saanich South, in which case we have to be flexible. We have to be negotiable. We might need to make an exception here and there.

Case in point. In 2012, when a parcel of farmland in the ALR was being considered for development, the hon. member for Saanich South said: "It is a difficult choice that I have made, and I've probably disappointed some folks in the audience. As far as Saanich as a community, I think it is a better direction to have a subdivision." Well, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker, but that strikes me as a distinct departure from defending all farmland at all times contained within the ALR.

In conclusion, I would like to encourage members opposite to be considerate of farmers in different parts of the province who would like to be given the flexibility to make a decent living, without having to leave the farm, and provide for future generations. This is, after all, the only reasonable and the only rational thing to do. I am so thankful for having the opportunity to participate in this debate.

L. Krog: I want to deal firstly with some of the remarks made by the member for Chilliwack, who just spoke before me, when he attacked a former member of this chamber, Diane Thorne, who loyally served her constituents for two terms, by suggesting some degree of selfishness around the concept of a legacy.

I'd just like to remind the member that it's not about the present-day use. It is about the legacy that the ALR created for British Columbians for generation after generation after generation — that there would be land available to provide food for not just this generation but your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren on into the future. That was the whole point of it.

So with great respect to the member, when he attacks Diane Thorne for talking about her legacy, I say good on Diane Thorne for leaving a legacy for the people of British Columbia by defending the agricultural land reserve instead of trying to attack it constantly.

I'm also conscious of the fact that I am the member for Nanaimo, and indeed it was a member for Nanaimo who introduced the start of all of this 40 years ago.

[1355]

I'm going to take just a short minute to just read Dave Barrett's words in his autobiography, Barrett: A Passionate Political Life . He was talking about his political opponents, and he said:

"The first rallying cry for our opponents both inside and outside the Legislature was sounded after Agriculture Minister Dave Stupich brought in an order-in-council on December 21" — that would be 1972 — "freezing all agricultural land in British Columbia from being sold for non-farming purposes. Prime Fraser Valley and Okanagan areas were under siege from urban speculators, and there was no question we needed to assess what really was farmland and what wasn't before the developers got to it. I assumed every rational person in British Columbia would understand the logic of that.

"We also announced that there would be legislation coming in the spring session that laid down the conditions and structure of an agricultural land reserve. The reaction was shrill, hysterical and immediate. We had handed our political opponents a club, and they proceeded to beat us with it. Now the socialists were taking away property rights.

"Everybody in the opposition jumped on the bandwagon, including the media. W.A.C. Bennett was on a world cruise when he learned of the farmland freeze. He disembarked at Buenos Aires, Argentina, and fired a ballistic missile in the form of a statement that our actions were 'worse than anything in South America.' His attack just happened to coincide with a Socred motion of non-confidence over the land freeze.

"Dave Stupich introduced Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, on February 24, shortly after the start of the spring session. The bill called for the establishment of a provincial land commission with wide-ranging powers to zone, buy, sell and hold land anywhere in British Columbia."

Forty years ago it was world-class legislation. It was a recognition by a province, by a government, by a people that food was important in life — duh; there's a pretty obvious statement — and that British Columbia was seeing its capacity to feed itself disappear.

Now, I can't give you the exact figures, hon. Speaker, but I can tell you, a century ago in this province on Vancouver Island we produced north of 90 percent of the food consumed by the people who lived on Vancouver Island and imported south of 10 percent. Well, I can tell you, the figures are completely reversed today. You shut down our ferries for three days, and people on Vancouver Island will be without food; they'll be without sustenance.

The world has changed. Surely it behooves government in the modern world to consider the importance of preserving agricultural capacity — the capacity to produce food. We've had 40 years for all of the speculators to bear their burdens, to find other things to do, to move on to other places where they wanted to put their money. We've had two generations of farmers who've become accustomed to the agricultural land reserve. To suggest for a moment that we need to water down the commission now in order to allow land to be taken out is just thoroughly unreasonable. There is provision.

But what this bill does, and it's pretty clear, is create

[ Page 3695 ]

two classes of British Columbia: the high-grade zone, if you will, that the member for Chilliwack talks about and other members have spoken about and a second class, if you will, which produces at the present time — the figures I don't disagree with — less food. I understand that.

But think for a moment about what the member for Stikine had to say a few moments ago. Anyone can read it. The news is out. California is now seeing the worst winter drought in recorded history and, indeed, may be starting a cycle of drought that will continue for who knows how long.

So all of us happy British Columbians who've relied on vegetables and fresh green stuff from the valleys of California, irrigated by water because the land doesn't have the capacity to produce it on its own, are going to see rises in the cost of food. Indeed, the very availability of that food will be diminished significantly as a result of what's happened in this past winter.

Now, the members opposite seem to take the position that after all, this is sort of second-class farmland, so based on present-day information and values, we can water down the agricultural land reserve. It doesn't matter.

[1400]

But surely there is enough evidence available to make us understand that land, because of climate, that is not as productive today as it could be — if it were located, for instance, in the Okanagan or on Vancouver Island or in the Fraser Valley — with resultant climate change may well indeed be the future of our food supply.

I've talked about this before. Some years ago, something after the 2005 election, Dr. Richard Hebda, chief botanist at the Royal Museum here in Victoria, spoke to caucus. Utterly non-partisan — he's a public servant. It was with reference to forestry, and what he told us was that based on the evidence to date, in 50, 60 years the member from Prince George, if he's still alive and well, will be able to go out in his backyard and grow a Garry oak, and it'll survive.

That species is native to southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands and grows no other place in the province of British Columbia. But the western red cedar, the cutting and processing of which has put food on the tables of thousands and thousands of coastal British Columbians for decades, won't exist here anymore. That's the scientific view of what climate change means for the forest industry.

Now, I don't think you have to be a genius to extrapolate the thinking to agricultural land and agricultural capacity. The land may be here. The dirt may be here. But the capacity, with resultant changes in temperature and climate and species and parasites and all of the things that go with the ecology….

All of those things may indeed mean that those highly productive areas, which we value so much and which even the B.C. Liberals seem to value because they're not prepared to quite interfere with those — the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island — may well not be productive anymore. We'll be looking to places like Prince George and Fort Saint John for a greater capacity for agriculture than we've looked at before.

We may be looking at the Pemberton Valley even more than we do today. We may see an increase in capacity in areas that are now marginally productive that may become very productive, but if those lands are alienated for purposes other than agriculture, I doubt very much we're going to be tearing down industrial sites or tearing up subdivisions to return the land to farming.

What is the value to what's being done? Why would we attack the legacy that the member for Chilliwack sarcastically referred to? Why would we attack the legacy of the land that should be available, not for just our generation but for the generations that follow us?

Dave Stupich's full name was David Daniel Stupich. Whatever sins he may have committed in this life and whatever disdain he may have created in the public mind, the fact is that as Minister of Agriculture, on February 24, 1973, he dared to be a Daniel in the full, biblical sense of the name. He took on vested interests in order to do something that was not right, even so much for just his generation but for his children and what would be his grandchildren eventually. The concept behind the ALR was very simple. As I said, it was to hold and sell land, and indeed, the concept initially was that it would be much greater.

Now, I know that the B.C. Liberals don't like thinking about the future very much except in grandiose terms when it comes to liquid natural gas that's going to save us. In the '90s — one of the most productive decades, in my view, of good legislation — one of the things we brought in as a government was the forest land reserve.

It was a fairly simple concept, modelled on the agricultural land reserve, that if forest lands were productive for forest purposes, they would be set aside. They couldn't be alienated. They couldn't be turned into subdivisions. They would be used for forestry purposes in perpetuity so that people could work in the forest industry, that the mills would have some fibre, that workers would have jobs. They'd pay taxes. They'd raise families. They'd look after their communities.

But, hon. Speaker, do you think the B.C. Liberals wanted to hang on to the forest land reserve? "Oh my goodness, no, of course not. That's the last thing we'd want to do." They quickly scuttled that product of the '90s shortly after the election in 2001.

Land is everything. I come from a generation where, if it wasn't required reading, everyone understood it or heard about it or read it, and that was that wonderful novel that helped earn Pearl Buck the Nobel Prize in Literature, The Good Earth .

[1405]

The main character in that novel is Wang Lung, the

[ Page 3696 ]

farmer who comes from absolute poverty and rises up to become a wealthy landowner. It's a tale about a family and corruption and change and history. But what Wang Lung understood and said repeatedly was: "A man without land was nothing."

In the more collective sense, what the B.C. Liberals are asking us to do is to allow the alienation of land that has agricultural capacity away from not just this generation but every generation that follows us. Where is the sense in this? What great economic value or boost is going to be received from this singularly silly policy? What benefit is going to be really achieved by doing this?

Is it worth the risk in light of all the environmental change that is taking place around the world? When the Insurance Bureau of Canada was here just a week or two ago talking about what floods and weather catastrophes mean for the insurance industry…. Where is the sense in taking the risk with land which, with great respect, is not that desperately needed for the economy today? Where is the sense in taking that land out of the agricultural land reserve with the potential that it will be destroyed forever for agricultural purposes, losing its capacity to support us and feed us?

The world is rapidly changing. Just in my short lifetime we have gone from a part of history where people didn't walk on the moon to where men did walk on the moon. I remember my sainted late mother laughing and saying to herself when the first man walked on the moon that it was the stuff of comic strips when she was a little girl. But in her lifetime she lived to see that.

