1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 3, Number 4
[ Page 1515 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: In the precincts today will be two groups from the Inter-cultural Association who are new Canadians. They are here as part of their program to learn more about how Canada and British Columbia works. I would hope that, should members of the Legislature meet them in the precincts, they will make them welcome -- but we could do that now.
B. Copping: I would like to introduce teacher Brent Robertson and division 1 -- grades 6 and 7 -- students from Burquitlam Elementary. The students were here yesterday. They were very disappointed that the House wasn't sitting and they wouldn't be in Hansard, so I said I would ask the House to welcome them retroactively, even if it meant I got my knuckles rapped.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 33.
GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT
MORATORIUM ACT
The House in committee on Bill 33; E. Barnes in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Weisgerber: It's my understanding from section 2 that there are about 181 applications before the commission. I'm interested to know whether the moratorium applies to all of those applications or to some that may have almost been completed. How have you decided on the stage in the process at which you're going to put a freeze on the approval of new applications?
Hon. B. Barlee: The moratorium applies to all 181 applications. Certainly some of those were allowed to proceed in the initial process because they had been substantially completed or were completed. Some of those courses were actually active courses, so obviously we had little option there. We're more concerned with the 101 that remained after the 79 were allowed. Of the original 79, six were withdrawn voluntarily.
J. Weisgerber: I understand that we're dealing with a moratorium on 102 of the 181 applications that were before the commission, and 79 that were in various stages of completion are going to be allowed to proceed. Is it fair to say, when we're talking about completion, that the approvals on those, if not formally given, had been indicated in some way? The minister suggested that work had even begun on some of those. It's certainly appropriate that those would be allowed to proceed, and I don't have any argument with that. What I'm trying to get a sense of is that with the 102 that are now the subject of this piece of legislation, can the minister give us any idea of where in the approval process the most advanced might have been when they were caught? How far along the process were some of the applicants that weren't approved? When you drew the line and allowed 79 to go forward and 102 to not go forward, where was number 101? How far down the road in the approval process were the top dozen or so?
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially they had not progressed as far as the original 79. The original 79, as I alluded to before, had essentially been completed or were well through that process of completion, and in some cases the members were already playing, so we had a few options there. Of the 102, some had gone to third reading. Most of those were not in a significant sense completed in any respect. There had been some work done on some of those, but we had to draw a line somewhere. I felt it was a fair process. Certainly there were.... When we consider the entire 181 applications, I mentioned very briefly the other day that we're looking at an impact of about 20,700 acres, which is approximately 30 square miles. This was land we felt we could not afford to lose out of the agricultural land reserve. This last 102 fell into a category that were essentially not completed or not really well on their way towards completion.
J. Weisgerber: When the minister says that some work had been done, obviously there had been, in preparing plans and working through the approval process with the Agricultural Land Commission, a lot of planning work done and a lot of work done in terms of preparation and presentation of the plan to the commission.
I'm wondering, when the minister says some work had been done, is he talking about physical improvements or changes to the actual lands in question? What I'm trying to determine is: do we have a situation where a number of owners of property proposed for golf courses were given by the commission the sense that their application had been approved, and had they been given enough indications that they've started to spend hard cash developing their course only to find that their course, perhaps with some rough work done.... I'd like to know how far down the road, or how far down the fairway, some of these fellows got with their development before they found themselves captured by this legislation.
[10:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: They were in various processes. Some had done significant work; some had done almost no work. I think we must bear in mind, however, that in most instances they had one, two, three or even more than three years to complete this process, so this was no great surprise. Certainly, from this part of the political spectrum, we had made it abundantly clear that we were going to cancel order-in-council 1141, which we
[ Page 1516 ]
felt was giving the thin edge of the wedge not towards development but towards speculation.
There's a great difference between speculation and development. A speculator is indeed that: he is an individual who speculates. You may speculate in precious metals. Then you are a speculator; you take the chance of whether it's going to go up or down. If you speculate in land, I think the same thing applies. I think the ground rules, as far as our political persuasion was concerned, were very evident. We made speeches in the House in 1989, 1990 and 1991, making it abundantly clear to anyone who dipped into the agricultural land reserve lands that we would cancel order-in-council 1141. Essentially, we did that. I think that any prudent investor would have been aware of that. That's rather interesting, in comparing what is a developer and what is a speculator. We took all those considerations into account.
J. Weisgerber: It's interesting, perhaps, to debate who's a speculator and who's a developer, but it seems to me.... The minister talks about quite a bit of work done or a fair amount of work done. I'm trying to decide whether the work that he's talking about is physical work -- caterpillars, earth-movers, those kinds of things. I think if someone has spent two or three years, as the minister indicates, going through the approval process, has reached third reading, as the minister has indicated, and if, in fact, the kinds of signals that he or she had been getting from the Land Commission were such that they'd been out moving earth, preparing their course, then I think clearly that person's not a speculator; that person clearly is a developer. I'm trying to get a sense of how many developers got caught in this process.
With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's fair to say that business people in this province should always have to have one eye on the NDP to see whether or not they're going to get into government and put them out of business. I think there should be some sense of confidence in continuity in government, regardless of political parties. If the law of the day allows you to develop with a process for development and for application approvals, then I don't think it's fair to say that someone following the process in place is imprudent because he wasn't watching the NDP with the other eye to see if they were going to get in power and put him out of business. So I reject that argument.
I think the people developing these courses were doing so because they felt there were good business opportunities, and they thought perhaps these courses would enhance the economic environment of this province, that they would tend to bring tourists into the province and make the communities in which they were developing more attractive places not only to visit but to live. So I don't accept the argument that these are heartless speculators who are out there trying to rip off British Columbia and turn their land into golf courses.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I would just point out that we are on section 2 and not the principle of the bill, so the debate should be restricted as much as possible to regulations.
Hon. B. Barlee: Talking about one eye, I think anyone who is a developer or speculator should have one eye on the future; that's the first thing. We're not looking at British Columbia in 1992; we're looking at British Columbia in 1999, 2010 and 2030. I think if you were a prudent developer, you would have looked at some of those lands that were identified or referred to in the Argyle report, which was produced in the fall of 1990. The Argyle report identified 43,000 hectares not within the agricultural land reserve where they could have built a golf course or a number of golf courses. That's 100,000 acres outside of the ALR. The ALR is a reserve. The ALR is one acre out of 20 in British Columbia. We are trying to protect the one acre out of 20, and I do not agree with my hon. opponent that they should have dipped into these lands.
I think this particular order-in-council was made for speculation, and we denied it and rescinded it. I think we were right in that. As for the 102 golf courses that were left, most had not had much physical work done on them.
C. Serwa: In addressing section 2, I note the minister's comments referring to the potential loss of 20,700 acres from agriculture and his perceived concern with respect to that. The minister is well aware that there is no shortage of agricultural land in the province. Productivity has advanced appreciably because of agricultural technology. Our population has grown dramatically. So I don't think that he has any valid concerns there.
Section 2 seems to be more about the politics of envy. Perhaps the minister would define for this House his or his party's perception of what a speculator is, what a developer is and what an owner is. I want to hear what he has to say about the politics of envy.
Hon. B. Barlee: I am not specifically discussing speculation and development; I am referring to that. However, I take exception to his remark that we have ample agricultural land; I do not think that we do. Agricultural land has a more holistic view, rather than the narrow focus you're putting on it.
