2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 5

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

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

[1335]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

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 But we have the Peace River regional district saying they want this bill withdrawn.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not the end of it. Another provision of the bill is that although the Agricultural Land Commission is supposed to be an independent tribunal, provisions in the bill, in section 6, allow the minister to establish performance indicators by regulation and generally set the performance of the commission. So you're saying, on one hand: "Oh, you're independent. Oh, by the way, now we're going to set performance standards."

Of course, when there's no trust that this bill is for the best wishes and the good of the farmers and agricultural land, we can see that people would think: "Well, perhaps
[ Page 3692 ]
those performance measures would be to get rid of the backlog, process exemptions as fast as you can."

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

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

[1340]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1345]

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

The amendments contained in this bill are designed to
[ Page 3693 ]
modernize something that was introduced 40 years ago.

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

J. Martin: Okay, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

The only thing I've really managed to figure out, why there might be such fierce opposition…. I came across on social media a tweet today from a former member of this House, the former NDP MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, Diane Thorne. She typed this in capital letters, so I'll try to read it in capital letters: "The ALR is my legacy, and you get your hands off it." It is not about farmers. It's not about agriculture. It's certainly not about British Columbia. "It's my legacy."

Well, this government is not in the business of maintaining political parties' legacies. I understand that might be a fairly thin legacy, given the brief time the opposition has had in government. I mean, fast ferries. I guess the ALR. That's part of the legacy. Well, the fact is, that is probably the most honest and probably the most can-
[ Page 3694 ]
did summation of the NDP position on this legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1355]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what this bill does, and it's pretty clear, is create
[ Page 3695 ]
two classes of British Columbia: the high-grade zone, if you will, that the member for Chilliwack talks about and other members have spoken about and a second class, if you will, which produces at the present time — the figures I don't disagree with — less food. I understand that.

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

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

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1405]

The main character in that novel is Wang Lung, the
[ Page 3696 ]
farmer who comes from absolute poverty and rises up to become a wealthy landowner. It's a tale about a family and corruption and change and history. But what Wang Lung understood and said repeatedly was: "A man without land was nothing."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1410]

The government can play around and talk about how there'll be panels and how all will be fair and all will be wonderful. I appreciate I can't speak about the amendments, but the existing Bill 24 as proposed says in section 2, which will add section 4.3: "When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land…in Zone 2" — in other words, everything outside of the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan and Vancouver Island — "the commission must consider all of the following: (a) the purposes of the commission set out in section 6," which is in the existing statute. It then goes on to: "(b) economic, cultural and social values; (c) regional and community planning objectives; (d) other prescribed considerations."

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

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

The other prescribed conditions really are troublesome. I mean, I have said over and over again in the last nine years in this chamber how disturbing it is to see statutes that provide for significant regulation power, which basically shifts the ability of the people of British Columbia to scrutinize what happens away from this chamber into the west annex, where no one gets to speak
[ Page 3697 ]
except those who sit around the cabinet table — not even the caucus of the government, the whole caucus back in the west annex. Who knows what will be dreamed up by the government in cabinet in terms of what would be other prescribed considerations?

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

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

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

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

[1415]

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

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

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

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

Now, I'm not going to pretend for a moment that it's easy farming in British Columbia. There are often the two extremes: the highly capital-intensive dairy farm, with milk quota, and you've got millions of dollars and 80 acres and precious little income coming off it; and down the other end, you've got somebody with a few acres — the member for Chilliwack is right — having a second job, trying to get something off the land. You've got someone with 100 on a quarter section maybe, near Dawson Creek, a second job — harvesting some wheat, some grain or canola, whatever. Not enough to support a family, but the land is still productive.

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

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

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

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

[1420]

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

So why would we fiddle with something that is so crucial to our long-term well-being as a society? Because
[ Page 3698 ]
when it talks about "must consider all," it's mandatory — and yes, they have to consider — but it's not that they can ignore any parts. It's not as if they can ignore other prescribed considerations or ignore regional and community planning objectives or ignore economic, cultural and social values and simply rely on the purposes of the commission as it exists in legislation today, which, if you showed the average British Columbian, they would say: "We like that. We support that."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1425]

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

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

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

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

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

If you go up through the Cariboo and through the northern part of the province here today, you're going to come across a lot of those homesteads where people initially started farming, and then they realized that the weather wasn't conducive to farming the way they knew it back in California or back in the southern part of this beautiful province that we have. They couldn't make a go of it, so things deteriorated to the point where they were abandoned. We have many abandoned homesteads
[ Page 3699 ]
throughout the northern three-quarters of the province.

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

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

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

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

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

[1430]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of people don't want to farm. They find it easier to enjoy the lifestyle that they want to live, particularly when you've got access to the ocean and you've got access to the great parks that we have down here, you've got access to the performing arts centres that we have in the Lower Mainland, and you've got access to all kinds
[ Page 3700 ]
of wonderful things down in the Lower Mainland that occupy a lot of your extra time.

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

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

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

[1435]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

[1440]

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

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

You can just imagine what this handpicked crew will have on their minds. Do you think they'll be out thinking about the future of British Columbia, thinking about putting food on the table for British Columbians down the road in 50 years, 100 years? Not on your life. This is all about their political term in office and all about carving
[ Page 3701 ]
off for friends and insiders, changing what's been a good system for more than 40 years — a wonderful system and, as has been said, a legacy that really bears the protection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think back about all of those beautiful plums that we had — buckets full of plums. We had all that beautiful fruit. Crabapples. I bought crabapple jelly at the local market, and I have yet to find crabapple jelly like my mother used to make. It was outstanding. Absolutely
[ Page 3702 ]
outstanding.

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

Agriculture in British Columbia. The agriculture in-
[ Page 3703 ]
dustry in B.C. has always been somewhat humble in size. However, as I say that, good things come in small packages, and the agricultural goods of B.C. are some of the best in the world.

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

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

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

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

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

[D. Horne in the chair.]

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Especially as a kid growing up in the Cowichan Valley, I thought we lived in a land of abundance. But when you
[ Page 3704 ]
find out the stark reality, it's true that we really do need to think about how we can preserve farmland, not only now but for future generations.

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

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

[1505]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

[1510]

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

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

I'm very pleased to support this Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and it's important to make this statement. I want to read this into the record. No farm, nobody in the Abbotsford area, in the area that's going to be designated — and, really, staying the same — is going to be affected. All of the discussion, the discourse, that's being lamented by the opposition really has no context here. I wish that that would be delineated today in that
[ Page 3705 ]
discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me start by saying that this is not a debate
[ Page 3706 ]
about change or a debate about the fear of change. This is the debate about the future of the ALC and, through it, the ALR, which has been protecting agricultural land in British Columbia for over 40 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"On September 6, 2013, a news release announced the schedule for the annual tour of the Finance and Government Services Committee. The first session was in Vancouver just 14 days later.

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

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

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

"When I raised this issue" — "I" being Adam Olsen here — "with the committee on October 2, 2013, in Nanaimo, the committee's
[ Page 3707 ]
Chair, the member for Penticton, reassured me" — again, Adam Olsen — "that this was just the beginning.

[1525]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1530]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We're bleeding money."

And, I would add, what a lost opportunity.

"And there's no need to bleed. I can grow almost everything we need right here, right now. We can keep at least $10 billion in B.C.
[ Page 3708 ]
very fast if the government conspired with us instead of against us."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1540]

"This is not to say that lands of the same capability are directly comparable. A class 3 soil in the Fraser Valley is different from a
[ Page 3709 ]
class 3 soil in the Peace, etc. Capability, based on the range of crops, needs to be considered along with the suitability and productivity of individual crops on specific soils in specific local climates.

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

"Similarly, some class 6 lands are important components of livestock production, notably the natural grasslands of the southern Interior. These provide the often limited early spring and fall grazing, thereby reducing both the labour and feed costs of ranchers."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the farmer can produce a crop, but they are prevented from running a food-processing operation on their property. It could mean something as simple as growing a tomato crop, but the farmer is prevented from making tomato sauce on their property. It could also be something as simple as opening a dog kennel as a means of supplementing farm income.
[ Page 3710 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no political mandate to do this. Government announced its intentions after the election. You would think that, particularly given that there was no electoral mandate, the public consultation that government would commit to would be even more comprehensive, even more thorough, because they really didn't get a mandate from voters on it. But in fact, that hasn't occurred. The process isn't flawed; it's been non-existent, despite prom-
[ Page 3711 ]
ises to the contrary.

[1555]

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

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

This, of course, as was pointed out by the previous speaker, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, was news to the committee. It was also news to the Chair of the committee, who also happened to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review. The Chair of the Finance Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review, was unaware of the commitments that the Minister for Core Review was making on his website, directing people to come and talk to us about the possible changes to the land reserve and the land commission.

After an initial period of confusion on the committee about what to tell people coming forward to us to do, the Finance Committee Chair stated that while we would accept submissions, the Finance Committee was not the appropriate venue, despite the direction from the Minister for Core Review, for these submissions, but that there would be ample opportunities to make their views known to government.

What are these opportunities? Aside from the minister committing to read e-mails and letters, again, it's non-existent. Is that really sufficient, given the importance of such a longstanding institution that's so important to this province, and particularly given that government has no mandate to make such drastic changes to the legislation that has survived four decades of governments of all political stripes?

You would think there would be an even greater need for public consultation on this bill, on this legislation, than even other legislation that's being brought forward. It's non-existent.

There is an ongoing debate here about which agricultural groups, NGOs and local governments are supporting Bill 24, and some disagreement on who does and who doesn't. I'm aware of a large number of groups who do oppose this legislation.

Certainly, I know that I speak for my constituents. The strong majority of my constituents would oppose this legislation, and every local government in my constituency, including the three municipalities and the Islands Trust. All have either opposed or have expressed serious concerns about the legislation, about the implications of it and, most seriously, about the lack of meaningful consultation. That's the public feedback. That's the feedback I'm getting from citizens and from local governments.

I just want to read out a couple of comments. This is a resolution from Central Saanich municipality, which, as I indicated, has over 60 percent of its land base in the land reserve. They state, among other things: "Be it resolved…that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture ensure adequate consultation opportunities for local and regional governments and members of the public."

They also further resolve to inform the minister of their concerns about the implications of this legislation for land speculation — which already exists. Even with the current rules, make no mistake that there are market forces, speculative forces, at play that are driving the price of agricultural land up.

Central Saanich council is keenly aware of this and has pointed out that speculation in agricultural land for future development is driving up the cost of agricultural land, threatening farm businesses and local food security.

[1600]

Furthermore, they feel that by removing speculation, by reinforcing the ALC and preserving the ALR — in other words, strengthen the current institutions, not weaken them — an important contribution would be made to our regional economy. That's a letter from the Central Saanich council.

A letter from the Islands Trust, written December 20, 2013, by Sheila Malcolmson, the current chair of the trust council: "If the province of B.C. decides to proceed with the review of the ALC and the ALR, we have two requests. Please include the recommendations from previous reviews." Those have been mentioned: reviews by the Auditor General, by the chair of the Land Commission himself at the request of government.

Islands Trust is requesting to "please consider the recommendations from previous reviews, and please include a meaningful consultation process with local governments and communities." Sheila Malcolmson, the chair of the trust council, goes on to say that the ALC and the ALR had provincial reviews twice in the past three years, and "surely we don't need a third until implementation of the previous recommendations bear fruit."

A couple of comments from constituents. Just a very small sample, obviously, but this is the kind of feedback I've been getting from citizens in my constituency. This is from Judi Stevenson, who states that "this kind of protection" — in other words, protection of the ALR and ALC — "is so important across our province, wherever our soils can support farming. It's especially important now, in light of the terrible impacts climate change is already having on some of the big food-producing areas of the continent like California. We're going to be need more agricultural capacity in B.C. going forward and not less."
[ Page 3712 ]

Two small-scale farmers on Galiano Island in British Columbia, Doug and Elizabeth Latta, wrote: "California may no longer be able to supply our citizens with cheap produce. Drought conditions there may make their farmland no longer viable. Farmland is already under threat, with the squandering of watering for fracking, and it is under threat in the Lower Mainland from encroachment of shopping malls, coal port infrastructure and other such non-farming uses. We can't afford to weaken the ALR legislation in any way."

That's just a very small sample of the feedback I've been getting from constituents and local governments in my constituency.

What are the problems that this bill is intended to fix? What are they? What's wrong that this bill is trying to fix? Is it impossible to get land out of the ALR for non-farm uses or exclusions?

Apparently not. The data for the province clearly show that the majority of applications are approved. My understanding is that over the 2006 to '12 period, of 660 applications, over 70 percent were approved. I also understand that most of those applications were from landowners who weren't necessarily farmers, certainly not farmers who were making the majority of their income from farm production — the point being that the existing legislation and decision-making framework already in place allows a great deal of flexibility.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was making this point earlier. If the bill is intended to address changing circumstances over time — and they do change — the flexibility is already there with the current legislation. The data clearly shows that you can get land out of the ALR, and you can get land used for non-farm purposes. It's quite possible to do so under the current legislation.

[1605]

But because the priority in the current legislation is to preserve and enhance agricultural productivity in general, if there are exclusions from the ALR or if there are non-farm uses allowed or approved, those approvals come with conditions to offset any negative impacts and perhaps even enhance productivity. That's because the primary goal of the current, the existing, legislation is to protect and enhance agricultural productivity on the ALR land base. That's the primary goal. That's the goal that's being compromised by Bill 24.

If the fundamental objectives of the ALR are no longer to maintain and enhance agricultural productivity, then there isn't any basis for requiring offsetting benefits to agriculture when you do get applications for exclusions or non-farm uses, because your fundamental objectives have changed.

We've been hearing the message box from members on the government side that one zone is a one-size-fits-all approach. This is just nonsense. The current legislation, again, and the process allow for independent assessment — independent of government, relatively independent of political influence — of each application on its own merits, but landowners have to make the case that the land use changes will improve or at least not detract from the productivity of the ALR.

This one-size-fits-all argument that the members opposite speak of…. There is no such thing. The current process looks at, evaluates each application on its own merits. Each application has its own set of circumstances, and each application is considered in that light. If there are approvals of exclusions or non-farm uses, there are conditions attached. That's what the current system, the current legislation, allows us to do. Clearly, we have sufficient flexibility to address changing circumstances over time and the individual merits, the pros and cons of individual applications.

Is land in zone 2 less suitable for agriculture than zone 1? Well, in fact, 90 percent of class 1 and 2 lands, the most productive lands in the ALR, are in zone 2. A different mix of agricultural products, for sure — more grazing lands, less mixed produce — but productive nonetheless. So this notion that zone 2 is rife with rocky, barren land that can't sustain farming operations — again, the data does not support that.

The thing is that these lands, particularly in the north, will become even more valuable over time as oil prices rise and climate change impacts increase. I want to come back to that later.

In terms of the value of production, zone 2 is less important than zone 1, but in part this is because of supply management policies in place in zone 1. Zone 1 has a high proportion of dairy and poultry operations, which are in fact a part of the reason they're so lucrative. It's because of supply management policies having little or nothing do with the land base itself, which is valuable and productive. It's supply management policies that are driving up the value of production in zone 1, not because zone 2 is some kind of wasteland that's unsuitable for farming.

The point I'm trying to make here is that this demonstrates that there are policies that can be implemented in addition to preserving the land base that can be very important in improving farmers' incomes. I'm not necessarily advocating the expansion of supply management policies, but the point is that policies, in addition to protecting the land base, can actually support farmers to increase the value of their production.

These are the kinds of policies we need to be thinking about. This is what we should be debating today — policies to support farmers, to help them grow more food, not changes to the legislation that facilitate and permit the conversion of farmland to industrial and commercial purposes.

[1610]

As claimed by members on the other side, will this bill protect the integrity and the productivity of the ALR
[ Page 3713 ]
as the original, the current legislation intends? Clearly not, particularly in zone 2, which introduces non-agricultural priorities and objectives. This means that inevitably, farmland is going to be converted to non-agricultural uses.

Further to the concerns expressed by Central Saanich council, it will also reinforce speculative market forces, which already exist to a certain extent under the current legislation. These forces are going to drive up land prices even more than they're being driven up now. This will be a key outcome of this legislation.

You're going to enable and you're going to encourage those speculative forces, and it's going to drive up the price of farmland and the cost of that land to farmers — in particular, young farmers. We already know that the price of farmland is too high for most new farmers. It's already an issue. Bill 24 is going to exacerbate those forces. It's going to encourage them.

Will Bill 24 increase food production and food security? No, because the bill isn't intended to encourage and support farming. It's intended to allow more non-farm uses, plain and simple. That's the purpose of the legislation. There's not anything in this bill that supports more farm production or increases in the value of farm production. What this bill enables is the conversion of farmlands to other uses.

We're doing this at precisely the wrong time in history, given the record drought in California, which had been mentioned several times before — California, the breadbasket of North America. Climate change, we know, is going to exacerbate these droughts. At the same time, we know that climate changes are likely to increase the suitability and the productivity of farmland in zone 2.

What's going to be happening in the near future — in fact, it's already happening — is that food prices are going to be driven up because of droughts in the southwest United States. Oil costs and, therefore, transportation costs will be driven up, which is going to drive prices further up. So precisely at the time when supply sources are drying up, quite literally, and prices are going up, we're contemplating legislation that will see alienation of the land base. And this is precisely at the wrong time.

What we should be thinking about now, given these existing circumstances, which are only going to be exacerbated with climate change…. It's going to make farming in British Columbia more profitable. So we should be getting on that bandwagon. We should be reinforcing a trend that's already happening in the world because of climate change, not moving in the opposite direction.

We have talked a lot about zone 2 and the change in objectives in zone 2, but the other changes that this legislation brings are a little more subtle. But ultimately, they're going to have the same impact on the land base and on speculative forces.

Government-appointed regional panels. The member opposite spoke about independence and that the independence of the commission is not going to be compromised. That's not true. Government-appointed regional panels by this legislation will be mandatory, not discretionary. They'll be mandatory.

The compromising of the independence of the ALC, which the members opposite claim is not happening…. In fact, with this legislation the minister can appoint up to six ALC vice-chairs without input, without consultation from the chair of the commission, which is in place now with the existing legislation. These changes are a little more subtle. They're not as obvious as changing the actual objectives of the ALR in zone 2.

[1615]

But make no mistake. Over the long term they will have exactly the same effect. We know that regional panels — especially, potentially, friends of the government — appointed with no input from the chair of the commission are going to be more amenable to non-farm uses on the ALR. Over time that's going to, again, encourage these speculative forces. Over time the more subtle changes with respect to zone 2, the political interference from government, is going to have the same effect as the changing of objectives in zone 2.

We have to acknowledge that the bill may benefit some existing landowners. If they can convert to at least currently higher land uses — commercial, industrial operations — it may in the short term benefit some of these landowners. Most of the applicants, by the way, as I've stated before, aren't farmers per se. They're people who have recently purchased land. They're non-farmers. The majority of the applications the commission is getting aren't from traditional farmers.

We do know, in any case, that in the short term there could be some benefits to landowners, because they can convert agricultural land to, at least in the short term, higher value uses. But it's not going to benefit farmers. It's simply going to provide more opportunities to convert farmland to commercial, industrial, residential or, as the legislation indicates, other prescribed uses. I'm not sure what that means, but that sends some shivers down the spine as well.

Government promotes the notion that the land commission is out of touch with today's reality. I would actually make the opposite argument. They're not paying attention to what's happening in California, for example. They claim that these institutions are too rigid, but the data on approvals for exclusions doesn't support that view. The land commission itself has already been engaged, at the request of government, in a process of renewal, including examination and fine tuning of the ALR boundaries.

The existing legislation and institutions now in place already are as flexible as they can possibly be. In fact, in my personal view, I think they're a bit too flexible. But they are subject to the overriding mandate of protecting the productive capacity of the ALR, and that's exactly
[ Page 3714 ]
what the bill undermines.

To farmers who say that we've reneged on the original social contract that provided farmers with a number of support programs in return for constraining development potential, those farmers are right. When the ALR was brought in, there were a number of programs that were brought in to support farmers — income assurance programs — and over time we've reneged. To be honest, I think that on both sides of the House, when we formed government, we reneged on those support programs.

I hope to be able to speak later on the bill. I would like to speak more about the things that we could do to actually enhance farm production, food security, agricultural production in British Columbia rather than create a situation where we're converting this precious legacy into commercial and industrial uses.

Hon. P. Fassbender: No surprise to the members opposite, I stand up to support this bill for a number of reasons. I've heard a cornucopia of misinformation, misspoken truths, issues that are trying to create fear in the minds of British Columbians about the intent of this act and what the government is trying to do.

[1620]

As a member of the core review committee, as a member of priorities and planning, as a member of cabinet, as a former member of the UBCM executive, as a former locally elected official, I have heard many, many discussion over the years about the agricultural land reserve, the role of the Agricultural Land Commission and how, quite honestly, it needs to evolve.

I would like to read a quote, if I could, that I think speaks adequately about what I've just said. "We don't want the ALR to be a museum. We want active farmers, young farmers. There's a generational issue in farming." That quote is from the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who said that in Vernon in October of 2011.

As we have heard in this House from members of the government…. And I want to clearly say that having been a member of this government since June of last year and having heard from the former Agriculture Minister, the current Agriculture Minister and the Minister Responsible for Core Review, and having visited a number of communities throughout the province, in the north and in zone 1 — where my riding happens to exist — I have learned very clearly that this act is intended to support agriculture and the people who work in it, in a variety of different functions.

The act was introduced because we want to help farmers throughout the province to grow food and to grow their business and protect their families, not only today but also in the future. The purpose of this act is to ensure that the ALR is working for all British Columbians, balancing our desire for valuable farmland to be protected and looking at other opportunities for farmers in areas where they need the support.

That is particularly true with the people that I've met in the zone in the northern part of the province. One size does not fit all. It is very clear: this province has changed, is continuing to change, and we need to manage that change, not react to it after the fact. What this bill does is provide a clear route for the Agricultural Land Commission to help manage the future of farming and of farmers and their families, for the benefit of every single British Columbian.