We have become arrogant in our belief that we'll be able to produce food anywhere because of the Green Revolution. What are we learning about all of that? Well, we're learning that the phosphates, which are a basic component of fertilizers, are in fact having a significant impact on sea life. The capacity of the seas to provide fish and protein for all of us is being attacked in ways that we hadn't thought about.

Where are we going to go? Are we going to create food out of air? We're damaging the oceans. We're damaging the land base with overfertilization. We're taking water out of aquifers that in many cases is leaving a lack of capacity so that aquifers can't regenerate themselves.

I mean, all of that protest around the Keystone pipeline in the United States, with a bunch of gun-toting Republicans protesting its possibility, surely should be a lesson to all of us that, right or left, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the land has limited capacity.

Here we are in this chamber, after having been a beacon unto the world, if you will, when it came to preserving agriculture capacity, and we're now stepping away. If I had heard one solid, rational argument from the other side, I would perhaps have more respect for the government in bringing in this legislation. All I've heard is: "Well, it's needed," and "It's different," and "There are different parts of the province," and "It's not as productive, and therefore, we've really just got to allow this two-tier system."

It's not going to cut it, I think, with most people. Now, it's interesting today. I can't help but observe…. I think it's the member for Peace River South that provided a petition to the House today signed by 314 folks in his constituency who are supporting the government on this. I thought to myself: "I suppose every real estate speculator and every good Liberal in his constituency must have been hauled into the office to sign that one."

My read of the papers and e-mails and the letters and the petitions that have been presented would indicate that, by and large — I think I say with some confidence — most British Columbians aren't terribly impressed with the prospect of diluting the Agricultural Land Commission. Most British Columbians, indeed, are saying: "Hold on a minute. What's the sense in this? What value to the public will occur?"

[1410]

The government can play around and talk about how there'll be panels and how all will be fair and all will be wonderful. I appreciate I can't speak about the amendments, but the existing Bill 24 as proposed says in

section 2, which will add

section 4.3: "When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land…in Zone 2" — in other words, everything outside of the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan and Vancouver Island — "the commission must consider all of the following: (

a) the purposes of the commission set out in

section 6," which is in the existing statute. It then goes on to: "(

b) economic, cultural and social values; (

c) regional and community planning objectives; (

d) other prescribed considerations."

Now, the proposed amendment around this bill talks about how the commission must consider those in descending order. That would mean that for the stuff cabinet will throw out with any debate in this chamber sometime in the future, the other prescribed conditions will be the last consideration. It says "in descending order." No matter how you cut it, and I don't wish to appear overly legalistic when I talk about this, it simply says: "the commission must consider all of the following."

Now, having considered it, and in descending order of priority, I would argue that it enables the commission to ultimately decide that some community that wants agricultural land for alienation, for some other purpose — that's a perfectly valid reason. An economic value trumps regional and community planning or social values or other prescribed conditions.

The other prescribed conditions really are troublesome. I mean, I have said over and over again in the last nine years in this chamber how disturbing it is to see statutes that provide for significant regulation power, which basically shifts the ability of the people of British Columbia to scrutinize what happens away from this chamber into the west annex, where no one gets to speak

[ Page 3697 ]

except those who sit around the cabinet table — not even the caucus of the government, the whole caucus back in the west annex. Who knows what will be dreamed up by the government in cabinet in terms of what would be other prescribed considerations?

You don't have to have gone to Harvard Law School — and I certainly didn't — to recognize a loophole when you see it. This one, with great respect, is probably big enough to drive a combine through. What this really is enabling the government to do, after its commission is appointed with all its favourite friends….

Let's be blunt about this. There may be a token New Democrat appointed. It's always good to have a token New Democrat. Then you can point to them and say: "See, we're non-partisan. We've got a token New Democrat. It's all aboveboard." But I would just respectfully suggest that the history of this government will be that we will see the commission filled with people whose views about the value of agricultural land and the Agricultural Land Commission won't accord with the values of British Columbians.

What we will see, over time, is land alienated. I come back to my point that people have had 40 years — that's two generations — to apply to get land out, on the basis that it didn't meet the criteria of the act — two generations. Does anyone honestly believe, if someone had land that was unsuited to agriculture, that in two generations, somehow they wouldn't have applied for and taken it out of the agricultural land reserve already?

I mean, does anyone think we're honestly that naive that we believe that land has just been sitting around there, thousands of hectares hidden around the province — that somebody didn't say, "Gosh, I can get it out of the ALR, and I can make a fortune," and they haven't done it already?

[1415]

Well, I think that's an insult to the entrepreneurial spirit of the people of British Columbia. Are the members opposite saying that in two generations we couldn't find a couple of speculators to drag some land out and make appropriate application — that they wouldn't have recognized a bargain when they saw it?

What this legislation is really about is enabling land to be alienated from the reserve, by the commission, that has agricultural capacity. You've heard the member for Stikine talk eloquently and with passion about his own personal experience with what he and his family consume. It's almost romantic. "It's how you get dirty," he said.

But in theory, with this bill, the very land that sustains him can be alienated for some purpose: economic, cultural and social values; regional and community planning objectives; and other prescribed considerations.

Well, that sends a signal to British Columbians (1) that this government doesn't much care about the future; (2) that this government is prepared to sacrifice the legacy that needs to be handed onto future generations, for some narrow political purposes today; and (3) that it is prepared to do so in the face of significant opposition from the very organizations and the very people who farm the land now, the very people who have chosen to take up the difficult cause of agriculture.

Now, I'm not going to pretend for a moment that it's easy farming in British Columbia. There are often the two extremes: the highly capital-intensive dairy farm, with milk quota, and you've got millions of dollars and 80 acres and precious little income coming off it; and down the other end, you've got somebody with a few acres — the member for Chilliwack is right — having a second job, trying to get something off the land. You've got someone with 100 on a quarter

section maybe, near Dawson Creek, a second job — harvesting some wheat, some grain or canola, whatever. Not enough to support a family, but the land is still productive.

The capacity is going to change and is changing, and we know that. We know that. When we do this, what we're saying to people is reminiscent of what a very wise person once said to me. He was an ex–Orange County…. Orange County, California, is one of the wealthiest parts of the great state of California. You got an address in Orange County; you got money. This guy had money, but he had come north to Canada.

He was a very wealthy man, lived in a nice part of Nanoose Bay — waterfront home, retired, enjoying the good life. I remember him saying to me — he was probably in his 60s at the time — that what he couldn't understand is how, with all the evidence available, people weren't more concerned about the environment, about climate change.

I remember what he said to me. It was a time when our children were still young. He said: "You know, Len, they must hate their grandchildren." He smiled, and he laughed. He had seen what rampant development meant. He had understood what pollution was all about. He had understood what taking too much from the land meant. He had come north to what he regarded as paradise, British Columbia.

I have to ask the question. I know there are many members there who are grandparents, who have grandchildren. I don't think they hate their grandchildren. But when you bring legislation forth like this, I have to ask myself: have any of them asked themselves that question?

[1420]

Is the tiny advantage that may be given to this generation of landowners worth the damage and the risk to future generations? Is it worth it? Are we going to see some economic benefit from it? Surely, the B.C. Liberals can rely on liquid natural gas to save the future and pay off the debt and turn this into the New Jerusalem overnight, I'm sure.

So why would we fiddle with something that is so crucial to our long-term well-being as a society? Because

[ Page 3698 ]

when it talks about "must consider all," it's mandatory — and yes, they have to consider — but it's not that they can ignore any parts. It's not as if they can ignore other prescribed considerations or ignore regional and community planning objectives or ignore economic, cultural and social values and simply rely on the purposes of the commission as it exists in legislation today, which, if you showed the average British Columbian, they would say: "We like that. We support that."

What it means is that they have to consider all of this, and a friendly commission will have the impact, I strongly suggest, of making agricultural values secondary. They are entitled to do that under this legislation. They will do so. Land will be alienated, land that would otherwise have enormous agricultural capacity over time.

I appreciate that some areas aren't as productive as others. I get that. I'm not stupid. But this isn't a game of surprise politics. I mean, it isn't like a little kid jumping out from behind a bush and scaring their friend and going: "Surprise." This isn't a birthday party. But this government has a rather unenviable record of playing political surprise.

The 2001 election: "We won't sell B.C. Rail." "Yes, you folks in the HEU, we love you. Don't worry. We won't roll your contract back." After the election: surprise, surprise. Before the election: "We won't sell B.C. Rail. No, no, no. We'd never sell B.C. Rail. I promised that in 1996, and I lost the election to that Glen Clark. That was horrible, and we're not going to do that again." And guess what: surprise. We're selling B.C. Rail. Oh, and remember the best of all: harmonized sales tax. Harmonized sales tax. Again — surprise — guess what: we're bringing in an HST.

Now, I realize that sometimes it's hard to talk about everything during the election. But when you talk about something that has become a fundamental aspect of British Columbia life, which is the agricultural land reserve, one would have thought you might have had the decency, the character, the strength, the integrity to stand up in a political campaign and say: "We're going to fiddle with the agricultural land reserve. Get ready for that. If you vote for us, that's what you get."

But no. We didn't hear that from the B.C. Liberals in the campaign. Not a peep, not one word, not a sentence, not a phrase, not a pamphlet, not a leaflet, not a radio interview — nada.

I hope the good members opposite are going to listen to what the opposition has to say.