I think that even the member for Okanagan West would agree that the incursions into and the eroding of the land base in the Kelowna area have certainly not helped the ambiance of that once-lovely city. That is not unique to the Okanagan; it's being reflected in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island.
The agricultural land reserve has value not only to our food capacity but also as a greenbelt. That impacts upon the public at large. I also believe that the public realizes this value. There is ample room for speculators or developers to go elsewhere in the province. We are trying to protect one-twentieth of the land base, and that's not illogical. We have something like 175 commodity groups that come under the aegis of Agriculture and Fisheries. Indeed, we have diversification of farming all through the province. But when you talk about the agricultural greenbelts, you're talking about the impact not only upon farmers but also upon tourism, upon quality of life to everyone involved. You're talking about a number of impacts.
[ Page 1517 ]
I think the agricultural land reserve act was, and is, a definitive act. I also believe that it is a civilized act, and that it should be guarded very carefully. The only regret I have is that there were 181 golf courses to deal with. This, of course, was not the fault of this government. We came in at a late stage and had to deal with an act that I think never should have been presented in the first place. This was an order-in-council passed by the executive of the day. I think it was erroneous. We weren't able to save all that land. I regret that, but we had only certain options.
C. Serwa: I think the minister expresses some confusion with respect to the agricultural land reserve. He continues to talk greenbelt legislation on one side and agricultural land preservation on the other side. I would suggest to the minister that it is entirely appropriate to consider golf course utilization as part of the buffer between intensive agriculture and urban areas. That makes a great deal of sense, because agriculture has a great deal of difficulty surviving in direct contact with densely populated urban areas. That's certainly evident in the Okanagan.
This particular section is substantially different than when the party in government handled the agricultural land imposition in 1973. At that particular time in the Okanagan there were a number of developments in progress, with plans submitted, etc., to various authorities such as the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. When the Land Commission was created at that particular point in time, all of the applications that were in process were supported and went through the system. When the new act was put forward, everything subsequent to that had to be addressed. In this particular case, they've stopped things in midflight. It seems a departure from what was originally done in 1973. Perhaps the minister could address that.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there are several things that should be discussed here. One is that between 1973 and 1978 there were some 72 applications to the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude land within the agricultural land reserve. Out of these 72, I believe 47 were allowed to proceed, because they did not impact upon the farming community, or because that class of land was either a 5 or 6 and was essentially not very valuable as farmland. Of those 72 applications, 64 percent were allowed to proceed.
But there's a danger involved. For instance, the member is from the Kelowna area, and has been for many years. We grew up together, and we have different political philosophies. I would use this as an example: in the Kelowna area, Mountain Shadows, which is a golf course right next to my great-uncle's holdings in that area, impacted upon the greenbelt to a degree. There was a covenant placed on that by the Agricultural Land Commission, and that covenant was that eventually it could be turned into industrial use. Now the city of Kelowna wants to have that covenant removed by the Agricultural Land Commission -- whether they want commercial use, industrial use or whatever. There are many issues to be resolved with respect to the impact of golf courses and whether they remain golf courses.
Many of these golf courses were thinly disguised condominium developments. There's not much doubt about that. This was not a golf course per se. In certain instances this was intended as a real estate development.
I quite frankly think that there was no reason why order-in-council 1141 was passed on June 30, 1988, because there was ample room within the agricultural land reserve and more than ample room outside the agricultural land reserve. If they were keen on building golf courses, there was 100,000 acres available in the greater Vancouver area. Let's put this 100,000 acres in the right perspective visually: this is four times the size of the city of Vancouver. They could have chosen any of that acreage, but they had to dip into the agricultural land reserve where it was easy to dip into. The development costs are low and made in heaven for speculators.
C. Serwa: A little bit more on that topic. The minister has brought up adequate agricultural land within the reserve that could have been used for golf courses. I would remind the minister that in the original legislation golf courses were an allowed or prescribed use. When the New Democrats were government from '72 to '75 that was an allowed use under the Agricultural Land Commission.
[10:30]
For the minister's knowledge, there was an attempt at making a golf course.... In this particular case the speculator, the developer and the owner were all the same individual, who happened to be the farmer that owned 100 acres of bottom land with very poor drainage. The level of Mill Creek was such that they couldn't lower the water table so that he could grow alfalfa. He had made several attempts to have the golf course an allowed use under the agricultural land reserve. He wasn't asking for that land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve. The reality is that that was not met with favour by the Agricultural Land Commission. He had no recourse to even an appeal, so he had to make an appeal for the process for the exclusion of that land from the agricultural land reserve. Ultimately he was successful. The golf course has been built on it. It is now productive in every sense of the word and as strong as the economy -- beautiful golf course. It's part of the greenbelt and part of their pride.
When the minister points out that certain things were allowed, the Agricultural Land Commission could fundamentally only decide whether lands should be conserved for agricultural purposes. In this debate the other day I named the four fundamental criteria that determined whether the agricultural land had the capability or didn't have the capability. Fundamentally that was all.
The minister again referred to another golf course in my constituency, Central Park, and he knows what has actually happened with the density of development since he graduated from Kelowna Senior Secondary. Yes, it was released. It was released from the agricul-
[ Page 1518 ]
tural land reserve with a covenant that it become industrial land. The growth of the community and what's happened on Dilworth Mountain just above it, for example, and the growth of the surrounding community pretty well precludes that particular use. As communities evolve, there are different demands placed on the agricultural land reserve.
It seems to me that if we're wise and we're prudent we can, in a sense, have our cake and eat it too. We can have the greenbelt. We can have the recreation areas. And with wise development and plans and using the British concept of links rather than the traditional North American-type of golf development -- even in sensitive environmental areas such as Boundary Bay -- we can create a perpetual opportunity for wildlife habitat and certainly a home for raptors. All this can be determined in the particular design of the golf course.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the whole act, in particular with this section and succeeding sections. The government of the day is compromising the future of British Columbians and succumbing to the politics of envy.
Hon. B. Barlee: I don't know about the politics of envy. I'm not very concerned about that. However, I am concerned with the maintenance of our independent food supply in British Columbia. I don't know if the member was in the House the other day when I alluded to it very briefly. Some of the great multinationals in the world are certainly now getting into the food supply, and some of these have well-known names -- Shell Oil, Imperial Oil, Cargill. They're not getting into the food supply business because they like it; they're getting into it for a profit. I think if we develop that a little farther, we will look at the negotiations under the free trade agreement, what happened to the impact on farming in Canada generally, what the Americans are attempting to do under the GATT, and what may eventually happen under NAFTA.
I'm saying that we have a very definite responsibility to future generations of British Columbians. As a government, we intend to live up to it. We intend to preserve that 5 percent. We're not going to add to that. We're not going to add 6 or 7 percent more, but we think that 5 percent is extremely important. We think it's important in every area of British Columbia regardless of the demands. There are always going to be demands. The developers can think up a million demands -- they need it for this, they need it for that, they need it for a million reasons. What they essentially need it for is profit. They're not concerned about the future of British Columbia. I don't think they are; I have failed to see it. I have friends in the developing business, and I know other individuals -- acquaintances only -- who are land speculators. I have my preference about land speculation. I have my opinions about it, which I won't voice in this House.
But I definitely think that we have a responsibility as government to maintain the agricultural land reserve. That may be at some discomfort to cities like Kelowna or other cities that want to expand, and to other developers who want to get into the action. Our basic responsibility is to future generations of British Columbians and to the maintenance of our food supply. The impact of these agricultural greenbelts is not just on farming but on other aspects of our economic and social future.