As I've listened to the agricultural sector, I have clearly heard that change is important, but not change at any cost — not change that takes away responsibility and accountability that actually enhances it, that engages local people in the dialogue as we move forward. That is why the six panels are so important to ensure that local representation is heard and celebrated in any decisions that are brought forward to the Agricultural Land Commission.

I also want to quote another quote that was made, where it was said by the critic for the opposition for Agriculture on a decision that was made in her riding. It was simply that a subdivision should be approved on farmland. The quote is: "It's a difficult choice that I've made, and I've probably disappointed some folks in the audience. As far as Saanich as a community, I think it's a better direction to have a subdivision." I applaud that because she recognized that in that particular circumstance a change that was offset by other remediation was the right decision for that community and for all of the people in that community.

[1625]

That is truly what this act allows and does for the future: to build the opportunity for local community needs and the needs of individual farmers and their families to be considered.

The B.C. Agriculture Council spoke out clearly when the act was introduced, met with the minister and clearly talked about the concerns that they had. The minister listened to them. The minister is continuing to work with them and has made a clear commitment, not only to them but to other organizations, that the regulations which will ensure the proper management and implementation of the act will be a part of that process and an important ingredient in determining what those regulations are.

We on this side of the House clearly believe that this act will help farmers grow their business, earn a better living and provide for their families, as I've already said. It also supports farming families in continuing to produce food on their land and then also gives the commission the tools it needs to continue to make independent land use decisions.

I think the suggestion that the act and the structure for the Agricultural Land Commission and its deliberations are subject to political interference are absolutely false. Those people will be people that represent their com-
[ Page 3715 ]
munities; that absolutely understand the future of their communities; will have a meaningful voice in the process; and will be able to, as in the case of the opposition critic in a decision that was made, understand what the local community needs are and will be able to respond to those in a meaningful and effective manner.

When I have watched, over my years involved in local government, and seen what has gone on, even at UBCM, with the discussions about the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land protection, many of the people that I've sat with, whether they were from urban communities or rural communities, absolutely agreed that the protection of farmland, the protection of food production, is paramount to the security of our province and our future.

I have not met anyone who is prepared to say, "We want to destroy that," or to see that put aside. But what we do want is to make sure that agriculture is seen in the context of that contribution to our future and is balanced with the other economic priorities that we have to balance in the province.

I know that as we move forward, we are going to continue to work with communities, with farming families, with people who have a vested interest in where the act and the Agricultural Land Commission goes. I know that the people that will be serving this province in the capacity of the panels and on the Agricultural Land Commission have one thing in mind, and that one thing is the protection of our food sources and the future of agriculture and farming in this province. That is the goal of the government in introducing this act. It is the goal of this government in working with the agricultural community, now and in the future.

I've seen and talked with farmers who are looking for some flexibility on their land to be able to use it to enhance production, to perhaps have secondary production of the food that they're growing on their land and to be able to do that in a way that builds the economy in some creative and unique ways while maintaining the protection of the agricultural land. That's what we should be doing.

Staying in the same paradigm we have for the last 40 years…. I'm reminded, again, of the quote that I read, from the former Leader of the Opposition. "We don't want to build a museum in agriculture. We want to build a thriving, growing economy that celebrates what agriculture brings, that protects the future for all British Columbians."

[1630]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That is why this act has been introduced. That is why this government is committing to work with the sector to make sure that we protect the future, and that is why I support this bill without any hesitation whatsoever.

G. Heyman: It's an honour and a responsibility for me to rise and join with my colleagues to speak against this piece of legislation. It has been fascinating to listen to the many claims from members of the government caucus, including the Education Minister just recently, talking about how important this piece of legislation is and how it's dedicated to enhancing and protecting agriculture.

A few things have occurred to me as I've listened to the debate. Different thoughts and themes have run through my mind. One of the expressions that came to mind repeatedly to me as I was listening to the Education Minister was a phrase that's often used as a bit of a joke, the phrase about people who act rashly: ready, fire, aim. What Bill 24 reminds me of, and it's not unlike or dissimilar to what happened immediately following the last election, is: surprise, legislate, pretend to consult.

First of all, let me say that if this piece of legislation was so critical, if action as exemplified in this bill was so important to the protection of our ability to feed ourselves, our ability to protect agricultural land in British Columbia, then I have to ask myself — in fact, I would scratch my head and ask myself: "Why did the government not hold consultations prior to the last election? Why did the government not talk about this during the last election? Why did the government not include this in its platform?"

If something is so critical to the future of an industry in British Columbia and so critical to the people of British Columbia and so critical to our ability to feed ourselves, one would think it would have been on the government's radar screen prior to a mere year ago. One would think, if it was so important and on the government's radar screen, that they would have enough respect for the voters of this province to talk about it.

The Minister of Education took some liberty with quoting the former Leader of the Opposition from different statements that were made prior to the last election. He, of course, has misrepresented what the then Leader of the Opposition meant.

But what he failed to note was that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about agriculture, talking about things that we could do to enhance both support for farmers and support for agricultural land — not hiding in the weeds waiting to ambush the people of British Columbia with yet another proposal following an election that was never talked about prior to the election.

Apparently, members of this government think that all of the fallout from their introduction of the HST following 2009 has just evaporated into the ether and that now it's okay to just sandbag British Columbians with something that is engendering widespread opposition — among citizens, among communities, among people who are involved in the agriculture industry, among farmers, among farming associations — with complete disregard for science and complete disregard for what we should know in a changing landscape, in a warming cli-
[ Page 3716 ]
mate around the world, that we need to take great, great care to protect.

I also thought, as I've listened to the debate on this bill and thought about this bill: "What does core review actually mean?"

We watched the government bring in a core review process after it was elected in 2001. The points that were made to me then — in talking to senior deputy ministers and, in fact, to ministers in the government of the day — was that the core review was about: what should government be doing? What is it efficient for government to do, and what is it not efficient for government to do? How can we do things better? How can we focus our energies?

[1635]

Now, I have plenty of disagreements with what the government of the day thought was central to what government should do and how services should be delivered. But it didn't seem to me at the time and it doesn't seem to me today and it doesn't seem to members on this side of the House — with the possible exception of the members at the very end of the row — and it doesn't seem to many British Columbians that a core review should be about looking at something as fundamental as our ability to feed ourselves now, a decade from now, two decades from now, 50 years from now and 100 years from now, and change what has been a model for doing everything we can to protect that ability to feed ourselves in British Columbia for the last four decades.

How does that become the subject of core review? How does that fall to the Minister Responsible for Core Review — a minister, I would note, who has spoken repeatedly in the previous term of government and made absolutely clear the contempt with which he holds the Agricultural Land Commission and the concept of the reserve because it gets in the way of certain development proposals that he thinks should go ahead?

Now, the minister is certainly entitled to his opinion as a minister. He's entitled to his opinion as an MLA. He's entitled to represent the views of his constituents, whether or not those views actually challenge the fundamental premise of the need for the ALR. But what he shouldn't be doing is determining agricultural policy as part of a core review, because I think all British Columbians accept that a core role for government is to protect our ability to feed ourselves now and into the future.

While members on the opposite side claim that that's the intention of this bill, many British Columbians disagree. But more importantly, no British Columbian — no one active in the agricultural sector, no one who grows food for a living that we're aware of, unless there was some backroom discussion — was consulted as part of the process in the development of this bill.

The principles that are embodied in this bill are principles that weaken the ability of the commission to protect agricultural land in British Columbia and weaken the ability of the commission to ensure that there is one central, overarching policy of the B.C. government and the Agricultural Land Commission on behalf of the people of British Columbia: to protect our food security now and into the future.

I say again that if this was a critical, critical action for the government to take, and if the government honestly believed that the purpose of the changes was to enhance support for farmers and production of food in British Columbia, then why did they not talk about it prior to the election?

I've stood in this chamber. I've listened to ministers talk about promises made, promises kept. I've heard the Minister of Transportation, for example — and I think it's a reasonable parallel — say that the reason he introduced legislation for a referendum on TransLink in greater Vancouver but nowhere else in the province was simply because that was a specific promise made in the election, a specific promise made in the platform, and he intended that the government would keep its word.

Surely, if that is the position of the government, it's a reasonable corollary to assume that if a promise isn't made or if an issue isn't even raised but it's so emergent, it would have been raised, it should have been raised, and it should have been part of the platform the government campaigned on and not sprung on British Columbians with no warning after an election.

This is critical to our ability to feed ourselves. It's critical to the future of our security. It's critical not just to the security of British Columbians but for others who might in the future, in an age of climate change, come to rely on us to help feed others in the world who are suffering drought, who are suffering from decreased production capacity.

It's not only a responsibility; it's also, I would point out, an economic opportunity. This government claims it's about economic opportunities, but apparently it's about economic opportunism and shortsighted decisions that don't hold the value that we need to think long term, both about our security, our ability to feed ourselves, and what the economy of the future looks like.

[1640]

That is the kind of shortsightedness that creates long-term problems for our children and for our grandchildren.

If it was this important, it should have been in the platform. The corollary is that if the government doesn't make a promise and doesn't even mention an issue, then legislation of such import as this should only be sprung on British Columbians if something is emergent, if something unforeseen happened.

Frankly, as I'll say a little later in my remarks, the only things that have emerged recently that perhaps were unforeseen, or at least the critical nature of them has been unforeseen, are recent reports that indicate the effects of climate change are escalating more rapidly than previously thought, droughts are occurring more frequently
[ Page 3717 ]
than previously thought, and that will have a significant and severe impact on food production. That's what is emergent. That's what is new, and that is precisely what this government with this bill is disregarding and disregarding dangerously.

The Minister Responsible for Core Review, notwithstanding the fact that I believe he should have had nothing to do with agricultural legislation and that this agricultural legislation has nothing to do with a core review of government…. Whether or not we think core reviews are useful things to undertake, this is not the kind of legislation that should have fallen to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

Notwithstanding that, the minister responsible admitted in this chamber that consultation should have happened, and it didn't. He said: "Mea culpa." Mea culpa doesn't begin to address the nature of the apology that the minister and the government should be making to the people of British Columbia for a failure to consult on something so fundamental to our future. It doesn't begin to address the failure to consult the agricultural community — farmers, ranchers, people who raise livestock, communities whose economies revolve around agriculture now and communities whose economies may revolve more fully around agriculture in the future.

A proper response would not be to stand in this House and say: "I made a mistake. Mea culpa. I apologize. I shouldn't have done it." A proper response would be to say: "You know what? That's a very good point. We haven't consulted, and we're going to hold back on this legislation. We're going to put it on hold because what's the rush? What's really the rush?"

We should gather more scientific evidence, but we should talk to British Columbians. We should assess the views of British Columbians. We should assess the views of the agricultural community. We should allow full input into such a critical decision, the results of which could permanently remove important agricultural land from production in the future. And if the result of that consultation is that we were on the wrong track, then we simply won't proceed.

That kind of statement would have had meaning. "Mea culpa. I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I forgot to talk to British Columbians. Gee, we forgot to mention it in the election campaign. Shucks, we forgot to put it in the platform. But we're going to plow ahead anyway." That simply isn't good enough.

It's not good enough for British Columbians. It's not good enough for the agricultural community. It's not good enough for people who need to feed themselves now and in the future. But most importantly, it's disrespectful and wrong to put our children and our grandchildren in such a dangerous position at a time that we all know is fraught with environmental challenges and environmental change, the scale of which we're only beginning to comprehend.

[1645]

When we were taking the Easter break, I sponsored a forum in my constituency, a forum on local food security and the agricultural land reserve. We put it together fairly quickly. We didn't have a lot of time, but I thought: "We're back in the community. It's time. It's a good opportunity to consult. We know Bill 24 is coming forward." So we quickly put out the word as best we could, and we held the forum in the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House.

We had a couple of people who for the last couple of decades have each been working on local food policy in greater Vancouver and working to connect farmers with city people, to create connections that have resulted in the proliferation of farmers markets and the understanding of food and food security issues among urban people. They also help to provide support for those people who make a living farming.

I was pleased that we had a fairly large turnout. Given the circumstance, given the short notice, the turnout was, I think, close to 50 people. The conversation was going on for a couple of hours. There was great interest. But what also pleased me was the range of people in the room from all age groups. We had seniors. We had people of middle age. We had a lot of young people who are concerned about what the future will look like for them, not just because of the impacts of all sorts on the environment, on the planet and other parts of the planet from climate change, but also because they're concerned about food security into the future.

We also had one young farmer, a young man who started by creating urban farming plots in some of the arable areas on the fringes of Vancouver and who would like to go into larger-scale farming. He gave a very informative presentation to the people in the room. He talked about the challenges. He talked about the excitement of growing food and actually being able to produce and provide to people. He also talked about the challenges that people of his generation face in wondering if it would ever, ever be possible for him to have access to a large enough piece of farmland in order to do what he's always wanted to do, which is to grow food and provide it to people.

There was a lot of discussion about what this bill meant at that forum. There was a lot of concern about what this bill meant, and there was a lot of anger. There was anger at the lack of consultation. There was anger at the speed at which this bill was being rammed down their throats. There was anger that it had never been mentioned, and there was worry, deep worry, among the people in the room about what the end result of this bill would mean.

People were upset that they saw considerable opposition from people in the agricultural community — from people who raise cattle, from the Agriculture Council. I've heard members opposite say that the Agriculture Council has said they support this bill, that the only problem they have is that it should be one zone, with the rules of zone 2 applying to everyone. I believe that is simply not
[ Page 3718 ]
true. That's a misinterpretation of what the Agriculture Council has said, and I believe that will be clear shortly.

What is clear is there wasn't consultation. It wasn't just that there wasn't adequate consultation. There wasn't consultation. So the people in that room asked me to come back here and do everything I could to raise my voice, to talk about the issues that affect communities, to talk about the fundamental importance of food today and into the future as we deal with the issues of climate change. They asked me to work in this chamber and with them outside the chamber to do everything we could to bring pressure to bear on the people responsible for this legislation to not proceed, because the application of this legislation is not benign, in their view.

It's fine for members opposite to say: "What's the problem here? We're creating a zone that protects the area of British Columbia that's responsible for a huge amount of agricultural production today, and we're just going to apply some different rules to the rest of the province that produces a smaller percentage."

[1650]

Well, the problem with that is we don't have a huge amount of agricultural land in British Columbia.

What is able to be grown in zone 1 will change, perhaps far more rapidly than we expect, over the coming decade, over the coming few years, over the coming two decades. What it is possible to produce in zone 2 will also change as the climate changes. More importantly, the need to produce food in every single piece of arable land in British Columbia is becoming more and more apparent by the day and will be more apparent in the future.

The people who were at that forum asked me to do everything I could in this chamber and to work with them to help them raise their voices to convince this government that this legislation was ill-thought-out. This legislation was ill-introduced. This legislation once again demonstrates a government that doesn't think it needs to consult because it thinks it has all the best ideas.

Today in this chamber, Monday in this chamber, next week in this chamber, the following week in the community and the week after that in this chamber and for every week and every year after that, I and others in my community will be committed to doing everything we can to stop this bill and to do everything we can to ensure that the huge, potentially negative impacts of this bill are never implemented.

What this bill really does is open the door to a number of separate agricultural land policies around the province and to inconsistency of application of the principles of the reserve around the province and to the making of somebody's development proposal and equal value to the importance of agricultural land in areas around the province outside of zone 1.

It allows cabinet to handpick regional chairs of commissions, who will be subject to local lobbying on decisions respecting agricultural land. That is precisely — precisely — why we have a central commission. It's to ensure that we have a unified approach to protecting agricultural land around British Columbia and that local issues do not detract — as important as people in a community may think those local issues are, as important as they think their development proposal may be — from the overriding value of the principle of protecting agricultural land in British Columbia for the entire province.

We import food from all over the world. We all believe in local food. We believe in getting our food from as close a location as possible. But we also know that we have been dependent — for many decades and for many, many items — on food importation from other regions of the world, particularly California. We know that that will not go on forever. In fact, it is under threat today.

There are huge droughts in California today. The state of California is telling growers today that they can no longer supply them with water beyond what they can find on their own land, and they cannot find enough. That means two things. That means that crops will fail. It means that some crops will never be planted, and those crops that are available will rise in price hugely. Even assuming that they will be available to British Columbians, they will be beyond the reach of many, many, many families, particularly the further north we go.

We have a responsibility to plan for the future. The time to plan for the future and to protect agricultural land for the future is now. If we take actions now to respond to ideas that may, in the short-term, seem like a good economic proposal in a particular region of the province….

[1655]

Yesterday we didn't have any problem buying food in the supermarket. Tomorrow, when we do have a problem, that land will no longer be available to take care of the needs. That day will be sooner and closer than most of us think.

Let me read a portion of a letter that was sent to the Minister of Agriculture. This is from a resident of Boundary-Similkameen. The person writes:

"I am writing to you about Bill 24. My wife and children and I moved to a farm in southern B.C. near Rock Creek in August of 2013, after selling our ranch in Alberta. We chose to buy in B.C. because of the province's long history of protecting its farmland, cherishing its farmers and being a friendly marketplace for direct marketers like us.

"Now, just eight months after calling this beautiful province home, the government is looking to pass legislation that will open up ALR land to further development options. To call this advantageous for landowners is ridiculous, unless you are wanting to sell your land and cash in. This, however, only serves to drive up already inflated land prices, making it harder for existing farmers to expand.

"Coming from Alberta and working off farm as a pipeline consultant for companies like Enbridge has given me an enlightening perspective from all sides of this debate over the years. Farming is a lifestyle, but it is also a business, and the small farm culture in B.C. is one of the most resilient I have ever seen.

"People here make it work no matter what, with good management, good business planning and good marketing. They do not need relaxed development laws so that they may slap up some
[ Page 3719 ]
cabins to help with cash flow. They do not need legislation to make it easier to subdivide and sell off chunks, which only weakens our food system by taking more land out of agricultural production.

"What they need in legislation is exactly what we already have in the ALR, a system that regulates development on agriculturally productive land, protects it and assists farmers in doing what they do best, ensuring our province and our nation have a safe, healthy food supply regardless of world economies, climate catastrophes and political posturing disguised as trade deals.

"I intend to raise my family and my food for the betterment of my community, my province and my country."

It's important to listen to the sentiments expressed in that letter and the commitment of people who choose to farm for a living and who are committed to protecting farmland.

Yes, it is true that some people who have been in the farming industry for many years are ready to move on. It is true that young people are having trouble finding access to farmland so they, too, can be farmers. But the answer to that is not to make farmland subject to ad hoc development decisions, which we've seen enough of under this government in the last few years.

It's not to introduce a piece of legislation that creates a patchwork of agricultural land protection policy around the province. It is to find different ways to help existing farmers to transition and help new and prospective farmers to be able to afford to grow food, to have access to farmland and to provide food for us and for future generations, especially with regard to the threats of climate change that we all know are coming.

Half an hour goes quickly. I'd intended to read some items from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture's own climate action plan, 2010-13. Let me simply read one small piece. "As a land-based industry, agriculture is particularly vulnerable to climatic changes." "A broad strategic approach increases the tools available to agricultural producers to anticipate and manage change."

[1700]

The way to proceed in the face of climate change that faces us all, the way to proceed in the face of the challenges facing people in the farming community and those who wish to be part of the farming community is to have a broad consultation, to look at a full range of the tools that are available to assist farmers and protect farmland. But it is not to bring in a bill like Bill 24 with no consultation, ram it down the throats of British Columbians and put in place a system that fundamentally attacks the character of the reserve we've had for four decades. That is just wrong, and that is why I will be opposing this bill along with my colleagues.

M. Bernier: I'm proud to stand, actually, as the MLA for Peace River South. To the best of my knowledge, I come from the riding that actually has the most ALR in the entire province. So I can relate to this. I can relate quite well.

My friend that just spoke prior to me, from Vancouver-Fairview, spoke quite passionately. I honestly have to say that I have a hard time understanding how some members in this House can actually relate. I have all the farmland in my area in the ALR, the majority of it. I haven't seen too much in downtown Vancouver. Also, the last time I was in Vancouver I didn't see too many combines driving around either. But this is something that I can relate to in my riding quite well.

I would like to start by thanking the farmers and thanking the ranchers in the South Peace. I think anybody out in, I would probably say, the zone 2 area — people who have a lot of …. Ranchers, a lot of farmers, people who have been multigenerational people working the land — they're the most passionate people that we have in B.C., some of the most passionate farmers we have.

One thing I appreciate about them is the fact that they always tell you what they think. They always tell you what they need. They're not afraid to speak their minds. What I'm hearing is that a lot of them are telling me that they're barely making enough money on the farm right now to continue, and this is something that we need to address.

Farming for them — this is a way of life. This is something they've been doing for generations. It's a part of them. It's a part of their families. It's something they want to continue doing. They've been doing it for years, but now they're struggling.

Presently the ALR as it is, is hurting the farm families in my area. It's slowing down our economy, and it's because of the one-size-fits-all system that we have. It doesn't work anymore for rural British Columbia as it is. In fact, it's now hurting a lot of the farmers that it was originally designed to protect. In fact, I'd probably say that it's really not protecting the farmers at all. It's protecting the land, not the farmers.

This is something that I'm really happy that our side of the House is standing up and recognizing. We are trying to protect the farmers as well. We support the ALC. We support the commission. We understand its role. We always have. What we're trying to do is expand that so that we can also recognize the needs of the farmers that are on the land.

If we don't do this, it's all for naught. We can have as much farmland protected in the province of B.C. as we want. If we don't have the farmers on the land to farm it, it doesn't matter. That's why we have to look at this bill. That's why we have to look at how we can help our farmers.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm going to see from the members opposite that the opposition truly wants to protect the farmers. I'd like to have them stand up and say that they support the bill, because this is about protecting the farmers who are on the land, who are trying to make a living, who are trying to produce food for us.

They want to farm their land. They want to stay on their land. What they're telling me is that they need help. They're asking us for help. If we really want to help the farmers in British Columbia, the farmers in my region,
[ Page 3720 ]
we have to recognize that there are regional differences. I'm glad, after all of the years of them asking me, of asking government to look at changes, that government is listening, and we are trying to help them.

If the members opposite would actually take a moment to listen to the people in my riding, to listen to their concerns, to listen to their issues and admit publicly that they actually are supporting the farmers in rural B.C., they wouldn't have a choice but to support this bill.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure my fears are going to come true. The misplaced ideology will have them vote against this very bill that we are trying to put forward to protect the farmers.

I'll also argue that the members opposite that are speaking against this, specifically referencing my part of province, have, actually, probably never even been there. If they have, they haven't spent a lot of time to hear the issues. For myself, I live it. I hear it every day, and I see it.

[1705]

The opposition member for Saanich South doesn't understand, I think, where I come from in the north either. I always try to shy away from personalizing issues, but with no pun intended, a comment a couple days ago really got my goat. The comment was, "The Peace can grow grain. We all know that, and it does. But it also can finish cattle up there, and if this government had any foresight, they'd support the meat regulations and put in some slaughterhouses up there," so that we could look at value-added opportunities for ranching. Interesting quote.

The correction, though, is we have at least two slaughterhouses that I know of. It kind of hits close to home. My son has worked in one of them for years. In fact, we have one that's still in operation. It started in 1931 outside of Dawson Creek in Rolla, B.C. — Glover Lawrence's meat-packing. They moved into Dawson Creek, employ hundreds of people. They've now opened two extra chains for their product, for selling the meat, and most of this is local product, local cattle that's coming in.

I look at some of the issues that I have locally as well. I look at one farmer. I have a gentleman named Tim Pavlis. He farms about 6,000 acres. That's not 60, not 600 — 6,000 acres. I think, for a lot of people in this House, unless you've been to my area, you probably can't even comprehend how much 6,000 acres is.

He employs 20 people on his farm. It's a grain farm — canola, wheat. In the wintertime, because of our short growing season, only about six months long…. And yes, it's productive in those six months, but in the six months when his farm is under four feet of snow, he tries to make a living with the few trucks that he has servicing out in the oil and gas industry or hauling water for people in the rurals.

He has a very compact operation, about five or six acres. I think five acres is all he was able to have, and he's got 6,000 acres. He asked for one or two acres to be taken out so he could build a shop so he could keep those 20 people employed year-round working on his trucks, helping him drive the trucks in the wintertime when they're unable to farm, and he was turned down.

I had another farmer come to me and say: "I've got hundreds and hundreds of acres, but in the back corner next to the creek I've got a gravel pit." It doesn't even grow dandelions, can't even grow weeds. It's a gravel pit. He applied to have a portion of that, the gravel only, removed out of the ALR so he could make a side profit by selling that gravel to a road maintenance company. He was turned down because somebody outside of our area said, "That's good-quality land," because on the map it says it's good-quality land. In reality, it was a gravel pit.

These are some of the challenges that I face where I am, and it's hard to justify and it's hard to rationalize, but it's hard to explain to people the logic around some of this.

So far in this House we've heard mostly from opposition members in zone 1 in the south. I want to reiterate: nothing is changing in zone 1. We've been clear about that. Nothing is changing in zone 1. What it shows me is the members care more about politics, not about the people in the province. They don't care about the farmers who actually are working the land and their families that they are trying to sustain. What bothers me is we have people standing up in this House trying to invoke fear, saying: "The sky is falling, and we have to be against this." But they're people in zone 1 where nothing's changing.

The problem that I'm hearing in my area is why we have people in the southern part of the province trying to dictate how somebody in the north lives their life. When somebody has 6,000 acres of land, trying to make a living, and they're struggling — they're saying, "Give me a chance; give me some hope; give me an opportunity here so I can stay on the farm, so I can raise my family, so I can be productive" — they keep being told no.

[1710]

With this bill, they're actually saying: "Finally, there's some hope." This bill is giving them that. This bill actually enhances and protects the ALR. But to me, it's not just about the ALR; it's about the farmers. It's about a way of life, and it's about giving them opportunities.

That's why we recognize the fact that it's both. It's about protecting the farmland, ensuring that we have farmland available for our security for the province but ensuring that we have farmers that have the capability of working that land.

Let me put into context for you a little bit some of the differences that I face, just to put it in context and put it in perspective for what's happening in my area. I've talked with the ALC. I've got a bit of a chart here, and it really surprised me, actually. I didn't realize the huge difference that we have in the different zones and the different areas of the province.

When I look at the capital regional district, since the inception of the ALR the capital regional district right
[ Page 3721 ]
here has removed more land out of the ALR than the entire Peace region. We've got almost 50 percent of the ALR land. We're not removing it; we are actually adding.

When people down here find opportunities and are removing land, because we actually appreciate the fact that we want to protect ALR land and we want to have a magic number, it seems, we're throwing land in — up north, though. To help facilitate growth, pressures down here — I understand that. All the people in my region are asking for is for them to be considered when they're looking at that land, when land is going in, but respect their decisions when they feel that there's marginal land that they want to have removed.

I look at Nanaimo. Obviously, I've never spent a lot of time in Nanaimo, I must confess, to see the vast array of agricultural opportunities that they must have. In fact, Nanaimo, when the ALR was brought about, had 21,000 hectares of land in the ALR. The issue here is that in the last 30 years they have actually removed one-third. One-third of that land, almost 5,000 hectares, has been removed.

The reason I bring this up is that you look at some of these areas…. Capital regional district, under 20,000 hectares; Nanaimo, 20,000 hectares; Sunshine Coast, 6,000 hectares of agricultural lands, and they have removed almost half of it.

Again, to bring it back close to home for myself, put things in perspective: Sunshine Coast, 6,000 hectares; Peace River regional district, almost 1.5 million hectares of land in the ALR. There's nobody even close in the province with how much land is in the ALR. That's my area, so I recognize this.

Here's the interesting thing. Although I have the most ALR land, I've almost had the smallest amount removed. Of all the people that I've just mentioned, the Peace River regional district, since its inception, has only had just over 2,500 hectares of land removed — 2,500 hectares — and the capital regional district, 2,800 hectares.

I think these are important facts that people need to realize. It shows me there's a difference. This is why this government is recognizing that and looking at opportunities to try to understand and recognize that difference and help the families. We're trying to protect the farmland. We're doing this by helping the farmers. But it reminds me again of the phrase that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Back again, it doesn't matter how much land we protect. If we can't protect the farmers, it's all for naught. It means nothing.

We need to do both, and that's what this bill is trying to do. If we don't have dedicated farmers on the land, it doesn't matter. So in reality, contrary to what a lot of members in this House in the opposition are saying, by protecting the farmers, we're actually protecting the farmland. We are going to have people on the land farming.

[1715]

That's what we're trying to do. I thought that was the whole point, in the '70s, of having an agricultural land reserve — to protect farmers and to protect farmland so that we can have food security. We need both. That's why I'm really happy to support this bill.

We need a bill that reflects today's realities. We need a bill that protects the farmers as well. When you hear people complaining that we're going to lose the land, we're going to lose the ALC, you're right. We will, if we do not help the farmers on the land. We need to understand why the agricultural land reserve was created to begin with.

I come from an area that's built on agriculture. Again, it's not only the largest in the province for protected land — ALR — but it's one of the most productive northern agricultural zones in all of Canada, something we're proud of.

In my community of Dawson Creek…. I don't want to give a history lesson, because a lot of people might actually know this. But prior to the oil and gas industry the city of Dawson Creek was mostly, solely, an agricultural community. It was built around agriculture. It was built about the passion of people farming. They supported businesses. They helped grow the community.

It used to be thriving in the rural areas around Dawson Creek. When I look at Farmington, Rolla and Toms Lake…. These are rural communities in my area; a couple of hundred farmers in each of those areas. They were thriving communities when the agricultural land reserve was created. They were. They had thriving, robust, active schools.

Here's the challenge we face now. Our schools are closing. Our rural schools are closing. The rural life has changed. Why? Because the families are having a hard time staying on their farms and they're moving into the city. They want to stay on their farms. They want to raise their families on their farm, because most of them…. When they were kids, that passion of farming was instilled into them. That is something that once it's in your blood, you never lose it.

So when they tell me heartbreaking stories…. A mother, coming into my office: "I applied for five acres of land to come out because my son just got married. His wife is pregnant. They want to stay on the farm, and I'm older, and I want him to start managing and running my farm. But I don't want to leave. I don't want to leave my farm where I was born and raised and move into the city," says the old mother, because she has the passion as well. She wants to help where she can, but she wants to be able to pass that on to the next generation.

You can imagine how upset she was when she came into my office to say: "I was turned down for that exclusion. My son cannot live with me anymore on the farm and start to build his own house. So guess what. He, his wife and their child-to-be are now going to have to move into the city and start their life." What are the odds of
[ Page 3722 ]
them actually going back out to the farm once they start a new life in the city? Unfortunately, probably not going to happen.

I kind of look to people in this House and say…. In the urban settings, how would you feel if you wanted your child to live with you, wanted that family to stay with you, wanted to help raise the family, but you were told by somebody else, somewhere else in the province, probably somebody who has never even been into your area: "Sorry, you can't"?

You could have 6,000 acres of land, and you're asking for five acres — five acres — to come out to help support the farm, to help keep the family close, to pass it on to the next generation. And they're told no. To me, that is disrespectful to farmers, and that is what is going to erode the very thing that we are trying to protect.

This happens because right now a regulation says that they can't. It's a reality in my riding. Unfortunately, again, they say goodbye. They move into the city, and it's not their fault. They're asking for help.

[1720]

That's why I'm happy that we are listening. We're listening to those concerns. We're listening to these issues that people are bringing forward in my riding when they're asking for help, and we are trying to help them stay on the land. We want them to continue farming. All we're trying to do with this bill is allow the people to do that — to own their land, to stay on the land. Give them some flexibility. Allow them to be creative and allow the farmers, who are the people who helped build this country, to be the entrepreneurs that they deserve to be and that they are.

I think, at the end of the day, that's actually going to help everybody in this House. It's going to help everybody in this province. That's why I know, and I strongly believe, because I hear it from the people in my area, this is the right thing to do.

I've received hundreds of letters, hundreds of e-mails and — what's exciting for me — hundreds of thank-yous from people who are coming forward and saying: "Finally, you're giving me an opportunity, some hope, maybe something I can do to finally stay on the farm." They've been asking this for years.

When I was the mayor for the city of Dawson Creek…. This is nothing new. I had people coming into my office for years, saying: "I know it's not your role as the mayor, but can you please help us stay on our farm? We don't want to move into your community. We want to stay on the farm. Can you as the mayor please help get that message across to government?" Now, as an MLA, and my colleagues, I really am thankful that we're bringing forward something that's going to help my area.

I look at a couple of…. Like I say, I received hundreds of letters. But I received a few that have some really, I think, passionate and pointed issues that I want to bring forward.

I had one lady, Ellen Gross. She says: "We have unique and varied soil conditions here in the Peace that people need to recognize. We have land that's not farmable. Considerations should be given to these situations to allow other constructive uses of the land so that it's not just sitting there vacant, it's not sitting there unused, as it is now. It amazes me that local farmers and ranchers are not allowed to use any of their own land for non-farm use to generate an income that will actually in turn support the farm operations to allow us to stay on the farm and be productive."

I have hundred of letters like that. This is what we're facing in my area.

I have another gentleman, Daniel McLeod, reminding us: "The ALC. Fine, it worked 40 years ago. But in the present day it's actually eroding families, and it's eroding the Peace country that we live in. It's subjecting farmers and landowners who are trying to generate a small, off-farm income to the arbitrary and impractical governance of the ALC, making it difficult to subsidize a working farm with off-farm income."

It goes on and on with really good points. I won't read them all out to the House. But the last one here that he put was, I think, great. "B.C. is a vast and diverse province, the best place to live in Canada, and the Peace is the best place in British Columbia. The ALC is a one-size-fits-all bureaucracy, unfortunately, that no longer fits the Peace country's needs, and in the end it will actually serve to hurt the very people that it was designed to protect."

With that, I also want to thank in my riding…. I have a very passionate couple, Mary and John Miller. They're some of the original homesteaders in one of the communities, Rolla, which I mentioned a little earlier. They flew down here a week ago to remind me, to remind the Agriculture Minister, to say: "Please help me."

I think their family has farmed for over 100 years, and they're in fear of losing their farm. They spent their own money to come down here to say: "Finally. We are going to talk to our kids. We have an opportunity now to protect the farm with this bill. You're giving us hope."

They don't know what that is going to look like for them yet. They don't even know what they require. But they just know that there might be opportunities, and that's what they wanted to see.

[1725]

Do you know what I just realized, though, in saying that? Everybody in this House opposition has stood up and said: "We have to protect the Agricultural Land Commission. We have to protect the land." What I'm hoping to hear as the rest of this debate goes on is… Please tell me you're going to stand up and protect the farmers who are actually working that land, the farmers who are growing the food, the farmers in my region who are coming to me saying: "We need this change."

They recognize the importance of the Agricultural Land Commission. They're just asking, as the bill puts forward, for a little bit of flexibility to allow them to use
[ Page 3723 ]
parts of their land. Myself, I understand the importance of the Agricultural Land Commission. I do. But I also understand the importance of supporting my constituents, supporting the farmers and supporting the hard-working people of British Columbia who are on the land.

To brag about how much land we protect sounds great. It seems like that's what we have been doing all the time. "We've got an ALR, and look how much land we've protected." Now let's give the people in this province with this land that we've protected the tools so they can actually work on that land, so they can actually use that land, so they can be productive. Farmers in my area are asking for that. In fact, I think both sides of this House have heard this.

We have people who have said: "No, we haven't heard people asking for this." Well, in fact, I read the transcripts from Hansard for those who were on the Finance Committee, and I hope and I think, if they were paying attention, both sides of this House heard loud and clear from rural British Columbians.

I know in my area and in the north they've asked for this. This should be no surprise. Before this bill hit the House, people knew, on both sides of the House, that there were people out there asking for help and asking for changes. They heard that B.C. has different regions and different pressures, different climates. I think what government has put forward with this two-zone approach…. I believe, we've reached a great compromise.

In the Lower Mainland, where a lot of the pressures are, I understand, we're trying to protect land in zone 1, and we've got amazing, productive farming operations in zone 1. I've gone to see a lot of them, and I want to thank them for the work they do and for what they're doing to feed me, my family and the people in British Columbia. What they're doing has been very productive, and we recognize that, which is why we wanted to ensure this two-zone approach.

Just looking at the clock again, I realize that my time is getting a little close. I was hoping to use up as much time as possible. As mentioned earlier, 30 minutes can go by pretty quickly. I think most people in this House that are passionate, on both sides, could probably talk for a lot more than that.

An Hon. Member: A few hours.

M. Bernier: I know. Thank you. Two hours for the critic, and he filled it up very well. I didn't really understand most of what he said, but he did definitely talk for two hours.

Again, I want to thank the farmers in my area. They are under a lot of pressure because of the growth in my area. They're asking for opportunities. They want to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that are happening in the Peace region. They want to be able to have some flexibility to enable them to keep farming, because that's what this is about. This is about having the right tools for them so they can continue working on the farm.

You're going to hear people say that it's about eroding the farmers, eroding the farmland. That's actually just not the case. I talk to people in my area. That's what they just want to do. They want to farm.

I just want to end with this. I want to thank government for putting this bill forward. I'm proud to support it, because this is what my region has been asking for, this is what my region was hoping for, and I know I have the support of the majority of the people in my region for this bill.

Anyone voting against this bill needs to realize that by doing so, what they're actually doing is jeopardizing the very thing we are trying to protect, which is the farmers and the farmland that are feeding the people of British Columbia.

[1730]

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank the House and yourself for this opportunity and this time to bring forward the issues of the people in my region. I'm hoping both sides of the House will have listened to what I've said and can understand the impacts that we have as a government on people's lives and why this bill is so important to support.

Deputy Speaker: Member for New Westminster.

Interjections.

J. Darcy: It's okay. I was hoping to catch the ferry, but I think that's out of the question now — even though that one's still running.

I listened very closely to what the member from Peace River South had to say, and I certainly admire the passion with which he spoke about farmers and about farming. I want to begin by saying that on this side of the House, we are equally passionate about farmers and farming, and perhaps it would have been a grand idea, in the course of the last election in this province, for us to have a fulsome debate about what it means to support farmers and to support farming and a discussion about the agricultural land reserve.

I didn't hear it from the candidate in my constituency. I've talked to people who ran for office and who were elected to office right across British Columbia. Changes to the agricultural land reserve were not part of the B.C. Liberal Party's platform. Not once. Not anywhere. And when rumours bubbled up from time to time, the Liberal Party was very firm about stamping them out and saying: "No, no. We're not talking about changes to the Agricultural Land Commission or the agricultural land reserve."

Now, I understand that when governments are elected because they get a majority of seats, there are changes they decide to make. But this is a policy, an institution,
[ Page 3724 ]
that has been created and built over 40 years through successive governments of various ideological stripes, and surely, if the B.C. Liberal Party wanted to make sweeping changes to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission, the voters of British Columbia were entitled to hear about that and to know about that so that they could make an informed decision. But in fact, that election was just a year ago, and there was not a peep from people in this government who now are instituting sweeping changes about it.

There have been rumours — rumours last fall, in particular, because of what was perceived as interference by some ministers, past and present, of this government. But it wasn't until November of 2013 that some of this stuff started really coming out into the open. B.C. Liberal plans to make major changes to the Agricultural Land Commission were brought to light when various government documents were leaked to the media.

It wasn't until a bit later that we actually saw and were able to read a leaked cabinet document, a cabinet decision summary sheet, that said: "The Agricultural Land Commission legislative mandate is too narrow to allow decisions that align with the priority for economic development." It gave a step-by-step description of what actions the Minister of Agriculture would take, calling on cabinet to allow the development of policy, regulatory and legislative amendments to make the changes.

Well, when that did come to light, the Minister of Energy and Mines, who had earlier in 2013 promised that the B.C. Liberals' core review would look at some sacrosanct things like the agricultural land reserve and the ALC, said: "It's a cabinet process. You apparently have a cabinet document. I'm not permitted…to talk about the cabinet processes and the things that are being discussed."

Of course, in early November that same Minister for the Core Review insisted that B.C. was not considering dismantling the Agricultural Land Commission or bringing it within government as part of the review. "Nothing that the core review process could potentially do would reduce the protection for farmland in British Columbia. Bottom line. There's nothing that we would contemplate that would reduce or undermine the central principle of the ALR, which is the protection of farmland and the sustainability of farming."

[1735]

Well, that was November of 2013. It wasn't many weeks later, many months later, that we had this bill, one that does in fact propose sweeping changes that allow valuable farmland to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve.

This was supposedly as a result of the core review. But when — I think we should ask when — did a change to the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve become part of the mandate of the core review? How did that happen? Was anyone in the agricultural sector consulted about this becoming part of the core review? Was the Agricultural Land Commission consulted? No.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Were communities in regions across British Columbia consulted about this coming under the core review? The answer to all of the above questions is obviously no. Nobody was consulted about what the government subsequently decided to do. This government clearly has no mandate, as a result either of the last election or of consultations in the period since the last election, from the agricultural community or from communities across this province to proceed in this way.

Now, when the new Minister of Agriculture was appointed a number of weeks ago, he actually inspired some considerable interest and, I would say, support. He said right from the outset…. I will say, by way of introduction, that I had the pleasure of working with the now Minister of Agriculture when he was the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Health.

In this role, he certainly believed — and he practised what he preached — that people should be consulted, that people should be brought together to talk about what we wanted to do — in this case, to improve our health care system and to ensure that it was sustainable. He was very open to bringing together experts who would have different opinions on the issue to be consulted before bringing recommendations back to this House.

It was very encouraging when he said, not long after being appointed, that he was willing to reconsider legislation that would change the agricultural land reserve but that he wanted to hear from British Columbians right across B.C. before he made up his mind. It was even more encouraging after he held what I gather was a seven-hour meeting with farmers and ranchers in Abbotsford. He said that he needed to hear….

He'd heard from them. He'd heard an awful lot of strong opinions from them opposed to what the government was doing, and he also needed to hear from the rest of the province before deciding whether to change or withdraw from the Legislature the proposed legislation concerning the agricultural land reserve.

"The opportunity is everything from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill," the Minister of Agriculture said in an interview. "I haven't landed on any particular recommendation yet because I'm not finished my consultation process." Kudos to the Minister of Agriculture for taking that approach. He asked the ministry staff to organize a B.C.-wide consultation.

Okay, we might say that it should take the form of more than phone, Twitter or web-based town hall meetings to consult. It ought to, and I believe it was the minister's intention to actually go and talk to people right across the province. Again, kudos to him for taking that approach.
[ Page 3725 ]

The B.C. Agricultural Council, as we all know, represents more than 14,000 farmers and ranchers across the province. It has stated repeatedly that this overhaul would leave northern farmland at risk of development for resource projects. The minister said that he has heard arguments from both supporters and opponents. And he says that he has personally read….

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Minister, I'm singing your praises.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Madam.

J. Darcy: Through the Chair, to the minister. I'm singing his praises. He just might want to pay attention.

[1740]

The minister says that he's heard arguments from both supporters and opponents and that he's personally read every e-mail that's been sent to his ministry on the subject, and the B.C. Agricultural Council chair said that he was pleased to hear that the minister would in fact engage in provincewide consultation. "There's definitely a path forward," said Mr. Vander Waal.

After the consultation the minister said he would then make recommendation to the B.C. Liberal caucus on what to do, and then talk to farmers again.

As I said, people were very encouraged. Farmers were very encouraged across B.C. But what happened next was very, very disturbing. Very disturbing, both I think to the democratic process and also very disturbing on this particular issue. Essentially, the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister Responsible for Core Review came forward and pulled the plug on the Minister of Agriculture's plan to thoroughly review the issue and to conduct full consultations.

The people of British Columbia were told in no uncertain terms by the Minister Responsible for Core Review, not the Minister of Agriculture, that this bill would be passed in this sitting of the House with no significant changes — an affront not just to the Minister of Agriculture but to people from across British Columbia, who have been flooding this minister, who have been flooding the Premier, who have been flooding cabinet members and all members of this House with their opinions on the agricultural land reserve.

Now, I can say to you that as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for New Westminster, I take my responsibility to listen to my constituents very seriously. When I speak in this House, I do my very best to reflect their views and to be guided by their opinions. So on an important issue like this, I ask my constituents, as other members of the opposition have done, to share their feelings and their opinions on this issue with me so that I could in fact share them with this House.

I can tell you that they flooded me with responses. People are very concerned about a whole lot of things. They're concerned about the lack of mandate for this B.C. Liberal government to proceed in this way without having brought such a fundamental issue before the voters. They're very concerned and angry about the lack of consultation, but they also tell me, over and over again, how passionate they are about the food they eat and where they come from.

They tell me how deeply concerned they are about food security, the security of our sources of food, in the present and in the future, and they also tell me how deeply concerned they are about the economy and about the need to support farmers and farming jobs by protecting the agricultural land reserve, not by reducing it.

I want to just read some of the comments that my constituents have made to me, just a sampling of them. A registered dietitian wrote:

"Oh, I have plenty to say. We are so fortunate to have so much great farmland that we take it for granted. But the population is increasing, and the amount of land we have to grow food on is decreasing. So it's critical that we preserve every bit that we can, because once it's gone, it's gone forever. We can't rely on outside sources, whether it's because of droughts in California or drug cartels in Mexico. We can't depend on others to ensure (1) that there's enough food, (2) that it's not outrageously expensive, and (3) that they don't use pesticides or chemicals that we in this province and in this country have deemed as dangerous.

"The proposed changes to the ALR are about the economy, but it's misdirected. Rather than thinking of the ALR as a barrier to economic development, it should be thought of as an untapped natural resource. If we were to maximize our food economy — the full food system, not just production but processing, value-added, restaurants, agritourism, etc. — it would inject billions into the economy as well as feed us."

She concludes by saying:

"I do nutrition tours with grades 6 and 7 classes, and I talk to them about sustainability in real simple terms. I tell them the agricultural land reserve is there to protect their food future, while defeating Bill 24 is about protecting our food future for generations to come."

[1745]

The next message I want to read is one that is very short and sweet. This is someone who is active in New Westminster Environmental Partners, who says: "Development of farmland for other uses is unethical, as we face a fragile future. Legislators and civil servants have a responsibility to reverse the loss of farmland and small farmers. Thank you for allowing us to take part in a participatory democracy."

Here's a letter that was copied to me but, in fact, sent to the Premier. This is from the New Westminster Community Food Action Committee:

"We're writing on behalf of the New West Food Action Committee, whose mandate is to address food security and food sovereignty issues that impact our community. As such, we feel compelled to write to you to voice our support for protecting, if not strengthening, the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission and the role it plays in protecting our precious farmland, ensuring the ALC is able to fulfil its mandate independently, without political interference, and realizing the enormous economic job creation and food production potential of the underutilized agricultural land reserve land. Farmland is a precious commodity,
[ Page 3726 ]
and a balance needs to be achieved between development and our ability to grow our own food.

"Food security is a goal, while food sovereignty describes how we get there. Food sovereignty is about control of our food system. As we lose farmland to non-farming purposes, it undermines our ability to feed ourselves. Besides issues of farmland capacity, farmland is already so scarce, and it will become worse as our population increases. Relying on food from outside of B.C. means we no longer have influence on issues such as pricing or, in the case of imported foods, what pesticides are used or not used."

She concludes by saying — again, a concern about farmers, farm jobs and farmland:

"The ALR is often seen as a barrier to economic development, and we wish to vehemently refute this. While non-agricultural development may be necessary, it should not come at the expense of farmland. Rather than being viewed as a barrier, unused ALR land should be recognized for its unrealized potential."

She concludes by talking about the B.C. Liberals' jobs plan:

"More and better jobs means a better future for B.C.'s families. Job creation and economic stability require many actions. Well, maximizing our agricultural potential would not only achieve food security goals, but it would contribute greatly to our economic success."

The final letter that I want to reference, and I will just reference it in part, seeing the time, is from a geoscientist who lives in my community.

"I work as an environmental geoscientist, and part of my role is to assist with the enforcement of environmental protection laws."

He's worked as a geoscientist. He's, in fact, from Kitimat, and he's worked as a geoscientist right across the province.

"My experience has been that the majority of the agricultural community is very aware of the need to protect the soil and water resources that their livelihood and our water systems rely on. However, I've also seen an Agricultural Land Commission made toothless in its efforts to protect the land from those few bad actors who care not about the land but about profiting from the development of farmland into more lucrative uses.

"How toothless? The front line of defence for the ALC has been compliance and enforcement officers who can visit farms where illegal fill has been placed, where non-farm use has damaged the soil, where the very systems that would support farming are destroyed by irresponsible practices.

[1750]

"Recently the compliance and enforcement staff of the ALC has been reduced to a single officer — I repeat, has been reduced to a single officer — one lone officer to cover the 4.7 million hectares of farmland from Saturna Island to Dawson Creek, from Creston to Chilliwack. As a result, complaints sent to the ALR, the majority from concerned farmers themselves, go uninvestigated and illegal practices unenforced."

My point is that the ALC does not need to be split up, recharacterized or dissected; it needs to be resourced and strengthened. The true threat to this valuable and unique resource is death by a million small cuts. I could go on, but I will, perhaps, save those comments for a later time, because there may well be other opportunities.

My constituents have spoken very strongly and very passionately. That's just a small sampling of some of the opinions that they've expressed to me and that I know that they've expressed to the Minister of Agriculture. They say we should be making farming more sustainable. They say we should be making our food systems more secure. They say we should be building more robust local economies, and that includes more robust farming economies. And they say they want the government to listen to the people of British Columbia. Have the debate and listen to the people, not rush ahead with such sweeping changes as this.

I want to conclude by talking about this urban-rural divide that members opposite have done their best to foment, to create around this issue. I want to say to that that the agricultural land reserve was never about, nor should it have been about, one part of the province. The agricultural land reserve has never been about regional interests.

The agricultural land reserve and the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission has been about protecting British Columbia's farmland for present and future generations. It's about food security for all of British Columbia. Of course, land differs in different parts of the province. Agricultural land in one part of the province can yield different crops than in other parts of the province.

Some agricultural land has obviously, because of the climate, shorter or longer growing periods. It is indeed a vast province, but that does not mean that our farms in all the presently protected regions should not be supported. On the contrary, we should be having a debate about how we can properly support farmers in those areas where they are most vulnerable, not talking about taking land out of the agricultural land reserve.

The agricultural land reserve was put in place for the benefit of all British Columbians. Food affects everyone. When the B.C. NDP government in the 1970s brought in the agricultural land reserve — which, I repeat, has not been changed by successive governments of different political stripes over 40 years — the Dave Barrett government chose to protect 5 percent of the land in B.C. in order to ensure food production currently and for future generations. It wasn't 50 percent. It wasn't 10 percent. It was 5 percent. That's a tiny fraction of all the land in British Columbia.

The Agricultural Land Commission is about serving British Columbians, protecting farmland for British Columbia. It needs to be controlled provincially so that the best interests of British Columbia as a whole are protected. That's what we're here to do in this House, to look out for the interests of the province as a whole.

I want to urge the members opposite, and I want to urge the Minister of Agriculture to stand his ground and to go out there and do the kind of consultation that people across British Columbia are asking for, because this government does not have a mandate to proceed in this way.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, noting the hour.

J. Darcy: Is that what you were doing? [Laughter.]

Madame Speaker: Yes, noting the hour.
[ Page 3727 ]

J. Darcy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Bernier in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $183,688,000 (continued).

V. Huntington: As the minister may recollect, over the last two or three years I've been asking questions with regard to Alberta's residency requirements for companies in the oil and gas sector and the failure of B.C. to ensure that there's a reciprocity, which is required under the trade agreements. One of the concerns over the years has been the loss of benefit to British Columbia, given that all the jobs are generally hired by the companies out of Alberta, all the equipment is purchased in Alberta and all the income taxes and other benefits of those job creations flow to Alberta.

I'm wondering how her ministry has reviewed this issue and whether they are working with International Trade to ensure that the development and growth of the LNG industry brings those jobs and benefits directly to British Columbia and that the benefits from those jobs flow to the province.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite. I certainly do appreciate the concerns that she's expressed.

Certainly, as a province, we have been in dialogue with Alberta. I should just note, and want to be very clear about this, that the Ministry of International Trade is actually the lead on this file. But I can tell that you there is an active process underway to resolve the issue with Alberta, because I think the member opposite's point is a concern for us as well. We do have very integrated systems, and through the creation of TILMA, there is a dispute resolution process. Through that process, the province did make known its concerns.

In fact, in late 2012 Alberta did look at adopting regulatory changes to provide a waiver for the local presence requirements once the MRA is in place. We viewed that as an important first step but not having gone far enough. Again, my colleague the Minister of International Trade is the lead on this file.

I think it is also important to note that when you look at companies — for example, LNG proponents and others — they are bringing head offices and commitments to British Columbia, so we are seeing some benefit.

[1340]

Just to update the member, work has been done. Some changes have been made. I think the minister responsible believes that there is more to be done, and that work continues to be underway.

V. Huntington: I'm quite familiar — at least, as of two months ago — with the work that was ongoing or not ongoing, as the case may be.

Does the minister have any idea of the loss of jobs that would have been hired in British Columbia and, therefore, the benefits of those jobs flowing to the province? What has that probable loss been to British Columbia? And how is she intending to ensure that the benefits from the LNG development will, in fact, be jobs that are expected to provide benefit not only to British Columbians working in the sector but also to the province through income taxes, etc. How are they going to ensure that?

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you again for the question. When I look at the numbers in the oil and gas sector, setting aside the fact of the head office discussion that the member is rightly concerned about…. In 2011 there were 24,700 jobs, and in 2013 there were 29,500. So we've actually seen jobs, in terms in the actual oil and gas sector, go up.

We're working tirelessly every day to ensure that the jobs connected with LNG actually are benefits for British Columbians. That is what matters most to us. It's not just in job creation. We're working on a process now to ensure that businesses in British Columbia are the go-to businesses for LNG proponents.

Very shortly we hope to be able to roll out more formally the LNG Buy B.C. program, which would allow businesses in every part of the province to connect with proponents. I see it as critical to the success of starting a new industry in our province that the direct benefit is jobs for British Columbians. The downstream impact of that is making sure that businesses have the opportunity to participate as well, whether you're in the Lower
[ Page 3728 ]
Mainland or right there in Terrace or Kitimat.

Again, certainly, I know that my colleague is working hard on the resolution with the Alberta issue, but I wouldn't disagree with the member opposite at all that in fact we want LNG to be a benefit to British Columbians first. Whether you're a business owner or someone who wants or needs a job, you should be considered first.

V. Huntington: I understand the committee chair is responsible for trying to link those British Columbian businesses with the industry.

Perhaps the minister and her staff could provide me, in writing, with how many of those jobs are paid for, hired, out of Alberta. I would really appreciate understanding what that impact actually is.

I'll just ask one more and perhaps then provide some written questions to the minister to answer at her leisure. This moves on to how, and whether, the ministry is looking at the timing.

The growth in the LNG sector occurs at approximately the same time we anticipate losing jobs within the forestry sector as the mountain pine beetle effort winds down, especially along Highways 16 and 97. Is the ministry is looking at how the LNG sector will be able to assist and accommodate and help the forest workers transition into a new sector? To what extent are they looking at providing specific training opportunities that would complement skills so that they could upgrade to the new sector?

[1345]

Hon. S. Bond: When we look at the transitioning of a workforce…. First of all, I should say — and I just got the latest numbers today — we are seeing an improvement in the labour market conditions. In forestry, obviously, there was a bit of a tough quarter there, which we've just heard a little about. But forestry employment is actually up over 3 percent from 2012. We're seeing the industry do better, so we're seeing some improvement there, which is a great-news story.

I think the point that the member is making is very valid: how do we transition a workforce — from one sector to another, from one project to another? That is captured in our skills-training blueprint. In fact, the heading is: "Making it easier for workers to move between major projects." I think you could just substitute sectors.

We're going to need all the workers we can possibly find in British Columbia. I think one of the things that is helpful is that many of the in-demand jobs on the LNG side would be skill sets that would be very similar for people in forestry or mining. I think from that perspective we are very interested in looking at the transition of workforces, of individuals from one sector to another.

A pragmatic example of that for me is that if you look at the Rio Tinto refresh project, we have a workforce that is used to working in the geography that we need them to be in. They are skilled. In fact, one of the LNG proponent sites is literally right next door, geographically.

We're already in discussions with how we take a workforce that is used to the geography, the setting in the camp situation, whether they live locally or not, and making sure that they're available to the next series of big projects.

Complicated work to do. But we are working, for example, with those two partners to say: "How can we capitalize on your workforce?"

I guess the last example that I'll give is that we've seen in the last period of time some circumstances that have been very difficult for communities. I think most recently…. Obviously, the Tumbler Ridge situation is more recent on the coal front. But in Quesnel and Houston we've seen the closure of mills.

I have a fantastic team working cross-ministry — led by one of my assistant deputy ministers, Shanna Mason, who is sitting right behind me — who are on the ground in those communities and working with individual employees to make sure that if we can find a place for them in another industry or give them additional training that we're doing that.

We found that we had a relatively good-news story in Quesnel, for example. As we looked at the 203 employees, 72 of them retired, 29 were relocated within Canfor at a number of sites, 76 secured other employment, five have relocated and two plan to relocate as a result of that. That's 177 employees that we can actually account for, and 26 are involved in retraining programs or seeking local opportunities.

That's how, specifically, we get engaged with communities on the ground. The same process would be underway in Houston.

I think, generally, the answer to the member's question is we're going to work alongside employees to help them transition, if that's necessary. But the good news is that forestry has certainly been on the rebound. Our numbers are looking strong, despite a little blip that we've had most recently. But we're going to need every worker we can possibly find in our province.

I think that being innovative in looking at training and upskilling in some cases or different skills is certainly something on our agenda.

[1350]

L. Popham: I think we'll transition back to Destination B.C. at this point.

When we left, before we took the break, I was asking about the Olympics and about a report that apparently was commissioned. That report contained information on how we would continue or have an ongoing effort around supporting the information and the relationships we made during the Olympics. I'm not sure if that report is accessible or if that is something that Destination B.C. is referencing at this point.

I think my whole point around this line of question-
[ Page 3729 ]
ing is that we made a $3 billion investment, and I'm expecting — as, I would assume, the minister would also be expecting — that we have some sorts of measurables from that and would be able to work on what we created only four years ago, as far as improving our numbers and also tracking the result of what we did capture during the Olympics.

I'm asking this mostly because the investment was so large. Really, for me, there's no other way forward when you've invested that much. The media relationships that were made, the relationships with other tourism organizations around the world — they're so critical. I know that the tourism numbers are affected by many different things that happen around the world, financial situations. But really, when we have that much of a focus on a place — and, as the minister stated, such a beautiful place — it's impossible to think that we couldn't have captured a certain group and watched them return over and over again.

I guess my main question is: within Destination B.C. is there a group of people that is working specifically on follow-up from the 2010 Olympics?

[1355]

Hon. S. Bond: To answer the member's question directly, there is not a person or a team of people monitoring the impact of the 2010 Olympic Games. But I think we have seen, as I mentioned earlier, an increase in revenue in the province as a result of the tourism industry and sector. In fact, in the year following the Olympics, in 2011, the increase was 1.6 percent, as we saw the revenue in the province from tourism grow to $13.1 billion. This year we're expecting a 4.4 or so increase.

No, there is not a person specifically monitoring the impact of the Olympics. While there was a very significant investment by taxpayers in British Columbia, some of those the investment, I'm assuming, that would be captured in the $3 billion are things like the Canada Line, the Sea to Sky Highway, just about everything that is imaginable. Those have lasting benefits to British Columbians as well.

We are seeing increased tourism revenue. I think that is partially attributable, but I'm not going to be so simplistic as to suggest that it's all related to the 2010 Olympics.

L. Popham: Okay. Well, getting on to other measurables, then, this question is around B.C. Ferries and tourism. We covered this in the summer. In Destination B.C.'s regular publication Provincial Tourism Indicators, it tracks B.C. Ferries passenger volume and regional route volume — for example, Port Hardy–Prince Rupert total volume was down about 3.8 percent in 2013, to 43,000 passengers.

The passenger volume is considered an important tourism indicator, but I think we agreed last summer that we don't track the tourism numbers on the ferries. It's just passengers overall. Has that changed?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. We did canvass this earlier, and the practice has remained the same. What is tracked is passenger volume, not differentiating in terms of whether you're a tourist, whether you're a domestic or international tourist or just someone who uses the ferry for business or regular travel. That practice has not changed.

L. Popham: I'm not sure how it can be an important tourism indicator, then.

[1400]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it still is an indicator of travel. One of the ways we do that is that there are periodic and regular customer surveys. Those are conducted for B.C. Ferries, and people are asked why they're travelling. As the member opposite can imagine, I think that tracking tourist numbers on every ferry would not be a simple task.

What is done is there are regular customer surveys. So 72 percent of passengers — at least, I'm assuming, for the most recent study — said that their travel was for discretionary personal reasons, which included visiting friends, relatives, vacation and getaway recreation, and 12 percent were for non-discretionary reasons — that is medical or appointments. The remaining 16 percent of passengers surveyed described their trip purpose as business, which means, usually, commuting, commercial or attending school.

We certainly do not have specific numbers. When you get on B.C. Ferries, you're not asked if you're a tourist or a regular traveler. But there are mechanisms where there is some sense of who is actually taking those ferries, and that is done, as I said, through a regular customer survey.

C. Trevena: I'd just like to follow up a little bit on some of the questions about the ferries. Does the minister have any statistics on the use of the vacations centre for B.C. Ferries and how many discrete packages are bought by people walking in to the B.C. Ferries Vacation Centre?

Hon. S. Bond: To member opposite: good afternoon. I appreciate the question.

We do not have the discrete numbers of packages that were purchased through B.C. Ferries. They do have a stand-alone, as the member, I know, is well aware, or operation where tourists can purchase those packages. We do not have those numbers, but we're certainly willing to try to connect and get that information for the member opposite.

It is technically a B.C. Ferries issue. I know we had this debate last time about tourism versus B.C. Ferries. But the joint responsibility…. Our job is tourism, and B.C. Ferries, the management and operation of it, is obvious-
[ Page 3730 ]
ly an MOTI issue.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that, and I would look forward to it if she can get that information.

I'd like a little bit of a breakdown. There is that overlap, as the minister said. Part of it is B.C. Ferries is an independent operation, part of it is the Ministry of Transportation, and there's part of it, obviously, as the minister's responsibility.

There has been a lot of discussion, as the minister is very well aware, over the last few months about specific impacts of cuts on the ferry service to tourism and the Discovery route, route 40, in particular. I wondered whether the minister or her colleague the Minister of State for Tourism had done any studies specifically on that tourism route, about the potential impacts.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As you know, the service adjustments that were made — and you're speaking to, I think, route 40 — were part of a larger package that the Minister of Tourism and B.C. Ferries made in ensuring that our ferry transportation system remained viable into the future.

[1405]

Taxpayers had already subsidized, provided this year, I think, over $180 million more money to ensure that the ferry routes were going to be able to run for this year. Looking forward, that wasn't sustainable.

The question was, I believe: was there an economic impact study done? Not that I'm aware of. But I can tell you that I have visited Bella Coola, Williams Lake and Anahim Lake recently to talk to the folks there.

What they've asked me to take back to Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training is the possibility of looking at provincial resources helping out the region to determine an economic development plan, which would include tourism, obviously. It's something that, especially in an area like Bella Coola, they don't actually have the expertise or the resources at the local level to do. I've committed to looking for potential resources from JTST.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for the answer.

I'm a little concerned. I'm aware that the minister of state has been up to the area and was welcomed. There was an appreciation there that the minister of state had come.

But we have, over the last number of years, a project that is selling very well. It's selling extremely well in Europe. Really, it's a draw. I heard the Minister of Jobs talking earlier about the wonders of B.C., and this is really a fantastic way of seeing the wonders of B.C.

The government has made the decision to pull back on B.C. Ferries. I'm not going to get into the arguments about subsidy and where the money should go to. The government has made that decision. As the minister well knows, we don't agree with it.

I'm intrigued. We have a project that's been very well developed and sold very well, was doing very well in the international market. It's going to be severely impacted by the changes that are coming about right now, this season. And the minister is now going to be going in to advise how to build up tourism. The area already knew how to sell itself and was selling itself very well.

So to the minister of state: what advice would she be able to give to rescue at least this season and rebuild what has been already a quite successful product?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Those are very good questions and exactly the reason why I actually went up to the areas recently to talk about what we can do to move forward to help these tourism operators with their businesses.

One of the areas that we know that the CCCTA — that's the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association — identified was that they needed a resource, an individual, that was able to talk to the local and the international tourism operators in order to answer those types of questions that one could expect when the ferry route 40 service adjustment was made.

We have provided CCCTA a resource, a person on the ground to actually be that liaison. We are paying for that resource. We've also provided an additional $100,000 through Destination B.C. to help market that area. That money is going to help market this gorgeous area — the member opposite is absolutely right; this is a fantastic area, a lot of potential here — to other areas in B.C., to Alberta and Washington State, where we know a lot of the tourists come from already.

They've got a major contest that is called "You-Design-It" Cariboo-Chilcotin coast all-inclusive vacation. There will obviously be a set maximum dollar for this contest, but you can design your own contest. They're being very, very targeted. Anybody who has shown some interest in visiting this area is getting an e-mail back and, in the mail, some information, so hard copy. There are going to be TV ads, there are going to be radio ads, and there are going to be newspaper ads — all this to help that area grow their tourism market further.

C. Trevena: Could the minister tell me how much that's going to cost?

[1410]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The actual marketing campaign through Destination B.C. is $100,000, approximately. I believe the additional resource for the on-the-ground work to liaise with the tourism operators, the local ones and the international ones that regularly book, is about $10,000.

C. Trevena: And how many people does that resource recognize?
[ Page 3731 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: That's one person working in the CCCTA office, but I should add that the overall budget for marketing this area, from Destination B.C., is $610,000. The $100,000 is in addition to the $610,000 and, of course, an additional $10,000 for the person who's helping them out on the ground.

C. Trevena: Without being flippant, you could almost keep the ferry running for that much money, and we wouldn't have had these problems.

I think that the minister is aware…. I'd like the minister to be able to answer for me a very simple question. I hope it's a simple question. It is a question I've had from operators who are seeing…. There's one in Chilcotin, in Clearwater, whose bookings are down 95 percent this year. How can the minister guarantee that this business will be able to stay open through this year and forthcoming years when it's losing this ferry route?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I think the member opposite knows that I can't guarantee the success of a business, but I can tell you that we are committed to working with the folks on the ground in the coast and Cariboo-Chilcotin areas.

I should probably remind the member opposite that we made some tough decisions when it came down to B.C. Ferries. Regrettably, that route was underutilized. The actual cost of the route to taxpayers was in excess of $7 million, and that's annually. We made these decisions to ensure that B.C. Ferries remains sustainable, that this was an efficient operation and that it would be here for British Columbians for years to come.

I can tell you that having visited that area, I appreciate the beauty, and I know why people come to this area. We are doing everything we can to help the operators, including having a person working in the offices of CCCTA to ensure that we retain those relationships that are so important internationally.

C. Trevena: I'm trying to restrain myself, because I know this isn't the Ministry of Transportation debate. It's not the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

The minister keeps talking about the sustainability of the B.C. ferry system, which this side of the House obviously believes should not be worked out through the cost of the ferry ticket to make it sustainable. You can have a 33 percent farebox return in B.C. Transit, and that's just fine, yet in B.C. Ferries you're looking at, in some instances, 100 percent.

When we talk about the sustainability of a specific route, you've got to look at many different factors. This route serves both very small communities that are very isolated and need the ferry service to run, as well as serving the tourism system. I know that we are not going to get into that debate now.

[1415]

Does the minister think…? She has obviously talked to her colleague the Minister of Transportation about the upgrades to the Nimpkish. Has she talked to the Minister of Transportation at all about maintaining the Chilliwack on this route for this one season while she is talking to the operators so that there can be some proper transition, if that is the way that it has to go, if the government is completely intransigent and directing B.C. Ferries?

B.C. Ferries is an independent operator and has the right to be able to decide, to a certain extent, where it's going to be servicing the coast. The government is directing B.C. Ferries to pull this route.

Would the minister be a champion for tourism and actually say to the Minister of Transportation: "We are keeping the Chilliwack for this season. We want to work on a solution that will really work for the Discovery coast route and for the circle route for the people in the Bella Coola Valley up through Chilcotin, as well as the people on the north Island"?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Both the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and myself are huge champions for tourism. That can be no doubt. But we also are accountable to our taxpayers, and that means balancing the budget and making some tough decisions to do just that.

We are working on solutions to ensure that the Discovery coast tour is intact. Just for the member opposite's information, there is a reservation system up and running with the Nimpkish, and B.C. Ferries is taking reservations. There are actually many people taking advantage of this, which is what we're very happy to see. As of the end of April there were 117 vehicle reservations on this ferry from Port Hardy to Bella Coola, and there were 134 vehicle reservations — these are just pre-reservations — from Bella Coola to Port Hardy, the other way. That actually includes six tour bus reservations.

The member mentioned some upgrades to the Nimpkish. I happened to be there in Bella Coola, and the Nimpkish happened to be on dock, so we asked if we could board. It was an unofficial tour. There were folks there actually measuring up the interior of the vessel for some improvements. That includes more comfortable seating and some food service areas so that, I understand, folks will be able to have free coffee and tea services there. They are installing a shelter at the back of the deck of the Nimpkish. We have done everything we can to ensure that B.C. Ferries is aware of any accessibility problems.

As well — something that the Bella Coola and Bella Bella folks have told us — there is right now currently nowhere for folks to take shelter once they disembark. We've asked B.C. Ferries to install some type of shelter at Bella Coola and Bella Bella so that when they arrive, they actually have a place. I'm thinking that perhaps that shelter could also include some tourism information.
[ Page 3732 ]

C. Trevena: To the minister, it does beg a lot of questions — having seen that once B.C. Ferries gets their hands on the ability to build a shelter, they are supremely overbuilt. I would hope that the minister can keep an eye on this.

I wanted to ask the minister, as the Minister of State for Tourism, whether when she did her walkabout on the Nimpkish and was shown the redesign, did she feel confident that this is going to be adequate for mobility-impaired people — that there will be a service on that ferry, in a 9½-hour run, for mobility-impaired people?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I was relieved to hear that there are actually washrooms on the car deck, because I didn't see them. But they are down there. There are washrooms upstairs.

As the member opposite is well aware, there are different levels of mobility or disability, so I can't speak for all disabled tourists. But I do know that B.C. Ferries is very, very committed to ensuring that they do everything possible to address accessibility on the Nimpkish. As the member opposite knows, this ferry actually runs 39 weeks of the year. It is now continuing to run for the 13 weeks that previously the Queen of Chilliwack ran.

[1420]

B.C. Ferries has, actually, an accessibility advisory committee, and they've had that for many years now. That gives me comfort that they do meet with organizations around British Columbia to talk about and promote accessibility issues. They are always aware of accessibility issues with respect to any planned improvements that are being made to terminals or vessels.

As B.C. Ferries upgrades their vessels, I have been told that accessibility and universal standard considerations are built into all projects. The Nimpkish may be a different type of vessel when it comes to being fully accessible because of the limitations of its size, but we will ensure that B.C. Ferries follows up with their commitment to do just that.

I would like to just close this part of accessibility with the point that B.C. is actually considered to be a global leader in accessible tourism. Vancouver in particular has been pointed out internationally as being a leader. I'm very proud of a lot of the initiatives that we have done as a city in Vancouver, in Victoria and as a province.

C. Trevena: I have one last more general question of the minister on B.C. Ferries and tourism. It comes down to one of the root questions that we have many times on this side of the House, which is the cost of the fares. I'm not talking so much about our regular fares, which are well over what anybody should be paying for a ferry route, but for the bigger tourism fares.

I don't know if the minister has done the fabulous route from Port Hardy all the way up to Rupert or in reverse. The minister is shaking her head. She would really have to break into many savings accounts to do it, because to go with two people in a vehicle it's over $1,000 for what is effectively a one-day cruise.

I'm wondering if the minister is, again, using her voice as a champion for tourism to be arguing and discussing with her colleague the Minister of Transportation that we should be looking at, really, a much more affordable and accessible system. People will go into Rupert. They will go to the Alaska ferry system, at a very affordable rate, to travel around and take it as a cruise around the state just north of us. Likewise, people are using the Washington State Ferries as the ferry in, effectively, a tourism setting. You can see how successful the Alaska state ferries are, where they are constitutionally treated as a marine highway.

What I would ask the minister is whether she is lobbying on behalf of tourism to her colleague the Minister of Transportation to ensure that our ferry fares are actually reasonable and commensurate with what other jurisdictions close to us — i.e., Washington State and Alaska — are charging.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We, of course, speak to our colleagues about all issues, and tourism is a huge economic driver for the province. In fact, the Premier shifted tourism into the economic file, which was wonderful. The tourism sector thought that was absolutely wonderful. The tourism sector is one of the eight priority sectors in the jobs plan, so we're putting a lot of focus on that.

[1425]

Mr. Chair, 127,000 people in British Columbia are directly or indirectly employed because of the tourism industry here. We have seen, although there have been dips, year-over-year growth in tourism. Tourism is actually growing at a faster rate than our overall economy, which is fantastic. We are doing everything we can to ensure that more and more jobs all over the province are going to be created through a successful tourism industry.

C. Trevena: I was actually asking about ferry fares. If the minister doesn't feel competent about answering, that's just fine. We'll move back to my colleague, who's going to move on to other tourism questions.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I believe the Minister of Transportation has responsibility for this, and the member opposite had her opportunity to ask the Minister of Tourism those specific questions with respect to ferry fares.

L. Popham: Last summer I was asking about the relationship between the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of State for Tourism. At that time the minister told me that a matrix was being worked on and that that would define the breakdown of roles. I'm wondering if the matrix is complete, and if it is, if I'm able to have a
[ Page 3733 ]
copy of that.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have a document that would describe our jobs together. We have an exceptional relationship, both personally and professionally. We love working together. When we looked at the general breakdown of how this works, my responsibilities, basically, are general oversight that looks at policy and decision-making. I don't ever do that without a conversation and engagement with my colleague. I have oversight of Destination B.C., so I have the overarching responsibility for the tourism file.

I would consider the best way to describe our differences is that my colleague the minister of state — with her experience with small business, with the operation of small businesses — is very much engaged on the operational side of tourism. It has worked very well for us.

The other thing that I asked my colleague to look after was engagement at the federal level, handling the general issues with the Canadian Council of Tourism Ministers. I'm very pleased that she's taken on that role and did a terrific job when the ministers met. We intend to take several other items forward on the national agenda very shortly.

Generally speaking, I'm responsible for Destination B.C., the general oversight policy direction, and my colleague is responsible more for the operational side, engaging directly with our stakeholders, although both of us do that on a regular basis.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what the base funding is for Destination B.C.?

[1430]

Hon. S. Bond: The budget for 2014-2015 for Destination B.C. is $54.786 million. That does include just over $3 million of self-generated revenue, so the government grant is just under $51 million.

L. Popham: The government made repeated commitments that the source of Destination B.C.'s funding would be converted to be a portion of the sales tax revenue, starting in April 2014. Has that commitment been met, and is that process in place?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon, hon. Chair. It's very fitting that you're here for the Tourism part of this discussion, considering your location.

The answer is: the work is underway. That has not taken place. In fact, the commitment that the Premier made was in November of 2012 that for the first year of operations the Crown would receive full government funding. After that, funding would be based on a percentage of annual sales tax activity and will be enshrined in legislation and then went on to say that this move will not impact government's fiscal plan.

The work on the formula, the transition to a percentage of sales tax activity, will take place. The work is underway. It is very complicated. We have met with Destination B.C., with the Finance Minister and others to sort out how that transition would take place.

The transition will take place. It certainly didn't happen in April of 2014, but we do intend for that to move forward.

L. Popham: Let me see if I understand this. The base funding right now is $51 million. In the future it's based on sales tax revenue. The funding formula is yet to be established. Is the minister saying that the funding for Destination B.C. could go down?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said, the budget for this year…. The government grant is almost $51 million. Just to be accurate, it's $50.974 million. The forecast number for '13-14 was $48.890 million, so in fact, there is a slight increase in the budget over what was in 2013-2014.

Once the formula is attached to a percentage of annual sales tax activity, should sales tax activity drop, if the formula is tied to that, yes, there is that possibility. But I think the most important thing to note is that the industry actually requested that formula.

[1435]

L. Popham: The funding formula and the changes around that — the minister said that it would be set in legislation. I was under the understanding that it was going to be done by regulation. Is that not true?

Hon. S. Bond: Just to get the sequence correct here, the Premier made the commitment in November of 2012 that the formula would move, at the request of industry, to a sales-tax-activity-based formula. After that, subsequently, the commitment to put it in legislation — the enabling part to actually allow the formula to be triggered — was followed through on. In the Destination BC Corp. Act, subsection 20(1) allows for the move to a percentage of provincial sales tax. The regulation will actually be the mechanics of the formula, which is still being worked on.

L. Popham: How long does the minister expect that to take?

Hon. S. Bond: The work is complex. Any time you have a formula that is based on taxes, it is a complicated thing.

There are two factors that impact the eventual implementation using a sales tax. One is the actual work that's being done. There has been a lot of really good back-and-
[ Page 3734 ]
forth discussion between Destination B.C., between the government, trying to sort out how best to do this — and the industry. That's one.

On the work itself, I don't have an estimated time of completion for that. But the second piece is the last part of the Premier's comment, which is that the move will not impact government's fiscal plan. It will be considered in the context of the fiscal plan. Ultimately, the decision about moving it forward and what it looks like is a tax policy decision, which would be made by the Minister of Finance.

L. Popham: I understand that. I understand that it's complicated. But can the minister reassure me that the Destination B.C. funding, regardless of how long it takes to figure out a funding formula, will remain at approximately $51 million?

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: As I look at the budget projections — obviously, we do a three-year budgeting cycle — the numbers for Destination B.C…. The government grant is protected, so there will be no reductions to the funding for Destination B.C. over the next three years.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me how many staff are at Destination B.C. and how many vacancies there are currently?

Hon. S. Bond: The staff complement would be 130 positions, and of those positions, 108 are currently filled.

L. Popham: Does the minister foresee any programs being cut currently?

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things that is very exciting about what's happening at Destination B.C. is that we have an exceptional brand-new CEO. She comes with a very stellar track record, and I have already seen, in her short time and short tenure at Destination B.C., that she intends to be a leader in that organization. That's certainly, as minister, what I would expect and hope for.

The board, along with the corporate team, has embarked on a strategic planning process and vision. I think it's fair to say there will be changes. I think that each step of the way there will be a consideration of what is currently being done and what should be done. But I know this. The goal that will drive those changes is how we utilize the dollars that we have in the most efficient way, how we line up the services that are provided and how we reflect the changing needs of tourists.

One of the things that is tough to talk about but is very relevant is, for example, the current utilization of tourism centres. When you think about it, we're seeing numbers decline fairly dramatically in many of the physical locations, and part of that is about we get our information in different ways, and tourists use different tools. I think, not unlike other changes we're contemplating in other organizations, it's about relevance and aligning your funding to where you can best use it.

One of the concerns that I know my colleague and I have heard continuously is the overlap that exists in the tourism sector, generally, with marketing. So one of the strategic goals I know that Marsha and the team will be looking at is how we leverage and maximize benefit and get rid of some of that duplication.

So there will be changes. I can't say today that programs will be eliminated, but I am fairly confident that there will be change and that — from my perspective, whatever those changes may be after the strategic planning process — they're done carefully, thoughtfully and certainly with consultation.

L. Popham: That brings up another interesting question about an election promise that was made regarding rest stops and visitor centres. There was a $3 million commitment made, and I'm wondering if that promise is going to be kept.

[1445]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite probably knows that this commitment was made for the years 2015-2016. We are currently looking at all sorts of ways to modernize our visitor services. We're doing that, actually, right now in concert with Destination B.C. who, as the member opposite has just heard, are relooking at their corporate strategy going forward. We want to ensure that we align our resources with Destination B.C. in that respect.

I'll just remind the member opposite that we are doing this in concert with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure because part of the $3 million commitment has to do with upgrading the rest stops, which falls in their responsibilities.

L. Popham: Yes, I understand that the commitment was made to begin in 2015, but that's six months from now. Are there preparations for that expenditure happening? I understand there's a different way of doing things possibly, but is the $3 million there for upgrades as it was promised?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes.

L. Popham: Does that include a commitment to the visitor centre in Sidney?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: May I ask the member opposite for a clarification on the location of the visitor centre? Is it perhaps the Pat Bay visitor centre that the member opposite is referring to?
[ Page 3735 ]

L. Popham: Yes.

[1450]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I appreciate the member opposite's patience.

I'm not sure the member opposite realizes that there are a couple of visitor centres in the Sidney area, and the member opposite is referring to the one that was on the highway. There is one actually a couple of kilometres away as well. That particular one on the highway, the Pat Bay visitor centre, is a community visitor centre. Government has not provided funding for capital to community visitor centres, but what we have done is provided operational funding to community visitor centres.

Regrettably, the annual visits to the Pat Bay visitor centre dropped almost 54 percent, from almost 22,000 people who dropped by and used the services in 2004 to just over 10,000 in 2012. I have heard, though, that the chamber is looking at innovative ways to look for additional funding and to reach out to potential visitors in other ways. That actually ties into the overall strategic plan of Destination B.C. in the province in modernizing the way we provide visitor services to the changing needs and technologies that we see visitors adopting in searching for visitor information services these days.

L. Popham: My next question is around our regional marketing organizations in the province. How much will the regions receive in the next three years, and how long are their contracts?

Hon. S. Bond: The current contracts that are in place end on September 30. The budget today is just over $6 million. Many of them…. They are short-term contracts for the most part. I think it's the intent of Destination B.C. to move to longer-term contracts, longer-term agreements. There will be a review process that takes place between now and when the contracts end. As I said, the suggested changes will be a longer-term agreement.

The final amount of money will be dependent on a discussion around those agreements, the deliverables, the needs. A typical contract review looking at what needs to be done in the future but, again, with the intent to try to move those to longer-term agreements.

L. Popham: Well, I do understand that the contracts will be six months. The understanding of the industry is that it will be six months, at 60 percent of the funding that they used to have.

My concern around this is, of course, its stability, for what they're able to do and the commitments that they're able to make. Often, as we know, these regional groups partner with the private sector. Having a six-month contract and less funding than they had in the past is really going to be challenging for them. I think both ministers will understand that when you're creating a business plan, six months isn't very long, and to not have some stability in the funding is very, very challenging.

Can the minister explain how that will create confidence in our regional tourism organizations?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: When we think about what was done, the six months at 60 percent was actually to provide stability for those organizations. It was a matter of keeping them whole plus during the six months that the negotiations took place. There will be new contracts signed, and the nature of those will be determined after the work that is being done as we speak.

As we think about the strategic shifts that are being considered, one of the things that we are acutely aware of is overlap. What I think Destination B.C. is looking at is: how do we reduce overlap and fill gaps? There are gaps. There are other things that need to be done. That discussion and those shifts are being considered as the new contracts will be agreed to.

There will be some changes. I am quite certain about that. That work was being done through the tourism marketing committee — which, as the member opposite would know, was appointed by government to focus very specifically, with representatives on it, on marketing.

Again, one of the most common messages we hear from people in the sector, those observing the sector, is that there is a lot of overlap. What we want to see take place is that the dollars are targeted, that they are focused on the areas that need to be looked at.

Work is underway. There is certainty until September 30. There will be contracts in place. The question is: what are the deliverables? What are the negotiated agreements that are the ultimate result of the work that's being done?

L. Popham: Will TIABC continue to receive $100,000 a year?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised that the $100,000 was used for a tourism industry event, including an awards banquet or an awards evening. At this point, those funding arrangements have not been put in place.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me pleasure to be able to ask about the tourism industry. It's a favourite industry of mine, and I must admit I do miss, some days, being the critic on the Tourism issues, although the Environment Ministry certainly keeps me more than busy.

One of the big issues that came about, of course, in my time as a critic for the tourism industry — or advocate for the tourism industry, as I'd often say — was the dissolution, the blowing up of Tourism B.C. We advocated on our side for, it seemed like, forever to get back industry leadership within tourism. Finally, Destination B.C. was brought about.
[ Page 3736 ]

We were concerned at the time that there was the possibility that industry leadership, and particularly regional voices, might still be shut out of the process. There was concern that the government, in the end, might still hold the upper hand over the tourism marketer, when we felt on the NDP side that the businesses, of course, using the marketing dollars would be very focused on getting the best for business and, thus, the best for taxpayers, because that's how the tourism industry works, with the income coming in through taxes and so forth.

I'm continuing to hear concerns that regional voices — whether or not it's in the Kootenays, in the north, on the Island — are not being heard. Marketing panels and committees have been set up, but their voices are being shut out of Destination B.C., and the strategic plan is not accurately reflecting their voices, with real concern that the expertise they bring to the industry is not being reflected in the plans that Destination B.C. is laying out. Thus we are losing that expertise and not being as successful as we can.

I'm wondering if the minister is able to share with us what the regional panels have forwarded, which have changed the plans of Destination B.C. What regional voice concerns have actually changed the plans to reflect regional needs — just so that we can see that that process may be working? From what I'm hearing from operators and people who work with destination marketing organizations, it isn't.

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: The tourism marketing committee is actually recognized in legislation — that there does need to be regional voices. There is a very diverse group of 19 people who represent all of the tourism regions that exist in the province.

The way that the names were provided was regions were asked through a very transparent process to bring forward nominees to that meeting. In fact, there are representatives from all across the province including the Kootenays, Vancouver Island, northern British Columbia. I know some of them very well. Plus there was an addition of Keith Henry, the Aboriginal Tourism Association of British Columbia.

Destination B.C. takes the advice and direction from the tourism marketing committee. That's exactly why they were created. If the member opposite is hearing concerns about that, we would be more than willing to follow up. But the whole construct of the tourism marketing committee is based on regional representation. The names came forward from those regions after their own processes, and no adjustments were made to the representatives that were recommended by those regions.

I'm told that Destination B.C. has met with them, I think, three times so far. There is very much an advisory role. Destination B.C. is well aware of the role of the tourism marketing committee to provide that direction to them.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I know that. I debated the legislation and was quite strongly concerned about the fact that there wasn't going to be regional representation on the board, not on a marketing committee. The concern at the time — and I think it's still a valid one today — is in an advisory role you can give advice, but it's not always taken. The concern was that the board is appointed by the province, not by the regions.

They may be able to offer advice, but as we know, the board is not reflective of the province. It's not reflective of the geography of the province. People in the regions are feeling stonewalled. They're feeling that they're giving advice through the marketing advisory committee, and it's not being reflected. Three meetings with people from outside of Vancouver I don't think is adequate. I don't think that's adequate.

My question was very specific. What changes to strategy from Destination B.C. have come about through the advice of the advisory committee, of the marketing committee?

Let's say the north, maybe to make it simpler, so that Destination B.C. can choose a specific change that they made to reflect the voice of the north in their plans. That would be helpful.

That's what my question was to begin with, not how it's structured. I know that. I was part of the legislation debate and actually offered many suggestions. I actually was sitting by Keith Henry when the announcement of how Destination B.C. would be structured and shared his frustration that the government left Aboriginal Tourism B.C. out at the time.

I'm glad he's been added to the advisory board, but I'm still hearing that the advisory board's concerns are not being reflected by the board of Destination B.C., and we're losing out on that good expertise.

[1510]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, I appreciated his question. If it was taken that I didn't understand his interest or passion or involvement in the bill, that was not at all the intended answer. We understood the question to be about regional representation, and there's no more critical place for regional representation than when you talk about the issue of marketing. That's what's pivotal to increased revenue and growth in the tourism sector.

There are a number of representatives on the board of Destination B.C. from various parts of the province including the Okanagan; the Kootenays; obviously, the Whistler-Blackcomb area; and a number of other parts: Kamloops, I believe, or the Sun Peaks area.

One of the things that was critical in the creation of the Destination B.C. board…. It was determined that it would be a skills-based board. There was very much a focus on "we want the right people to drive the leader-
[ Page 3737 ]
ship of this organization."

Over time I'm sure there will be continuous and active work to ensure that voices are heard. An example of the advice that's been taken from the tourism marketing committee is that just recently, within the last month, the subcommittee of the tourism marketing group brought advice to DBC that said: "We need to look at the indicators that we're using, the KPIs."

There was a suggestion that some additional ones be considered and that there be a look at what indicators were being used. That advice was accepted readily by Destination B.C. The work is now being done based on the recommendation that came up through the process.

The intent of the changes to DBC was to have a strong leadership team that drove the success of the organization at the board level. Then a very broad, basically grass-roots-based — bringing up from the regions names on the tourism marketing committee….

I think there's a very good start to the relationship. I think it can always be improved. If there are specific concerns, I know the DBC team would be happy to try to address the concerns. Certainly, it has not been the board's intention to stonewall. I don't think that I would describe their work in that way, but if someone is expressing that concern, I know that Marsha would be happy to sit down and have a conversation with them.

L. Popham: My question is about how the Destination B.C. board is compiled. Am I incorrect in believing there are five members from Vancouver, three from the Okanagan and one from Calgary?

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure if the member considers Sun Peaks in or out of the Okanagan, but there is a representative from Sun Peaks mountain resort municipality.

We do have a number of representatives from Vancouver. The board member that the member of the opposition refers to, who does reside in Calgary, does all of his business in the Kootenays. In fact, he has been active in the mountain resort industry for over 30 years, and he is part of the largest private ski resort owner-operator in North America, owning six ski resorts in Canada, including Kicking Horse, Fernie and Kimberley. While his home, his house, may be in Calgary, his investments, his passion and all of his success has been in the Kootenay Rockies.

There are a number of members from Vancouver and the Okanagan, as the member pointed out, including Chief Clarence Louie, who is the chief of the Osoyoos Indian Band and whose work through his organization has been nothing short of exceptional. He is an incredible business leader.

I think there was an attempt to look at regionality. But more importantly, the primary focus was on skill set, making sure this was a strong, talented board who could lead this organization and ensure its success after…. The previous member spoke to the uncertainty that was created when you take it in government and put it back out again. We recognize that. So we wanted a board that was competent, strong and, certainly, a very strong leadership board. It is not based on where they live. It's based on their skill set.

L. Popham: I understand that. But I notice that there's no representation from Vancouver Island. What stands out for me is that B.C. Stats shows that Vancouver Island creates more tourism-related jobs than the Okanagan. I think it's about 17,000 to 15,000, so maybe 2,000 more jobs in the tourism sector. I would consider Vancouver Island should have a spot on that board.

I also don't see any representation from the Sunshine Coast or from the Discovery coast. Were these areas lacking in skill sets?

Hon. S. Bond: Of course not. The intent behind the selection of the board members was to look at people who had leadership skills, who were prepared to step up and be a part of the Destination B.C. success, making sure that it would carry forward.

As I said to the member opposite, as the board and as Destination B.C. evolve, we will always look at regionality as an important part of serving on boards in the province. Heaven knows I work very hard to ensure that we have representation from the north in many boards across government.

In this case, this is the inaugural board of Destination B.C., and there was a very conscious decision to…. While we wanted to reflect the regions of our province, we also wanted to be sure that Destination B.C. was a success. It is not at all about diminished skill sets anywhere else. It was about: these were people who we believed would help ensure the success of this new organization.

L. Popham: The last time we went through these estimates, the minister told me that the board compensation would be publicly released last fall. I see that in the report that was released for November 2012 to March 2013, there was no compensation for the board. Is that correct?

[1520]

Hon. S. Bond: There was no public reporting of board expenses at March 2013 because the organization was actually not an operating entity at that point in time. The total reimbursements that have been provided to board members between January of 2013…. They were not released in March, even though there was some work being done, because it was not an operating entity.

Between January 2013 and March 2014 the total remuneration to directors, as of March 2014…. I should point out that this is an unaudited number. The num-
[ Page 3738 ]
ber that's released with Public Accounts will be audited, obviously. The total amount of remuneration is $89,835. The remuneration for directors is, obviously, a number that is set. It isn't something that is at the discretion of Destination B.C.

L. Popham: Now I've got some questions that sort of relate back to regional support. It's to do with the convention centre in Vancouver. Tourism Vancouver owed about $90 million as its contribution to the convention centre. I'm wondering: does the minister know what the total debt is today?

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to advise the member that the TICA agreement is a commercial agreement between TVan and the Minister of Finance, so those questions need to be directed to the Minister of Finance during his estimates debate.

L. Popham: Okay. Well, that's fair. But really my question is around the province supporting regional organizations as far as tourism goes. I did notice that Tourism Vancouver received a grant for $3.5 million to support what it's doing. I guess my question is: how would other regions apply for a grant of that size? There's a lot of interest in it.

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: There are a number of ways that Destination B.C. and, in fact, the government provide opportunities for communities. There is $6 million a year which goes to the six regional destination marketing organizations. There's a tourism opportunities fund that has $1 million in it.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

One of the most significant ways that we support communities — there are currently 14 of them, which include communities like Tofino, Ucluelet, Valemount, Kimberley, Golden, Whistler, Sun Peaks — is through the resort mountain initiative, and that, over time, has seen in excess of $70 million go to communities across the province — Rossland, Revelstoke, Osoyoos.

In addition to that….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: My fatigue is starting to set in. It was the resort municipality initiative. Thank you, George.

In addition to that, we obviously have the municipal and regional tax program. There are a variety of ways that we are looking to support communities across the province. Certainly, Destination B.C. now is in the position to try to assist those other communities.

L. Popham: It occurs to me that the $3.5 million grant was approved specifically in this minister's ministry, as far as I can tell. Perhaps I'm wrong. This was made to support the ongoing operations of Tourism Vancouver.

Have I misunderstood? Was this for ongoing operations such as marketing, or was this for repayment of the loan?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, any questions regarding TVan and the TICA arrangement need to be addressed with the Minister of Finance. I'm advised that the funding that is provided to organizations, like Whistler, is provided to look at their marketing, their tourism expansion — those kinds of things. I'm advised that. I obviously am not aware of the exact content of the letter. Any details that are regarding the financial situation with TICA are in the portfolio of the Minister of Finance.

L. Popham: I understand that this question might be more comfortable at the Ministry of Finance, but it would seem to me that the minister would know where a $3.5 million grant went and what it was for. In fact, the letter that I have is thanking the minister for her support on this. I will go to the Minister of Finance to ask more specific questions.

[1535]

But my main question was: where would another organization find the paperwork to fill out for a grant of $3.5 million for their regional organization or their conference centre? I mean, we have a conference centre here in Victoria that, I'm sure, would love a $3.5 million grant. As far as I'm concerned, a grant doesn't need to be paid back, so $3.5 million is a pretty big increase in a budget for an area that runs a convention centre.

I think we also have Prince George, in the minister's own riding. Kelowna, Langley, Nanaimo, Penticton — all of these areas, I'm sure, would love a $3.5 million grant for running their operations, unless it's not really for that, and unless it was specifically to repay a loan for the convention centre.

That being said, I understand the minister doesn't want to answer that question. But I'm going to put another question out there anyway. Is this going to be a pattern? Will another grant be given to repay the loan payment? As far as I'm concerned, that's what it was used for. Is this a pattern that there'll be support for these grand grants for repayments of loans instead of actual marketing for other areas of the province?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite knows that I'm rarely reluctant to answer a question and work very hard and diligently to figure out what the answers are.

The TICA arrangement is a commercial agreement between TVan and the Minister of Finance. That is not within my portfolio. If the member opposite has a letter
[ Page 3739 ]
that references me, I would be more than happy to take a look at it. The grant that I understand the member may be speaking to, I think, was in March of 2012. I certainly was not the minister at that time. I'd be happy to look at the letter, if she has it.

I simply want to point out that in estimates we try to be as forthcoming as possible, as comfortable or uncomfortable as the questions may be, but questions on details of the agreement need to be referred to the Minister of Finance.

L. Popham: All right, I'm going to move on to the advertising agency that Destination B.C. contracts to. Is Cossette the only agency that Destination B.C. contracts with for design? How much was spent on Cossette so far, under Destination B.C.?

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: The reason this is taking a little bit of time is that the way the fiscal breakdown is presented here, I'm not able to extract the design costs. What I can say is that the supplier, Dare, is the official agency of record for Destination B.C. It was established through an RFP, and there is a contract value that is annual. It includes advertising, so it would not be design alone. We could certainly ask DBC to come back and provide that number.

L. Popham: Do I misunderstand that Cossette is not one of the agencies that are contracted for design?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised, again, that Dare is the official agency of record, and that Dare and Cossette are described as sister agencies, but that the agency of record is actually Dare.

L. Popham: Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that Cossette had had a contract with the ministry for over 15 years, but perhaps not.

My question is a general question. Does the minister prohibit directors with financial interests or employment relationships with contracts to participate in board decisions in hiring or contracting?

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: A number of things I want to be sure are correct on the record. I think I referenced that the letter regarding TVan was March of 2012. That's not correct. It was April 2013. I want to be sure that that is correctly on the record.

I do want to, also, after much discussion…. The member is correct that Cossette was the provider previous to the last RFP. Cossette was the official agency of record prior to the RFP. At that point Dare is now the official agency of record, and that was done through an RFP process.

In terms of board members, I'm advised by the CEO that board members are asked to sign a conflict-of-interest provision.

L. Popham: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm moving on to aboriginal tourism now.

How much did Aboriginal Tourism B.C. receive in 2011 and 2012, and then how much in 2013? The reason why I'm asking, I'm sure the minister already knows, is that I believed that aboriginal tourism normally receives about $1 million in funding. I think that was cut to $600,000. Can the minister confirm that?

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: The funding reduction…. That is correct. There was a decision, I'm told, in discussion with the aboriginal tourism organization, to basically…. We would describe it, I guess, as front-end-load funding. There was a more significant funding agreement on the front end of the development of the organization. The total amount of the spending to date with AtBC is $6.67 million, with the $670,000 invested for '14-15. Any additional requests made by AtBC would certainly be reviewed and considered by the board.

L. Popham: Well, I'm under the impression that there might have been some surprise at the funding cut in the aboriginal tourism sector.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

One of the things that's a problem with this cut — and I think the minister will agree with me — is that these funds, especially, are used to get matching funds federally. So we've lost $400,000 of federal money.

I understand that there may have been a decision made, but I'm not sure how prudent it was leaving $400,000 on the table at the federal level. Not only is it, I think, fiscally irresponsible, but I also think that it's very difficult for programming to be done when the funding is unstable.

There seems to have been an understanding that the $1 million was there. I'm not sure exactly of the effects this will have on aboriginal tourism, but one of the things I do know, from attending the Aboriginal Tourism Conference up at Whistler, is that this is one of the sectors of tourism that is thriving right now.

[1555]

This is experience-based tourism. It's something that people are looking for. It's something that international visitors and visitors from the U.S. are looking for. It's also more of a higher-end tourist that would be looking for these sorts of experiences. At a time like this, when we're looking for as much economic generation as we can, and especially when we're using tourism as one of our economic drivers, it would be surprising to me that we would leave that money on the federal table. Can the
[ Page 3740 ]
minister comment on that?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, one of the things I know is there is a really great working relationship between AtBC and Destination B.C., including our ministry, as well, and in particular my colleague. We have heard no expression of significant concern.

There was an understanding that the funding in this arrangement would be larger at the beginning and smaller as the agreement worked its way through. I'm a person who is always concerned when we leave money on the federal table. There was no guarantee that there would be an additional $400,000 here. That's not a guarantee.

We do know this. The member is correct that there is certainly an increased demand for aboriginal tourism products. We've looked, for example, at the export-ready tourism products — in other words, they're ready to go. It has jumped from 60 in 2011 to 150 businesses that are approaching market-ready status today. That's very much due to AtBC's efforts, and we know there's additional growth potential.

We have a constructive working relationship. We have invested over $6½ million with the organization, and in fact, there have been some very significant and positive results.

L. Popham: I would certainly not doubt the working relationship at all. One thing I can say is that we may not have been guaranteed that $400,000 federally, but we're certainly not going to get it if we don't try, and I'm not sure that that's the right way to go.

I have one last question before I hand it over to my colleague, who will be moving on to skills training. One of the things that I learned at the Aboriginal Tourism Conference is that one of the ways to improve some of the areas that are trying to be opened up, of course, is cell phone coverage. I'm wondering if the minister has an update on any plans around increasing cell phone coverage in our more rural areas.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have specific numbers here with us, certainly not with DBC, around cell phone improvements. But Telus has just recently announced a significant investment in small and northern rural and remote communities. I think progress is being made.

I know that in my riding there are still areas of the province…. In fact, the highway that I drive to get to parts of my riding: over two hours without continuous cell phone coverage. So there's still work to be done, but I know that Telus has very recently made an announcement about significant continued investment in improving cell phone coverage. We're very interested and supportive of that, and we'll continue to ensure that we make our views knows about that as Tourism ministers.

[1600]

L. Popham: Thank you very much. I'll look forward to an update.

I just want to thank the ministers for their time today and the staff for their time today.

H. Bains: We're moving into the Skills Training part of the file here.

Before my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan takes over the file on Skills Training, I have a couple of questions on the new ITA board that was appointed the other day and, specifically, the chair of the board, Mr. Gwyn Morgan. I have some concerns about the background of Mr. Morgan, and I'll explain to you what those are.

He is publicly quoted in his speech to the B.C. Fraser Institute. He blamed immigration for violence in Toronto and Calgary. Then in a subsequent speech in Toronto Mr. Morgan suggested "multiculturalism was the cause of rioting in France and Australia and warned Canadians to beware of multiculturalism" so that it doesn't become a divisive value.

He went on to say this in his column in the Globe and Mail. He attacked Canada's public health care — fine, he could do that — arguing for private delivery of publicly funded care plus a two-tier system allowing Canadians to buy entirely private care. He can hold those views. I respect those. Then he went on to say that those who would oppose his ideas were "monopoly-loving union leaders and their left-wing sycophants."

In another Globe column: "He described unionized public sector workers as 'abusive' toward the citizenry and insisted that unionized workers providing 'important' public services should be forbidden from striking."

Here is a guy who doesn't like immigrants. He doesn't like multiculturalism, the very basis of our society in Canada. He doesn't like union workers, and here he is appointed to lead a very, very important file that B.C. is facing right now, which is a skills shortage. We need to have our workers trained, to provide the skills that they need to get the jobs of the future.

Couldn't the minister find someone who actually understands our society? If you look at the makeup of our society, as diverse as our society is…. We're reaching almost 50 percent of people whose second language is not English. Here is a guy who is going to lead an agency where we will be looking for workers for training and who has such a bias against immigrants, such a bias against union workers. Why was that person picked, not someone who actually has passion for our society, who understands our society, who has values about the values of Canada?

I just don't understand what the minister was seeing in him before she hired him. My question to the minister is: does she actually believe in what Mr. Morgan's views are about unions, about multiculturalism, about immigration to this country? I mean, that's what I'd like to know.
[ Page 3741 ]
If she agrees with his views, she should say so. If not, she should say that as well.

Hon. S. Bond: The changes that are necessary at the Industry Training Authority are going to make a difference for a very long time in the province. Mr. Gwyn Morgan is a recipient of the Order of Canada. He has six honorary doctorates. He has led some of the largest corporations in North America.

[1605]

He has been recognized with numerous accolades. Mr. Morgan will be joined on the board by someone else who has very strong views. His name would be Tom Sigurdson. We know that there are diverse views on the board. That's intentional. I fully expect, with the leadership calibre that is on this board, we're going to see the changes that are necessary.

Mr. Morgan is an Order of Canada recipient. He will work very hard on British Columbia's behalf to ensure that the Industry Training Authority responds to the 29 recommendations that were provided by Jessica McDonald.

H. Bains: I'm very disappointed with the minister's answer. Conrad Black was also Order of Canada. He ended up in jail. People with these kinds of credentials, when they end up with the Order of Canada…. That diminishes the importance of all those important people who are really deserving of the Order of Canada.

Here is a person who — it's not hearsay — actually said these things. He said that riots in Calgary and Toronto are the result of immigration and that riots in France are a result of multiculturalism. He called union workers abusive to citizenry. How do you justify having a person with such an important file?

I'm really happy that Tom Sigurdson is there. I know the track record of this government. They will not change their mind, but people like Mr. Sigurdson are there to hold those people to account so that they don't get their biased opinions when important decisions are made on that table.

I ask the minister: please review your appointment of Mr. Morgan as chair because of such abuse that is anti-Canadian, anti–British Columbian and anti-immigrant, anti-union — all of those values that we as Canadians hold very close to us.

I ask the minister one more time. Here's an opportunity, knowing what she knows about the background of Mr. Morgan. His appointment should be rescinded. Have him replaced by someone who actually respects Canadians.

Hon. S. Bond: Gwyn Morgan has been recognized as Canada's Outstanding CEO of the Year, Canada's most respected CEO. Previous to that, Mr. Morgan served on the board of directors of five global corporations. He is a trustee on the Manning Centre for Building Democracy and also the Dalai Lama Centre for Peace and Education.

He is a retired honorary colonel of the Canadian air force. He has received numerous awards, including the University of Western Ontario's Ivey Business Leader award, the University of Victoria School of Business Entrepreneur of the Year award, and he's a member of the Alberta Business Hall of Fame.

Mr. Morgan — I want to correct the record — holds four honorary degrees. As a professional engineer, he is a fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering. Notably, Mr. Morgan was recognized as a member of the Order of Canada in 2010 by Governor General the Rt. Hon. David Johnston. Gwyn Morgan has proved himself to be exceptional in terms of being a change agent, looking at directing five global corporations.

I should point out to the member opposite that Mr. Sigurdson, in his comments, is quoted today in the Journal of Commerce, and he says: "I think we can work collaboratively together." He would be well aware of the chair of the board and the other members of that board, which include individuals at the calibre of Jonathan Whitworth; Andy Calitz, who is the leader of one of the largest LNG corporations; M.J. Whitemarsh. We're looking at a number of significant individuals in British Columbia.

I quote Mr. Sigurdson. He believes he can "bring the merits of the traditional apprenticeship program to the board. I believe we can work collaboratively and make the system better for those entering the apprenticeship system."

[1610]

He has been very clear in both his public and private comments to me that he's very much looking forward to working with this board. I have high expectations for the board, and I'm very pleased to see individuals with the profile and leadership capability of the members that are on this board.

H. Bains: I take it from this conversation, along with the letter that I wrote to the Premier…. At the time when Mr. Morgan was appointed her adviser on the transition team, she repeated almost exactly…. Similar comments were sent back to me as the minister is saying. I take it from here that the Premier endorsed those views of Mr. Morgan and the minister endorsed those views of Mr. Morgan that I have just read — about multiculturalism, about union members.

My question to the minister is this. Do you endorse those views of Mr. Morgan that I have just read about multiculturalism, about the reasons for riots in France, about the violence in Calgary and Toronto, about his comments about union workers in the private sector? Do you endorse those?

Hon. S. Bond: I think I read the list of credentials that I endorse. I endorsed the leadership of a board.
[ Page 3742 ]

H. Bains: Many people have these credentials, but they don't have these kinds of racist views.

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite would like to make those kinds of personal allegations about a person of the stature of Gwyn Morgan, perhaps he would like to do that in some other venue. To suggest that a person is a racist, in this House, is a very serious and personal allegation.

Gwyn Morgan is a recipient of the Order of Canada, and what I endorse is a board in British Columbia that has the potential to deliver a trades-training system to meet the needs of unprecedented opportunity that we are facing.

The endorsement that I gave to Mr. Morgan was based on his skill as Canada's outstanding CEO. He has served on the board of directors of five global corporations. He has been the CEO of the Year for Canada and the most respected CEO.

I would truly hope that the member opposite, in making a comment, calling a person a racist…. Certainly, I endorse Mr. Gwyn Morgan's….

H. Bains: I said "racist views, those racist views." That's what I said.

Hon. S. Bond: I will go back and check Hansard, to the member opposite. That is not what was said, and I am deeply, deeply troubled by an accusation like that in this House.

Mr. Morgan is an Order of Canada recipient. He is a global leader, and British Columbia will be well served by his leadership. In fact, the member opposite may want to contact Tom Sigurdson and ask him about his willingness to partner not only on this board but with this government.

We have worked collectively and collaboratively to find the best way to meet the training needs of British Columbians. We reached out and worked constructively with the B.C. Federation of Labour to say it's time for us all to sit down and have a conversation about how we can be constructive and meet the needs of British Columbians today and in the future.

I apologize for taking this long, hon. Chair. I am really troubled by the comments of the member opposite, and I think that they are deeply inappropriate.

D. Donaldson: I have a question for the minister that relates to skills training. It's a question I asked during the budget estimates I was responsible for, which was the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The minister there referred me to this minister, so I'll ask the question, in hopes that I can get some clarification.

It has to do with an initiative by the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. It falls under what the government is calling their off-reserve aboriginal action plan. The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres has advanced a job strategy called the 5X5 job strategy, and what they are targeting is for off-reserve First Nations to have 5,000 First Nations people of aboriginal descent employed in the next five years.

[1615]

We're not talking here about training in the trades or skills training around the trades. We're talking about people who largely haven't had previous employment, who haven't had a lot of success in trying to attain employment.

They've been very innovative in this 5X5 approach, in looking at ways through things like social enterprises to employ people and get that first step into the workforce to develop the behaviours and the habits and the skills that will enable them to perhaps step up into other parts of the workforce as well or to continue in the social enterprise field.

I posed the question about whether there was support financially through this government through the off-reserve aboriginal action plan initiative for this really innovative strategy, I think, that Paul Lacerte and the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres have put forward to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. He referred me to this minister and this ministry, under Skills Training.

My question simply is: recognizing the innovative approach that's filling a gap that exists right now between people who are ready to immediately go into trades and skills training and those who haven't had very good success in the employment field and the fact that First Nations represent a large portion, especially up north where the minister and I both live, of people who are seeking employment and are unemployed, is there financial support in this budget for the 5X5 initiative under her ministry either this year or in the three years that the budget plan covers?

Hon. S. Bond: I do appreciate the question from the member opposite. I do want to, though, Mr. Chair, if I might for just a moment return to the previous subject about Mr. Gwyn Morgan's reputation.

I did want to read the rest of the article from which I believe the comments were being taken, just so that the House does have the complete record.

The member is correct that there were comments linked to Mr. Morgan. The part that the member didn't read into the record was that Mr. Morgan actually spoke to a Commons committee after those comments were made.

[1620]

I would like to quote. Mr. Morgan said that it was painful to see "a couple of sentences taken out of context from one of my speeches and leave such an untrue impression of my beliefs." I think it's important for that to be read into the record.
[ Page 3743 ]

In terms of aboriginal people working, and particularly with friendship centres, I have a fantastic one — I think it's the largest one in Canada — in Prince George. I'm very proud of the work they do, an exceptional organization. Both before and after the release of the skills blueprint the friendship centre organization has been in touch with our ministry. We have met with them previously.

There has been some conversation about the 5 by 5 document. It dovetails very nicely, I think, with some of the work that's outlined in the blueprint. Things are noted, like we're going to set achievable targets for increasing aboriginal workforce participation, looking at adding 15,000 aboriginal workers over the next ten years. Throughout the document, one of the things that was very important to all three ministers that were involved in the process — actually, there were more than three; I should be clear about that — was the greater success and participation for aboriginal individuals in our province.

One of the reasons we fought so hard on the Canada Jobs Grant issue was to make sure that the program that eventually was approved by us and the federal government had a place and a significant role for marginalized British Columbians, those who were First Nations or women or persons with disabilities.

I guess a long answer to the question, but basically, we are committed to working with them. As of today, there certainly hasn't been a definitive agreement made, but I think it fits very nicely with the plan we have and, certainly, with the intent we have around the document we released.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. I think it's a very innovative approach to addressing a gap. I'm glad the minister is supportive, and I look forward to seeing some action as far as funding goes. I'll keep in touch with her and Paul Lacerte on it.

Again, it's a group of people, a significant number of people, who need to be re-engaged in the opportunities that we have and aren't necessarily looking for trade skills. That may eventually be where they end up. But they need to be reintroduced into behaviours around employment and opportunities there. The social enterprise field, I think, is an excellent field for that. It can actually end up being a career field for many people. So I'll keep in touch, and I hope to see some actually supportive financial news for that 5 by 5 program.

The other question I had, and it's something probably…. I've been an MLA for five years, and I'm sure that for four years I've brought it to estimates and definitely to this minister, in her various roles, the last three years.

It has to do with Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining. This is directly related to a skills-training message. I'm going to repeat some information that the minister is very aware of, because I brought it up with her the last few years, and she's aware of how successful this portion of the school is and the training program. They've won the Premier's Award when Premier Campbell was the Premier. They've won an award from the Mining Association of B.C. for their work.

It's a camp-based setting — I've been there, Ganokwa Basin — where they have a replica exploration camp, walled tents with computers in them — a pretty cool setup, very environmentally friendly setup. Seventy-five percent of the graduates go on to either employment or to pursue further education. A majority are First Nations.

The issue is the year-to-year funding they receive. That's not multi-year. Of course, what we saw in this past funding cycle was labour market agreement funding, which is a nice segue because the minister mentioned this part of the agreement in the last answer. They only received notice of getting that funding for this past season, I believe, the day before the writ dropped. When was that? It was April 12 or something like that that they received word they were going to be funded for this past season.

[1625]

You can imagine the kinds of concerns and challenges and chaos that creates when you're trying to retain staff and create training programs and make commitments to students and have students make a commitment to the program.

I'm interested in hearing an update from the minister, as we know there were some huge unknowns around 2015 on whether this kind of funding would be available again for such an award-winning program — such an important program for the north, hosted out of NWCC in Smithers — and whether she would agree and be a proponent of bringing this program under the umbrella of the Ministry of Advanced Education. At least there would be a bit more certainty about its survival on a year-to-year basis, and they could make better commitments to staff and students into the future.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. It is a very successful program. I can understand the uncertainty that can be felt when you're not sure about funding.

What I can say is that the way the blueprint works now, or the way we're going to allocate dollars through the skills training plan, is new. And it will be through the labour market priorities board. All of the ministries will come together. In fact, my deputy chairs that board. It will look at current labour market analysis and look at what the jobs are that are in demand and how we fund them.

I think it's safe to say…. I met with representatives of the school and the college in Prince George, I think around the time of the Natural Resource Forum, and certainly was very complimentary of the work that they do.

I think that the member is right to bring it forward. It is something we're looking at in terms of the model that's used there. It's very successful. And as we move forward and look at the allocation of dollars and how that's
[ Page 3744 ]
done, it will be done in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, Advanced Education and MARR as well.

[1630]

All of the funding that is assigned to programs related to skills training will be done by that group together. I'm advised that, obviously, this is one of the programs that we would be looking at.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister and staff for the opportunity to ask some questions about skills training in the province.

The recently released report from Jessica McDonald and the plan that was derived largely from the recommendations of that report seem to me to be, essentially, an admission of failure in terms of the government's priorities and policies regarding skills training for the past ten years, which have resulted in the lowest completion rates in Canada.

I'd like the minister to share with me whether or not she acknowledges this report as an admission of failure on the part of the government.

Hon. S. Bond: No, I certainly wouldn't agree with the statement that it's about failure. In fact, on page 1 of the report, under "Key observations" Ms. McDonald points out:

"Since creating the ITA as part of a new industry-led system, government has achieved significant positive outcomes…a substantial increase in the number of apprentices registered, as well as the number of credentials issued each year. There are increased opportunities for youth, aboriginal people, women and immigrants to participate in the trades. Many program reviews have been undertaken across the approximately 100 apprenticeship programs, creating an up-to-date system. Red Seal pass rates surpass the national average in many trades."

I don't see it at all as a failure. What I see it as is a natural evolution that after ten years, one would hope that the government would look at an organization, especially when we are headed into unprecedented opportunities, to make sure that the system we have in place is actually relevant, current and is working as efficiently as possible.

D. Routley: It seems to me that the report points out that the system has suffered from unilateral decision-making — that it was wrong to push labour partners away from the table ten years ago in 2004. The report clearly identifies that as a mistaken course of action.

Does the minister acknowledge that the decision ten years ago, in 2004, to remove labour representatives from the boards of apprenticeship in this province was a mistake?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't think this is about failure or mistakes. I do think that the reflection of Ms. McDonald is helpful to us. Long before she gave us the report, we recognized that British Columbians, men and women who work and build our province — many of whom are unionized workers — are important.

We reached out in a constructive way to try to improve our relationship with organized labour. I think that, actually, we have done that. It isn't about putting one person on the Industry Training Authority from organized labour, although I'm very pleased that Mr. Sigurdson said yes.

It is about the Liquefied Natural Gas Working Group that we worked on together. It is about talking about things like apprenticeship and how we look at potential allocations of apprentices on public projects.

We have made a concentrated effort to reach out to the labour movement in British Columbia. I think they're going to be incredibly helpful, both on the ITA board and in the work we're doing on liquefied natural gas.

[1635]

I think that a report that is hard-hitting and that has 29 recommendations…. I embraced the report. I asked Jessica to do exactly what she did, which was, after ten years, to go and speak to stakeholders. There had been a lot of discussion in the field, certainly prior to going to the election, about discontent with the operation in terms of connectivity with the sectors and all of those things.

So it isn't a surprise that we took a hard look. In fact, it was included in my mandate letter from the Premier.

D. Routley: It's one thing to say that we embrace a hard-hitting report, but then it's quite another to reject the notion that there were mistakes made. If the report is hard-hitting, then it must be pointing to areas where the government's approach has fallen short.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Another area, as pointed out in the report, was the system of silos. "Conflict between views as to the right policies, programs and funding priorities has led to deep silos in the system, with each partner focusing on their own interests…. Currently there are no overarching targets for the overall outcomes of the system, leading to one-off decisions and misalignments." Would the minister agree that that points to a criticism of the government's management of the system over these past years?

Hon. S. Bond: If we were to walk through the report, there is a series of statements about the work that has been done and the work that needs to be done. That's what you expect when you take a hard look at an organization.

On page 1 Ms. McDonald points out: "Overall, there is broad support for the continuation of government's shift towards an industry-led system. There is also a welcoming of this review as a timely effort to give new consideration to some elements of the system and enable further progress."

We go through. There are a series of comments. On page 23, for example, Ms. McDonald points out that
[ Page 3745 ]
"since the establishment of the ITA in 2004, there have been improved outcomes and system improvements over the previous ITAC model." That's exactly why we changed it in the first place. "An achievement recognized across the system is improved and up-to-date standards for the trades."

So it isn't about reinventing the ITA. She could have suggested we dismantle it and start over, and she didn't. What she said is: "You need to make some changes." What I said is: "I think those are good recommendations."

I think that any time an organization has been in place for ten years…. The face of training and work and the economy in our province is very different in that period of time. I think about how mills today look compared to when I was first elected in 2001. There are far fewer people. It can be debated whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it is just the way it is. There are far fewer people on the floor of a mill today than there were ten years ago. Why? Because technology has changed, and some of the most sophisticated mills in North America are in British Columbia.

So it is timely to take a look, to look at how we can make changes. Again, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone because the Premier asked, in my mandate letter when I was first appointed, to undertake the review.

D. Routley: So really there are no problems, only positive comments in the report that the minister is prepared to acknowledge. But the report does point to this system of silos, and it is highly critical of that one-off decision-making and misalignment of funds. I'm sure the minister would prefer to read only the positive comments of the report into the record. I would prefer to examine some of the critical aspects of the report.

Another step that was taken by the government when they created the ITA was to fire the trades-training counsellors that were put in place by the NDP. There were 40 of those counsellors. They closed the regional offices, fired the regionally dispersed training counsellors and, rather than the 120 staff that were in place at the time, reduced the ITA in its beginning to just 12 staff.

It seems to me that the report is critical of the workload for each adviser that currently works in the system. As of September 30, 2013, the report says there are 35,564 apprentices registered in the system, resulting in an unimaginable caseload for each adviser.

[1640]

Does the minister agree that this indicates that firing the trades counsellors in 2004 was a mistake by government?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not at all reluctant to recognize that changes need to be made. I wouldn't have asked Jessica McDonald to do the work if I wasn't prepared to accept the outcomes of the report.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

I think she clearly articulates that there are areas where changes need to be made. When the ITAC model was changed, there was significant criticism in the day, ten years ago, about the functioning of the ITAC model, so there was a decision to make changes.

I think it's always appropriate for government to go back, to take a look and say: "Can we do this differently? Can we do it better?" Yes, at times it does mean course correction. I'm not defensive about that. I think we asked someone who is incredibly capable to ask questions.

What I am, though, going to point out to the member opposite, and not hesitate to do so, is that today British Columbia has 35,000 apprentices in the system, twice as many as there were in 2004. I think that's a mark of success. It does mean that the system worked. Does it need change? Yes. I embraced all 29 recommendations and said we need to get moving on them.

We awarded 8,000 certificates of qualification to journeypersons, almost triple the number in 2004-2005. Aboriginal participation has doubled since 2006, and today there are over 3,000 registered women apprentices in British Columbia. That has grown from 8½ percent to 10 percent in 2009. All of those things show that there has been success.

As I said, Ms. McDonald did not suggest starting over. She said: "You need to reconsider some elements, and you need to build on the foundation of others."

D. Routley: In fact, Ms. McDonald's report points to a system that has been broken and has dwindled to producing the lowest results in the country. We have roughly half the Red Seal completion rate that our neighbouring economy, Alberta, has. If the minister wants to defend that as simple tweaking, then she's welcome to that task.

In fact, we have had ten lost years where the government has failed to respond to what were clearly identified labour market demands and skills shortages that had been detailed and well communicated to the minister and her government over those years. Those needs have been ignored.

The government has relied on inadequate labour market analysis. The report says: "JTST's current labour market analysis will require enhancement to create predictable provincewide planning to set targets."

Well, let's look at that. The B.C. labour market outlook, which was created in 2011, is the basis for the government's claim that we will have a million jobs, but we can see that already in two years these projections have fallen short on jobs and GDP growth. As of 2013 the province was already 58,500 jobs short of that prediction, about 2.5 percent of the anticipated demand.

Furthermore, this outlook was based on GDP growth projections that haven't been met either. The GDP growth targets set by that scaled measurement were
[ Page 3746 ]
based on 3 percent growth, and recently our GDP growth projections have been revised down to 2.5 percent. This indicates that the government does not have adequate information to plan these re-engineering efforts.

What is the minister going to do in order to make these predictions more accurate and more realistic?

Hon. S. Bond: We've undertaken…. For the last six or seven months, maybe a bit longer than that, as I explained to the opposition critic yesterday, we have looked at how our ministry operates and have been in the process of putting together some of the most detailed and accurate labour market data information in the country — not just in British Columbia but in the country.

[1645]

We've done that by, for example, meeting with liquefied natural gas proponents, analyzing each of their projects, looking at the variety of occupations that they require, when they require them and where they require them. The compilation of all of the projects that are being considered for the province, plus looking at other labour market information, allows us to create the document and the plan based on the most up-to-date data that we have in our province. That is after meeting directly with proponents and analyzing projects we have currently.

The threshold is half a billion dollars. We look at each one of those projects. We go through them. We look at what occupations are needed, when they're needed and where they're needed.

I am very grateful to the team that has worked so hard. We are also refocusing our ministry, recognizing that we need to make sure we have the capacity to continue to do this work. I think it's also important to recognize that those numbers are at a point in time. The number tomorrow might be 1,000,250 jobs, and the day before that, 999,000 or whatever it happens to be.

We're going to base that on data, and then we're going to align the funding — over $7 billion of funding — to the plan that we've put in place.

D. Routley: I agree that the numbers do shift. That would indicate that the government should constantly update their predictions based on shifting numbers. In fact, the 2011 B.C. Labour Market Outlook was promised to be updated annually. It hasn't been updated annually. In fact, the numbers that the government operates from today in the plan that they have just put together are based on the 2011 numbers. They haven't been updated.

A recent Toronto Dominion Bank report pointed out that these kinds of labour market outlooks are based on "shaky growth accounting models." The minister is claiming that these are based on the most up-to-date and advanced information available, yet apparently the data that is being used to claim these numbers of job growth have not been updated since 2011, and this method has been condemned by the Toronto Dominion Bank.

What does the minister have to say to that criticism?

[1650]

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite is trying to imply that we're just relying on 2011 data and we've created a plan around that. That would not be correct. What we have done is taken GDP projections from the Ministry of Finance. We have taken major project inventory, and we've also taken Stats Canada information.

In addition, for example, on the liquefied natural gas file we meet with the proponents virtually weekly to get specific data, and we project the numbers. The scenario we've used for the blueprint is actually five LNG plants constructed between 2015 and 2024, where industry investment would total $175 billion, and up to 100,000 jobs would be created. So 58,700 of those would be direct and indirect and 23,800 permanent direct and indirect jobs as operations.

The numbers are very specific, particularly in the case of LNG, in order to ensure that we had a model so that we could continue to feed information in and have the most accurate and up-to-date data. KPMG has worked with us on LNG workforce projections to make sure that we can look at the industry from 2012 to 2022.

The work we're doing may not be perfect, but it is far ahead of what most other jurisdictions in the country are doing. It is not based on Kijiji or anything else. We actually have a team of people who are using a process that takes data from a variety of sources to give us the absolute best prediction of numbers. One would expect us to do that, considering we're looking at changing the system based on that data.

D. Routley: Perhaps the minister should remind the Toronto-Dominion Bank of that, because the Toronto-Dominion Bank points to the predictions the government has made as being founded on shaky ground. The minister can deal with that however she might.

The ten-year skills training plan. The provincial funding for the ITA is flatlined at $94.4 million. Don Drummond, when he advised the Ontario government in its recovery from economic downturn, pointed to skills training as the only area that the government should not cut from and the only area, in fact, where the government should make increased investments.

But this government has chosen not to make increased investments. In their budget they have flatlined ITA funding. This means that the funding is declining in real terms when inflation is accounted, and at the same time, wait-lists for apprenticeship programs are almost two years long for some of our institutions. What is the minister proposing to do to address these problems?

[1655]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the key deliverables in the skills training blueprint is providing more funding for trades-
[ Page 3747 ]
training seats. In fact, we intend to invest $6.6 million, 10 percent over the current Industry Training Authority funding to public institutions. The funding will significantly reduce wait-lists by adding spaces, starting in September 2014, for the jobs that are in need in our economy, such as heavy-equipment operators, heavy-duty-equipment mechanics and electricians. We are intending very specifically to reduce wait-lists. We're going to add $6.6 million.

In addition to that, one of the things that the Minister of AVED is going to take on is actually a system which would identify where there are vacancies in the province and where there are waits so that a student who is looking to get into a program more quickly would have the option of looking at what's available across the province. So I think we're looking at a variety of ways.

Clearly, in our view, there is over $7 billion invested in training and education in our province in total. What we want to do is make sure that taxpayers have confidence that as we set the stage for students and workers in our province, we are ensuring that those dollars are helping provide opportunities for students, First Nations, women and persons with disabilities that actually line up with the needs that we have.

D. Routley: Where is the $6.6 million coming from? If there's no increase to the ministry's budget, where is it coming from?

Hon. S. Bond: The $6.6 million is coming from the Advanced Education Ministry. But I do want to re-emphasize that we are going to be making decisions differently in government so that whenever a trades-training program is being considered or the expenditure of money related to the blueprint, it will be done with the advice and guidance of the labour market priorities board, which was another one of the significant decisions we made — to focus our spending based on the need that we have.

The ministries are now working collaboratively. My deputy actually chairs that committee, the labour market priorities board. We will look across the province. The board will look at where the needs are. They will work collaboratively with the Industry Training Authority so that we're looking at the dollars we invest in totality and saying, "Are they being spent where they should be? Here's where the priorities are," and they're going to be lined up against those priorities.

D. Routley: So this is not new money? This is repurposed money?

Hon. S. Bond: It's a Ministry of Advanced Education investment. I believe it's new money. The member opposite is welcome to canvass that with the Minister of AVED.

D. Routley: At the release of the plan, the minister stated in questions from the media and in her presentation that there was no new investment, that in fact this was all money that had been repurposed through re-engineering of existing programs. So can I ask the minister which programs she expects will suffer loss in order to provide funding to cover the new priorities identified by the labour market priorities board?

[1700]

Hon. S. Bond: The way the blueprint will work and the way the shift will work is that we're not going to dictate what courses will be offered and what courses won't. As I've said, it is not a matter of either-or. It's not a matter of liberal arts or trades and technology. We have, in the system, over $7 billion. What we are going to do is look at investing in areas that are of priority in the future.

I think it's only fair for students and families in British Columbia to know where the future job opportunities lie. All we're saying is we want to make sure that the training programs that are offered line up with the needs that we have. I think most British Columbians think that's probably not a bad idea, rather than suggesting students take a variety of courses that may not have the demand that British Columbia will have. Especially when we hear regularly — and we believe passionately — that British Columbians should be first in line for jobs, we actually hope that they have the skill set to line up for those jobs.

It's a matter of bringing together a demand-driven system instead of a supply-driven system. On the work that we've done, there are far more occupations than heavy-duty-equipment operators and truck drivers. There are certainly a lot of those in the near future for British Columbia. Today we heard stories of massive shortages of truck drivers, for example.

But it does mean that there are still requirements for professionals — for engineers, for other professionals. It is not either-or. It's a matter of bringing balance to the system and making sure that it is demand-driven.

D. Routley: Well, what does this mean for the existing mechanisms in post-secondary institutions that direct programming towards their priorities? How will the labour market priorities board interact with those existing mechanisms that determine where programming should be planned and delivered?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we've had a positive reaction from the majority of post-secondary institutions. In fact, I read quotes recently from Andrew Petter, who said that this was a long time coming and that we needed to make sure that these kinds of innovations and changes were actually taking place.

Our goal is to work constructively to build a culture of innovation and creativity, looking at partnerships between institutions. We just met yesterday with a group
[ Page 3748 ]
that represented institutions both in the Interior and in the north, talking about the fantastic work that they would be considering doing together.

Change is never easy. It is important, though. I think that our post-secondary institutions will absolutely rise to the challenge here, and the commitment is to work constructively with them. That work is already underway.

D. Routley: It seems the government has determined that the future of B.C. is liquefied natural gas and that all efforts on behalf of the government in terms of planning will be directed towards that sector. Currently the forest industry is suffering a significant skills shortage — the pulp and paper industry, in particular. In B.C. last year I believe forest products accounted for $6 billion of export revenue, compared to approximately $1.5 billion for natural gas. The minister's direction and the plan's direction seems focused primarily on LNG, when we have no contracted or confirmed projects in B.C.

I mean, there's obviously an effort to attract some and finalize some commitments, but as we stand here today, there is not a single LNG plant that has been approved for construction in B.C. Yet the government is focusing all of its efforts on this industry, while it appears to me that there's been little focus given to our existing industries that provide existing revenue far in excess of natural gas and are suffering a significant skills shortage. How will those industries and their needs be addressed?

[1705]

Hon. S. Bond: Of course, this is not to the exclusion of LNG. I'm glad to hear the member opposite might be optimistic about it. We are working so hard every day to make sure that we get to bring a new industry to British Columbia. In fact, progress has been made on the Premier's latest trade mission. We're just getting one step closer every day, but we're not going to give up until we work as hard as we can.

Some of the work we've done, for example, on the workforce needs for major B.C. projects…. They are not exclusively LNG. In fact, on one of the charts we look at 47 projects that are located all across British Columbia. It adds up to about $121 billion in investment should all of them move forward.

When we separate that out and we look at northern projects, there are 28 of them in the northern part of British Columbia. The investment level there would be $89 billion. They include mines. They include things like forestry. They include the potential of Site C. The data is very detailed. It is not at all linked only to liquefied natural gas. It's a ten-year skills-training plan.

Having said that, we did make the decision to look at the blueprint and apply it to a single sector, and that's what we did. We took all of the changes and shifts that we were thinking about and looked at how that might work in the LNG sector. A blueprint is used to build things, so we decided that we would use liquefied natural gas as our example in the document.

But I can assure the member opposite — and I'm very privileged to live in northern British Columbia, where 28 of these projects have the potential of moving forward — that we are looking at a specific, detailed cross-sector analysis, including areas like hospitality, tourism. All of those sectors will experience shortages.

It's not simply about new growth, because two-thirds of those million jobs — the member opposite asked how we can predict — are actually based on an aging demographic. In other words, two-thirds of the million will be people leaving their jobs. We know that today. The additional numbers are growth — growth in the tourism sector, the forestry sector. All of those areas have been contemplated in the plan.

D. Routley: With the government's new approach indicating that they are going to direct funding to institutions that provide high employment demand programming, it seems a departure from a core principle of this government — that, in fact, rather than letting the entrepreneurial desire or energies of B.C. students determine their direction, the government is, in a sense, directing students to what programs they should and must take in order to have the fullest of support.

How does the minister justify this approach to planning an economy based on rather shaky data, according to the Toronto-Dominion Bank, and the streaming of students towards programs that are narrowing our focus in B.C.?

We have spent decades trying to detach ourselves from the boom-bust effects of a primarily natural resource–driven economy, and we've attempted to diversify into a knowledge-based economy and a research-and-development-based economy. This seems to be a retrenchment from those kinds of commitments. What does the minister have to say to people who have spent their careers working on diversifying the B.C. economy beyond simple resource extraction?

Hon. S. Bond: I applaud and thank them. And the member is simply not accurate. This isn't about telling young people what they should be doing. It's about giving them all the information they need to decide what they want to be doing.

As a parent and now a grandparent, I want my grandsons to have the option to choose whatever career they want. I want to be sure that when they're in K to 12 and they're in post-secondary, they understand that…. "Here is where the job demand is most pressing." It's not about saying: "Please don't be a doctor." It's about: "Here are the choices and opportunities for you." One of our biggest concerns is making sure that young people understand and, especially younger children, have an opportunity earlier in their lives to realize the broad opportunities
[ Page 3749 ]
that are before them.

[1710]

I don't know how that could be a partisan discussion, honestly. I think that all of us want to make sure that kids have the most choice, the best education.

I should give a specific example of success. This isn't all about the trades. I do think that people believe that there needs to be equity. It is certainly not about streaming. I can tell you that just last week I was very proud, on behalf of the province, to welcome a significant expansion of Microsoft to British Columbia. It's a pretty important technology company in North America, and they chose British Columbia — not Seattle, not in Washington, not anywhere else. They chose British Columbia for a number of reasons.

I think one of the biggest opportunities we've had…. We've looked at our tech numbers over the last year, and they are driving the economy as well. It isn't about lack of diversification. It's about making sure that we understand our province, understand our needs and make sure that the training and educational opportunities we provide line up with the economy and the diversity of our province. I think that's pretty much the blueprint in a nutshell.

D. Routley: Well, the blueprint in a nutshell from the perspective of many — I can include myself in that — is that the government is not willing to support skilled training with increased investment but instead is going to take from other programs in order to support the programs that it has failed to deliver over the past ten years. The skills shortage that we face now has been a subject of concern for practically everyone in this province except the government, as the government has allowed our completion rates to fall, to be the lowest in the country.

Now we're faced with an extreme and urgent crisis of a skilled labour shortage, and it seems that students who would prefer to enter other programs will see those programs lose their funding. It seems that students who don't choose to enter programs that they're being streamed towards by the government's decisions will not receive the same level of support as students who would choose other programs. That's what the blueprint appears to indicate to me. Several people, several media pundits have referred to the same shortcomings in this plan.

Is the minister disagreeing that the blueprint takes resources from programs that are determined by her panels to be less deliverable of employment in sectors that the government is promoting, or is she going to say that there is going to be an increased investment that doesn't harm other programs?

Hon. S. Bond: I guess I'm of the view that when taxpayers in British Columbia spend over $7 billion a year, we should be able to reassure them that the courses we have, the training programs we have are relevant and that they're lined up with the demand that our province has.

I have been clear on the record, and I'll be clear again. This isn't about either-or. It is not about: "We're not going to have a liberal arts education." That would be really unfortunate if people talk about the blueprint in that way, because that is not what this is talking about.

What it is saying is that when we analyze the economy of British Columbia and when we look at where the future lies in our province, there will be certain demands. Our system needs to line up with that. From our perspective, we believe $7 billion is a pretty hefty investment by taxpayers.

What we're saying is that we want the system to be balanced. We want it to line up. We want institutions to ask themselves the tough questions. Are the courses they have relevant? We're not going to say….

If the member, as he reads through the document…. There will be a percentage of the dollars that are provided that will be targeted to high-demand occupations. In fact, even if you look at…. As I said, LNG was just the example we used to test the blueprint and to look at it. It isn't the only sector.

[1715]

This is a ten-year plan, but if you look at some of the jobs that we analyzed, in the top ten job profiles for liquefied natural gas, purchasing agents and officers are on that list. I mean, there is going to be demand across a variety of sectors and professions, and we're simply saying that we need to line up the dollars we spend with the future economic growth in our province.

D. Routley: Andrew Petter of Simon Fraser University also said recently that 95 percent of the students in the liberal arts programs from his university achieve employment within, I think, the first 18 months after their degrees in their chosen field of study.

What problem is the minister trying to fix? If 95 percent of those students are finding work, from liberal arts programs…. This year we're going to repurpose 10 percent of the funding from the post-secondary system — which is, I think, $180 million — and move within four years, I believe, to one-quarter of that, which will be in the order of $450 million. What problem are we trying to fix?

Obviously, the government has fallen short of providing enough opportunities for skills training, if we have such a shortage. But if we are going to take from other programs to fill the gap, then it seems incumbent on the government and this minister to identify which programs are wrongly funded.

I mean, if SFU is saying that 95 percent of their liberal arts students are finding work in their chosen fields, then is that 5 percent…? And what program is that? Is that what the minister is targeting in order to bring $180 million this year and $450 million over four years to skills training?
[ Page 3750 ]

Hon. S. Bond: The skills-training blueprint is designed to ensure we have a demand-driven system in our province. It in no way indicates that we are saying that liberal arts education isn't valuable and important. What we're saying is that we need to have the opportunity for British Columbians and their children, their families, to understand the labour market circumstances facing our province and give them the best chance of success at a career in our province.

As I've said before, we invest over $7.5 billion today. Our view is that we need to look and ensure that those dollars are lined up with the demands that we have today and in the future. As I said earlier, we've had an incredibly positive reaction to the steps that we've taken. It is about looking at the system we have today and trying to ensure that it is relevant and that it is current and that it meets the needs for our kids and our families.

We've been very pleased with the reaction of the institutions. Industry has stood up. We've heard commentary from across the country that it's time we made some changes. As I said, change is never easy. But it is not about either-or, it is not about dictating course choices, and it is not about streaming children.

D. Routley: In the blueprint, the government talks about the worksite being the classroom of the future. Can the minister define that term for me?

Hon. S. Bond: I didn't hear the first part of the question, but I did hear "worksite being the classroom of the future." One of the comments and concerns we hear from families and from educators across the province is the inability of not just this government but any government to keep up with the technological changes that take place in industry.

Industries in British Columbia are sophisticated. They are sophisticated across the country. If we think that we can keep up to state-of-the-art technology, yearly changes…. I mean, taxpayers simply cannot afford to do that.

It's time for us to think creatively. It's time for us to think about: are there ways to partner in a responsible way and utilize equipment that industry uses every day? And they insist on having state of the art.

It's not about abdicating responsibility to provide a quality education and upgrading and doing those things when that is possible and at the pace we can do it. But we know that industry is rapidly changing.

[1720]

From my perspective, that comment, if it was one of mine…. It may have been, because I certainly have said that. It's about partnering. It's about saying: "How do we give our kids the very best?" If we can't do that all the time on taxpayers' dollars, either by raising taxes or cutting programs, then maybe we should think about it a little bit differently. I think that's all that means.

D. Routley: If this is the problem that the government is trying to address — the obsolescence of equipment being used to train students in public institutions — then why wouldn't the government look to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, where they do partner with industry and the most advanced equipment and technology is partnered and put in place in public institutions by industry?

Why is the government identifying the workplace as the classroom of the future — and the definition of that, from the minister, seems to be that this will answer the problem of obsolescence of equipment that's provided for students to train on — when we have a model next door to us, a province that is producing double the Red Seal completion rates that B.C. is? They have partnered with industry to provide these technologies in their public institutions.

Why exactly would this government choose to identify the workplace as the classroom of the future? I think that term deserves more definition.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I've provided the member opposite with my observations. I don't think it should be earth-shattering that innovation is part of our agenda and that working with industry, particularly in regard to trades and technology in our province, should be something that we look at enhancing.

I want to be very clear, because I don't want to have this misrepresented. This is not about abdicating the responsibility to ensure that schools continue to have the resources that we can provide to them. We're going to look for ways to increase that. Our view is that if we actually bring liquefied natural gas and other resource sector projects to British Columbia, we'll be able to provide some of those needed resources without raising taxes or cutting other programs.

I do need to correct the record. The member continues to talk about our apprenticeship completion rates. First of all, apprenticeship completion rates are an issue across this country. It is not unique to British Columbia. It happens across the country.

One of the national agenda items for Minister Kenney and those of us who work together at that table is to talk about apprenticeship. A couple of things we're going to do: we're going to look at mobility of workers in our country — we're leading some work on that with the new west partnership — and we're also looking at harmonization of apprenticeships so that we can see apprentices be successful right across the country.

There is work to be done, but we have to remember that we actually cannot do a straight apples-to-apples comparison with Alberta. Completion rates are measured differently. In fact, Alberta does not count apprentices who drop out in their first year, while we do — a pretty significant difference when you think of the number of
[ Page 3751 ]
apprentices who don't go through their first year. When you measure them the same way, completion rates are virtually identical between B.C. and Alberta. B.C. would be at 53 percent; Alberta would be at 54. It is above the national rate of 49 percent.

When we look at those numbers, what I want to do is help solve problems. I think we need to look at apprenticeship not just in our province but across the country. We're looking, as I said, at mobility. We're looking at harmonization.

We're looking at how we incorporate the use of more apprentices in our province. We've certainly worked with the B.C. Federation of Labour to talk about whether or not we should have a certain number or a percentage of apprentices on public sector projects. I think that is a relevant discussion, and we're looking at the work as we speak.

D. Routley: I'll ask again: why did the government not consider the models that are in place in the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, where public institutions which train students are seeing their equipment constantly reinvigorated and renewed by industry partnerships?

[1725]

Why does the minister answer a question about worksites being the classroom of the future with an answer that indicates that that's to satisfy the obsolescence of equipment in public institutions?

Why is the partnership not directed towards renewing equipment in our public institutions? What does the minister mean in fullness when she and her blueprint for trades training refer to worksites being the classroom of the future?

Hon. S. Bond: Okay, I'm not sure how many more times I can answer the question. It's one comment. It's one comment that expresses the need for innovation and creativity.

This is a blueprint that talks about a broad spectrum of change in our system. It's about ensuring that young people today have in front of them all of the information necessary to make the best choices. If the member is opposed to suggesting that we should contemplate creative partnerships, which include occasionally considering whether industry can be engaged in a young person's experience…. For the life of me I can't understand why that is an issue to the member opposite.

We should be clear here. This plan is about taking $7.5 billion of taxpayers' money and making sure that as young people today — and those who aren't even in school yet — work their way through the system, they get all the information they need; that they get to choose; that we don't decide somehow that university is the only route for students or that trades is the only route, or technology; that our kids get to choose; and that, in fact, we have a system that trains workers who are currently marginalized in our system: women, First Nations, persons with disabilities. They need chances, too, to get in the jobs market. That's what the blueprint is about.

As I look at the response…. The member quoted Andrew Petter. I'd be very happy to repeat what Mr. Petter also said.

"I'm very encouraged by the government's announcement. I think it shows that they're taking seriously a dynamic labour market, and they need to make sure that we do train people for those high-demand jobs that, as the minister says, aren't just in the trades. As important as it is to increase trades training, and it is, we're going to need those engineers. We're going to need those people with creativity and skills to create jobs as well as to fill them."

I don't think you can say it much better than that. In fact, that's exactly what we intend to do.

D. Routley: It seems that a blueprint that essentially restates the goals of the ITA when it was formed, in equally vague terms…. The ITA formation and the language around it used essentially the same terms and set the same goals as this blueprint. What I'm asking the minister is to provide a specific, detailed description of how these things will be achieved, not simply slogans — "the worksite is the classroom of the future."

My asking for a specific definition of what that means does not indicate an unwillingness to accept creative partnerships. I'm actually calling on the minister to describe what those partnerships will look like.

If we're talking about repurposing $7 billion of taxpayers' money, I think the government and the minister ought to be able to be more clear than such terms as "the worksite is the classroom of the future." What does this mean? Does that term mean that funds from post-secondary institutions can be flowed directly through to industry?

Hon. S. Bond: Always a conspiracy theory. Let's try it one last time. What this is about is making sure that $7½ billion is lined up to the demands in British Columbia. It means that we're going to look at how programs are supported. It means we're going to give kids new chances. I don't know how much more specific we could be in terms of the directions we're going to take.

[1730]

We released this report a week and a half ago, not even a week and a half ago yet, and in it there is a complete series of recommendations. We have implementation teams in place. The ITA has a new board. We're already starting a 90-day transition plan at the ITA.

The member talks about the synergy between the ITA review and the skills-training plan. Of course there is. We asked the reviewer to go take a look at the Industry Training Authority and at skills training across the province. It helped to inform the work. Of course it would. Should we look at them in isolation? That's been part of the problem. Of course there is a similarity.
[ Page 3752 ]

We should remember it and respect the fact that Ms. McDonald went out and talked to hundreds of people in terms of their views about what was important. The recommendations that came through in the ITA report reflect the need for change and the input of industry stakeholders of others. Of course that was incorporated in the blueprint — so were things like looking at future trends in education and what we need to be thinking about in advanced education. The member opposite can villainize a comment that talks about innovation as much as he chooses to.

I think that parents in British Columbia today want their children to be given the very best opportunities. If that means that we have to think outside the box, instead of simply running to taxpayers and saying, "We need another $1 billion out of your back pocket," let's be constructive about this, and let's think about the workplace as part of a child's classroom. That could be a farm. It could be a technology company. It could be a classroom, if you want to be a teacher.

From my perspective, this is about looking at how we take a system…. We have a great education system. How do we now add new opportunities? How do we work in an innovative way? As I've said continuously, the reaction we've had, generally speaking…. Yes, there have been some who have been critical, but the vast majority of the reaction has been extremely positive. Now it's our job to deliver.

I can tell you that every single person on our team is working as hard as they can to do just that, and the labour market priorities board is part of that. It's about a different way of doing things in government as well. We're not going to work in isolation. We're actually going to work together to make sure that taxpayer dollars are used appropriately.

D. Routley: Well, I'm a critic. I'm paid to be a critic. That means I'm paid to be critical of the government's plans. I'm paid to criticize what they do, in order to bring about better results. The minister demeans that by referring to a conspiracy-theorist approach. Was it conspiracy theory when the opposition criticized the Pacific Carbon Trust as funnelling public resources to industry? That program was abandoned.

I am being critical. I'm critically looking at what I've been offered here, what B.C. has been offered as a blueprint for training in this province. The minister herself says that British Columbians will expect that $7 billion worth of public investment in training will lead to the results that they expect for their children. I think they expect more than just jobs for their children, but that's an entirely different discussion.

If we are offered a blueprint for training success in this province that refers, as one of its primary components, to industry stepping to the plate…. And I think everyone in the province would agree that industry should step to the plate and participate in supporting training.

They use terms like "worksites will be the classroom of the future" — a government with a record that includes the Pacific Carbon Trust and the diversion of public funds, taxpayer dollars, to the largest corporations in this province, answering what everyone agrees was a noble cause to reduce the carbon footprint of this province. The government used that to funnel funds to large corporations.

I'm asking: does this blueprint facilitate public funds for post-secondary institutions being flowed through to industry and corporations?

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite did not take the comment about the conspiracy theory in the right vein, then I apologize for that comment. It was not meant to demean. That is not the way I conduct myself in estimates or other places.

This isn't about funnelling dollars into big business. In fact, we expect the opposite. We expect industry to step up. We expect them to be partners, especially on the apprenticeship front. It's pretty hard to run a successful apprenticeship system if you don't have apprentices that are partnering with us and employers. We're saying to employers: "Come on forward. We need more of you."

To the member's repeated question about workplaces being the classroom of the future, they're the classroom of now. Where do we believe that 85 percent of the training that an apprentice takes is? It's on a worksite. That's pretty basic when it comes to how we train for skilled work in British Columbia.

This is about ensuring that our students, British Columbians, have opportunities, making sure that they are ready when those opportunities are available and giving them the choice to look at what their career path is going to be. We have amazing tools available for them.

You go to a site like Work B.C., and you can actually find out what's available in the province, where it's available, what companies are offering jobs. You can get skill sets. You can look at what it's like to be in a particular career. It's an incredible place, and in fact, it has over 25,000 followers at the moment. We're going to continue to enhance resources like that. This is about ensuring that B.C. has the training system it requires and giving students the opportunities they deserve.

D. Routley: The minister is saying there is not a facility in this plan to allow post-secondary funding that's being repurposed, part of that $7 billion, to be paid directly to industry to train workers?

Hon. S. Bond: There will continue to be partnerships with industry. The Canada Job Grant is all about that. The Industry Training Authority has partnerships. This is not about diverting funding from anyone. It's about
[ Page 3753 ]
how we utilize the dollars we have in the system in a more effective way.

Do we expect industry to step up? Yes, we do. Rarely a week goes by where someone in industry hasn't stepped up and said: "We want to help support a program. We want to train people in British Columbia. We want to create a new program at Northwest Community College or another institution." We expect industry to participate in this process. What we expect them to do is come to the table.

[1740]

As we've discussed this nationally with other ministers and Minister Kenney, the reason we had a big discussion about the Canada Job Grant is because he wants to see more employers at the table participating. If they're going to benefit, they should also participate.

Of course, there will be partnerships with industry. Of course, we expect them to be involved in the discussions about this. The Industry Training Authority is just that. It is going to be industry-led, and there will be partnerships with industry. There are today. That will not change.

D. Routley: I'll have questions about the Canada Job Grant on Monday. I think it's somewhat separate from this issue, but I just would like the minister to state clearly that funds that are currently being directed to programming in post-secondary institutions will not be paid directly to industry or to corporations to provide training.

Hon. S. Bond: We have no intention to divert funding. There will be partnerships with industry. There are a number of programs that are available to do that. They exist today, and they will not change.

D. Routley: Will such partnerships include the payment directly of public funds to corporate partners?

Hon. S. Bond: We currently have partnerships for contracted training with industry across British Columbia. A great example would be the construction association, the provincial organization, where they run a series of programs.

Of course, public dollars are involved in those partnerships. Programs like the labour market agreements, the LMDAs — all of them have significant contractual relationships with industry to provide training.

D. Routley: How much money has been spent to this point on promoting the blueprint for training in B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: There has not been a formal advertising campaign around the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint. We've actually had some pretty fantastic coverage. Our ministry has not expended dollars in terms of this.

We have had a very active social media campaign. I participate in that on a regular basis. Of course, we've had the involvement of the government communications team in helping us put together the event and print the documents.

D. Routley: Currently B.C. gets $65 million a year from the federal labour market agreement, and $9.7 million of that will be shifted toward programs that fit the Canada Job Grant. At the end of four years that will increase to $39 million.

Where will these funds be shifted from? Which programs and which trainees will be affected?

[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: We're very proud of the work we did on the Canada Job Grant. As I said, it wasn't perfect, but I think we can make it work. It will be a competitive process. Those dollars will be available for current contractors. As their contracts end they will be able to apply through a competitive process. That will roll out at some point in the summer and then phasing in the dollars.

There will be some criteria, however, in order to be considered for the program. There needs to be employer involvement. There would need to be a more direct connection to a job at the end of your training. There needs to be a third-party trainer.

I think those are the most specific items that I can recall off the top of my head. There will be specific criteria, but there will be an open and competitive process for those dollars.

D. Routley: Since many of the students, trainees, who are being served by those funds now are people who are quite removed from the labour market — and many of these people have several significant challenges in terms of re-entering the job market — how will they be affected when a trainee must have a sponsoring employer willing to contribute up to $15,000 on their side of the training equation in order to take advantage of the $5,000 that would be available? I've got that reversed. The job grant would provide up to $15,000 if the employer is willing to contribute $5,000.

Already, one of the primary obstacles to people acquiring training is to have a sponsoring employer. This seems to make it more difficult for people to find a sponsoring employer. Can the minister explain how this will not negatively impact the most vulnerable trainees who are the most removed, currently, from the workforce?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is a separate stream. It was one of the things…. In my time as a minister, which is 13 years, I have never seen the unanimity across the country that we saw.

There is a separate stream. It's called the employment services and support stream. As we look at that, in years 1 through 3 it will be $37.26 million, and in year 4 it will be $32.5 million. That would be programming that is
[ Page 3754 ]
similar to current programming for those individuals that are more marginalized.

It was why we fought the fight we did. I am extremely pleased to see that we were able to retain that for the very reasons that the member opposite talks about. There are those people who need additional help. For their programs, there will be relatively little impact. The other streams are the ones where there are more significant changes and employer cost-sharing requirements.

D. Routley: The grant also contains a provision that allows smaller companies to make in-kind contributions to cover their share. Future wages could be considered as their contribution to their share of the training requirement, up to $5,000.

If small employers do claim future wages as a component of their contribution to the training equation, the total, how will that be policed and ensured — that, in fact, those things happen?

[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: The criteria are clearly laid out by the federal government, and it will be after consultation with employers, especially employers of smaller companies. We don't want to add extra burden or administrative challenges for them, so the monitoring and tracking process is still being designed. But we will be obviously having to monitor the criteria set up by the federal government, and we will do that after consultation with small businesses.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada