Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 19, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 185

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Clarence Lapp

S. Bond

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

Hon. C. Trevena

Bill 56 — Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Mungall

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Louis Riel Day

S. Chandra Herbert

Multiculturalism

T. Wat

World Diabetes Day

M. Elmore

Response to wildfires and evacuations

J. Rustad

Character Abbotsford and Character Canada

organizations

A. Olsen

North Shore Restorative Justice

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Government action on climate change

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

Hon. D. Donaldson

Referendum on electoral reform

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

M. Stilwell

J. Thornthwaite

Tabling Documents

Statement of 2017-18 borrowings, schedules A and B

Islands Trust, annual report, 2017-18

Petitions

D. Routley

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, merit performance audit,

2017-18

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Time to

Listen: Youth Voices on Substance Abuse

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report,

2017-18

Elections B.C., annual report, 2017-18, and service plan, 2018-19 to

2020-21

Petitions

Hon. R. Fleming

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2018 (continued)

D. Barnett

R. Coleman

B. Stewart

M. Bernier

D. Davies

M. Morris

T. Shypitka

L. Larson

D. Clovechok

M. Hunt

Reporting of Bills

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2018 (continued)

M. Hunt

J. Isaacs

Hon. L. Popham

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 32 — Foreign donations and political

activities of organizations (continued)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 54 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 47 — Health Sector Statutes Repeal

Act

Hon. A. Dix

J. Isaacs

Hon. J. Darcy

Hon. J. Sims

Hon. H. Bains

Hon. A. Dix

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

(continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

S. Furstenau

S. Thomson

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation

(Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

A. Weaver

T. Redies

N. Letnick

S. Thomson

B. Stewart

M. Stilwell

P. Milobar

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us in the House here today are Wayne Robertson and James

Sullivan from the Law Foundation of British Columbia. Wayne is the executive

director of the Law Foundation of B.C., and James Sullivan is chair of the

class action committee. The Law Foundation was founded in 1969, and they’ve

funded over $565 million to support access to justice and justice-related

initiatives in all regions of the province. Would the House please make them

welcome and thank them for their important work in British

Columbia.

D. Routley: We are joined in the House with approximately 30 young people from

Queen Margaret’s School in Duncan. One of those students is a very special

young woman who came to my office a couple of years ago when she was

beginning this petition drive. It’s a bit of a prop, but this is an amazing

young woman who began this project at age nine. She has collected over 800

signatures to stop the wolf kill. She cares a lot about the wolves, about

the environment. I learned a lot not just because she’s a brilliant young

woman, but also I learned a lot about how human activity, industrial

activity on the land base and the lack of restoration of resource roads has

given the advantage to wolves over caribou.

While it may seem a simple solution, it’s not. She reminds us how

complex this issue is — how every government of this province, regardless of

stripe, needs to pay deep attention to these issues. Thank you to

Keala.

Keala Wayne Winterhalt is joined by her mom, Sarah Wayne, and her dad,

Josh Winterhalt. I’m very proud to be their host today. Please make them

welcome.

T. Wat: I would like to introduce someone who is no stranger to this building.

Jay Denney was my chief of staff for over three years. The first project he

worked on for me was the apology for the historical wrongs done to the

Chinese community. But what many of you are not aware of is that when he

worked on the project, he was working from the maternity ward at Victoria

General, because his daughter was born just several days before the

apology.

Jay also served as the chief of staff of the now Leader of the

Official Opposition and also the former Agriculture Minister, the member for

Kelowna–Lake Country, and also for former minister Blair Lekstrom. He now

lives in Ottawa and is visiting Vancouver and Victoria. Please join me in

giving Jay Denney a warm welcome.

L. Reid: I’m pleased to welcome Lynn Klein to the gallery today.

Lynn, we’ve missed you. Welcome back.

Hon. G. Chow: Joining us in the House are two members of my staff who are in the

gallery for the first time: ministerial assistant Stephanie Chang and also

admin assistant Ilene Duguay. Would the House please welcome both of my

staff. They are very, very important to me. They keep me on time and make

sure I go to the right room at the right time, including the

washroom.

S. Sullivan: We have two very special guests: local medical doctor Chris Watt and

his wife, Valerie, a family therapist. They are from Victoria and are good

friends from years gone by. I’d just like the House to welcome

them.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have a number of guests here in the gallery today. I have folks from

the Home Inspectors Association of British Columbia here. They’re going to

be meeting with myself and the Solicitor General as well. Bob Hamm is

president, and Helene Barton is the executive director. They’re both here,

as well as representatives from the Islands Trust. I’m really pleased to see

that Peter Luckham, who is chair, as well as Laura Patrick and Russ

Hotsenpiller are here.

Tributes

CLARENCE LAPP

S. Bond: Sadly, Prince George lost a longtime resident last week. Clarence

Lapp came to British Columbia and built his livelihood in the logging

industry. Predeceased by his wife, Charlotte, the family were community

builders with strong character.

[1:40 p.m.]

Son-in-law and previous member of the Legislature Pat Bell always

said that Clarence was his best friend and his best mentor. Even though

Clarence had only completed grade 8, Pat would use him as his key

business adviser. In fact, they were business partners for many

years.

I knew Clarence well, as did many people in our community,

including the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Clarence is survived by his six children, 14 grandchildren and

five great-grandchildren. Clarence was one of a kind, and Prince George

will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the condolences of the House be conveyed

to Brenda and Pat Bell and their entire family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: In the House today is Dr. Dan Hara. Dr. Hara has 21 years of

experience advising government agencies on regulatory and transportation

policy. His work has covered many regulatory environments, and he’s

presented numerous reports on the taxi industry and other issues. Of course,

my ministry retained him to study and bring forward recommendations to

modernize the taxi industry in B.C.

I’d like to thank Dr. Hara for his work, and I’d also like the House

to make him very welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would like to ask the House to join with me in recognizing a number

of individuals we’re fortunate to have with us here today: Janet Gray, Rev.

Laura Kavanagh, Susan Draper, Ruth D’Hollander and Maureen Applethwaite. All

of these individuals are with KAIROS Canada, which is a national

organization that unites ten churches and religious organizations working

together in faithful action for social justice and human rights.

I think many members of the House will know of KAIROS, that it’s

committed to truth, healing and reconciliation for the past and Indigenous

justice for the present. We’re very fortunate, I think, to be working with

them as the Ministry of Education, as a government and as a Legislative

Assembly. KAIROS Canada’s present priorities include reconciliation and

education through their campaign, the Winds of Change.

I would ask all members of the House to please make these individuals

welcome.

J. Rice: In the House today, we have visitors from or working in

Kitasoo/Xai’xais territory. From Klemtu, we have Chief Doug Neasloss,

Chantal Pronteau, Christina Service and Evan Loveless. Would the House make

our guests feel welcome.

J. Johal: Joining us in the House today is Mr. Dennis Rogoza, the CEO of B.C.

SCRAP-IT. The B.C. SCRAP-IT society is headquartered in my riding of

Richmond-Queensborough. Since 1996, the society has provided incentives to

consumers to scrap their dirty, polluting vehicles. I’m proud to say they’ve

scrapped over 44,000 vehicles in British Columbia. Today they offer

incentives towards electric vehicles and electric home chargers for those

vehicles as well.

I ask the House to welcome Mr. Rogoza.

A. Weaver: It seems I was pre-empted there. It gives me great pleasure to

introduce a constituent of mine, Dennis Rogoza, who is, as was mentioned,

the president and CEO of the B.C. SCRAP-IT program. He’s accompanied by a

colleague, Diane Roberts, who is also here today.

As was mentioned, Dennis designed the SCRAP-IT program in 1996. To

date, 44,000 vehicles have been scrapped and one million tonnes of

greenhouse gases removed, including not one, but two of my old cars. Would

the House please make him feel very welcome — and also Diane Roberts —

today.

R. Singh: A very dear friend, Jason Craig, who’s also president of my riding

association, is in the gallery today. Would the House make him feel very

welcome.

M. Dean: Today we’re visited by Cpl. Scott Fletcher. He’s a tactical weather

specialist with the Department of National Defence. Would everyone please

make him very welcome.

B. Ma: St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School is a school in the constituency of

North Vancouver–Lonsdale, my riding. We are joined in the House today by 33

grade 10 students with their teacher, Mr. Jerome Francis. Would the House

please join me in making them feel very welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 57 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act, 2018.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 57, the Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2018. This bill amends a number of statutes under the

mandate of the Ministry of Attorney General. They include the Civil

Resolution Tribunal Act, Class Proceedings Act, Gaming Control Act and

Legal Profession Act.

The amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act continue to

make improvements to the act and make technical changes to the act in

order to clarify provisions and close potential loopholes.

Amendments to the Class Proceedings Act will change the way awards

and settlement funds are handled in class action lawsuits when the money

cannot be disbursed to the members of the class. With the exception of

lawsuits primarily affecting Indigenous people, the new process will

require at least 50 percent of undistributed funds to go to the Law

Foundation of B.C. so that they can be used to support access to

justice, which is a core principle of class proceedings.

Bill 57 makes three amendments to the Gaming Control Act to

address the intent of four recommendations made by Dr. Peter German’s

report on money laundering. These amendments provide new authorities to

the gaming policy and enforcement branch to begin the process of

creating a more independent regulator.

Amendments to the Legal Profession Act are intended to increase

access to legal services by expanding who may engage in the practice of

law. New legal service providers called “licensed paralegals” will be

governed by the legislative framework of the Legal Profession Act and

will be regulated by the Law Society of British Columbia. Amendments

will also clarify the interaction between the Legal Profession Act and

insurance legislation in respect of the Law Society’s insurance program,

both of these amendments coming at the request of the benchers of the

Law Society of B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. Trevena presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Passenger Transportation Amendment

Act, 2018.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation

Amendment Act. This bill proposes amendments to the Passenger

Transportation Act as well as substantive changes to seven other

statutes. The proposed changes deliver on our government’s commitment to

introduce legislation this session that, if passed, will support a

change in the passenger transportation sector of this province, the

enabling of commercial app-based ride-hailing.

App-based ride-hailing is where passengers hail and pay for trips

through the use of transportation network services, typically accessed

using their smartphones. We have learned from other jurisdictions, many

of which embraced the app-based ride-hailing without question or

regulation, that a well-balanced regulatory framework is necessary.

Without one, problems can arise that include gridlock on our streets, a

declining ridership on public transportation, exorbitantly high charges

to passengers, and accidents caused by unsafe or inexperienced

drivers.

It’s examples like these that have informed our approach to

modernizing passenger-directed vehicle service in this province and

created a made-in-B.C. solution. We believe the changes set out in this

bill strike the right balance between meeting consumer demand for more

services while establishing a modern regulatory framework that

prioritizes safety for British Columbians.

We’re eliminating regulatory overlap between municipal and

provincial governments that has plagued the passenger-directed vehicle

industry for years. We’re also laying the groundwork to enhance

compliance and enforcement and to protect the supply of accessible

vehicles as new ride-hailing services enter the market. Further changes

will allow for the development of the kind of insurance needed by the

app-based ride-hailing industry.

British Columbians have told us they want safe, affordable and

convenient transportation options. This bill marks a significant step in

laying the groundwork and ensuring such services will soon be available

to them.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 56 — OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Mungall presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 56, the Oil and Gas Activities

Amendment Act, 2018. The bill amends the Oil And Gas Activities Act to

support an equivalency agreement with the federal government regarding

methane regulations and to provide a legal framework for offsite

environmental mitigation.

The federal government, under the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act, is implementing regulations to reduce methane emissions

in the upstream oil and gas sector by 45 percent, by 2025.

Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the federal

regulations would apply in B.C. unless the province develops methane

regulations that the federal government determines are equivalent in

terms of emission reductions and passes legislation that allows the

public to request the investigation of alleged contraventions of methane

emission regulation and requires the Oil and Gas Commission to

investigate the alleged contraventions. The legislative amendments that

we are proposing will support a made-in-B.C. approach to methane

regulation by creating the necessary compliance mechanisms.

We are also looking to offset environmental mitigation for oil and

gas activities. The province is currently working to establish a plan to

achieve effective protection of boreal caribou under the federal Species

at Risk Act. An element of this plan is an offset policy which will

require permit holders to mitigate activities and impacts to habitat

within the operating area by treating and monitoring an area located

outside of the operating area.

This act is about protecting our air, land and water as well as

our wildlife habitat. These same standards need to apply all across the

country so that we remain equally competitive at the provincial

jurisdiction, as well as accountable, as we all work to reduce our

methane emissions and protect wildlife in the natural gas

sector.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 56, Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LOUIS RIEL DAY

S. Chandra Herbert: I wanted to draw the House’s attention to an important event that

occurred this last Friday. This last Friday, November 16, was proclaimed

Louis Riel Day here in British Columbia, a day to honour the man’s

memory, his

part in building Canada and his fight for human rights and,

of course, to honour and recognize all the Métis people here in British

Columbia as well.

Our Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance and Mme. President

Clara Morin-Dal Col of Métis Nation B.C. led a gathering here on the

front steps of the Legislature at sunrise to raise the Métis flag on

that flagpole to honour both Louis Riel and the Métis people.

It goes without saying that Louis Riel is both an important figure

and a controversial figure in Métis and Canadian history, but one that

we could all learn from. He was a political leader. He was a rebellion

leader. He was an inspiration for me at a young age after visiting

Batoche and learning about his work to support the Métis people against

incredible odds.

He was a champion for, of course, the Métis people’s rights and

culture, but many don’t know he also was a big supporter of a more

multicultural society that honoured and valued different religions and

different points of view and bilingualism, more than one language being

spoken in this country — something which, at the time, many did not

support. Today he is, of course, recognized as a founder of Manitoba and

a contributor to our confederation.

[1:55 p.m.]

Now, why November 16? Well, it was the sad day, November 16, 1885,

when Louis Riel was hanged by the federal government after the Northwest

Rebellion. The Métis people and many other Canadians saw then and still

see that action as a grave injustice, and each year, on that date, we

honour his memory.

Of course, it’s much more than honouring Louis Riel and what he

tried to achieve so many years ago. It’s about honouring the Métis

people here in our province and their incredible contributions each and

every day — and the ongoing need to work for human rights for us

all.

MULTICULTURALISM

T. Wat: As the most ethnically diverse province in Canada, British

Columbia is celebrating Multiculturalism Week this week. What makes this

year’s celebration so special is that it marks the 25th anniversary of

the Multiculturalism Act, which aims for more cultural understanding and

to create a society free from all forms of discrimination based on race,

religion, ethnicity, ancestry or your place of origin.

As the former minister of multiculturalism and the MLA for

Richmond North Centre, a very diverse community, supporting

multiculturalism is very dear to my heart. Every year around 40,000

immigrants arrive in British Columbia, and it is upon each and every one

of us to make them feel welcome and respected. Ignorance and hatred of

other cultures is one of the biggest obstacles to peace

today.

Let’s not forget that it was less than a month ago that 11 people

were killed during a gun attack at a Pittsburgh synagogue. The Jewish

community is an important part of our multicultural society. With my

deepest sorrow, I attended a Shabbat dinner at the Bayit synagogue in

Richmond to stand together with the community during a difficult

time.

Yesterday I joined a Holodomor commemoration anni­versary ceremony

outside of Vancouver Art Gallery to remember the victims of the

Holodomor and to reflect on the remarkable contribution of the Ukrainian

community to our province. We commemorated one of the darkest chapters

of human history, the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33.

Meantime, there is so much more work we need to do beyond healing

the wounds to ensure that violence and bigotry have no place in our

society.

Multiculturalism needs to be the cornerstone of education. Let’s

establish a climate of trust, enforce an environment where every British

Columbian can succeed regardless of their ethnic background and

culture.

WORLD DIABETES DAY

M. Elmore: World Diabetes Day is honoured on the 14th of November each year.

It marks the birthday of Dr. Frederick Banting, the Canadian who made

one of the most important strides in medical history, giving life to

millions of people who are diagnosed with diabetes. Together with his

colleagues at the University of Toronto, Dr. Banting co-developed

insulin as treatment for diabetes in 1922.

What they chose to do next was even more remarkable. In 1923, each

of the three researchers sold the patent rights to the University of

Toronto in exchange for $1 each in recompense. They wanted their

research to be used for the public good. They wanted this life-saving

medication to be available to everyone who needed it.

I am proud that our government has honoured the spirit of Dr.

Banting and his team. We’ve expanded the coverage of insulin pumps so

that any British Columbian with diabetes requiring one, no matter their

age, will have access under PharmaCare. In effect, we’re improving

affordability for those who need it most, helping to ensure that

low-income families can access the prescription medications they

need.

World Diabetes Day was created to highlight the importance of

taking action together to confront diabetes as a critical global health

issue. In B.C., there are about 1.4 million people currently living with

diabetes or prediabetes. I’m honoured to recognize World Diabetes Day

here today, and I am proud of the collective work that we are doing

alongside organizations like Diabetes Canada, the Juvenile Diabetes

Research Foundation, Young and T1, to make life better for those living

with diabetes.

RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES

AND

EVACUATIONS

J. Rustad: Imagine your son looking out the window and saying: “Dad, it looks

like a fire.” You look out and see flames leaping into the night sky,

getting closer as they move down a distant hill. The next morning most

of your neighbours have left, your home area is on evacuation order, but

you decide to stay and protect your property.

[2:00 p.m.]

Later that day an RCMP officer knocks on your door and asks

permission to access your dental records in case the worst happens. Down

the road others have decided to stay and sleep another night, nervously,

on their lake dock as the evening sky is full of smoke and light from

fires. Over the next few days, these neighbours had to leave twice, as

firefighters battled the flames across the road from their home, the

heat being so intense that it scorched the concrete barrier and their

business sign burst into flames.

In the next community, a church group kept their bible camp open

to house and feed firefighters. The ladies had prepared a hot meal for

the crew when the word came that the firefighters would be pulled out.

One of the firefighters commented that he will never forget the look in

the ladies’ eyes as the situation was deemed too dangerous for the

firefighters.

You’re running out of food and fuel. You’re not allowed to leave

for supplies. People who rely on generators to access information could

only run for an hour or less a day.

Some ranchers got caught taking a load of cattle out of the area

and not being allowed back in to get the rest. People were running the

blockade at night by boat, trying to get supplies. Others punched

through a makeshift road on the far side of the lake so that they could

sneak in and out.

The 2018 fires were a difficult time for many. Firefighters,

volunteers and first responders did their best, and everybody praises

their efforts. The good folks of Nechako Lakes hope that lessons can be

learned, and the people hope they never have to be under siege again to

choose to stay and protect their homes.

CHARACTER ABBOTSFORD AND

CHARACTER CANADA

ORGANIZATIONS

A. Olsen: Character Canada and Character Abbotsford are grassroots movements

aimed at sparking pride and ownership in each of its community members.

Whether you’re a business, school, government agency or non-profit, the

basic strategy is the same: inspire your people, identify your shared

values and integrate them everywhere. The organization works hard to

actualize its vision to build a community of character by inspiring

character, enabling leaders and influencing community.

The group is careful to establish that they are not the character

police or here to judge. They are not tied to any religious or political

group, nor do they exist to pressure people to be perfect. Rather, they

believe that it’s through living out our imperfections where true

character shines.

The Character Abbotsford board of directors, established in 2011,

have developed a Character Council of key community leaders who meet

five times per year. This group works together to influence change

through their annual youth forum, in which they host up to 500 students

from their established schools of character.

They have also hosted two national conferences entitled Character

Canada, which have both seen over 300 attendees from as far east as

Ontario. They’ve received formal recognition by character.org in

Washington, D.C., and have been nominated for two Fraser Valley

Diversity Awards. We feel confident this group is here to

stay.

For Character Canada, their job, simply put, is to encourage

character in their citizens, which, at the end of the day, leads to

smart, heart-centred choices and smart, heart-centred action. It’s that

easy. They have values that, I think, we can all agree on: respect,

responsibility, integrity, empathy, courage and service.

NORTH SHORE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

J. Thornthwaite: On November 3, I attended a fundraiser for North Shore Restorative

Justice, a cause I have long supported. Restorative justice focuses on

rehabilitation of an offender and reconciliation with victims, not on

punishment. It focuses on repairing harm, the potential for healing in

victims, meaningful accountability of offenders and preventing further

crime.

It is a voluntary process for both the victim and the offender,

and it will not work in all cases because the offender is required to

acknowledge or accept responsibility for their actions in order to

access the program. This is key. Accountability for the wrongs from the

perpetrator is required for it to work for those harmed.

Restorative justice varies widely from community to community but

could include mediation programs, restitution agreements, community

service, financial compensation and service to the victim. Research

shows restorative justice can be more efficient and cost-effective than

traditional justice systems and can reduce repeat offences. It helps us

recognize pain, take responsibility for the pain that was caused by

others and to move forward to repair that pain through restorative

justice.

Dr. Fania Davis, keynote speaker at the November 3 event and

co-founder and executive director of Restorative Justice for Oakland

Youth, gave some very telling statistics. Graduation rates and reading

levels rose while chronic absences and dropout rates reduced. Schools

with restorative justice saw a decrease in violence and teacher

attrition.

[2:05 p.m.]

North Shore Restorative Justice has been operating since 1997 and,

since 2013, launched Circle in Schools in many classrooms in West and

North Vancouver. Through storytelling, dialogue, games and activities,

students gain understanding of themselves and others. With this, they

develop stronger communities and deeper relationships.

One grade 4 student said: “I liked how we all got together and

said how we feel and that it’s super calm, unlike normal.” Another said:

“I had a great time making new friends and expressing my feelings. I got

to know what people are going through, which made me a better

person.”

I was happy to join many educators and school trustees and other

elected officials to hear about the benefits of restorative justice and

to support their valuable work in our schools and the

community.

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: I think we’re all aware that late last week the Premier decided to

intervene in the middle of the referendum in an attempt to reduce the

uncertainty in the eyes of voters. On a key issue that had been left to

a legislative committee to be determined after the referendum, he

decided to direct his MLAs to vote in a particular fashion when the

issue arose, effectively making the committee’s work

meaningless.

This was perhaps ill-advised. Certainly, the media rose to the

occasion on Saturday. The media quotes run along the following lines:

“Horgan’s Gaffe on Proportional Representation Could Be Costly.”

“Clumsy.” “Terrible Lack of Judgment.” “Incompetence.” “Amateurish.” And

perhaps harshest of all: “Boneheaded.”

The obvious question is: why did the Premier decide to interfere

in the middle of the referendum after hundreds of thousands of people

have sent in their ballots?

Hon. J. Horgan: Although I appreciate the recitation from the Leader of the

Opposition, I’m sure my mom thinks better of me than that. If I can’t

have affirmation from the Vancouver Sun editorial board, I

guess I’ll just have to endure that. I appreciate the member bringing it

to my attention.

But listen. When it comes to closed lists, it’s something that

I’ve been opposed to since I began this transformation from supporting

the old, outdated system that the member on the other side thought was

not good enough for his leadership race but good enough for the people

of B.C. I listened to the debate in this House.

The member that just spoke was late to participate, but I listened

to the member for Vancouver-Langara. He didn’t like closed lists. I

listened to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. He spoke several

times about closed lists. False-Creek, learned colleague at the end of

the row, spoke about closed lists, as did the member for Kelowna West,

the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the member for Penticton, the member for

Shuswap. The list goes on and on.

I consulted with my colleague the Leader of the Third Party. He

was against closed lists. I talked to my colleagues here. They were

against closed lists. A representative sample, which I’ve just

articulated here, on the other side was against closed lists. So here we

are in agreement. We shouldn’t have closed lists.

A. Wilkinson: We can see that the Premier, once again, is prepared to toy with

these citizens’ rights by making rulings unilaterally. This is grossly

inappropriate.

The Premier was asked questions during the debate on November 8

about the two dozen features that he has left as unknowns in this

referendum, leaving voters to guess what the outcome will be.

Will the Premier stand here today — in this quieter, more orderly

atmosphere than a television debate — and will he answer the most simple

questions: how many votes will a voter have, and how many MLAs will

there be in a riding?

Hon. J. Horgan: I say touché to the Leader of the Opposition. It is a quieter,

more calm opportunity to talk about the differences of opinion between

that side of the House and this side of the House.

As we know, those on that side like the system, unless it’s their

leadership race. If it’s for the people of British Columbia, they like a

system that was good enough for Churchill, good enough for Disraeli,

good enough for Gladstone.

[2:10 p.m.]

I think the people on this side of the House are looking to the

future. Young people, as the member well knows, are woke to this. They

know that pro rep is lit. They know that a new system that makes every

vote count is far superior to the old ways of Disraeli and

Gladstone.

Instead, we’re looking forward to a system that makes sure that

every vote counts. That’s what the young people want. That’s what people

who want to make sure their vote counts are looking for, and that’s what

this referendum is all about.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I suppose in the general atmosphere of this room, it’s fair to say

that I haven’t yet met anyone under the age of 30 who didn’t cringe at

the Premier’s use of the language. We know he has a team of really

groovy people working with him.

We now wait with bated breath for the Premier’s next ruling about

how the legislative committee is going to work after his proportional

representation referendum is finished.

I think the obvious question is: what’s next, Premier? Which is

the next issue you’re going to rule on — tell us how our democracy is

going to work — and take it out of the hands of citizens?

Hon. J. Horgan: I will just go back to the clone speech, the last gasp of the

former government when they said that they would have a referendum on

proportional representation. That’s exactly what we’re doing on this

side of the House. We’re asking the people of British Columbia to decide

whether they want to keep the old system that puts a whole bunch of

power in the hands of a few people or if they want to embrace a new

system that makes sure that every vote counts. If you get 40 percent of

the votes, you get 40 percent of the seats. It’s just that simple. I

think British Columbians understand that.

After an affirmative vote comes through at the end of the

referendum period, a legislative committee will be struck, and we will

work with Elections B.C., as we do every eight years or so, to determine

maps, to determine size of constituencies and to determine a whole host

of issues that the member wants us to articulate today.

Instead, I would prefer to say to the people of British Columbia:

“You can support the people on that side of the House who said,

‘First-past-the-post isn’t good enough for us, but it’s good enough for

you,’ or you can embrace the 21th century, like my good friend from West

Vancouver–Capilano. Get woke because pro rep is lit.”

S. Bond: Well, another day and another dodge from this Premier. For months

now, both inside this House and outside this House we’ve been asking

legitimate questions — asking this Premier to provide clarity about key

details about an issue that is as significant as changing electoral

reform in British Columbia.

Well, you can imagine our surprise when midway through the voting

period, the Premier changes the options — just like that, after

thousands of British Columbians had already cast their ballots. In a

show of extreme disrespect, this Premier stood up and said: “Well, I’m

just going to pull that option right off the table.” And it wasn’t just

that. The information that was sent to voters in their voter’s guide

actually included the option that the Premier suddenly decided to

remove.

How on earth does this Premier expect British Columbians to make

an informed decision when even their voter’s guide is suddenly made

irrelevant because of his spur-of-the-moment decision?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I know that the member is a long-standing member of this

House. She would have been paying rapt attention to her colleagues as

they stood in this place and condemned closed lists as an abomination of

democracy. So I don’t know what the problem would be, if we all agree in

this place that closed lists is not an appropriate course to take, that

we say so.

We’ve said so. Members on that side of the House were saying it

day after day after, whether it be Langara, whether it be False Creek or

Shuswap. Shuswap weighed in on closed lists. Again, I apologize to the

member for listening to her colleagues and taking direction from them

during debate in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

S. Bond: If the Premier had such a strong view about closed lists, then

maybe he should have started from that position instead of suddenly

changing his mind partway through the voting process.

Let’s be clear. There are dozens of critical issues, dozens of

critical details, that this Premier refuses to provide an answer for not

only in this House but to British Columbians. Now he merely expects

British Columbians to accept another promise? Let’s look at the string

of broken promises that this Premier has made.

First of all, he promised a simple yes-no. That didn’t happen. He

promised an independent process. That didn’t happen. He promised

regional thresholds. That didn’t happen either. It is time for this

Premier to step up, accept the responsibility for the mess that this has

turned into and provide some detailed answers.

I’m going to give the Premier a chance today. Since he’s been

listening to all of the concerns we’ve had, here’s one for him. My

constituents want to know, under one of the models on the ballot —

which, by the way, is not in use anywhere in the world — will their

riding and the communities in it be considered urban, semi-urban or

rural? There have been dozens of questions. He’s not answered it.

Today’s his chance.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member knows full well that even in this precinct as we sit

here today, constituencies change over time. I have been elected four

times — firstly, in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, a completely different

constituency that I started with to the one that I represent

today.

Over time, constituencies change. People move in. People move out.

The demographics shift. That’s been going on in British Columbia for

generations. That’s why an independent panel of boundary commissioners

get together, appointed by this place, to report back.

That is not new. It is not unusual. I do not know after the next

redistribution, even if we are saddled with the ancient system embraced

by that side, whether I’ll be representing Langford–Juan de Fuca,

Metchosin–Juan de Fuca or some other variation on that theme. The member

knows full well that’s the case, and so do her constituents.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

A. Weaver: In the span of just a few centuries, Earth has transitioned from a

past when climate affected the evolution of human societies to the

present, in which humans are affecting the evolution of the climate

system.

Today we are at a pivotal moment in human history. Our generation

will be responsible for deciding the path we take and the future climate

we’ll take along with us. As elected officials, we’ll either be

complicit in allowing climate change to despoil our world, or we can

lead the way and choose a different path.

Our provincial emissions have risen in four out of the last five

years. Every minister has a responsibility to ensure that tackling this

issue is within their mandate, as mitigating the impacts of climate

change requires an all-of-government approach.

Accounting for 7.2 million tonnes annually, mining and upstream

oil and gas production are the biggest contributors.

My question to Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

is this. What are the greatest climate change–

related risks and

opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared to deal

with them?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that for the member, this is a very, very important

issue that he’s very passionate about, and the work that he’s done with

this government to address climate change in our climate action

plan.

For this ministry, in particular, we have been looking at what we

can be doing as a new government to reduce our impact on climate change.

The list is quite long. I know that question period is the opposition’s

time, so I won’t try to list everything, but I’ll give the member a few

examples of some of the things that we’re doing.

A couple of weeks ago I was at UBC talking with architect students

about our new program called the better buildings B.C. program, where

we’re looking for innovative ideas in terms of how we can reduce our

emissions in our buildings throughout the province.

The member brought up, specifically, around mining, and oil and

gas. One of the things that this government did was we eliminated PST on

electricity for businesses. That includes the mining sector. That

includes the oil and gas sector. If they can electrify and move away

from oil and gas — diesel, for example — to generate the power that they

need to do their operations, we’re reducing our greenhouse gas emissions

quite significantly. Those are the types of opportunities that we’re

looking at.

[2:20 p.m.]

As the member will note, I also just introduced legislation to

reduce our methane emissions as well.

There’s lots that we are doing, and I look forward to being able

to brief the member fully at another time.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Well, I must say, given the scale of the challenge as well as the

scale of the opportunity, going and meeting a few people to discuss some

ideas is hardly taking advantage of this opportunity and meeting the

challenge. I remain quite disappointed in that response, so let me try

again.

The B.C. fires of the past two summers were no surprise to the

climate science community. Back in 2004, my colleagues and I published a

paper in Geophysical Research Letters pointing out that we

could already detect and attribute increasing areas burnt in Canadian

forest fires to human activity and, in particular, global

warming.

According to the B.C. wildlife service, this year was the worst on

record. Over 1.35 million hectares were consumed by forest fires. The

fires burned homes, endangered lives and released hundreds of megatonnes

of CO 2 . What’s happening in California is no surprise to the

climate science community, yet it appears to be a surprise to

politicians du jour.

We know that global warming will lead to an increased likelihood

of summer drought. This, in turn, will lead to more extensive wildfires.

We know that precipitation extremes will increase and that flooding

events will be on the rise. This threatens human health, ecosystems and

the economy.

While the members opposite are concerned about their survival as a

political entity, I’m sitting here asking the minister about the

political survival of all of our collective species.

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and

Rural Development, what are the greatest climate change-related risks

and opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared to deal

with both?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As my colleague mentioned, climate change is a considerable risk

for our province and planet, and we are committed to tackling it. The

member and the Leader of the Third Party asks, and I appreciate, the

question about opportunities and risks.

The risks are in forest systems and ecosystem resilience and

ensuring that, into the future, we have forest ecosystems that are

resilient to and can adapt to the climate change that we are seeing. We

are seeing it, certainly, in the forest fire situation. It’s had an

impact there. Large forest fires that we saw in the past two seasons

have had enormous impact on ecosystems. We’ve seen it even more recently

in the level 4 drought conditions in the areas that I represent up in

the northwest and unprecedented drought that has led to impacts on

fisheries resources. You’ve seen the pictures of the riverbeds,

extremely dry riverbeds — unprecedented.

We are working on mitigative measures. In June, we hosted the

first Wildfire and Climate Change Conference. A couple of topics it

focused on were creating more resilient ecosystems to better adapt to

climate change and mitigate wildfires and ensuring effective carbon

management. Part of that is our forest carbon initiative. That’s a $290

million federal-provincial initiative that’s focusing on incremental

reforestation and improving utilization of waste and reducing slash

burning.

Finally, in regards to the question as far as opportunities, we

also have long-term research trials, assisted migration and adaptation

trials to identify seed sources most likely to best adapt to future

climates. We’ve made important progress in 16 months, and we need to do

more.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

T. Stone: There remain dozens of details that have been left unanswered to

this point in this rushed sham of a referendum, and these details really

matter.

These are details that will inform how each of these proposed

systems would actually translate votes into representation. These are

details that would actually inform how many members would actually be

sitting in this chamber and how many would be elected under a

first-past-the-post component of a system and how many would be

appointed off of party lists. These details matter because they will

inform how vacant seats will be filled in this chamber.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’d like to give the Premier another opportunity to perhaps shed a

little bit more light on a few of the other unanswered questions. Maybe

he can provide us with what his direction will be on these items. In

Kamloops–South Thompson, my constituents want to know this.

To the Premier, in Kamloops and the surrounding area, how many

MLAs will continue to be elected directly by local voters, and how many

MLAs will be appointed off of party lists?

Hon. J. Horgan: Maybe the questioner didn’t hear the question from the previous

two questioners. We were talking about closed lists, which are anathema

to certainly us on this side of the House and some members on that side

of the House. So the answer is: all members will be elected by people to

this region. No region will lose representation. There will be an upper

limit on MLAs, and we will proceed from there.

The people have an opportunity to decide. Thank goodness we’re not

leaving it in the hands of the people over there, because one doesn’t

know what the other one is even talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, that’s not what it says in the Voter’s Guide .

That’s not what it says, Mr. Premier. It clearly states in each of the

proposed systems that 40 to 60 percent of the members of this House

would actually be appointed off of party lists, not elected directly by

local voters.

Now, we know that the Premier is prone to changing the goalposts

midstream in this referendum, which has happened on occasion, including

just the other day. But he is absolutely wrong to suggest that local

voters will elect all of the members to this chamber.

Now, the Premier will dictate dozens of details after the

referendum, details that will alter what actually happens to people’s

votes, details like: what defines an urban riding versus a rural riding?

How many MLAs will actually sit in this chamber? How will vacant seats

be filled? Will voters actually cast one vote or two votes on their

ballot?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has the

floor.

T. Stone: The list goes on. And the Premier sits and says all of the time

that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will determine all of this. No,

they won’t. The Electoral Boundaries Commission will determine the

boundaries of the ridings once they’re informed by a legislative

committee on all of the other details.

My question….

Interjections.

T. Stone: It’s great that they take such pleasure in knowing that all of

these details will be decided after the referendum and not before so

that British Columbians can make an informed decision.

My question, again, is a very simple question. It’s a basic detail

that British Columbians should know as they’re voting in this

referendum, and that is this. To the Premier, how will a vacant seat be

filled in this chamber under one of the forms of prop rep, and can the

Premier please tell the people of Kamloops–South Thompson if their

riding will be urban or rural under each of the prop rep

systems?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, first the question misrepresents the Voter’s Guide ,

and then it goes into: “There’s not enough details. I need more

details.” Now I’m supposed to determine before the people of British

Columbia have exercised their choice how we’re going to fill vacancies.

I don’t know if this is in reference to…. If this, hon.

Speaker….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Oh hey, wait for it, folks.

Perhaps it’s because Jordan Bateman has said that if pro rep comes

in, the Liberal party will come apart and there will be by-elections all

over the place. I can appreciate the member’s concern, because that

member will go, that member will go, that member will go, and all of a

sudden we’ll have a conservative party in British Columbia again without

a shot being fired, as they say.

Listen. I appreciate that those on that side of the House want to

instill fear into the hearts of British Columbians that somehow

proportional representation is a nefarious system that denies people

rights. Dozens and dozens and dozens of countries have been using

proportional representation for decades and decades, and the world still

goes on. The sun comes up. Progressive governments are elected. They do

good deeds for their citizens. That’s exactly what will happen

here.

[2:30 p.m.]

I appreciate that those on that side of the House will now have to

work with other people. Now, there’s a challenge, but we’re figuring out

that it’s okay. We can work with anybody. I’m even working with Liberals

by joining them and saying no to closed lists.

M. Stilwell: We didn’t get any answers from the Premier during the debate. He

couldn’t answer. He’s not really giving any answers today here in the

House when we’re asking questions about the referendum.

Let’s try this. Because of the flawed ballot design with the

referendum and no threshold requirements, it may actually be that just

10 percent of the population ultimately chooses the system that will be

imposed on every single British Columbian. When it comes to important

decisions, even curling clubs require a 75 percent majority vote. But

there is no elevated threshold or turnout requirements for this

referendum.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, may we hear the question. Thank you.

M. Stilwell: To the Premier, why isn’t there a higher threshold

requirement?

Hon. J. Horgan: I am advised that over 21 percent of voters have already sent

their ballots in. I’m very, very much encouraged by that. As we go

through the final two weeks of the campaign, if the fearmongers on the

other side would instead embrace participation, we’re going to get an

even higher turnout.

Look, no one says, when a mayor or a council is elected across

British Columbia…. I am advised the average turnout for municipal

campaigns is about 25 percent. No one says they’re illegitimate after

that. They call them the mayor and councillors.

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: It’s not exactly an equal analogy, but even the Nanaimo Pickleball

Club….

Interjection.

M. Stilwell: It’s called democracy, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We shall hear the question. Thank you.

M. Stilwell: The Nanaimo Pickleball Club and the B.C. Old Time Fiddlers

Association both have a 75 percent threshold for change. Even the B.C.

NDP has a constitution that requires a two-thirds majority threshold —

their own party.

Why is the Premier so afraid to say that we need such a strong

mandate to have such a fundamental change in our democracy?

Hon. J. Horgan: The Leader of the Opposition said 40 percent was fine. People have

different opinions on what’s fine. We’ll have to see what happens when

the votes come in.

This is the part that troubles me. We have 87 people in this

Legislature, 87 people sent here by their constituents. I would think

that if we’re having a debate around ideas, rather than say, “I don’t

like where this semicolon is on the question,” the people on that side

of the House would instead stand and try and defend the indefensible, a

system that gives 100 percent power to less than 50 percent of the

voters.

It’s a system that in New Brunswick…. Bless New Brunswick. A party

got 38 percent of the vote and got fewer seats under first-past-the-post

than the party that got 32 percent. How do you defend that? What’s

democratic about that?

If you don’t like proportional representation, I get it. But for

the love of all of us here and the citizens of British Columbia, why in

the world won’t you defend first-past-the-post? Your party wouldn’t use

it. Why are you forcing British Columbians to use it?

J. Thornthwaite: The member for Cowichan Valley has said: “We saw a 50 percent

turnout in the Vancouver referendum on transit. We would like to see

something at least comparable to that.”

Does the Premier agree with his Green partners that legitimacy

requires voter turnout of 50 percent?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m glad that members on that side of the House are

referring to the Green Party and to government members. I would suggest

that the member talk to her leader, who said 40 percent would be about

right. There are differences of opinion on this question.

[2:35 p.m.]

I would encourage all members to talk to their constituents and

encourage them to cast their ballot either in favour of the system that

continues to allow them to come to power or a system that will allow

every vote to count. That’s the choice before British Columbians. It’s

not that difficult.

I would suggest a better course of action is to say to your

citizens: “Make a commitment to democracy, fill out your ballot, send it

in, and then we’ll all have the turnout we want. We’ll get the result

that the people of British Columbia want. I think, at the end of the

day, that’s what all 87 of us want to see.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: But Premier, yourself…. You have said: “Changing our system at a

time when only a quarter of voters turn out is never a good idea, and I

would question the validity of the results.” That is quoted from the

Premier.

Why is this Premier afraid to say what turnout is required for

this referendum to be legitimate?

Hon. J. Horgan: I want all British Columbians to participate, and I know the

member does as well. So instead of hectoring back and forth here in

question period, why don’t we all make a commitment to each other to go

home tonight, talk to anyone that we can in our constituency and

encourage them to cast a ballot?

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Oh, I go home. I live here. But I’m coming back again tomorrow.

Well, you’ve got time on your hands, hon. Members. Phone home. Talk to

people, and encourage them to vote.

Instead of the fear, let’s have some hope. That’s what we’re doing

on this side of the House. I welcome you to join us.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. James: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present

reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, on all amounts borrowed

by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the honour of presenting the 2017-2018 annual report of the

Islands Trust. The report underlines the wide range of activities and hard

work of the Islands Trust and the Islands Trust Fund Board, now known as the

Islands Trust Conservancy Board, in managing development, sustaining

communities and protecting ecosystems in this unique and special part of

British Columbia.

Notably, this year the trust fund reached an important milestone of

103 protected places, totalling 1,270 hectares of natural and cultural

values, with the establishment of the Fairyslipper Forest Nature Reserve on

Thetis Island and the Settlement Lands Covenant on Denman Island.

I greatly appreciate the ongoing dedication of the trust staff and

elected officials in fulfilling the legislative purpose of preserving and

protecting the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the

benefits of residents and of all British Columbians.

I’d also like to recognize the trust’s commitment to focusing its

approach for improved relations with the many First Nations with interests

in the lands and waters of the trust area. In seeking to move beyond

formality and having meaningful interactions with First Nations that are

rooted in a sincere and genuine relationship of mutual respect, the trust is

helping to advance reconciliation.

Petitions

D. Routley: I would like to present a petition. It’s titled “Stop the wolf cull.

B.C.’s wolves need our help.”

It’s not usual order that I would ask something like this, but I’d ask

the members to give some applause to young Keala up in the gallery who put

together this amazing petition and campaign.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the following

reports.

Merit Performance Audit 2017-18, Upholding Fair Hiring in the BC

Public Service , from the Office of the Merit

Commissioner.

Secondly, Time to Listen: Youth Voices on Substance Abuse ,

November 2018, from the Representative for Children and Youth.

Thirdly, Annual Report 2017-2018 from the Office of the

Police Complaint Commissioner.

Finally, Annual Report 2017-18 and Service Plan, 2018-19 to

2020-21 from Elections B.C.

R. Sultan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: Earlier today a constituent from West Vancouver–Capilano toured the

precinct. Jackie Smith is one of those constituents who is a frequent

communicator on a huge variety of topics, and seldom a day goes by that she

does not express her opinion to me.

[2:40 p.m.]

She was visiting with her grandson Thomas Dignum, who is checking out

Victoria and the University of Victoria as a place to study. Would the House

say we were glad to have them here.

Hon. R. Fleming: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. R. Fleming: The petition is compiled by KAIROS, the Canadian ecumenical justice

initiative that calls upon federal, provincial and territorial governments

in consultation and collaboration with survivors, Aboriginal peoples and

educators to make age-appropriate curriculum on residential schools,

treaties and Aboriginal peoples’ historical and contemporary contributions

to Canada for students, kindergarten through grade 12. There are thousands

of signatures on this petition, and I will present it to the

House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 52; and in Committee

A, I call committee stage on Bill 49.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 52 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

D. Barnett: I’m pleased to stand today to speak again to Bill 52, entitled

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. It was great to have the

opportunity to go to my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin last week for a

few days after this bill was presented in the House and have the

opportunity to talk to the Tatla Lake Cattlemen’s Association, which

consists of many, many ranchers from the Chilcotin. They are very

concerned about the changes once again to the Agricultural Land Reserve

Act. It always affects them, yet nobody ever talks to them before the

changes are made.

These changes are going to have some effects on these ranchers who

have struggled so much in the past few years — struggled with fires,

struggled with predators and predator control. We talk about culling

wolves. We are not culling wolves; we are protecting animals. The amount

of cattle that have been destroyed or maimed in the Chilcotin and

Cariboo over the past few years by predators is unprecedented, and it

gets worse every day.

They are concerned about removing the two zones. There are

concerns about the guidelines of soil replacement or placement, because

there is no definition. The only thing that I could tell them at the

meeting was that we will be asking the questions of the minister when we

have the opportunity later this week. I will certainly make sure that

their questions are asked of the minister so I may take them back to

them.

Ranching is not easy anywhere — and in particular, in areas like

the Cariboo-Chilcotin, where land is very, very delicate in being

agriculture land. Grasslands are tough, and these days, things are

getting tougher. The more regulations, the more legislation and the more

changes that are continuously made every time there’s a new government

put in, it appears, the people get forgotten, and that is so

important.

[2:45 p.m.]

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will thank you for the opportunity and

thank my colleagues who are here making presentations today. I will turn

the floor over to my colleague, who I am sure has some great

responses.

R. Coleman: I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill 52.

I will probably ramble, Mr. Klein, so you should be aware of that

as you go through your afternoon. I have spoken to my critic, and if I

ramble past 30 minutes, I won’t stop. I’ll just continue until I’m

completed, because evidently there is time if I want it. It all depends

on how much heckling I get from the other side, particularly the member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who usually gets me going to the

point….

Every summer my family would travel out to my great-grandfather’s

farm in Condor, Alberta, from Penticton, British Columbia, and I got to

learn a little bit about farming from my great-grandfather and my

cousins across the road. They taught me how to ride a horse. I’d ride

into Condor, where you could get a 15- to 20-cent haircut. It didn’t

mean that it was quality, but it was cheap. Bright and early — that’s

where I learned to ride a horse. Obviously, the business of farming was

discussed around the kitchen table.

As a young man, my second job, after my paper route, was I picked

fruit for two summers in the Okanagan. I picked cherries, apricots,

peaches, pears and apples.

I’ll never forget the first time I finished picking my second day

of cherries, because the first thing you had to learn was that you can’t

actually pull the cherry off the tree; you’ve got to pick it at the

stem. Otherwise, the tree doesn’t produce many cherries next year. You

had to learn that. But I can tell you that after two days of doing that,

you close your eyes at night to go to sleep and all you see are the

stems of cherries.

Also, it gave me a real understanding and appreciation for those

people that have spent their lives, frankly, building farming in British

Columbia and generationally changing how our food is produced, and how

those two types of things can change a person’s perception. It’s hard

work.

Now, the worst fruit that you can pick, by the way, is peaches,

because they have fuzz, just like on insulation. It’s pretty itchy at

the end of every day when you pick peaches.

After that, I actually harvested potatoes. When I wasn’t working

as an RCMP officer, I had a farmer who was short of people, so I went up

and harvested potatoes up near Rosemary, Alberta. Just so everybody will

understand exactly where that is, it’s about six miles due west of

Duchess, Alberta, which is ten miles north of Brooks, Alberta. You’re

getting closer to where you might understand where that is, right? It’s

somewhere about 115 miles due east of Calgary and 69 miles from Medicine

Hat.

It was really interesting because the gentleman, who was an

Oriental gentleman, who owned the farm at the time taught me a lot about

farming — the way he talked about how that potato goes from here to

here. And, of course, we had an Old Dutch potato chip plant there, so we

actually got to go see how potato chips were made. It’s just a little

bit of context to my remarks as I go through it.

I have been very gifted in my time in this House to have met some

remarkable people in and around agriculture. The first two gentlemen

were two gentlemen by the names of Jim Shield and Dick Sendal. Now, Jim

and Dick were both chicken farmers, and the interesting thing about it

was…. This was back in ’96 when I met those guys. Unfortunately, both of

them have passed away since that time. They were very generous with

their time, to explain supply management, the background to it and the

reason there is supply management in the management of agriculture in

B.C.

A lot of people have this misconception about it. They think it’s

protecting of markets and protecting of price. But supply management

actually came into force in British Columbia and in Canada because

farmers weren’t getting paid. Farmers were going broke. They had to pay

their feed supplier, but they wouldn’t get paid for their product when

it arrived, whether it would be the dairy or whether it would be at the

place where they actually process the chickens — the chicken processors

— or the turkeys or whatever the case may be. So they made a pretty

strong case for supply management.

There are benefits to that type of agricultural product being

managed here, and I have concerns about whether the move on the North

American free trade deal is actually good for our food production in

Canada.

[2:50 p.m.]

You will notice that the poultry has a different colour down in

the United States in some areas, because of the amount of corn that is

fed to them versus the other type of feed that we may be using in

Canada. The quality of chicken is different, if you actually try and

taste it, going to certain areas of the U.S.

The reality is that we want to make sure our food supply is

protected, and we want to be able to react in periods of time when there

may be certain concerns within the food supply.

I’ll give you an example of that. Back a number of years ago, we

had the avian flu. We actually had to put down 19 million chickens to

try and save the stock, to actually save the product, and it had to be a

collaboration with the federal government, the provincial government and

the producers. Because the producers were in supply management and had

worked together and knew each other, they could get in a room and try

and find solutions together. They weren’t actually trying to play off

what their own special interests were but rather what the future was, in

particular, for the production of chickens in British

Columbia.

After many tries at different things, like taking chickens to an

old mine up in Princeton, to basically incinerating them — because you

had to get rid of them, to try and use an incinerator in Burnaby — we

were sitting there one day, and we had this big problem: “We need to

stop the avian flu before it crosses the Vedder. We need to get this

thing under control.”

Because the heads were together in one room, I remember asking the

question. I said: “What temperature do you have to get to, to kill the

flu?” I got an answer to the question. Then I said: “What temperature

does compost get to in an Ag-Bag?” Do you know what an Ag-Bag is?

They’re great, big, long bags where they put in waste and other things

to compost. Well, it gets up to a temperature higher than is needed to

kill the avian flu.

Because there was collaboration with people around the table, it

was solved by simply taking the avian flu–sick chickens, putting them in

Ag-Bags with the other stuff that comes from the chicken, like the waste

and what have you, and six months later you had topsoil. If you hadn’t

had cooperation as a result of people being concerned in that particular

business, I don’t think you would have got to that solution. You’d still

be talking about how we lost the chicken population in British

Columbia.

Now, there’s another piece of that story that I think is important

to recognize when it comes to agriculture in British Columbia. On that

particular file, because of the management of the resource and the

relationship, I think, and the size and volume that could affect people

and jobs and, obviously, the supply of food in Canada, the government of

Canada stepped up and paid a certain amount per chicken as compensation

to the people that were losing their crop.

It’s important to say that, because I had somebody tell me a story

the other day about a rancher that was taking eight of his cows to

market up in the Cariboo. Some of the cows died on the way to the

slaughterhouse, and the others could not be processed because of the

damage to their lungs from smoke from the fires in the Cariboo. Nobody

has offered that rancher any compensation for something that was out of

his control, yet the avian flu wasn’t in the control of the poultry

farmer.

It’s important to understand the difference as we get into a

conversation in and around this particular act because, quite frankly,

there was a reason people worked on zone 1 and zone 2, which this

legislation gets rid of. If you’re a farmer in the Fraser Valley and you

need to get your tractor fixed, there are multiple mechanics and

services around the capacity and the size of farming that you can get

that done. If you need a vet in a hurry, you can get a vet in a hurry.

There are veterinarians, obviously, because there’s population and

activity on the farm base.

If you’re in an area like the Okanagan Valley and you’re in the

winery business, you can have a bistro, you have farm-gate sales, and

you have an industry that’s been built around the tourism side for you

to actually sell your product, direct delivery. It helps you with your

profitability and your cash flow so you can continue to farm your winery

in the Okanagan Valley. There’s nothing you can do like that in the

Cariboo and the north.

[2:55 p.m.]

One thing I learned in Brooks, Alberta back then — because I got

to know some of the farmers — was that we had two types of farmers in

that area. They had diverted the river, created Lake Newell and an

aqueduct, so there were dry-land and wetland farming. Well, a dry-land

farmer just basically lives by the weather, lives by whether they get

enough rain at the right time, get enough heat at the right time or

their crop grows or gets damaged by frost or whatever the case may be;

whereas a wetland farmer who’s got irrigation can grow a better yield,

simply because they can actually water their crop and have more control

about how that crop can be delivered.

You can do that in the Fraser Valley. There’s drip irrigation for

raspberries, strawberries and blueberries. It’s not so easy to do in the

Cariboo, where you have thousands and thousands of acres without water.

You have land that can’t actually produce a crop. So if you’re a

rancher, you have to find some area where you can actually grow some hay

to feed your cattle after they’ve grazed during the months.

It’s important to understand that these folks don’t have the same

services. They don’t have the services at their doorstep with

veterinarians. They don’t have the services at their doorstep for fixing

equipment. In some cases, they’re 40, 50 minutes or maybe two hours from

town. There’s nothing there, yet if they try and do something

alternative to actually try and increase their revenue so they can

actually stay on the farm, they can’t.

The whole idea of the zone 2 is to recognize that there are two

zones in British Columbia: one where it’s very productive and farmers

can actually continue to farm, and an area where it’s difficult and it’s

tough, and it takes commitment of the farmer. The challenge is what

happens in the next generation. The next generation of farmer is having

difficulty even considering whether they can farm or not, especially if

they’re outside of the Lower Mainland.

I have a friend that has 500 head of cattle in Hedley. It’s a

challenge. He can grow the hay, but he has the range area that he has to

have these cattle on over a period of time. If he wanted to have a

little store for having some of the product that he might be able to

produce from his cows for sale on the roadside, he can’t have it. He is

restricted because the rules around butcher shops — relative to where

they can be and can’t be and how they’re regulated and changed — put

them in a situation where they cannot get value-added for their product,

their cow, yet they’re expected to maintain that farm and pay its

operations and continue on.

In the West Kootenay, it’s a significant challenge. I’d like to

quote from something that was actually sent to the Agricultural Land

Commission on one of the presentations that was made with regard to the

East Kootenays and farming. Now, the lady that wrote it — her name is

Faye Street. She was born and raised in agriculture, and if you’ve met

Faye, you know she’s deeply committed to agriculture.

I think she has a point here, and I’d like you to work some

figures with me as I give you a small example to drive home the message

that the urgent situation we face is not regarding the disappearance of

agricultural lands but the critical loss of agricultural producers.

Faye’s biggest concern is that we’ll lose the farmer altogether and that

the agricultural land just won’t be agricultural land.

“If we took the meridian of Highway 2 between Calgary and Edmonton,

which is 185 miles and approximately 500 feet wide” — I’ve driven that

highway; I’m sure a lot of you have — “with a generous estimation that

at least 70 percent of it is usable — overpasses and river crossings,

canyons, etc., excepted — of the 11,200, there’s 7,850 acres of land,

just in the meridian.

“Potatoes yield, table grade, approximately 12 tonnes per acre, so

that is 94,000 tonnes of spuds that would’ve been able to be grown on

that land. If we assume a generous average of 40 pounds of spuds per

person per year, we can feed 4.7 million people with the

Calgary-to-Edmonton meridian.

“Now, let’s talk about how many farmers and ranchers we are losing

on a daily basis due to old age, economics and how few of our young

agriculture folk–raised people are not coming into the industry. The

East Kootenay agriculture stats are actually staggering, and the

reduction in new farmers and the farmers being closed down are

staggering.

[3:00 p.m.]

“This is a concern, because we only need to look at the increase of

food prices, the decrease in the number of mother cows, the decline in

pork producers, etc., to know that it is a series of problems for our

agriculture industry, the industry that provides good-quality, clean and

healthy food for many very lucky people to live in this great province

of ours.

“There’s a concern, because if you cannot have an alternative way to

actually support your farm in rural British Columbia, people will leave

the farm and not farm, and we end up with zero. People don’t have the

opportunity to have farm-gate sales. They don’t have the opportunity to

actually get the yield off the land, yet we tell them to keep doing it

and continue to restrict their ability to do anything.

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask, if we want to somebody to farm

thousands of acres of land for wheat or barley or other products, that

we would allow them to have some additional activities on the

agricultural land that would actually help them to keep their farm and

bring in some extra revenue. Some of these operations are just to pay

the bills, just so they can continue to farm and provide agricultural

products for us in British Columbia and elsewhere. Some of the

suggestions that they made are welding shops, carpentry shops, a

portable sawmill, a parking and repair shop for industrial equipment

that is owned by the rancher or farmer.

“Imagine this, now. In an area up in northern B.C., where you might

be able to do some work in the oil patch, you can’t park your trucks on

your farm. You could have thousands of acres up there, and you can’t

park on your farm, yet without that increase of that other income, the

farm goes by the wayside and the next generation can’t afford to do

it.”

The question that Faye asked at the time was: what parameters

should be allowed around these uses? First of all, that they don’t

locate on prime, food-producing land. That’s pretty logical. Why would

you take a food-producing piece of property and then park equipment or

something on it? We’re going to get to that in a minute, when we talk

about some greenhouses I want to chat about, though.

At the same time, the whole purpose of the legislation is to

support and enhance agriculture. When the ALC becomes a detriment to

future agriculture, it’s time to do some serious rethinking. We’re not

doing that in this bill. We’re actually retrenching backwards. We’re

ignoring the fact that we will start to lose agriculture in rural

British Columbia.

Faye wanted to really encourage people to think about those

opportunities for people going forward with regard to

agriculture.

Now, I have another little twist that I was given about this

particular issue. I want to bring this one into the record because I met

this gentleman. He’s one of my constituents, and he had a pretty good

point. He did make a presentation to the Agricultural Land Commission

consultation on this bill, but this wasn’t taken into consideration in

the bill. He asks this: “Imagine what the Lower Mainland and Fraser

Valley would be like if all forested lands were cleared for agriculture

production or housing. With the current ALC review being carried out, we

have seen newspaper articles espousing that all lands on the ALR should

be used for farming, and for heavily taxed lands in the ALC that are not

currently being farmed.”

Now, that’s the second point. It’s his major point — for heavily

taxing lands that are not currently being farmed. He happens to believe

that wetlands and forest areas around the urban area are important and

sometimes as important, if not more important, for the environment than

farming of every last piece of land in the ALR.

“Looking at Google Earth view, the Lower Mainland and the Fraser

Valley as it stands, proportionately, there are very few forested areas

left between Delta and Agassiz.

“This family is unique. We’re in a unique situation because the land

that we own has been in the family since 1953, when our parents, Beryl

and Roy Moore, purchased the land. In 2007, there was a 3.5-acre

homesite severance for our parents, and we kept the remainder. When the

property was initially purchased, there was a small raspberry farm on

what was now the homesite severance. A small portion of the land was

used for raising pigs until the late ’80s, when it became burdensome for

our recently retired parents.

“A majority of the land remains as it was when it was purchased in

1953, a diverse and burgeoning forest. There’s about eight to 12 acres

of property that is bog or marsh, perfectly suited for supporting the

diverse ecosystem of the forest and the water of the Hopington aquifer

and a tributary of McInnis Creek.”

This, by the way, is a spawning creek. The Hopington aquifer — if

anybody knows about aquifers — is a very significant and important

aquifer in the Fraser Valley.

[3:05 p.m.]

“I’m writing to bring notice to the situation we find ourselves in.

With the current ALR/ALC review, there have been a few ideas floated

about how to combat speculation on farmland and make sure the farmland

is being used.

“We’re in a unique situation where the land has been kept intact and

forested, allowing refuge for wildlife, providing nutrients for plants,

animals and fish and also the carbon storage, a small but vital part of

combating global warming. We want to make sure that our property and

others in the ALR that are forested are recognized as unique and vital

to diverse-climate ecosystems and aquifers.”

They want to do that not just for the sequestration of carbon but

to let people know and understand that they’ve kept this land. They

could clear the trees, plant something, affect the watersheds and get

enough of a small amount of revenue to get farm taxes on their property.

They just would like the consideration that some people who are actually

trying to protect the environment, as well, should not be overly taxed

because they happen to not be farming a piece of land that isn’t so much

farmable but is actually giving another benefit to the

environment.

Their biggest concern, when they made their presentation to the

committee, was that — that if we’re going to tax people who don’t farm

farmland, then make sure we’re talking about people whose land doesn’t

have another benefit to the environment or to our future.

Now, the commission has a difficult job, and sometimes they kind

of miss the boat. Recently, they put a stop-work order on a farm of 16

acres that was actually going to go back into production. The bees had

been ordered to actually have a honeybee farm. The plants had been

ordered, a greenhouse for a small area of the property, plus some other

plants. They were going to go back into production.

The Agricultural Land Commission decided to put a stop-order on

the property because somebody complained that they’d brought in some

fill. The fill was the gravel crush to create the driveway to get to the

barn and the property to actually farm it. It wasn’t doing anything else

but that.

This is where I think the commission sometimes misses the boat,

because they’re still fighting over this — probably $50,000 in legal

fees on my constituent’s side. All of these things were approved through

the local government and through consultations with the Agricultural

Land Commission. I think we have to understand it. That’s important to

understand, because, at the same time as this happens to one of my

constituents, I can point you to a six-acre piece of land that was

filled four feet by fill.

Complaints and calls went to the Agricultural Land Commission over

the years. These guys got tipping fees for the dump that was put on the

land. Then they top-filled a little bit of it, and they grew blueberries

there. But they actually never got an enforcement order — they never,

ever went out after these guys — in spite of the fact that the

commissioners of the day said: “We have to do something about

dumping.”

This particular property has one of the largest homes I’ve ever

seen in my life, today, in the agricultural land reserve. What it tells

people is: “Go ahead. Try and bring a farm into production. My goodness

gracious, go ahead and dump fill that’s got rebar and drywall and other

stuff in it over here, but if you want to make your driveway, we’re

going to come after you.” This is where the balance has got to start

coming back into this thing with regard to the commission and how it

does its business.

I want to read a

section of

an act, if I can put my hands on it. I

want to talk for a few minutes about greenhouses and the situation we’re

facing with regard to marijuana, which will lead me into my discussion

about house sizes, generational housing, other uses of property and how

to get the next generation to farm. In south Aldergrove, near the

border, there’s an 800,000-square-foot greenhouse. The greenhouse is

growing marijuana. Frankly, it stinks. It’s a regular series of

complaints through my office and into the community with regard to the

production of marijuana.

[3:10 p.m.]

Now, I couldn’t get the attention of this company when I phoned

them a couple of times to tell them I wanted to talk to them about this

issue. Therefore, what I did was I actually wrote to the Minister of

Justice, the Solicitor General of the province, the Attorney General of

B.C. and the minister responsible for cannabis federally to point them

section 85 of the federal legislation. I want to read

section 85 of

the federal legislation because this is going to clearly and concisely

tell you what these guys should or should not be doing.

This is

section 85 of the regulations. “The building or part of

the building where cannabis is produced, packaged, labelled and stored

must be equipped with a system that filters air to prevent the escape of

odours.”

I know the government is aware of this. I know the federal

government is now aware of it, but nobody is enforcing this regulation.

So let me tell you how they try and do it. As their plants become more

mature and humidity builds up in the thing, they open up the vents in

the top of the greenhouse, which releases this odour. Having dealt with

odours before, whether it be complaints about chicken or mink or turkey

or pork or whatever in the agricultural land reserve, I think it’s

important to realize that this one is worse. It really is something bad.

But this particular situation exists in South Aldergrove.

Let me tell you how they’ve been trying to solve the problem. They

have these giant fans and buckets and barrels of a Febreze-type product.

What they do is they turn these fans on. They’re not particularly quiet,

and they spray the Febreze into the air so they can mask the smell of

the marijuana coming out of the top of the greenhouse. But let me tell

you it doesn’t work. It just makes it smell sweet-smelling. Same smell —

marijuana.

The reason I bring that up here is this is 800,000 square feet —

16.8 acres of land under glass in one location. Just one location. Now,

that’s a lot of acreage under glass. Yet, some guy that’s got thousands

of acres up in the Cariboo can’t have a welding shop on a piece of the

property that isn’t usable for growing anything. But it goes way beyond

that. One company alone has three million square feet to grow under

glass, which is 68 acres of land growing marijuana.

Now, my colleague from Delta can tell you that one of those

particular grow operations is in Delta. If I’m not mistaken, it’s

probably one of the largest, if not the largest, greenhouse in British

Columbia at about 1.2 million square feet. They’ve got Febreze too.

They’re blowing their fans, and throwing their Febreze into the air and

going on with this stuff to the detriment of everybody that lives in the

area.

The irony of the one in Aldergrove is that the guys that work the

border crossing, both the American and U.S. border-crossing guys, have

actually complained to me about the smell of the operation at the border

crossing. If you drive across O Avenue, 8th Avenue or 16th Avenue in

Langley, you’re going to smell it.

But the regulation says they can’t do that. It’s really clear.

It’s really clear because it states, right in the federal regulation:

“…must be equipped with a system that filters air to prevent the escape

of odours.”

Now, I realize the decision was made by the Agricultural Land

Commission and under the act, as a recommendation, that cannabis would

be an agriculture product. I get that. No different than wisteria would

have been for flowers or whatever the case may be. But the federal act

is very clear.

At the same time, there are people who have bought and changed

greenhouses in my area of the community, one at 250,000 square feet,

where they don’t have to open up any vents. They’ve actually done the

screening so they can have it enclosed. They don’t have to have the

greenhouse vents open. They can handle the smell. Frankly, those are

people that I would call responsible companies and citizens.

[3:15 p.m.]

At the 800,000-square-foot property down in South Aldergrove,

there’s a 60,000-square-foot building being built. It’s bigger than most

of the buildings that are in the Gloucester Industrial Park. It’s under

construction today. It got in under the rules that the government got

around to changing last summer and is actually going to be the largest

industrial building south of the….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Coleman: I’m the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: There you go.

R. Coleman: It will be the largest….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: I have no intention of doing two hours. Well, I could go back and

redo it from the beginning.

The reality is this. Let’s get down to the reality. This will be,

from the No. 1 Highway south to the American border, around the 264

corridor, the largest industrial building in the area, and it’s on

farmland. It’s on arable farmland. It used to be able to grow

strawberries, and it used to be able to grow blueberries. Across the

street from the land is actually a blueberry farm.

The guy who owns the blueberry farm — imagine when he woke up and

found out. One day he had the guy who was growing peppers and cucumbers

across from him. But all of a sudden, he was going to bed every night

with a stink, because it was changed to a different product and did not

and still does not conform to the federal regulation.

We’re going to have this big industrial building. We allow a

50,000- to 60,000-square-foot industrial building, 800,000 square feet

under glass, and then we turn our attention, for whatever reason, to

attack the generational farmer. That’s what this is about.

You see, in this act, they decide what the size of a home should

be on agricultural land. Now, I get the reason. I’ve got these in my

riding. I’ve got people on five acres that have literally built

mansions, who actually get some farm taxes because they raise a few

horses and they do enough to sell to get enough revenue that they can

actually say they’re farming, who are there because they want an

estate.

There are a whole bunch of farmers in the Fraser Valley, over in

Delta, even out through Abbotsford and into Chilliwack who are what we

call generational farmers.

Two of them — I’m calling them generational — are friends of mine.

They came to see me, and they asked me this question. Both of them are

South Asian gentlemen, originally from the Punjab, whose families came

over here and lived three, four families to a house while they picked

fruit and built enough equity to get a little bit of land to start

farming themselves. They started to grow as a family and build a

generational farm over time. They want to know what they’ve done wrong.

That’s what they want to know.

This is what they said to me. They said: “Rich, we have a house

that’s more than 5,000 square feet. But in our culture, we actually care

for our elderly parents at home. We have space in our home so those

folks can not have to go into care. They can be with their children and

their grandchildren — in some cases, their grandchildren. We have one or

two or three families, sometimes, living there because we’re running a

farm. We need to have people to run the farm, so the family

cooperatively gets together. We don’t live in a mansion. We live in a

generational farmhouse. However, it’s more than 5,000 square

feet.”

Now, the dumbest thing about this piece of legislation, with

regards to the size of the square foot of a home, which is 500 metres —

which, by the way, is just under 5,400 square feet, if you come from my

generation — is you could build a rancher and cover 5,400 square feet of

land, or you could go up and be called 5,400 square feet on less land.

But it’s 5,400 square feet.

What we say to people who want to actually build a generational

farm is: “We’re going to decide for you because, quite frankly, we think

we know better what your family needs.”

[3:20 p.m.]

This isn’t people that are out there building estates with

circular drives and fountains. This is people who are running hundreds

and hundreds of acres of blueberries, strawberries and raspberries, who

work dawn to dusk almost 365 days of the year, who today feel — and

these are their words, not mine — that the government of British

Columbia is bigoted towards them. That’s what they told me on

Friday.

So 500 metres multiplied by the square footage — just look it up

and do the calculation — is just under 5,400 square feet. Some people

need a bigger house than that.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: No, they can’t. In actual fact, if that’s the case, then the guy

that’s running a few horses is actually getting just enough revenue,

Minister, to be able to call himself a farm, and he didn’t actually do

it. They just sell stuff back and forth. You’ve got to know the game by

now. You’ve got to know it, and you’ve got to know the process, because

at one time, you experienced that process.

As we go forward, it’s okay to have a 40,000 or 50,000 or

60,000-square-foot industrial building on agricultural land, but we’re

going to dictate to people what they get to live in on agricultural

land. I just see that as wrong. I think that these guys and their

frustration are correct. I think it’s generational work that they’ve

done and a generational contribution they’ve made to our

province.

I have a friend that came here when he was nine years old. There

were four brothers in the family. I think Mr. Speaker might even know

some of these folks. They started out in one house, with all their

children and their parents, and picked fruit and made revenues so that

they could start to build enough equity as a group so they could build a

farm and do other investments in British Columbia.

My friend’s family banked some land — land that people said could

never be farmed — which today is some of the best cranberry land in the

country. But they bought it cheap, they worked it hard, and they reaped

the benefits of having a farm. Today the house they live in — with their

two parents; two adult children, and some children with them; and

themselves running the farm — wouldn’t be acceptable with this

government today, which is stunning when you think about it.

It’s absolutely stunning, and to them…. They actually went into a

municipality and inquired about building permits in that particular

area. They said: “The rules are changing. If you don’t get your permit

in, you won’t be able to build that house on your farm.”

That’s the message they’re getting, Minister, directly from the

people who are telling them whether they can have a building permit or

not. I think it’s quite interesting.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: As the member for Peace River South says, that’s the briefing that

we got from — guess who — the Minister of Agriculture on the bill in the

bill briefing. That’s what they told us. You don’t have to make this

stuff up. It’s actually correct.

Now, let’s talk a little bit about the rest of the province.

People, in two years of fires, have had the hoofs burnt off their cows

and had to put them down. They’ve had cows that have cancer that they

can’t take to market, that they can’t sell — not a dime. Not a dime from

this government to those folks at all. Not a dime.

As a matter of fact, I just talked to a rancher the other day, and

he said: “These guys don’t care about farming. They actually don’t care

about it.”

Obviously I’ve touched a little nerve here, because somebody

doesn’t like the fact that we are actually caring about the people in

rural B.C. and how they get a chance to farm, one zone versus the second

zone.

You have to go and sit at the kitchen table with these folks.

Spend some time with them and understand their business. I know. Some of

them I’ve known for 20 years, and it’s difficult. It’s difficult in the

Chilcotin plateau. It’s difficult in the northeast part of the province

and up towards Fort St. John and Fort Nelson — a long way away from

services and opportunities for these people.

As far as we’re concerned, they should stay on that land, not be

allowed to have any other opportunities to make any extra money, and

they should do this for us as people on food supply. Yet we’ll pay for

the chickens and the avian flu. Why is that? Why do governments ignore

one place in a province and not the other? Why do they think

one-size-fits-all solutions fit in this province? It’s a big province,

and farming is difficult in some areas. The opportunity to succeed….

It’s important that we allow this.

[3:25 p.m.]

At the same time, I have a friend that grows shrimp on land in

Langley — produces shrimp. In all fairness to the provincial government,

it wasn’t a difficulty to get that thing permitted, because it was

federal. I don’t know what Fisheries and Oceans are doing, trying to

regulate and deal with stuff for a shrimp farm on agricultural land — on

land — where it isn’t in the ocean, but they did. The process they went

through…. If it wasn’t for the determination of the individual, probably

most people would have walked away.

There are a lot of families that depend on agriculture in this

province. I know a lot of them. A lot of them have become my friends

over the years. I’ve gotten to know them as their MLA and also as a

member of this Legislature.

Whether it’s grains and oilseeds in the Peace, tree fruits in the

Okanagan or cattle ranches in the Cariboo, we have to be mindful of

these folks. There are vegetables and a dairy farm in the Fraser Valley,

and we shall not forget the Creston Valley, where I had a friend years

ago who’s now passed away. He used to raise fruit trees and fruit in the

Creston Valley.

Every part of our province is building a stronger future for our

families, with the exception of us trying to do one-size-fits-all

solutions to take away the opportunities for families to sustain

themselves and build a long-term future for agriculture in B.C. So I’d

strongly urge the government to reconsider what they’re doing, some of

the things they’re doing here, particularly the zone 1, zone 2 piece

because, quite frankly, if you keep orphaning the opportunity to

actually have a sustainable farm, you’ll orphan the opportunity to grow

food all together.

When you ignore the cattle rancher who’s had a tough year at the

expense of some of the subsidies and special things they can do on farms

elsewhere, whether it be bistros or tasting rooms or whatever the case

may be — which I think is great, by the way…. I just think you should

give them the same opportunities and understand that zone 1 and 2 are so

totally different. I’ve got colleagues who are going to follow me,

speaking here, who will probably speak about that much more than I

am.

To my South Asian family, who think they’re being prejudiced

against because they happen to be farmers and may want to build a house

someday; to the rancher in the Cariboo, who my heart goes out to when

you see animals that you’ve raised from scratch — spent the time and fed

them up — and find out that they’ve got cancer from fires…. Or you have

to take care of the animal because their hooves were burned off in a

fire.

Then we expect them not to have an opportunity to find other

revenues so that they could go buy next year’s inventory — get the

calves that they could can do and graze to maybe have an inventory of

cows for the next year’s revenue. We slam the door on them.

I thought that when we did zone 1 and 2, we finally opened the

door to farming survival in rural British Columbia. This bill slams the

door again.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to rise after my colleague from Langley, who has

spoken here about some unique and interesting experiences across the

province — not only in his riding, but across the province — and the

many challenges that people in agriculture will face.

You know, I think about the people that I represent in the riding

of Kelowna West. It, you can well imagine, is one of the zone 1 areas at

this point in time — highly intensive agricultural production on many

pieces of land; not all, but many. I certainly think they’re very

interested in terms of the future of the Agricultural Land Commission

and the amendments. I say that meaning that the people there were

obviously from one of the areas that was targeted back in 1973, in

April, when the Land Commission Act came into being. It was targeted at

areas where there was a loss of up to 6,000 acres per year. I think that

there’s no question. I’ve seen aerial photographs. I’ve seen the

changes, both in the Lower Mainland and in my own community.

[3:30 p.m.]

I do think that in the decades since the Agricultural Land

Commission has been there, it has been modernized. I think that some of

the things that have been very progressive have been opening up the

ability for uses on the particular land. That’s one of the things that

we don’t know. We’re not in the committee stage. I look forward to

getting more specific references from the minister and her staff in

terms of specifics about the flexibility — imaginative kinds of options

that might exist.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I know, in my lifetime…. I’ve spent an entire career in

agriculture, as has my father, as had his father, all here in British

Columbia, farming for well over a century a diversity of fruits,

vegetables, tree fruits and, of course, grapes, which we have extensive

knowledge of today.

I think that one of the things that I want to speak to today is

that agriculture is critical as an industry to the province, not just as

it was back in 1973 but as it is today, and it will be for many, many

generations and decades ahead.

There are thousands of families that depend on agriculture for

their livelihood. I’ve seen it firsthand. Having the benefit of being

the minister of this particular ministry for a period of time, I’ve had

the opportunity to see the diversity, the imagination, the creation of

opportunities that have been created by people taking simple products….

Like Vanderpol’s Eggs — taking the eggs and separating them and turning

the product into constituents of what we use in baking.

I was intrigued by that, but I am further intrigued about, you

know, the experience that I had personally with representing British

Columbia in Asia. In the three and a half years I represented the

province, there were literally thousands of opportunities — so many

opportunities that we can’t even imagine what the possibility

is.

Here we talk about the 4½ million hectares that are under the

reserve currently. I still look at the opportunities that are, you know,

in places — the Cariboo and Chilcotin — after this particular fire

season where many of the forests were devastated. That’s going to have a

significant impact not only on farming families but families that depend

on the resource sector for fibre supply to make certain that that fibre

gets to their mills and there’s a value-added component to

it.

I do think that there are new opportunities there for agriculture

to take over some of those lands, possibly with some help from the

government. It doesn’t necessarily need to have the help of us

restricting what the land use is. It’s about making the land usable in

terms of making it so that there’s that opportunity for either cattle or

other grazing animals to perhaps exist on that land base.

One of the things that I did learn as the minister, and I’m sure

that the minister herself has seen this…. Whether it’s grain or oilseeds

in the Peace River, grapes or tree fruits in the Okanagan, cattle

ranches in the Cariboo and Chilcotin, vegetables and dairy in the Fraser

Valley, farmers are in every part of this province. They build stronger

families, and they build strong communities. I can attest to

that.

One of the very first trips visiting Vanderhoof, earlier in 2009,

seeing most communities up north of Prince George where they were

single-industry towns, and they didn’t have the luxury of diversity…. I

think that what I saw when I arrived in Vanderhoof was that here was a

community that had the diversity of agriculture and other things. It had

been able to get through those challenging times of the 2008 financial

crisis which devastated our forest sector, our lumber industry and the

fact that in many of the commodity markets for our products, prices were

at rock bottom.

Communities that were single-industry…. Fraser Lake. Fort St.

James. Many of them were literally wandering the streets wondering what

opportunities were going to be presented to them. I couldn’t help but

think about the opportunity that agriculture offered them. Even Mayor

Stephanie Killam, the mayor, at the time, of Mackenzie, talked to me

about how do we create, let’s say, agricultural land around the village

of Mackenzie.

[3:35 p.m.]

In that particular time, we had four sawmills, three pulp mills —

absolutely nothing happening. Probably the busiest office up there was

our Service B.C. office, helping people try to make certain that they

could get access to the government services that we were providing to

bridge that gap.

I’m happy to see that the former member and the current member

have made it a priority to making certain that those mills are back up

and operating. I am sure that Mayor Killam’s idea of expanding

agriculture was based on the fact that diversity was an important part

of what we need in the province.

If you sit down and speak to a farmer, you’ll quickly learn that

the key to success is balance — the right amount of sunshine, the right

amount of water, the right amount of nutrients. Too much, too little of

any of these and 100 other factors can have a minor to major impact on

the crops. I was thinking about that, and I remember dealing with trace

micronutrients in a particular application I was doing years ago on our

farm and the effects of too much — what the effects can be.

Farming is a very sophisticated, complex, demanding job. In the

days of running a diversified, mixed farm in the Okanagan, or mixed

farm, if you happen to have livestock…. The diversity was part of a

strategy to keep families on the land, being able to put food on the

table — and diversity.

I can’t help but think about the community that I grew up in,

which is now the city of West Kelowna, but it was Westbank at the time.

Many of the people that were there had other businesses that they worked

out of their farms. Adrian Reece had backhoes and caterpillars. He dug a

lot of our waterlines, helped us install that, but he still farmed his

own orchard just down the road from us.

Felix Menu, who did repairs to equipment, welded, did those types

of things openly because it was part of the fact that in order to…. He

took a skill set, and he went a little bit further. He didn’t give up on

farming, but he took that skill set that he’d learned over time and was

able to do that. Jack Maddock, in Westbank, had the garage up there that

did complex repairs.

So it’s many of these people that continued to help build the

community and take it from what it was then to literally where the land

prices are staggering for agricultural land. Recently we’ve seen some

transactions at near $200,000 per acre for agricultural land.

To be honest, I can’t quite imagine how the land can generate the

revenue that it has to generate for that. But we are seeing a number of

people that are not traditional farmers come into the Okanagan Valley

and grow the idea or grow the business of being in something that’s very

romantic. It has rewards, if you get it right. Needless to say, it is

making it tougher for the more established farming families to be able

to grow their business.

Anyways, one of the things that I think we talk about is balance.

In my very first visit up to the Peace River, I remember a document that

was given to then Premier Campbell, who passed it on to me. He said to

me: “Look, Ben. I want you to look at this. These people really have

something here, I think. I want you to investigate, report back to me

and tell me what we should be looking at doing.”

The Peace River, for most people, especially the ones that are in

this House…. They probably rarely travel up there. I know my colleagues

spend a lot of time in planes. I hate to think, if they have to drive,

how far it is.

Anyways, the point about it is that it’s no wonder that sometimes

the differences between their neighbouring province, which is a

competitor when it comes to grains and oil seeds and canola and all the

other things they grow up there, whether it’s the grain elevator that

was repurposed, reopened by the farmers up in the north…. The bottom

line is that these are farmers like anywhere else. They’re just trying

to get by.

The idea that you can compare somebody that’s got a greenhouse

operation — intensive farming generating, literally, maybe hundreds of

thousands of dollars on a per-hectare basis because of the

intensity….

[3:40 p.m.]

To compare that to the people that are in these regions where

there’s a vast amount of land, but the growing season, the soil

capability, the shortness of the growing season are the difference

between whether they survive to being able to see that next crop next

spring, being able to replenish, whether they’re a cattle producer that

maybe had a particularly tough year…. I mean, how can anybody not see

that we’ve had challenging years in the Cariboo and the

Chilcotin?

And our cattle industry. We need to get it to the point where

we’re growing the herd size. The bottom line is that a lot of times,

farmers are faced, because of economic reasons, with having to sell

early and take a lower price for their animals.

We don’t really provide what, I would say, are particularly good

risk management programs for those types of producers. We do have some,

but they pale in comparison to production-type crops that are very

consistent and that look at the volume per hectare or whatever the

measurement is for the particular crop.

The point about it is that those people are neighbours who not

only have things like oil and gas opportunities that may be beneath the

surface — and that doesn’t necessarily mean that they benefit — but the

situation is that there are opportunities to maybe being able to do some

of the activities that go hand in hand with what the rural nature

is.

I mean, it’s rural. We’re talking about…. I don’t know whether

it’s a third, but it may be 25 percent of the province. I know the

riding of Peace River North, and I’ve been to Fort Nelson and all the

way up to its borders and stuff like that. My goodness, there’s nobody

in the House that has to travel farther, as far as I know — maybe the

member for Stikine. The situation is that there’s a lot of agricultural

land reserve up around Fort Nelson. The people up there, the mayor and

council, often wondered. Nobody had ever had a farm there. There were a

few hobby farms. But they asked the question: “Why do we have this land

in the land reserve?”

Well, let’s go back to 1973 when this became

an act. How was it

determined that land was going to be in the land reserve or not? We have

a land map, the Canada land inventory map. It was developed after the

war by a soil scientist. Mapping extensively, going around — based on

records that they’d had — they mapped out Canada. Those maps were the

primary basis of soil capability.

That’s probably a good starting point if you’re looking at

technology that’s almost 75 years old or more in data, but the reality

is — based on information that I’ve seen and I’ve used and that we

currently continue to use in our farming operations — that we look at

all sorts of ways of trying to enhance and add balance and things that

will make farmland even better.

One of the things that we’re going to talk a little bit about here

today…. We’re going to talk about fill, replacement of soil and removal.

The bottom line is that that might be seen in some places as something

kind of negative. I probably have more experience in doing that work

than most people. As a matter of fact, we’ve levelled hundreds of acres

and moved it so that land that was not capable of agricultural products

could be brought into production, taking out topsoil in low spots,

filling it in with alkaline soil or maybe soils that are less desirable,

replacing that and putting in drainage so that high levels of salts

could be discharged off the land and drained away to improve

that.

I have a composting operation that generates over 1,000 cubic

metres, every year, of compost that we’ve put out in a

directed-discharge manner. We have the unfortunate situation of having

land that’s on the borderline of not really being very good agricultural

land, just because of the way the Okanagan Valley was developed at the

time. I think that every situation is unique.

You know, what I see is that we’re creating…. What’s being

proposed in this is the fact that there is no type of landfill or

alteration that can be good and the fact that the people that are the

regulators have a better understanding than maybe the people that really

farm and want to increase the productivity. We see situations such as

Grand Forks this year, where they were confronted with farmland that was

going to be flooded out. In this particular case, they may as well not

be able to protect their land or their buildings or whatever because of

the fact that we have rules that may prevent that.

[3:45 p.m.]

There’s no real kind of…. When these emergencies happen, sometimes

it’s a case of getting your local truckers or whatever and putting up a

dike or something interim to just make certain that your home and your

outbuildings or whatever are protected. So I think that the idea doesn’t

really quite go far enough. Or maybe that’s imagined, and we’ll get more

information from the minister when we go through — how she sees that

we’re going to make certain that the ability to be able to rapidly

respond to situations like that….

I recently had an opportunity to speak with the CEO of the land

commission on the future of our city in Kelowna. I was asked to be a

speaker, and I complimented the land commission, knowing it’s not

perfect. But the reality is that many of the people that have used

agricultural land in the Okanagan have benefited from the ability of

being able to diversify. We see people that are building packing houses

that are now packing their own cherries on literally hundreds of acres

of new cherries that we’ve developed through the Summerland research

station. Things that have led to a huge, groundbreaking opportunity for

an industry that really….

I mean, I grew up picking cherries, and I can tell you that,

certainly, there is nothing about picking cherries that really is a fun

thing as a kid. But we got paid, I think, about 10 cents or 25 cents for

a bucket of these cherries. They weren’t really treated the way that we

do now. The whole idea is that they’re picked rapidly, put into cooling

in the shade, etc. But they’re picked so that they’re later and can be

produced in areas where we haven’t even contemplated cherries being

done.

I’m watching the owner, David Geen, of Jealous Fruits, develop

agricultural orchards at high elevations in the Shuswap on the opposite

side of where most of the farming takes place on Lake Okanagan, on small

pockets of land. The limiting factor, really, in his case, is probably

water availability, but for the most part, what he’s done is that he and

others like him have pioneered the fact that British Columbia cherries,

because of the fact that they’re northern-grown, not only are later in

maturing but have better flavour.

They’re in such demand that I can tell you that in Beijing, in

some of the markets, especially in the winter season…. The Chileans are

bringing it in, and the merchants are repackaging it into Canadian boxes

because of the demand for Canadian cherries, seen to be far superior.

And I can tell you firsthand that the product is far superior, not only

in quality but in size, colour, etc. And that’s because people continue

to reimagine.

So every year my guess is that there are literally hundreds, if

not thousands, of new acres being added to what wasn’t conventional

farmland. But does that mean that those people, because they took the

opportunity to find a source of water or create a new orchard or maybe

some other type of product, should perhaps, all of a sudden, have this

term that it’s not protecting the land anymore and it’s now about any of

the land that could be used? Maybe that’s a clarification point that we

need to have.

But I do know that these people are going to be expanding

agriculture, because the opportunities for food production of all sorts

in British Columbia is only limited by capital and people’s imagination.

It is not limited by the fact that the land base that we have…. I go

through areas and I look at underutilization of land. It’s probably one

of our biggest limiting factors in terms of agricultural production in

the province. I think about the Lower Mainland — the intensification,

the high rates of return. Well, it’s all because people have wanted to

increase the margins, try to mitigate risk and try to do that. I think

that that works, and it’s on a continuous basis.

But I do see that some of the changes being proposed are

definitely goi