C. Serwa: In the 60 courses that were cancelled, could the minister advise the House what was significant in that particular decision? Was it the fact that speculators were involved at that stage? All initiatives, of course, are started by someone who is willing to speculate. Or was it the agricultural land classification of those 60 sites? Could the minister tell me what was dominant in that particular decision?
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, most of this land was good-quality land -- class 1, class 2 and class 3 -- and they had not proceeded to third reading. So that was the line we drew.
L. Fox: Can the minister advise me as to the percentage of golf courses that have been cancelled which had received the approval of the municipalities and/or the regional districts?
Hon. B. Barlee: None.
L. Fox: So the minister is suggesting that those applications had gone to the Agricultural Land Commission prior to going through the local process -- the municipal or the regional district process?
Hon. B. Barlee: I should qualify that. They had not gone to third reading.
L. Fox: Can the minister also advise me if he has had any correspondence with the planning departments of those regional districts or municipalities and received their input as to whether their elected representatives were either supportive of the proposed golf courses or not supportive?
Hon. B. Barlee: That is not in my purview. The Agricultural Land Commission comes under my aegis. I do not interfere with the decisions of the members of the Agricultural Land Commission. Perhaps I should restate that the Agricultural Land Commission.... I have been very careful of the members on the Agricultural Land Commission. There is one Social Crediter -- quite publicly Social Credit -- and he does a fine job for me.
An Hon. Member: I don't believe it.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. B. Barlee: There is one high-profile Liberal and one NDPer; the other two, I haven't the faintest idea -- nor should I. I do not interfere in the decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission, because I should not interfere. This is a professional decision that they make.
[ Page 1519 ]
L. Fox: I'm quite surprised at the response, because the question didn't actually beg that type of response. The question was whether or not you had had any correspondence with the municipalities or the regional districts with respect to what their wishes were regarding these particular golf courses.
Hon. B. Barlee: I purposely do not correspond with these individuals. All of that correspondence goes to the Agricultural Land Commission, where it rightly belongs. They make the decision.
L. Fox: I guess that was the reason for my question. I've constantly heard from this government that it believes in communication; it believes in dialogue. Here you have local individuals, local municipal representatives who are in charge of the planning departments within their respective jurisdictions. The minister has placed moratoriums on initiatives that may have been totally supported by a jurisdiction, and he's done it without even corresponding with those individuals who are elected to represent the interests of their communities. I find that a bit appalling and indicative of the way this government acts.
I also have to make a few comments with respect to the agricultural land reserve. In 1974, when the act came into being, there were 4.72 million hectares. The minister made a big issue about how much land has been lost from the agricultural land reserve. I suggest to you that in 1990 -- very recently -- the count, instead of 4.72 million hectares, was 4.7 million hectares. The percentage of land that was actually removed from the agricultural land reserve was 0.4 of 1 percent. That is one question.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Not wrong, according to the numbers I have.
The other concern I have is that the moratorium being put forward in this bill is over all of the agricultural land that falls under the reserve within the total of the province of British Columbia. It gives no consideration at all to land under that jurisdiction that is not arable or to terrain that is too difficult to farm or to all those other considerations, and there are many such lands out there throughout the province -- particularly in the northern part of British Columbia, where I come from. There are many lands that fall under this agricultural land reserve that are not farmable lands.
I would sit at this time and allow the minister to respond to those questions.
Hon. B. Barlee: Any individuals who feel that their land is not arable can make application to the Agricultural Land Commission to have it removed from the agricultural land reserve. That is part of this act; I believe it's section 6.
Referring to the decrease in lands in the agricultural land reserve, that's like a miner saying: "I'll trade you a pound of lead for a pound of gold." That has happened in certain areas. We've taken marvellously excellent land out of the agricultural land reserve and replaced it with lesser land, usually in the northern part of the province. I don't think this should go on. We should protect these lands in all areas of the province.
When you look at the 60 applications that were turned down, they were in the three most sensitive areas in British Columbia as far as development or speculation is concerned: southern Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the Okanagan Valley. Out of the 60 applications that were turned down, 57 of them were in those areas.
I'm actually very pleased that they were turned down. I think these areas should be protected. We have to protect the ambiance of life. We have to protect the economics of the area as far as the farming communities are concerned.
I also do not think that we as a government should interfere. That was done by previous governments. People went before the Agricultural Land Commission -- I can name some in the Kelowna area, for instance -- and they were turned down the first time. They went back again, and they were turned down the second time. They went back the third time, and they were eminently successful. We won't mention names, but I think the names are well known.
L. Fox: I'd like to speak very briefly with respect to having to go before the Agricultural Land Commission several times before getting an application approved. The municipality of Vanderhoof had to do that for four years in order to have a plan approved which was acceptable to the people of that community -- not to any individuals, but the people of the community. We still had to go through the process for four years. I don't believe that, because an individual keeps coming back to that process he is merely in it for speculation, or that he's had a lot of political help to achieve his main objective. The process begs that continued return, to achieve some good sense in terms of what should and should not be within the agricultural land reserve.
[10:45]
I also note that the minister failed to respond to my questions with respect to the fact that he and his government have usurped the wishes of municipalities and regional districts in laying this particular moratorium as a broad-based moratorium, without consulting those individuals elected specifically to look after the planning and the development within their respective jurisdictions.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that deserves an answer, and it's not unexpected from that source in that.... You must assume, then, that if you were to give the power of removal of the agricultural land reserve to various and sundry municipalities in British Columbia, they would do the perfect job. I do not think that belongs within their purview. I think this belongs within the purview of an independent board, and the Agricultural Land Commission, I must stress, is an independent board.
I've been very, very careful to follow that. Individuals not of my political persuasion are sitting on that board and making decisions on behalf of the people of British Columbia. As I said before, some of those are Social Crediters, some are Liberals and some are New Democrats. We certainly have not got the majority of
[ Page 1520 ]
those five members, I can guarantee that. What I've looked at is their farsightedness -- and this must remain in the hands of an independent body.
Some of the mayors and alderpersons of the various municipalities and cities in British Columbia probably are farsighted. Can we count on that? No, we can't count on that. Mayors change; councils change. Councils may say: "We're going to take 1,000 acres out of the agricultural land reserve." I frankly do not think that's good enough, and I'm saying that this belongs under the purview of an independent body. The Agricultural Land Commission is an independent body, and there is ample provision in Bill 33 to allow input from the various municipalities.
C. Serwa: In section 2(2) there is a phrase referring to terms and conditions, and the Agricultural Land Commission and local governments can set these terms and conditions. A few minutes ago the minister indicated to me that the 60 applications that were turned down were turned down on the basis of their being class 1, 2 or 3 land. That was the message I received, hon. minister. Then you subsequently, in answer to another question, indicated that the majority, if not all of the 60, had been turned down in southern Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the Okanagan Valley. The minister knows full well the tremendous variability in soil classifications even in the Okanagan Valley, that it's not all class 1, 2 or 3 soils down in the main valley.
My concern is that a level playing-field be established so that areas such as the central Okanagan, which is quite a destination golf resort area, has the opportunity to continue the development of golf courses, recognizing the increase in population. Another concern is that you not force this type of development into the upper elevations, because you negatively impact the environment and the feeding grounds of deer and moose, etc., in that particular jurisdiction.
