Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 8, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 183

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 48 — Temporary Foreign Worker Protection

Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

(continued)

R. Coleman

J. Rustad

Hon. G. Heyman

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 39 — Poverty Reduction Strategy Act

Bill 41 — Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act

Bill 44 — Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act,

Bill 46 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2018

Bill 48 — Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

Bill 53 — Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

(continued)

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2018

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

A. Olsen

N. Simons

L. Throness

C. Oakes

S. Gibson

D. Barnett

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

(continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

S. Furstenau

R. Sultan

M. Lee

S. Thomson

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2018

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth:

I call third reading of Bill 48.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 48 — TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER

PROTECTION

ACT

Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth:

I call, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill

51, the Environmental Assessment Act. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir

Room, I call committee stage on Bill 49, the Professional Governance

Act.

[1:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

(continued)

R. Coleman:

As I start my conversation with regard to the Environmental

Assessment Act this afternoon, there are a couple of things I want to

touch on. The act itself spends a lot of time on First Nations, and I

want to reference some comments that the member for Skeena asked me to

refer to as we were going through this discussion, simply because the

First Nations side is really near and dear to my heart.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As we went through the negotiations for the Trans Mountain

Pipeline and also for the liquefied natural gas plants, both in Kitimat

and Prince Rupert and in other areas of the province of British

Columbia, the thing I got to learn, as I was given the job of the

government-to-government negotiations for benefits with First Nations,

was how important economic development was in the north — the northeast,

the north central part of our province and in the northwest.

I sat across the table from people from communities and went into

their communities where the suicide rates, the unemployment and the

economic prospects were dire. They really thought this might be an

opportunity to get training for their young people, to change that cycle

of poverty and change it to a better opportunity for their communities.

They sat down and negotiated and worked with me, whether it was the

Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, who I negotiated a benefits agreement

with — that’s seven First Nations in British Columbia — or whether it

was the Metlakatla, the Lax Kw’alaams, the Wet’suwet’en and other First

Nations.

My colleague from Skeena actually has been at the forefront of

this with his community in the fact that he recognized a long time ago

that being beholden to the Indian Act and the money that was being sent

to his community was not accomplishing what they needed to accomplish in

the Haisla First Nation. What they wanted to accomplish was lifting

people out of poverty with the ability to get trades and jobs. The

transformation has been dramatic in that particular community because of

his leadership.

He has some comments in and around this that, I think, we should

all reflect on as we deal with this particular piece of legislation. He

says that consent provision is not consent. Case law is explicit in

saying that there is no veto consent, but it is recommended that all

parties reach an agreement. That’s what we do now. We actually work to

reach agreement. It’s a permissive clause, meaning that consent is

allowed if the government agrees to allow the First Nation to have the

power of consent.

First Nations already have the Indian Act, telling them what they

can and cannot do. His comments to me are that they don’t need the B.C.

government to duplicate Indian Affairs. What First Nations need is

support in their pursuit to get rid of poverty through their desire for

economic development. The biggest complaint about the Indian Act is that

the Indian Act treats First Nations like children — thus, the

paternalistic comments. First Nations don’t want — and, quite frankly,

don’t need — more paternalism coming from any government, let alone the

B.C. government.

It’s unfair to raise UNDRIP expectations of First Nations when

this current government is using case law in the courts for argument, as

we speak. The reality is that a number of projects have gone ahead,

including Site C. There were First Nations that didn’t approve of it,

and this government went ahead. So consultation will not always lead to

accommodation, and accommodation may or may not result in

agreement.

“In the absence of agreement, Indigenous groups do not have a veto

over the government’s proposed course of ac­tion,” the province

argued, as per the Business in Vancouver

newspaper report

recently. The member for Skeena did let me know that he wasn’t either

glad or disappointed in that ruling. He was just pointing out that

government did what governments have been doing. Case law evolves, and

as case law has evolved, it becomes guiding principles as to how you

will go about doing the business of having projects approved.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, I can tell you this, having been in small villages up and

down the coast and in communities that are not on the coast but in the

interior of B.C. The first thing someone who comes from the Lower

Mainland of British Columbia or even somebody that comes from the

Okanagan or someone who’s coming from Vancouver Island should understand

is that there’s a whole different dynamic for our First Nations

communities in the rest of the province.

The first dynamic is this. We have a very successful development

in growth and thousands of homes being built on the Tsawwassen First

Nation after they got treaty.

[The bells were rung.]

Ah, the four bells. Just so people understand, that’s actually the

little House. A bunch of people are scrambling down the hall to fill

their chairs for a vote in the little House, which doesn’t affect the

ongoing procedures in here.

As I was saying, the Tsawwassen First Nations have a treaty. In

that treaty, they got a number of pieces of property that they could do

economic development with. They happen to be beside the

multi-million-person environment of the Lower Mainland, where they could

have that economic development — either through housing, through

commercial development or even through the big mall that’s built there —

and gain the benefits from that for their community and the jobs. But if

you’re on a gravel road 60 kilometres out of Fort St. James, in a little

tiny community, and there is no economic development….

There’s nothing to do economic development with, and someone comes

and says to you: “We’re thinking of doing a project for liquefied

natural gas, which would require a pipeline to come through your

territory. We would like to sit down with you and work out what the

benefit agreement would be, long term, for the life of that project —

how much money we could actually put into your community as a benefit,

as an accommodation. We’d reach an agreement on the training of your

young people so they can have jobs that would come from this. At the

same time, how about you become the company or the organization that

does the environmental monitoring for the project?”

All of a sudden, you have a partnership with the First Nations on

the environmental relationship on the land and the resource development.

That’s what happened up there. That’s why the Coastal GasLink, or the

pipeline that can go into Kitimat, has First Nations agreement across

it, in order to get it built. That’s why the Haisla First Nation worked

with LNG Canada, as did the Metlakatla and the Lax Kw’alaams, who were

working with the project in Prince Rupert.

They see in their leadership the vision that the member for Skeena

had a decade ago. That vision is: “This is our opportunity, because we

don’t have the same opportunity of being in the Okanagan and maybe

having wineries, tourism and what have you so that we can build economic

development for our community, as you can in Osoyoos, or commercial

opportunities, as they have in Westbank.”

It’s really, really important that people understand how important

it is that this relationship with First Nations is such that it’s

respectful, it works and it doesn’t need to be condescending. It’s a

partnership between people who care about the same things we do: their

children, their grandchildren, their community, their quality of life

and something that they can build on to change their community for the

future.

Now, the interesting thing about this act is this: this government

has approved the Site C dam. They were certainly happy and smiling the

day that LNG Canada was approved. They were there for the photo op and

having the great, lovely time in Vancouver that they’d got this $40

billion project, the largest capital investment in Canadian history,

that had arrived in British Columbia. The Site C dam and that project

and the Trans Mountain pipeline thing have something that’s similar, in

common: they were all approved by the same environmental assessment as

each other.

[1:45 p.m.]

The one difference on Trans Mountain is that it also requires some

federal approval, because it comes across the border between B.C. and

Alberta. That’s why there had to be a federal process as well. Even on

LNG Canada, we had a process with the federal government worked out so

that we could work together and not duplicate the work, to make sure the

environmental assessment was as good as anywhere in the

world.

Now, as we talk about these projects, I want to remind some people

of a couple of things. This was the Premier on CFAX, December 12, 2011,

about LNG Canada: “They’re going to be asking for the same cheap energy

that the existing industry has, and we can’t let that happen. It’s a

problem.” No sooner did he become the Premier of the province than he

went and gave away the energy price to LNG Canada.

At the same time, they wanted to talk about selling out the

resources of British Columbia. This is the now Minister of Energy: “Now,

they wouldn’t understand what it means to say no to selling out this

province. They put themselves in such a desperate position when it comes

to negotiating for LNG that they had to say yes to any single thing that

walked through the door. That’s exactly what they have done. This is the

big sellout of British Columbia.”

She was referring to the agreement relative to the project that

was proposed in Prince Rupert. They’ve gone way further. There’s a

reason that that agreement should come to this House for debate. Not

only have they done a deal on the power. Sooner or later they have to

stand up and tell us what they did on the royalties. They’ve also got to

tell us what they’re going to do about the PST.

I think they sold everything out. They don’t want to come here and

talk about it, because they spent all this time saying how bad it was

that we would even consider doing it in British Columbia.

I just want to remember…. One of the members from Surrey, who is

the Minister of Labour, said on October 22, 2014, in the Vancouver

Province

: “The LNG…legislation introduced today was written

by industry for industry.” It was pretty fair. It had an LNG tax, an LNG

tax that the companies were agreeing to. You would have the gas flow

through to the plant, and when shipped out of British Columbia, a small

tax would be applied to it so that B.C. would get their fair

share.

There’s no LNG tax. Now, the question with that is why? How did

you replace this? What did you do? I’m not disagreeing with how they got

to this format, but I think it’s important, when you’re talking about

the Environmental Assessment Act, that you think about how you’re doing

business when you want to change how you’re going to do business in the

future.

Now, the interesting thing about this is that that tax was debated

in this Legislature. It was brought to the floor. It seems to appear

that they don’t want to bring their deal to the floor. The reality is

this. The LNG tax was there for two reasons. We could offset with

royalties in British Columbia to encourage natural gas from our gas

fields in B.C. to be sent to the LNG plant. British Columbians get the

full benefit, and that gas gets liquefied and sent around the world to

produce greenhouse gases in other countries around the world.

When you remove that tax, which is one of the things I’d like to

debate in this House, it means all the gas can come from Alberta and

Saskatchewan along existing pipelines, and B.C. never gets anything for

the gas because it wouldn’t be our gas. We’re doing our part on the

exploration side. The pipeline is coming through our territories and

First Nations territories, and the gas is being exported out of

Kitimat.

As we go through that, we have to think about other things that

are going on. I was recently in Ontario for a sad situation. My sister

had passed away. At the same time, you get together with people and get

to talk to them. One lady that I’d never met before but who knew my

sister started to ask me about oil and the pipeline in British Columbia,

to tell me how wrong it was that there’d be a pipeline to transport oil

from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia so that it could be

refined, some of it in North America and British Columbia, but also to

be exported from Canada.

[1:50 p.m.]

She said the watercourse is put at risk and all of this. I said:

“Do you know where your oil comes from?” She said: “What do you mean? It

comes from refineries in the Maritimes, and basically, that’s how we get

it.” I said: “Where do you think the oil comes from? Do you think it

might come in on a tanker from Saudi Arabia or some other country? Do

you think it might come up the St. Lawrence River and into the Great

Lakes? It’s not coming down a pipeline.”

She was shocked to actually believe that there are oil tankers

coming into Canadian waters when we have a resource in Canada. So I

explained to her the whole thing about oil and how it works

internationally and how people who tell us about our ethics in and

around our environmental standards, which are the best in the world, and

try and say we have unethical resources, when it’s also the cleanest LNG

in the world, are the same countries, some countries, that have no

respect for human rights for women. And we think that they’re more

ethical because they’re coming from some other country rather than

taking our resources?

We’ve got to give our head a shake and understand that the reason

environmental groups are funded from U.S. entities into Canada to push

back at our resources is that some of them are funded by major

corporations who benefit from saying that there’s cheaper gas and

cheaper oil being sent to the U.S. to be refined. So they get to make

the money at the refiner when they crack the barrel and make the

product.

I’m always happy to have a conversation about environmental

assessment acts and see what’s new coming along. But we should

understand that I’ve sat in boardrooms in China, Japan, Korea, England,

the Hague, also other countries like Malaysia, and been to international

conferences where people told me then that they don’t know how anybody

invests in Canada because you can’t get anything done. I defended the

fact that it takes longer to do stuff in Canada because we actually

respect the relationship with our First Nations — to make sure they

share in the benefits and that we also believe that the environmental

work is worth doing.

If it takes you a year longer or two years longer, the difference

you’re going to have is a stable environment for your resources in a

very peaceful country that isn’t going to be conflicted, and you’ll be

able to get your resources there for the duration of their value. I

think that’s important.

Earlier today one of the members in the House got up in question

period, from the Green Party. They said this: basically, mining is just

an environmental disaster in British Columbia. An environmental

assessment is done on every single mine in B.C., and there are standards

around it.

The incredible thing about that is this. When the member stood to

say that, after she said that, I thought: “You know what? I wonder if

that member has a cell phone. I wonder if that member has a computer or

a laptop or maybe an iPad. I wonder if she owns a car. I wonder if she

owns a bicycle. And I wonder if she knows that every single one of those

things that I just listed needs mining to exist.” Without the copper and

without the other metallurgical things that come in to build those

particular things, coming from mines, you don’t have any of

it.

When you get to this thing about how special you are on the

environment, you should remember those things, when you decide to be

critical on one side and use the very resource on the other side. Even

if a member has an electric car, the batteries need mining — to make the

batteries. The fenders are petroleum products. Some of the materials on

seats come from petroleum products. The glass comes from mines. How else

do you get glass if you don’t get the base product to actually make

glass for windshields and windows?

All of these things are related. We should understand that it

requires a balance for us under any act that we do with regards to

resources in our province.

[1:55 p.m.]

I think it’s important to understand that the reason Canada is

successful is because, quite frankly, it has gotten better and better

over decades at understanding the relationship with First Nations and

the economic opportunities for all, and it’s gotten better and better at

environmental work because we’ve learned more and more about how we do

these projects. It’s very important.

I want to quote the Premier again, because I was really there that

day in Vancouver when the $40 billion, the largest capital investment in

Canadian history, took place, all under the environmental standards and

the work that was done by the previous government. I want to just remind

him of this, December 30, 2015: “I would stop spending all my time

talking about an industry that’s going nowhere and instead look at those

areas of the B.C. economy that are really thriving.” Well, I can tell

you something. The economy in the area around Terrace and Kitimat is

thriving, and it’s about to thrive big-time.

I’d like to spend a couple of minutes on the Trans Mountain

pipeline, because I was one of the statutory officers that signed off on

the environmental assessment approval on that — 800 pages, a lot of

reading. What I spent a lot of time on, on that, though, was reading all

the things that went back and forth from First Nations to get to the

point where that thing could be approved.

This is what struck me. When I read this act the other day, I

thought, you know, they’re saying that you’ve got to get in there early.

You need to consult with First Nations early. You’ve got to get

community support early.

I’m reading it, and I’m thinking that this act describes exactly

what Ian Anderson from Trans Mountain did as the president of the

company with regards to that pipeline. Before they went to market to see

if they had the capacity or the oil to go into that pipeline, they went

to communities — not just First Nations communities but every community

along the entire proposed line for that particular pipeline — and

engaged early and talked to people and worked with them. It was actually

a significant commitment, and that’s why all the First Nations all the

way down the line have signed off on this project and said they support

it.

Now, there are a couple of exceptions where there have been

challenges. That can always take place, like it did on the Site C dam

that the NDP already approved with two First Nations wanting to have a

conversation about it again. The same thing here. But the reality is

that for anybody to describe anywhere along the line that people aren’t

being listened to or consensus isn’t being built, they’re just not

watching. They’re not paying attention, and they don’t understand the

significance of what we’re talking about.

Now, if you have ever been to Lax Kw’alaams…. Some people might

know it, in the old days, in the other days, as Port Simpson. It’s an

eclectic little community where you can actually see, from Lax

Kw’alaams, Alaska. I went up there one time when we were talking about

LNG with that leadership and that community to a full hall. People were

talking about the environmental issues and impacts, and when people

started to understand that the gas was the gas and it wasn’t liquid

until it was frozen, they thought: “Well, that’s not going to be a big

environmental challenge, relative to water courses and what have

you.”

We had different people presenting, explaining the project and

what have you, and then it was opened up for conversation from the

community. And I’ll never forget this as long as I live. At the very end

of the meeting, when people had to rush away to catch the ferry to

Rupert or the water taxi to Rupert from Lax Kw’alaams, because you can’t

get there by road, an elder stood up. Well, actually, he stood up with a

walker, and he was quite elderly. He went up to the front of the room

and took the microphone, and he started to talk to the kids, because the

grade 10 and 11 students, from the school that we were in the gym of,

were in the room.

He talked about fishing, and he talked about the fact that there

was something going on out there where somebody was taking fish before

they were getting back. He’d been fishing for 60 years. And he talked

about things like suicide and children or grandchildren that he had

lost, or nieces and nephews, over the years.

Then he turned to us, looked at us, and he looked back at the

crowd, and he said this: “I’ve been fishing for 60 years. Those jobs are

for the most part gone. Gone. These young people need a future. They

need a future where economic development, jobs and training are there

for them.” I’m paraphrasing.

[2:00 p.m.]

He said: “There was a day we talk about when you could walk across

the fish in the Skeena, when fish were plentiful.” We talk about the

days where things like…. We’ve had some of the reduction of fishery over

my lifetime. He said: “These children need a future. This is an

opportunity for their future.” And he says: “Let’s understand something.

All of those things you talk about that aren’t working so well in the

fishery…. LNG’s not here yet. You can’t blame it on that industry.” He

said: “Get these kids their jobs.”

I will never forget it, because there was the passion of somebody

probably 80 years old — the passion. When we went back up there to sign

the final benefits agreement, he was there, smiling like a Cheshire cat

because he thought we were getting closer and closer to a final

investment decision on a project up near Prince Rupert which would

benefit his First Nation and his grandchildren and his

children.

You can’t understand until you sit in a room with a chief in the

Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council who has had other people coming in from

outside communities — First Nations leaders, particularly — saying:

“This is how you should be doing things” and “Don’t negotiate” and what

have you. And finally — a day in Prince George I’ll never forget because

the tears in the room were profound and they were coming from the other

chiefs around the table when he stood up — he said: “Enough talk. I had

three suicides in my village last week. I want to make a deal. I want to

get on with this. I want to sign today with Rich and the government.

Let’s move forward.”

He said: “I don’t want to do this anymore. I don’t want to see

this in my community. If we don’t do something for its economic

development in the future, we’re letting them down.”

Don’t let the language in this bill take away from the fact of

what my friend from Skeena says, and that is that it’s important to

remember what economic development does, what job training does, to

change the cycle of poverty and the changes for outcomes for generations

for First Nations. Our job should be to get in there early, which I

agree with. To get it done, I agree with. But don’t just do it on the

basis that if there’s one competing, cross-border situation between

First Nations, you can’t get on with it.

The Tsimshian First Nations are a proud group of people — the

Kitselas, Lax Kw’alaams, the Metlakatla, Kitsumkalum and others, the

same territory as treaty lands held by the Nisga’a. Those First Nations

need to work together on whatever land use is going to take place from

here up in that area of the province. Because they all need to benefit.

The government, when they do their negotiations, should understand

that.

They’re negotiating on some stuff now. What I would suggest they

do is they go sit down with the chief of the Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla

and Kitsumkalum to understand what they feel about any deal they might

be wanting to make on land. Otherwise, it’ll just end up in some court

area, and nobody will be successful.

The area I’m talking about is in the Nasoga Gulf, which is an area

that is under some conversation with government on its sale. At the same

time, it appears that government is ignoring the wishes of all the First

Nations in the area. Don’t do that if you believe in the legislation you

just put in place here. Because you’re actually breaking your own

thoughts about what you should do.

As we go through environmental assessment and the stuff with First

Nations contained in the bill in committee stage, we need to have these

discussions. I want that guy in Lax Kw’alaams to see his grandchildren

get trades and jobs and opportunities. I want that First Nation on

gravel road 50 kilometres out of Fort St. James to have the same

benefits and opportunities. I want to see the benefits of economic

development flow into those communities along with the jobs and

opportunities, so they can change the outcomes, like they have with the

Haisla and other First Nations that have had economic opportunities. You

can only do that by working together.

Don’t put something in legislation that you put in a place, that

actually obstructs the ability for people that deserve to benefit from

what goes on in this province, simply because you want to write

something down on paper.

[2:05 p.m.]

My negotiations — all the negotiations, the deal that I did — as a

direct government-to-government negotiator, as a minister, came together

because of relationships, trust and understanding — and compassion and

understanding from each side of the table for what was going on here and

how people could benefit. Let’s not lose that.

As we discuss the rest of this bill, remember: the future for the

most important, impoverished people in our province is in front of us.

We need to continue to make that stuff work with economic development,

like the member for Skeena has been telling everybody for a long, long

time.

J. Rustad:

It’s an honour today to rise and speak to Bill 51 on behalf of my

constituents of Nechako Lakes. I just want to take a moment to think

about that. I’m here representing the constituents of Nechako Lakes

because I was elected to do that. If the electoral system changes, guess

what. Some people may actually be here to do that, and some people may

not be. Some people may be here to represent a party, as opposed to

being elected directly by constituents and have that honour and

responsibility of being their voice here in this Legislature.

It’s something to think about when we’re talking about something

as important as Bill 51, on the environment. People that come in here

and have the opportunity to say something and raise their voice for or

against a particular bill or in a way to try to improve a bill…. Their

priorities are based on who elected them, why they’re here. If they’re

elected or appointed because of a party, is that the kind of democracy

that we want to see in this province?

On Bill 51, the reason why I’m so pleased to be able to stand up

and speak about this…. My riding of Nechako Lakes is a relatively rural

riding…. Well, not relatively; it’s probably one of the more rural

ridings in the province. It’s about 2.2 times the size of Vancouver

Island with many small communities, and resource activities are

critical. Whether it’s agriculture, mining, forestry or projects like

LNG, it’s critical for my riding.

And you don’t get projects that come along very often. Lots of

people would like to see projects develop, and there are potentially

hundreds of projects. But the reality is that out of all of those, maybe

you get a chance at one. The process of going through, trying to get a

project moved forward that can change lives and support communities,

that supports families and keeps families together so that kids can have

jobs in an area…. The process of going through that has to be able to be

fair.

It has to be able to be comprehensive, of course. This is about

the environment; it’s about environmental assessment. But it has to also

be in a way that is achievable. It can’t be endless. It can’t be going

on with tremendous costs so that it discourages a small company from

even wanting to bring a project forward because they can’t afford to go

through the process. It takes too long. It’s too involved and too

engaged.

I believe in small business. I believe in small companies. Most of

the area in my riding is small companies and businesses. Yes, there are

the large Canfors and the West Frasers, but there are many small

businesses, which hire the majority of the people in my

riding.

This bill here, as it’s brought forward, will create some

challenges for those companies to be able to actually move forward and

do projects — do projects of a significant nature, one that requires an

environmental assessment. I look at this and think: “What’s the

intention of this government? What are they trying to do with this bill,

combined with all the other bills that they have been doing?” The layers

of challenges and expenses and bureaucracies that are coming on are

going to make it difficult.

Yes, the economy is moving along, and we left the economy in great

shape when the current government inherited it. But as things slow down,

it’s going to be very, very challenging. We’re even seeing today,

especially in forestry, companies stop investing in British Columbia.

They’re investing south of the border instead. Capital is mobile. It can

go anywhere. It’s that investment and that confidence that creates a

real challenge to this province.

Somebody said many years ago that there are two types of strikes:

there’s a labour strike, and there’s a capital strike. And a capital

strike is far more damaging to an economy than a labour strike, because

without the inflow of capital and without the confidence of people being

able to invest in a province and being able to see projects move

forward, what do you have?

[2:10 p.m.]

You have a slow deterioration of your existing infrastructure, and

you do not have the renewal and the new investments that are needed.

Part of that, that idea of being able to track capital, is for people to

have confidence to be able to move forward a project. Environmental

assessment, particularly when you’re thinking about a new mine or an LNG

project, is critical. If a company can’t see a way to be able to move

forward or sees that it’s just too challenging to do, you’re considered

high risk, high cost, and the capital goes elsewhere.

Looking at this bill, the Environmental Assessment Act, there are

many things that are in this bill that I think are interesting. In my

riding, Nechako Lakes, I have 13 First Nations that have their head

offices or the main — if you want to call it this — the core territories

within my riding. I’ve got many other nations that overlap into my

riding. But I think about those 13 First Nations and what they’re trying

to do.

My colleague and friend from Langley East talked about an example

that I want to elaborate on a little bit more. The Chief of the

Tl’azt’en Nation was the chief that the member was speaking about who,

upon seeing this LNG opportunity, negotiated hard and came to a position

where he said: “Okay. This can go ahead.” There were tears in his eyes

because he knew what a difference it would make for his nation and for

his people.

As a chief, when you’re thinking about…. I’ve never been a chief.

But when you’re thinking about your people and you think about suicides

that you have to witness and the tragedy that brings to families and to

people and to loved ones in a community…. Why? Why do those suicides

happen? Because people don’t have hope. What are they looking forward

to? Where’s their future?

There was a lady in a neighbouring nation, the Nak’azdli Whut’en,

which is in the Fort St. James area. She came to me back a few years

ago, and she had brought me a little gift. She brought me a meat

offering, which is really…. I was very, very touched by her coming and

doing it. I asked her why she did that. She said that she’d been living

on the street, a single mom, and she didn’t have an idea where to go

with her future. She was depressed. She couldn’t provide for her child.

She was wondering: where could she go? What was her future?

A mining project came along. That very nation that she was from….

As a matter of fact, a lady who ran against me, who currently works in

this government, tried to oppose that mining project.

She, with her nation, went on and on and on, through the

environmental assessment process, fighting for this project to come to

fruition. That young lady, because of that project, got a training

program. She got into the College of New Caledonia up in Fort St. James,

and she got herself a little bit of training and education. She got her

first job, and she was so proud of the fact that she was able to now

provide for her child because she now had a job.

She came back from that job. When I saw her, she had gone back

into college. She was taking additional training because she wanted to

be able to advance and do some additional jobs. There were openings and

potential for her. She said to me that the difference this had made for

her is now that she…. She was a better mother. She was able to provide

for her child. She was more engaged with her nation. She was more proud

of her heritage and who she was, and she had hope for the

future.

That young lady was able to get that work because Mount Milligan

was able to get an environmental certificate, and Mount Milligan was

able to go forward and become a reality. Hundreds of people now work at

that mine. Hundreds of people from my riding and other areas around the

province go in and work at that mine. Yet through the environmental

assessment process, there were challenges. It was difficult to get

through. And rightfully so. Projects do need to be scrutinized. Projects

do have to have the opportunity for input to try to improve them and try

to move them forward.

[2:15 p.m.]

When you look through at what this bill does, this actually

creates even further barriers to how a project can proceed. I think

about the future of that young lady and what a project like Mount

Milligan has meant for her and for so many like her. I think about this

government’s approach of layering on bureaucracy, layering on

challenges, making it even more difficult. That’s not reconciliation.

That’s not trying to improve lives. What is it we’re trying to do

here?

Looking through the bill, the bill has many places where it talks

about engaging and needing consent and going through the process. That’s

fine. You know what? That’s what we were doing.

Under our government, we had brought First Nations in to be

actually at the table — not on the opposite side of the table but on the

same side as the environmental assessment, working to make sure the

information was in, to make sure that we had a full understanding,

engaging and bringing the whole process forward so that it could be as

comprehensive as possible, taking into consideration all of the factors

that need to be done. That’s a good thing. It’s an important piece of

how projects should go forward, but it wasn’t an added layer of

bureaucracy or cost.

When you look at this bill, one of the most startling components

is that this government is now going to download the entire cost, or

potentially the entire cost, of an environmental assessment on to the

proponent. When you think about the hours and hours and hours of

engagement, trying to build consent, dealing with dispute, dealing with

moderators, going back and forth trying to do all this work — wow. That

is a very expensive process.

Not only does the company have to pay, of course, for their side

of it. They’re now going to have to pay for First Nations engagement

and, likely, government engagement, in terms of the fees and schedules

that’ll be set up as part of going through an environmental

assessment.

I don’t know what these guys think. I’m proud of the fact that in

my life before I got into politics, I ran my own company. I signed the

front side of a paycheque. I understand what it takes to hire people —

the risk, the challenges, worrying about making sure that you have

enough work for somebody to be able to go through on a daily basis.

These guys don’t know that. I don’t know if there’s a single person over

there that’s ever signed the front side of a paycheque.

Interjection.

J. Rustad:

The member opposite says: “Give him a break.” Stand up and talk to

this bill and give us the example of you signing the front side of a

paycheque.

Speaking from my side of this Legislature, speaking for my party,

you have many people on our side who understand that. They understand

the challenges of what it takes to be successful in the business

community. They understand the fact that sometimes, when you’re doing

work and you’re going throughout the entire year, you actually don’t

even collect a paycheque until the last few months of the year because

everything else is being eaten up in expenses. It’s tough.

Layering on additional costs like the employer health tax, like

the other components that this government has done — and now, additional

costs of trying to move a project forward — just drives people out of

this province.

It comes back to what I was talking about earlier, about a capital

strike. When capital and companies and individuals have the lack of

confidence to invest in the province, you dry up that investment, and

you ultimately choke off your economy. It’s not a healthy environment to

be able to be in.

The certainty that’s needed when you think about a project going

forward through an environmental assessment is critical, because once

again, it’s the confidence. What you see that was actually written into

this bill is if a project does not follow government policy, it can be

terminated. Government policy? We have seen from this government their

desire to kill the Trans Mountain Pipeline project. In the CASA

agreement they signed, they said they would use every tool in the book

to stop a project like that from going forward.

Under this new environmental assessment, that project wouldn’t

even have an opportunity to get an environmental certificate because it

doesn’t follow government policy. There­fore, it can be terminated

without cause simply because of a political decision — not whether it’s

good for the environment, not whether it’s good for the economy or for

society or social issues, but simply because of politics. It’s not the

way a government should be run.

[2:20 p.m.]

I think about the Trans Mountain project and its going through. My

colleague from Langley East once again talked about all the nations that

had been engaged and involved and were part of that. That’s great to

see.

When I think about 43 different nations that have signed on and

are part of it and supporting it and want to see it happen, there are

two that opposed. And they aren’t even on the line. They just have

traditional territories that go in. Yet those voices are far louder than

the 43 that are supporting the project.

Is that fair? Is that right? Think about that chief. Going back to

the Chief of Tl’azt’en Nation that I spoke about earlier, it’s very sad

to know that he won’t see the LNG project come to fruition. He passed

away before the announcement could be made. It’s very sad. This was his

hope for his nation — to be able to see the changes.

Those 43 nations along the line, along the Trans Mountain

pipeline, are thinking the exact same thing. This is their hope, for

their people, to try to lift people out of poverty, to try to make a

difference and change. Yet this government continues to fight against

it, and this piece of legislation will give them another tool for any

project like that, simply because of politics and it doesn’t follow

government policy. It’s not right.

On Monday and Tuesday of this week, I had the honour and pleasure

of attending a conference in Vancouver. It was the conference of the

National Coalition of Chiefs, chiefs from across the country —

particularly, though, from the Prairies and British Columbia — that had

gathered to talk about how to be engaged and involved, how to benefit

from resource development, how to look at things like ownership of

something like the Trans Mountain pipeline, how to build their future.

Many chiefs got up and spoke, one after another, and talked about what

economic development had meant for their nation.

One chief from Alberta: the average income for people in his First

Nation community was $75,000 a year, more or less — compared to the

average in Alberta for other First Nations of around $22,000 or $25,000

a year — because they were engaged in resource development and the

difference it made.

What do you think those people are doing? They’re buying vehicles.

They’re building their home. They’re building their future. They’re

raising their kids. They’re being able to provide, and they’re not

reliant on government handouts. That’s the difference a resource project

can make.

In attending this coalition conference, it struck me when I

thought about projects like Trans Mountain pipeline: that’s the core of

reconciliation. You cannot have reconciliation if you do not have

economic development. It’s not there. Government and government cheques

have been part of the problem, not part of the solution, for First

Nations right across this country but especially here in British

Columbia.

How do you provide for your people when you have to be reliant on

government and a cheque that comes in? How do you support your people

when government is overlooking every step that you do, in a

paternalistic way? It’s not the right thing to do for First Nations. Yet

you look at this bill, and guess what. It just follows in the same

footsteps. It’s doing more of the same. It’s not trying to figure out

how to get First Nations out of poverty, how to get them away from

things like the Indian Act and how to move them forward with

progress.

Certainly, it’s not surprising, given this government’s position

on something like the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Just a side note. It has gone back to the courts, and they’re

going to look at the potential impact on orcas from tanker traffic and

these types of things. Well, 23,000 ships moving through that area

annually, and they’re talking about one ship a day going through and

having an adverse impact? It has to be looked at. Okay, the courts have

said to go back and look at it.

[2:25 p.m.]

The funny thing is this. I always used to like to think about Paul

Harvey from back in the 1980s, the radio broadcaster who’d say: “Now for

the rest of the story.” Back when whales were being hunted to

extinction, Victoria, at the time, had postcards showing a whaling ship

harpooning a whale and saying: “Come to Victoria for opportunities,

because there are so many whales off our coast.” Whales were being

hunted to extinction.

Do you know what saved the whale? It wasn’t protest ships. It

wasn’t environmentalists. It wasn’t all the groups standing up to this.

It was the oil and gas industry. The Canadian invention of kerosene,

overnight, replaced the need for whale lamp oil. The need for hunting

whales came to an end overnight, thanks to the oil and gas industry.

Just a little side note in terms of protecting orcas, when we think

about tankers moving through the straits, as one ship of 23,000

movements that go throughout a year. But I digress.

When I think about environmental assessment and going through

this, the Trans Mountain is one side, and these chiefs were very

emphatic about their desire to see these kinds of projects go forward. I

hope that people will start listening to their voices. I hope that

they’ll have the chance.

One of the big obstacles fighting them, quite frankly, is foreign

money coming in, funding groups fighting against our natural resource

industries, fighting against the kind of prosperity that can come for

First Nations and, in many cases, providing false information and

misleading First Nations people or, in some cases, actually paying them

to be protesters, paying them to go out and block projects going

forward, for their own purposes and for a foreign agenda. That is not

right.

Whether it’s through environmental assessment or the courts,

protests or blockades, we’re seeing that money come in to try to stop,

in particular, oil and gas — but other activities as well — in British

Columbia. And it’s not right. That shouldn’t happen. Canadians should be

in charge of their own future. We should not have that kind of influence

of foreign money. That needs to come to an end.

It reminds me of an

article that I just read today, actually.

There’s a new LNG plant proposed in Washington. Do you know what they

said about this plant? It said it must use B.C. gas. Imagine that. Here

are the same groups that are being funded from these organizations in

the States to try to prevent our LNG project from going forward, to try

to prevent oil and gas exploration, yet down in the States, they’re

proposing one, and they’re saying: “We should be using B.C.

gas.”

You might think: “Well, why? Why do they say they’re going to use

B.C. gas?” Because we are between five and eight times less emissions

and because we’ve got better environmental standards than anywhere else.

So if the project is going to go forward, they should use the best gas

in the world, the best gas available in North America, which is the gas

that we produce right here in British Columbia. Yet for some reason,

these guys think this is bad.

You look at the targets that they’re proposing to make through

environmental assessment, which is now saying that greenhouse gas

targets are going to be a factor of whether a project should go forward

or not. It has to be able to meet greenhouse gas targets.

Lots of people, including myself, are concerned about the

environment, concerned about the future. But what that essentially

means, depending on where they put the targets…. And we’ll have to wait

and see, actually, where that comes, because that’s more legislation

that’s promised or more reports that are promised before the end of this

month. That could very well kill any future LNG opportunities in British

Columbia.

If they set that target at a level that won’t allow a second major

LNG plant to go forward, it’s over. We’ve got projects in Prince Rupert,

projects in Kitimat, a project in Port Alberni — projects that want to

go forward with LNG. What this assessment will mean is that if that

project is going to go over that limit, it’s terminated.

Projects can be terminated because of politics. Projects can be

terminated because of arbitrary lines. Yet projects on the south side of

the border are saying: “We want to use this because it’s the best and

cleanest gas that’s produced in North America.”

[2:30 p.m.]

How does that equation get squared? With the exception that from

the south side of the border, there is money coming in to influence

politics, to influence environmental groups and to influence First

Nations to oppose development in here. Why? Because they want it down

there.

With Trans Mountain…. Do you know what the price of oil coming out

of Alberta is today? Just today I looked, and $17.65 a barrel was the

price tag for Canadian heavy crude oil. Do you know what the

international price was? About $70. How is it that we can find that to

be acceptable?

How can we accept the fact that the product that we produce in

this country can’t get to international markets, and we are forced to

give it away and subsidize gasoline prices in the United States? I don’t

get it. Yet with this bill, the British Columbia government, for

political purposes, could just make sure that that could never happen —

that Trans Mountain could never happen in this province. It’s a sad

state, a sad piece, that this bill is talking about.

I’m proud to be Canadian. I’m proud to be from British Columbia.

British Columbians and Canadians need to see these benefits that come

from resource development. It’s what built this country. It’s what

continues to be the backbone and support of this country. Our health

care, our good education system — all the qualities of our standards of

life and living — are supported by our resource industry. Why are we

continually being ashamed of it or putting barriers in front of

industries like that through bills like this?

The members in government will bill this as part of enacting the

UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It bills this as

being part of reconciliation. But I don’t quite see how that is the

case.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Even in their court case on Site C just recently, the government

argued: “Consultation will not always lead to accommodation, and

accommodation may or may not result in agreement. In the absence of

agreement, Indigenous groups do not have a veto over government or a

proposed course of action.”

Many First Nation groups want to see the idea of consent,

consensus, as being that veto. Now, I admit this bill doesn’t go there.

It does in a few components, which seem to be fine. However, the attempt

here in going through this and the way they have billed it does raise

some real questions. What is the purpose here? Is this government really

serious about reconciliation? Is the government serious about wanting to

make a difference for the future of First Nations? Or is it using that

to further its own ends?

Mr. Speaker, just to note, I am the designated speaker on this

bill.

I ask that question, and I wonder about that question. I’ll be

asking questions like that during the phase of committee coming up —

assuming, of course, that we get this opportunity for committee stage.

But I ask that question because of what I said earlier. What is

reconciliation if it is not founded in economics, if it’s not founded in

the ability to be able to move forward projects? What have you achieved?

It’s still going to be reliant upon government, and we know that’s not

the solution.

When I had the honour of being the Minister for Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation in B.C., I had an opportunity to meet with

Nisga’a, and we signed an agreement and came down here. One of the

elders who has been well recognized and received a doctorate said: “It’s

long past time that First Nations not only have the opportunity to catch

up to the rest of Canada economically but, if possible, to

surpass.”

[2:35 p.m.]

That’s a worthy goal to go after, because community by community

by community has been held back, whether it’s through federal government

and the Indian Act or through other issues that have been raised,

potentially even provincially, in decades gone by.

Now is their time. Now is the time to be able to make the

difference. We have big project opportunities. LNG, a $40 billion

announcement — that’s great. The difference that’s going to make for the

25 nations along there is phenomenal. But why are we limiting it to

that? We need to see more of those types of projects go forward. The

economic success or opportunity for First Nations should be a focal

point in this act.

Economic activity that supports communities like mine in Nechako

Lakes and communities like Vanderhoof, Houston, Burns Lake, Granisle,

Fort St. James and Fraser Lake — many of the unincorporated areas — all

depends on the opportunity for projects like this to go

forward.

It plays a secondary role. It’s a minor footnote when you read

through this act. Why is that not front and centre? Yes, it has to be

done right. Yes, it has to be done respectfully. Yes, First Nations need

to be engaged and part of it, of course. That’s the world we live in

today. More importantly, it’s the right thing to do. But why are we not

heavily weighting what those economic benefits can be?

I’ll give you an example of what the world used to be like, right

from my riding. I guess I don’t even know whether environmental

assessment was even considered back in this day. But in the 1950s, there

was a project that moved forward, and it was the Kenney dam. They dammed

the Nechako River, built a massive reservoir and put water outside of

the Nechako-Fraser system, over the mountains to Kemano, to generate

power.

Why was that justifiable? Because of the economic activity that

was created from a major smelter in Kitimat — a big project. It made a

big difference. It probably never would be able to have been allowed to

happen today. Maybe that’s the right thing for it not to happen today. I

don’t know. You can’t judge yesterday based on today.

It’s interesting what happened, particularly in the engagement

with First Nations at the time. If you go back and look at the records,

at the newspaper articles at the time when this project was coming

forward, the newspaper articles said: “Nobody will be displaced by this.

It’s just a few natives living in the area.” When that project was being

built, the company people went around to the Cheslatta communities,

knocked on their doors and said: “The dam is being built. The flood is

coming. You have two weeks to move.”

They weren’t engaged. They didn’t have an opportunity to benefit.

They had to up and move, or their community would have been flooded.

They had two weeks to pick up what possessions they could and be

displaced to another nation’s territory. To make sure they wouldn’t come

back, their homes were burnt and destroyed. That was the way the world

was back in the 1950s, and it’s sad. It’s very sad to think that that is

how people were treated back in those days.

Going forward in looking at environmental assessment, having First

Nations involved, engaged and part of it is critical. As I said, if it’s

not about the economy, if it’s not about how you help to build that

future, then what are we trying to do?

As part of being minister, I had the great honour of visiting many

First Nations communities. As a matter of fact, I think, if my memory is

correct, the total number of nations I managed to engage across the

province over four years was about 169. Not all of those was I able to

visit — their territory — but I had meetings here. For many of them, I

did get a chance to go up and visit their territory.

[2:40 p.m.]

I’ve been on many reserves and seen the conditions, and it’s sad

when you see 50, 60 or 70 percent unemployment. It’s sad when you think

of communities like the Burns Lake Band, where the Chief, when he

travels, has to carry extra blankets in the trunk in case he’s going to

visit a suicide. That’s normal. It’s not right.

It has to change, and that means the only way those will change is

to be able to have that hope and that opportunity created for those

people that live on that reserve and are part of that community. So I

ask again, in this environmental assessment bill, Bill 51: where is that

in this bill?

How does this move forward reconciliation? How does this lift

people out of poverty? How does this give hope for those young families?

That should be the measure of every government in their actions and

their bills. It certainly was with what we did.

I was proud of the 435 agreements or thereabouts between

government and First Nations that I applied my signature to, because I

know what a difference those agreements made. Those LNG agreements —

we’re seeing the first of those projects go forward, the half a billion

dollars that will flow to First Nation communities. Training, jobs,

environmental stewardship — benefits that would not have been there

without a project like that. Life-changing benefits. When I think about

what governments need to focus on, I don’t see that in this

government.

But there’s more than just that one project. Every project that

was going out to the northwest coast of British Columbia had these types

of agreements. There are other nations that are waiting to see benefits

go forward. One of the other big projects, of course, happened to be the

Pacific NorthWest LNG and Petronas. Members on that side signed a

petition in protest to stop that project from going forward. They

intentionally hurt communities, intentionally hurt First Nations, by not

allowing the project to go forward, the benefits that would have flowed

through those communities. That’s sad.

I think back to the young lady that gave me that offer and what a

difference one small project made. Think about a major project and the

difference that would make in so many lives.

In going through the bill and looking at all the components of

engagement that come through, I find it interesting. There are a couple

clauses in here. You go in and look at the clauses, and they were

designed specifically because of circumstances that I don’t think this

government likes.

One of the clauses that’s in there would mean that Site C could

never have been built. We’ve got a project, once again, that is going to

see huge benefits, that’s going to be a legacy for this province, that

is something that is going to be needed. This new act — I don’t think

you could ever have gotten that project through. Another project — the

one, of course, I talked about — is Trans Mountain pipeline. Simply

because of government policy, that project could never have gone ahead.

It still may not go ahead. There’s still lots of water to cross under

that bridge.

Those communities that have signed agreements and are looking

forward to those changes — it’s a shame to think that government simply

ignores that or turns a blind eye because of ideology. Or worse, simply

because of politics. Governments are supposed to be there for all the

people of the province, supposed to try to make conditions better for

families.

[2:45 p.m.]

Yet what you’re seeing, with acts like this and others, is more

politics at play — trying to win votes, trying to stay in government as

opposed to taking into consideration what really matters, which is the

lives of individuals and how they can be improved.

One of the things that I was proud of when we were in government

was the number of children that were lifted out of poverty. The members

opposite run up the flagpole: “It’s the worst child poverty rating in

the country” — or second worst or whatever happened to be the statistic

of that particular month or year. But the reality was that since the

early 2000s, through to the time that we were in government, we saw

child poverty rates in this province drop by 42 percent to the lowest

levels we had seen since the early 1980s.

It wasn’t a poverty reduction plan. It wasn’t nice words, bills,

large speeches; it was people getting a job. It was the difference of

projects going forward, through environmental assessment and otherwise,

that we were able to help bring people out of poverty.

There’s another interesting stat that doesn’t get talked about

very much: the number of children in care of the state. There was a 30

percent reduction in the number of children in care under the B.C.

Liberals. A 30 percent reduction in the number of children in care —

that’s remarkable, when you think about what happened in the 1990s and

the children in care skyrocketed.

But there was one piece of that stat that I wasn’t happy about:

the percentage of First Nations children in care actually increased. We

saw a significant drop in the number of children in care, but at the

same time, that percentage that were still in care had gone up from 50

percent to higher than 50 percent. That needs to change.

If we want to see a society that truly cares about poverty and

poverty reduction, that truly cares about the people in this province,

it doesn’t come with a government cheque. It comes with a job. In

particular, for First Nations, it comes with resource development jobs

that are in and around and near their communities. That’s what can make

a difference. Putting rules in place that make it harder, that make it

more expensive, that have political policies that just give reason for

termination is not the right thing to do.

I think once again about my riding of Nechako Lakes. There’s been

a lot of progress over the years. I had a chat with the former Chief of

the Lake Babine Nation. He had this great idea. He wanted to get a

pellet plant going and use some of the wood fibre for the pellet plant.

He wanted to get an energy project going. I thought: “Great, some

economic development. This is good.”

“So what will this mean for your Nation? What does this mean for

the long-term benefit and how this will change the Nation?” He said:

“Well, it’s going to create jobs. It’s going to give us some

opportunities.” I said: “I’m all for that. How do I help? That’s good,

but you also have to realize that that pellet plant you’re going to put

in is going to hire maybe 20 people. The power plant will hire another

ten, 15 people — and maybe times two in terms of the number of jobs that

come from the forest side.”

I asked him: “How many people do you have in your Nation?” He

said: “About 2,400 people.” And I said: “What’s the unemployment rate?”

He said: “About 65 percent.” So those projects he was focusing on were

going to hire less than 100 people out of the 1,200 people that were

unemployed.

You need big jobs. You need big projects. You need to work on the

other ones, too, but if you’re going to make a real difference, you’re

going to need to see big projects being able to go forward.

I had the chance, as well, as minister, to travel to some national

conferences and talk to Premiers and other ministers from other

provinces and leaders of First Nation communities from other places

around the country. The funny thing, through all of that, was they’re

all facing the same problem.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s not unique to just British Columbia. Whether it’s the Premier

of the Northwest Territories or whether it is the minister responsible

in Quebec, they all had these same issues. Foreign money coming in and

foreign influence — all trying to stop them from being able to advance

projects. Misinformation going to communities.

When I think about misinformation, here’s one from the LNG world,

from out west, one of these projects that is proposing to go out to the

northwest coast. One of the community members came to me and said: “This

LNG project cannot go ahead. It should not go ahead. The pipeline can’t

be built.” I asked him. I said: “Why? Why did you come to that

conclusion?” He said: “Because if that pipe ever ruptures, it’ll poison

the water.”

I thought about it for a second, and I asked him. I said: “Well,

but the pipe is going to be moving gas, and gas and water don’t mix.

It’ll bubble up and go up into the atmosphere.” “Oh, yes,” he said. “I

know that. But when it rains, it’ll bring it back down, and it’ll poison

the land, which will then poison the water.” I said: “It’s still a gas.

It can’t…. That is not physically possible. The laws of physics won’t

allow it.” But he insisted that was the truth because experts had come

and said that to him, the very experts that were paid, in part, through

money flowing from the United States to environmental groups to try to

stop our projects from happening.

I had another chief along the LNG pipelines…. He came to me,

frustrated at the time. This was before we were able to enter into an

agreement. He was frustrated, and he said: “Is there any way government

can stop this campaign of misinformation and lies that’s coming to the

people in my community?” I thought about it for a bit. I chuckled, and I

thought: “Well, that’s pretty sweeping powers that you’re asking

government to take in terms of freedom of speech and information.” But

it’s a challenge.

Not only do companies face these types of challenges, whether it’s

here or in other places in the country, but now you’ve got a bill that

continues to erode that confidence and that ability to be able to move

forward projects. When you look through this….

I know that the members from the Green Party and others have

expressed concerns about projects going forward, whether it’s mines or

other types of things. There is nothing in this act that actually talks

about improving environmental standards. It talks about bringing in more

engagement with First Nations. That’s good, as I said. That’s what we

were doing. It kind of just brings into the act what we were already

doing. But then it adds these layers of politics and costs and

procedure, and somehow that is better. I don’t understand how that

equation can happen.

For the First Nations in my riding, for the First Nations

associated with the Trans Mountain project, for the First Nations right

across this province that are looking to find ways to lift their people

out of poverty, I encourage this government to start thinking about them

— not just writing a cheque and having a poverty reduction plan but how

a difference can really be made, which is to get to yes on projects.

Nice slogan. You guys like slogans. It’s a good slogan you can use. But

you’ve got to figure out how you get to yes on projects. You can’t just

layer on costs and bureaucracy and challenges and issues and process

until some people just say, “Uncle,” and they leave. It doesn’t work

that way.

You look at other jurisdictions around the world, and I can’t find

another jurisdiction in the world that doesn’t already have the same

types of standards or better standards than we have in British Columbia

for oil and gas, for mining, for how we work on the land base, how we’re

engaged with First Nations. You go across this country. They’re nowhere

close to engaging and respecting First Nations to what we are in British

Columbia. We moved the dial so far. There’s much, much more to be done,

but the other jurisdictions are way behind.

[2:55 p.m.]

So this helps. This will move the dial a little bit further. But

what was the purpose? Was it to find ways to be able to help lift First

Nations out of poverty? To give them independence? To work to solving

the land question? To seeing hope brought to First Nations kids? Or was

it designed to further stymie and process to death the opportunity of

projects and to add a political layer just to say no to things that

aren’t aligned with what a government wants to do? When you look at this

and you look at other bills, it’s the latter. That’s really

unfortunate.

The government talks about community benefit

agreements.

Interjection.

J. Rustad:

The Minister of Labour has woken up and gave me a big thumbs-up

with that. Yet these community benefit agreements only touch 15 percent

of the workforce — 15 percent. There are way more First Nations people

working for companies and for unions outside of those 19 handpicked

unions than there are for them, yet they’re excluded.

That’s a real shame, because when you’re talking about the

environmental assessment bill, when you’re talking about the layering on

of what this government is doing, it’s creating a real problem for this

province. That is why I say we’re going to see a capital strike. We will

see a capital strike. We’re already seeing it, and it’s a

problem.

This economy has already shed….

Interjections.

J. Rustad:

The members opposite have finally woken up from the lunchtime

side, which is good to see.

Deputy Speaker:

One speech at a time, please, Members.

J. Rustad:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You look at it, and you look at the layers coming on and a capital

strike. We have already seen more than 40,000 private sector jobs lost,

just in the last year alone.

Deputy Speaker:

On Bill 51, Member.

J. Rustad:

On Bill 51. This is about Bill 51, Mr. Speaker. This is about the

layers of bureaucracy that are being added, and this is one more piece.

Not only have we seen more than 40,000 jobs lost, but we’ve seen a 50

percent reduction in housing sales in Vancouver.

Interjection.

J. Rustad:

The Minister of Labour is chirping about 4.1 percent unemployment.

You know what? Let’s celebrate that. You inherited that from the B.C.

Liberals, and you’re welcome. And 16 months later, what did we see?

Forty thousand private sector jobs lost in this province. That’s what

you’re going to inherit.

This is what I’m worried about in terms of capital. We are seeing

housing projects cancelled. We’re seeing forest companies investing

south of the border because of high costs. We’re seeing layers of

problems that are happening.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker:

Members.

J. Rustad:

We are seeing more and more of this, and capital is moving south

because of the lack of confidence.

Interjection.

J. Rustad:

The Minister of Labour continues to want to engage in this, and

I’m happy that he is engaging in this. Because I’ll tell you what. Do

you know what else about forestry? This is a stat they conveniently

forget. Under Christy Clark and the B.C. Liberals, we saw almost 10,000

jobs gained in forestry. Go look at the stats. The minister doesn’t

believe it. It is in Stats Canada. Go ahead and look at it.

That is the reality of what we did in this, which is why I’m

talking about Bill 51. It’s just another layer of challenge in this

province. And the capital that we need to see flow in and the investment

we need to be able to create the differences…. It’s to support

communities like mine, support communities all across the province — not

to see job losses, not to see the loss of confidence that comes with

policies that stymie and stagnate our economy.

With that, I look forward to seeing the debate that comes in the

committee stage. There are many questions that need to be raised as we

go through this process, even clause 39. I have to admit I

affectionately dubbed it the Jumbo clause, because it now sets these

time frames in place and creates, once again, another opportunity to try

to get to no on a project. It is a real challenge.

[3:00 p.m.]

The Minister of Labour seems to be very active. He wants to get up

and perhaps add in to the speech on this. I don’t think he’s had that

opportunity yet, but we’ll see. We’ll see whether he wants to do

that.

Interjection.

J. Rustad:

The Minister of Labour doesn’t want to be encouraged. I don’t see

why he doesn’t want to be encouraged. This is what a representative

democracy is all about, not a democracy under PR where some people are

appointed.

Bill 51. You’ve heard many of my colleagues stand up and talk

about this. The member for Skeena talked so eloquently about the

challenges and issues, and I’m always reminded of his example. It’s an

example that’s worth repeating.

Here you’ve got the Haisla Nation, which was in a situation where

they had about 65 percent unemployment, and because of engaging in

economic opportunity and because of projects being able to advance and

move forward, it went down to 15 percent unemployment. That’s

huge.

That is the best poverty reduction plan that any government could

ever implement. But it would never happen unless projects could advance.

It would never happen unless projects and companies had the hope of

being able to go through an environmental assessment and come to a

reasonable solution within a reasonable period of time, a reasonable

expectation to advance.

You see, the problem with government policy being one of the

potential issues for termination is that governments change. Governments

can change direction. Governments can be lobbied, particularly by

foreign money that comes in and supports campaigns to help people get

elected.

as being a reason for terminating, how does a project know that they’re

not going to be the target of the next campaign? How does a company know

that they’re not going to have to stop a process because suddenly

there’s a change in government and government direction? These things

are not good, and they’re not healthy.

With that, it’s been a tremendous honour to be able to stand and

speak on behalf of my constituents of Nechako Lakes. The people in my

riding want to see economic development. They want to see investment.

They want to see projects move forward because they know what a

difference it can make.

I want to close with one last story, because I know that the

members opposite are so looking forward and paying so much attention to

what I’m saying with regards to this. But I want to close with one other

story. This is really quite relevant. The members of the Carrier-Sekani

Nation and a number of the First Nations there were involved in working

with a company on wanting to see a mining project advance. They had a

meeting with us as government with regards to the project advancing

through the environmental assessment.

Do you know what they said? They came to us and said: “Get your

act together, and get on with the project. We want to see this.” They

said that because they know what a difference it can make for their

constituents. They know what a difference it would make and how

meaningful it’d be for their kids and for their community to be able to

see the benefits and the jobs and what it can mean.

That is reconciliation. That is what needs to be focused on. That

is poverty reduction. That is investment, and that is building a future

that all of us in this province should be proud of. And every piece of

legislation moving forward should be part of doing that.

Deputy Speaker:

Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the

debate.

Hon. G. Heyman:

It’s been interesting listening to the comments on the bill. First

of all, I want to thank the members for Cowichan Valley and for Port

Moody–Coquitlam for the important points that go to the expectations of

the public for a clear and transparent process so they can have trust

that their air, land and water are being protected. We heard one member

talk about clarity, consistency and common sense. Frankly, I wish I’d

heard more of that from the members of the official

opposition.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m not going to go into great detail, but we know there are

negative impacts on communities from some projects, and we know some

projects were approved under the previous government that have created

problems. We know that there are impacts on Indigenous peoples. We know

that there are impacts on communities.

This bill is in response to the demands of the public and

Indigenous people for something that is clear, independent, transparent

and robust.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson posited that we were

creating a longer project. I don’t know where the member gets this idea,

but I do know that the current process averaged, over the last five

years, over four years — four years. We will do better than that, this

act will do better than that, and the timelines will be

contained.

The member for Skeena said that this act was a place to talk about

economic opportunity and reconciliation for Indigenous peoples. The

member should know that by incorporating UNDRIP, the UN declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples, into this bill, it encompasses the

economic rights and the economic future of First Nations. That’s why

they worked with us throughout the whole process in order to put this

bill together and why they stood with us when we introduced

it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s necessary to enhance public confidence. It’s necessary to

advance reconciliation. It’s necessary to protect the environment while

offering clear pathways to sustainable project approvals. That’s why we

introduced the bill. That’s what this bill will do. I look forward to

working with Indigenous nations, environmental assessment practitioners,

industry and communities to ensure that the extensive engagement on

regulation continues.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

An Hon. Member:

Division.

Mr. Speaker:

Division has been called. Members, if we may defer division, as

the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. We will proceed immediately

afterward.

[3:10 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was

admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Poverty Reduction Strategy Act

Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act

Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act,

[3:15 p.m.]

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2018

Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent

to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor):

Once again, it’s such a pleasure to see all of you here today. I thank

you, again, for all of your very, very hard work. I understand you’ve got a

break next week, and I do hope that you all have some time to spend with

your families and friends. I know it’s been a pretty busy fall for you, and

I know there’s a lot of work ahead. It really is a pleasure to see

you.

Thank you, again, so much for all that you do.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[3:20 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

(continued)

Second reading of Bill 51 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 41

Chouhan

Kahlon

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 37

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Foster

Hon. G. Heyman:

I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth:

In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 52.

Just to remind members that, in the recess that took place for

royal assent, we are still on committee stage of Bill 49.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 52 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. L. Popham:

I move that the bill now be read for a second time.

Before I outline the amendments in this bill, I would like to

provide the rationale on why these changes are being made. One of my

mandate letter commitments was to revitalize the agricultural land

reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. This commitment is

important to me because we have a lot to be proud of about agriculture

in B.C. We have one of the most diverse agriculture sectors in Canada,

with 17,500 farms producing over 200 agricultural products produced

here.

[3:25 p.m.]

A successful agriculture sector needs productive agricultural land

to ensure that B.C. crops are available to the processing sector, which

is the second-largest manufacturing sector and one of the

fastest-growing sectors in our province.

What we can also be proud of in British Columbia is that we are

one of the unique jurisdictions around the world that has a provincial

land reserve dedicated to farming and ranching. To successfully deliver

on this important mandate, in January I appointed an independent

advisory committee to undertake a provincewide engagement process so

that British Columbians’ voices would be heard in our efforts to

revitalize the ALR.

This committee led a comprehensive engagement process, travelling

to nine communities, meeting with local governments, the agriculture

sector and other key stakeholders, and received about 2,600 written and

on-line submissions. The consultations showed overwhelmingly that

British Columbians value the ALR and care about preserving it for future

generations.

The committee submitted an interim report to me in July, with

recommendations that included the need for immediate legislative changes

to address issues that are eroding the productive capacity in the ALR

and to curb land speculation in the ALR. I have considered the

recommendations and have planned out a two-phase approach that will

focus on four targeted areas: protecting the ALR land base, preserving

the productive capacity of the ALR, strengthening the governance of the

ALC, and supporting farmers and ranchers in our province.

The amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that I am

bringing forward are a first of a two-phase project. The second set of

amendments to the act will be brought forward in a later bill in the

spring, to be determined by cabinet, and will address further

recommendations made by the committee.

The first phase of amendments will implement a maximum house size

in the ALR to address a significant rise in mega-homes and land

speculation. Because the ALC’s approval of any additional…. Oh, also

require the ALC’s approval of any additional residence on a parcel in

the ALR to curb non-farm development. Implement clear rules to better

regulate the placement of fill, to prevent damaging material, including

construction and demolition waste, on the ALR’s productive soils. The

rules will also better manage the removal of prime agricultural soil

from the ALR. Eliminate the two zones to make sure that all land in the

ALR receives equal protection and ensure a consistent provincial

approach to farming and ranching. Finally, to add offence provisions to

ensure that there is greater ability of the ALC to take compliance and

enforcement action when required.

This bill also includes a grandfathering provision for those that

have larger primary residences than the maximum size and to allow

landowners who are substantially in the process of building a larger

primary residence or additional residences to finish. It adds

regulation-making authorities for creating greater clarity on

residential uses, siting and sizing of residences and accessory

buildings in a future regulation.

It includes a provision for a notice of intent and an associated

fee to be submitted to the ALC as part of a new streamlined

administrative process related to notifying and obtaining ALC approval

for soil and fill. The notice of intent will be set in a future

regulation by cabinet, and it is intended to be significantly less than

the application fee that is currently required when a landowner

currently applies for soil or fill use with the ALC.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This is the first phase of amendments. Vital changes are being

made that will lead to lasting positive impacts: by addressing the

mega-homes and lifestyle estates that are being built, to inappropriate

use of soil and fill, and to ensure that the ALR is treated as one

unified reserve. I believe the amendments proposed for this first phase

will move us firmly along the path towards this revitalization and

support our agriculture sector so that it continues to grow and prosper

with good-paying jobs in communities across the province.

[3:30 p.m.]

I look forward to comments from other members in this House. As I

believe that our agricultural land reserve is valued by everyone in the

province, I’m hoping that there’s going to be a lot of support from the

other side.

I. Paton:

It’s my pleasure today to rise and to speak to Bill 52, the

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018. I would like to thank

the Minister of Agriculture for her comments. I can say that most items

in this bill are rather pleasing. There are a few things that I do have

concerns with, and we will work on those in the next few days and at the

committee stage.

As a third-generation dairy farmer, I’m keenly aware of the hard

work and dedication needed to be successful in this agriculture

industry. I’ve been involved in agriculture my whole life. I was born

and raised on the farm that I’m still living on today in Delta, 62 years

ago. I went off to UBC and got my degree in 1979 and came back to the

family farm.

I certainly know what it’s like to be involved in agriculture,

with the risks and the demands. In the 1980s, I took on debt of around

$800,000, and luckily interest rates had come down to about 17 percent

in the mid-’80s. Joking aside, it was a pretty tough go during those

years of high-interest rates.

My father by the same name was chairman of the Agricultural Land

Commission. He was also a degree in agriculture from UBC. I saw my

grandfather milking cows on our property when I was a kid growing up. I

saw my dad follow in his footsteps, and I saw how difficult it was for

my grandfather and my dad, both in the dairy business and the chicken

farming business, to make ends meet in the 1960s. I continued on in the

’80s with my dairy farm.

I’m very proud to say that having known my dad as chairman of the

land commission, I really valued his opinion and the things he fought

for in British Columbia to preserve certain parts of this province from

being overdeveloped by housing and industry. I’m very proud of the fact

that on the farm that I live on today, we have basically never covered

any part of our farm, since I was a kid in the late 1950s, with any sort

of asphalt or pavement. I’m so proud of that.

The only houses we have on our farm are a 1905 that my mother

still lives on and a house built in the 1930s that was my grandfather’s

house that I still live on. The only thing we’ve ever added on our farm

is a couple of new buildings for some heifers and for some milk cows.

Other than that….

In fact, I do have a

section of the farm that was subdivided off

many years ago before my dad passed away. I have the opportunity to

build a new house for myself on that piece of property, but I cannot

bring myself to cover up that piece of pasture land right next to the

dike with fill material to build a house on, so I’m quite happy to stay

where I’m living in the house that was built by my

grandfather.

At the very heart of the ALR is, of course, the farmer. The farmer

wakes up early, usually with everyone else in the family, and gets going

on the chores. The farmer spends an enormous amount of time tending to

the food being grown or the animals being kept, as well as the property

those things are housed on. The farmer spends an enormous amount of

money on land, structures, machinery, equipment, tools, feed, hay, fuel

and staff and is the last to take a paycheque.

Of course, he’s also the one doing the bookkeeping and tracking

every dollar — and every dollar in and out. He’s the last one to bed and

often lies awake at night worrying about the weather or the things he

didn’t get done that day, thinking about his or her future.

With that in mind, it is my belief that the farmer should also be

at the heart of important pieces of legislation like this one. Yes, we

should protect the land and its uses. There’s no question about that.

But I’m fond of reminding people that there is no farming without the

farmer. In fact, I have a bumper sticker on the back of my truck that’s

getting pretty worn and faded, and it says: “It’s not farmland without

farmers.”

In other words, if we can keep the farmers healthy, we can keep

the next generation interested in coming along. We can make sure that

they’re making a living all over this province. Not just in the Fraser

Valley, not just on Vancouver Island or in the beautiful, fertile lands

of the Okanagan, but on every square inch of this province, we need

farmers to be able to make a decent income.

[3:35 p.m.]

If they are making a decent income, they will stay on those farms,

and we’ll keep that land in agricultural production. We need to be

cognizant of that truth when we make decisions that impact this

important industry.

I have to ask: why do we have to make these massive changes to the

ALR and to the ALC? A committee was formed, just over a year ago, that

said: “I guess we have issues. We have problems with the ALR and the

ALC.” Quite frankly, my time on municipal council, I saw some great

improvements to the ALR and the ALC in the last two or three

years.

On Delta council, we saw massive wait times in at the ALC for

applications and permitting to get things done in Delta — not

applications to take land out but just the typical things that you send

forward from your municipal government to the ALC. For over a year,

items would sit in stacks at the ALC without getting taken care

of.

Then there were some changes. Then Mr. Leonard came along, and he

said: “I will make sure that we start dealing with all these issues and

this paperwork within 90 working days.” Things really started to speed

up.

Then we came to the panel section. We had the west coast panel. We

had three people on each panel throughout the entire province of B.C.,

making decisions on behalf of the Agricultural Land Commission. These

were panels of people that lived in the area where applications were

coming from so that the commission didn’t have to all come together into

Burnaby for massive meetings — that the whole commission didn’t have to

fly off, at great expense, to different parts of the province to look at

one particular project.

These panels of three from all over the province were able to make

quick decisions. Go out in their vehicles, and check on the item that

was being brought forward. I thought that the panels were certainly a

good idea. I have, by good authority, that the panels are also being

imploded, for some reason, with this committee that was put together by

the ALC.

I was never too happy with the committee that was put together. I

thought the committee was rather handpicked. I didn’t see too many

people representing too many facets of agriculture in British Columbia,

people that really knew the hard work, the toil, the hardships of

agriculture, making these decisions. But I think they were guided in a

direction that we wanted to see certain things done by the NDP

government. I see the outcome as basically the wishes of the Agriculture

Minister.

My fear with this bill is it puts a focus on the land and not the

farmer. If you’ve been lucky enough to see most of this great province,

you know that each region is different. Its geography is really unique.

When I became Agriculture critic, I thought: “Wow. I’m a pretty smart

guy with agriculture. I’ve been around farming since I was a little

kid.” But really, I’m familiar with agriculture in the Fraser Valley, so

I’m thinking: “Wow. I know quite a bit about berries, cranberries, dairy

farming and all those certain things common to the Fraser

Valley.”

Then when I thought: “Wow. We have a tree fruit industry in the

Okanagan. We have the grape industry, the wine industry. We have beef

cattle in the central Interior. We’ve got beef cattle and different

types of agriculture in the Kootenays. We have grain and canola in the

northern part of B.C. We have seafood. We have fish farming.” I thought:

“Wow.” There are so many things to this Agriculture portfolio that —

I’ll tell you — I’m not exactly aware of, and I’m making a real effort

to get around this province and learn about all the different beautiful

things that we have in this province that make up the portfolio of

Agriculture.

We have a lot of farmers working hard to make a living in all

corners of B.C., but it’s easier said than done in some areas. I’ll talk

about the zone difference, of zone 1 and zone 2. In places like Mexico,

California and Arizona, we have farmers in that wonderful climate that

are basically planting and harvesting 12 months of the year.

When you come up to a climate such as British Columbia, we have a

reasonably good climate in the Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island. We

have farmers that can kind of survive and get some pretty good stuff

done year-round.

[3:40 p.m.]

A massive part of our province was zone 2. Zone 2 were the poor

farmers that everybody kind of forgot about in the eastern and northern

corners of our province, farmers that basically worked as hard as they

could with the climate they had for four to five months of the year. For

the other six or seven months of the year, they’re sitting and looking

out the window at snow, ice and rain in this province. That’s why I

believed in zone 2.

We have a motto that we just pledged this past weekend. It’s

called: “Opportunity for all of British Columbia.” That, to me, talks so

highly of agriculture that we need to offer opportunity to everyone in

this province to be able to make a good living on the farm or the ranch

that they have.

Zone 2 offered the Agricultural Land Commission a chance to add

leniency to farmers and young people on their farms in zone 2. They were

able to put a little business there.

Perhaps a young man was good at welding or auto body or something

like that and said: “I want to set up a little shop on my farm so I can

add value to what I’m doing, so I’ve got something to do in the

wintertime to add value to my farm, which I’m basically only farming in

the summer months.” Our former government created a second zone under

the agricultural land reserve. As I said, it was a massive part of our

province, zone 2. This permitted farmers in some ways, limited ways, to

add value to their operations during those particular months.

Farming in British Columbia is tough enough as it is, whether

you’re in zone 1, zone 2, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan, Vancouver

Island. We’re battling the USMCA agreement. We’ve got more milk products

being able to come into our country. We’ve seen this government on the

other side…. I told farmer after farmer in the last couple of days at

our meetings over here…. I said: “Guys, you don’t even know what you’re

up against yet.”

This government has dumped on increased carbon tax, increased

minimum wage. They’re likely going to take away the piece rate for

picking. There is the employer health tax, which is going to affect

massive agricultural companies, including the greenhouses in Delta,

including BCfresh, including the trucking companies. Carbon tax. The

guys who pick up your milk, the guys who deliver your feed, the guys who

come and do your welding and your tractor repairs — everybody is going

to be paying more in carbon tax and employer health tax.

Maybe that farmer is also a welder and can set up a little side

business on a small corner of his property for those slow periods — or a

mechanic who offers repair services, that sort of thing. Small ways that

they can make a bit of extra money during those tougher times of the

year. The truth of matter is that if a farmer isn’t making money, he’ll

leave. That farmland will sit vacant, and that’s where speculators will

come. The speculators will come in if you see a dormant, vacant, fallow

piece of farmland that’s not being farmed. Again, there’s no farming

without the farm.

Instead of considering the farmer and perhaps modifying the

two-zone system put in place by our former government, the minister has

chosen to wipe it out, and with it, a legitimate and needed source of

income for farm families in the northern, eastern and frozen parts of

this province. I think there should be opportunities for everyone. We

need to support farmers in all regions of British Columbia. That means

we need to acknowledge the regional differences that make it harder for

some farmers to operate than others.

There are some other details and language I find troubling in this

bill. If this bill passes, agricultural land will no longer consist of

the land that has been established as part of the agricultural land

reserve. Instead, all agricultural land will be in the ALR. That means

that all land suitable for farm use is part of the reserve, based on

what I’ve read in the sections of this bill. That represents a broad

expansion, and one can only wonder what the government intends to

do.

Really, no one can wonder, because of the dozens of places this

bill is based on the philosophy of: “Just wait for the regulations to

come out.” This bill represents yet another concentration of power at

the cabinet table and away from this Legislature. It doesn’t sit right

with me, especially after we saw the makeup of the minister’s ALR and

ALC advisory committee that examined all of these issues ahead of this

bill. We didn’t see many farmers on that committee, people who have

actually worked the land. We saw a number of B.C.’s key agricultural

regions and sectors shut out as well.

The results of this committee are working out almost exactly, I

believe, as the minister had kind of hoped they would work out. So I

hope we’re not seeing a pattern here of farmers being shut out and major

decisions impacting them being made behind closed doors and not properly

debated in the House.

[3:45 p.m.]

Moving on to some other points or aspects of the bill, I would say

that in every account, I’m pretty happy with home sizes, soil deposits

and fill removal. Of course, who wouldn’t be? In Delta, we took on these

bylaws several years ago, and I’ll speak a bit about that. We certainly

don’t want to see enormous estates taking up valuable land for farming,

and I’m sure we can all agree on that. I’m always proud to remind this

House that Delta was a leader in that regard, an early adopter of the

provincial standard that was set by our former government.

Our former government put forward the minister’s bylaw standard

for home size on agricultural land, and Delta jumped in several years

ago and adopted that. We’re very proud of that. We had some mega-homes

going up in Delta. There were a few of them that got started, but we

nipped it in the bud. We brought forward a bylaw that said: if you owned

under 20 acres of land, you could only build as big as 3,500 square

feet. If you owned land over 20 acres, you could only build to 5,005

square feet, which is even less than the actual permitted square footage

that is in this bill now.

The other thing we did in Delta that’s very interesting and that’s

not in this Bill 52 is the siting of the house. If you want to build a

house on a farm in Delta, you cannot plunk it in the middle of that farm

with a 200-foot-long driveway going right up the middle, like we all see

in south Richmond.

By the way, we have some politicians in south Richmond — one

that’s been in politics for over 40 years, in Steveston, and another who

has been the mayor and in politics for over 30 years. Combined, they

could have fixed this problem years and years ago, but no, the horses

got out of the barn a long time ago. Now they’re so happy that the

government has brought forward legislation which will get them off the

hook and finally get rid of mega-homes on beautiful farmland in

Richmond, British Columbia.

Getting back to our footprint in Delta. If you want to build a

house in Delta, you have 60 metres from the main road — 60 by 60. You

can only go back 60 metres from the main road, and it can only be 60

metres wide…

Interjection.

I. Paton:

Excuse me?

…and it has to be sited in a corner of the property so that we

don’t have houses being built right in the middle of the farms. I’m very

proud of what Delta did. Municipalities all over the province, if they

had control of some of these things, could do the same thing. The

municipal governments could take on a bylaw, the minister’s standard,

and fix the problem with home sizes by creating their own bylaw, which

we did in Delta. We’ve been successful.

By the way, I’m happy that the minister brought this forward. I

will always say that there is no need for massive houses. In fact, at

5,400 square feet, that’s a pretty darn big house. I don’t know who

would be rather unhappy with 5,400 square feet, since I live in about

1,450 square feet of my grandfather’s old cottage on our

farm.

I will note that I’m of course supportive of measures to prevent

the dumping of waste and debris on farmland. Delta also enacted a soil

deposit and removal bylaw, bylaw 7221, while I was on council about four

or five years ago. We’ve all heard the stories of dump trucks making

deals with farmers, going in and going: “Hey, we’ve got a construction

site in Vancouver. We’ve got a new hotel being built. We’re going down

40 metres into the ground. I’ll tell you what. We can pay you 200 bucks

a load if you’ll take this fill material from this construction site in

Vancouver.”

Of course, darkness sets in on a Sunday night, and the dump trucks

start rolling in through the back roads of Delta, Langley, Surrey and

different places like that. So of course, I’m all in favour of the

minister’s conclusions here to deal with this soil removal and deposit.

It’s very important; we need to get to the bottom of that.

Some questions that we will be bringing up, of course, in

committee stage, are on enforcement. We know that the land commission is

very much under stress, as far as having enough enforcement officers.

Municipal governments are able to deal with themselves. In fact, Delta,

which has this bylaw for soil removal and deposits, makes use of our own

bylaw enforcement department, and we’ve got a great department. We’ve

probably got 14 or 15 people on our bylaw enforcement.

[3:50 p.m.]

We have a Neighbourhood Watch program where all the farmers in

Delta contact each other. If they see anything nefarious going on with

dumping of fill, it doesn’t matter what day of the week it is or what

time of night it is; there’s a hotline call into Delta bylaw

enforcement. We’ve nipped it in the bud over the years, with illegal

soil deposits of poor-quality toxic soil that’s full of asphalt, rebar,

concrete and different things like that.

As I said, other municipalities have had the opportunity to do the

same with bylaw enforcement, not only with house sizes but also with

soil deposits and soil removal of illegal soil dumped on

farmland.

So that’s got me wondering who is going to supervise or enforce

this, which I just mentioned. My understanding is that it will be up to

the Agricultural Land Commission to enforce its own act and regulations.

However, I think there remains a concern about whether they have enough

enforcement officers. That’s an issue I suspect we’ll delve into more

deeply at the committee stage.

I’m pleased to see the issue addressed in the bill, and I’m sure

we can all agree that dumping of waste of any kind on arable land is

simply unacceptable and should be curbed. While there are a few measures

that I’m happy to see in this bill, there are also a few that I’m

concerned about and expect to canvass more fully at the committee

stage.

I’ll finish by saying that I’m totally supportive of talking about

mega-homes, talking about illegal fill material. A concern I have is

zone 1 and zone 2. If we go to zone 1, I just hope that every farmer

becomes 1. And all the farmers that had leniency in zone 2, to make a

few extra bucks…. We’re all not getting rich in zone 1, either. There

are lots of people hurting. Interest rates are going up.

We want young people to get into the business, to take over these

farms. If there isn’t enough money coming in from the crop — the

potatoes, the Brussels sprouts, the dairy, the milk — they need to do

something else to help pay the mortgage. We need to allow young people

to think outside the box, to add value to their farming operations, not

only in the Fraser Valley but all over this province.

It’s my hope that the farmer and the importance of protecting the

farmer will always be top of mind to this minister, and I’m sure it is.

I know she’s extremely keen on making agriculture the best it can be in

British Columbia.

I will leave remarks here. I look forward to further discussions

on this bill in the committee stage.

A. Olsen:

It’s my honour to rise and speak to Bill 52, the Agricultural Land

Commission Amendment Act. Certainly, there are issues in this bill that

I am glad to see are being dealt with by the appropriate level of

government.

I’m certainly not as experienced at agriculture as the member for

Delta South. That’s for sure. I can’t say that three generations of my

family have been in agriculture. But I certainly can say that many, many

countless generations of my family have been harvesting and developing

food-harvesting areas within the territories of the WSÁNEĆ for countless

generations. So while it might not have been what we see today as

agriculture, I would like to acknowledge that we have a long history of

developing 100 percent of the food that was eaten and consumed and, in

fact, traded in a commercial way right here in our territory.

I certainly think that this is something that we need to be

working toward — ensuring that we are ensuring the food security. While

I do agree that farming requires farmers, farming also requires

farmland, so I think that it is important that we look after the

jurisdiction that is ours, which is the Agricultural Land Commission Act

and the agricultural land reserve.

That is indeed a provincial piece of legislation, and it is indeed

our responsibility to make sure that it is doing what it needs to do and

doing what it should be doing, which is governing the agricultural land

within the agricultural land reserve.

I have some experience from the perspective of a local councillor,

as well, in the district of Central Saanich. I was the former councillor

there, and 70 percent of the land within our district was in the ALR,

meaning 30 percent of the land paid most of the bills.

[3:55 p.m.]

It was really an interesting municipality to be sitting around the

council table on. Certainly, a lot of what happened in the agricultural

land reserve impacted our community in deep ways.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge, in response to the

member for Delta South, that while it is under the purview of district

councils to make these changes one community by one, it is certainly

within the purview of the provincial government to look after its own

legislation. To update this bill would mean that it doesn’t require

numbers and numbers and numbers of municipalities to all go through the

highly intensive process that we went through to get a soil deposit and

removal bylaw.

In our community, it took 13 months. It took 13 months because it

sat on the minister of the former government’s desk while we tried to

determine what kind of impact this was going to have on the development

community in this particular area. That was the question that we were

asked when we went to find out why it was that that bill wasn’t signed

off. The government at the time was wondering what kind of impact it was

going have on the holes that were being dug for large buildings, as the

member pointed out.

By amending this bylaw and by fixing it at the provincial level,

then we don’t have the 13-month delays. Certainly, many chunks of

asphalt were dumped on agricultural land day in and day out while we

were waiting for the sign-off on that bill.

Another piece that I’d like to point out…. It might just be some

language, but I’d like to acknowledge the women in agriculture. I know

that we often use language here of “he” and “him” and “it’s his farm.”

But I think that it’s important, because many of the incredible workers

in agriculture operating farms, running farms in my riding, are women. I

would like to just raise my hands to the women that are working on the

agricultural land.

It’s interesting. We hear the slogan continually raised now — I

guess it’s just brand-new, fresh, like BCfresh or something —

“Opportunity for all.” I imagine that we’re going to continue to hear

it, as a mantra, get repeated in this place over and over. “Opportunity.

Opportunity for all.”

The other slogan is “Winning takes work,” apparently. We haven’t

heard that one too often. But I’d like to say that it is the mantra that

I’ve heard from the farmers in my riding — the work of agriculture. I

think that it’s important that we are acknowledging and raising our

hands to those who are doing the work.

Yesterday — was it yesterday? — or maybe the day before I had the

opportunity to meet with farmers, as did the members from all parts of

this House. I acknowledged the hands, because I come from a family that

didn’t produce food. We were in horticulture. Whenever I talked about

the dirt, my grandfather would shake his big mitts at me and say: “You

know, Adam, I don’t work….”

Can I even refer to myself by my own name?

Interjection.

A. Olsen:

I can? Okay.

He said: “Grandson, I don’t work in dirt. I work in soil.” My

grandfather was a man that always reminded me that we come from the soil

and that he worked in the soil. So I acknowledged, while I was sitting

around the table in the hotel next door, the hands, the mitts and the

soil that was under the fingernails and the hands of the farmers. I do

raise my hands, which are much softer and much less worthy, to the

agricultural workers: the farmers, the ranchers, the orchardists, the

people who produce food for us and for our children and for our

grandchildren.

With that, I would just like to say that the B.C. Green caucus is

very supportive of the three main aspects of this piece of legislation.

We are certainly, and have been for quite a period of time — going back

before my time in this place — encouraging government to impose limits

on the house sizes that can be built on agricultural land.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’ve seen the ALR prime farmland being turned from agricultural

uses to rural estate uses. Certainly, the more urban you get, the more

threat there is to that land. Even though it was in the guidelines,

limiting house sizes to 5,400 square feet within this bill is very

welcome, from our caucus’s perspective. As we’ve seen the impact of

speculation on land, all land, all zones throughout British Columbia,

farmland has certainly become a casualty of that. So we very much

welcome the limiting of house sizes on agricultural land.

I’d like to acknowledge the comment that was made by the member

for Delta South with respect to home plates, because this is a piece of

work that absolutely still needs to be done and that we need to continue

to push. It’s not just the size of the house, but it is, as was

mentioned, the siting of the house. If you put a 5,400-square-foot house

in the middle of prime agricultural land, you’ve still limited the

capacity of that land to produce in an uninterrupted way. I recognize

that.

It’s not just the 5,400-square-foot house; it’s the 100- or 200-

or 300-metre driveway that goes up. So much of that land is now

interrupted and has asphalt on it or even gravel or concrete. So I

certainly am very, very supportive of the government moving — and as the

minister stated, this is one of maybe multiple parts — further down the

road towards the siting of homes, the home plate.

I think the other thing, too, which comes up…. I represent Gulf

Island communities, and one of the things that comes up for me is that

much of the farmland, agricultural land in the Gulf Island communities

is operated now by multiple families that have kind of gone in together.

They’ve purchased the land, and they’re working the land together

because that’s the only way that they can afford it, frankly.

They ask me the questions about multiple homes being built. Can

multiple homes be built on agricultural land? Of course, we know that

there are significant limitations, and for good reason. I respect the

comments that were made that there could be two homes, maybe, built on a

piece of farmland, but that would be the limit. One of the questions

that gets brought to me….

I’m not resolved on this issue, but it’s one issue that I think we

can explore a little bit further and that perhaps all sides of this

House can explore. If we set a home plate size and a square footage

size, maybe we can allow for some flexibility from that owner within the

home plate, within the square footage size. It’s just something that I

put out there. If we have a limit of 5,400 square feet and we have a

home plate within which you can build, then perhaps multiple families….

Or you could have a couple of different dwellings there so that multiple

families could…. There’s some flexibility there.

I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve talked to a number of people on

the Gulf Islands that this impacts. They don’t have that flexibility. I

did let them know that I would raise it. I’d raise it with the minister,

and we’d put it out there and see what happens with it.

I did mention, when it came to illegal fill, the frustration that

we had in the district of Central Saanich. I’m glad that we’ve responded

to the challenges that we had with development fill coming in from the

urban centres into the rural and agricultural lands. Certainly, it was a

long and painful process for us to get to where we’re at. So I am very,

very supportive of the action that the government is taking to remove

this as an option, let’s say.

Again, I have some questions about enforcement. That was the big

issue that we had: okay, it’s great to have this soil deposit and fill

bylaw, but if we’re not resourcing the Agricultural Land Commission with

enough money to actually enforce, then that is causing significant

problems. I would just say that we absolutely support the move to

regulate this more strictly.

[4:05 p.m.]

As well, I’d say that we could even go a step further and work

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and maybe have some

coordination around tracking development fill and putting some

recommendations in place where these two ministries and these two bills

can interact, to say: “Look, if you are Metro or the CRD or you have an

urbanized part of your district, then you should, if you’re getting a

building permit, be tracking that hole that is being dug and the fill

that’s coming from it.”

Finally, I would say that it is welcome — and it was part of the

platform of the B.C. Green caucus — to move back from two zones to a

single zone. I’d just say, in this context, the change to two zones did

threaten agricultural land. It opened it up. It said that some lands

were more capable, while others lands were not.

We do know that lands outside of the more mild climates of

southwestern British Columbia are also very valuable for their

agricultural production. Just because there’s snow on them for parts of

the year doesn’t mean that we should leave those vulnerable or that they

should have a different set of values. It’s still about food production.

It’s still about making sure that we can provide the food, like we have

in this province, that we can eat food that’s grown here.

On those notes, I would just like to congratulate the minister. We

share Saanich. She’s Saanich South; I’m Saanich North. A lot of

agricultural land within our two jurisdictions. I know, as the former

critic on this file and a farmer, that this has been something that has

been long awaited from the minister and the member for Saanich South.

I’d like to congratulate the minister on the good work that’s been done.

You have the support.

We will be going into some details on this bill as we go through

committee stage, but congratulations, and thank you, hon. Speaker, for

the opportunity to speak at second reading.

N. Simons:

I just have a few comments of my own on this bill, having been

interested in this subject for some time. I believe some corrections are

being made to some changes that were initiated a few years ago with Bill

24 that were widely criticized by many in the agriculture sector. I had

the honour of being Her Majesty’s Official Opposition critic for the

Ministry of Agriculture at the time, and I remember the debates that

went on for days about their particular changes to the agricultural land

protections that we had.

I’m just so pleased that the Minister of Agriculture saw fit to

make this one of her early priorities in terms of legislation. I think

it’s highly supportable, and I’m pleased that members from the Third

Party are in support as well.

I hope that the critic knows that some of his concerns raised in

this second reading are misplaced. I’m sure he’ll be very pleased to

know that — his concerns over some things that are not in this act,

which he was worried about, including the panels. There’s no change with

respect to panels in this legislation.

The zones. Putting back to one zone was an overwhelming request of

the B.C. Agriculture Council. I am not sure if he’s the lone voice in

the wilderness on this or if he’s just been separated from the herd, but

the fact is this is legislation that’s been created after widespread

consultation with a broad sector of the agriculture community, including

a number of farmers, academics, experts and scientists. I think that

their consultation process is a ma