M. Morris: I'm pleased to rise in the House today and speak in support of Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

I find it interesting, listening to the members opposite, as we've gone through this debate. The agricultural land reserve has been in effect for 40 years, so we've heard. Back 40 years ago the population in British Columbia was about 2.2 million people, I think — somewhere around there. We look to where that population has expanded.

The northern three-quarters of the province, back in 1973…. I happened to be with the RCMP in Prince George in 1973. The population of the northern three-quarters of the province was around 11 percent of the total population of British Columbia. Today that population in the northern three-quarters of the province is 8 percent and less. Funny, though, the population in B.C. is 4½ million people.

[1425]

Where did that population grow? It grew down in zone 1, what we're calling zone 1 in the agricultural land reserve now. It grew in the Fraser Valley. It grew on Vancouver Island. I'm sure Nanaimo has expanded its boundaries over the years and taken good land to build their subdivisions. It has grown throughout the Okanagan.

The population in the lower quarter of the province, in the lower 10 percent of the province, has exploded. Nobody has had any objection to growing their suburban life and growing the subdivisions and the malls and all the other facilities that we have in the Lower Mainland. But guess what's happened in the north. We've shrunk. It still stays the same.

If you look at a little bit of history in British Columbia…. Those of you that have been confined to Vancouver Island or been confined to the urban areas down in the Lower Mainland and throughout the province here probably haven't had a chance to go north and view the spectacular country that we have throughout rural British Columbia here.

My grandparents came up to Quesnel at the turn of the century, around 1910, and when they came up in 1910 there wasn't very much up there. Barkerville was still a thriving community because of the gold rush, and a lot of the little settlements that had been established along the Cariboo trail had been established where there was arable land, where there were facilities to grow hay and grain for the cattle and the horses that they used back in those days to transport everything up.

There were also people that saw the opportunities back in that particular era, that particular time. They said, "Jeez, this is good bottomland along the Fraser River. This is good bottomland along the McGregor River. This is good bottomland along the Shuswap River," and they started establishing farms along those areas back in the 1800s and the early 1900s.

If you go up through the Cariboo and through the northern part of the province here today, you're going to come across a lot of those homesteads where people initially started farming, and then they realized that the weather wasn't conducive to farming the way they knew it back in California or back in the southern part of this beautiful province that we have. They couldn't make a go of it, so things deteriorated to the point where they were abandoned. We have many abandoned homesteads

[ Page 3699 ]

throughout the northern three-quarters of the province.

I've had the opportunity to live in numerous communities throughout rural B.C. over my career. My wife and I grow great gardens everywhere we've been. We've grown gardens in Hazelton, in Smithers, up in the Nass Valley, through Prince George and northern B.C. Some take a little more effort than others. Sometimes we only had 30 days before the frost hit, and we lost all our crops. Those are the kinds of things that the farmers in rural northern British Columbia deal with on a regular basis.

I also see evidence of what I call the lonely tractor syndrome, where you see farmers that have gone out and put their life savings into developing a farm. They put their life savings into buying a tractor and equipment, they're working the land, and they find out that the return on investment just isn't there. The land is not returning back what they've put into it or what they've tried to put into it, and these tractors sit abandoned on the fields. Some of them have been there for 20 or 30 years and more. You see that all over the place.

A lot of the farmers and a lot of my extended family members up there have gone to look at secondary income to try and support the farm. I've got good friends that are involved in the cattle industry, and they'll produce perhaps a couple of hundred calves every year. But they're also into logging. They're also into road construction and some of those other things that help stabilize their family income. The wives are left at home tending the cattle and looking after things during calving season and those types of things. It's a lifestyle.

It's something that once those kids grow up — and the kids have grown up in some of these families — they realize, "I don't want to live this life. I don't want to work my fingers to the bone and have nothing in return," so they head out and look at different other opportunities that we have out there.

We do have a difference in zone 2, as we call it, or we have a difference in the northern three-quarters part of the province. The arable land that has been proven year after year, decade after decade over the last century to be able to sustain grain or be able to sustain cattle or be able to sustain some type of farming is still arable land today. Those are the farms that are thriving up there. Those are the farms that are still flourishing up there.

[1430]

The others have been abandoned. It's property. It's fields that have grown over in poplar trees, in other deciduous trees. It's fields that have grown over in willows. They're no longer useful for the purposes that the farmer had originally intended, and it's far too expensive, in today's world, to clear that land in comparison to what it was years ago, with the price of diesel and all the other things that we have here. Those differences are being recognized by this government when we look at that.

Those differences are being looked at by the people in the community that have pressed our government to look at changes to the Agricultural Land Commission in order for them to provide income for their families, to build a shop on their property so that they can put their logging trucks in it, to build a shop on their property so that they can fix their heavy equipment and maintain some of the equipment that they use as a secondary employment in order to maintain their farm. So this isn't just a made-up thing.

The member opposite was also talking about the legacy — that this government is destroying the legacy that has been developed by the Agricultural Land Commission over the last 40 years since it was implemented. I differ with that opinion. I think we're building on that legacy.

There is a legacy that has been developed with the Agricultural Land Commission over the last 40 years. There's no question about it. But with these enhancements that we're bringing, I think it's going to leave an even greater legacy down the road.

I think that people are going to be able to earn more money, and if they're still interested in farming, they're going to be putting that extra income into their farms to develop their farms. And who knows? Maybe some new technology is going to come along that's going to help them out to make it more arable and more profitable as we go.

The member opposite talks about LNG — perhaps scoffs at LNG from time to time, I've heard there. LNG may be an opportunity, as well, that farmers can take advantage of. The LNG pipelines themselves develop geothermal power. There's heat; there are all kinds of things in that. If you go to a pipeline, right away the ground thaws out a lot sooner than the ground surrounding it up there. So maybe there are some opportunities there to look at perhaps planting crops on some of the rights-of-way that LNG is going to be developing up there.

It's something that we have to prepare for. It's something where we've got to create opportunities, as many opportunities as we can, for our farmers, for those that are interested in a rural lifestyle so that they can make a go of it and provide food for British Columbians. Who knows? Maybe we can start exporting a lot more food than we do.

The member opposite from Nanaimo talked about how, years ago, they used to export 90 percent of the food that they grew on Vancouver Island. Today they import 90 percent of the food on Vancouver Island. That doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with the fact that there's less arable land and less farming being done on Vancouver Island. It's got more to do with the sociodemographics of the province that we live in right now.

A lot of people don't want to farm. They find it easier to enjoy the lifestyle that they want to live, particularly when you've got access to the ocean and you've got access to the great parks that we have down here, you've got access to the performing arts centres that we have in the Lower Mainland, and you've got access to all kinds

[ Page 3700 ]

of wonderful things down in the Lower Mainland that occupy a lot of your extra time.

People now rely on Safeway or Costco or some of these other large department stores for their food, and the furthest thing from their mind is growing their own food.

We do have the odd farmers market, and they provide a great contribution to our communities. We've got a farmers market in Prince George that my wife goes down to on a regular basis. We've got farmers markets in a lot of the communities. Hazelton and Smithers grow some great crops up in that particular area.

We talked about the member for Stikine and the Hazelton area. I lived there for a few years, and I've got relatives out there that were in the logging business. They also had large properties that they intended to farm, and they ended up having to park everything and turn all their equipment into logging equipment so that they could make a living. All the land that they had plowed and cleared has now grown over with deciduous trees.

[1435]

Those are the reasons why this government is pushing for a two-zone agricultural land reserve — so that we can protect the agricultural land in zone 1 that's producing 85 percent of the farm receipts. Who knows? With some of the development in technology and greenhouse and everything else that we have down here, maybe they're gong to produce more. Maybe they're going to produce 90 percent of the farm receipts as we progress.

The Okanagan Valley has become a wine centre for British Columbia and produces some of the best wine in the world. That sector is growing in leaps and bounds through there.

There are opportunities in zone 1 to enhance the agricultural output that we have and make it even better than it is. Also, there are opportunities now with this zone 2 and the proposed legislation that we've tabled here to enhance the farming opportunities that we have in the northern three-quarters of the province, where less than 8 percent of the population is.

Maybe we can attract another 1 or 2 percent of the people from down here that are so interested in farming and want to protect the farmland. Maybe we can encourage them to come up into zone 2 someplace, find a farm, settle down and start farming and turn that into a viable producing farm for the local farmers market or for the supermarkets or for shipping abroad. Who knows where they can go with that?

I would love to see more people from urban B.C., from Vancouver Island, having a look north, a look at the opportunities that we have along the Fraser River, the McGregor River, the Peace River, and just see what they can do to develop a farm up there.

I'm sure that they'll realize the benefits of this, because when times get tough, they, too, will want to build a truck shop on there so that they can go haul some of the logs or some of the pipes to build the pipelines, if those projects ever go ahead — or some of the multitude of opportunities that are going to come with the development of the resource sector that we have there.

The two-zone proposals that we have and the enhancements that we have to the Agricultural Land Commission I think are going to go a long way toward making farming a more viable business not only in zone 1 but in zone 2.

B. Routley: Well, here we go. Another jiggery-pokery plan of the Liberal government. There's no question about this one. You only have to look at the motives. You look at the core review and the Kootenay East MLA who couldn't resist. He was so giddy and so excited about the opportunity to carve off some land.

Talk about leaving a legacy. He can't wait to give land away all over British Columbia, especially in his zone 2 that he has carved out, very specifically, to give land away to all friends and who knows what other acquaintances. It's frightening — the thought of what might be going on there.

In the Vancouver Sun , when the minister was making his announcement, they said…. He'd been waiting a long time to say this, he told reporters. He said that the agricultural land reserve is really useless, that there's land all over that's really useless to agriculture — pretty clearly a statement that wants lands out.

He said, looking at the mandate of the core review, that he knew he "could have done a better job of consultations," on the other hand. But really, he couldn't wait to get at it. He has said since, even with the new Minister of Agriculture, that this bill is going to pass. They can't wait to get at it and carve off this land.

You think about the real jiggery-pokery. My friend from north Island, my lawyer friend from….

Interjection.

B. Routley: He was talking about the legal issues involved here and the fact that they're going to give equal weight to economic, cultural and social values and regional planning objectives.

[1440]

Oh, but the minister got involved and rearranged — a carefully calculated political move to rearrange the priority order to make it look a lot better. More jiggery-pokery to move things around and have a real sober second look.

But let's face it. What all of this is about is giving land away. They want to have the right for cabinet to appoint six vice-chairs, for the minister to be able to appoint members to the commission.

You can just imagine what this handpicked crew will have on their minds. Do you think they'll be out thinking about the future of British Columbia, thinking about putting food on the table for British Columbians down the road in 50 years, 100 years? Not on your life. This is all about their political term in office and all about carving

[ Page 3701 ]

off for friends and insiders, changing what's been a good system for more than 40 years — a wonderful system and, as has been said, a legacy that really bears the protection.

I want to be serious for a moment and talk about some of the things that we're up against on the planet. You look at these agriculture land use changes that are being proposed in Bill 24. To look at them in the proper context, I believe, you need to look through a global and then a political lens.

Let's look at the future situation and the demands on agriculture lands worldwide, as impacted by population growth. Global human population growth currently is around 81 million people annually, or 1.2 percent growth annually of the world's population. The global population has grown from one billion in the 1800s to more than seven billion people today. Currently, on this planet there are roughly two children born every second. Think about this, hon. Speaker, and the need for food and for agriculture land in the context of what you're about to hear.

Two children born every second — about 200,000 children every day. It's expected that the population will keep growing to reach 11 billion people by the end of the century. Currently, one in eight people in the world do not have enough food to eat. The UN says that 870 million people, many of them children, will go to bed hungry and suffering from chronic hunger.

Given these realities, we know that we must think globally, but we also need to take action, both locally and provincially. That action, I think, means further protecting the agricultural land reserve and not making it easier for development, as Bill 24 will most certainly do.

We know if we damage our ecosystems, we will ultimately damage ourselves, our communities and our province. Certainly, we know that through Bill 24 we are letting our guard down on agriculture land. Once this land is developed, it will be gone before our very eyes.

Now, years ago my grandfather, Almond Obadiah Routley, who farmed in Rosetown, Saskatchewan, used to say: "Buy land. They're not making any more of it." He was right. One only has to look at what's happened to land values in British Columbia over the decades to see that as land becomes more and more scarce, more pressure will be put on communities and our provincial government to develop and bulldoze agriculture land.

I believe Bill 24 is one of those pieces of legislation that's designed to help those who want to bulldoze our agriculture land. They're certainly not thinking about the folks who want to grow and produce food and help feed our children and our grandchildren.

If this government was really thinking about families, would they be helping to bring in the bulldozers, or would they set the table for future generations of British Columbians with actions that protected agriculture and enhanced agriculture land? We know, through the money that they haven't spent to support agriculture.

[1445]

The facts are there for all to see that this government is the worst in Canada at supporting farming. They haven't done anything to really help farmers and deal with the fact that there's a generational change, that land has become more and more expensive, that there is more and more loss of land every year, even with the system that we have today that they're going to kind of streamline and modernize. We've heard they're going to modernize it, which is another code word, through their jiggery-pokery ways, to shovel more land out the door and have more….

I just can hardly wait to see their actions, because I know what the first ones will be: giving more stuff away. It certainly won't be making things better for our farmers or for future British Columbians.

We know all the key reasons that the land reserve was brought in, back 40 years ago. It was to try to slow down the unfettered development and loss of agriculture land. Prior to that we were losing…. Something like 6,000 hectares was being lost every year. Now it's been reduced and slowed down, but it's not stopping.

Under the Social Credit government it was golf courses being introduced in huge numbers on agricultural land. And while I like golf, I don't like the idea that we were losing some of the best growing sites on the planet to golf courses. Even when I play that golf course up in Lake Cowichan that looks very much like agriculture land to me, I think about those folks in the world that would just die for a piece of land like that to grow vegetables on. I think about that.

Every time I drive through the little town of Duncan and I drive down Dingwall Street, where I grew up…. We moved there in 1952, and there I was — 2541 Dingwall Street, with almost an acre of land. We had plum trees in the back. We had apple trees. We had this beautiful garden, just chock-a-block full of vegetables. I must say I hated to weed it. But I really enjoyed all of the preserves that we used to have.

We had our root cellar. As a young boy, I still remember going in and out of that root cellar and getting beets and all of the wonderful things. We had cucumbers. The list went on and on of all of the things that were saved in there. We were able to keep potatoes a very long time until they had these huge things growing out of them that I didn't really care for.

Anyway, it was a wonderful time. I can still remember the smell, because that root cellar had something like three or four feet of sawdust in the walls and in the ceilings. It was amazingly cool in there in the summertime to go into the root cellar. But now that is all paved, and it's apartment buildings.

I think back about all of those beautiful plums that we had — buckets full of plums. We had all that beautiful fruit. Crabapples. I bought crabapple jelly at the local market, and I have yet to find crabapple jelly like my mother used to make. It was outstanding. Absolutely

[ Page 3702 ]

outstanding.

We had these big King apples with lines of stuff through them that almost tasted like wine, they were so good. It was awesome. And again, when you think back on that, it just makes you want to cry, thinking about all of that land production use. And that happened all up and down that street.

It used to be that that was all good agricultural land. We had wonderful produce. People, I think, tried to live off of the land more back in that era. Certainly, folks that grew up in the generation of the 1930s, like my family did, understood the value of having a bit of farmland and growing crops and putting up preserves and living off of the land.

Now we're so used to: "We'll get it from California. We'll get it from Washington or Idaho or whatever. We can just develop it." That's what a lot of these folks, I think, are thinking. It's very sad indeed. We humans have to quit wasting so much and polluting so much.

[1450]

Without land to grow on, future generations of British Columbians will be totally dependent on others for food. We're almost there now. Maybe we should go and ask B.C.'ers if they want that, if they want to be totally dependent on the rest of the world for food. I don't think so. The last I heard, when British Columbians were asked what they wanted to see, at least 80 percent of British Columbians said: "We support the ALR."

It was good legislation. It's been good for 40 years. We ought to keep it and carry on with it, not find a way to drive a Mack truck through it and allow all friends and insiders from local communities and regions to start carving up the land base and giving it away and forgetting the original purpose, not only for British Columbians but for the world. We have an obligation to the world, and that's why I wanted to focus on what's happening with population increases.

I read that a scientist said that in order to be sustainable, in just a few years we're going to have to have 1½ worlds. Well, where are we going to find the other half a world to do that with? It's just not there, and we're busy wasting and creating pollution and destroying the land, not just now but for all time. Once it's gone, paved over, it's gone forever.

If we don't act to protect our agricultural land and our limited food processing options, our scarce food security options, future generations will look at us and look back and say: "You saw this coming, and you did nothing." That's why I and my friends will be voting, on this side of the House, against Bill 24.

Based on these future population numbers, experts are suggesting we will really need to be doubling worldwide food productivity in order to feed the coming billions of people. Scientists are telling us there is really not a lot more suitable agricultural land for growing food. That's an important thing to understand. When I started to do research on this, I was surprised at that.

I know that in South America, you hear about the satellites going over and taking pictures at night, and they see the forest burning. They are lighting up the Amazon forest to have some cattle or a few animals, a couple of goats, and they try to grow something on the land after they burn it. They torch it, and they burn it, and then, guess what happens. The rain comes and washes all the soil away because that's not a place suitable for growing that kind of a crop.

The availability of productive land in the world. Of the world's total land area of 150 million square kilometres, which is about 16 times the area of the United States of America, which is not…. Much of it is not suitable for agriculture. Arable land comprises 10 percent of the total permanent crops, or just 1 percent. Meadows and pastures, 24 percent. Forest and woodlands, 31 percent. The remaining 34 percent of the land surface supports little or no vegetation, such as Antarctica, deserts, urban areas, even mine sites.

Nearly all of the world's productive land is already exploited. Most of the unexploited land is either too steep, too wet, too dry or too cold for agriculture. In Asia nearly 80 percent of the potentially arable land is now under cultivation.

With global changes, we see that the ecosystems of the world vary greatly in their net primary production. It isn't surprising that some parts of the earth's land surface are much more productive than others. Most of the good bits, including the good bits here in British Columbia, have been in agriculture for a long time.

Some of the remaining land on the surface of the planet, such as tropical rain forest, is highly productive under native vegetation, but it's not much good for feeding people. At least, the farming methods of today — not very productive when converted to agriculture.

[1455]

In fact, cropland per capita — and this is worldwide — is declining. Agricultural land is being degraded and urbanized. Well, that's what we figured out back in 1973, but we think we're getting smarter, and I hear we've got some need to modernize. We're going to modernize the land, which is another jiggery-pokery code for: "We're going to modernize it, all right. We're going to give it away to our friends and insiders. That's what we're going to do." It has nothing do with anything modern.

My grandfather went through a modernization. That little piece of land that he homesteaded on? It's just part of a superfarm now. What he would do in weeks and months, now they can do in a day or so with these big machines that just come through there. Sure, things change and modernize that way, and we're thankful — I think, all of us — that there has been that Green Revolution that has allowed more crops to be grown on smaller amounts of land. Anyway, I will continue.

Agriculture in British Columbia. The agriculture in-

[ Page 3703 ]

dustry in B.C. has always been somewhat humble in size. However, as I say that, good things come in small packages, and the agricultural goods of B.C. are some of the best in the world.

Due to the fact that B.C. has only about 2 percent arable land and the remainder is too dry or too cold or too remote or a plethora of other reasons, B.C. has never been able to sustain a primary food-agriculture industry. Even today, B.C. cannot grow enough food to feed its entire population and imports food from eastern provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan as well as the United States. And lately, it seems, food is arriving in our supermarkets from all over the world.

However, where B.C. does grow food, the food is scrumptious and award-winning. The Cowichan Valley, of course, grows outstanding first-class foods and wines, and the Okanagan is known for its award-winning fruits and wine-related products. However, that is not where all the food is produced. In the Fraser Valley delta a large amount of food crops are grown, such as wheat and berries.

Given the realities, we must protect our agricultural land. Now is certainly not the time to be undermining the agricultural land reserve or the commission — particularly not the commission. The amount of history and the knowledge and the need…

There's a group dedicated to the sole purpose of actually doing something to honour and protect the land base and to honour and protect the theory that we must have land for future generations and that we can't just abandon our principles and/or prostitute our beliefs for the sake of some money today.

We're going to cash in. Some of these folks are thinking about cashing in, and that really bothers me. I get it. There were farmers that I've talked to in the past that said they were really, really mad at the NDP because they took away what they thought was their right to sell off or whatever. They thought they'd make a bundle full of money. I'm sure it's still worth a lot more than they paid for it back — the ones that bought it 50 years ago. In any case, I do get it. There are issues like that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Definitely given the realities of what we see worldwide today, now is not the time to be undermining the agricultural land reserve. Bill 24 will further undermine our B.C. communities, like those in the Cowichan Valley, that have a goal on food security.

Now, food security is not just a fad. Locally, there are a lot more people thinking about food security. What is food security? Well, it's a condition related to the ongoing availability of food. Concerns over food security have existed throughout history. Household food security exists when all members at all times have access to enough food for an active, healthy life. Individuals who are food-secure do not live in hunger or fear starvation.

[1500]

Food security incorporates a measure of resilience into future disruptions or the unavailability of critical food supply due to various risk factors, including droughts, shipping disruptions, fuel shortages, economic instability and wars.

I happen to know that in the Cowichan Valley they are thinking about that. Whether it's earthquakes or some other kind of issue, there are only two to three days' worth of food stockpiled in the region if suddenly we could get no more food, if the ferries couldn't run because an earthquake took out the ability for food to be transported, if there was a catastrophic event like that.

Really, a lot of people don't necessarily think about it, but we are not food secure in British Columbia in many communities. Now is the time to start thinking ahead, to think about what we can do locally to grow food locally. That's why they are encouraging community farming — to do a lot more with the little bits of land than grow grass. Food security incorporates this measure of resilience against these future disruptions.

In the years 2011 to 2013 an estimated 842 million people were suffering from chronic hunger. The United Nations recognized the right to food in the declaration of human rights back in 1948 and has since noted that it is vital for the enjoyment of all other rights. Now, that makes a lot of sense.

Food availability relates to the supply of food through production, distribution and exchange. Food production is determined by a variety of factors, including land ownership and use; soil management; crop selection, breeding and management; livestock breeding and management; and harvesting.

Crop production can be impacted by changes in rainfall and temperatures. We're seeing that now. The use of land, water and energy to grow food often competes with other uses, which can affect food production. Land used for agriculture can also be used for urbanization or lost to desertification, salinization and soil erosion due to unsustainable agricultural practices.

The Cowichan Valley food security plan says that as food security–related education, advocacy and research continue in Cowichan Valley communities and beyond, more and more people are awakening to the importance of building these resilient local food systems. Like the rest of Vancouver Island, 80 to 90 percent of our food in the Cowichan Valley comes directly from and is dependent on oil inputs for long-distance transport via truck and ferry. We have that mere two to three days' worth of food stockpiled in case of a crisis.

In short, Cowichan's food system is both environmentally unsustainable and extremely vulnerable to rising oil prices, climate change and emergency situations.

Especially as a kid growing up in the Cowichan Valley, I thought we lived in a land of abundance. But when you

[ Page 3704 ]

find out the stark reality, it's true that we really do need to think about how we can preserve farmland, not only now but for future generations.

With a moderate and long growing season by Canadian standards, it comes as no surprise that the Cowichan Valley possesses a strong agricultural history. The Cowichan Co-operative Creamery was set up in 1895 as the first dairy co-op in British Columbia and was a major hub of the community until 1988. By the late 19th century, farmers on numerous small farms were producing a wide variety of crops that were consumed locally and exported to other communities.

The Cowichan agricultural plan's most recent status report says that today, with rapidly increasing population and development in the Cowichan Valley, changes to food production are growing. These challenges include increased urban and suburban development, the rising cost of land, increased use of farmland for non-food crops and animals, and water shortages, just to name a few.

[1505]

While co-ops like the creamery no longer exist, good soil and talented farmers of the Cowichan continue to produce a diverse selection of high-quality products, many of them sold to loyal customers who value locally produced foods.

Some statistics. The total number of hectares farmed in the Cowichan Valley in 1991 was 18,628 hectares. By 2006 that had already declined from 18,000 to 11,559. The total number of farms in the Cowichan Valley is about 700. These are somewhat dated statistics, so it's declined since that time.

The percentage of farms raising only horses was 14 percent. Percentage of land considered prime for agriculture in the Cowichan Valley — this is a percentage of land in the whole region — was 2.7 percent. Percentage of area soils that could be improved if irrigated was as high as 66 percent.

This is just an example of some of the proposed changes. In my travels as forestry critic, I also discovered that with the pine beetle changes that have occurred, we've seen climate change impacts there as well.

As we move into the future, this bill really needs to be reconsidered. I know the minister. I believe that he is an honourable man. I toured with the current minister. We did some work on the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I believe that he is trying to listen to the folks of British Columbia, but I also know that he's under extreme peer pressure.

Government — they put the hammer down, and we're going to ride the pony. I'll tell you. I'm very concerned that at the end of the day, in spite of his best efforts to try to do right by British Columbians…. I'm sure he's hearing all the things. We've just got to do the right thing for British Columbians now and in the future, for future generations.

S. Gibson: Somebody once said that life is lived forward but understood backwards. I think all of us have travelled in areas, perhaps, in southern California. You see the beautiful lands there, and many of them have been paved over. We acknowledge that. I acknowledge that as someone who travels a fair amount, and you see beautiful land.

But we're stewards here in British Columbia. This government values stewardship. That's why I'm a big supporter of this proposed Bill 24.

If you head out from Vancouver on Highway 1 and you're enjoying the drive out there, it suddenly gets really nice when you cross the border into Abbotsford. It's a beautiful area with 1,200 farms in Abbotsford alone, and I represent a portion of Mission. It's a beautiful area with tremendous agriculture. In fact, it's the No. 1 community in British Columbia for agriculture — $1.8 billion worth of economic activity.

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Thank you, Minister of Agriculture, for your support here. I really appreciate that. I really feel there's some synergism in the room today. There's very little jiggery-pokery in this corner here.

But I want to remind us that we are stewards, and some of the dissent that's being perpetrated by the opposition really has nothing to do with Bill 24.

I want to make an additional remark about the area. So $557 million worth of farm-gate revenue — that speaks for itself. People in Abbotsford and much of Mission are committed to agriculture. It's not a theory made up by somebody going to a library and thinking agriculture would be a nice thing. We actually live it in our community. We live it. We believe in it. It's vibrant.

[1510]

When you travel around Abbotsford…. I offer you that invitation. Just drive around Abbotsford and much of Mission. You'll get the vibrancy. You'll get excited. You'll look around and say: "Wow, I feel good about this community. I'm glad to be a British Columbian."

The other thing to point out is that as you travel around a community, you'll sense the enterprise there. People are working hard. The folks that began the communities of Abbotsford and Mission — many of them came from Europe, and more latter day they come from South Asia, and they're building beautiful farms. They're growing farms, they're feeding their families, and it's very vibrant.

I'm very pleased to support this Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and it's important to make this statement. I want to read this into the record. No farm, nobody in the Abbotsford area, in the area that's going to be designated — and, really, staying the same — is going to be affected. All of the discussion, the discourse, that's being lamented by the opposition really has no context here. I wish that that would be delineated today in that

[ Page 3705 ]

discussion.

The legislation is designed to assist farmers in the more remote areas, the northern areas, because they require some understanding. It would be great if we could be unanimous on this in this House. It probably won't be the case, but it's great legislation. A lot of thought has gone into it, and I want to honour the Minister of Agriculture today for the work that's gone into it, and his predecessor minister as well. They both worked hard on this.

The farmland created by the Fraser River delta is probably the finest in Canada — the soil quality. There are places where you can pick up the soil in Abbotsford, and probably in Mission too, and it's just like instant coffee. It's so beautiful, the soil. You can grow anything on it. There are 200 commodities grown in this province, agricultural commodities, and many of those are grown in the Abbotsford area.

The northern parts of our province, those areas, require a little more understanding. Zone 1 will include Vancouver Island, the south coast and the Okanagan regions. This is the area that will not change. Zone 2, as we know, the Interior, Kootenays and northern regions — the northern panel, as we're calling it — requires some measure of understanding. The interesting thing, the whole point that is being made here, is that this will allow farmers in those regions to have some more flexibility to stay on the farms. That's the point.

That's the point that's being made, and I hope the opposition does appreciate that. The motives are very, very honourable and very consistent with our support of farming. The goal is to give farmers in that region an expanded range of options so they can use their land more sensibly and make a living there.

The current legislation, unfortunately, restricts the use of agricultural land so that a farmer can grow a product, but those families sometimes, on occasion, are prevented from supplementing their income by adding an extra complementary business. That's the point that's being made here, and I think it's a good one. For example, a farmer might want to expand his operations to include a small food-processing and produce site, perhaps working on that. This is the idea behind the legislation. Under the current legislation that's just not permitted, unfortunately.

Another example may include something as benign as perhaps a dog kennel or pet care — something where the farmer has a good farming business, but they need to complement their income, help the family out. It will allow people to actually stay on the farms longer in those areas.

I'm very encouraged. I'm seeing the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast nodding. I'm very encouraged by that.

The original legislation really never took this into account, but Bill 24 proposes to change that. This is a salient point, because it keeps the Agricultural Land Commission fully independent, fully autonomous — and that's what we all value in this House today — and beyond the reach of any interference.

See, interference is something that we were all concerned about, and I hear that lament from the opposition benches. "We're going to interfere." That will not change. All decisions that would alter any land use in zone 2 would have to be approved by that governing body. The legislation is simply intended to give farmers in northern climes a greater flexibility.

[1515]

We know the growing season is dramatically different in the northern area than it is in the south, where I live and represent the beautiful area of Abbotsford-Mission riding. Bill 24 will not — underline "not" — alter the protections already in place in the Lower Mainland.

I want to honour, again, the Minister of Agriculture. That was important to you, it's important to every member on our side of the House, and I'm sure it's supported as well by others.

Presently the law ensures agricultural land in the Fraser Valley will continue to be protected.

I want to just say, in conclusion and

summary, that northern farmers, under this Bill 24, have a little more flexibility to grow their businesses, to have some complementary ways to build the family income and keep on the land. I heard just a moment ago one of the opposition members saying that people had to leave off the land, go away. This will reduce that challenge. That's the beauty of it.

Two, to preserve the authority at the Agricultural Land Commission. As a former city councillor in Abbotsford for a number of terms, I can tell you that we had an excellent relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission. We had mutual respect for each other. We honoured each other. We knew we had different responsibilities, different duties, but we had a very synergistic, complementary relationship because we worked so well together.

Finally, to give the commission the modern tools that it needs, on occasion, to continue making independent land decisions.

As the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission, I'm very proud of this legislation. There are some subtleties to it, but it really supports agriculture right across our province, and I encourage all members to get behind it. It's in the best interests of the future of agriculture, which we all care for in our province.

A. Weaver: I rise today to take my place in this debate, one that I certainly imagine will take many days to come to conclusion. First off, I wish to acknowledge that the minister has clearly recognized there's a fair amount of public concern over this bill and has put forward a number of amendments that I look forward very much to speaking to at the committee stage.

Please let me start by saying that this is not a debate

[ Page 3706 ]

about change or a debate about the fear of change. This is the debate about the future of the ALC and, through it, the ALR, which has been protecting agricultural land in British Columbia for over 40 years.

During these 40 years the world has seen significant change. We are aware more than ever of the threat of global warming and, in particular, its projected threat in altering the hydrological cycle, long-relied-upon weather systems and how our food systems work. We need only look south to the extensive drought in California for an example of evidence showing how the impacts of global warming will play out.

We've also seen significant change in the local economies of communities in British Columbia's interior. Previously-relied-upon industries like forestry are no longer supporting communities in the way that they did, creating great social disruption and, in some cases, great hardship.

In the face of these and other pressures, it would be too simple to assume that the ALR can remain unchanged. At some point, the realities that were present when it was conceived begin to change, thereby creating a new reality with different needs.

Of course, as politicians we must have the courage to discuss changes to even our most important institutions when they are no longer serving the needs of British Columbians in the way they used to. I would even go so far as to suggest that a discussion of changes to how the ALR and the ALC operate might have been embraced by all sides of this House if it were to be based on how we must respond as a province in light of our changing climate.

Unfortunately, as I said at the start, this isn't a debate about change. This is a debate that is taking place within the context of failed consultations and broken promises and, as the member behind me likes to say, jiggery-pokery.

The conversation we could be having about how to strengthen our food production is greatly overshadowed by this government's decision to ram through changes to an institution in our province without adequate notice, without adequate consultation and without providing people with the required evidence justifying such a change.

[1520]

The bill comes as a surprise to many in this House. The 2013 election campaign contained absolutely no discussion of changes to the operations of the ALC and the ALR, let alone any notice of the sweeping changes contained within Bill 24. Even as we moved from the summer after the election into the fall, there were only hints at changes and promises of an inclusive, consultation-driven look at the ALR.

Now, let's turn to the issue of consultation. I think it's critical, before I continue, to read into the record an account of the history of this bill as outlined by my colleague Adam Olsen, the interim leader of the B.C. Green Party. He has followed this issue closely from the very start and was one of the first people to raise the issue around consultation. This is from a more recent piece he wrote on April 6, 2014, that's available on his blog site.

"For the past 40 years the Agricultural Land Reserve, ALR, has protected the agricultural value of the land in its boundaries. When British Columbians have been asked whether they support protecting those agricultural values and land for food security, 95 percent say yes.

"Changing weather patterns across the planet and increased transportation costs are putting our global food supply at risk. We all know that food is more secure when produced closer to home. Yet if Bill 24, the agricultural amendment act, passes, British Columbians will be forced to rely more on food produced outside the province.

"As long as grocery store shelves are stocked and food is a reasonable price, we are content. Even though we are regularly reminded that at any time Vancouver Island only has enough food for 72 hours, we remain comfortable. Food supplies in the rest of British Columbia are only slightly more secure.

"When the provincial government decided to update the Water Act, they consulted British Columbians and reported that they received 3,000 comments that they incorporated into Bill 18, introduced in March. As a result of the engagement, Bill 18 received a warm welcome inside the Legislature and out. Despite Bill 18's imperfections, the government properly engaged the public, stakeholders and experts and introduced balanced legislation.

"The same cannot be said for the government’s approach to the Agricultural Land Commission, ALC, and its plan for the 'adaptation' of 90 percent of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve, ALR. There has been no open and consultative approach. Instead, the government took a confrontational approach and drafted legislation in secret cabinet meetings behind closed doors.

"Why is Bill 24 even necessary? In 2010 Auditor General John Doyle released an audit, and Richard Bullock, the newly appointed chair of the commission, completed an internal core review. Using these reports, the ALC has begun implementing the recommendations, and the B.C. government invested $3 million in the ALC's 'modernization' in Budget 2013.

"Then in the summer of 2013 the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review announced: 'We're going to look at some sacrosanct things, like certain agencies. We're going to look at the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission.'

"Throughout the weeks following the B.C. government delivered a public process that Vaughn Palmer accurately described as a 'rushed exercise in ad hockery.'

"On September 6, 2013, a news release announced the

schedule for the annual tour of the Finance and Government Services Committee. The first session was in Vancouver just 14 days later.

"On September 24, four days after the start of the tour, the Minister of Energy and Mines announced that public input into the core review, including for the ALC, was to be presented to Finance and Government Services.

"On September 26 Kathleen Gibson and Linda Geggie presented at the Victoria meeting of the committee. They revealed that when they wrote to the Minister of Energy and Mines and to the Agriculture Minister on September 12 asking about the opportunities for input into the core review, they were told to present to Finance and Government Services.

"Following Gibson and Geggie's presentation, the Hansard record shows members of the committee were surprised and unaware that input for the core review was part of their expanded terms of reference.

"When I raised this issue" — "I" being Adam Olsen here — "with the committee on October 2, 2013, in Nanaimo, the committee's

[ Page 3707 ]

Chair, the member for Penticton, reassured me" — again, Adam Olsen — "that this was just the beginning.

[1525]

"He said: 'As the parliamentary secretary, and I have spoken to the minister today…. There is going to be ample opportunity for public input into the core review services.'" The member continued: 'You have to understand that it is only starting at this point and carries on until 2014. Through your local MLAs and, I'm quite sure, through other public processes, there will be ample opportunity. But anything that is said today will be discussed by this committee and, upon agreement of the committee, will be included in the report that will be given to the Legislative Assembly.'

"When internal cabinet documents were leaked last November, we were given a glimpse of what the government's intentions were. In response to growing concern by British Columbians, the Minister of Energy and Mines reassured British Columbians that 'nothing that the core review process could potentially do would reduce the protection of farmland in British Columbia.' He said: 'Bottom line. There is nothing that we could contemplate that would reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve, which is the protection of farmland and the sustainability of farming.'

"On November 14, 2013, I" — again, that's Adam Olsen — "continued my inquiry with an open letter to the Premier. Shocked by how dysfunctional this whole process was, I asked the Premier to remove the ALC and the ALR from the core review process. I" — again, that's Adam Olsen — "heard nothing from the government until mid-January 2014.

"On January 20, 2014, the Agriculture Minister responded that his government was committed to 'protect the most productive agricultural land.' However, that is not the mandate of the ALC. Their mandate is to protect and enhance all land within the ALR.

"All the while the Minister of Energy and Mines has made a concerted effort to diminish the value of land outside the Lower Mainland, Okanagan and Vancouver Island. While announcing Bill 24, the Minister of Energy and Mines said:

"'Folks, I've been waiting a long time to say this…. There's a huge, diverse land base out there that, frankly, the media and probably the urban public is largely unaware of…. There is some land within the agricultural land reserve that actually is useless to agriculture…. That land could be located in a region where there's six months of winter. In some cases, the land is covered by forest. I've seen the land within the reserve that's mountainous. It's steep. It's rocky. It's swampy. It has really poor-quality soil and no feasible access to water.'

"None of the concerns he raises require the proposed changes in Bill 24. All of them can be addressed with the current powers of the commission to undertake boundary reviews. The government's message is clear: 90 percent of agricultural land in British Columbia, the land in the north and southeast, is poor quality and unsuitable for agriculture.

"This is absurd. While the highest-quality land is in southern British Columbia, there's plenty of quality agricultural production in the north and southeast. The Ministry of Agriculture website proudly announces that 85 to 90 percent of grain production in the province occurs in the Peace River region.

"Finally, the Minister of Energy and Mines was asked about the failure to consult and engage British Columbians on changes to the ALC, and he simply shrugged it off, saying this: 'I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa.'

"The Minister of Energy and Mines's proposals to open up 90 percent of the ALR for all kinds of development that will not be of any benefit to agriculture and, essentially, remove the requirement of the commission to consider the immediate and long-term food security of British Columbia are a reversal of what he stated in early November.

"Not only did members of the government promise public input and not deliver, they made statements to British Columbians that reassured us we had nothing to be concerned about when, in reality, everything they said they wouldn't do, they did."

That's the end of the piece from Adam Olsen.

This is not an account that reads favourably of the government's efforts to communicate their intentions, nor does it provide sound footing for any claims that this bill comes with the support of our agricultural community. In fact, what we've seen instead is a growing number of groups and individuals speaking out against this bill.

One of the more noticeable groups is the B.C. Agriculture Council, the organization that represents 14,000 B.C. farmers and ranchers. The B.C. Agriculture Council reversed its support for the bill, with the council unanimously opposing the changes.

[1530]

In addition, I've been witness to the growing public backlash against not only this bill but also the process by which the government is attempting to make these changes. I want to take a moment to read a letter that was published in quite a number of local papers in the Kootenays, very close to the riding of the Minister of Energy and Mines. I think it provides important insight into the issue from a member of B.C.'s farming community.

This letter was written by a fellow named Andrew Bennett and was published on April 8, 2014. It's entitled this: "Scrap ALR Proposal and Save Small Farmers — A Rossland Perspective." This is his letter.

"To the leaders of my province, I am a 34-year-old farmer in the southern Interior working with my wife and son to build a business growing and selling food. We do not have the finances to own farmland, so we operate entirely on leased parcels. Because large agribusiness and government subsidies to the industrial food system keep food prices incredibly low, it's very difficult to compete in the market.

"We small, local farmers distinguish ourselves by offering much higher quality produce — vegetables and various meats, in my case — with more nutrients, more flavour, more humane livestock management, better soil management, quicker turnaround, happier employees, and so on. We also add vibrancy and resilience to our local economy.

"Perhaps what many fail to realize is that our farm and the many other young farms just now sprouting all over the countryside are the foundation of our future economy, the one we'll need once we're left with toothpicks for forests and gaping holes in the ground."

Frankly, this sounds a bit to me like he's reading from The Lorax .

"With all the mills shutting down, the best solution on the table is a couple thousand measly temporary jobs to build a pipeline that carries a grave risk to water and land? Very, very silly.

"Our local food economy guarantees to bring long-term prosperity by not only keeping us fed but by keeping currency in local circulation. Everyone needs to eat, and right now more than 95 percent of the $25 billion B.C. consumers spend annually on food leaves the province."

I'll read that again: "95 percent of the $25 billion B.C. consumers spend annually on food leaves the province."

"We're bleeding money."

And, I would add, what a lost opportunity.

"And there's no need to bleed. I can grow almost everything we need right here, right now. We can keep at least $10 billion in B.C.

[ Page 3708 ]

very fast if the government conspired with us instead of against us."

I'm not sure why he used the word "conspired," but it's there anyway.

"Imagine the impacts. Look at my customers. Almost all of them are professionals, many working out of province or out of country, bringing money to my small town in the Kootenays. It's my job and the job of other local business people to keep that money going round and round right here in B.C.

"Your ALR proposal is a disaster waiting to happen. My farm depends on the well-to-do folks who have bought farmland for an estate but with no plans or knowledge for how to use it. Not being able to develop on it ensures that they are willing to cooperate with farmers such as myself. Of course, they would like to develop it. They would make more money.

"If you allow them building and subdivision rights, will they be willing to cooperate with me and the legion of up-and-coming young farmers who I collaborate with and mentor every day? No. And farmers like me all over the province will lose any chance we ever had of owning a farm, because farmland will not only crumble into postage stamps, but prices will skyrocket.

"Your Bill 24 is not a long-term proposition. Even the faintest notion of a possibility of development — like Bill 24 threatens with its two-tier approach to the ALR — directly impacts my ability to lease land, grow amazing food and sell it for reasonable prices despite heavy competition from a global market.

"My farm also depends on being able to secure farm status for these same wealthy landowners. It's my way of compensating them for the use of their land — by lowering…taxes — without having to incur an expense that cuts into my already slim margins.

"Between the ALR and farm status assessments, that's about all the government has ever done for me and others who, despite the challenges, continue to work hard to ensure food security, local employment and a strengthened local economy.

"The reality is that the British Columbia and federal governments make my life harder, loading small producers with unreasonable restrictions and bureaucracy, and we get nothing comparable to the hefty handouts and tax breaks large industrial farmers receive.

[1535]

"The ALR and farm status being all the government has ever done for us, now you'd like to start eroding that too? Shame on you. You risk the future of all our children for your political gain and the financial greed of the minority you serve in the name of 'democracy.' Shame on you.

"You claim to speak for the 'everyday Canadian.' Not the ones I speak with, and I speak with more than you do. Or at least I actually listen" — spelt with capital letters. "I can guarantee that. My job depends on widespread networking with regular folks. This hardly seems to be required for political leadership.

"No, my so-called leaders, you clearly speak on behalf of a moneyed elite. Prove to me otherwise, and scrap this bill."

That's signed by Andrew Bennett from Rossland. I reiterate that this letter appeared in numerous communities in the Kootenays. Most of the local papers there published such a letter.

Consulting with the general public is a necessity for governing in this day and age if they are to claim to have the required social licence needed to proceed on many of their larger initiatives.

Let me give two recent examples — the first being the B.C. Water Sustainability Act and the consultations that took place in the second, the northern gateway pipeline. Both of these illustrate most succinctly the requirement and the ability the government has to actually engage the public to seek a social licence.

This government conducted substantial engagement on the new Water Sustainability Act and watched earlier this session as it got the unanimous support of every single member of this House.

In addition, we've seen the debate around the northern gateway pipeline marked by steadfast opposition to a proposal that many people fear was preordained for approval. Nothing creates more resistance than a process that was never intended to inform the outcome. This is what appears to have taken place with Bill 24, and the bill is poorer for it.

Going beyond just the social licence component, consultation allows government to hear arguments and evidence they may have overlooked. Let's be clear. Consultation is a two-way process. It's not just about reading a number of e-mails submitted to a minister. It was quite a positive development when the Government House Leader announced the amendment to Bill 2 earlier this session, in part, because of the concerns raised in this House by the opposition. I hope that a similar ear is being provided to the arguments taking place with Bill 24.

Finally, one of the other major issues that should underpin every critique of this bill is that the evidence does not support the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the bill. In the introduction of this bill to the media, the minister took the time to outline a number of examples of how the current operation of the ALR is inadequate to address the needs of farmers. These examples were meant to make a case for why changes to the ALR were necessary.

The problem, however, is that the ALR currently has a mechanism, through its boundary review process, to address these examples and provide exceptions where necessary.

The government's press release also identified "regional differences" as one of the key concepts underpinning this policy and made me wonder what data underpins the decision to create the two zones, as proposed in this legislation.

On April 4 of 2014 a group of soil scientists, many of whom are my colleagues that I've worked with over the years, wrote to the Premier and expressed their concerns with this bill. To quote just a couple of lines, here's what they said:

"Bill 24 creates a two-tiered ALR, and a lower quality of agriculture lands and climate in zone 2 has been stated and assumed several times. However, these assertions are patently false when examined in the light of objective soil science data and agriculture capability ratings, ratings that incorporate a substantial body of climate data gathered during the Canada land inventory.

"In actual fact, there is far more class 1 to 4 land in zone 2 than in zone 1 — about 85 percent or two million hectares in zone 2 versus only 15 percent or 350,000 hectares in zone 1."

That's coming from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1978.

[1540]

"This is not to say that lands of the same capability are directly comparable. A class 3 soil in the Fraser Valley is different from a

[ Page 3709 ]

class 3 soil in the Peace, etc. 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.

"Lower-capability soils can be highly productive for a particular crop. For example, a capability class 5 soil that is restricted to producing a forage crop, hay or silage, is often highly productive for that one narrow cropping option. It is for this reason that class 5 lands were included in the ALR., where they form the basis for some types of agriculture — i.e., important forage-production lands in ranching areas and class 5 organic, bog, soils suited to the production of blueberries or cranberries.

"Similarly, 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, thereby reducing both the labour and feed costs of ranchers."

Given that the government's claim that the land is less productive in zone 2 has been entirely refuted by experts, I'm hoping that this is not a case of decision-based evidence-making being brought before us here, where a desired conclusion was established and the evidence simply created around it to support a preordained decision. Our agriculture is simply far too important for the sustainability of our province's future to be used for shortsighted politicking. The changes that face our province, whether it is the increasingly evident impact of climate change or the changes facing many of our communities, cannot be addressed by shortsighted decision-making.

I started my remarks by commenting that this was not a debate about change or the fear of change. I said this, in part, to head off what I suspect will be the government's line — that opposition to this bill is merely opposition to change and that the official opposition, in particular, would never contemplate any changes to the ALC or the ALR under a Liberal government.

The fact is that they have eliminated this line of argument by pursuing a process that almost no one can support: an unclear and insufficient consultation, followed by a bill that goes against the scientific evidence and a minister who says that despite any additional consultation, the bill is going to pass this session and it's going to have two zones in it.

The words from the member for Cowichan Valley again come to mind: this sounds a lot like jiggery-pokery. These words that the minister put forward are not the words of someone who is committed to building a social licence that is necessary to make such sweeping changes. They are also not the words of someone who will review the evidence that is available and allow it to inform policy. These are not the words of someone who will look at science and use science to inform policy. These are the words of someone whose foundation for policy development is decision-based evidence-making.

Bill 24 is not in the best interests of British Columbia, and I will not be supporting its passage through this House. I wholeheartedly support the opposition in its continued opposition to this bill through the next week or weeks of this session.

D. Plecas: I note there's a great deal of passion in this debate regarding Bill 24, and I respect that passion. It's not surprising there's that passion because agriculture, of course, concerns everybody. Certainly, the preservation of our local food supply is something that everyone can relate to. Agriculture is a way of life for farmers in my riding of Abbotsford South. For that reason, I am very pleased to take

part in this debate on Bill 24.

In the course of any heated debate it has been my experience that sometimes the facts can get lost in the mix. This would be unfortunate, especially when agriculture and our food supply are concerned.

From the outset, may I begin by saying that nothing contained in Bill 24 affects the agricultural land reserve in Abbotsford South. In fact, I'll go a step further and remind members that nothing in this bill affects the agricultural reserve in the Fraser Valley. Nothing in this bill affects land in the Lower Mainland, period.

[1545]

The sole purpose of this bill is to recognize that running a farm operation in the southern half of British Columbia is far different than in the northern half of the province. That's all it is. There is nothing nefarious about this whatsoever. What we are trying to do is give the northern half of this province a greater degree of flexibility when it comes to agricultural land use.

There is nothing wrong with giving northern farmers the potential to expand their current operations beyond current restrictions. We are talking about revisiting legislation that set out a vision in 1973. That may not serve farmers the way it should in 2014 and beyond.

We are talking about keeping in place all of the restrictions in the southern half of this province that protect precious farmland from encroaching development. After all, it is no secret that the Fraser Valley contains some of the best farmland in Canada. This government will protect it. You can count on it.

Another thing we should be clear on. Another thing you can count on is that Bill 24 does not usurp the authority of the Agricultural Land Commission to make final decisions. That applies in either of the two proposed zones. Bill 24 does propose giving the commission modern tools. The commission will continue making independent land use decisions.

For example, a farmer in Prince George may have limited use of his land because of a shorter growing season. Consequently, farmers in that region have to find a way to make a living off the land. This is because the current legislation prevents him or her from expanding their operations.

For example, the farmer can produce a crop, but they are prevented from running a food-processing operation on their property. It could mean something as simple as growing a tomato crop, but the farmer is prevented from making tomato sauce on their property. It could also be something as simple as opening a dog kennel as a means of supplementing farm income.

[ Page 3710 ]

Bill 24 would allow farmers to make applications for these types of activities. In the end, the Agricultural Land Commission has the final decision. That's it. That's what Bill 24 is all about.

This proposed legislation would apply only to farmers on underutilized land. Our critics claim this creates two zones of inequality. But really this legislation is trying to strike a balance between the protection of precious farmland and giving northern farmers the means to grow their business. I can't understand why someone would stand in the way of allowing a farmer to make an honest living.

My colleagues in this debate have brought up the fact that the average age of a farmer is 55 years old. What does this tell us? It means that we are not attracting enough young people to the agricultural industry. It means that the family farm is under threat, especially if more than 25 percent of farm operators spend more than 40 hours a week working off site just to earn a living.

That's why the government is making every effort to attract young people to the farming industry by offering them state-of-the-art facilities like the Agriculture Centre of Excellence at the University of the Fraser Valley.

It's an incredible facility that includes a large demonstration barn and North America's tallest greenhouse. It is the first greenhouse in the world that can be programmable, and it can be pressurized or depressurized at the flick of a switch. This investment builds on our support for B.C.'s commercial greenhouse operators. In my riding of Abbotsford South commercial greenhouses constitute an important segment of our local agricultural industry.

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with the spirit of innovation. Whether it be vineyards in the Okanagan, cattle ranching in the Chilcotin or canola fields in the Peace country, agriculture continues to play an important role in this province's economy, and Bill 24 builds on that innovation and success.

[1550]

G. Holman: I rise today to oppose this bill. Far from forward-looking, modernizing legislation, it's really a throwback to the terrible days of yore from this government.

I do want to mention that I do have a personal connection with the ALR. My home is on an ALR property on Saltspring Island. As CRD director for Saltspring, I helped to fund and participated in the development of an area farm plan for Saltspring, and I'm proud to say that most of the elements of that farm plan have been implemented. I'm not a farmer. I'm not an expert on the industry, but I do have some familiarity with the issue and certainly some familiarity with the key policy issues and some of the possible solutions. Bill 24 is not a solution. It creates far more problems than it solves.

The ALR and the agricultural industry in my constituency is a very important and growing sector. Central Saanich, one of the municipalities in my constituency, has over 60 percent of its land base in the ALR. And by the way — and I'll read these comments later — Central Saanich council does not support these changes and, in fact, is crying out for appropriate, meaningful public consultation, not just with the public but with local governments. North Saanich and the southern Gulf Islands also have a significant portion of their land bases in the agricultural land reserve.

I see an increasing number of younger people getting involved in growing food for their own use or for market, and particularly higher-value and value-added products. I see an increasing number of farmers markets throughout my constituency providing an outlet for food production. Even larger food retail companies, like Thrifty Foods, are increasingly providing an outlet for local food producers.

These trends are encouraging, but Vancouver Island, as has been pointed out earlier, still only produces about 5 percent of its food requirements — about three days of food supply — so we need to do so much more to encourage growth in food production and agricultural production. Bill 24 doesn't do this.

We need to find a way to support farmers to grow more food, not to weaken the ALR and the land commission and encourage conversion of productive farmland to industrial and commercial uses. Essentially, in a nutshell, that's what Bill 24 does.

Other colleagues have spoken about the mandate of this government to bring this legislation forward. It's absolutely clear: there is no mandate. This government has no mandate to do this. It was not mentioned at all in their 2013 platform, and in fact, it's my understanding that when asked directly during the election, government members indicated that there were no plans to make changes to the ALR or to the Agricultural Land Commission. The people of B.C. didn't ask this government to weaken the ALR, to weaken the land commission, and this government didn't seek the approval of voters to do this during the election.

As has been pointed out earlier, there are other pieces of legislation brought forward here that went through an appropriate consultation process, the Water Act being the prime example. That process lasted for several years. I think government did a good job there, and as other members have spoken on this, this is the reason why the bill eventually was supported by all sides of the House — by the opposition and by independents. That hasn't taken place, very clearly, for this legislation.

There is no political mandate to do this. Government announced its intentions after the election. You would think that, particularly given that there was no electoral mandate, the public consultation that government would commit to would be even more comprehensive, even more thorough, because they really didn't get a mandate from voters on it. But in fact, that hasn't occurred. The process isn't flawed; it's been non-existent, despite prom-

[ Page 3711 ]

ises to the contrary.

[1555]

The minister of the core review process, who seems to be driving this bill, not to make a pun, has stated: "I know we could have done a better job of consultation." In fact, there's been no job done at all in terms of public consultation.

I was a member of the Finance Committee when the e-mails and the rumours started flying about draconian changes to the land reserve and the land commission. Citizens started appearing before the committee, objecting to these potential changes, in fact as they were directed to by the Minister for Core Review, who on his website was telling people to come to the Finance Committee and they will listen to your concerns and document them appropriately.

This, of course, as was pointed out by the previous speaker, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, was news to the committee. It was also news to the Chair of the committee, who also happene