I also want to know, hon, minister, if there is some latitude in this regulation, considering the tremendous difference in populations of various areas of the province. Are you going to apply as effective diligence to an application in, for example, the Vanderhoof area or the Columbia River Valley as in southern Vancouver Island, the central Okanagan or lower mainland? Or will there be some reasonable latitude, taking into consideration the sparseness of population? For example, is the abundance of agricultural land in the Peace River area a consideration that will be made, or will the consideration be simply on a set formula that is applicable throughout the province?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the commission decides the latter part of your question. That is their decision whether that golf course is in Vanderhoof or the Kelowna area.
Going back again to the Kelowna area, which we're both familiar with, you are saying a golf course may be required to go to the upper elevations. One of the finest golf courses in British Columbia is Gallagher Canyon; this is certainly not generally agricultural land, and it is certainly in the upper elevation. We both know the area extremely well. So it's done extremely well.
When you look at the great golf courses of the world, most of them are on scrub land. The very finest of them are. Pebble Beach is an example. St. Andrews is another example. And I'm saying that you do not have to -- and should not be allowed to -- dip into good agricultural land. I think this is patently obvious, and I believe the public of British Columbia agrees with me. Eighty-seven percent of the public, in poll after poll commissioned by the former government -- your government -- and by our government, says: "Yes, we believe the ALR is good for British Columbia." Essentially, that's what they are saying. And of the farming population, 83 percent come back time and time again.... So almost nine out of ten average individuals who have looked at this say: "Yes, it is important to preserve this land for economic viability, for the farming community, for future generations and so on."
We can get into quite a debate on whether or not this course or that course should have been allowed. I really think that our vision of British Columbia differs from your vision of British Columbia. I think that I look at British Columbia perhaps from a backward view in that respect. I look back at towns I saw in the forties and fifties, where the councils did not do a good job, where they were so keen on growing and they missed some of the quality of life. You and I can think back. We can think back to the Kelowna area when we were kids, and I think you will concede -- you may reluctantly concede it, but you will concede it -- that Kelowna in the 1940s and 1950s was one of the most picturesque cities in British Columbia. I don't think it hits that mark today. This is not a slam at Kelowna; I'm saying that it does not do that today. I remember parks in Kelowna that were deaccessioned by the sitting council of the day and turned into housing developments -- astonishing to me.
So we cannot leave this to individual councils. Individual councils are transitory; they last only so long -- until the next election. But the Agricultural Land Commission, which is an independent body, must be the body that makes this decision.
C. Serwa: What the minister fails to note is that if we ever require that land for agricultural purposes, the actual allowance of golf course development does not further alienate that land. The minister's concern is that residential development adjacent to or connected with that will alienate the land. Clearly, section 2 is designed to allow the government to evade its fundamental responsibility to the people of the province by forcing the decision, with fairly narrow design parameters, onto the Agricultural Land Commission. Frankly, there are many variables that politicians should be looking at. There is no appeal process that has any legitimacy in this situation. I have a great deal of concern about that, because there are always variables and situations that fall outside the design parameters of section 2.
Hon. B. Barlee: I don't think there should be an appeal process. Up until now the appeal process has been through ELUC. We have gone on record that eventually we are going to do away with that. We think that the appeal process should be through an indepen-
[ Page 1521 ]
dent body commissioned to make the decisions. They should be there to make the decisions on behalf of the government of British Columbia. I do not think that a body of politicians should move in and make these decisions over and above, and essentially overruling, the Agricultural Land Commission. That is not good. That's not an evasion of responsibility; that's the only option we have. That's why I do not interfere with the decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission, nor should I.
C. Serwa: I've listened carefully to the minister. He has not really given any expansive parameters to the Agricultural Land Commission to make the decision, other than the original basis of retaining land in the agricultural land reserve. They aren't armed with a sufficient breadth of responsibility or authority to make the types of decisions I'm referring to. They are restricted: either the land has agricultural capability or it does not. There are a variety of influences that factor into that. I have some concern with respect to the minister's feelings that there should be no sensitivity or sense of responsibility, and I have concern about the lack of an appeal process in this particular area.
Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps the member for Okanagan West didn't hear one of my original answers. They do have this flexibility. Between 1973 and 1988, 72 applications were made to the Agricultural Land Commission to take land out of the agricultural land reserve. After examining each one of those applications individually and assessing them, they allowed 64 percent of them to go ahead; that is, where they did not impact upon the adjacent agricultural community and where they were classified generally as very poor lands. So they have this flexibility.
H. De Jong: On section 2, apparently there are 42 golf courses that have been conditionally approved, and I guess we'll get into those conditions a little later on. But I understand that one of the conditions was that most of them had passed third reading at either the local government level or at the regional district board level. Sixty golf courses have been cancelled without having had that opportunity, because of the time element in terms of an application to the local government.
The provincial government appears to be very high on land use throughout the province and has always recognized that land use is basically a decision to be made by local governments. That's why local governments were provided with that authority. The minister says that the agricultural community does not want it. I believe that prior to third reading, a public hearing needs to be held within the regional district or municipality before such a zoning change should occur. If these things have had third reading, in terms of a changed land use, but the other 60 had not reached that point yet.... This government preaches that they're fair and say that equality should remain. Not giving these 60 the opportunity to go through that process, whether in fact they would be accepted by the local community, does not give equal opportunity to the applicants who made application under that section when it was law.
Hon. B. Barlee: There are several options open. First of all, they may make reapplication to the Agricultural Land Commission. That is allowed under this bill. There is nothing to stop them from doing that. Secondly, I think I should comment that some of the 60 golf courses that were cancelled had three years to get through third reading. I'm saying that any prudent investor would have said: "Yes, I'm going to get through third reading. I'll try to get it through." They did not do this. The other recourse they had was to fall back again and make reapplication in the hope that if that land did not impact upon the adjacent agricultural community and was not good land, the Agricultural Land Commission would allow it through -- as they did 64 percent between 1973 and 1988.
[11:00]
H. De Jong: The question still remains. The minister has said that they can reapply; yes, anyone can reapply. I suppose anyone who hasn't applied before could apply. My point is that if the minister says they can reapply, why doesn't he allow these 60 to continue through the process at the local government level? If they should fail at the local level, then it's finished. Why not give the same opportunity to those who are applying under that time-period when it was an allowable use?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, a number of these 60 were turned down by a local municipal authority. Secondly, there was -- and I reiterate -- ample time. This original OIC, which never should have come about in the first place, was passed by the previous government on June 30, 1988 -- not too far off four years ago. They had lots of room. I'm contending that they simply did not have their ducks in a row and were not prudent investors. They may have been something else, but they certainly were not prudent investors. They should have made sure that the process was followed and that they had a lot of time to do that. That was their decision.
C. Serwa: One final question to the hon. minister. It was always my understanding that in dealing with subdivisions, golf courses or anything else requiring Argicultural Land Commission approval, local approval was required prior to a request going to the Agricultural Land Commission. Is that not correct?
Hon. B. Barlee: No, that is not correct for golf courses. That was disallowed under 1141.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
R. Chisholm: We don't have a problem with Bill 33 as such; we have a problem with section 3, which basically takes away the property rights of the property owner -- whomever that may be -- without any sort of compensation. This is just another form of expropria-
[ Page 1522 ]
tion, and this government has made it perfectly clear what they think of expropriation. I'll quote what the Minister of Labour said about expropriation: "There should be some business loss provision provided in advance payment to allow people to enjoy some income from property or to recognize the fact that people enjoyed some income from the property before it was expropriated."
With that thought in mind, in section 3 of this bill there should be some compensation. After all, this government changed the rules in midstream, and we're seeing far too much of the rules being changed, such as the golf course moratorium. We can go into mining and other areas, and it's the same problem. The problem here is the credibility of the government, when they continually do these things.
Whether these individuals were speculators or not is immaterial. They followed all the rules for three to four years, and the rules were changed by this government. They have spent money on developing their plans, whatever they may be. Maybe this government should be looking at some form of compensation for the expenditures they have made. There were 181 farms or pieces of property that went through this moratorium, and I think around 140 were disallowed. I think it behooves this government to look at these individual cases and decide whether they have taken their rights away. If so, they should provide for moneys that these groups or individuals have spent.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there are several things we have to bear in mind. These individuals bought farmland one, two, three or almost four years ago. They still have that farmland. Municipal governments, for instance, always change zoning -- up or down. That's one of the priorities they have; it's also one of the priorities of the Agricultural Land Commission. They can put that land back into farm use again, they can use it in other ways or they can hold it. That's entirely up to them.
The compensation right I don't think should be paid by the taxpayer of British Columbia. It was a speculative chance they took. Speculation is indeed just that: speculation.
R. Chisholm: The people who procured this land since 1988 had the provision that they could turn it into golf courses; that was in the ALC land act.
The other thing is that yes, municipal governments could put it up and down, but the ultimate responsibility rests with this government. With the situation the farms are in right now and the financial problems they have, farmers are trying to find an alternative to carry themselves. If they have followed all the rules, maybe they deserve compensation.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, it is not in the Land Act. It was under OIC 1141.
Secondly, I don't think the speculators, if they are successful, expect us to take a share of their profits. so if they are unsuccessful, I don't see why we should take a share of their losses. If it works one way, it works the other way, certainly.
You're talking about the difficulties of the farmers in British Columbia. That is not generally true. Farmers in British Columbia are averaging about a 4 percent increase year by year. This is an increase in receipts from the farming community. If you look at British Columbia as a whole, we have thousands and thousands of farmers, and 23 went bankrupt in 1990; in 1991 that figure went down to 21. This is unbelievable business success in practically any part of the business spectrum. If you compare restaurants -- there is a high mortality rate in restaurants -- or any other small businesses started, the figures are staggering compared to the farming community.
F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I listened with interest to your response to the question of whether any golf course application had, in fact, been approved by municipal council. You may remember that during second reading of this bill, I brought up the question of one of the golf courses in Delta that had followed all the rules and had gone to council, and for which there had been public hearings. It passed first reading, second reading and third reading: a perfectly legal and proper process. There was then an action brought into the courts to do with the validity of the public hearing process, as I understand it, and whether or not the public hearing could be considered valid because of certain information which hadn't been available at that time. My understanding is that the court overturned third reading and returned it to the municipality to continue the process. I understand the current status is that the owners of the property, who went through all of the process, had an approved golf course -- or had the approvals to move forward -- and have now appealed that case to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The case has not yet been heard or determined.
As I said in second reading, I do not believe that the provincial government is responsible for speculative profits. I don't think that because someone had some land worth $2,000 an acre and they could have built a golf course on it, which would have made it worth, say, $5,000 an acre, and because you have changed the law at this point, the supposed speculative increase in land values should be compensated. But it seems to me completely and absolutely wrong when the provincial government brings in an act which supersedes an action that is in the courts and wipes out the possibility of the course being developed if the courts were to find in their favour -- or even if it went back to the municipality to again go through the public hearing process. These citizens of our province have spent money on golf course design, done work on soil tests and availability of water, spent legal fees and incurred all of the costs of taking it to this point under the laws that were in existence at that time, and you just suddenly come along and, with the stroke of a pen, wipe out all of their rights. That's the most arrogant, dictatorial, punitive action I can think of. Give me some more words -- I can't think of any at the moment. It just doesn't seem fair. I really do think that in this particular case, or in any case that may happen to fit that particular set of circumstances, you should reconsider the question of no compensation that comes up under section 3 here.
[ Page 1523 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: I think speculation is part of the entrepreneurial process. I have speculated in the past. I have done extremely well at times and extremely poorly at other times. Every time I have speculated, essentially the decision falls back on me. For instance, I speculated very heavily in silver around 1980 and did extremely well. Then there was a change made on the Chicago commodity exchange which I had nothing to do with. Heavens, they didn't even come to me and say: "Mr. Barlee, are you going to be affected?" I was heavily affected by a decision made in a foreign country that impacted upon my speculation. So when you are in this area, when you are speculating, you are indeed doing that.
Those people, and I think the member for Delta South is probably alluding to Boundary Shores....
F. Gingell: Boundary Shores.
Hon. B. Barlee: Boundary Shores it is. I thought it was. The action taken against them by a third party was, in itself, legal as well. They again took this chance. I'm saying that if you're a speculator, do not come to the public purse expecting it is going to make up your losses, because I know that you're not going to give some of your profits back to the public purse. You're not going to say: "Heavens, I did much better on that farmland than I anticipated. I made half a million dollars. I'd better give $150,000 back to the taxpayers of British Columbia." I'm being a little facetious, but essentially that truth remains that we do not, and I don't think we should, allow for reverses in fortune for a speculator. That's too bad.
Look up the dictionary definition of a speculation, and you'll find that it bears me out. I don't mind speculation. I like the process. It's a gambler's process. When you're a speculator you're a gambler. You take a chance up or down.
We've both speculated in the mining market. We have done well and done poorly -- and I'm talking to the member for Delta South. Sometimes we've done very well. Sometimes we haven't done so well, because we haven't taken everything into consideration.
I'm saying that if you speculate, be careful, because if you don't speculate well, you're going to lose. Essentially they did not speculate well. They didn't take all the factors into consideration. If I had put a million dollars into a golf course and I was looking at the government of British Columbia in 1991, I would have said: "My heavens, I think there's going to be a change." Certainly the polls came out with it day after day that the government was going to change. Why would they go ahead? That's not very prudent. It's not very wise. They took a chance; and unfortunately they lost.
[11:15]
F. Gingell: I was just going to ask my question and let it pass, but the gauntlet is down. I'm most interested to learn that my hon. friend across the way was part of the Hunt brothers consortium that ran up the price of silver. Of course, that is a question of speculation.
What is speculation? It's a matter of investing in something where you believe the price will go up quickly so that you can sell it. You can't use the silver. You're not in the business of making knives and forks and silver cutlery. You have only bought it for the purpose of selling it again. It doesn't produce any income. It isn't the apple tree that produces fruit that you harvest every year; it is only the tree itself. The only way you can make anything from it is by selling it. Speculation. That's not what we're talking about here.
We're not talking about people who speculate in land; we're talking about developers. We're talking about the people who matter in this province, who cause things to happen, who create jobs, who find some land that is legally and properly allowed to be developed as a golf course. They go through all the processes. They are going to employ people to build this golf course. They are going to encourage tourists to come from other parts of the world to play on it and stay in the local community. They're going to earn green fees. They're going to hire a manager, staff in the coffee shop and other facilities, staff on the maintenance crew. They're going to have people cutting grass every day. That's not speculation; that's development. The people who do those kinds of things are much more important than people who merely buy silver like the Hunt brothers. If I'd done that, I'd keep quiet about it, frankly.
Where they have acted in a perfectly proper and legal manner under the laws of the country, you have just expropriated from them. I'm not suggesting and have never suggested that there should be compensation for the value of the land. The cash that they have expended.... You've suddenly come along and changed the rules. What happened to the price of silver wasn't a change in the rules. Government didn't suddenly say that you cannot own silver, that you must turn it back at 30 cents an ounce, which is what I believe it traded for in the year 1900. You've actually changed the rules. You have tossed up a coin and said: "Heads I win, tails you lose." You've changed the rules, and that isn't right. The people of this province need to know what the rules are, what they can do, and that you won't come afterwards and change them on them and expropriate their rights. I really feel that you, Mr. Minister, should take a second look at cases that fit within the definition we have discussed.
Hon. B. Barlee: Rules always change. For instance, we were given an Income Tax Act I believe in 1917. The federal government came down with the Income Tax Act. This was going to be a temporary thing, and everyone thought, oh well, it will just last a year until the war is over. But guess what? The rules stayed changed. Municipalities change rules all the time. Companies change rules. In fact, I think my bank just changed the rules on me, and they're charging me much more for each cheque that goes through. I don't like it, and I didn't have much input to that process, but it is a rule change.
I can probably point out 150 rule changes that have taken place in the marketplace, in the banking industry, in the municipal government area, in the federal government area, in the provincial government area. I'm saying that if you're a prudent investor, you take all
[ Page 1524 ]
of those considerations under consideration, and they did not do this.
Boundary Shores, for instance. There was all sorts of opposition from greenbelt groups, from the farming community, from the wildlife groups -- all sorts of opposition there. They should have known that. They were not, I believe, prudent investors. I'm not about to say we should reward them. They can't lose.... If they say, "Well, heavens, if we're going to invest in this golf course and the government will bail us out" -- what would they do? They'd say: "Government, we spent $1.5 billion on this." Boy, that's tough to prove. I'm saying they took their chances.
I take my chances. By the way, not with the Hunt brothers, but I took my chance on a commodity. There are all sorts of commodities: corn, silver, land. I do not invest in land. I do not speculate in land. I don't believe in it. Precious metals, that's different. You take your chance in the marketplace, and if you ascertain what the chances are in the marketplace, that's fine.
For instance, if you look at silver.... And your figures on silver were incorrect; they were fairly close. I'm rather surprised, by the way. Not really, I was being facetious about that, but they were fairly close. Silver around the turn of the century was about 24 cents an ounce. It went through a real free fall in the depression of 1893.
F. Gingell: It was 30 cents, and then it went all the way down.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's right. And then it came up. Under the speculation of the Hunt brothers -- who tried to corral or corner the market -- it went up to $50 an ounce Canadian. I did very well. Then I started bailing out a bit, but that was speculation. I also got caught a bit towards the end. It didn't hurt me because I had done fairly well, but that is the true essence of speculation.
I'm saying that if you're going to speculate, take your chances. Be a man about it. I hate to be gender-specific on that -- be a man or be a woman about it. They simply were not. They were not prudent investors.
H. De Jong: It seems to me that the minister takes making changes rather lightly, and he talks about changes occurring at the local government level. But when land changes do occur at the local level, I think the minister should realize, whether it's a change in a community plan or a zoning bylaw, that it requires a public hearing where the public does have input.
The point is, these 60 applications have not enjoyed equal opportunity through the entire process. Then the minister comes along and cancels the applications. I believe there is a big difference between the cancellation of a proposal or an act and not being approved through the process. I think that's what we're specifically dealing with.
I'm not suggesting that the difference in land costs need to be paid, but these people made application. Some of them probably went through a fair amount of planning, designing and whatever else the local authorities may have needed, but never got to use it because the process was put under a moratorium. Now we have this bill which will preclude them from this process which was in place before. I don't think that compensation is essential when they do not receive approval, but cancellation is quite another matter, Mr. Minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member for Abbotsford was a mayor for some years -- and quite an effective mayor. A number of individuals in his area possibly attempted to have zoning changed around, probably upgraded. Sometimes they were successful and sometimes they were not. That is part of the very nature of speculation. When they were not, your council did not reimburse the speculators. They may have spent tens of thousands of dollars; they may have spent well over that. They may have spent $100,000 trying to change, lobbying the council, and so on. If it didn't work, that was too bad. They lost on the flip of the coin.
Secondly, he talks about public input. When the former government -- of which that MLA was a member -- made a change and put in OIC 1141, the public wasn't asked about the change. They were aware that the public valued the agricultural land reserve. There was no option made to them. They had no input. This is done all the time at various levels of government. It is nothing unusual. I think anyone who has been in civic government is aware of that. Sometimes zoning is changed; sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's downgraded; sometimes it's upgraded.
H. De Jong: It seems funny that the minister doesn't want to answer the question. The question was specific as to why he is not considering compensation for cancellation. He seems to put this all under the broad brush of lack of approval. It's not a lack of approval. You have cancelled a process that was in place. People had expectations in the process that was in place -- in fact, it was law. You have made the arbitrary decision to cancel this -- first of all to put a moratorium on it; now to cancel it. As I said before, equal opportunity has not been extended to all those who applied within the time-frame when in fact it was law.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll change that around. I will answer the question. When you're in municipal government, you may make a change. They do make changes all the time. These changes may adversely affect an individual who holds land in that municipality. Do you then reward that individual and say: "I'm sorry, but our decision in council -- to which we were properly elected -- has affected you economically and has cost you $30,000 or $40,000"? I have failed to see any civic government give that back to the individual. This occurs in civic government, federal government and provincial government. It's nothing unusual at all; these changes are going on consistently and continually. I feel that a speculator doesn't require protection from the public at large -- whether it's municipally, as I was just referring to; whether it's provincially, as you're referring to; or whether it's federally.
[ Page 1525 ]
H. De Jong: In reply to the minister's answer, there is quite a difference between this and the municipal government. If a developer applies for, let's say, a high-rise complex in the agricultural land reserve, he will be flatly told it's a no-no. He will be told it by staff. But if he applies within a residential area which is designated for change -- because of older houses or whatever -- he's probably told yes, that the application does fit the general criteria of the community plan or the zoning bylaws. He can proceed. He looks at all the costs. There may be different cost implications because of location, and so on. The developer does research and finally decides to proceed with the application or not, but it's within those designated guidelines. When a developer comes to a municipal hall, he knows very well that there is a community plan in place. Yes, when it does not comply with the community plan, he knows very well that he's taking a big chance.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think your last few words were: "He knows very well that he's taking a big chance." Indeed he does. This is precisely what they did; they took a chance. They were unsuccessful; that's too bad. They were speculating; that's too bad. It's part of the process; that's too bad. But that's the way it ended. I fail to see why the taxpayers of British Columbia should reimburse a speculator who is unsuccessful.
K. Jones: Going back to what you said earlier with regard to the Agricultural Land Commission and people who have been unsuccessful and had their applications turned down by this legislation, you indicated that they could reapply. Perhaps the Agricultural Land Commission would approve their proposal if they have third-reading approval from the municipality. Is that what you're indicating to us? This would be an alternative for them. Is that why you feel that there's no reason for compensation to be given under this act?
Hon. B. Barlee: To the hon. member for Chilliwack, I certainly cannot speak for the Agricultural Land Commission if they reapply, nor should I.
K. Jones: Just a reminder to the minister that this member's not from Chilliwack. The member for Chilliwack sits here; this is the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
[11:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm sorry.
K. Jones: You appear to be generating a reverse Robin Hood syndrome in your process of dealing with this situation. You have taken away from the poor farmer, and you've given to the rich speculator or developer who just happens to get their approval into council ahead of the other person. The person with a lot of wherewithal has the ability to move their project along much more quickly than others.
Even when there was some indication that there might be a moratorium, there were projects that were processed quickly because they had the financial capability to get staffing and all that on board and to make sure that all of the material was available. Persons with lesser means were not able to move their project through the procedural wrangle that most municipalities have in order to get that kind of process through the zoning milieu. It's a maze for people to deal with -- unless you happen to have a lawyer and a specialist consultant on municipal affairs to carry you through those processes.
I really believe that you've done nothing but allowed the very wealthy to gain more wealth, and you've hurt the person who's just trying to eke out a living and find an alternative to the difficult problems they were having in regard to farming their particular area. Therefore you are playing this reverse Robin Hood role.
I'd like to give you an example. In the Hillside farm area in Cloverdale you took a project and denied them their ability to proceed, with no compensation, where they had, by the Agricultural Land Commission's own investigation, a marginal farming operation. At the same time, you have given approval to a project that is twice the size, the Northview project, which encroaches 1,400 metres into the agricultural land reserve, encompasses 431 acres of land within the reserve and is cut through the middle by a major salmon enhancement program stream, the Serpentine River, where people in the community have been working for quite some time to build a fishery. You have given approval for it to proceed, and it will now place that fishery stream in some jeopardy, perhaps, because of the amount of construction, the runoff and fertilization that would be necessary to make these lovely greens. You have given this developer, who had lots of money, a great big gift. Don't you think that's reverse Robin Hood?
Hon. B. Barlee: If the member for Surrey-Cloverdale thinks I'm a reverse Robin Hood, I think he's a reverse reverse Robin Hood, and I'll tell you why. You're a reverse reverse Robin Hood, which means you're Robin Hood's little brother. Essentially you are saying that although Hillside Farms.... I'm glad you alluded to Hillside Farms, because I knew you were referring to it. It was turned down, first of all, by the Surrey council. I'm sure the member was aware of that.
K. Jones: No, it wasn't.
Hon. B. Barlee: If you check with the Agricultural Land Commission, I think they will bear that out. They were refused rezoning.
Secondly, if he is a poor farmer.... That farmland, by the way, had not been, as you say, marginal farming. That was never in the Agricultural Land Commission report. That is your perception of that land; it was not the perception of the commission. According to the Agricultural Land Commission, and I must take their professional opinion, this was still viable farming land.
We should not reward this individual. I don't think the public taxpayer.... That's why I'm calling you a reverse reverse Robin Hood. You want to take hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars out of the taxpayer's back pocket to pay the speculators.
I don't care if the speculators are poor, rich or in between. They are still essentially speculating on land.
[ Page 1526 ]
Frankly, I'm surprised to see the Liberal Party defending them. This principle is well established in municipal government, in federal government, in provincial government, all the way down the line. I'm having difficulty making that point, and I don't know why. You've given lip-service to Bill 33. "We agree that agricultural land should be retained, but we think you should reward the speculators who have failed." I happen to disagree. I don't think they should be rewarded. I think it may indicate to them, and we will send a very clear signal to the land speculators of British Columbia, that we will not entertain their dipping into the agricultural land reserve. I think that's fair.
We're trying to protect 5 percent of the land, not 95 percent. There's lots of room for speculation, there's lots of room for so-called development, but there's not much room in the agricultural land reserve.
K. Jones: I think the minister's totally not listening to the information that was given to him. The fact is that the projects that you have approved have more impact on the agricultural land than the one that you are turning down. The one that you're accusing of being a speculator is a person who has lived on the property for 40 years. That person is hardly a speculator. He was not proposing a 36-hole golf course; his was for a simple 18-hole course. It was not a private but a public course. The one you approved was a 36-hole, mostly private golf course, which had upland real estate values to take advantage of as well. You're getting your position on this turned around, I think. You're claiming one thing, and at the same time, you're practising another.
I'm not recommending that you compensate or give gifts to speculators. What we are suggesting is that you should compensate the people who were encouraged through legislation made by previous governments allowing them to proceed with golf courses. The expenses incurred in going through that process should be given back to them. And if it's properly in keeping with your concept of yourself as a true Robin Hood, perhaps you should be putting a cost on the applications that you do approve. Maybe these people who are successful should be helping to compensate the people disadvantaged by this. You don't have to go to your general revenues. You're giving people a great pot of gold in every application you approve. As you've already said, it's an opportunity to make money. So let's tax those people, and give that payment back to those disadvantaged by this decision.
Your decision is not based on agricultural land saving, because you wouldn't have approved the Northview project, which takes 431 acres out of the agricultural land reserve. You wouldn't have even approved that one. But you didn't make the decision to approve on the basis of agricultural land. You took a chicken way out -- a method of placing the responsibility on the municipalities for the decision as to whether they passed at a certain level; whether the developer of that project was able to get to third reading. If they didn't, that was their tough luck. You're saying in this bill that there's no compensation, regardless of how much effort they put into processing that.
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, does the member for Surrey-Green Timbers seek the floor on a point of order?
S. Hammell: May I participate in the debate?
The Chair: You will in due course, hon. member. Just keep making the attempt.
Hon. B. Barlee: To the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, you used the term "chicken," and that's an agricultural phrase. I'll use another agricultural phrase: don't put all your eggs in one basket. That refers to chicken as well. If you are a prudent speculator, you do not put all your eggs in one basket. That's obviously what happened here.
Indeed, third reading was the benchmark. It was a reasonable benchmark. It was fairly fair-minded. I think it provided a level playing-field. Everyone had the same benchmark. Secondly, I think the member knows that we inherited a bit of a mess. We inherited order-in-council 1141, which we opposed from the start. Then we had to handle it. So this inheriting of a very questionable OIC.... We did away with it.
As I've said before, the process is never perfect. When you change the rules, the process is never perfect. There are probably cases where people have been caught in the net and cases where people got through the net. But by and large, when we imposed that process, we took into consideration a number of different things. We took into consideration the possibility of vested interest. We took into consideration a number of things that we felt were fair. That's why we came up with them having to have third reading proceeded with through municipal authority.
A. Cowie: I'm going to support no compensation provided that there's proper planning and provided that people have the right to go through the Agricultural Land Commission, which they have. I'll tell you why I'm going to support the fact that no compensation be paid under those circumstances. If the municipality is doing its job and has a proper official community plan, and if there's proper communication between the Agricultural Land Commission and the planning that's going on in those communities, then I see there will be absolutely no conflict.
I've heard from the Agricultural Land Commission that they are looking at buffers and interfaces. If the agricultural land isn't that good -- if it's in class 4, 5 or 6, or if it's already split up -- then they would consider other uses, such as golf courses. I take it that if a proper submission is made and some of the people have been refused, then they will be permitted to go back. That's what I'm hearing. But -- and this is where the "but" comes in -- I think it is unfair if municipalities have led people to believe that a golf course might be acceptable. In those particular cases.... I realize that the government will not allow compensation and I realize the municipalities will not pay compensation, because they don't have to. There's nothing fair in zoning; there never has been anything fair in zoning. All we have to do is make sure there is a fair process. In some cases,
[ Page 1527 ]
Mr. Minister, I would say that the process has not been all that fair. It hasn't been all that fair because there has been confusion.
[11:45]
First of all, the previous government brought in this provision that allowed golf courses on agricultural land provided that they went to the agricultural land reserve. During those times there may have been a lot of speculators in mind. I want to take this occasion to tell you that there aren't that many speculators in the golf course industry at all. There are little guys that get started, such as the farmer up in Sandspit who has a golf course and the sheep wandering all over the golf course. I don't know if that's agriculture or golf. It's a bit slippery on occasion, but I would say that may be integrated use. In the past -- even in Vancouver -- when they started a golf course, it was started on a piece of grass and it gradually got going. They eventually made a good golf course out of it. In fact, within the last week the Vancouver parks board has approved $26 million in order to upgrade the three golf courses because of the huge demand.
I don't want to hear from the minister on compensation; I just didn't have a chance to speak earlier on this. I would like to hear from him on the situation of allowing golf courses in buffer zones where the agricultural land use is not the best. I think it is to everybody's benefit to allow golf courses in this day when there is a huge demand for them. Yet we have to protect good agricultural land beyond those buffers.
Hon. B. Barlee: You mentioned sheep on the golf course, and I feel almost sheepish about answering this question, but I think I will anyway -- I couldn't resist the pun. This isn't the only such golf course, by the way. There is a golf course just outside of Lillooet where he grazes his sheep most of the year and turns it into a golf course in the summer, and does quite well. This integrated use is allowed occasionally. For instance, in the east Kootenays some years ago one of the cattle ranchers decided that he wanted cattle on his ranch in the summer, fall and spring, and he preferred golfers the rest of the year -- that is, the summer months, the high months in the east Kootenay region -- and that was allowed.
You say the Agricultural Land Commission is considering a change. I think they are examining a change. Certainly any land act, and I don't care where the land act comes from, how long it.... It always requires some reassessment. So I will give some ground and some level of comfort there that it does require some reassessment. But the basic concept does not change. The basic concept is that we feel that the agricultural land reserve is there for a reason. We also think, despite the later remarks of the member from Vancouver-Quilchena, that there was ample room -- over 100,000 acres -- in the greater Vancouver area available for golf course development that is outside the agricultural land reserve.
S. Hammell: I'd like to speak for a minute about the speculative nature of an activity, of going into the agricultural land reserve. The use beyond that of agriculture for the land within the agricultural land use has since the seventies been highly speculative and controversial. To get a golf course approved in the ALR, even under the past administration, was taking a risk, and I think people would acknowledge that. It is certainly much more of a risk than it would be to ask for zoning within an urban area to be changed from one use to another. Now to assume that we then have to take the responsibility of compensation is questionable.
The Chair: Pardon me, hon. member, are you speaking to section 3?
S. Hammell: Yes. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale mentioned the Northview golf course in the agricultural land reserve that went through as a consequence of third reading. He mentioned there were 431 acres, and it was cut through the middle by a salmon stream. I'd like the minister to comment on actually the tragedy of that having to proceed rather than following up and creating another mistake by allowing Hillside to go through. Hillside was in fact turned down once before it went back to council, and between the change there was an election. This is the speculative nature of trying to get land out of the ALR and should not be compensated.
F. Randall: Hon. Chair, I wonder if I could have leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery today is a group of 12 special-needs students from Cariboo Hill Secondary School in the riding of Burnaby-Edmonds. They are accompanied by their teacher, Halina Quibell, and also Carol Lopez, Susan Shaw, Jim Hill, Diana Grant and Gary Fortais. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Fox: I just wanted to make reference to some of the minister's earlier remarks, when he was comparing this process to the municipal refusal of rezoning, and the fact that municipalities don't have to make compensation to individuals who are denied rezoning. I would concur with that; that is fact.
However, if that individual or a group is denied due process, as has been denied by this bill, then the municipalities are indeed liable, because they have denied that individual the opportunity for due process, which falls under the Municipal Act. So I don't believe the minister should be comparing the lack of compensation because of this act to what happens under the Municipal Act within municipalities.
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, let's examine the question of due process. We are here because due process was not observed. Order-in-council 1141 was passed by a previous government. They did not ask the public whether they approved of it.
Indeed, the public had indicated overwhelmingly that they did not approve of it, so this is a distinct case of not observing due process. I'm saying that's why
[ Page 1528 ]
we're here. We're trying to right the process. I think our attempts have not been perfect; I will confess that. They have not been absolutely perfect, nor did we think they would be absolutely perfect. But I think they are intended as being a level playing-field. That's why we imposed those various criteria on this particular bill.
L. Fox: I just want to point out that 1141 was indicative of what was in place when the bill was put forward in 1974 by your government. It was only returning to that particular position; it wasn't on any new ground. Indeed, if putting that forward was not due process.... That does not compare at all to the lack of due process with respect to this action in this bill.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the original bill was changed because the government of the day felt that there were opportunities to reach into the agricultural land reserve that shouldn't have been there. They felt that there was ample land, and I think this has been indicated, generally, by both sides of the House. I contend that OIC 1141 was put into effect on June 30, 1988, to provide some significant profits for speculators in this province.
C. Serwa: In listening to the minister's responses on this matter of compensation, I'm reminded of a story. The minister's sense of fairness relates to the antics of a crusty old judge in the United States in the mid 1800s. An individual charged with cattle rustling was brought before the judge. As the trial proceeded, the prosecution had an opportunity to state its case. When the prosecution lawyer sat down, the judge promptly got up, banged his gavel and said: "Guilty! We'll hang him in the morning." The defence lawyer jumped up and said: "But, Your Honour, we haven't had a chance to present our side of the case." The crusty old judge said: "It wouldn't matter; it would only confuse me." I think that's what the minister is, in fact, saying: it would only confuse him.
When I talk about the politics of envy, the minister keeps referring to speculators. I remind the minister that the pioneers who ventured into this province were speculators; businesses, industries and developments in the province are built by speculators; and our wages, within this building, are paid by those who are willing to speculate. "Speculation" is not a dirty word. Speculation is one stage in the development of industry.
The reality is that the minister has changed the goalposts in the middle of the game. Compensation has to be paid when you arbitrarily change the goalposts. The matter was proceeding. As I say, the precedent is in the actions of the former NDP government in the period from '72 to '75, where they allowed those items in process to go through.
That's the difficulty here in the challenge of the compensation. Compensation should be paid when you have cancelled the applications. It would not be required if the applications had gone through and had failed to comply with the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission. That is clearly understood. But you arbitrarily cancelled, and you have to bear that responsibility. Government has to accept that responsibility. Will the minister please respond?
Hon. B. Barlee: You arbitrarily opened it up in 1988; we arbitrarily cancelled it. That's correct. The judge you were referring to was probably the Hon. Roy Bean. He was a rather notorious individual. He came down with some unusual things, and sometimes he fined people for no reason at all.
We're not doing that. We're taking what we call a moderate approach. We are taking what most municipal and federal governments would do and what most governments responsible to the taxpaying public would do. We're providing a level playing-field; the rules are all the same. You had to pass third reading in a municipal council -- or it did not require any jurisdiction at all in certain areas. This was a level playing-field. Everyone was treated precisely the same. There were no exceptions and no exclusions.
The House resumed; The Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada