2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 26, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Public safety lifeline volunteers

Hon. S. Anton

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Britannia Shipyard exhibit on Holocaust refugees in Shanghai

J. Yap

Westcoast Family Centres

S. Simpson

Neptune Terminals fundraising for rebuilding of North Shore daycare

J. Thornthwaite

Society for Arts on the south Island

M. Karagianis

Lacrosse

M. Dalton

Local government

S. Robinson

Oral Questions

Government role in teachers labour dispute

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Fassbender

R. Fleming

Job creation and government advertising campaign

M. Elmore

Hon. S. Bond

Payment of wages to former Khaira Enterprises workers

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

Bidding process for silviculture contractors

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

Report recommendations on employment standards for silviculture workers

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Bond

Employment standards for silviculture workers

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Bond

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in three sections

Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2013-2014

Multiculturalism report, 2011-2012

Multiculturalism report, 2012-2013

Petitions

G. Hogg

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

B. Routley

A. Weaver

R. Austin

V. Huntington

S. Robinson

H. Bains

S. Fraser

S. Chandra Herbert

M. Elmore

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

K. Corrigan

S. Chandra Herbert

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Justice

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

K. Corrigan

V. Huntington

[ Page 4107 ]

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members. It is my pleasure to advise that we have a visiting Clerk from another jurisdiction on attachment to our House this week: Mr. Kenneth Ring, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. This visit is one of a continuing series of attachments whereby our Legislative Assembly hosts Clerks from other jurisdictions.

Please join me in welcoming Ken Ring, QC, to British Columbia and to our House.

[1335]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: A man that I'm extremely proud to be able to call brother is here today. Leo Gerard is president of the 850,000-member USW, the Steelworkers union. The USW is the largest industrial union in North America.

Leo has been instrumental in strengthening and improving workers rights all over the world through many mergers and strategic alliances. The alliance, for example, with the United Kingdom's Unite to form a global union called Workers Uniting now represents three million members worldwide.

He is also co-chair of the BlueGreen Alliance. The USW is uniquely committed to the values of environmental protection, workplace safety and advancing a clean economy as a strategy for revitalizing manufacturing and creating good middle-class jobs. Will you please join me in making Leo feel very welcome today.

Hon. M. Polak: Joining us in the House today are Terry Smith, Tiffany Fang-Ju Lui, Yuriy Kyrzov and Christian Garcia. Terry is the president of the Langley Central Rotary Club. Tiffany and Yuriy are high school students from Langley. Christian is a master's student from Trinity Western University. Terry has brought these bright, young people here today as part of a Rotary club program to allow them the opportunity to see democracy at work. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today to ask the House to welcome to the chamber Avery Valerio, a very ambitious young woman — a first-rate student who therefore can take a day off from being at Nanaimo District Secondary to come down and watch proceedings in this House today. She's a joint guest of myself and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. Would the House please welcome Avery.

Hon. A. Virk: I have the pleasure of introducing two contingents today. First of all, we're joined by a legislator from the Punjab region representing Khadoor Sahib, Mr. Ramanjit Singh Sikki — right up there — MLA from the Punjab. He is joined by his wife and Mr. Prabhjot Khera from my riding and his clan.

Also, right over on this side, I have my high school friend Larry Clay and his wife, Candice Clay. They are the founders of Clay Construction. They are Georgie Award Builders of the Year, and they're really contributing to the economy because they brought five of their six children with them today — Isaac, Lisette, Adam, Jessica and Brianna. Would the House please make all my guests feel welcome.

A. Weaver: I have three guests to briefly introduce. The first are Alec and Marlene Mackenzie, who are visiting here from South Surrey; and third is Chris Turner, distinguished writer and journalist visiting here from Calgary. Please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

Hon. J. Rustad: It's a pleasure today to introduce four people into the House, an assistant from our office here, Heather Doerksen. Heather Doerksen does great work for us. She has with her today her husband, David Stanley, who is here. Also, for David, David has his parents, David and Louise Stanley, who are visiting here from Clarenville, Newfoundland. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Foster: We're joined in the House today by seven members of my riding, constituents of mine, members of the Queen Silver Star Excellence Program. We have Queen Silver Star Cheyenne Krog, Princesses Paige Webster and Simmy Sidhu, Miss Congeniality Cassia Swartz. They are accompanied by their chaperones, Britanna Jackson and Colleen Noel. I wish the House to please make them welcome.

[1340]

J. Rice: Today I have the honour of introducing Andrea Wilmot. She's a very special friend to me. She recently moved to Prince Rupert from Burns Lake. She is a northerner. She was born and raised in Smithers. She is now a new addition to the Northern Health team as a registered nurse. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Tributes

PUBLIC SAFETY LIFELINE VOLUNTEERS

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to acknowledge today the public safety lifeline volunteers who were honoured a little while ago in this building. They may be here right now. They are Jim Spencer for PEP Air, from Nanaimo; Vasantha Aruliah for Emergency Social Services, from Port Coquitlam; Bill Foster for emergency radio communications, from Kamloops; Keith Laboucan for Road Rescue, from Prince George, Jack Bryceland for search and rescue, from

[ Page 4108 ]

Chilliwack; and for a lifetime achievement award, Ron Royston from North Shore Search and Rescue.

I hope the House will congratulate them for their thousands upon thousands of hours of public service, volunteer service in British Columbia, helping out our citizens every day.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery is the second vice-president of the B.C. Teachers Federation but, more importantly, a citizen of the Cariboo and a friend from Quesnel who also lives very close to my bestest buddy up there: Teri Mooring. Would the House please make her very, very welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will join me in welcoming 20 very well-behaved girls from York House School in my riding, along with their teacher, Ms. Marnie Seliwoniuk. She's brave enough to have brought another 20 girls this morning. For all 40 of them, please welcome them to the House.

M. Dalton: I have some special guests visiting us today from Enderby. My father, Peter Dalton, and his beautiful wife, Cleo Jones-Dalton. Dad served in the military, in the Royal Canadian Air Force, for 36 years during the Cold War and also as a peacekeeper in Egypt. Cleo comes from a logging family that owned a company in the Enderby area and was telling me yesterday about her memories, with the company doing it all by horses.

Also visiting them — and in the "beautiful" category — is my daughter Simone and Christine Secord. Could the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Shin: One of the many things that I learned in the last two years is that when you step into politics, you get enemies you didn't deserve but you also get friends you didn't earn. I have one such friend with us in the gallery today who is also serving on my constituency association executive. Will the House please make Duc Tran feel very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: My colleague here forgot the lovely Marlene, his wife. Could we please, once again, reintroduce Marlene Dalton to the Legislature.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BRITANNIA SHIPYARD EXHIBIT ON

HOLOCAUST REFUGEES IN SHANGHAI

J. Yap: Last week I visited the Britannia Shipyard National Historic Site in my riding and learned about one aspect of the shared histories of the Chinese and Jewish communities, both of whom have played important roles in the history, economy and culture of B.C.

This year on April 28 British Columbians joined people around the world in Yom HaShoah, remembering the more than six million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered during the Holocaust. As the Second World War began, Jews were forced to escape Nazi-occupied Europe. These stateless Jewish refugees were denied entry into most countries, including Canada. But China, specifically Shanghai, opened its arms and welcomed the Jewish refugees, over 18,000 in all.

Today the historical Jewish area still exists in Shanghai, along with the Jewish Refugees Museum. The exhibit in Steveston at the Chinese bunkhouse at Britannia Shipyard, which goes on until July, gives a glimpse into what life was like for the refugees. It provides insight into what the families went through during this terrible period in history, how they made their way out of Europe to Shanghai and how some of them eventually immigrated to Canada. It's hard to imagine what these families went through.

The Britannia exhibit shows that through strength, courage, solidarity and the assistance of the people of Shanghai, these displaced people rebuilt their lives. Today approximately 50 families who were part of this Shanghai Jewish community live in the Metro Vancouver area, and I was privileged to meet a few of these family members at the exhibit.

[1345]

I wish to acknowledge and thank the organizers of Shanghai: A Refuge During the Holocaust, including Stephanie Goldberg and Darren Mackoff, of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and Kenny Chiu of the Richmond board of education, and also the city of Richmond for making this exhibit possible.

Madame Speaker, I encourage you and all members of this House to visit Steveston, check out the exhibit and learn about a little-known

chapter of a dark period in world history, and continue to understand why we must learn from history so that we may make sure the same mistakes and evils are not repeated.

WESTCOAST FAMILY CENTRES

S. Simpson: Most if not all members of this House have excellent organizations in their constituencies that contribute to the betterment of British Columbia. In Vancouver-Hastings I have a number of such groups. Today I'm very proud to speak about one which is celebrating its 30th anniversary.

Westcoast Family Centres provide a wide range of services and programs for families and children in four different communities in the Lower Mainland. Working in collaboration with government and others, they deliver a range of critical programs based on strengthening the relationship between children and their families and be-

[ Page 4109 ]

tween those families and their community through programs including family preservation and reunification services, intensive parenting programs, counselling and therapeutic initiatives, parenting-after-separation programs, a healthy babies program focused on improving maternal and infant health, and programs like Family TIES that help individuals improve personal and family relationships.

All of these are built on the philosophy and belief of Westcoast that the safety of children must come first and that children are healthier and stronger in their own family unit. As a result, the challenge is to help families learn skills and have the supports and resources to create the wholesome family environment that helps achieve that positive outcome. That is what Westcoast delivers every day to B.C. families in need.

In 2010 Westcoast Family Centres were recognized for their work by the Premier's office, for their excellence in service delivery in providing family development response programs. Westcoast has come a long way from the ten employees who started in 1984 to the more than 100 staff who support families in British Columbia today. Please join me in congratulating Westcoast Family Centres for 30 years of excellent service to British Columbians and in wishing them many more years of contributing to our province, our families and our children's well-being.

NEPTUNE TERMINALS FUNDRAISING FOR

REBUILDING OF NORTH SHORE DAYCARE

J. Thornthwaite: I rise in the House today to talk about a North Shore partnership that serves as a great example of why the community is such an amazing place to call home. Neptune Terminals has been an integral part of North Vancouver for more than 40 years. It is one of the largest bulk terminals on the continent, shipping products such as potash and steel-making coal and fertilizers to markets around the world. It provides more than 300 family-supporting jobs to local residents and is committed to the health and safety of the region through the highest environmental standards.

But Neptune's contributions to the community go far beyond jobs and economic growth. Last December the North Shore Neighbourhood House's Novaco Daycare burned down. Luckily, no one was hurt, but the loss left more than 30 families without a daycare facility. They immediately planned to rebuild, but the cost of security, demolition and construction proved too much for their insurance. That's when Neptune Terminals stepped in to assist their fundraising efforts.

On May 15, I had the pleasure of attending the annual North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce governor's gala. The gala was sponsored by Neptune, and the proceeds go towards North Shore Neighbourhood House and to Presentation House Theatre. I'm happy to say that $160,000 was raised, and $110,000 of that will be put towards the rebuilding efforts. Thanks to the generous support of Neptune and the community, they hope to have the rebuilt facility ready for families this September.

I want to commend Neptune Terminals for giving back to the North Shore and for showing that local resource industries contribute far more than jobs and product. Their partnership with the North Shore Neighbourhood House proves there are many opportunities for industry to work in concert with local organizations to raise quality of life, build vibrant communities and make the province more livable for all British Columbians.

SOCIETY FOR ARTS

ON THE SOUTH ISLAND

M. Karagianis: On the West Shore they're calling it Coast Collective 2.0. Earlier this year the Coast Collective art centre began a new

chapter as an enterprising non-profit under the banner of the Society for Arts on the South Island, or SASI for short.

[1350]

Since opening its doors six years ago, the Coast Collective art centre has grown into a popular West Shore cultural destination, and each year it welcomes thousands of visitors. With 200 artists and an exceptionally dedicated volunteer base, the move to non-profit status as a society will mean that SASI can qualify for sponsorships and grant funding.

The society's directors are excited about the next

chapter and growing the range of arts education programs and operations available through the Coast Collective at the historic Pendray House on the Havenwood estate. The house was completed in 1927 and sits on the shore of spectacular Esquimalt Lagoon.

It's an outstanding place to experience the arts, culture and community of the flourishing West Shore. Gallery shows change every few weeks and range from works from emerging talent to some of the best-known visual artists on Vancouver Island. There are arts classes and a lovely little gift shop as well.

I'd like to offer my congratulations to SASI's leadership team and especially to Cindy Moyer, who came up with the idea for an art gallery in Pendray House. In 2008 she convinced the Pacific Landing trust, a resort development company that owns the Havenwood estate, that they could benefit from having an art gallery occupy the house. Cindy is now serving as SASI's first executive director, guiding the organization through these exciting new times.

It's fabulous to see such a dynamic, community-driven arts organization nurturing British Columbia's arts and culture and showcasing local pride and talent. I encourage all members to visit the gallery if you get a chance or to check out the website at coastcollective.ca.

LACROSSE

M. Dalton: Hockey may be known for being Canada's game, but once the ice is removed and the Zamboni parked, lacrosse players dominate the rinks, demon-

[ Page 4110 ]

strating skill, action and power in Canada's other official sport.

Wayne Gretzky, Joe Sakic, Paul Kariya — they're known for their scoring records, for their precision passes, for skilfully navigating through mazes of players and for being able to catch a pass behind their shoulders. You know what? It's all in the game of lacrosse.

Lacrosse has long been Canada's game. B.C.'s first recorded lacrosse game was played between Victoria and Vancouver in 1886 at Beacon Hill Park. But the game has actually been played for some 900 years, originating with North America's aboriginal peoples, who had hundreds of players on each team and played lacrosse as a kind of symbolic warfare.

Lacrosse has an ever-increasing following in our province. Today the Ridge Meadows Minor Lacrosse Association is one of the largest in B.C. with 36 teams and over 550 players. On May 18, I took in the association's community barbecue and watched our senior men's team, the Ridge Meadows Burrards, win an exciting season game opener. Join us later this summer as the Burrards host the 2014 female box lacrosse provincials.

In Mission lacrosse is also strong, with many young players in the Mission lacrosse club, the Sasquatch.

Today I acknowledge all the athletes, coaches, parents, volunteers and enthusiasts for their passion and commitment to this action-packed sport. I recognize the dedication of our local association, including the work of all board members, Presidents Ron Williams and Jeff McCulley and Maple Ridge Burrards President Lance Andre.

I'd like the House to join me in celebrating lacrosse, our other national sport that's growing in popularity across our province.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: As the critic for local government, I had the pleasure of attending the Southern Interior Local Government Association annual conference a couple of weeks ago. The keynote speaker for the event was Naheed Nenshi, mayor of Calgary, who was there to talk about the role that his local government played in the year after their massive flooding.

As he introduced his topic, he shared his thoughts on the value of local government. He said: "Imagine for a second if our federal government just disappeared. How long would it be before anyone noticed? A month? And how long would it be before anyone noticed if our provincial government disappeared? A week? But what would happen if our local governments magically disappeared? How long would it take for us to notice? An hour?"

This past week, May 18 to 24, was Local Government Awareness Week, a week set aside to acknowledge the value and the role that our local governments play in making our communities livable, resilient and flexible. It's our local governments that ensure that we have clean drinking water, proper sewage, roads, sidewalks, recreation centres, parks and emergency services.

It's our local government that we turn to when our roads need to be cleared of snow. It's our local government we turn to, to fix potholes. It's our local government we turn to when we need a new arena, a new swimming pool, theatre or library.

[1355]

It's our local government that makes land use decisions that will determine if we live next to a farm, an industrial area, a retail store, a park or an apartment building. It's local governments that are responsible for policing and fire decisions in our communities.

When you look at the total responsibility of local governments, you can really appreciate all that they do for us. I invite — no, actually, I challenge — all members of the House to send a note of thanks to their respective local governments and staff thanking them for their contribution to making our lives and the lives of our constituents more livable.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN

TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Horgan: Well, we've had 12 years of B.C. Liberal meddling in negotiations with teachers, with trustees, with support workers. We've had 12 years of confusion.

You could call it a generational confusion, because the kids were in grade 1 in 2002 when the then minister, the current Premier, capriciously ripped out class-size and class-composition language from a collective bargaining agreement and then was told by the courts to renegotiate that position. A whole generation of kids has gone from grade 1 to graduation this coming month with uncertainty and unease as a result of the actions of this government — not one Supreme Court ruling but two.

My question is to the Minister of Education. He has said: "The class-size issue is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned" — we can debate the grammar of that — "because all the research in the world says class size does not determine outcomes."

I would disagree with that, and so would thousands of other scholars. But instead of trying to explain when he had time to read all the research in the world, my question is: did he have time to read the convoluted explanation as to why we're locking people out this week when we should be at the bargaining table negotiating a fair collective agreement?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I will say this. I think that if his facts weren't on an Etch a Sketch— when he flips it over, it disappears — then maybe he could stay on track.

[ Page 4111 ]

I'm going to try and help the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite. I'm going to try and help you understand the reality of what we have done and what we are doing.

This government is committed to negotiated settlements. If you look at our track record, we have been working very hard with the public sector to find negotiated settlements — to work together with trade unions — that respect their rights and also respect the rights of taxpayers in an economic climate that requires some tough decisions.

It is not this government that initiated this current round of dispute. It is the BCTF that started limited strike action. It is the BCTF that ramped it up this week to rotating walkouts throughout the province.

This government, since June, since we were elected, was prepared to sit at the negotiating table every single day to find a negotiated settlement. We are still committed to doing that. We are prepared to meet around the clock, through the summer, to find a negotiated settlement that respects the rights of teachers, of students, of parents, of other labour unions in this province.

That is our commitment. That is our goal, because long-term stability is what is important in our education system.

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

[1400]

J. Horgan: As tempting as it is to talk about mechanical bulls and by-products, I think I'll just try and focus in on the minister's comment about the track record of the B.C. Liberals — not one but two examples that went to the Supreme Court and found the government had contravened the Charter rights of a group of citizens in British Columbia. Not once; twice.

What did they learn from that? They learned more provocation, more disruption, more confusion. Let's be clear. I love to do that. This is what we hear from the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council: "Everybody is confused." That strikes me as not a transparent approach. It's a confusing approach.

Will there be graduation ceremonies? Will we be marking exams? It took five pages in a letter from the chief negotiator, and I'm still not clear. I wasn't reading all of the information in the world, but maybe I could ask the minister. This is a comment from the Vancouver District PAC association. This is all the PACs in Vancouver.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Oh, I know that the minister is really concerned about this, so keep your mechanical bull to yourself for a moment, and we'll focus on this: "Parents are more willing to adapt to a one-day

schedule change than they are to accept the long-term damage the provincial government is inflicting on the public education system in this province." Long-term damage.

My question is, to the minister: could he try and interpret for the people of British Columbia just what Peter Cameron is doing with the people of this province, and most importantly, the kids that are not in classrooms because of your provocation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am more than prepared to ride the wave of misinformation that is coming from the members opposite about what our intent was and what it has been. It is very clear. Mr. Cameron last week clarified exactly why we had to take the steps we did in response to the decisions that were made by the teachers union moving forward. But I would ask the members opposite: where was your concern over a year ago when we had almost a year of limited strike action while we were trying to negotiate a settlement? Where was your concern then when that happened?

Where were the members across the way? Where was their concern a week ago when the BCTF was initiating strike action? Where was the concern then? All I can say, and I say this with all sincerity…. There are none of us that want to see disruption in students' lives, in the lives of their parents and their communities, in the lives of the teachers. We are clearly still at the table, willing to negotiate, asking for a response that is measured and appropriate for everyone in this province.

First and foremost, stability has been our goal. It'll continue to be our goal, and we'll continue to negotiate that.

J. Horgan: A 12-year record of destabilizing public education. A child who started in grade 1 in 2002 has had 12 years of confusion as the result of this government's policies.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, hon. Chair.

My question is to the "Let's be clear" Minister of Education. You've been provoking disruptions in the education system for 12 years. The court has found twice — not once; twice — that you deliberately provoked action so that you could take more pieces of a collective agreement off the table.

What steps will the minister take to ensure that this last month of public education for those kids who were disrupted in 2002 by the then minister, the current Premier…? What steps are you going to do to make those next 30 days an enjoyable experience rather than a chaotic one that rests right at your feet?

[1405]

[ Page 4112 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the Leader of the Opposition, as I said, has selective memory when it comes to the facts. The facts are that we've had a decade of unprecedented labour peace in this province. Another fact for the Leader of the Opposition: just last week or the week before last we signed another tentative agreement with the HEU that was within the framework. That was a five-year agreement.

I do not believe that even the members of the opposition, who have children and grandchildren, don't want what we want on this side of the House. That is stability, a focus on learning outcomes, a focus on moving forward in transforming our education system to meet the future of this country and this province.

We have learning outcomes that lead the world, that show that we are delivering results. Yes, it's absolutely through the hard work of the teachers, who also deserve a fair and negotiated settlement, not labour disruption initiated by their own union.

R. Fleming: It's déjà vu all over again with these guys. This government has a unique ability to insult the province's teachers.

Last week the Premier said she would resolve bargaining by locking everyone in a room until they get a deal. Good. But then she took to the airwaves mere hours later and said teachers are only motivated by greed. She told a radio station that for teachers: "It's all about money. It's never about the quality of education."

Wow. I thought it was this government that wouldn't let bargaining talk about class size and composition issues on the table in this dispute. Can the Education Minister describe how the Premier insulting teachers and then locking kids out from their lunchtime activities and extracurricular activities can in any way help create…?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Can the minister describe how the Premier's sum total of her statements on teachers last week in any way helps this week in getting us closer to a settlement to achieve trust and respect at the bargaining table so that our schools in British Columbia are stable and secure?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate that the critic for the opposition is again taking facts and twisting them to their purpose. But let me say this in answer to the question. I absolutely know that the Premier and the members of this government respect teachers in this province for the great job that they do.

I also know that the Premier and the members of this government respect the rights of every person in British Columbia, that we respect the rights of other labour unions that have sat at the table with us.

[1410]

As I said, unprecedented labour peace in the province of British Columbia because we have been willing to sit at the table and negotiate and have the other labour unions come back with counterproposals to ensure that we find a negotiated settlement.

I will reiterate this for the members opposite, and I would ask you to read my lips in addition to hearing me. Please listen to what I'm saying. Our track record in this current round of negotiations is that we've been at the table since June. We have stayed at the table. We have brought counterproposals. We have been willing to move off of some of our original positions. But the bottom line is you can't negotiate with yourself. You need the other party to be there with you. That's our desire: stability and a negotiated settlement.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The reality is that the minister's comments are so divorced from what is happening today in schools around British Columbia. It's now kids and parents that are getting hurt by this government's carrot-and-club negotiating tactics.

One minute the government says they want to move towards a deal by offering a signing bonus. Hours later, last week, they tell teachers: "If you don't like our offer, we'll cut your pay immediately." And the government's bizarre lockout order actually prohibits teachers from talking to students and parents during recess and lunch hour.

Can the minister explain…?

Interjections.

R. Fleming: It's the same old tactic. Let's go back to the Supreme Court ruling, because the minister has got lots of time to read every report in the world. Read that one again —

section 387. He tried this and failed.

The question for the minister is this, because he owes British Columbians an explanation: can he explain how his government's failed agenda of conflict and escalation, which is bringing this dispute right into the classrooms and the lunchrooms of our schools, is in any way helping to get us nearer to a negotiated settlement?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'd ask the member opposite to make a couple of notes, because I'm going to give him some facts. No. 1, there are no extracurricular activities that need to be cancelled if the teachers are willing to participate as they have in the past. That's fact No. 1.

Fact No. 2. I find it interesting that the members opposite suggest that when strike action is initiated by one party, that's okay, but when the government responds by saying, "If you're going to withdraw services, we're going

[ Page 4113 ]

to reduce your salary," that's chaos. I don't understand the logic of that kind of thinking.

If the members opposite wish to do what we want to do — to have children in classrooms, to have parents able to live their lives, go to their jobs, and communities able to function without disruption — then my challenge to the members opposite is to talk to their friends at the BCTF and simply ask them to come to the table with a reasonable negotiating stance that recognizes the other settlements that we have that are fair to the unions, fair to taxpayers and that will ultimately be fair to the students of this province, so that we can focus on learning outcomes, because that is our goal.

[1415]

JOB CREATION AND

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

M. Elmore: Everyone remembers the $17 million worth of taxpayer-funded ads before the election that contained blatantly false claims about job growth. Now this government is at it again. Taxpayer-funded ads are all over transit buses, the Internet and elsewhere, outlandishly claiming there will be "one million job openings in 2020." However, this government knows that's not true. In fact, the Minister of Education issued an editorial this month after pushing the goalpost back a couple of years. He knows the ads aren't true, but still they remain.

To the Minister of Finance, will he immediately put a halt to this round of taxpayer-funded bogus job ads?

Hon. S. Bond: We have spent the last number of months, before we created the blueprint in terms of skills training, looking at labour market data that looks at specific projects, that looks at growth. But we also have to look, in terms of the number of one million job openings, at the fact that two-thirds of British Columbians who are currently employed are aging and will move out of the workforce.

When you add the number of people who are aging and will move out of the workforce plus the potential for new jobs, British Columbia, at least under a B.C. Liberal government, will be facing one million job openings by 2022.

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

M. Elmore: Well, this government came up with that rosy projection based on a labour market outlook report published in 2011 that outlined projected job openings between 2010 and 2020. However, it's 2014, and the actual number of jobs is 110,000 less than what the report projected for this year. That same document promised that the labour outlook "will continue to be updated annually." There hasn't been an update since.

Again, to the Minister of Finance: are you sitting on three years' worth of updates because you know they will prove your current job ads are just as dishonest as the pre-election ones?

Hon. S. Bond: As we canvassed this extensively in estimates, we made it very clear that the new job outlook will be released. But we have detailed analysis of all of the jobs, particularly those that exceed a threshold of half a billion dollars. We have detailed charts. We're working closely with industry to ensure that they look at the numbers and verify them. In fact, as we look at the new Industry Training Authority, we will work with industries, independently and individually, to actually check that data to make sure we have the best numbers possible.

I know this: that at least on this side of the House we're actually looking at how we move to yes in this province so we can create new jobs. It'd be fantastic to hear the member stand up today, unequivocally stand in this House and say yes to some project — some project, particularly liquefied natural gas. How about that? Are the members opposite in favour or not?

PAYMENT OF WAGES TO FORMER

KHAIRA ENTERPRISES WORKERS

H. Bains: In July 2010 while investigating a citizen report of an illegal campfire near Golden, Ministry of Forests staff found a very disturbing scene. They found a group of tree planters working for a company called Khaira Enterprises. Several were injured. They reported that they hadn't eaten for two days, were being forced to sleep two or three to a mattress and had not been paid.

[1420]

On Friday the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal called it "slave-like" conditions. In the 21st century, in B.C., on our Crown land, with a government contract, under this government's administration, it's a shameful, embarrassing example of how government can be negligent in protecting its workers.

Timber Sales B.C. awarded this contract. Timber Sales B.C. had responsibility for contract management, which they clearly did not do effectively. These workers are still owed $100,000 in back wages that have never been paid. Will the government do the right thing and pay these wages that they are owed?

Hon. S. Bond: The circumstances that those workers found themselves in were unacceptable. We've been very clear about that. In fact, the Ministry of Forests has worked through a number of initiatives.

The member opposite knows, as well, that when awards like that are granted, government does not have the liability to cover the wages. We certainly are working to ensure that every single asset that is recoverable…. That work continues, and in fact, a portion of the wages have been paid.

They were inappropriate circumstances. It was extremely, extremely unfortunate and very difficult for

[ Page 4114 ]

those workers. Some of the wages have been accounted for, and we will continue to look for any way where there are assets available so that that award can be followed through by the company.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

BIDDING PROCESS FOR

SILVICULTURE CONTRACTORS

H. Bains: The conditions found in the Kootenay Khaira camp weren't really a surprise to this government. The owners have been investigated for workplace violations and banned from bidding on contracts for two years since 2008. Despite all of that, the government gave them another contract.

In March 2010 police were called to a worksite on Texada Island, again due to public concern about the camp conditions. The history of mistreatment of workers, new reports, more mistreatment…. Citizens expect that the government is not handing over public money to contractors who mistreat their employees, but the low-bid system that this government has created for silviculture work in the province leads to that situation. An example is just before us.

Has the government instituted a bid qualification system for silviculture workers that stops this race to the bottom at the expense of the workers?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, no one on this side of the House has any disagreement that what happened to those workers was unacceptable and that changes needed to be made. I am advised that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources has made changes in terms of the way that those contracts are managed. We've been clear. What happened was unacceptable. Those workers needed better protection, and I'm advised that changes have been made.

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ON

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR

SILVICULTURE WORKERS

N. Macdonald: Okay, let's be clear. What happened was predictable. The government goes to low bid every time. They do not go for quality; they go for low bid. So the result was predictable.

After the Khaira incident was uncovered, the B.C. government put together a report on the situation and made a series of recommendations. This was a report done by the B.C. Forest Safety Council's ombudsman. To date only three of the 13 recommendations that were made have actually been implemented. This is four years later, talking about an incident where slave-like conditions were taking place. That's the rigour the government has put to this.

There are now about 7,500 people out in camps in B.C. doing silviculture work, and little has changed in those four years. The question to this minister — and probably to the government as a whole: why do workers' rights always come last with this government? Why do they always come last?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Worker rights are critical to us, as a government, and to British Columbians. But in regard to the report that was related to silviculture, we'll take that question on notice.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR

SILVICULTURE WORKERS

N. Macdonald: Here's a question specifically to the minister, then. Fifty percent of the people who work in silviculture are young. Many are working their first jobs out of university. One in four of those workers, in an end-of-season survey that was done, reported that they were not paid every two weeks.

This is one of the central issues that we're still dealing with, with the Khaira incident. This past season one in four in that industry were not paid every two weeks. So the question to the minister — she is responsible for employment standards — is: what work has she done to ensure that employment standards in these camps now are actually enforced?

Hon. S. Bond: Employment standards in British Columbia are in place to protect all workers. Every single report of abuse is followed through. It is examined. Every single employer in British Columbia is expected to ensure that fair and appropriate wages are paid to employees in British Columbia. In fact, that is exactly what happens under employment standards in this province.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I am pleased to update and advise the House as follows. After conversations between the House Leader for the official opposition and myself, we have reached this degree of consensus with respect to the

schedule for consideration of the remaining estimates over the balance of the week prior to the adjournment of the House.

That has resulted in a motion that I think my friend the Opposition House Leader has received, which would see the creation, for this session and the balance of this week, of an additional third section. That is

Section C, for the purpose of Committee of Supply. I think the in-

[ Page 4115 ]

dependent members of the House have also received a copy of the motion.

By leave, I would so move that motion relating to the creation of Committee C.

[Further to the motion adopted on March 3, 2014, that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in an additional third

section designated

Section C which will sit in the Birch Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time. All rules and provisions of the motion related to Committee of Supply,

Section A shall apply to

Section C. The Members of Committee of Supply,

Section C shall be identical to the composition of Committee of Supply,

Section A.]

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to the remaining piece of legislation, no similar consensus has been reached. I will endeavour to keep the House informed over the course of the next few days with respect to the government's intentions there.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2013-2014 annual report of the Merit Commissioner.

Hon. T. Wat: I'm honoured to table the report on multiculturalism for 2011-2012 and also the report on multiculturalism for 2012-2013.

Petitions

G. Hogg: I rise to submit a petition from the B.C. Council of the Canadian Federation of University Women with respect to the adoption of a comprehensive poverty reduction plan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 24; in

Section A, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Health; and in

Section C, the Birch Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Justice.

[1430]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

B. Routley: We're right now debating referring the entire Bill 24 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance for further consultation. Obviously, one of the merits of the referral would be to have some real consultation, which is something that, while it was promised by the government prior to the introduction of the legislation, was not followed through on. When the minister was confronted with that matter, we got this mea culpa type of response, suggesting: "Oh yeah, I probably could have done better."

I would use the analogy on consultation and really bring the matter home. I was walking my golden retrievers, and I thought of consultation. I was imagining if you were to announce to your spouse back at home: "You know what, dear? I've been working on a couple of zones here. We're going to have a couple of zones for the home. We're going to have one zone that you're free to kind of decorate as you like, but for the other zone, which makes up 90 percent of the house, we're going to have specialized committees appointed. By who? Oh, by me. I'm going to appoint these people."

Now, how do you think your wife is feeling about this so far? When you imagine that — and I think anybody can imagine that — does that feel like consultation going on? I don't think that you would be married. Again, walking the golden retrievers, I thought about my 44 years of marriage. If I treated her in the way that this government is proceeding with the matter of a lack of consultation, suggesting it's just okay….

"We're going to have those zones, and by the way, dear wife, it just doesn't matter what you think. We will be introducing some changes. I promise you that. They're coming down the pike just as surely as this piece of legislation…. We're going to bring in the legislation, and oh, by the way, we're prepared to do a little consultation afterwards."

How is she feeling about that? There's going to be a committee to decide the drapes and colour of the room and to make all of the important decisions, particularly the economic ones. What does it say here? It says in the legislation that this zone…. We've got the zone czar, by the way, who is kind of head kingpin of the household, and he's going to be deciding what's going on. Then you've got economic, cultural and social values, regional and community planning and other.

Again, when you think about it, it's almost absurd. Well, it is absurd. Imagine taking this home and explaining to your wife how you're going to have committees struck to make economic decisions about the bathroom. You're going to have a committee struck, and they're going to make these lofty decisions. I think there'd be a little slippage in the relationship in terms of communications about now.

[1435]

Like, there would be most certainly a feeling that there had been no consultation whatsoever, particularly if there is a whole plan laid out with…. I don't know whether it's a five-, ten- or 15-point plan, but there are a number of points on a page that are very firm and very

[ Page 4116 ]

clear, and that is not consultation. When you look at public consultation and what can go on, you have a real two-way dialogue, instead of this kind jiggery-pokery stuff that we have going on where we just roll out the plan and then say: "Oh well, I'm sorry. We'll take my mea culpa, and we'll just move on. And by the way, we didn't bother talking to agriculture people all over British Columbia."

It's the same as the wife analogy, if you like. No, there was no big communication with all of the farming and ranching communities, and that's become clear by hearing back from the farming and ranching community. What are we hearing back? No consultation. Everybody is saying we've got to have public consultation, and at the end of the day, the system has failed us so far.

You look at the fact that this was never raised prior to the election, not raised as an issue. We're not going to run on dismantling the agriculture farm — not on your life. Again, it rings exactly the same thing that we had to go through with the HST, where people had to rise up in rebellion over what's going on.

Again, what's the hurry? We've got an opportunity now to go back and rethink our position, have a second sober look, go back and have the select standing committee, which I think is kind of a minimum, really, when you hear what people have been calling for. Public consultation…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Routley: …or even simply consultation is a process whereby…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Routley: …the public's input…

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

B. Routley: …on matters is going to be listened to. And that's not happening here. It's the same jiggery-pokery we're used to.

A. Weaver: I wish I were so eloquent as the member for Cowichan Valley. I am enthralled every time the member speaks. It's truly the most imaginative and entertaining speeches in the House, and I turn to the channel to watch each and every one of them. I will be quoting several times the member for Cowichan Valley in my address to the amendment brought forward to us by the member for Nelson-Creston, who I am very grateful to for bringing this motion to the House.

I remind us all here that what we're debating is the motion "That Bill (No. 24) not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

I rise today to give my support to this amendment. When I took my place in speaking to Bill 24 two weeks ago, I argued that it failed in three main areas. It's important for me to briefly outline these concerns so that I can demonstrate how this amendment addresses them.

The first point I raised was that there was not adequate notice given to this House or to the people of British Columbia of the government's intentions to alter the operation of the ALR. There was nothing in the Liberal election campaign about this. I frankly fail to see how this has absolutely anything to do with the core review.

The second is that despite the promises of full consultation, the government failed to provide an adequate forum for opinions to be heard and continued to push this bill forward, despite widespread opposition. Even the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review acknowledged this publicly on March 27 of this year when he said: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa."

[1440]

So here we have the minister publicly recognizing that the government did not seek consultation on amending the ALC and the ALR, but he simply doesn't care. Who needs a social licence for change? Who needs to consult with British Columbians? Heck, let's just go like gangbusters to start dismantling any iconic institution within British Columbia.

Has the government not learned anything from what happened when they brought in the harmonized sales tax, otherwise known as the HST? I know many constituents who actually voted against the HST in the B.C. referendum, despite actually agreeing that the HST was better for business and supporting the tax because they thought it was good for the economy. They did so because they did not believe that they were consulted and felt that the process of bringing it in was undemocratic. Sure, you elect a government to govern, but you don't elect a government to govern autocratically.

The third reason why, two weeks ago, I argued that Bill 24 was troubling is that the evidence put forward by soil scientists from across the province suggests that this is a poor piece of public policy. It's designed to help a few at the expense of many.

I'm in support of this amendment, as it addresses my concerns regarding the need for public consultation and the importance of hearing voices from a diversity of British Columbians. By supporting this amendment, a thorough public engagement process can take place. It would allow government to solicit input from those who would be affected by this bill. It would also force

[ Page 4117 ]

government to more fully account for and address the evidence that many of us have been presenting in opposition to this bill.

For example, some of the statements concerning B.C.'s agricultural land put forward by the government to defend the bill is at odds with what our own expert soil scientists are telling us here, from our academic institutions in British Columbia. As a number of members have now noted, this bill appears to be a case of decision-based evidence-making. Some, like my friend the member for Cowichan Valley, would call this jiggery-pokery.

Sending this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance would help alleviate this concern. It would allow the government to attempt to gain a social licence for Bill 24. It would give the government an opportunity to convince British Columbians that there's no jiggery-pokery going on.

That's such a wonderful word. It's absolutely a wonderful word. I think it's never overused, and in this particular case here, it is entirely correct and appropriate. I hope to see many of my colleagues on opposition use this word to describe what we have before us here today, in the days ahead, as we discuss this bill.

Although I've heard from the government that they will not be supporting this amendment, I still have hope that if our arguments are persuasive enough, some members in government will reconsider and plead within their caucus to allow a free vote. Wouldn't it be a wonderful signal to British Columbians if members of government stood with their constituents and actually supported the amendment.

I remind you: it's the amendment that Bill 24 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and, further, that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.

To the members of the government, I ask you this: how many of you knew that you were running on a platform that included the beginning of the dismantling of the ALR and ALC? I suspect it's none. Well, perhaps it's one. As I mentioned before, the Hansard record shows that members of the Finance and Government Services Committee were surprised and unaware that input for the core review of the ALR and ALC was part of their expanded terms of reference.

I've received numerous letters from my constituents concerning this bill and in support of this amendment. I have received numerous letters from across the province of British Columbia concerning this bill and, in particular, the amendment before us. I've not received a single letter in support of Bill 24 or against the amendment before us. This is why it's clear to me that British Columbians need the opportunity to have their voices heard. This can only be done by supporting the amendment before us.

[1445]

Please allow me to outline some of the reasons why this bill needs to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I'll do that in the words of a number of comments I've received through my constituency office, and I'll do so briefly and selectively.

Here's my first example.

"I also want to express concern that this Liberal government seems to be doing everything in its power to destroy this province and everything we love. As a citizen, I feel powerless, and I hope that by writing this e-mail you know the way I feel. I can't speak for anybody else, but this feeling is very generalized, although not many know what to do about it. I feel extremely disappointed about the way politics is harming us these days. Between the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals, we are slowly but surely losing everything that we have been and are proud of being Canadian.

I don't know if there's anything you can do, but I thought you should know the opinion and concerns of a citizen in your area."

This constituent's e-mail strikes at the very heart of the matter. The government does not have a social licence to move forward with this bill and so needs to refer it to committee as part of the process of trying to gain such a social licence.

Here's another selection from a letter I received.

"I urge you not to make any changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that would have the effect of weakening the protection of agricultural land. Please bear in mind that the Liberal Party did not seek or receive any mandate from the people of British Columbia on this issue in the last election. There have been no public consultations. I oppose proposed changes that would make it easier to use zone 2 agricultural land for non-farm uses."

Yet another — again very selective.

"I'm writing to you as a concerned B.C. resident to urge you to strengthen and protect our ALR farmland. Public consultation has been promised, and I'm asking the government to make sure that this happens in a meaningful way. We need" — in capital letters — "all our farmland preserved as such. Canada is not a food-secure nation, and we need to do all that we can to protect what farmland does currently exist. It should be a top governmental priority."

These are people who are responding with respect to, specifically, the amendment before us, requesting consultation, desperately seeking means and ways for their voices to be heard in the dismantling of this iconic institution here in British Columbia, the agricultural land reserve.

That e-mail went on and said: "There are some fundamental flaws in Bill 24." I recognize that we're discussing the amendment to it, but in outlining some of these flaws, it's important to see why this constituent and others desperately want to have an opportunity to be consulted.

It says: "The flaws in Bill 24 will, in effect, dismantle our ALR. B.C. farmers and the public are calling for you to listen and kill Bill 24." Well, frankly, I think we should have a consultation process prior to killing it. If that comes out through the consultation process, then let's move forward and kill Bill 24.

The letter goes on. "I myself was at the Legislature lawns on Family Day asking our MLAs and Premier to cease this attack on the food supply. We'll continue to

[ Page 4118 ]

protest until you listen and follow the sensible route of removing all talk of altering our ALR in specific ways, as outlined in Bill 24." And here it comes again. "Looking forward to public consultation on this vital issue. Please do all you can to ensure that this happens."

These aren't people just writing in with random streams of consciousness. These are individual letters by constituents, by members of the general public across British Columbia demanding an opportunity to be heard through the consultation process, a process that has not happened to this day. And frankly, consultation does not involve reading a few e-mails and sending a few responses that are all the same to everyone who sends one in.

I also received an e-mail from a concerned decision-maker in the Kootenays. This is not a regular citizen; this is a senior decision-maker in the Kootenays. He brings up yet another important point that really underlines the need for this bill to go to committee.

If the motion before us were to fail, the government will not have the time or process for this decision-maker's voice to be heard. In his own words, he said this. "I urge you to allow regions that wish to remain in the agricultural land reserve zone 1" — including the Kootenays, from his perspective — "not be arbitrarily categorized as zone 2."

[1450]

Where was the consultation as to what went into zone 1 or zone 2? Where did that come from? Did someone just wake up one day and realize: "Well, this is my riding. I'm zone 2. That's your riding. That's zone 1"? There was no consultation over that. Nobody knows where that came from. As far as we're concerned, it was just made up one day. Sounds like jiggery-pokery to me.

The letter continues.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, we're hearing from the members opposite that we may be able to start a fundraising campaign, that each time the word "jiggery-pokery" is used, we could put, say, $10 into a communal pot and perhaps donate it to a homeless shelter or towards the development of a provincial child poverty plan. Perhaps we should do something like that.

Deputy Speaker: But of course the relevance of that in the current debate….

A. Weaver: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I had to react to the….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: As pointed out by the member for Delta South, this could be a recommendation coming out of the consultation that could happen, were this amendment to actually be passed.

I continue back to the more important task of discussing this particular decision-maker's arguments — strong arguments, compelling arguments — for the need for consultation on the bill before us — that is, in supporting the amendment we're debating now. He says the following:

"As a decision-maker I refer you to the recent installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Summary for Policymakers . 'Findings show the earth and its inhabitants are already experiencing the ever-increasing impacts of global warming: icecaps and arctic sea ice melting and collapsing; more extreme weather–related events like droughts and floods; dying corals; freshwater supplies; rising and increasing acidic oceans.'"

You may wonder the relevance of this, but it is relevant, because if there were a consultation process, the scientific community would have an opportunity to bring to the attention of those in the select standing committee the importance of thinking about climate change and its effects on our agricultural land reserve and the potential effects on our food supply in the years ahead.

The letter writer goes on and says:

"Our food and water supplies, critical infrastructure, security, health, economies and communities will face ever-escalating risks, possibly leading to increased human displacement, migration and violent conflict."

He continues:

"Some argue we must choose between growing the economy and protecting the planet. In response, the report states: 'Throughout the 21st century, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, making poverty reduction more difficult, further eroding food security and prolonging existing and creating new poverty traps — the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger.'"

I am beginning to wonder about the relevance of this e-mail to the debate here, but it does come forward as we get to the….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: You're not making the Chair's job terribly easy.

A. Weaver: I will say that the member for Cowichan Valley sees a clear link, and that's what matters to me, hon. Speaker.

The letter writer continues, and he is getting to the need for consultation here.

"I believe that this bill, although presented as a way to support" — he keeps talking about the bill, but he's going to get to consultation — "agriculture is actually framed to support non-farm use of agricultural lands. It has the potential to undermine the integrity of the ALR and its regulatory, the ALC."

That was the hon. member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast passing behind me and breaking the longstanding tradition of the Legislature not to walk behind a speaker while he's on the camera.

[ Page 4119 ]

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It's a rule I just made up, hon. Speaker.

The letter continues:

"Further and regrettably, the changes are not focused. They do not take into account the very present danger of climate change for B.C. agriculture and food security. Again, please refer" — that's speaking to the government, of course, not to me or my colleagues in the opposition here — "to the IPCC report for information compiled by highly respected international scientists" — that's nice of them to say that, frankly — "for to you make informed, long-term decisions that will affect generations of the future."

This constituent, this decision-maker in the Kootenays area is desperately seeking an opportunity to be heard, to have his voice heard, to, frankly, have his area heard, because he doesn't know how his area appeared in zone 2. I don't know how his area appeared in zone 2.

[1455]

Does the hon. member for Cowichan Valley know? Probably not. How about the hon. member for Delta South? I don't think so. Frankly, no one knows how the Kootenays ended up in zone 2.

This decision-maker outlined three reasons why he was concerned about Bill 24 and the reason why consultation is so important. We are not presently debating the bill but, rather, the importance of sending this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Please let me quickly outline the five points that the standing committee would need to hear. They are all eminently reasonable and need to be reflected upon. There is simply no opportunity for this to happen if this motion before us were to fail. Here are the points outlined to me by this decision-maker from the Kootenays.

Point 1, regarding the split into two zones with additional requirements added to the basic mandate for zone 2 — that is, 90 percent of the ALR — the intent seems to be to weaken the primary focus on agriculture.

Hon. Speaker, we're told this wasn't the case. The public still thinks that this is the case. The public needs to have an opportunity to have their questions answered directly through a consultation process, which will only happen if this bill goes to the standing committee.

The second point, regarding the delegation of decision-making to six regional panels. "This makes decision-making unduly subject to regional and local development pressures and increases the likelihood of inconsistency and decisions that are perceived as unfair."

How is this important point ever going to be heard without the opportunity for it to be brought forward to the select standing committee?

Point 3. The legislation "weakens long-term farmland protection on the pretext of improving farmers' businesses, when the real failure since the mid-1980s has been on the part of successive provincial governments" — here the decision-maker is being truly non-partisan, even pre-dating the period of the 1990s that we hear so much about in this House around us here; he's talking about since the mid-1980s — "which have failed to recognize farmers and ranchers and the services they provide for B.C. — food, but also environmental goods and services."

How will that important statement, that important piece of information be understood and heard if it were not brought before the standing committee to be reflected upon prior to the passing of this bill?

The same decision-maker, who has an awful lot to say, continued and said the following:

"We understand that for food, we need viable farms and ranches. Viable farms and ranches need access to land and water for their operations. I'm aware there are pinch points in the ALR/ALC system that need to be worked out with farmers and ranchers, and I also know that 95 percent of the applications the ALR receives are from non-farm landowners."

He continues:

"I did ask myself whether there was anything good here for B.C. agrifood. Without full consultation with stakeholders, we simply don't know. We are not sure the bill faithfully reflects the priorities of B.C. farmers and ranchers. Key B.C. farm and ranch organizations have expressed concerns about the bill, and they have asked for more involvement. They have been consulted, but only to the point of being shown the changes the provincial government intended to make."

Consultation is not marketing. Consultation is a two-way dialogue, not a one-way marketing job. These organizations that this decision-maker from the Kootenays so succinctly points out are clearly very troubling. "Since the summer of 2013," he continues, "the ALC has not been consulted at all."

He wonders why the provincial government is in such a hurry to push through the enabling legislation framework before it will sit down with agricultural organizations, the ALC and local governments to discuss the regulatory details. He is urging the provincial government, before proceeding any further with the legislation, to consult properly with farmers, ranchers, local governments, the ALC, food systems, organizations and the public, as it did with the Water Sustainability Act, to ensure that land use legislation is collaboratively updated in the long-term agrifood interests of British Columbians.

[1500]

The government will have lots of time to push forward this consultation. Russia just signed a $400 billion natural gas deal with China with a price at about $10 per million Btu, clearly making B.C.'s natural gas not economical at current or market Asian prices that were actually set through this recent deal. There is no rush to tear apart our agricultural institutions for this pipedream of LNG prosperity down the road. Let's take the time to do this right.

The letter I was sent from the Kootenay decision-maker was incredibly thoughtful and reasonable and well-thought-out. Surely the government wants the opportunity to hear from more people like this.

Finally, from the point of view of letters but not from the important information I must convey today to the government, here's a letter I received that I must admit I find deeply troubling. It says the following:

[ Page 4120 ]

"I am writing to ask you to do what you can to stop or delay the passage of Bill 24 so that the public has more time to realize how the bill will affect their future and the future of their children. Canada's traditional way of dealing with population growth is to spread. It worked for a few decades, but now it's killing us.

"Urban sprawl is polluting the air we breathe with car exhaust and paving over our farmland. Meanwhile, those who can only see as far as short-term financial gain continue to cover the province with poorly planned, poorly serviced and often poorly executed condos and housing developments.

"The Fraser Institute should not be guiding policy in B.C. We need the ALR more than ever to protect our renowned farmland. Not only will this assure a local food supply; it will force civil planners to find more creative, sustainable solutions to population growth. We need to build up, not out over, our farmland. After all, rich or poor or in between, we all need to eat. We all need to breathe."

There are so many citizens in British Columbia desperately trying to have their voices heard and sending all of us hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, and we only have time to share a few selected quotes from a number of them. This last writer raised a very troubling concern for me. His e-mail mentions the Fraser Institute.

Now, I wonder: were they consulted? Has the Fraser Institute's 2009 publication entitled The B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve: A Critical Assessment been adopted as a road map for B.C. policy by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Energy and Mines and Responsible for Core Review?

I don't know. None of us on this side of the House know. That's because there was no consultation over this. This report, which I am troubled to think perhaps was consulted, says the following: "The very premise of the ALR is anachronistic. Advances in agronomy and biotechnology have dramatically increased yields, thereby easing demand for farmland."

This is what it said. The very premise of the ALR is anachronistic, suggesting that it's out of date, and that advances in soil science and biotechnology have increased yields, thereby easing demand for farmland. Is this what was consulted by the government? Is this what led us to where we are today? Is this the reason why so many more want to be heard and want to be consulted by allowing the select standing committee to actually see this bill and engage British Columbians?

We don't know one way or the other, for sure, whether or not the government got the idea from the Fraser Institute report. But I know that the former Minister of Agriculture, Corky Evans…. I'm quoting now from my colleagues to the right of me. He thinks so.

[1505]

In a recent letter to the "Kootenay coop news," Corky Evans said, after some ramblings about how he's not very familiar with the technology of blogs, etc…. It was a very enlightening letter. This is what he said: "The government didn't think this up. They got it from the Fraser Institute."

Whether or not this is true is immaterial. What's important, of course, is that if this bill were to be sent to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, we could explore this further, British Columbians could explore this further and the Fraser Institute could explore this further.

While there is some speculation about whether or not the policy is being influenced by the Fraser Institute, let me be clear. There is no speculation that science or scientists have any influence. They have not, and their voices need to be heard as well.

The public wants policy to flow from evidence. That's called evidence-based decision-making. The public does not want evidence to flow from policy. That's called decision-based evidence-making or again — this is the third time — as the member from Cowichan Valley would put it, jiggery-pokery. By passing the amendment, we would provide the only opportunity for science and our soil science community to contribute to the consultation process.

On April 3 of this year the Pacific Regional Society of Soil Science issued a press release. It's a very long press release. I suspect that I'm running short of time here, so I won't have time to read it, but I would encourage anyone who's listening to this to simply type the following words into Google: "Concerns about the future of the agricultural land reserve in B.C. were highlighted at a March 29 workshop."

If one types those words into Google, one will get a very long press release that outlines all the reasons why it's critical for the scientific community to be heard in this consultation process that would come by sending this bill to the select standing committee. Scientists do not send out press releases very often. They do so out of a last resort, out of desperation. Our soil scientists are crying out to be heard.

I will be supporting this amendment, and I urge all members of this House to do the same. I say this to the members opposite: stand up and show the people of British Columbia that you believe in the health of our democratic institutions. Stand up and show the people of British Columbia that you are representing the wishes of your constituents, and stand up and support this amendment for the well-being of future generations.

R. Austin: It's an honour to join this debate on a re-

[ Page 4121 ]

ferral motion. It's an honour to follow an eminent scientist. I think it's fair to say that in politics in general, and certainly in this chamber, we don't have a surplus of rational thought, so it's always great to follow someone who brings a lot of scientific rigour to his speeches, as opposed to jiggery-pokery.

What are we debating here? We're debating a motion to refer a very controversial piece of legislation, Bill 24, which we on this side of the House believe undermines the credibility of the ALR and the ALC. We believe that by referring this to a standing committee, which is allowed under Standing Order 83, we can improve any amendments or legislation coming forward that the government believes is necessary.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes just to discuss what occurs when we have committees doing their work, doing good work. One of the challenges in working in this Legislature is that we have a committee structure, we have a Clerk of Committees, but we don't actually use committees a great deal in the British Columbia Legislature.

I think that is really an unfortunate thing. Why? Because aside from the work that we do here in this Legislature, a committee enables a group of MLAs to go around the province, to listen to experts in their field on a variety of topics and bring back information which maybe none of us here ever thought was relevant to that conversation or pertinent. That information then could be used to make better policy, to write better legislation and ultimately serve the interests of British Columbia.

[1510]

I'm going to take a couple examples of committee work so that people who are watching this understand the benefit of it. This is not about taking something controversial and putting it away and hoping that no one gets to hear about it. No, actually, committees do fantastic work.

Recently we've seen a standing committee in our federal system invite people to come in and speak about another controversial piece of legislation, which was the Fair Elections Act — or as some people referred to it, the "Unfair Elections Act." It's interesting.

The reason why I'm comparing this is because both pieces of legislation, Bill 24 and that piece of legislation, were extremely controversial. Initially, the minister who was bringing forward that piece of legislation stood very strong and said: "No. This is a perfect bill. It's absolutely brilliant. Everything's right with it." That was the initial stance.

After several weeks of hearing people come in, experts and citizens, there was really quite a big reaction in terms of how that committee worked. The end result was that that minister who, one day, said that that piece of legislation was perfect in every way had to retract on almost all the main points of it and concede that in fact — once listening to people, once hearing from experts and from citizens and from provinces — that legislation needed to be amended and renewed and bought back into the Legislature. That's just one example.

I'm going to bring another example back to here in British Columbia. Several years ago we dealt in this Legislature with a very controversial topic — easily as controversial as these changes to the ALR. That was the issue of salmon farms.

Now, I know that some people on the other side of the House who've been here for a long time will remember that salmon farming was an incredibly controversial, hot topic.

In fact, it was so controversial that the Premier of the day, Gordon Campbell, decided that he would strike a committee, have that committee go around the province and listen to people on both sides of this issue — listen to scientists, listen to those in the industry, listen to those who lived on the coast and who were affected by salmon farms — and come back and write a report that would hopefully influence the government and enable them to make policy that would better our province.

That piece of policy was so controversial that the government of the day broke precedent and actually made the opposition have the majority on that committee, something I believe has never been done in any Commonwealth country that has our political system. I was a part of that committee, and the reason why I'm bringing it up is that it's relevant to this debate, because we were dealing with something that was extremely controversial.

We gave it to a committee. The government of that day gave it to a committee. We spent several months going around the province. We visited all kinds of communities, even remote communities.

I think it's relevant because when it comes to food and the ALR, everywhere in British Columbia has a stake. It doesn't matter whether you live in an area that's mountainous and full of trees. The reality is that we all eat and we all need to eat. We all need access to food. So everywhere in this province — every single district, every region — should have a say in how it is that we make changes to a policy that has done us so well for 40 years.

That's the reason why, and these are the examples I'm giving as to how we can improve this legislation by referring it to a committee. I can say, as someone who came from the north, that one of the benefits that came out of the committee I sat on was that a recommendation put forward by the opposition was actually enacted by the government of the day. We made sure in that instance that salmon farming didn't spread to the north and central coast and have some of the difficulties around wild salmon that had been present on the lower coast.

Here's a perfect example of how we can use our system of government to go out and do good work on behalf of British Columbians, very valuable work, and write a report so that they see that something concrete comes out of these deliberations and this expenditure. It's something which is still quoted today as people look at policy

[ Page 4122 ]

around fisheries.

Much has been said in here about the main reasons why we think referring this to a committee is a good idea. I'm going to move over to some comments that were made by the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association in referring to why they think this would be a good idea — to refer it to a committee.

They've sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture. He will, of course, have read this, along with the hundreds of other letters and submissions that he got. They asked some very important questions.

[1515]

After they'd looked at the bill, here are some of the questions that they were asking. "What will Bill 24 mean for ranching? What changes will it bring? Where will it leave our industry in the future?" Now, if people who are directly involved in an aspect of farming don't even understand how this bill will benefit them don't understand it, then goodness knows, I think it's fair to say that the average citizen, who isn't farming on a daily basis and therefore engaged in that industry, perhaps isn't even aware of the kinds of changes that are being made or proposed in Bill 24. If they don't understand this….

Surely, if we go and refer this to a committee, that committee will travel all over British Columbia, and it'll certainly spend time in ranching country, in places that rely on the protection of agricultural land, and answer those questions. But more importantly, it won't simply answer those questions. It'll enable people from the cattlemen's association to give direct feedback to the government so that they can improve things.

I'm going to continue to quote: "We encourage you to take a slow approach with drafting and passing Bill 24. Ranchers have lived with the reserve for 40 years. Waiting a little while longer to ensure that the proper changes are made seems reasonable to our directors."

Here they are, a major part of the farming community, saying: "Look, there's no rush to do this. We didn't even know about it until this session came about." But that's another discussion, which I'll be coming to a little bit later. No one was even aware of these changes, but they're saying: "Hold off a second. Let's just refer this to a committee. Let's take time to go out and do consultation."

I believe that in the eyes of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association…. They're advocating here that referral to a committee will serve not just their interests but serve the interests of all British Columbia, as they can improve this. I'll quote again from their letter: "B.C. Cattlemen's Association believes that the ALR reform should be driven by the agricultural community."

Here's another fundamental reason why this bill needs to be referred to a committee. We have a major component of the agricultural industry stating very clearly that they weren't even consulted in the proposals that have been made here in this bill. I think it's fair to say that any time government makes changes….

We are all elected here. We're all politicians. None of us are experts in a whole variety of fields. We come from our own background. Our world view is what we've done before we came here. I'm looking at a colleague here who was a counsellor, a therapist. What she knows in her job is very different from what a lot of us would know in our job.

So I think when we're trying to craft legislation, it behooves us to go out there and to actually consult with the folk who work in that field on a daily basis, to understand the issues from the perspective of those people who actually work in the field. It also behooves us to go and speak with other people, not just those who work in the field, to get a variety of perspectives.

I was preceded by the member from Oak Bay, who always advocates very strongly in this House, when we go out and do this kind of referral and go and do this kind of consultation, to speak also with experts in their field. We are blessed here in British Columbia to have a post-secondary system that is often regarded as the envy of the world. We have people from all walks of academic life who spend years — in fact, dedicate their life to it — doing research into a whole bunch of topics.

Well, this is a complicated process. We have had the ALR in place for 40 years, and I hear the government side saying: "It's time to modernize it." Well, perhaps we don't need to modernize it. But let's find out. Let's go and speak to people who actually study agrology, agriculture, soil science. Let's go and speak to people who make it their job on a daily basis to research not just what's going on here in British Columbia but to gain knowledge from all over the world and who come back here and teach and research in our universities.

I think when we're making this kind of change, in this day and age…. Where it's true to say that if the ALR was considered visionary 40 years ago, it's even more visionary today in light of all the changes that have happened since this piece of legislation was brought in.

[1520]

We have people here who have spent their lives dedicated to studying this. By having a committee and referring this, we can go and examine this with experts, with scientists. We can have scientists meet with industry. We can have scientists meet with just constituents, regular people who have an interest in this topic. I think it's fair to say we all have an interest in this topic, because as I say, all British Columbians need to eat, and all British Columbians want to have the best quality of food grown, hopefully, as close to home as possible.

These are simply some of the basic reasons why we think referring this to a committee will do us a whole bunch of good. One of the topics in this bill that I think needs looking at from a committee point of view is the main controversial aspects of it. We know that the bill takes British Columbia as a province and splits it up into two zones. The interesting thing about this is that while

[ Page 4123 ]

we haven't had two zones before, we have had an experimentation by the government to actually have regional panels. Obviously, that didn't work out very well, and we went back to a provincial perspective and went back to the ALC making decisions, rather than having regional panels.

What referring this bill to a committee can do is look back at that experience and figure out why it is that that didn't work and perhaps figure out why it is that these proposals now would have the same dire consequences as that previous experiment. This is the kind of thing that…. I think referring this to a committee will be very important.

I expressed in my speech about two weeks ago why I thought having regional panels was not a good idea. But what I would like to see is not just the ideas of the opposition, who obviously have been very clear on this, but a committee that goes around and listens to both sides of this argument. Maybe there's something we've missed. Maybe there's something that the government hasn't really expressed well as to why they think creating the ALR in two zones and having regional panels is a good idea. Maybe we missed something.

But at least instead of just having a government press release, which those of us on this side of the House are naturally skeptical about, we can actually have a committee go around and hear all the arguments as to why this thing would be a good idea.

For myself, I live in a rural, remote part of British Columbia, and I've already expressed why I don't think having regional panels is a good idea. I'll express it again here. The reason for that is that in the smaller communities we all know one another. We have relationships. I think when you go and create special panels or regional zones in British Columbia, inevitably there are going to be people appointed to these committees who have relationships that are not in the best interests of protecting farmland. They will have other interests and relationships that maybe will influence them beyond that mandate.

These are just some of the reasons why it's important to have a committee to go out and do this important work. We want to make sure that any change as dramatic as going to two zones would be in the best interests of British Columbia and protecting farmland and making sure our agricultural industry thrives.

I'm going to give another very simple example as to why we need to go to a committee. We're going to rise at the end of this week and not return until, well, whenever the government calls us back — hopefully, October of next year. That gives us ample time.

I think it's remarkable. We in British Columbia have benefited for a long time by receiving produce from the United States, particularly from California. Any committee that goes to do its work over the summer would also take advantage of the fact that something quite extraordinary is happening in the way that our food that has come previously from California….

We are enduring now a drought in the western United States that is going to dramatically affect the ability of the western United States to provide food to us. What better way to actually focus our attention on agricultural land, when we're living through a time where this summer we're going to see produce prices go through the roof and where traditional markets for exporting to us are not able to fulfil that?

Isn't that going to make this committee and those who come to present to the committee think twice, long and hard, and go: "Whoa, things are really changing here"? Yes, I'm used to having mangoes flown in from who knows where and eating them in the middle of winter, but having food, regular food, grown locally is becoming ever more important. I think this summer will be instrumental in teaching British Columbians a lesson.

[1525]

While we talk about water here and we talk about soil and the ALR, there is a tidal shift happening in agriculture in North America. We have been so used to just receiving goods from out of country and out of state. The reality is that this may soon be coming to an end. This committee will enable us to be able to look at that in much greater detail.

Interjection.

R. Austin: Thank you for the warning, hon. Speaker. I do want to make sure that I'm staying on line here.

I'd like to, like my hon. friends, read a couple of letters into the record. They do speak about consultation, so fear not, hon. Speaker. This one here:

"I'm writing to you to express my concern about Bill 24. I'm opposed to the passage of this bill as I feel the ALR currently helps to protect farmland, farming jobs, healthy and sustainable food, and allows us to not be 100 percent dependent on California food, which is likely to not be around for long, given their overuse of aquifers and droughts. We all eat multiple times a day, and thus we need our farmland in B.C. to be protected.

"I'm a teacher, beginning farmer and consumer. I want local, delicious and healthy food. I want to know my local farmers. I want local people to be able to earn a living growing food for myself and my family and friends. I want to continue to be a farmer myself, grow food and supplement my part-time teaching income.

"The process by which the government is trying to shove this bill through the Legislature without public consultation is absolutely disgusting. I would like to teach my students that we live in a democracy, but this process has me questioning the strength of that democracy. I could go on, but my point is clear: please help prevent the passage of Bill 24."

This comes from Jessie King in Crawford Bay, B.C. This lady speaks to another huge deficit and the reason why, I think, it's actually in the government's interest for us to refer this to a committee.

As has been mentioned by many people in this Legislature, the actual enaction and bringing in of this bill was a surprise. When the session started, there was some sort of talk, almost rumour, that there was going to be change happening, but at that point it was rumour.

[ Page 4124 ]

By going to a committee, we are fulfilling our constitutional duty, I would argue. Just because we get elected and just because one side has a majority, does not mean to say that in a democracy we go about and willy-nilly make changes. We still live in a society where, notwithstanding that we have a parliamentary majority, we want to be seen to be open and transparent and have as much dialogue with the citizens that we serve. The reason for referring this to a committee is because it helps the government to get out of one of the great dilemmas of this bill: it's hugely controversial and no one knew about it. No one knew about these changes.

We all know what the government ran on. I just came from a conference in Vancouver last week. I was there with the hon. minister, and the Premier was there. She said in her speech: "I ran on these things. I ran on bringing an LNG industry to British Columbia, and I ran on balancing the budget." I think that if you went and spoke to the average person on the street, even someone who doesn't really follow politics a lot, they would argue, and agree, that yes, that's what the government ran on. It ran on bringing in an LNG industry and bringing in a balanced budget.

Nobody, not even members on their side, would know that the government was running on making changes to the ALR, so this is a huge bind. It undermines democracy. It undermines people's faith in what it is we do here.

You know, we often speak about the fact that the work that we do here is done in some kind of bubble and the people outside, the people we serve, actually don't know and don't pay a lot of attention to what we're doing in here. Part of that reason is because we debate legislation and then pass it when the people outside weren't even aware that we were going to be dealing with that topic.

By referring this to a committee, we are actually helping the government. We are taking away a major problem. They already know about this problem. They've gone through an experience where a previous piece of legislation was brought in after the last election that proved to be more than a little problematic for them and, in fact, got citizens so riled up that in the end they had to go back on it.

[1530]

I think that by supporting this motion…. And hopefully, in these last few days of debate, there will be a few people from the other side who will listen to these arguments, and perhaps not just listen to these arguments — we're on the opposition, so maybe they don't want to listen to anything we have to say — but will also listen to the constituents who are writing to them.

I know for a fact, because I've been receiving emails and letters…. These are not just NDP supporters. These are people who voted for the government who have said: "We didn't know anything about this." This is a topic — and I'm glad to say this — that transcends politics, as food should. We all eat. This transcends political partisan lines.

It speaks to an issue much bigger than politics, which is: where are we going to get our food from? Are we are going to continue to get good food? Is it going to be healthy? Who's going to make sure that in the future our children and grandchildren will have access to something which…?

We only have to turn on the television every day to see parts of the world where they are not just not as lucky as us in Canada but live in a place where there is absolutely no food security from one hour to the next, let alone weeks or months. We are very blessed in Canada to live in a wealthy country. But we shouldn't take that for granted and just pretend that we can make changes willy-nilly to something that's been working so well for 40 years.

Just to bring some kind of democratic accountability, I think, as Jessie King speaks, from Crawford Bay, we need to go back, consult, refer this, and I would suggest that a report could be written prior to a fall session. The fall session is not about a budget. It's only about legislation. This gives a perfect opportunity, by referring this to a committee, for some people to be appointed by the government side, from both sides of the House and independents, and to go around the province and actually listen to what British Columbians have to say on this issue.

I don't want to suggest that everything is perfect in the ALR or the ALC. I recognize that some of the maps that were drawn 40 years ago put some parts of land into the ALR that perhaps don't make much sense because they're not suitable for farming. As I mentioned two weeks ago, my house sits on just over two acres, on land that's in the ALR. Trust me; you couldn't farm on it. It's just not the right grade. It's not the right material. It's full of clay, etc.

I understand that there are some challenges, but I don't think that by drastically making these kinds of changes you solve those problems. Those problems can be solved within the structure that already exists. Maybe we need to improve that structure — but not have to change it fundamentally so that we're suddenly deciding that 90 percent of the ALR is not of the same quality as the other part.

I'd like to say this as well. The ALR was set up, of course, to protect land for food production. And no one in this province — the other side, as well — maintains that this bill, and if it gets referred to a committee…. They maintain that it's still protecting farmland. Yet when you listen to experts from around the province, those who have worked in agriculture, those who understand the ALC and the job that it does, they beg to differ.

I think that it's very hard for them to come out and speak publicly, because they maybe answer to government, maybe were appointed by government. But by having an open, transparent structure, everybody will feel free to bring forward their ideas. I think we're using a sledgehammer here to solve a problem that perhaps never existed or a problem that's very small and that could be solved within the current structure.

[ Page 4125 ]

I'm going to go on and refer to another e-mail that was received, again, from somebody….

"I'm very concerned about Bill 24. I believe that B.C. must retain as much agricultural land as possible so we do not have to depend entirely on international markets to feed us. Food grown closer to home is more nutritious, tasty, and we can be more assured of its safety. As climate change progresses, the agricultural land will become much more valuable as a source of food rather than used for other endeavours. Please do what you can to stop Bill 24 from passing.

"Sincerely,

"Cal Potaznik."

We don't have the votes on this side of the House to stop this bill. We all acknowledge that. But we do recognize that there is a problem here. In fact, I think those on the other side also recognize the controversy and the fact that there is a problem with this legislation.

[1535]

By referring this piece of legislation to a committee, we are going to be satisfying the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who follow public policy on a daily basis and have got engaged in this debate. I'll bet you if this bill passes and does not get referred to a committee that in the weeks, months and years ahead the public, who do not pay a lot of attention in between elections to what's happening here, will be not just upset; they will really recognize that we have done a disservice in this Legislature by passing a piece of legislation that they didn't even know about.

That's the nature of politics. The fact is that the work we do in here…. While all of us here think it's extremely important, and it is extremely important, the reality is that people outside of here are busy with their lives. They're raising kids. They're paying mortgages. They don't have a lot of time to spend on the minutiae of policy changes, especially one as dramatic as this.

I think it's fair to say that everybody outside of this Legislature — even if they don't know what the ALR is, even if they've never heard that acronym and, certainly, don't know what the ALC is, even people who don't know what those two pieces of institutions are — understands the importance of retaining farmland.

The majority of folk live in what we call down south, the Lower Mainland. Sorry, I don't mean to be in any way disrespectful to those who live down south, but you know, for those of us who live in the north, it's down south. It's just one big place, and it would be one grand cement parking lot with nothing but houses and industry if somebody 40 years ago didn't have the vision to recognize….

Everybody who lives in the Lower Mainland drives past a huge amount of agricultural land and sees food grown right before their eyes, as they're rushing around on their highways going to and from work. They know that this is unlike most North American cities, because most North American cities don't have farmland anywhere close to where they live. They go and buy their groceries from the grocery store, and many people — it's true to say — have no connection to where food comes from. They just think that milk comes from a carton.

Here in British Columbia we're lucky. Our citizens actually get to know the fact that even though we live in a big metropolis like Vancouver, we have farmland close by. I think that, without knowing what the ALR or the ALC is, if we make this change and don't refer it to a committee, they will be mightily upset later on, and they will take it out on the government.

I'll feel really badly for them, so I want to help them out. That's why I think this needs to be referred to a committee.

V. Huntington: I am pleased, in a sad sort of way, to rise and express my appreciation for the referral motion to enable this province to undergo a serious consultation on Bill 24. I support the member for Nelson-Creston's motion and wish to go on the record that I think nothing has faced this province in the last while that is more serious than this bill. This bill needs the consultation, and the executive council of this province needs to listen to the people of this province.

The member for Skeena just mentioned that he hopes some members will listen to the debate from this side of the House on what we feel Bill 24 means to the people of this province. I guess I've come to the conclusion that even though executive council members sit in the House during House duty, even though we have other members from the government side listening to the debate, none of them are listening.

I find myself wondering too often these days whether we share any values at all anymore, because I don't understand what's going on, on that side of the House. I do not understand how a government can fail, utterly, to listen to the people of this province in a situation where they have, over and over and over again, said, "Stop. Refer this to a committee. Talk to us. This needs to be talked about. You need to listen to us," and the utter failure of a government willing to do so.

[1540]

I don't understand. I don't understand whether it's a failure to appreciate democracy anymore, whether it's a failure to appreciate the people and their role in a democracy, whether it's the failure of an executive council — and, I guess, their caucus — to appreciate that they are being pleaded with, begged, to take a piece of legislation back to the people for consultation, to refer it to the stakeholders that are most affected by a piece of legislation.

Every single stakeholder has said: "This is not good enough. It has to come back to us for consultation. There has to be an ulterior motive, because this is not something any of us asked for. It's not something any of us approve, and we want you to come back to us and consult." Will anybody listen? No.

So what do we say? What is the state of the nation in

[ Page 4126 ]

this province when its government refuses to respond to anything the people have asked it to do?

As I begin my comments, I'd like to quote from the October 2013 message from the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, who was quoting from one of the recent decisions of the ALC. It puts precisely what it is that matters to the province — well, I'd say to the people of the province, certainly not to the government of the province. I quote the chairman's comments.

"The ALR exists precisely because British Columbia has long recognized that if agricultural land were to succumb every time anyone proposed a development on particular land that proponents and politicians viewed on an ad hoc basis as being more economically favourable than the current use of that land, expedient and even shortsighted decisions would often follow, to the long-term detriment of the province's agricultural land base. The commission exists precisely to prevent the British Columbia public waking up one day and asking: 'What happened to our agricultural land?'"

This dynamic is precisely what

an act dealing with less than 5 percent of the provincial land base was intended to avoid, and it's precisely why an independent commission was created.

Rather than basing decisions on the politically expedient, the crisis of the day or short-term profit that sacrifice agricultural land forever, an independent commission's task is to make its decisions in a principled fashion, in a fair process that reflects coherent agricultural policy and planning and that reflects the purposes set out above in

section 6, one of which is to preserve agricultural land.

For as long as the act exists, the decisions must reflect utmost fidelity to the purposes the Legislature has assigned under the act. What the people of this province are saying is: "We do not think Bill 24 reflects the purposes that were assigned under the act, and we want you to come back to us and talk to us about it, because we believe in the ALR, and we believe that the land commission has been making good decisions on behalf of the public, on behalf of farming and on behalf of agriculture in this province."

As I noted in my speech on the second reading of this bill, I do not believe the government has the necessary mandate to make the sweeping changes to the Agricultural Land Commission proposed in this bill or to put agriculture and British Columbia's food security at risk by the passage of this bill as proposed. This bill needs to be referred to committee, and it needs to be examined by the public. Nor has this government made a public case that an emergent case has occurred to justify acting without an electoral mandate.

Here's what the B.C. Liberal Party promised the people of B.C. with respect to agriculture during the 2013 election: continue the carbon tax relief for the greenhouse sector, give growers tax breaks for donations to food banks, work on a sustainable and permanent tree fruit plant program, provide additional financial support to the Buy Local program, introduce a new B.C. meat inspection system, work with other provinces to make it easier for B.C. wine to move across provincial barriers, create a centre for excellence for agriculture, represent B.C. agriculture at global conferences and develop a B.C. organic brand.

[1545]

Please note there is an absolute and complete absence of any mention of making dramatic and sweeping changes to the ALC and to the ALR. It is clear the government did not earn an electoral mandate to make these changes — again, a necessity, forcing it to refer this bill to committee and to hear the will of people.

How disappointing it was to see such irresponsibility on the part of the Minister of Agriculture when he said this weekend that changes contained in Bill 24 are designed to give farmers in the north and central parts of the province greater flexibility to earn revenue from their property. "The bill is really trying to help farmers be more successful on their land."

We know, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission knows, the Ag Land Commission commissioners know, the staff know that the data says otherwise. "I often find it necessary," says the chair of the commission, "to dispel the misconception that the ALC primarily deals with applications from farmers and ranchers. In fact, the vast majority of applications are submitted by owners of ALR land that neither farm nor ranch the land. In my experience, dealing with farmers and ranchers in the application process is the exception rather than the rule."

He goes on to say that he has found there are people who take the view that the ALC would make better decisions if fully regionalized panels made the decisions. The difficulty the chair has found, he says, with those taking this view — which, in his experience, is a small but vocal minority — is that they usually equate better decision-making with decisions to remove land from the ALR — again, a complete and absolute reason why the bill needs to be referred to committee in order for the people to make it quite clear to this government precisely what their thoughts are in relation to any opportunity to open up lands for development.

This bill does that, and the people have objected to it, and they want to speak to that. This government has an obligation to listen to the people, and it can easily refer this bill to committee and spend the summer dealing with the problems that people have with this legislation.

Perhaps the Minister for Core Review could take a step back and listen to his own words from November of 2010 — November 17, 2010, to be exact. On that day the minister was simply the member for Kootenay East, and he was speaking with passion and honesty about how the government had caught people off guard with the HST, something it had no mandate to introduce.

"There comes a time when you have to say to yourself and to the public: 'Look, we've probably messed up on that decision, but we need to go back and rethink it and maybe do things differently.'"

[ Page 4127 ]

I would say they need to go back this time and refer this bill to committee.

Again, the minister:

"The people really don't like it, and we brought it in, in a very, very bad way. We surprised people. I just think we should back off, and maybe in the future there's a way to harmonize the sales tax" — which is what he was speaking to — "and take the time we should have the first time around."

Bill 24 is another example of legislation that's caught the public off guard — a bill with implications for the whole province that's been introduced without consultation.

The member for Kootenay East continued:

"What kind of government is that? You don't talk to stakeholders. You don't talk to people whose lives are going to be impacted by that?

"It's just not the right way to do government."

Well, what's different now? This isn't the right way to do government. The ministers of the Crown all know that.

They know that there's a public demand for referral to committee. They know there's a public demand for consultation. They know that the stakeholders — the farmers and the agricultural associations — have said: "This is no good. We need to talk to you about it. We need to put our two cents' worth into the situation, and you need to refer this to the people for consultation."

Again, the minister:

"I think the group assumed that we would have an appropriate public consultation process. Even as short an amount of time as we had, we could have done a lot more than we did. We would have had an opportunity to get out and actually talk to the people about the policy.

"We made all those assumptions that turned out incorrectly. For me, that was the beginning of the end, because it showed that the Premier's office and the Premier were no longer as focused on the job as a person needs to be. I would suggest that I don't think the cabinet is as focused on its job as it needs to be in this situation.

[1550]

"We really dropped the ball on that one. That should have been a message to everybody on the inside."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

V. Huntington: "It was a message to everybody on the outside. The people knew. The media knew."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. I'd remind that it's unparliamentary to make personal attacks on members or groups of members. I've allowed it to happen several times during your address, but that will be the last.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much. I'm just quoting the public record, Mr. Speaker, but I shall move on.

Listening to his words, I know the minister gets it. We've been here before. The minister knew the HST caught the public off guard. He took a principled stand and said it shouldn't have been introduced the way it was, that it deserved proper consultation. I hope the minister hears his own words and takes a step back to realize we're dealing with the same situation. It's a law with far-reaching consequences that wasn't hinted at during the 2013 election and that wasn't taken to the people before it was introduced.

The changes represented by Bill 24 supposedly come from the government's core review process, which was intended to focus on ensuring that government is efficient and effective. However, the changes proposed to Bill 24 go far beyond the core review mandate and are so much more sweeping and far-reaching that they cannot be accepted as merely an attempt to streamline government. The core review argument, frankly, doesn't wash with anyone. But the mandate letter does.

The Minister of Agriculture's mandate was to "bring forward ALR changes that will further encourage the stability of farm families and the farming industry in British Columbia." This bill doesn't do that. All of the farming associations and agricultural associations have said this bill does exactly the opposite. It destabilizes the land in the province. It destabilizes the opportunity to have far-reaching agricultural policies. It is undermining the agricultural policies that people have relied on for 40 years. So the mandate isn't being fulfilled either. The mandate was to stabilize the industry. This bill does nothing but undermine the industry.

Again, the stakeholders are saying: "Look, we have to sit down, and we have to talk about it. Please refer it to committee." Some have asked for it to be hoisted, but at least the bare minimum is referral to a committee so that the people can be adequately and properly consulted.

As I stated in my recent letter to the Minister of Agriculture, reading letters sent to him on this issue or e-mails sent to him on this issue doesn't constitute public consultation. Nor do his brief meetings with a select few groups and individuals after the bill was tabled in the House. Meaningful consultation must be publicized, lengthy and accessible.

The consultation that led to the Water Sustainability Act, passed this session, started in 2009, was provincewide, engaged the public and stakeholder organizations in public meetings and involved feedback loops to the public as the legislation was being drafted. The Off-Road Vehicle Act passed this session was likewise the result of many years of significant public consultation. It's one of the reasons the public and the opposition applauded the passage of the bill.

That is the kind of consultation process that any changes to the ALC and the ALR demand — extensive, public, provincewide and transparent consultation. That, again, is why Bill 24 should be referred to a committee — so that this kind of consultation can take place.

The government has reacted to other errors in legislation that likewise resulted from a failure to consult. It has reacted by removing or hoisting those bills or sending those bills to committee. The government attempted to introduce legislation that fundamentally changed the way B.C.'s resource roads were managed, maintained and

[ Page 4128 ]

used. It had to withdraw that legislation when it failed to conduct adequate consultation, and it has been consulting with stakeholders now for over three years on a replacement act.

It can do the same with Bill 24. The people would be relieved and would thank the government. It's not something that government has to fear being embarrassed about. Take it to committee and talk to the people.

Prior to the last election, the government was forced to withdraw its proposed changes to the forest tenure system as a result of public push-back on its failure to consult in advance of the legislation. The government is now conducting a consultation process on their proposed changes. And now we see that a major forest product company's CEO is challenging even that two-month-long consultation process. Specifically, Don Kayne, the CEO of Canfor, said the following about the government's current two-month-long, one-on-one consultation with a former chief forester over the proposed forest tenure changes.

[1555]

To that I read Bill 24 "Changes of this scope require broadly informed public support, not a brief and limited consultation. On Crown land the public are our landowners, and our opinions should be meaningfully sought and respected. Shortchanging opportunities for public consultation or forcing unwanted tenure reform brings the risk of serious repercussions."

This is good advice to this government from a private sector CEO, and it has as much meaning to Bill 24 as it does to the proposed forest tenure changes — yet another argument for withdrawing Bill 24 completely or especially for referring it to committee for informed consultation.

Bill 24 will not achieve the government's publicly stated intent of supporting agriculture and protecting agricultural land. This bill will absolutely limit opportunities for new farmers. Enhancing the possibility for exclusions in zone 2 will drive prices up for farmland and discourage new farmers from entering the industry, threatening its long-term stability. I can tell the Speaker and I can tell executive members who sit in this chamber at this moment that that is precisely what is happening in Delta this moment. Pioneer farming families, families who have been there for over 100 years, are finding the prices because of the economic pressure on the lan